California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 231 Cal.App.3d 243, 284 Cal.Rptr. 745 (Cal. App. 1991):
California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, 33000 et seq., 33360-33364) set forth detailed provisions to challenge the adoption of a Plan, it established an administrative procedure to challenge the Plan's adoption. Notices are given and public hearings are held, objectors are given an opportunity to participate in the statutory hearing process. (Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1487, 279 Cal.Rptr. 558.) If the objectors fail to exhaust their administrative remedies they are foreclosed from raising issues before the trial court not properly raised during the administrative hearing process.
Appellants attempted to subpoena parties and notice depositions, respondents filed a motion to quash. In each hearing before the court appellants failed to make a sufficient showing to justify said discovery in a limited review situation. Appellants had participated in the public hearings and were given an opportunity to present evidence and raise whatever issues they thought were important and relevant. Their failure to raise an issue or present evidence at the public hearings operates as a waiver of presenting such evidence or raising said issue before the trial court, whose function it is to review the record. The record exceeded 9,000 pages in length. Appellants were afforded an opportunity to review, challenge and proffer supplements to the record of proceedings. Appellants are not entitled to present additional or new evidence at the trial thus discovery pertaining to the introduction of new evidence is to be severely limited and within the sound discretion of the trial court. In the matter of Kahn v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist. (1974) 41 [231 Cal.App.3d 259] Cal.App.3d 397, 402, 116 Cal.Rptr. 333, the petitioner attempted to introduce before the trial court evidence of water rates charged in some 23 communities to challenge the rates set by the municipal utility district. Said evidence was rejected in that petitioner was present at the public hearing on the setting of the water rates, and although he objected to the rates, he presented no evidence to support his objections. Thus, he could not present additional or new evidence to the trial court not introduced at the hearing.
After the trial court had certified the record of proceedings as complete for purposes of review, the court denied appellant's renewed motion for discovery. Thereafter the court ruled on other requests for depositions and discovery. At each hearing appellant was permitted to make a showing that the documents sought or depositions requested were relevant and material to the preparation of their case for trial and had not been previously produced. Each time, the trial court denied the discovery after full consideration of the motions. The trial court exercised its discretion in determining whether the discovery sought would lead to relevant and material evidence. Appellants have failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion. Appellants sought to discover information which it could have sought and presented at the public hearings and has failed to show said information was not available at the time of the public hearings. (Jeffery v. City of Salinas (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 29, 39, 42 Cal.Rptr. 486.) Failure to raise an issue in protest at the public hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to have that issue determined by the council or the court.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.