Pages

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Tentative Ruling on PZLDF Case

The PZLDF case will be discussed today at 9 a..m. (not clear whether it’s at the Vets Hall or Downtown at this point.) It appears that , for now, the case can proceed on the CEQA complaint, or, on the lack of CEQA. What further rulings or unrulings Judge LaBarbera will make this morning remains to be seen.

As for the problem with the RWQCB's "Official Administrative Record," I say good luck to anybody trying to untagle that mess. The bungled ACL and CDO hearings had so many starts and stops and ins and outs and yes and nos and we dont' knows and incorporations by reference, yes/no, wait, that part but not that part, is it in? out?, regarding what was and wasn't part of the official record that the whole bungled mess resembles a Gordian Knot. Let's hope, at least, that a whole lot of stuff that was missing from the "Official Record," but was supposed to be in, at least gets put back in.

CV070472/ Prohibition Zone et al., v Regional Water Quality Control Board:
RE: Demurrer/Motion to Strike/Motion to Augment Administrative Record/Motion for CD #1040
TENTATIVE RULING DEMURRER
The Regional Water Quality Control Board demurs to the Amendment to the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
The Amendment was prepared as a result of the court’s grant of leave to amend the Second Cause of Action seeking traditional mandate pursuant to CCP §1085. The scope of leave was limited to the second cause of action and the petitioner was required to succinctly allege a mandatory duty on the part of the Board.
Respondent’s contention that traditional mandate is not available as a remedy is somewhat misplaced. Water Code §13330 provides that “[a]ny party aggrieved by a final decision or order of a regional board for which the state board denies review may obtain review of the decision or order of the regional board in the superior court ( id., § 13330, subd. (b), italics added), and “[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein, Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall govern proceedings for which petitions are filed pursuant to this section” ( id., § 13330, subd. (d)). Given the language italicized above, Water Code section 13330 necessarily applies to an administrative appeal of a quasi-judicial action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. See City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1409
“Acts of an administrative agency that are quasi-legislative in nature, e.g., establishment of regulations to carry out a statutory policy or direction, are not reviewable by administrative mandamus.” (8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, § 268, pp. 1067-1068.) Rather, review of a quasi-legislative action is limited to traditional mandamus. ( Id. at p. 1068.) City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1408
If a party is aggrieved by a quasi-judicial decision made by a Regional Board for which the state board denies review, CCP §1094.5 governs the proceedings. However, there are narrow circumstances where the action of a board can be the subject of a petition for traditional writ of mandate. Those circumstances require a mandatory duty and, in the example set forth in Arcadia, a quasi-legislative act that is not reviewable by the state board.
Although Petitioners were granted leave to allege specific mandatory duties of the regional board, the Amendment of the Second Cause of Action fails to allege a viable cause of action for review pursuant to CCP §1085.The Amendment: The paragraphs of the amendment attempt to list a number of purported mandatory duties on the part of the Board.
¶86 alleges that the issuance of Notices of Violation contained threats that constitute illegal electioneering in violation of Elections Code §§18540 (a) and 18501.
Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election or to vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or measure at any election, or because any person voted or refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from voting for any particular person or measure at any election is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years. Elections Code §18540(a)
Any public official who knowingly violates any of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby aids in any way the illegal casting or attempting to cast a vote, or who connives to nullify any of the provisions of this chapter in order that fraud may be perpetrated, shall forever be disqualified from holding office in this state and upon conviction shall be sentenced to a state prison for 16 months or two or three years. Elections Code §18501
These statutes prohibit coercion or intimidation in the election process. They also provide criminal remedies for violations of the Elections Code. Here, the offending provisions of the Notices of Violation state, in part, that if the wastewater plant does not proceed or “fails to meet certain milestones (including a benefit assessment)” then the septic system discharge would have to be eliminated by 2011.
The prayer of the petition seeks to invalidate these Notices of Violation. According to the Regional Board, the Notices of Violation have no legal effect. If this is correct, there is no necessity to invalidate them. Moreover, petitioners do not seek to invalidate the election approving the benefits assessment nor is there any criminal sanction being sought.
¶87 seeks judicial review of so called “CAO’s”(clean up and abatement orders). Petitioners contend that the CAO’s are presented under the guise of “settlement agreements.” No basis for CCP §1085 review of settlement agreements is alleged, particularly where none of the petitioners are parties to the agreements. Moreover, no basis for relief in relation to the potential of future issuance of CAO’s is alleged. According to the complaint, Petitioners Payne and DerGaribedian were potential parties to a CAO. However, they refused to sign the proffered agreements. No other allegations establish that any petitioner is a party to a settlement agreement.
¶¶89 through 100 allege various improprieties of the Regional Board in failing to observe proper administrative hearing procedures in issuing the “cease and desist” orders that are subject of the review.
For example, ¶90 states that Water Code §185 requires the Regional Board to adopt rules to conduct its affairs in conformity, as nearly as practicable, with the provisions of Chapter 4.5. In an effort to challenge 23 CCR §648 (regulation restricting application of the formal hearing process under the APA) petitioners allege that Water Code §185 supersedes the regulation, apparently rendering it invalid. A review of 23 CCR 648 reveals that it was promulgated pursuant to the authority of Water Code §185.
Most important is the fact that all of the instances of alleged impropriety relate to the Board’s quasi-judicial acts in issuing the Cease and Desist orders. Any available review is made pursuant to the requirements of Water Code §13330 and CCP §1094.5.
¶¶101 – 103 allege that the Board had a ministerial duty to comply with CEQA. ¶101 alleges that the Board improperly claimed categorical exceptions from CEQA review and failed to address the cumulative impacts of separate cessation and cleanup orders without environmental review. The complaint does not clearly allege whether this action was quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. In any event, if any review is available, it is made pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168 and §21168.5.
The scope of judicial review for proceedings to attack an agency's decision under CEQA is set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5. Section 21168 provides that where the action to attack arose as a result of a proceeding in which a hearing is required by law and the attack is on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA, the action shall proceed in accordance with section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the court is only to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Section 21168.5 provides that in all other actions, “the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” Newberry Springs Water Assn. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 740, 747-748 See also California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 178
A petition for review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168 is the equivalent to a review pursuant to CCP §1094.5. A petition for review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168.5 is the equivalent to a review pursuant to CCP §1085. See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 566-567
If petitioners seek review of the Board’s CEQA compliance, they must do so pursuant to the procedures set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5. Here the crux of the claim is that the Board improperly determined that the CDO’s were exempt from CEQA. The question then becomes whether the filing is timely. See Public Resources Code §21167(d).
¶105 alleges a mandatory duty to provide “assistance”. This does not state a cause of action pursuant to CCP §1085.
Water Code §13291.5 does not impose a mandatory duty on the regional board. Water Code §13301.1 requires the Regional Board to provide available current information on successful and economical water quality programs and information and assistance in applying for federal and state funds necessary to comply with the cease and desist order. The alleged failure of the Regional Board to comply with Water Code §13301.1 has nothing to do with the invalidity of the issuance of the CDO.
Most important is that there is no remedy in the prayer sought for the violation of this alleged mandatory duty.
¶¶106 through 110 provide no citations to any specific mandatory duties on the part of the Regional Board that are reviewable pursuant to CCP §1085. Rather they consist of general conclusory allegations concerning a ministerial duty not to impinge on property rights, civil rights and liberties of the petitioners.
¶111 Petitioners seek CCP §1085 review of 23 CCR §§ 2050 and 2050.5. Those regulations require petitioners to seek review by the State Board when the Regional Board fails to act. The complaint then alleges that, although petitioners were required to seek review by the State Board, since the State Board and Regional Board failed to observe the separation of powers, the court should review actions that make this requirement an exercise in futility. The allegations simply do not make out a cause of action of any kind, particularly since the State Board is not a party to this petition.
¶113 is a summary of all of the alleged mandatory duties of the Regional Board that were alleged in the body of the petition.
With the possible exception of the Board’s CEQA compliance, petitioners have failed to allege the existence of a mandatory duty that is subject to review pursuant to CCP §1085.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the Amendment to the Second Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend. However, petitioners shall have leave to amend for the limited and specific purpose of alleging a cause of action for review the Board’s CEQA compliance with respect to the CDO’s.
Motion to Strike:The Regional Board’s motion to strike contains categories of allegations sought to be stricken.
Item 1: The motion to strike allegations that constitute improper facial challenges to various regulations is denied. The allegations appear in the First Cause of Action challenging the validity of the Cease and Desist Orders made by the Board. The cause of action attempts to invalidate the Board’s orders related to the Petitioners. The challenged orders are dependent upon valid regulations, Petitioners are making an “as applied” to invalidate the regulations.
Item 2: The failure to exhaust administrative remedies may well preclude the petitioners from raising many of the arguments they now seek to make. However, the motion to strike does not indicate where, (1) on the face of the complaint, (2) the exhibits attached to the complaint or (3) in matters upon which judicial notice can be taken that the petitioners failed to raise certain issues before the Board. The Motion to Strike those allegations is denied.
Item 3: The court recognizes that a controversy over the validity of a resolution (such as Resolution NO. R3 -2008-005) is not ripe until the resolution is effective. However, the motion to strike does not indicate where, (1) on the face of the complaint, (2) the exhibits attached to the complaint or (3) in matters upon which judicial notice can be taken that the petitioners that Resolution NO. R3 -2008-005 is not approved. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied.
Item 4: Although petitioners have standing to challenge the validity of settlement agreements they have entered into, they no standing to challenge the validity of settlements entered into by parties who are strangers to this lawsuit. However, the court notes that some of the allegations that are listed are somewhat unrelated to a challenge of the validity of settlement agreements. For example, page 2:27-3:24 of the amendment does is not entirely focused on challenging settlement agreements. Similarly page 2:9-20 does not entirely focus on challenging the settlement agreements. The court is not inclined to check each citation to make sure that it alleges a challenge to a settlement agreement. Rather than grant or deny the motion, the court observes that, at this juncture, the petitioners have not established standing to challenge the validity of settlement agreements where the petitioners are not a party.
Item 5: Government Code §25825.5 has no impact on the Regional Board. The motion is granted as to item 5.
Item 6: There is no prayer for relief based upon an unconstitutional taking. Moreover there is no cause of action alleging an unlawful taking. The motion is granted. In the event that petitioners seek such a claim, a motion for leave to amend would have to be filed.
Item 7: The demurrer disposed of these allegations related to Water Code §13301.1 and §13291.5. To the extent that the allegation appears elsewhere, they are stricken.
Item 8: The motion to strike the allegations concerning emotional distress and anxiety and damages is granted.
Motion to Augment Administrative Record: Petitioners seek review of Cease and Desist Orders that were issued by the Regional Board. Petitioners’ motion seeks to add a number of documents to the Administrative Record and objects to some additional records as well.
The general rule, i.e., that no evidence other than the administrative record may be introduced at the hearing on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, applies whether the case is reviewed by the court under the independent judgment test. The rule also applies in cases in which the reviewing court is deciding legal issues, such as whether there was a fair trial as well as those cases in which the court is making factual determinations (i.e., determining whether the evidence supports the findings). The judge, sitting without a jury (CCP §1094.5(a)), decides the case on the basis of the record, which may be augmented only within the strict limits of CCP §1094.5(e). 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:1 at page 110 (Internal Citations omitted)
If a party believes that a matter is improperly included in the Administrative Record, the remedy is either an objection or a motion to strike. Similarly a party may make a motion to include an item that was a part of the administrative record and that has been omitted. Finally if a party seeks to add items that are not part of the record of proceedings, they must make a motion to augment in compliance with CCP §1094.5(e).
Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5(e) expressly limits judicial review to the evidence in the administrative record except when (1) the evidence could not with due diligence have been produced during the administrative proceedings or (2) the administrative body improperly excluded the evidence. Western States Petroleum Ass'n v Superior Court (1995) 9 C4th 559, 578, 38 CR2d 139; City of Fairfield v Superior Court (1975) 14 C3d 768, 771, 122 CR 543. These rules apply in cases involving review under the substantial evidence test and review involving fundamental vested rights under the independent judgment test. Green v Board of Dental Exam'rs (1996) 47 CA4th 786, 55 CR2d 140. To have the court consider evidence outside the administrative record, either (1) a party must establish that evidence could not with due diligence have been discovered and produced at the administrative hearing or (2) the record itself must show that the evidence was offered but was rejected. Simply not having obtained or discovered the evidence until after the close of the administrative proceedings will not be sufficient; good cause must be shown for not having obtained or discovered the evidence before the close of the administrative hearing. 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:1 at page 110
In the absence of a proper preliminary foundation showing that one of the exceptions noted in section 1094.5, subdivision (e) applies, it is error for the court to permit the record to be augmented. Determination of the question of whether one of the exceptions applies is within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101
Petitioners do not establish the elements necessary to augment the record with extra-record evidence. Moreover, the remedy available for a successful motion to augment is often a remand to the agency for consideration of the extra-record evidence. See 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:12 D at page 128
The motion does not clearly identify whether it seeks to include documents omitted from the record or to add documents that were not in the record or some combination of the two. If the motion seeks to correct the record to include documents considered by Board that are now omitted, those documents should be included in the Administrative Record.
However, given the lack of definition of what should be included in the administrative record and the lack of a showing concerning whether evidence was considered by the Board or not, it is difficult to assess whether the cited documents were omitted from the record.
For example, Petitioners cite the following categories of documents. The problem is that there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the materials were considered by the Board.
1. Central Coast Water Quality Basin Plan: If the plan was considered as part of the administrative decision, it should be included in the Administrative Record. 2. Respondents contend that item 2 is included in the Administrative Record. 3. Item 3 is Page 84 of the Draft San Luis Obispo Airport EIR. If the document was considered as part of the administrative decision, it should be included in the Administrative Record.4. Petitioners argument does not indicate why the cited Los Osos water quality impacts should be a part of the Administrative Record. 5. Petitioner’s motion is unclear as to whether the LOCSD Groundwater Monitoring Reports were submitted to the Board for consideration in the challenged CDOs. If they were, they should be included in the AR. 6. Petitioner does not state that a quarterly status report and emails were part of the Administrative Record. 7. Petitioner does not state whether a chronology and news clippings were part of the Administrative Record
Petitioner’s demand for the State Water Board’s administrative record is unclear. Water Code §13330(b) provides court review of a Regional Board’s decision where the State Board has denied review. In this instance, the State Board denied review. Therefore, the record before the State Board appears irrelevant.
As to the other voluminous documents requested by the petitioners, the same principle applies. If the documents were considered by the Board in making its decision, they should be included as part of the Administrative Record. If they were not considered by the Board, petitioners must make a showing pursuant to CCP §1094.5(e) to have them included in the record.
Petitioner’s Reply Brief includes a declaration that is apparently for the purpose of establishing the elements of CCP §1094.5(e). It should have been included in the original motion. If the court is to consider this declaration, Respondents should have the opportunity to respond to it.
Motion re Identities of CDO§1040:
Respondent should be advised of the identities of CDO #1040. Moreover, the respondents should be provided a copy of the documents relied upon by the moving party in establishing their overriding privacy concerns. The parties should reach an agreement regarding any necessary confidentiality.
If the parties cannot reach an agreement, petitioners shall make a motion to allow the identities of CDO#1040 to remain confidential.








Preliminary Ruling on PZLDF Case
The PZLDF case will be discussed today at 9a..m. (not clear whether it’s at the Vets Hall or Downtown at this point.) I appears that the case can now proceed on the CEQA complaint, or, on the lack of CEQA. What further rulings Judge LaBarbera will make this morning remains to be seen.

CV070472/ Prohibition Zone et al., v Regional Water Quality Control Board:
RE: Demurrer/Motion to Strike/Motion to Augment Administrative Record/Motion for CD #1040
TENTATIVE RULING DEMURRER
The Regional Water Quality Control Board demurs to the Amendment to the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
The Amendment was prepared as a result of the court’s grant of leave to amend the Second Cause of Action seeking traditional mandate pursuant to CCP §1085. The scope of leave was limited to the second cause of action and the petitioner was required to succinctly allege a mandatory duty on the part of the Board.
Respondent’s contention that traditional mandate is not available as a remedy is somewhat misplaced. Water Code §13330 provides that “[a]ny party aggrieved by a final decision or order of a regional board for which the state board denies review may obtain review of the decision or order of the regional board in the superior court ( id., § 13330, subd. (b), italics added), and “[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein, Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall govern proceedings for which petitions are filed pursuant to this section” ( id., § 13330, subd. (d)). Given the language italicized above, Water Code section 13330 necessarily applies to an administrative appeal of a quasi-judicial action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. See City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1409
“Acts of an administrative agency that are quasi-legislative in nature, e.g., establishment of regulations to carry out a statutory policy or direction, are not reviewable by administrative mandamus.” (8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, § 268, pp. 1067-1068.) Rather, review of a quasi-legislative action is limited to traditional mandamus. ( Id. at p. 1068.) City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1408
If a party is aggrieved by a quasi-judicial decision made by a Regional Board for which the state board denies review, CCP §1094.5 governs the proceedings. However, there are narrow circumstances where the action of a board can be the subject of a petition for traditional writ of mandate. Those circumstances require a mandatory duty and, in the example set forth in Arcadia, a quasi-legislative act that is not reviewable by the state board.
Although Petitioners were granted leave to allege specific mandatory duties of the regional board, the Amendment of the Second Cause of Action fails to allege a viable cause of action for review pursuant to CCP §1085.The Amendment: The paragraphs of the amendment attempt to list a number of purported mandatory duties on the part of the Board.
¶86 alleges that the issuance of Notices of Violation contained threats that constitute illegal electioneering in violation of Elections Code §§18540 (a) and 18501.
Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election or to vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or measure at any election, or because any person voted or refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from voting for any particular person or measure at any election is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years. Elections Code §18540(a)
Any public official who knowingly violates any of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby aids in any way the illegal casting or attempting to cast a vote, or who connives to nullify any of the provisions of this chapter in order that fraud may be perpetrated, shall forever be disqualified from holding office in this state and upon conviction shall be sentenced to a state prison for 16 months or two or three years. Elections Code §18501
These statutes prohibit coercion or intimidation in the election process. They also provide criminal remedies for violations of the Elections Code. Here, the offending provisions of the Notices of Violation state, in part, that if the wastewater plant does not proceed or “fails to meet certain milestones (including a benefit assessment)” then the septic system discharge would have to be eliminated by 2011.
The prayer of the petition seeks to invalidate these Notices of Violation. According to the Regional Board, the Notices of Violation have no legal effect. If this is correct, there is no necessity to invalidate them. Moreover, petitioners do not seek to invalidate the election approving the benefits assessment nor is there any criminal sanction being sought.
¶87 seeks judicial review of so called “CAO’s”(clean up and abatement orders). Petitioners contend that the CAO’s are presented under the guise of “settlement agreements.” No basis for CCP §1085 review of settlement agreements is alleged, particularly where none of the petitioners are parties to the agreements. Moreover, no basis for relief in relation to the potential of future issuance of CAO’s is alleged. According to the complaint, Petitioners Payne and DerGaribedian were potential parties to a CAO. However, they refused to sign the proffered agreements. No other allegations establish that any petitioner is a party to a settlement agreement.
¶¶89 through 100 allege various improprieties of the Regional Board in failing to observe proper administrative hearing procedures in issuing the “cease and desist” orders that are subject of the review.
For example, ¶90 states that Water Code §185 requires the Regional Board to adopt rules to conduct its affairs in conformity, as nearly as practicable, with the provisions of Chapter 4.5. In an effort to challenge 23 CCR §648 (regulation restricting application of the formal hearing process under the APA) petitioners allege that Water Code §185 supersedes the regulation, apparently rendering it invalid. A review of 23 CCR 648 reveals that it was promulgated pursuant to the authority of Water Code §185.
Most important is the fact that all of the instances of alleged impropriety relate to the Board’s quasi-judicial acts in issuing the Cease and Desist orders. Any available review is made pursuant to the requirements of Water Code §13330 and CCP §1094.5.
¶¶101 – 103 allege that the Board had a ministerial duty to comply with CEQA. ¶101 alleges that the Board improperly claimed categorical exceptions from CEQA review and failed to address the cumulative impacts of separate cessation and cleanup orders without environmental review. The complaint does not clearly allege whether this action was quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. In any event, if any review is available, it is made pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168 and §21168.5.
The scope of judicial review for proceedings to attack an agency's decision under CEQA is set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5. Section 21168 provides that where the action to attack arose as a result of a proceeding in which a hearing is required by law and the attack is on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA, the action shall proceed in accordance with section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the court is only to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Section 21168.5 provides that in all other actions, “the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” Newberry Springs Water Assn. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 740, 747-748 See also California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 178
A petition for review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168 is the equivalent to a review pursuant to CCP §1094.5. A petition for review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21168.5 is the equivalent to a review pursuant to CCP §1085. See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 566-567
If petitioners seek review of the Board’s CEQA compliance, they must do so pursuant to the procedures set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5. Here the crux of the claim is that the Board improperly determined that the CDO’s were exempt from CEQA. The question then becomes whether the filing is timely. See Public Resources Code §21167(d).
¶105 alleges a mandatory duty to provide “assistance”. This does not state a cause of action pursuant to CCP §1085.
Water Code §13291.5 does not impose a mandatory duty on the regional board. Water Code §13301.1 requires the Regional Board to provide available current information on successful and economical water quality programs and information and assistance in applying for federal and state funds necessary to comply with the cease and desist order. The alleged failure of the Regional Board to comply with Water Code §13301.1 has nothing to do with the invalidity of the issuance of the CDO.
Most important is that there is no remedy in the prayer sought for the violation of this alleged mandatory duty.
¶¶106 through 110 provide no citations to any specific mandatory duties on the part of the Regional Board that are reviewable pursuant to CCP §1085. Rather they consist of general conclusory allegations concerning a ministerial duty not to impinge on property rights, civil rights and liberties of the petitioners.
¶111 Petitioners seek CCP §1085 review of 23 CCR §§ 2050 and 2050.5. Those regulations require petitioners to seek review by the State Board when the Regional Board fails to act. The complaint then alleges that, although petitioners were required to seek review by the State Board, since the State Board and Regional Board failed to observe the separation of powers, the court should review actions that make this requirement an exercise in futility. The allegations simply do not make out a cause of action of any kind, particularly since the State Board is not a party to this petition.
¶113 is a summary of all of the alleged mandatory duties of the Regional Board that were alleged in the body of the petition.
With the possible exception of the Board’s CEQA compliance, petitioners have failed to allege the existence of a mandatory duty that is subject to review pursuant to CCP §1085.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the Amendment to the Second Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend. However, petitioners shall have leave to amend for the limited and specific purpose of alleging a cause of action for review the Board’s CEQA compliance with respect to the CDO’s.
Motion to Strike:The Regional Board’s motion to strike contains categories of allegations sought to be stricken.
Item 1: The motion to strike allegations that constitute improper facial challenges to various regulations is denied. The allegations appear in the First Cause of Action challenging the validity of the Cease and Desist Orders made by the Board. The cause of action attempts to invalidate the Board’s orders related to the Petitioners. The challenged orders are dependent upon valid regulations, Petitioners are making an “as applied” to invalidate the regulations.
Item 2: The failure to exhaust administrative remedies may well preclude the petitioners from raising many of the arguments they now seek to make. However, the motion to strike does not indicate where, (1) on the face of the complaint, (2) the exhibits attached to the complaint or (3) in matters upon which judicial notice can be taken that the petitioners failed to raise certain issues before the Board. The Motion to Strike those allegations is denied.
Item 3: The court recognizes that a controversy over the validity of a resolution (such as Resolution NO. R3 -2008-005) is not ripe until the resolution is effective. However, the motion to strike does not indicate where, (1) on the face of the complaint, (2) the exhibits attached to the complaint or (3) in matters upon which judicial notice can be taken that the petitioners that Resolution NO. R3 -2008-005 is not approved. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied.
Item 4: Although petitioners have standing to challenge the validity of settlement agreements they have entered into, they no standing to challenge the validity of settlements entered into by parties who are strangers to this lawsuit. However, the court notes that some of the allegations that are listed are somewhat unrelated to a challenge of the validity of settlement agreements. For example, page 2:27-3:24 of the amendment does is not entirely focused on challenging settlement agreements. Similarly page 2:9-20 does not entirely focus on challenging the settlement agreements. The court is not inclined to check each citation to make sure that it alleges a challenge to a settlement agreement. Rather than grant or deny the motion, the court observes that, at this juncture, the petitioners have not established standing to challenge the validity of settlement agreements where the petitioners are not a party.
Item 5: Government Code §25825.5 has no impact on the Regional Board. The motion is granted as to item 5.
Item 6: There is no prayer for relief based upon an unconstitutional taking. Moreover there is no cause of action alleging an unlawful taking. The motion is granted. In the event that petitioners seek such a claim, a motion for leave to amend would have to be filed.
Item 7: The demurrer disposed of these allegations related to Water Code §13301.1 and §13291.5. To the extent that the allegation appears elsewhere, they are stricken.
Item 8: The motion to strike the allegations concerning emotional distress and anxiety and damages is granted.
Motion to Augment Administrative Record: Petitioners seek review of Cease and Desist Orders that were issued by the Regional Board. Petitioners’ motion seeks to add a number of documents to the Administrative Record and objects to some additional records as well.
The general rule, i.e., that no evidence other than the administrative record may be introduced at the hearing on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, applies whether the case is reviewed by the court under the independent judgment test. The rule also applies in cases in which the reviewing court is deciding legal issues, such as whether there was a fair trial as well as those cases in which the court is making factual determinations (i.e., determining whether the evidence supports the findings). The judge, sitting without a jury (CCP §1094.5(a)), decides the case on the basis of the record, which may be augmented only within the strict limits of CCP §1094.5(e). 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:1 at page 110 (Internal Citations omitted)
If a party believes that a matter is improperly included in the Administrative Record, the remedy is either an objection or a motion to strike. Similarly a party may make a motion to include an item that was a part of the administrative record and that has been omitted. Finally if a party seeks to add items that are not part of the record of proceedings, they must make a motion to augment in compliance with CCP §1094.5(e).
Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5(e) expressly limits judicial review to the evidence in the administrative record except when (1) the evidence could not with due diligence have been produced during the administrative proceedings or (2) the administrative body improperly excluded the evidence. Western States Petroleum Ass'n v Superior Court (1995) 9 C4th 559, 578, 38 CR2d 139; City of Fairfield v Superior Court (1975) 14 C3d 768, 771, 122 CR 543. These rules apply in cases involving review under the substantial evidence test and review involving fundamental vested rights under the independent judgment test. Green v Board of Dental Exam'rs (1996) 47 CA4th 786, 55 CR2d 140. To have the court consider evidence outside the administrative record, either (1) a party must establish that evidence could not with due diligence have been discovered and produced at the administrative hearing or (2) the record itself must show that the evidence was offered but was rejected. Simply not having obtained or discovered the evidence until after the close of the administrative proceedings will not be sufficient; good cause must be shown for not having obtained or discovered the evidence before the close of the administrative hearing. 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:1 at page 110
In the absence of a proper preliminary foundation showing that one of the exceptions noted in section 1094.5, subdivision (e) applies, it is error for the court to permit the record to be augmented. Determination of the question of whether one of the exceptions applies is within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101
Petitioners do not establish the elements necessary to augment the record with extra-record evidence. Moreover, the remedy available for a successful motion to augment is often a remand to the agency for consideration of the extra-record evidence. See 1 California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 3rd Ed.) §4:12 D at page 128
The motion does not clearly identify whether it seeks to include documents omitted from the record or to add documents that were not in the record or some combination of the two. If the motion seeks to correct the record to include documents considered by Board that are now omitted, those documents should be included in the Administrative Record.
However, given the lack of definition of what should be included in the administrative record and the lack of a showing concerning whether evidence was considered by the Board or not, it is difficult to assess whether the cited documents were omitted from the record.
For example, Petitioners cite the following categories of documents. The problem is that there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the materials were considered by the Board.
1. Central Coast Water Quality Basin Plan: If the plan was considered as part of the administrative decision, it should be included in the Administrative Record. 2. Respondents contend that item 2 is included in the Administrative Record. 3. Item 3 is Page 84 of the Draft San Luis Obispo Airport EIR. If the document was considered as part of the administrative decision, it should be included in the Administrative Record.4. Petitioners argument does not indicate why the cited Los Osos water quality impacts should be a part of the Administrative Record. 5. Petitioner’s motion is unclear as to whether the LOCSD Groundwater Monitoring Reports were submitted to the Board for consideration in the challenged CDOs. If they were, they should be included in the AR. 6. Petitioner does not state that a quarterly status report and emails were part of the Administrative Record. 7. Petitioner does not state whether a chronology and news clippings were part of the Administrative Record
Petitioner’s demand for the State Water Board’s administrative record is unclear. Water Code §13330(b) provides court review of a Regional Board’s decision where the State Board has denied review. In this instance, the State Board denied review. Therefore, the record before the State Board appears irrelevant.
As to the other voluminous documents requested by the petitioners, the same principle applies. If the documents were considered by the Board in making its decision, they should be included as part of the Administrative Record. If they were not considered by the Board, petitioners must make a showing pursuant to CCP §1094.5(e) to have them included in the record.
Petitioner’s Reply Brief includes a declaration that is apparently for the purpose of establishing the elements of CCP §1094.5(e). It should have been included in the original motion. If the court is to consider this declaration, Respondents should have the opportunity to respond to it.
Motion re Identities of CDO§1040:
Respondent should be advised of the identities of CDO #1040. Moreover, the respondents should be provided a copy of the documents relied upon by the moving party in establishing their overriding privacy concerns. The parties should reach an agreement regarding any necessary confidentiality.
If the parties cannot reach an agreement, petitioners shall make a motion to allow the identities of CDO#1040 to remain confidential.





























26 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Reading the tentative ruling language makes it very clear that the PZLDF lawsuit documents are so unclear and lacking relavance that the lawsuit, having lost on all causes of action, has no chance of winning.

In the meanwhile, could you please post for us how much of the 75% split PZLDF has paid to Sullivan for litigating this doondoogle? It appears that to date the CSD has contributed their 25% of the legal bill, in the amount of $80,000 to $100,000 (per Joe Sparks recent response to Cesena's Viewpoint).

So, has PZLDF ponied up the other $240,000 to $300,000?
Inquiring minds want to know! (TM)

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Richard,

I believe you had a typo ... the word is "boonboggle", not "doondoggle".

Once new boardmembers are sworn in, I would expect them to vote to stop paying Sullivan until evidence of PZLDF payment is presented. In other words, for each $3 PZLDF kicks in, the LOCSD ... once verifying the payment ... will cut a check for the rest.

The silence from many involved in this situation makes me worried that the LOCSD is the only party making payments to Sullivan.

Shoot, if PZLDF had at least had a bake sale or a wine-n-cheese fundraiser at Gail's place, I would be convinced that they had some ability to pay. As it is, I have doubts.

That being said, one way the new board could start to build a bridge across the divide in our community is to actually conduct business in an open fashion, unlike the last few years. In particular, let's be open about the budget and let's be open about the financial implication of board decisions. If we vote to commit the LOCSD to support PZLDF (which might be a good cause), we should identify a maximum amount of support that will be provided without an additional vote and we should identify where the money will come from as part of the vote to approve.

Let's be real ... is the PZLDF case so important that it should bump other financial obligations? If not, it should go bye-bye. If so, those other financial obligations should go bye-bye. I don't see the board as having taken this approach in the last few years. Even if the board entered a huge financial mess (by the way, I don't count $6M in the bank as a huge mess, but that's another matter), they should make sure that they have a dollar on the books before voting to spend it.

Watershed Mark said...

The LOCSD has had two CDO's in (somehow the firehouse slipped of the plate, I think...)place against it since November 1998.

Don't cha think that nmay have something to do with it hasving an interest in this suit?

How these two CDO's against the LOCSD get ignored is troubling.

More tea?

Anonymous said...

I don't want to Monday morning quarterback it too much, but I think the Writ of Mandamus process is pretty much always a Sisyphian battle.

I hope PZLDF amends changes strategy to a civil rights case.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Anon,

There are not any legal grounds to file a winable civil rights lawsuit re: the CDO recepients....but if PZLDF wants to waste more money on loser lawsuits, fine by me as long as the LOCSD is not involved.

-R

PS: Ann, have you changed your policy regarding Anons posting on your site?

Mike said...

Where is Ron's missing investigation of the PZLDF non payment for the lawsuit...???

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Mike,

Ron seems to have as much interest in whether PZLDF has paid Sullivan as he had in whether CCLO paid Parker and Hawley ... that is to say ... none. Presumably he could say that Sullivan was willing to enter a contract for payment with PZLDF and if PZLDF doesn't actually pay, it is only Sullivan who gets hurt and she was a big girl when she made the deal and so it is none of his business.

On the other hand, when you think about it as a possible scheme for PZLDF to get free legal work done because they never intended to pay and because Sullivan knew all along that PZLDF was never gonna pay their share ... it does become an issue that anyone concerned with Los Osos should care about. The LOCSD footing the lion's share of the legal bills they were supposed to only pay 25% of is just plain theft. Even if the PZLDF case was a guaranteed win, the district should not be asked to pay more than 25% of the total amount paid which is what we were told was going to happen when the vote was taken.

I would hope that anyone running for office would make a commitment to sound finances at the district level. Anyone running for office should be very willing to commit to stopping payments to Sullivan until evidence is presented that PZLDF has paid their fair share.

Sewertoons said...

As I recall and spoke about at the last CSD meeting a $30,000 cap was placed on this case. Guess that was overlooked.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Toons,

Was that $30k cap listed in the resolution the LOCSD board adopted?

If it was, another "public waste" lawsuit might recover the difference. The GM cannot cut checks above a certain dollar value without board action and if no board action justifies the checks so far, it is a violation of the rules of the game.

Sewertoons said...

I am reviewing old meetings at present to see if I can find if it was just a verbal agreement or a resolution for $30,000.

The GM can't cut a check above $5,000, I believe, but if there are 16 checks, each for $5,000…

I don't think Mr. Schempf was the GM when this occurred.

Mike said...

Maybe Joe can get a verbal "agreement" to pay TaxPayers Watch... after all, they were acting in the public's interest to ask LAFFco to dissolve the CSD...even Julie now supports dissolution...

GetRealOsos said...

Sorry to post this twice folks, but Sewertoons won't answer some very basic questions:


Blogger GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons,

You say, "Gee getreal, do you think when the project was practically FREE it was rather short sighted of the community of Los Osos to "look the other way?"..."

Lynette, we're not talking about the 80's or 90's here. I'm talking about right now! (Besides, I thought you guys don't want to talk about the past.)

So, a project is coming. That you don't answer why is alarming.

Where's the proof of pollution anyway? Why the mega cost project, if we don't need that? What's your excuse? Why if Golden State removes nitrates, and that was the excuse for the big sewer, what gives? Especially when we're in a deep recession. Why not cluster areas and homes that ARE polluting? Why not have everyone who benefits pay? Why stick the entire bill on the PZ homeowners if they're not polluting?

You simply don't address any of this. I didn't expect you would or could. Clearly, this has never been about pollution. You wanted the town cleaned out, you wanted your home(s) to increase in value (good luck with that now), etc.

But you can look the other way, just like the County and Pandora while the total rip-off and scam take place.

Then you say, "Gee, we haven't had any bids yet, nor do we know what the project is - you sound rather ignorant making these claims...."

Well, we had bids before, we know what this thing will cost and placed on JUST 4,500 HOMEOWNERS. It's not legal, it's not moral, and it's fraud and corruption -- plain and simple. I don't understand how you people can live with yourselves...really.

P.S. Why don't you answer how much grant money Cal Poly will get for the digs?

Love those County biscuits.
Love those Cal Poly biscuits...!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

You keep asking about how much cash Poly will get from gravity over STEP.

I'll bet ... zero.

Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

Unless you do and can 'splain it to us, you might want to stop asking the question because it makes you look ... um ... like a tin-foil-hat guy.

Sewertoons said...

Give me a chance to eat dinner - I had no idea I was so important to you.

I answered below where you originally posted.

Oh, I forgot to answer this:
"Why don't you answer how much grant money Cal Poly will get for the digs?"

I know nothing about this. Since you know so much, why don't you tell us? Or is this just another "getrealnuendo" attempting to put a negative spin on building a WWTF?

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons & Shark,

How much will Cal Poly make on the sewer project with the "digs"?

Are you saying they won't profit?

Lynette, I'm still waiting for you to answer this.

Where's the proof of pollution anyway? Why the mega cost project, if we don't need that? What's your excuse? Why if Golden State removes nitrates, and that was the excuse for the big sewer, what gives? Especially when we're in a deep recession. Why not cluster areas and homes that ARE polluting? Why not have everyone who benefits pay? Why stick the entire bill on the PZ homeowners if they're not polluting?

You simply don't address any of this. I didn't expect you would or could. Clearly, this has never been about pollution. You wanted the town cleaned out, you wanted your home(s) to increase in value (good luck with that now), etc.

If you can't answer the pollution issues, then I'm assuming there is no proof or evidence of pollution other than a very, very small percentage in the bay.

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons:

Even if gravity were to be selected (and it was in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 -- Step was just a "show" from the County) -- MY POINT STILL IS:

Why not abide by the law and have everyone who benefits pay. Why stick the whole bill on just 4,500 (and only a handful are actually polluting)?

I think the water board would have an affordable method to see who is polluting. It's their job after all. Why do they exist if they can't do that?

Why put in an over kill plant when it's not needed?

Why can't you answer? Why can't you answer the question if Golden State gets the nitrates out of the water, what do we need a system for that will force thousands to suffer?

How can the average family in these times be able to afford two or three EXTRA thousands of dollars on top of their regular property tax bill? And for nothing!!?? There is no guarantee this sewer will do anything better on the pollution issue than what we have now, except for terrible health issues with immune pathogens with your gravity plant. You don't seem to care about that either!

P.S. I'm moving this to the top thread.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal ...

I am saying that Poly doesn't care about gravity versus STEP and that you suggesting otherwise has been amusing and little else.

You seem to misunderstand how Universities work ... just like you misunderstood what "working with" someone meant in a University context.

Even if there would be profit to Poly for one collection system over another, the profit would be minimal relative to the total cost of the project ... and no one but you would think it matters. Would you rather spend $100M instead of $90M for the collection system just to avoid $50k worth of benefit to Poly?


As for proof of pollution ... just look at the nitrate maps of the aquifer presented by the Ripley team. The fact that the nitrate levels are higher under the PZ and lower elsewhere pretty much proof that the septics are the cause of the nitrates.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

On the question of who should pay ...

The kid who throws a rock thru the window should pay to fix the window. If the lady who owns the window benefits from the window being fixed it doesn't mean that she has a moral or legal obligation to fix it. If you're pissing in my drinking water, why do you expect that others should help pay the cost of fixing the problem associated with your actions?

You suggest in your comments that shouldn't have to put in a plant that is so expensive that people will suffer financially.

Hmmm.... If the plant is now gonna cost us more because of the recall, I don't think that people who voted against the recall should have to pay the increased costs but those who supported the recall should. After all, we were willing to take our $205/month lumps ... why should we have to pay for your mistake?

You ask about the financial well being of families who can't handle an extra $2-3k per year ... I would suggest that those very same families bought homes that were reduced in price relative to homes in communities with sewers and that they should have been saving some $50/month since moving in to afford the increased costs they knew were coming.

Your suggestion that people shouldn't have to pay for the damage they're doing to the environment and that people who've benefited from the system thus far owe nothing in return seems pretty self-centered and shallow to me.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Ripley himself stated that we wouldn't show nitrates at all if we eliminated just the horses!!

You say, "The fact that the nitrate levels are higher under the PZ and lower elsewhere pretty much proof that the septics are the cause of the nitrates..."

PRETTY MUCH PROOF SHARK?

Where's the proof of pollution Shark? Where are the independent studies and reports?

Where's the recent testing of the wells inside and outside the PZ before we put in an unnecessary public works project?

What do YOU have to say about Golden State Water removing nitrates and charging customers for it? Why the big sewer that will tax everyone out of their homes? Care to answer Shark?!

It's all bullshit and you know it.

The County won't pick Step and never was gonna. It doesn't matter as far as Cal Poly is concerned. It will be gravity, Cal Poly will profit.

If we stayed with good on site technology, Cal Poly wouldn't benefit at all. That's my point.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

As far as your last post, you are full of shit.

The 218 is California law, forget about kids throwing rocks at windows.

The County did not follow the law. The RWQCB broke the law. The State broke federal law, etc. etc. It's all fraud.

You act like sewerage is going right into your drinking water. Give us a break. Why don't you ask your water company why they are selling you piss water then?!?

Enough with your bullshit.

Prove that I am polluting Shark. Prove that Ann is polluting Shark.
Prove that people up on Highland and Woodland are polluting Shark (not a density problem there) -- show me the proof Shark!

I'm not saying people shouldn't have to pay. Another twist from the Shark. I said that governmental agencies are not exempt from having to pay for benefit. Golden State will benefit but not pay. Not only are the PZ paying for everything, but the county will profit from the project and so will Cal Poly.

Sewertoons said...

getreal says:
"P.S. I'm moving this to the top thread."

Well, I answered you below. Make up your mind.

"but the county will profit from the project and so will Cal Poly."

How? What was done in the past if artifacts were retrieved? How does this affect YOUR life? Are you Chumash? Tell us who you talked to at Cal Poly.

Sewertoons said...

getreal says:
"If we stayed with good on site technology…"

Go complain to the Water Board. I sure don't want to have testing done on my property every day to make sure I am within allowed limits. I sure don't want to pay for THAT inconvenience, or a fine if something goes wrong.

All you do is whine, whine, whine, getreal. Get over it and move on - you're vadose zone is NOT cleaning these boring, repetitive thoughts out of your cranium. I doubt that the one under your septic tank is working any better if you are on less than a 1 acre lot.

Mike said...

...apparently getrealosos IS God and can change blog threads at his/her/it's pleasure, it doesn't seem to matter what the subject is, getrealosos will loose his anger toward Shark and continue to lob unsubstanciated claims at everything he's currently mad at...sure sounds a lot like a guy named Kieth...

The subject of this thread was regarding the PZLDF lawsuit... not some mythical claim that Cal Poly was somehow going to get rich on the findings of the long past cumash culture...

Maybe Ann would care to open up that discussion, but for now...

...could we simply obtain an understanding of the PZLDF lawsuit and just what is the agreement of payment....???

It seems to appear that the PZLDF has contributed nothing toward the payment of the legal services and that the LOCSD has paid more than twice the cap amount of $30,000...

Just what is the truth...???? We should all be concerned that the bankrupt CSD is continueing to spend money it does not have any account for... Chuck seems to think he has the right to spend all tax dollars in any fashion he wishes and that there is only a single general account of all tax monies... As long as he has checks, then he must have money...???

The question remains; How much has the PZLDF actually contributed to this legal crusade....??? We have heard that the CSD has apparently given the PZLDF some $80,000 after having had some verbal, non board approved agreement to cover some 25% of those legal costs up to a cap of $30,000.... So just what is the truth....??? Since there is no CSD account made public, it appears the community has been lied to yet again and has been giving PZLDF a monthly allowance to keep that little social club alive... has any found it's way into Gail McPherson's pocket...???? Where is there any believable accounting...????

Sewertoons said...

I've been reviewing old meetings.

On 2/15/07, Dave Duggan opposed the process to hire Shaunna Sullivan, as the hiring was not bought before the public.

On 2/15/07, Richard Margitson questions if a cap was put on the expenditures for Shaunna Sullivan. He noticed that there was no line item to fund this.

Lisa defends not putting a cap on it, as you don't know how high the bill is going to go.

On 3/1/07 Keith Swanson, "Finally, since Sullivan isn't on the agenda, the contract is retroactive to January. How is this possible?How was the CSD dictating what she was doing in January and why would we have to pay for that?"

I'll get to the NEXT meeting soon. (This was where Item 6, Shaunna Sullivan, on the 3/1/07 meeting was bumped.) I think this might be where the cap was discussed.

I might note that a Board member stated that the District has always had high legal bills. Since the District's inception in 1998, up until the recall in September 2005, (7 years) the total amount for legal bills was around $800,000. From October 2005 to September 2008, (three years) the legal bills are over $2 million. There appears to be to be a shift in the definition of "high" between those two periods.

Mike said...

Good Morning 'toons...

Your through research continues to expose this CSD as the most vicious group of financial managers in anywhere...!!!!! They do not consider themselves accountable to the public who elected them and apparently will not change unless legal action against them is pressed...

This "little" deal is pure theft of public funds and those responsible should be tried to full extent of the law....!!!!!

There must be some agency in authority overseeing this destruction of public faith in a responsible government... LAFCo, the Bd of Supervisiors, the State AG...??? Is there any control of what a CSD can and can not do with our tax dollars...??? Lisa, Chuck, Julie... that's you we're going to hold accountable....!!!!!!

franc4 said...

mike,
Everytime you post your trash you prove what a moron you really are.