A lawsuit regarding the previously approved dog park site was filed against the City on November 12. The Council never publicly disclosed that fact, either before or during its vote to cancel the site on November 16.
An agenda for last Monday’s meeting included an item by Trish Kelley proposing to reverse the previous Council decision selecting Oso Viejo Park for a dog park. She said she wanted to change her vote due to an outpouring of opposition from the neighborhood adjacent to the Park. The failure to disclose the lawsuit prevented the public from assessing whether the reversal was in whole or in part due to valid or embarrassing allegations in the 18-page lawsuit.
The Dispatch previously reported Lance MacLean and Frank Ury seemed to join the reversal reluctantly. MacLean, who led the dog park proponents in obtaining the site, was uncharacteristically subdued and completely silent during the deliberations.
The lawsuit was filed by the Oso Viejo Neighbors Association. The Introduction summarizes the allegations:
1. At the heart of this action is a dog park and a controversial elected official facing the prospect of being recalled at a special election next February. For years the City of Mission Viejo (”City”) has been carrying out a methodical process of conducting public hearings to vet with the community various locations within the City where it might be feasible to develop a special park where dog owners in the community could take their pets to run about off-leash. Last month, the member of the City’s city council (”Council”) facing recall abruptly short-circuited the City’s vetting process for the siting of a dog park by prevailing on the Council to (1) appropriate funding to begin developing the dog park, and (2) decree the specific location for the dog park.
2. Normally, this would not be an issue for the courts. However, perhaps following W.C. Field’s adage — “A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for” — several corners were cut by the Council in hastily making these two discretionary decisions; corners that the law does not allow the Council to cut.
3. First and foremost, Petitioner contends that, in cutting those legal corners to fund and site the dog park, the Council completely forgot about the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § § 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Tit. 14, California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.: the “CEQA Guidelines”), a statutory and regulatory framework often referred to as the “Holy Grail” of California’s environmental laws. Three days after the Council took its actions, a City staff person apparently realized the oversight and tried to put a fig leaf on it by filing a document claiming that the Council’s two dog park approvals were “categorically exempt” from CEQA.
4. But in trying to conceal one problem, the City staff person inadvertently created an even bigger one. The City’s Municipal Code dictates that mailed notice must be given to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of a project for which a CEQA categorical exemption is claimed. However, what with the CEQA exemptions the staff person claimed for the dog park being an afterthought on his part, this meant that the City had violated its own Municipal Code by failing to provide the necessary prior written notice that the twin issues of dog park funding and siting were going to be on the City Council’s meeting agenda.
5. It gets worse. In order to truncate the City’s methodical vetting process for the dog park involving public hearings before various City commissions, the Council member facing recall brought the issue before the Council as part of his personal “comments” at the public meeting. Treating his “comments” as action items, he made motions for the Council to approve both funding and siting for the dog park which were approved despite numerous protests. Petitioner contends that the Council could not, under the Ralph M. Brown Public Meetings Act (Gov. Code § § 54950 et seq.: the “Brown Act”), legally take action on items that were not listed as “action items” on the Council’s meeting agenda. Click here to view the entire lawsuit.
The law firm did not respond with a comment before this article was posted. It appears a dismissal will be in order since the City cancelled the Oso Viejo Site.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Congratulations to the Dispatch for publishing this story. Interesting. Trish Kelley listened to the adjacent homeowners and had a change of heart? Perhaps the pending lawsuit played a role in that action. Wasn’t she listening to the homeowners when they pleaded with her at a prior council meeting?
The local residents, who do not oppose a dog park, should be commended for their joining together in shutting down this targeted site which did not meet any of the criteria established by the city council.
It seems to me that we need a new Law Firm. How could they permit so many errors in Law to go on for so long?
It seems that Mr. Mac Lean is not the only problem on this City Council. I was under the impression that the City Attorney and City Clerk were usually in attendance at Council meetings to advise and direct the seated council as to the proper rules. It looks like the City Attorney needs to take some blame here as well.
I commend all those who quickly jumped into action to not only get to the bottom of this, but shed light on what might be an even bigger issues at a city level. I know the neighbors are not against having a dog park. They are just exercising their rights to be properly notified and be able to put it to a vote. Kudos to them for demanding what should have been full disclosure and due process from the get-go, and shame on the city for not allowing them that right!