Highland Park/CUSD Board Legal Dispute

By Pamela L. "Pam" Fisher

No legal dispute would have happened if the district had been inclusive and ethical in their dealings with the Highland Park neighborhood. A legal dispute would never have happened had the CUSD Board not abrogated their governance role by giving the superintendent the power to make these decisions without public input.

No legal dispute would have happened if the district had been inclusive and ethical in their dealings with the Highland Park neighborhood. This also never would have happened had the CUSD Board not abrogated their governance role by giving the superintendent the power to take action without public input. This was the third major failure of the Board and administration to involve the neighborhood in the discussion about projects on the fields abutting our homes.

The first incident was the construction of a batting cage 20 feet behind a home with no notice and the refusal to consider moving it even when the home owners offered to help pay for it. The second incident was the destruction of a dense buffer that existed between the football field and our neighborhood. Again, no notice or phone call was made before the buffer was destroyed. The district may have conveniently forgotten that this buffer was present several years ago when the neighborhood agreed not to object to the installation of the football field lights that now shine into our homes several nights a week. The realtor, who sold us our home the year before estimated that we had suffered a $100,000 to $200,000 loss in property value. I presented this information to the City Council. To be honest, I wouldn't have purchased this home without the presence of the buffer. My next door neighbor also testified that the existence of the buffer was a major factor in their choosing the lot they subsequently built her home on four years ago. I then invested $8,000 in shrubs on school property to help diminish the impact of the loss of this buffer but with only minimal results.

The most recent issue involved the attempt to erect eight 70 and 80 foot light towers on the baseball field, just feet from homes. Last year the board delegated authority to the superintendent to administer a $400,000.00 donation by a single donor for a project to erect light towers on the high school baseball field. No one in the abutting neighborhood homes was notified about the project. We found out about it through rumor. As a former school board member, I was incredulous.

When we moved to the Coastside, we didn't hesitate to move behind the high school because in my experience as a community member and former school board member, schools were good neighbors and included abutters in any discussion about plans on school property that would impact neighborhood homes. School boards also respected open meetings laws. Living behind a school, we could reasonably expect some field improvements, but we also all chose to live in a coastal zone regulated by the Local Coastal Plan. According to the Half Moon Bay City Ordinance Compliance Officer, city and state properties must comply with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP).

Several other families joined those whose homes were the closest to this field and presented, a petition objecting to the lighting project signed by between 70 and 80 neighbors to the CUSD Board. We also requested that this construction item be placed on a future CUSD Board agenda. Our request for transparency on this significant project was denied.

Some serious questions arose for us at this time concerning the administration's and CUSD Board's conduct. They all obviously knew about the project. This project was not about personnel or litigation so was not subject matter that could be discussed in a closed session. Although not pursued, there appears to have been serial violations of the Brown Act by the board and superintendent. Engaging in communication between the board and administration about this type of subject matter outside a public meeting is strictly forbidden under this law.

We then began to look for legal documents that might have been filed. A neighbor discovered a less than forthright negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), filed by the superintendent, describing this $400,000 project of eight 70 and 80 foot light towers just feet from homes, as a "minor improvement" with "negligible impact". This document was found to have been filed at the county, not at the HMB City Hall as required. Every effort was being made by the district and donor to keep this project below the radar. By October, we had also discovered during an initial meeting with the donor's representative that a down payment had already been made on the lights and they were scheduled for installation in December.

We knew a project of this scope required a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Months after our rights to challenge this project would have expired under CEQA; the Half Moon Bay city manager finally demanded a CDP for this project. Had this happened earlier, and the district complied, there never would have been a legal dispute. The claim that the project was so inconsequential that it would not require a CDP in no way accurately reflected the scope of this project. If left unchallenged no CDP would be filed, families and their nest eggs would be seriously impacted and we would be denied our rights to a public discussion.

We then attended several negotiating sessions with the superintendent and others involved to find a reasonable compromise, which would allow the project to proceed but lessen the impact on these families. We proposed several options, one of which we believed really provided a win-win situation for all. We suggested moving the field 100 feet away from the homes, allowing space for some trees to buffer the lights. This proposal was rejected as" not feasible for the district". In retrospect, it certainly was feasible because the present project did just that, the field was moved. We also suggested looking into soft light technology. We were promised a report on the light spill with this newer technology but it was never produced. We discovered that the light spill zone would not be reduced only the glare for homes at a distance would be lessened. That still left three homes within the light spill zone that extended halfway across Highland Ave.

After several meetings, the 180 day legal time limit to register an objection to the CEQA filing was due to expire. We requested an extension of the time limit from the district noting we had not been aware of the document for well over a month due to the district's intentional lack of disclosure. This request was also rejected.

During these informal negotiations, we were assured by the district that if we chose to involve attorneys all school district legal expenses would be paid by the donor. The message was clear; "We have deep pockets and you don't". We were relieved that the district would not spend any money on this dispute. This actually made our decision easier. We only had to concern ourselves with how much we were going to be able to afford.

We had avoided engaging an attorney for as long as possible, we didn't have deep pockets. We had in good faith, offered a reasonable proposal to create a win/win situation for all parties but there was no willingness to compromise on the part of the district or donor.

We waited until the 180th day to engage an attorney. Since the district refused to extend the legal time limit, we had no other option for keeping the discussion going. We objected to their CEQA filing on numerous legal counts and requested that they file a CDP. That's all we wanted. Sometime after our filing, the Half Moon Bay city manager independently demanded a CDP from the district, rejecting the superintendent's CEQA filing.

In the midst of this legal dispute, the district suddenly requested that we withdraw our suit. We agreed to do so only if the district agreed to not erect lights on the field in its original location. The district did not produce this document as agreed to and the judge granted the superintendent another 30 days to produce it. About 12 days later, in our ongoing search for documents that the district might have filed, we discovered that, three days after meeting with the judge, the district chose to file a second CEQA document, another negative declaration for a revised project without notifying either our attorney or the Court. Neither our attorney nor the Court was pleased.

We objected to this new CEQA filing on its face. A CEQA filing does not allow segmentation of a project. The language used to describe this new plan included the phrase "but not limited to" followed by a list of improvements. This was not a proposal of "no lights". Lights were a distinct possibility if the filing was not challenged. Once again, the district was attempting to bypass the CDP process with a questionable CEQA filing. We requested that they correct this fatally flawed language in the document or rescind the filing.

The district then suddenly withdrew their original plan, which would not have met the legal requirements under the LCP, then requested a negotiated settlement from us. We arrived at this settlement through our respective attorneys. The district then filed the CDP for the present project. The project was approved by the Half Moon Bay Planning Commission and the new four million-dollar project is well under way.

There are many issues involving the lack of appropriate recreational facilities in the CUSD community for young people that need to be addressed. This however, is not just a school district issue. It is community issue and all parties must be involved in the resolution of this problem. However, the intentional delegation of authority to the superintendent on such issues in order to avoid the public process is not an acceptable means to this end.

I feel strongly that those to whom we entrust the education of our community's children must behave ethically and act within the law. I do not accept the rationale "It's for the kids!" to justify illegal and/or unethical behavior. Public bodies must uphold the highest ethical standards; abide by the law and guarantee that the public never be excluded from the conversation about public issues.

As a candidate for the CUSD Board, I pledge to encourage the CUSD board to exercise their responsibility to govern, be inclusive, communicate with all stakeholders and engage in open, ethical leadership.