Archives



Did Sonoma’s Planning Commission just violate the Brown Act?

Posted on March 26, 2017 by Sonoma Valley Sun

At its meeting of March 23, 2017, during the public comment period at the very end of the meeting, a member of the public, Mr. Bill Jasper, came to the podium to ask if the commission had received his letter regarding concerns about a land use decision made at the previous meeting. At that point, the chair of the commission initiated a lengthy discussion with city staff and commission members regarding the matter raised by Mr. Jasper, despite the fact that the issue raised was not on the agenda for discussion or action. Customarily, a comment by the pubic on an item not on the agenda is simply received by the hearing body without comment or question, and due to the Brown Act, never acted upon.

Nonetheless, conversation on the comment took place, and what’s more, Mr. Jasper’s request that the matter be revisited and reconsidered, namely the form of an environmental review the commission required of Mr. Jasper at its previous meeting for the development of some hillside parcels, was discussed by the city’s Planning Director and a representative of the City Attorney’s office.  Mr. Jasper asked that the commission reconsider its previous decision, and the City Attorney suggested the commission could vote to reagendize the matter, in other words, take action on the request despite the matter was not on the agenda for consideration that evening. The methodology of any reconsideration and its future scheduling took place, including when a formal motion for reconsideration should be made and passed. Mr. Jasper continued to address the commission, and raised the issues of submitting additional reports, a deadline for an appeal to the City Council and project timing altogether. Commissioner MacDonald then made additional comments about issuing use permits, and consideration of grading and tree removal in his previous vote to require the environmental review of Mr. Jasper’s hillside project.

After this discussion of nearly twenty minutes, the acting City Attorney then noted the risk of continuing to discuss the matter without its being on the agenda. Despite that, Commissioner Coleman then asked an additional question. Commissioner Sek said she would approve a motion to reconsider at a subsequent meeting, once the matter is formally on an agenda.

Mr. Jasper, speaking again, then suggested a meeting date. Commissioner Coleman made a motion to place the matter on an agenda at a future meeting; Planning Director Goodison made further clarifications of what would be coming forth at that future discussion and that he would work with the applicant to assemble the information in a way that would be suitable to the commission for its review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bohar, and a unanimous vote followed to place the matter of voting at the next meeting to reconsider the previous decision of the commission.

Thus, an action of the commission was taken by vote on a matter not included on the meeting agenda, a matter raised by a member of the public during the comment period before the close of the meeting. The possible violation of the Brown Act involves taking action and voting on a non-emergency item without proper and posted public notice and therefore depriving the public of the opportunity to speak on the item, which is required by the Brown Act. While the action itself has not altered the decisions made previously by the commission, and any motion for reconsideration made and voted upon at a future meeting will be on the agenda and available for public comment, it appears the Planning Commission skirted and violated the technical provisions of the Brown Act. An inquiry of the matter has been directed to the City Manager for comment.




Sonoma Sun | Sonoma, CA