|
March 27, 2001 BOS
Agenda [Use link at left for official agenda.] If you plan to attend the hearing, please be present by
8:30 AM, Tuesday, March 27, 2001. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON A MATTER ON THE AGENDA: PLEASE WALK TO THE ROSTRUM AND AFTER RECEIVING RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOUR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. IN ORDER THAT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, PLEASE BE BRIEF AND LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION. TIME LIMITATIONS SHALL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR OR BOARD. SPECIAL DISTRICTS CONSENT CALENDAR Department: Sonoma County Water Agency Results of Non-Approval: General Manager/Chief Engineer's execution of Eleventh Amended Agreement for Water Supply will not be formally ratified. Background: 1. Report of General Manager/Chief Engineer On August 22, 2000, the Board approved the 11th Amended Agreement for Water Supply, adopting Resolution 00-1021. (Copies of the Aug 22 agenda package on file with the Clerk.) At that time all parties except City of Petaluma and the Water Agency had approved the Agreement. On September 12, 2000, the Board considered an agenda item "Eleventh Amended Agreement for Water Supply - Consideration of appointment of ad hoc sub-committee to meet with Petaluma representatives regarding the Agreement. Although the Board did not and could not reconsider its prior approval of Amendment 11 while appointing an ad hoc sub- committee, members discussed that Petaluma might be considering proposing modifications to Amendment 11. The General Manager was directed to identify any Agreement changes. On January 22, 2001 the City of Petaluma approved Amendment 11. At next day's Board meeting the General Manager reported that fact to the Board. Under the Brown Act a member of a legislative body or its staff may "ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his/her own activities," without the matter appearing on the agenda. (The Board did take the step of finding that this matter could be discussed at that meeting, because it arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. But the finding was unnecessary because the matter was a report from the General Manager, and not an item proposed for Board action.) The General Manager told the Board that Amendment 11 had been approved by all contractors and he expected Petaluma to sign it later in the week and that he intended to sign the document based on the Board's prior direction. On January 24, 2001 Petaluma signed Amendment 11. On January 26, 2001, the General Manager signed Amendment 11. 2. Claim of Brown Act Violation Interested parties claim through their Attorney Andrew Packard that the Board's January 23 discussion of Amendment 11 violated the Brown Act. A similar claim was made against Petaluma and the city council has noticed a public hearing for April 2, 2001 at which the City will consider ratification of its January 22 action. County Counsel has reviewed Mr. Packard's letter and the record in this matter and concluded that the Board's January 23 discussion did not violate the Brown Act. However, the Act expressly authorizes a legislative body to cure any challenged action. Mr. Packard's letter advises that if the Agency does not cure or correct its alleged violations, he will commence litigation against the Agency. County Counsel has recommended that the Board again hear the General Manager's report and ratify his previous execution of Amendment 11 to avoid unnecessary litigation and any misunderstanding about the intent of the Water Agency regarding Amendment 11. The attached resolution recites the background of this matter and ratifies the General Manager's execution of Amendment 11 as being done in accordance with and pursuant to the delegation of authority and direction given to the General Manager of the SCWA by Resolution No. 00-1021, adopted August 22, 2000. ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD: Mr. Andrew Packard's letter to the Board of Supervisors,
the Water Agency, County Counsel, and the District Attorney
warns: any dissemination, distribution or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited.
March 27, 2:15 PM: Local Coastal Plan Amendment PLP
94-0061 [BW Note: There are 23 pages in this Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Kathi Jacobs at PRMD seems to be handling it for the county. If you have any interest in what's being proposed for the coast, I believe you should attend. Come by the BOS Office and read the information.] _____________________
The Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Planning Agency will conduct a workshop to receive public comment on the Draft Housing Strategy of the Housing Element Update There are 35 pages in the information packet. 33 pages
are devoted to Technical Memorandum #6. There are 8 pp. of
charts, tables, data. There are more items to follow in another email. |