Meeting Information
SAN FRANCISCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo)
M I N U T E S
Special Meeting
Tuesday, November 21, 2000, 3:00
P.M.
City Hall, Room 263
Members: Commissioners Ammiano, Bierman,
Yaki, Choden, Eisenberg
Clerk: Gregoire Hobson
SPECIAL AGENDA
(There will be public comment on each item)
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Interim Chairperson Ammiano at 3:04 p.m. Commissioners Ammiano, Bierman, Eisenberg and Choden were presented. Commissioner Kaufman was present as the alternate for Commissioner Yaki, who was not present.
2. Minutes of October 31, 2000
Commissioner Bierman moved that the Minutes of October 31, 2000, be approved. No discussion was held by the Commissioners, and there was no public comment, regarding the minutes. The Commission adopted the minutes without objection.
3. Adoption of the Appointment of Chairperson
Interim Chairperson Ammiano nominated Commissioner Neil Eisenberg to be the permanent Chairperson of the Commission. Commissioner Choden seconded the motion. No discussion was held by the Commissioners, and there was no public comment regarding Commissioner Eisenberg’s nomination. The Commission appointed Commissioner Eisenberg to be the Chairman without objection.
4. Appointment of Executive Officer
Interim Executive Officer, Gloria L. Young, reported that Commissioner Ammiano asked her to continue as Executive Officer and stated she was willing to continue as the Executive Officer of the Commission. She informed the Commission that the LAFCo budget is before the Finance and Labor Committee of the Board of Supervisors, and approval of the budget has an impact on the Executive Officer position. The Board will need to approve the budget as well as legislation revising the scope of duties of the Clerk of the Board to allow her to continue as the Commission’s Executive Officer. Chairperson Eisenberg moved, and Commissioner Ammiano seconded the appointment of Gloria L. Young as the permanent Executive Officer. The Commission appointed Gloria L. Young as the Executive Officer without objection.
5. Adoption of Policies and Guidelines for Processing Petitions for the Formation of Special Districts (G. C. Section 56301)
Angela Alioto, representing the Coalition for Lower Utility Bills (CLUB), spoke about the MUD Act, Sections 1 and 2 and the Public Utilities Code 11561 et seq. CLUB obtained approximately 24,000 signatures on the petition to form a Municipal Utility District (MUD). Angela Alioto stated that the general provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act pertaining to district formation do not apply to the formation of a MUD, and that the MUD Act provides that the Board of Supervisors shall call an election on the MUD petition and divide the proposed district into five wards from which to elect directors. Angela Alioto proposed written rules that the Executive Officer of the Commission shall forward the petition to the Board of Supervisors for further action under the MUD Act.
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney stated that Item No. 5 is the adoption of policies and guidelines for the Commission’s processing of district formation proposals, including the formation of a MUD. The Executive Officer submitted proposed policies and guidelines for the Commission’s processing of the MUD petition that were contained in the agenda packet. Mr. Roberts stated that CLUD’s proposed rule that the Commission would not process the MUD petition, but would instead refer the matter directly to the Board of Supervisors without LAFCo review, was substantially different than the policies and guideline submitted by the Executive Officer. He advised that the Commission’s adoption of CLUB’s proposed rule would violate the Brown Act and a ruling of the trial court, but that it was up to the Commission to decide how to proceed.
Chairperson Eisenberg requested the Deputy City Attorney give the section number of the Brown Act.
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney stated Section 54954.2 of the Brown Act.
Commissioner Ammiano inquired from Deputy City Attorney if moving forward today would be in violation of the Brown Act, and when is next meeting?
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney responded that the next meeting is Tuesday, November 28, 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Chairperson Eisenberg ruled that the Commission was not violating the Brown Act and that as Chairperson he saw no reason under the Brown Act why the Commission could not proceed with Ms. Alioto’s proposal at this time.
Commissioner Ammiano requested the following information: If we moved forward today could the Commission’s action be challenged?
Dorji Roberts, responded yes. He stated that if the Commission moved to adopt Ms. Alioto’s proposed rules that LAFCo not perform a substantive review of the MUD proposal, but rather submit the petition directly to the Board of Supervisors to draw special wards and place the petition on the ballot, it would violate the Brown Act and disregard the ruling of the trial court on this very issue.
Commissioner Ammiano inquired if this proposal is postponed for one week, is that harmful?
Chairperson Eisenberg stated that he thinks the answer is that a group of people are proponing the petition and in every situation there is always a risk of litigation. The people proponing the MUD petition are taking a chance that their petition may be invalidated in court, but they are willing to take that chance.
Commissioner Ammiano stated he was not sure of proceeding today, and did not want to put the petition at extra risk because the Brown Act is pretty clear.
Commissioner Kaufman stated that the CLUB’s proposal was faxed to her office at 10:06 a.m. and was not in the file and the public has not seen it. She doesn’t understand how one can even consider saying this is acceptable to vote on today. She appreciates the fact that the Commission is concerned about moving forward.
Ms. Alioto stated that she faxed the material on Friday afternoon to the Commissioners and Executive Officer. She did not fax it to Commissioner Kaufman because she thought Commissioner Yaki would be at the meeting. However, this morning one was faxed to Commissioner Kaufman.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the agenda is posted in the Clerk’s Office just like the rest of the Board packet items and is available to the public. The items are published in the newspaper and posted in accordance with law. She did check with the office yesterday after receiving a call from Chairperson Eisenberg on whether or not the Clerk’s Office had received the letter from Ms. Alioto. There was no letter is the Clerk’s Office. This morning she was informed that copies were being sent to Commission members and got a copy from a Board member. After that she received a copy by fax.
Gloria L. Young, stated that this item is before the Commission for the first time. The Commission’s procedures and policies have been in the packet for several days and available for public review. She’s concerned about the public ability to know what the proposal is in writing. She has several copies available at the meeting, but does not know if this suffices in terms of giving adequate notice to the public. This does in fact follow the Sunshine Ordinance and that is why the LAFCo packet is available in the Clerk’s Office as is every other agenda packet.
Chairperson Eisenberg inquired about the Brown Act’s 72 hour notice requirement.
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney responded that the requirement is set forth in Government Code Section 54954.2(a) of the Brown Act. Members of the public reviewing the agenda packet would have seen one set of proposed procedures; the ones proposed by the Executive Officer. They are not necessarily the ones which this Commission may adopt. The Commission is free to discuss what rules to adopt. However, the new proposal would have the Executive Officer forward the petition to the Board for submission to the electorate was not on the agenda. The public would not have notice that Ms. Alioto’s proposal was pending before the Commission, and also would contravene the trial court decision.
Chairperson Eisenberg inquired does the Sunshine Ordinance requires the packet 72 hours before the hearing?
Dorji Robert, Deputy City Attorney stated this Commission is subject to the Brown Act and not the Sunshine Ordinance.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that with respect with compliance, the clerks and staff in her office did comply with the Sunshine Ordinance by meeting the 72 hour requirement with the posting of the agenda and packet.
Chairperson Eisenberg opened the item for public comment.
Don Paul, CLUB, City Attorney presented a reason not to proceed, but that the Commission has the power to rule on the proposal.
Joel Ventressca, Co-Chair of CLUB stated he got a copy of the agenda packet last night. He noted LAFCo is to set its own rules and urged the Commission to adopt Angela Alioto proposed rule.
Ena Aguirre hopes that although the packet is available, a copy of the packet would be made available to people at the meeting.
Commissioner Bierman stated that she wanted LAFCo to work. She doesn’t think the proceedings held so far will make LAFCo work. She thinks reasoned discussion and non-panic thinking will be more helpful.
Norman Rolfe urged the Commission to carry over further discussion to the next meeting.
Angela Alioto stated that she does not think the Brown Act is being violated, and wants it to work. If putting off her proposal for one week helps, then she is agreeable to the postponement.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that business at hand is the discussion of these rules and whether to go forward or postpone for one week. He stated that the rules submitted by SF CLUB are appropriate and he does support them.
Dana Dillworth, a Brisbane, California resident, stated it is the public’s desire to have a vote. What is approved is seldom what is in the packet.
Jim Sutton, Coalition for Affordable Public Services, a group opposed to the formation of a MUD, stated he went to the Board’s office Friday morning knowing that the Brown Act and Sunshine rules requires that the packet would be available 72 hours in advance. He believes the Executive Officer is putting together a mailing list and sending packets to those parties who are interested.
Bruce Brugman, Editor of the Bay Guardian stated that this is a front page story in the new Examiner and new Chronicle when Supervisor Kaufman, the City Attorney and PG&E trumpets the Sunshine Ordinance and Brown Act. He asked the Commission to have the City Attorney or the Commission disclose all privileged documents from the City Attorney, PG&E or anyone else.
Chairperson Eisenberg spoke about Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.7 regarding agenda requirements and regular meetings. After posting the agenda the documents must also be provided. He ruled that both the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance have been complied with.
Marie Harrison stated that she does not want to come back next week and find another reason why the Commission cannot proceed.
Ernestine Weiss stated that the Commission should give the people what they want with no increase in rates.
Jane Morrison representing San Francisco Tomorrow, would like to see a Municipal Utility District.
Doug Comstock stated that the Board of Supervisors was put on notice September 4, 2000, that the petitioners wanted a MUD without delay.
Commissioner Ammiano would like to see procedures establishing time limits on speakers put in place. Also, he recommended that any questions of Commission members or the Chair be held until after public comment. On the issue of Item Number 5, Commissioner Ammiano moved to support continuing the adoption of rules relating to the proposed MUD for one week. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bierman. Before the Commission acted on the motion, further public comment was taken.
Richard Ow stated the season is getting cold and he wants the petition to go ahead and let a MUD be established.
David Grace stated he would like to have the vote held. He would like to move forward today and not continue the matter.
Commissioner Ammiano again moved the vote on Angela Alioto’s proposed rules be continued to the following Tuesday, November 28, 2000. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bierman.
Before the Commission took action on the motion, Chairperson Eisenberg stated the his position was different from the proponents. He disagrees with the Deputy City Attorney’s advice to the Commission on the Brown Act. As Chair of the Commission, he will listen to the City Attorney’s advice but not bound by it. Regarding the Sunshine Ordinance, he stated that the Commission is a State agency and not subject by it. Everyone supports the Sunshine Ordinance. He noted the agenda did not specify where to pick up materials and requested that the next agenda specify where the agenda materials can be picked up. He also suggested putting the adoption of the Sunshine Ordinance on the agenda as a policy for the Commission.
The Commission approved Commissioner Ammiano motion without objection. Commissioner Kaufman was absent.
6. Waiver of fee application for Municipal Utility District petitions
Commissioner Ammiano moved for the adoption of the motion for the Waiver of Application Fee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bierman. There was no discussion by the Commissioners or public comment on the motion. The Commission approved the motion without objection. Commissioner Kaufman was absent.
7. Public Hearing for review, discussion and action on the disposition of the petitions in support of the formation of a Municipal Utility District with the same exterior boundaries as the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Brisbane.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that the Commission should continue the item to the following week. In general, once the City is on track and has money to conduct a study, no matter what the resistance is, LAFCo will have the money to proceed.
Chairperson Eisenberg asked the Executive Officer to schedule meetings every Tuesday, through the end of the year, with the exception of having a meeting on Friday, December 29th at 3:00 P.M.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated she would not be present for the Tuesday, December 19th meeting. The Board has not approved the budget and it was going to the Finance and Labor Committee next week. Supervisor Ammiano will be speaking about the LAFCo budget. It then needs to go to the full Board.
Chairperson Eisenberg requested the Executive Officer to set December 5th, 12th, 19th and 29th as meeting dates.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that she would notice meetings for those dates.
Chairperson Eisenberg opened the item for public comment.
Mark Solomon stated he was concerned about Item 5. He supports the Sunshine Ordinance and the need to move things forward.
Chairperson Eisenberg stated that this item should also be continued and brought tot the next hearing in view of the fact there are competing proposals regarding the Commission’s handling of the MUD petition.
Ena Aguirre inquired if someone from the City of Brisbane is at the hearing today or will be here next week to give their position on this issue.
Chairperson Eisenberg stated that present make-up of LAFCo was determined by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The present MUD petition before the LAFCo affects Brisbane and they are on notice of the petition.
Chairperson Eisenberg moved to continue this item to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Choden.
Before action on the motion, Art Hemming from Brisbane stated that no public discussion on the MUD is being held in Brisbane.
Chairperson Eisenberg amended the motion to have Item 7 placed on all agendas until completed. The Commission approved the motion, as amended without objection. Commissioners Kaufman and Ammiamo absent.
8. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda
Edmund stated that this was his first time to attend a meeting
Chairperson Eisenberg stated that the next the meeting will be held on November 28, 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Joel Ventressca suggested the Commission meet weekly until the matter is resolved.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Eisenberg at 4:48 P.M.