San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced
216 Cal. App. 4th 1167
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Merced County Planning Commission approved William Morris's minor subdivision and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) at an October 14, 2009 meeting.
- The October 14 agenda did not disclose that CEQA would be considered via the MND, triggering Brown Act concerns.
- Petitioners challenged the Brown Act violation and separately alleged a CEQA notice violation; the trial court found a Brown Act violation but moot CEQA issues.
- Board of Supervisors granted petitioners’ administrative appeal on January 26, 2010 and directed rehearing with explicit CEQA notice on the agenda.
- The Commission re-heard on February 10, 2010, rescinded, re-noticed, re-certified, and re-approved the project and MND under policy direction from the Board.
- The trial court awarded Brown Act costs/attorney fees to petitioners, and the County appealed, arguing no Brown Act violation or proper mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brown Act agenda disclosure requirement | Morris petitioners contend MND action was not listed on the agenda. | County argues agenda implicitly contemplated CEQA and CEQA documents may be discussed. | Brown Act violated; failure to disclose MND on agenda. |
| Cure and correct under Brown Act | Cure/correct should not moot unless properly applied to preserve rights. | Subsequent Board-directed cures cured Brown Act violations. | Cure/correct provisions applied; Brown Act claim cured but merits of CEQA remain distinct. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for CEQA claim | CEQA claim should proceed with Brown Act action in single filing for efficiency. | CEQA claim was not exhausted because administrative review had not occurred before suit. | CEQA claim must be dismissed for lack of exhaustion; but mootness later affects remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., 87 Cal.App.4th 862 (2001) (liberal construction to remedial purposes of Brown Act)
- Los Angeles Times Communications v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, 112 Cal.App.4th 1313 (2003) (open meetings purpose and public participation)
- Carlson v. Paradise Unified Sch. Dist., 18 Cal.App.3d 196 (1971) (agenda description adequacy; essential topics must be disclosed)
- Moreno v. City of King, 127 Cal.App.4th 17 (2005) (agenda items must not mislead; specificity matters)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (2005) (exhaustion of administrative remedies as prerequisite)