215 Cal. App. 4th 25
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bohemia submitted the development application in 2008 and the County required an EIR; a draft and final EIR were circulated, and the final EIR was certified July 8, 2010.
- Alliance appealed the final EIR certification on July 16, 2010; the County held a hearing on September 28, 2010 and certified the final EIR again.
- The notice of determination was filed September 29, 2010, making the petition to challenge the EIR due by October 29, 2010, but Alliance filed on November 1, 2010.
- Alliance alleged CEQA violations including inadequate analysis of air quality, traffic, urban decay, cumulative impacts, mitigations, and alternatives, and improper findings.
- Bohemia and the County demurred, the trial court sustained the demurrer as barred by the 30-day limitations period in Public Resources Code section 21167, and Alliance sought relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which was denied.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that section 473 relief does not extend the CEQA limitations period and citing Maynard v. Brandon and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP 473 relief applies to late CEQA petitions | Alliance argues excusable neglect justifies relief | Bohemia/County contend 21167 limits relief | No; 473 relief does not extend the limitations period under 21167. |
| Whether Maynard allows relief from missed limitations deadlines | Alliance relies on Maynard to permit relief | County relies on Maynard to deny relief | Maynard bars relief for missed limitation deadlines in CEQA petitions. |
| Whether prior CEQA cases support relief from procedural deadlines | Alliance cites Nacimiento, McCormick, etc. for relief | Court distinguishes them; not controlling here | Not controlling to permit relief under 473. |
| Whether the action was timely under CEQA and ancillary authorities | Alliance asserts miscommunication caused delay | Delay attributable to an untimely filing within 21167 period | Timely review not permitted; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2005) (section 473 not available to cure mandatory limitations failures (30-day deadline))
- Kupka v. Board of Administration, 122 Cal.App.3d 791 (Cal. App. 1981) (limits on relief for late filings; good cause not implied)
- Nacimiento Regional Water Mgmt. Advisory Committee v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 122 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. App. 2004) (473 relief limited where dismissal under 21167.4 due to excusable vs inexcusable mistake)
- Citizens of Lake Murray Area Association v. City Council, 129 Cal.App.3d 436 (Cal. App. 1982) (timing for when statute of limitations begins; clerk posting NOD)
- Garrison v. Board of Directors, 36 Cal.App.4th 1670 (Cal. App. 1995) (relation-back doctrine; form vs substance in amendments)
- McCormick v. Board of Supervisors, 198 Cal.App.3d 352 (Cal. App. 1988) (ambiguity in what constitutes a hearing request under 21167.4)
- Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. App. 1994) (CEQA dismissal, prompt resolution policy)