Politics & Government

Accusers Say Brown Act Violations Result of Jab at Caltrans

Two residents believe that public meeting laws were broken when the Planning Commission tried to intervene in Caltrans' Highway 1 widening project.

Mark Stechbart and Jim Wagner, two residents who lodged a complaint with District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe's office over what they call Brown Act violations by the Planning Commission, believe that commissioners were trying to interfere with the process by which Caltrans plans to when they allegedly broke the law.

That's because of the order in which events unfolded on the night of the meeting and afterward, Stechbart and Wagner said.

Find out what's happening in Pacificawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Early in the Sept. 19 meeting, longtime Commissioner and former City Council candidate Leo Leon asked that the oral communications section of the meeting—where the public can make comment about anything it wants—be moved up before the commission communications section—where the commission can add items to future agendas, for example—because he had been contacted by individuals wishing to speak during oral communications who couldn’t stay for the whole meeting.

The communication periods were swapped.

Find out what's happening in Pacificawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

During the oral communications, four speakers came to the podium to talk about Caltrans’ plan to widen Highway 1 and the impending Oct. 7 deadline for public comment about a that was released in early August. The DEIR outlines the parameters of the project and evaluates any threat it would pose to human or natural environments.

The speakers--Hal Bohner, Dinah Verby, Bill Collins and Todd Bray--all expressed discontent either with the plan to widen the highway itself or the process leading up to it, citing a lack of opportunity for the public and city to get involved in shaping Caltrans’ plan and vagueness in how the process works.

They urged the planning commission to take a more active role in reviewing Caltrans’ DEIR and in the planning process generally.

“I think you folks, the city of Pacifica, [are] a responsible agency here,” said Hal Bohner, a patent lawyer. “Caltrans may be the lead agency, but the City of Pacifica is a responsible agency and as that you have a legal obligation to at least review the DEIR. Moreover, you have a moral obligation to the citizens of Pacifica to take on this project.”

One speaker asked the commission to add a discussion about the project to a future agenda as soon as possible.

“I certainly want the planning commissioners to be aware that there is an issue concerning the process and that if there is a time and a place that you all can get involved and have this on your agenda sooner rather than later that would be good,” said Dinah Verby, a local attorney. “At a minimum we need the public comment period for the draft environmental report [to be extended]. It is going to expire within a couple of weeks, by Oct. 7, and I don’t think that’s sufficient time for you or most of us to really understand what the project is.”

During commission communications, which would normally have come before oral communications, a discussion began among commissioners about the public comment and what the Planning Commission ought to do about it. This is where things began to go awry, Stechbart, Wagner and Francke assert.

Stay up on this issue by tuning in to our topic page and follow updates by subscribing to the RSS feed. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates, too.

Alleged Violations

Commissioner Leo Leon opened the discussion by presenting some research he had done on the Caltrans DEIR and process surrounding it. This is contrary to public disclosure laws that require public notice before a topic be discussed in depth, said Francke.

Nevertheless, Leon spoke for 4 minutes and 58 seconds about conversations he’d had with a City Council member Sue Digre, his research, how the project might impact businesses, and a that Todd Bray had sent the commission before the meeting. Then, he suggested that the item be agendized for a future meeting.

Take our poll on this issue at the bottom of this article.

The discussion continued, and went on at length, with commissioners weighing in on what they thought about the process surrounding the project and even the idea of widening the highway, period. Also a no-no, said Francke.

“I think that allowing for an extension of the public comment period is a good first step and then, you know, and then obviously letting the city council know that this is an issue that such a huge project hasn’t fully been vetted by the public in Pacifica, we just don’t have that knowledge,” said Commissioner Celeste Langille.

At times the commentary became quite pointed.

“I’m really tired of other cities and agencies taking control of our lands and we not having anything to say about it,” said Commissioner Charles Evans. “I really would like to see a lot more input on this particular subject. Caltrans is big but we live here, they don’t.”

In total, discussion among the commissioners went on for about an hour.

At one point, Commissioner Thomas Clifford asked if the Planning Commission was in fact violating the Brown Act by allowing a quorum to speak on the topic:

“OK, I have a question for staff,” Clifford asked Pacifica Planning Director George White. “Since this is a non-agenda item, how many of us can speak to it before we get in trouble with the Brown Act?”

“Well, I think you’re in danger already at this point,” White replied.

“We haven’t had a quorum speak yet,” Clifford said.

“I understand, but the general rule is that if it’s something that’s not on the agenda there shouldn’t be any extensive discussion of that item until it is agendized, I mean that’s the basic rule,” White explained.

Clifford then asked that a discussion on the topic be agendized for a future meeting, but discussion continued.

Francke, an expert on public disclosure law, said that characterizing, adding color or discussing an unagendized item at length is contrary to the Brown Act.

Stechbart and Wagner think the proceedings of the meeting were conspiratorial and that Planning Commissioners wanted to stick a wrench in Caltrans' works, as it were.

“Moving forward though the PC meeting, Commissioner Leon allowed City Councilmember Digre had a meeting with Leon. Councilmember Digre subsequently placed a DEIR comment period extension on the City Council's Sept. 26 agenda,” they wrote in the letter to the D.A.

The Pacifica City Council did decide to ask Caltrans for a 15-day extension of the public input period on the Highway 1 Widening DEIR, and on Tuesday, Oct. 4, Caltrans granted the request.

At the end of the Planning Commission meeting, perhaps the most egregious Brown Act violation occurred, Stechbart and Wagner claim.

Commissioner Leon made two housekeeping motions, one to set up an informational meeting where staff would fill the commission in on the details of Caltrans’ plan for Oct. 3, and the second to set up a public hearing about the DEIR on Oct. 17—the soonest the commission could arrange, given that by law it must give the public ten days notice before such an event.

At the time of the meeting, however, Oct. 17 would have missed Caltrans’ deadline for public input about the DEIR by ten calendar days, so Commissioner Leon made a third motion—the motion that is contrary to the Brown Act—that the Planning Commission vote to recommend the public comment period on the DEIR be extended by 30 days.

All three motions passed unanimously, making six of seven commissioners (Commissioner Richard Campbell was absent from the meeting) potentially guilty of violating the Brown Act.

“This entire episode was a stealth political maneuver to get the Planning Commission to intervene at the last minute without public notice into a coast highway widening project,” Stechbart and Wagner allege in their letter to the D.A.

Last week, following the meeting in question, the Oct. 3 meeting of the Planning Commission, which was supposed to serve as an informational session about the Highway 1 widening project, was cancelled.

Lee Diaz, associate planner at the Planning Department, said the meeting was cancelled because it was determined that the topic of the Caltrans’ project was outside the scope of the commission’s duties.

 

 

Are you interested in blogging for Pacifica Patch about this issue or others? If you are, please apply. It's very easy. Tell thousands of your peers what you think about government transparency in Pacifica.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here