Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> � Page 55 � <br /> Mayor Rosanne �oust � <br /> Cify of Redwood Gity F <br /> July 28, 2009. <br /> Page 2. I <br /> � <br /> Commission. Under the Fairfax Cade an appeal had to be filed within fen (�0) days of � <br /> , <br /> the decision of#he P{anning Commission. ln fact, no appeai was filed. PAN contended � <br /> they were m�sinfarmed by a Pianning Commissianer as to what their remedy was after <br /> Pi�nning Commission actian. PAN subsequentiy asked the City Councii to reconsider <br /> the project artd cvnsider a !a#e appeal by PAN. , <br /> ; <br /> : <br /> The cour�, in Park Area Neic�hbors, held tha# PAN had faiEed to timely fiie an ; <br /> appeal in ten (1�) days under the Fairfax Code and that such a faifure fo#imely file the i <br /> appeal is jurisdictir�nal, The court s�ated: <br /> "We conclude that neither lack of legal representation, nor any ; <br /> consequent�uinerability to purpor�ed misadvice on ma#ters of <br /> administrati�e procedure, relaxes the requiremen#that PAN must have <br /> exhausfed its administrative remedies as a jurisdictional prerequs�i#e to � <br /> resort to the courts, or excuses PAN's failure#o do so. The exhaustion ; <br /> doctrine is we(I roofed in stare decisis, and courts should be loathe#o ; <br /> canre out exceptions to such established procedural rules absenfi <br /> compelling reasons to do so." <br /> Applying the Park Area Neighbors case to our matter a# hand there are ` <br /> � <br /> similarities. First, the action to be appea{ed is from Planning Commission action, and � <br /> the time within which to appeal is set fior�h in the Redwood City Municipal Code which ` <br /> aIlows seven �7} days from �he date of Pfanning Commission action {stated in Section ; <br /> 48.2 as "final decision or determination'�. The Redwood City Planning Commission � <br /> acted ort May 19, 2�09 and its action was final, While FAPC did in fact fi(e an appeal, <br /> such an appeai, according to fhe Redwood City Finance Department receipt, is dated i <br /> May 28, 2�09 at 1:18 p.m. (see a#tached). Such an appeaf is jurisdictionally defective j <br /> as it was fifed two (2) days (ate. ( <br /> I <br /> Like the neighbors in Park Area Nei, hqrbors, FAPC received incorrect advice. in ; <br /> this case it came from the Redwood City Pianning staff wnich senf out a"�iotice of � <br /> �fficial Action"dated May 22, 2D09 and indicated that"any or ail of the decisions {of the <br /> ; <br /> Planning Commission) can be appealed to#he C[ty Council within seven days from #he <br /> ; <br /> date of this No#ice". There is nothing in the Redwood City Munic�pal Code that a(lows <br /> for the fiime wifihin which to file an appeal to be extended by such a staff notice, or any <br /> ofiher sfiaff action. in fact, unfike FAPC, our clien�did file a timefy appeaf on May 21, <br /> 2009 not wishing to take any chances with staff's advi�e regarding a N�fice of AGtion, <br /> nor with the �hen impending Memorial Day we�kend during which #he �eventh day wa� <br /> going to �'all. <br /> Q:1ARystrjl'�rlcG�wantMayo�Faus lwpd <br />