Alternate members of a Local Agency Formation Commission, when not serving in the place of regular members, may participate in public hearings and deliberations, but they may not attend closed sessions, according to a state Attorney General's opinion.
The opinion should lead to a standardization of practices for the 57 LAFCOs in California, said Mike Gotch, executive director of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions.
In fact, Gotch was the one who raised the issue of participation by LAFCO alternates. Gotch — a former Assemblyman and San Diego LAFCO executive officer — is the alternate public member of the Napa County LAFCO. The Napa County Counsel's office had said alternate members, when not replacing absent regular members, should not participate in public hearings or attend closed sessions. County counsel later modified its stance to allow alternates to participate until the close of the public hearing.
Gotch said other jurisdictions where he had worked encouraged alternate members to be at all meetings, whether or not the regular member was present. But, he said, "In my CalLAFCO travels, I've found that there is no consistency." The code is silent on the issue, he said.
The attorney general's opinion, No. 98-1011, interprets the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Government Code §§56000-57550), which establishes LAFCOs to encourage orderly growth and development. The attorney general ruled that "A LAFCO, under its statutory rule-making powers and inherent parliamentary powers, has the authority to adopt rules permitting participation of alternate members at public hearings as well as in deliberations on proposals, short of voting."
The opinion prepared by Deputy Attorney General Clayton Roche continues, "Undoubtedly, it would be beneficial for alternate members to be present at all the hearings of a LAFCO since proposals are commonly considered at more than one meeting. Attendance by all alternate members would allow them to be fully informed if they must replace the regular members who are absent or disqualified. Moreover, to permit alternate members to participate in the hearings and deliberations to the same extent as regular members (except voting) would enhance a fuller discussion and consideration of each proposal. In short, LAFCOs and the public would benefit by having alternate members present at all public hearings and participate in the deliberations."
Closed sessions, which may be conducted to discuss certain personnel matters and litigation, are a different story, according to the AG's opinion.
"Unless sitting in place of an absent or disqualified member, an alternate may not attend a closed session without converting the session into an unauthorized ‘semi-closed meeting.' A LAFCO may not enact parliamentary rules that contravene statutory law, in this case, the Ralph M. Brown Act," the opinion says.
In quoting the AG's 1994 handbook on the Brown Act (Government Code §§54950-54962), the opinion states, "Persons without an official role in the meeting should not be present."
Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer requested the opinion, which is found at 99 C.D.O.S. 1734.
Completing the subdivision application process twice, and having the project rejected both times, does not qualify as an exhaustion of the administrative process, The First District Court of Appeal as ruled.
In a case from the Town of Ross, a unanimous three-judge panel said a landowner's taking claim was not ripe because the landowner had not used up all administrative remedies. The court also said the "futility exception" was not available because the landowner had filed only two applications, both ...
Failure of a county to send a copy of a mitigated negative declaration to the state Department of Fish & Game is a big enough oversight to require setting aside the mitigated negative declaration and a subsequent rezoning, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In interpreting Public Resources Code §21005, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the lack of notice given to a trustee agency "deprived the county of information necessary to informed decision making and informed public participa.
A county considering the environmental impact of a proposal to expand a mine may use full-capacity operation of the existing facility as the environmental "baseline" even if the facility is operating at less than full capacity, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Carson's mobile home rent control board acted properly in granting a mobile home park owner a rent increase of only $58 per month rather than the $160-170 that the park owner requested, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court also ruled that the city's formula for granting rent increases is constitutional even though it is vague.
The city board reduced the rent increase by determining that the mobile home park should amortize the cost of remediating contaminated wetlands over...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.