Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> � Page 48 <br /> (29 Caf,App.�th 1442, 1448-1449, ital�cs added.) The Park Avenue NeJg►hbors <br /> Court reiterated that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies, by filing <br /> an appeal, eould not in any event be equitably waived since it is jurisdictional. <br /> Here, of course, the Committee has filed an administrative appeal. 1t did <br /> not misinfierpret direction given by the City and its staft and precisefy followed the <br /> City's clearly enunciated procedures for the filing of an appeal to the City Gouncil. <br /> Up until now, this City has consistently and pubiicly interpreted Section <br /> 48.2 of its Zoning Code to equate the date of a "�inal decisian or det�rminatio�" <br /> with the date of the Notice of Official Action. This �easonable interpretatian was <br /> explained by the City in writing to all parties and was a�so on the �ity's website, <br /> providing that an appeaf musfi be filed within 7 days of that official Notice. A "final <br /> determinationn may reasonably refer to a notice, as distinguished from a decision. <br /> Consistentfy, CEQA starts its own sfiatute of limitat+on with a "notice of <br /> determination" that follows the actuaf decision [usuafly] made at public hearing. <br /> There is more than one way to reasanably interpret the City's appeal ordinance. <br /> Park Avenue Neighbors thus in no way provides a "gotcha"to preclude the <br /> Committee's appeal in this matter. The Comrnittee has taken al! appropriate <br /> steps to exhaust administrative remedies; indeed, on the record before the <br /> Council i# is absurd to contend that the Committee has in any way faiied to fairly <br /> notify the City of its objections to the inadequate levei of CEQA review. <br /> The appea! is timely and must be heard as a matter of due process. Mr. <br /> Lanzone's telling commenfi thafi he thinks it a good idea for the Council to find the <br /> appeal untimeiy -- because otherwise CEQA issues wouid be "fair game" in a <br /> lawsuit — has no basis in law or equity. There is no fegal precedent nor fair <br /> reason to find this appeal untimely. Denying the appeal as untimely adds to legaf <br /> problems; it assuredly does not solve them. <br /> Thank you. Once again, the Committee respectfully urges the Council to <br /> deny the project and to exempt it from CEQA for purpases of the denial. <br /> Otherwise, an E1R must now be prepared on the ample record be#ore you. <br /> �"1 <br /> Susan Brandt-Hawley <br /> cc: cit�attorneyC�r��woodci��r.U� <br /> rlanZOne�adcl.corr� <br /> TPassanini�redwoodc�tv.orc� <br />