## Facts

- San Diego pursued a public–private downtown redevelopment project centered on a new major league baseball ballpark.
- From December 1998 to October 1999, the San Diego City Council held numerous closed sessions related to real property negotiations for the project.
- The Council’s agendas for these closed sessions used generic descriptions for “conference with real property negotiator,” without identifying specific parcels or adequately describing the transactions.
- A private citizen, Melvin Shapiro, sued under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov’t Code § 54950 et seq.), alleging (1) inadequate agenda notice for closed sessions and (2) closed-session discussion beyond the posted agenda items.
- The superior court granted declaratory relief finding Brown Act violations and issued an injunction requiring more adequate agenda descriptions and limiting closed-session discussions to the noticed items.
- The City Council appealed, challenging the trial court’s authority to issue injunctive relief and disputing the Brown Act interpretations.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had authority under the Brown Act to issue injunctive relief without an explicit finding of threatened future violations.
2. Whether Brown Act provisions governing real property negotiation closed sessions require agenda descriptions more specific than the “safe harbor” language in Gov’t Code § 54954.5(b).
3. Whether, once in closed session under Gov’t Code § 54956.8, the Council may discuss matters merely “reasonably related” to listed items, or must confine discussion to the agenda’s described subjects.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, including both declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court held the injunction was authorized and supported by the record, which showed violations and a sufficient basis to prevent continued noncompliance.
- The court held that generic agenda descriptions were insufficient when they failed to provide meaningful notice of the properties and negotiations to be discussed.
- The court held closed-session discussions must remain within the scope of the noticed agenda items and the narrow statutory authorization for real property negotiations.

## Legal Principles

- Brown Act exceptions allowing closed sessions are construed narrowly to protect the public’s right to attend and receive advance notice of public business.
- The “safe harbor” closed-session agenda language in Gov’t Code § 54954.5(b) functions as a minimum, not a maximum; agencies must still provide enough detail under § 54954.2(a) to give meaningful public notice.
- For closed sessions under Gov’t Code § 54956.8, discussion is limited to negotiations over price and terms of payment for identified real property, and must track the subject matter fairly described in the agenda.
- Courts may grant injunctive relief under the Brown Act to prevent violations or threatened violations when the record supports a realistic prospect of continued noncompliance; an express finding of future violations is not required if the basis is otherwise supported.

## Conclusion

The court upheld declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the City Council to provide meaningful agenda notice for real property negotiation closed sessions and to confine closed-session discussion to the specific, noticed negotiation topics permitted by the Brown Act.


Shapiro v. San Diego City Council, 96 Cal. App. 4th 904, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)