AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A group referred to as "the Neighborhood" appealed a decision by the Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) to approve a telecommunications tower. The City of Santa Fe declined to consider the appeal, deeming it untimely. The Neighborhood then appealed to the district court, which reversed the City's decision. The City sought to appeal the district court's decision but faced jurisdictional challenges regarding the timeliness and nature of its appeal efforts.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed the City's denial of the HDRB appeal, finding the Neighborhood's appeal timely based on due process considerations.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants-Respondents (the Neighborhood): Argued that the City should have heard their HDRB appeal, asserting that due process demands clarity on when a final action occurs, making their appeal timely.
• Appellees-Petitioners (City of Santa Fe and City of Santa Fe Governing Body): Contended that the district court acted in its original jurisdiction on constitutional due process grounds, thus their notice of appeal was timely filed under the applicable rules.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court acted within its appellate jurisdiction in reversing the City's decision to deny the Neighborhood's HDRB appeal.
• Whether the City's subsequent appeal efforts were timely and in the correct form to challenge the district court's decision.

Disposition

• The appeal by the City was dismissed due to the untimely filing of a nonconforming petition for certiorari.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Katherine A. Wray, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson concurring, determined that the district court acted in its appellate capacity when it reversed the City's decision. This determination was based on the City's authority and requirement to consider due process principles under the relevant ordinance when deciding on the timeliness of the Neighborhood's HDRB appeal. The City was therefore required to seek discretionary review through a writ of certiorari within a specified timeframe, which it failed to do. The City's notice of appeal could not be considered a timely nonconforming petition for certiorari, and its subsequent docketing statement was also untimely. The Court emphasized the importance of filing both a timely notice of appeal and a timely petition for writ of certiorari in cases of procedural uncertainty, noting the City did not present unusual circumstances to justify its untimely filing.