Ventura County Supervisors adopt plan to protect plants and animals
Posted on 27. Apr, 2011
Tony Biasotti/VC Star/4-26-11: The Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a set of environmental regulations today that, among other things, will establish a list of “locally important” plants and animals . . . The policy adopted, by a 3-2 vote, is known as the “Biological Resources Segment” of the county’s “Initial Assessment Study Guidelines.” . . . (full article) Most of the 40 people who addressed the supervisors urged them to adopt an alternate proposal drafted by the Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, or COLAB, the group that has led the opposition.
“The COLAB people didn’t create a document out of whole cloth. They took the county’s document and sought to make it better with the input of experts and an attorney,” said Rob Roy, the president of the Ventura County Agricultural Association. “I don’t know why, as a policy matter, we can’t adopt this document. Why does this county consistently have to adopt policies that are more stringent and more excessive than other counties?” Patty Waters, whose family owns a farm in Moorpark, said the new guidelines could bring about “the slow death of farming” in Ventura County.
The farmers’ ire is focused on the guidelines’ provisions for locally important species, those that are judged to be at risk inVentura County but aren’t on federal or state endangered lists. Under the new guidelines, the county will start with a list of 170 species compiled by biologists and botanists in 2004 and will update it annually. The two supervisors who voted against the guidelines as proposed were the two whose districts are the most heavily agricultural: Kathy Long and Peter Foy. “We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of what we do to these landowners, what we do to these farmers, and what we do to these jobs,” Foy said. At Long’s request, the board did amend the guidelines to include a requirement that the annual update of the locally important species list be open to public participation. Long’s other proposed changes — including removing a reference in the guidelines to a study on “wildlife linkages” — were rejected by the three-supervisor majority.
Dick Albright
Jul 22nd, 2011
A 3-2 vote is illegal for public measures, therefore the \\"policy\\" is not adopted per state code:
Dear Editor,
I have read my neighbor Cynthia Tonkin\\\’s letter on Maricopa and the Kern County Grand Jury report. Of further significance to that report was:
\\"E. The City owes citizens $24 per parcel for 2009-2010 refuse fees increased in violation of Prop 218 and Health and Safety Code §5473 provisions. On January 25, 2010, the Kern County Auditor-Controller informed the City in writing of the need to make refunds. Beginning in November 2010, the Committee repeatedly brought this matter to the attention of the City Administrator but, to date, no City action has occurred.\\"
AND
\\"F5. As shown in Fact E, the City disregards the rights and needs of its citizens.\\"
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 5473 states:
\\" Any entity which has adopted an ordinance pursuant to this article or an order pursuant to Section 6520.5 may, by such ordinance
or by separate ordinances or resolutions approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body thereof, elect to have
such charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not
separately from, its general taxes.\\"
In actual FACT, the 2009-2010 resolution (a serious lien potential) that was illegally \\"passed\\" by the 2009 Maricopa City Council
was to \\"assess\\" the full $300 for refuse collection and $204 for sewer, NOT just for a $24 increase in refuse collection fees.
This is a significant value beyond a \\"$24 REFUND\\". If one does the math for most parcels at $504 each, it represents close to
$200,000 that requires an annual resolution which failed in 2009. That money was withheld. The 2010-2011 resolution passed
with a 4/5 vote as a consequence of the 2010 council\\\’s knowledge of this FACT.
There are TWO other government codes that affect ALL VOTING on PUBLIC MEASURES:
California Code of Civil Procedure §1245.240
\\"Unless a greater vote is required by statute, charter, or ordinance, the resolution shall be adopted by a vote of two-thirds of
ALL the members of the governing body of the public entity.\\" (FOUR OF FIVE)
AND
2009 California Government Code Article 7. Ordinances §25123
\\" (d) Those for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, which shall contain a declaration of the facts
constituting the urgency, and shall be passed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors.\\"
The real significance of \\"CA Codes 5473, 1245.240 and 25123\\" is that ANY measure, resolution or LAW that ANY entity–City Council, Board of Supervisors, or California Legislature votes on must be carried by a SUPER-MAJORITY of the full governing body,
significantly for financial matters.
There is only one California Code that allows for a 3 of 5 majority (quorum) vote AND that is limited to INTERNAL conduct of business:
§ \\"25003. The board may make and enforce rules and regulations necessary for the government of the board, the preservation of order,
and the transaction of business.\\"
§ \\"25004. It may adopt a seal. A description and impression of the seal shall be filed in the office of the county clerk.\\"
§ \\"25005. A majority of the members of the board constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. No act of the board shall be valid
or binding unless a majority of all the members concur therein.\\"
\\"Transaction of business\\" is an INTERNAL protocol, not PUBLIC. This is reinforced by:
75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 89
Office of the Attorney General
State of California
Opinion No. 92-212
?The board may make and enforce regulations necessary for the government of the board, the preservation of order, and the transaction of business.?
\\"It has been held that §25003 and §36813 vest a city council and county board of supervisors with wide discretion in adopting rules concerning the conduct of their proceedings…\\"
GOVERNMENT CODE §36813. \\"
The council may establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings. It may punish a member or other person for disorderly
behavior at a meeting.\\"
The only issues that Councils and County Boards of Supervisors can pass with 3 of 5 VOTES are INTERNAL \\"business transactions\\"–that includes paying bills, hiring a clerk…or \\\’going to lunch\\\’.
And NOT measures which directly affect \\"MEMBERS of the PUBLIC\\". This has SERIOUS retroactive and current constitutional ramifications as many PUBLIC measures have failed due to the absence of a 2/3 \\\’supermajority\\\’ (4 of 5) while others have been ILLEGALLY \\\’passed\\\’ by 3/5 vote with a cavalier disregard for California General Law to which counties and cities owe their existence.
And they knew or should have known. Nothing has been discovered to refute this.
I concur with Mrs. Tonkin that the existing 2011 Maricopa City Council, the city attorney and voters have a first priority to ??address the rights and needs of its citizens…\\" by remaining consolidated and incorporated with improved oversight and management.
Respectfully,
Dick Albright
Maricopa
Richard W. Albright
284 Mary Street
Maricopa, CA 93252
661-769-9070
Libertarian Party of California | Blog | Supervisor John Zaragoza Votes to Kill County Jobs & Family Farms » Ventura County Libertarian Party
Jan 2nd, 2012
[...] Supervisors voted 3-2 in support of adopting the County Planning Department’s version of the Biology Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, a document with far reaching consequences for property owners and small-time farmers whose way of [...]