Blair v. City of Novato
Filed 1/10/07 Blair v. City of Novato CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| BERNARD BLAIR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF NOVATO, Defendant and Respondent, WOODVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. | A111274 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CV042508) |
Plaintiffs are homeowners in Novato who oppose construction of a proposed subdivision by real party in interest Woodview Properties, LLC (Woodview). As will be explained in detail, plaintiffs opposed the project in extensive administrative proceedings before the City of Novato's Design Review Committee (DRC). Plaintiffs also opposed approval by the city council of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by Woodview that would in essence have declared that the administrative proceedings were ended. When these efforts failed, plaintiffs sought a writ of administrative mandamus to set aside the city council's action. The trial court denied relief, on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to commencing the action at law.
Plaintiffs appeal from that denial. They first contend that the trial court erred in concluding they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing from one or more decisions by the DRC. Plaintiffs also contend that, by reason of the city council vote, they did not receive adequate notice of the starting of the period within which they could commence an administrative appeal of the DRC decision to approve the project. We conclude that neither of plaintiffs' contentions has merit, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs describe themselves as â€
