Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney finds no Brown Act violations in Verizon hearing complaint
Summary
The city attorney told the Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission he reviewed Helen Barrett’s March email alleging Brown Act violations tied to a Verizon small wireless facility hearing and concluded the commission complied with posting and agenda rules; commissioners voted to direct staff to send that response.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission voted to direct the city attorney to respond to a March 5 complaint alleging Brown Act violations, after the city attorney told the commission he found no violation.
In a staff presentation, the city attorney summarized an email from Helen Barrett alleging that meetings on Feb. 4 and Feb. 10 were not properly noticed and that a non-agendized location (the Golden Bow Playhouse) and a six-page writing by a commissioner had been raised without adequate public notice. He cited Government Code section 54954.2 and said the city had posted agendas at least 72 hours for regular meetings and 24 hours for special meetings, and that posting on the kiosk and the city website met posting requirements. “I have reviewed these allegations and find that there were no violations of the Brown Act,” he told commissioners.
Commissioners asked how the city defines posting locations and whether agenda descriptions must fit within a 20-word guideline. The attorney said agendas must include a brief general description (commonly not exceeding 20 words) and that posting is required at the kiosk in front of City Hall and online; staff also said agendas are posted at the library and post office and mailed or otherwise distributed for certain permit types.
Chair Leage opened the item for public comment; no members of the public addressed the commission on this matter. After brief discussion, Commissioner Alort moved and the commission voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to advise the complainant that staff found no Brown Act violations and that no cure was required.
The commission’s action was procedural direction to staff: there was no policy change, ordinance or remedy ordered. The city attorney remained available for follow-up questions or clarifications requested by commissioners.
