HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2014 PH1 RiceCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.: P
Christian, Kevin
From: Mejia, Anthony IRECF IVED
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Christian, Kevin; Goodwin, Heather DEC 0 3 2014
Subject: FW: Airport overrule: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 123LO. CITY CLERK
Ph 112/09/14
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
San Luis Obispo City Clerk
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San
E amejia @slocity.org
T 805.781.7102
slocity org
Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
From: Kevin Rice
Sent: 12/3/2014 10:58 AM
To: Council ALL
Subject: Airport overrule: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
If just one thing stood out last night, it was the appearance and comments of CalTrans director Aileen Loe, who
stated:
"And we want to support you... As a partner, we are open and available to sitting down and working
through these issues."
Take heed now. CalTrans is telling you they are going to file suit.
What Aileen Loe did last night is known as "exhausting administrative remedies" (see below). CalTrans is
giving you every last chance to work with them. Exhausting administrative remedies is REQUIRED before
going to court. CalTrans is prepping to go to court where they WILL SAY they beseeched and pleaded with the
city council (you) to work through the issue. CalTrans is playing extra -nice right now because they want to
appear in court with "clean hands" having acted in good faith. They are prepping to go to court.
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941), 17 Cal. 2d 280, 293. Footnote 6 at page 292:
http: / /scholar.google.com /scholar case? case = 9631591651752614986 &hl =en &as sdt =6 &as vis= 1 &oi= scholarr
#1)292
[6] This is the doctrine of "exhaustion of administrative remedies." In brief, the rule is
that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought
from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will
act. The authorities to this effect are so numerous that only the more important ones
need be cited here as illustrations. [Numerous citations omitted.] The California cases
have consistently applied this settled rule. [Emphasis added.]
I've seen this before (Homeless Alliance, Friends of Oceano Dunes v. APCD, etc.). When an adverse party feels
they have reached an impasse, they very kindly extend every last option and plea. Then the lawsuit gets filed.
Why not continue to work with CalTrans at this time? What if you were in their position? The uncooperative
party is YOU if you close the door on an invitation to work together.
Are you ready to slam the door and get our citizens sued by the State of California's vast resources?
I hope not. That would be wrong. And, even if you believe CalTrans is wrong, you have an obligation to work
with CalTrans to AVOID A LAWSUIT.
Best regards,
Kevin Rice
(805) 602 -2616
0)