[ECDC Announce] Citizens Group Renews Appeal of Blackwater Permits

[Raymond Lutz]

[I think this was rejected earlier..., but the media received it.]

News Release

Raymond Lutz
Coordinator, Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPs)
http://www.StopBlackwater.net
http://www.CitizensOversight.org
raylutz at citizensoversight.org / 619-447-3246

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2008

Citizens Group Renews Appeal of Blackwater Permits

Original Paperwork Accepted in Error, Resubmitted and Renewed by Group
with Original Date

"No Blackwater Occupancy -- No Baghdad on the Border" says Group.


A letter was sent to Kelly Broughton, director of the Development
Services Department of the City of San Diego at 7:30 am, June 5, 2008.
The purpose of the letter was to resubmit paperwork that was said to
have been submitted in error on May 13th, 2008. That original request by
the watchdog group Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs) asserts that the
Blackwater project in Otay Mesa, just blocks from the Cal-Mex border
should have been reviewed at the level of "Discretionary" instead of
"Ministerial," thereby triggering public review of the facility.

Raymond Lutz, coordinator of COPs submitted the original appeal and the
subsequent letter in his name and that of COPs. "Our original request
was rejected due to the use of the improper form, provided by city
staff. Subsequently, we were informed verbally and from third hand
parties that the request was submitted in error. Therefore, we are
resubmitting the request and renewing it as of our first submission
date. Our request suggested just what the City now claims, that the
project should have been handled under "Discretionary" processing. Had
it been submitted correctly, the final permits would not have been
issued, and thus, the occupancy permit of Blackwater can be withheld,
regardless of the temporary restraining order by the federal court. That
order presupposes that the processing had all been done properly, and
there was no question of their permits. However, our submission should
have brought this into question earlier, but it was simply filed using
the wrong form."

The letter is attached below:
==================================================

Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPs)
CitizensOversight.org

PO Box 252
El Cajon, CA 92022
619-820-5321

raylutz at citizensoversight.org

June 5, 2008

Kelly Broughton
Director, Development Services Department
1222 First Avenue, MS 301
San Diego, CA 92101-4154
(619) 321-3233; KBroughton at sandiego.gov

REF: RECEIPT 1384322 (5-13-08) Regarding permits 138862 / 140766 / 150059


Dear Mr. Broughton:

On May 13, 2008, I submitted paperwork to the City Clerk regarding
permits numbered 138862, 140766, and 150059. At the time of the
submission to the City Clerk’s office, there was some extended
discussion regarding what form to use. Without knowing the forms and
procedures of the City, I was reliant upon the knowledge of the workers
in the City Clerk’s office and there was tentative consensus that form
DS-3031 should be used, entitled “Development Permit / Environmental
Appeal Application.” (A digital reproduction of the document submitted
is attached.) It was accepted with $100 cash by Linda Irvin, documented
by receipt number 1384322.

Although I have not received any formal response from your office, I
have been informed verbally that the form we submitted was, in fact,
inappropriately used for the purpose we intended. Therefore, I would
like to resubmit and renew my communication to your office using the
appropriate form, whatever that may be. Because it was originally
accepted in error, I would appreciate the benefit of the original date
of submission, May 13, 2008.

Although I do not reside in the vicinity of this project, I am
submitting this as a citizen who is attempting to provide oversight to
our government, as this is an acknowledged function of the citizens in a
democracy such as ours. Indeed, in this case, oversight has even been
requested by the firm, Blackwater, in the statement by Blackwater
founder Erik Prince as interviewed on Sixty Minutes on October 13, 2007,
where he said, “We absolutely want more oversight. We welcome the
accountability.”

In our initial attempt to review this project, we found that we were
unable to review the plans. First our attempt on April 24, 2008 was
denied by workers in the DSD department, and they said it would be
necessary to make an appointment with Afsaneh Ahmadi. I attempted to
contact Ahmadi but she was “in a meeting” and would not be available for
the rest of the day.

On 28 April, 2008, I attempted to make an appointment with Ahmadi but
DSD staff eventually said I should come in to see the permits and talk
to Sandra Stowers.

My first schedule option to view the permits was on 01 May, 2008. I
reviewed two of three permit documents. Plans for the third permit
(150059) were "lost" and not available at document control in DSD. I
understand that these plans were permanently lost and had to be
requested from the developer. At this moment, I have never had an
opportunity to review these plans and I have not been notified if they
are available, despite my request to see them and numerous messages in
that regard.

On May 5, 2008, Mayor Jerry Sanders initiated an inquiry by Chief
Operating Officer Jay Goldstone to result in a report to be released on
May 23, 2008. No report from this inquiry was ever forthcoming.

On May 13, 2008, we received word and witnessed GSA inspectors at the
facility at 7685 Siempre Viva Rd, San Diego, CA 92154, despite the
ongoing inquiry by the COO. After getting no response from the City
Council at the 10 a.m. hearing, I submitted my request that your office
review these permits on that day.

Subsequent to that initial submission, I received third-hand reports and
some phone calls stating that the request was submitted in error.

More recently, we learned that despite our request, the project received
inspections on those permits, and an occupancy permit was processed but
not sent.

Blackwater filed a request for a Temporary Restraining Order in United
States District Court, case 08-cv-00926-H-WMC entitled “Blackwater Lodge
and Training Center, Inc. v. Broughton et al.” and on June 4, the Hon.
Marilyn Huff provided an opinion that since all the permits were marked
as “ministerial” that your department was obligated to provide the
occupancy permit. In her opinion, she states that “Prior to May 19,
2008, all required permits and approvals were considered by the City to
be ministerial, and were granted without any indication that Plaintiff’s
project required discretionary review or that City officials could
refuse to provide Plaintiff with the certificate of occupancy at issue.”
Unfortunately, our submission was processed in error, or the set of
permits would have already been classified as discretionary on May 13.

Blackwater claims that the permits are unrelated and each is appropriate
for ministerial processing. However, the ventilation equipment defined
in the second permit (140766 ) under the name “South West Police” and
“Safchild Investments” was approved for use in the shooting range
defined in the third permit (150059 - which was lost by the DSD). In
fact the drawing of the ventilation equipment in the 140766 permit
clearly indicated use in ventilating the subsequently permitted
“shooting range,” although no indication of a shooting range was noted
on the plans other than the control panel which had lights with legends
“Safe to Shoot” and “Unsafe to Shoot.”

My understanding is that CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
stipulates that a project cannot be divided into segments but has to be
treated as a whole. Projects cannot be piece-mealed together, with each
one being insufficient to meet the standards for CEQA review, and
therefore considered “ministerial.” In San Diego, developers can get
approvals for each part, with each individual part being ministerial.
However, if the project was looked at as a whole, as required by State
CEQA law, the project would be discretionary, subject to CEQA, and a
hearing would be required. I believe that because my submission and was
not accepted simply because of an error at the counter, the claims that
this should have been considered DISCRETIONARY predates the subsequent
ruling of the federal court, which did not have the luxury of reviewing
the document submitted on May 13.

Therefore, I resubmit this request to your office as follows, again
requesting an effective date of May 13, 2008 due to the error at the
counter. You still have the $100 submission fee for Form DS-3031 and so
please apply that to any fees associated with the correct form.

In addition, due to the details specified on this amended submission, we
request that the occupancy permit be withheld until the project can be
fully reviewed, including the release of the report from the Chief
Operating Officer. Please inform my office immediately if you need
additional action on our part to justify such an action by your office,
particularly with regard to the TRO.

======================================================

Name of Requestor: Raymond Lutz, Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPs)
Standing: Member of the Public
Address: 1010 Old Chase Ave, Bldg B, El Cajon, CA 92020
Phone: 619-447-3246

Applicant Name: Various names were used on these permits, such as
Southwest Law Enforcement, Raven Development, Southwest Police, and
Safchild Development. We understand that they are all pseudonyms for
Blackwater Worldwide, apparently in an attempt to subvert our duty of
oversight.

Permit Numbers: 138862, 140766, and 150059

1.The various permits submitted under various names of this project
should be considered DISCRETIONARY, and the public should have
appropriate review of the project, per the California Environmental
Quality Act processing.

2.We assert that the term “vocational school” is intended to define
activities that can support manufacturing and warehousing activities
which are appropriate for the land-use zone. The reasonable application
of this term is to allow instruction of employees who can be employed by
those firms, knowing that the activities of such an appropriate
vocational school will closely match the activities of manufacturing and
warehousing of the zone. It is not intended as a general term to also
include the use of products manufactured in the zone. For example, if a
firm manufactures surgical tools, that should not be used as
justification that an instructional hospital should be processed
ministerially just because it might use those tools appropriately
manufactured in the zone. In the same way, just because the zone allows
the manufacture of firearms, that does not mean a mercenary-style
training facility is appropriate under ministerial approval.

3.Paramilitary training is illegal in California, as defined by
California Penal Code Section 11460, (“Any two or more persons who
assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing
with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not
more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment...”). Although we
understand that Blackwater operates such training in other parts of the
country, the operation of a private firm that may engage in such
training requires additional oversight by the public. We therefore
assert that by the very nature of a private firm conducting activities
that may be considered illegal for the state, this project requires
public oversight, and therefore triggers CEQA review.

4.There has been recent comment about Southwestern College, and their
operation of law enforcement training in the vicinity of the project. As
an oversight group, however, we see the operation of such a facility by
a public institution which has established oversight to be devoid of the
risk that the organization may be meeting the definition of a
“paramilitary organization,” and therefore does not meet the same
requirements for independent oversight by the public and CEQA
processing. However, we would appreciate such processing in the future
given the dire risk of underwriting the establishment of illegal
paramilitary training.

Please do not provide the occupancy permit to the applicant until these
questions are all resolved.


Submitted with the utmost courtesy,

Raymond Lutz
Coordinator
Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPs)


-- 
---------------------------------------
Raymond Lutz, Coordinator
Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs)
P.O. Box 252
El Cajon (San Diego Cty), CA 92022 USA
Voice 619-820-5321
http//www.CitizensOversight.org