Petaluma Tomorrow

Open Government • Responsible Development • Watershed Protection

Archives for February 2011

PT Special Notice: Dutra and BoS Brown Act Violations

by

Press Release Regarding Dutra Asphalt Plant

SONOMA COUNTY COUNCIL DENIES CLAIMS OF BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DECEMBER 14, 2010 IN AGENDIZING AND APPROVING THE DUTRA HAYSTACK LANDING ASPHALT PLANT, PETALUMA AND REFUSES TO PROVIDE ANY ‘CURE AND CORRECT’ AS REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

Last Wednesday (February 2), the Sonoma County Deputy County Counsel, Jeffrey Brax, sent a letter (attached, “SCAN2976”) describing a decision made in closed session yesterday, Feb. 1, by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.  The letter denies claims made by the City of Petaluma, Petaluma River Council, Friends of Shollenberger Park, Moms for Clean Air, Petaluma Tomorrow and a group of individuals, that the County Board of Supervisors committed any violation of the Brown Act, California’s Open Meeting Law on December 14, 2010.

We find it both frustrating and very saddening that our new Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, with the misguided advice of County Counsel, has decided on a very narrow and cramped reading of both the letter and spirit of the law of the Brown Act and case law cited.

We strongly support the concepts and effective engagement of the public by and with our government, as described in the Brown Act’s preamble:
“The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them, and insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.”

While we do not have access to the actual thoughts and considerations of the five supervisors, we had hoped that the new supervisors would have taken a significantly different view of effective and meaningful public engagement than had been demonstrated over the past four years by the previous supervisors.  We had hoped that they would have granted the public a new public hearing and the opportunity to comment on hundreds of new pages of documents, including a purported “new Final EIR” provided at the last minute prior to approving the contentious Dutra.Asphalt Plant project on Dec. 14, 2010.

We are weighing our options, and will decide what is best for the community and the environment in the near future.

For additional background information review the press release issued December 14, 2010: Dutra’s Double Document Dump; County Counsel’s Double Cross.

More supporting documentation:
Letter from County Counsel, demanding cure of Dutra violations
Exhibit A (Mitigated Impacts) to Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B (SU Impacts) to Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C (SOC) to Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit D (Alternatives) to Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit E (Conditions of Approval) to Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Resolution Certifying the Final EIR for the Revised Dutra Haystack Landing Facility
Resolution Making and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations

PT Update: February 2

by

DEADLOCKED COUNCIL — VOTERS REJECTED AS THE ANSWER

The January 31 special Council meeting to address the open seat ended, to no one’s surprise, in a deadlock. There was no agreement on applicants between the developer funded Healy-Albertson-Harris coalition and the remainder of the council.  Three attempts were made to reach a decision on the open seat before it was agreed to table the matter for another meeting.

At the January 3rd meeting HAH rejected the will of the voters by opposing the simple and democratic solution of appointing Jason Davies to the seat.  Davies was the “next highest vote getter” in the November Council election, 1.3%, 700 votes behind Albertson.  At the special meeting HAH moved to block voters from having any future say in filling the vacancy.  They opposed any opportunity to take the question back to voters in a special election.

SOMEBODY WHO DOSEN’T PARTICULARLY WANT IT

Michael Healy wrote in a letter to the Editor of the Argus that the person who might be the “right fit” for council is someone who doesn’t particularly want it.  Then he encouraged people to apply – a direct expression of someone wanting it.  What he appeared to be saying is that Mr. Davies wants the seat too much and the voters  want Mr. Davies too much. And, what we need is someone who isn’t willing to be vetted in an election, but wants the Council  seat just enough to fill out an application.

Mr. Healy has the “hunch” (apparently much more important than votes cast in November) that there is a person out there “not aligned with either perceived faction on the council” who is the “right fit.” The suggestion is that Mr. Healy and the developer funded HAH faction ( a reality, not just perception) will present us with that person.

Given his publically stated opinion, one is then forced to ask why Mr. Healy “expressed interest” (the equivalent of a vote but one that does not count) in Ray Johnson three times at the January 31st Council meeting.  Perhaps running a campaign that resulted in Mr. Johnson coming in 6th demonstrates that did not “particularly” want the seat.  Now, all Mr. Healy needs to explain is Johnson’s independence from developer interests and the politics of HAH.