Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove
203 Cal. App. 4th 1043
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Okasaki petition for writ of administrative mandamus against City Elk Grove challenging variance for Okwuosa pool within setback adjacent to Okasaki property.
- Variance approved by city council on August 26, 2009, allowing pool/span within a 50-foot setback (instead of required 75 feet).
- Okasaki petition filed December 9, 2009, more than 90 days after the variance decision; trial court demurred first and second causes as time-barred under Gov. Code 65009.
- Okasaki argued CCP 1094.6(d) extended the limitations period to 30 days after delivery of the administrative record upon timely record request, countered by City’s position that 65009 controls.
- Trial court sustained demurrers to first three causes; held 65009 governs the challenge to the variance and does not allow extension via 1094.6; fourth cause (Brown Act) opened to amendment but ultimately dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 65009 or 1094.6 governs the timeliness of the writ petition challenging the variance. | Okasaki argues 1094.6(d) extends the period. | City argues 65009 applies; no extension. | 65009 governs; no extension under 1094.6 applies. |
| Whether the 90-day deadline under 65009 is extended by an administrative-record request. | Okasaki timely requested administrative record. | No extension provided by statute. | No extension; 90-day period runs from decision. |
| Whether the first and second causes are time-barred given the timeliness ruling. | Claims not time-barred due to record request extension. | Claims barred by 65009. | Barred under 65009. |
| Whether the third cause of action for conflict of interest was properly addressed. | Conflict existed due to federal settlement. | Settlement did not create prohibited conflict. | Forfeited on appeal for lack of argument/citation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept., 127 Cal.App.4th 520 (Cal. App. 2005) (statutory limitations and fast-track challenges to planning decisions)
- Wagner v. City of South Pasadena, 78 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. App. 2000) (strict compliance with limitations and service periods)
- People v. Honig, 48 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 1996) (statutory structure and interpretive priority for specific vs. general statutes)
- People v. Superior Court (Jimenez), 28 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2002) (statutory presumptions and limits in public-law actions)