Members of the City Council pointed fingers at the La Jolla Community Parking District Advisory Board for creating a possible conflict of interest that is affecting all community parking districts, including the Pacific Beach Parking Committee (PBPC).
The immediate impact was the cancellation of the April 10 PBPC meeting so the City Council could decide if parking board members should be required to fill out financial disclosure forms.
But after a long debate at the April 15 council meeting, council members voted to send the issue back to the city attorney for another 30 days, frustrating people on all sides of the issue.
“Let’s go back to what seemed to trigger this issue: people in La Jolla that had a direct financial interest in parking facilities,” said District 6 Councilwoman Donna Frye. “That is what triggered this whole thing.”
Years ago, different districts in San Diego “” including Pacific Beach “” drafted a proposal to create their own parking districts; these bodies became known as parking advisory boards. In total the city council adopted a resolution to include six parking districts.
Months ago, a group called nopaidparking.org, composed of residents and merchants in La Jolla’s Village began an uprising against paid parking, and La Jollans for Clean Government, a watchdog organization, also threw its hat into the ring. Both groups alleged that the parking board was conflicted at best and may have been corrupt.
Steve Haskins, attorney for La Jollans for Clean Government, produced documents, including emails between La Jolla’s parking board members, alleging that members of the parking board violated the Brown Act, which governs meeting conduct, and the Political Reform Act.
Citizens demanded that city officials respond to a packet of documents Haskins’ group provided, which included alleged violations from board members ” including members Michael Harth, Peter Wagener and Mark Evans, who all recused themselves or resigned from the board.
In an email dated Nov. 4, 2007, Harth ” owner of Sunset Parking and Valet ” told Martin Mosier, current chair of the La Jolla parking board, that his company had extra space in his La Jolla garage.
“Would you and Tiffany be available to meet with Tedd Graff (our La Jolla Garage Supervisor) and I on Tuesday…to discuss ways to drive employees into this garage either by selling more monthly passes or having an employee daily rate,” Harth wrote.
Frye and the city attorney began looking into Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, which govern conflicts of interest and state transparency laws. To keep the board clean, parking members would comply with state law by filing a conflict of interest form “” similar to Statements of Economic Interest most city officials file. Because the parking board is community based, the city attorney worked to construct a special form for parking members.
Deputy City Attorney Michael Calabrese took that altered conflict-of-interest code to February’s San Diego City Council meeting. But the council denied the code and asked him to return in April with two options for the council ” a conflict-of-interest code applicable to all parking boards and a change in City Council Resolution 100-18, which governs parking boards. The change would sidestep the state conflict regulations by keeping the boards purely advisory. The council also asked the City Attorney’s Office if the parking boards could continue their operations.
Calabrese said he would agree as long as parking board members operated only in an advisory capacity. But when La Jolla’s parking board sent the March agenda, it said members would “discuss and make recommendations as to a parking plan in La Jolla.” San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre told Mosier his office was surprised that Mosier “intended to have the LJCPDAB act on a parking plan so quickly.”
Aguirre responded to Mosier, explaining that the board should halt its parking plans until a conflict-of-interest form was filed. His office was sifting through evidence suggesting that LJCPDAB “recommendations are, in fact routinely approved,” he said.
“We’ve located 30 instances over a decade or so where these boards came to the council with annual implementation plans, and in every one of those 30 instances that plan has been approved without modification,” Calabrese told the city council Tuesday, April 15.
Council President Scott Peters then voiced his concerns regarding disclosure, asking the council for more time. He also asked for a 60-day continuance because, he said, this is “an issue that has risen in La Jolla” and he looks to the community to find a solution. Peters then asked La Jolla’s parking board to refrain from meeting.
“Would the [disclosure issue] apply to all the planning boards, too?” Peters asked Calabrese.
Peters said he was concerned with a couple of different issues.
“The city clerk points out a significant increase [in filing disclosures] would increase the workload in her office,” Peters said. “We can achieve the objectives of the community without going through that same level of filing.
“I ask the parking board not to meet anymore until we can work this out. I will refer this to the mayor.”
Not all the city council members were happy about La Jolla’s parking district. District 3 Councilwoman Toni Atkins said her parking board ” the uptown board previously created “” has been suffering because of the actions of others.
“Why not just require La Jolla [to file],” Atkins said.
Frye said sending Calabrese away was a motion of futility, stating for the record that when he returned she would vote for a conflict-of-interest code.
District 2 Councilman Kevin Faulconer said that he supports giving the council more time, but he also said, “Some level of disclosure is important ” it just is.”