Chaffee

Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 461·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 117·2004 Daily Journal DAR 1125·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 889
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2004A102550California2,722 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

L

Introduction

Appellant James Chaffee appeals from a judgment granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. We disagree with appellant that the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) (the Brown Act) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance of 1999 (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 67) (the Sunshine Ordinance) require that a general public comment period be provided at each session of a continued public meeting held to consider a single published agenda. Accordingly, we affirm.

H.

Facts and Procedural History

On May 16, 2002, the San Francisco Library Commission (Library Commission) held its regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioners Bautista, Chin, Higueras, and Steiman were present. The agenda for the May 16th meeting was posted on May 12, 2002, and included the following items: (1) Approval of the April 18, 2002 Minutes (Action); (2) Bond Program Manager’s Report (Discussion); (3) Art Enrichment Program (Action); (4) Design Excellence Program (Discussion); (5) Site Acquisition: Portola Branch (Action); (6) Library 2002/2003 Budget Update (Action); (7) Public Comment (Discussion); and (8) Adjournment (Action). The agenda also noted that public comment would be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.