Latinos Unidos De Napa v. City of Napa
196 Cal. App. 4th 1154
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Latinos Unidos de Napa (plaintiff) petitioned for writ of mandate under CEQA to set aside revisions to Napa's housing element and related general plan/zoning amendments (Project) on the theory an EIR was required.
- City concluded no new significant environmental effects beyond the 1998 program EIR and filed a notice of determination (NOD) with the county clerk.
- Plaintiff filed the CEQA petition on September 17, 2009; defendants moved for judgment on the CEQA claim as time-barred by a 30-day statute of limitations under §21167(e).
- NOD was filed June 17, 2009 and posted June 17, 2009 to July 17, 2009; county clerk’s posting certificate indicated 30 days, yet plaintiff alleged no NOD was posted on July 17, 2009 when checked by plaintiffs' counsel.
- Court held CCP §12 governs time computation for posting; the NOD must be posted for the entire last day of the 30-day period, and posting for part of the last day does not satisfy §21152(c); therefore the 180-day limitations period applies and the case was timely for CEQA challenge.
- Judgment of dismissal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §12 governs posting period for NOD under §21152(c). | Plaintiff argues §12 exclusives first-day exclusion; posting counted under correct rule. | Defendants contend posting rules are distinct but akin to 30-day limitations. | CCP §12 applies; first day excluded, last day included. |
| Whether NOD posting must cover the entire 30th day. | Plaintiff contends posting ceased before end of 30th day. | Defendants argue partial posting on last day suffices. | NOD must be posted for the full 30th day. |
| What statute of limitations governs the CEQA challenge when posting is defective. | If posting defective, 180-day period applies. | If filing/posting complied, 30-day applies; debating substantial compliance not allowed. | 180-day period applies when posting not properly completed. |
| Is Green Foothills controlling regarding posting vs. filing obligations? | Green Foothills supports posting requirement to trigger limitations. | Green Foothills limited scope; argues filing alone triggers limitations. | Green Foothills supports posting + filing duty; posting must meet requirements. |
| Does substantial compliance doctrine apply to NOD posting period? | Substantial compliance could justify shorter posting. | Cannot apply substantial compliance to posting period; clarity needed. | No substantial-compliance reduction; must satisfy 30-day posting in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010) (posting and filing trigger CEQA limitations; posting required to be full 30 days)
- Lake Murray Area Assn. v. City Council, 129 Cal.App.3d 436 (Cal. App. 1982) (county clerk posting defects can toll the 30-day limit)
- Sierra Club v. City of Orange, 163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. App. 2008) (posting must occur to trigger CEQA 30-day period)
- Ley v. Dominguez, 212 Cal. 587 (Cal. 1931) (uniform rule excluding first day of computation for time periods)
- Scoville v. Anderson, 131 Cal. 590 (Cal. 1901) (early authority on computing time excluding first day; long repudiated later)
- Derby v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515 (Cal. 1894) (ancient rule; later overruled by Ley and Reichardt on time computation)
- Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal. 629 (Cal. 1927) (excluded first day in some contexts; limited by Ley)