SAN JOSE — A resident’s complaint against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea over a permit to develop land adjacent to her property has been rejected because she did not file her complaint within 90 days.
Jacqueline Simonelli initially filed the complaint on May 10, 2013 and had her case rejected because she neglected to include Pot D’Oro, the permit recipient.
Simonelli successfully appealed her case and filed an amended complaint on May 27, 2016, listing D’Oro as a defendant.
However, her complaint was once again rejected, because her initial 2013 complaint was made more than 90 days after the City granted the contested permit on Feb. 5, 2013.
California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal said in a Oct. 15 decision that “no action or proceeding shall be maintained in any of the following cases by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced and service is made on the legislative body within 90 days after the legislative body’s decision.”
Cases that must be acted on within 90 days include: “To attack, review, set aside, void, or annul any decision on the matters listed in Sections 65901 and 65903, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to a variance, conditional use permit, or any other permit," the decision said.
It was undisputed that Simonelli missed the 90-day deadline. The judgment was affirmed without leave to amend.