Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 24 conflicted with the more specific CEQA statute of limitations found in the Pub- lic Resources Code. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California, held that Save Lafayette Trees' planning and zoning law claims were untimely and thus properly dismissed. The court, however, also found that the CEQA cause of ac- tion was timely filed and served. In so holding, the court rejected Save Lafayette Trees' arguments that the 90- day statute of limitations in section 65009 did not apply. The court found it ir- relevant that the City had entered into an agreement approving the removal of trees under the section 6-1705 of the City's Municipal Code, rather than issuing a permit for their removal. The court found no difference between such an agree- ment and a permit in this instance. Accordingly, the court found that since sec- tion 65009 applied to an action challenging "any decision" of a "legislative body" regarding a permit provided for by a local zoning ordinance, section 65009's 90-day statute of limitations applied here. The court also rejected Save Lafayette Trees' argument that the City Munici- pal Code's 180-day statute of limitations for actions challenging City Council decisions applied. The court found that section 65009 expressly conflicted with the local ordinance, and thus preempted it. The court also found, with regard to the application of section 65009, that it was irrelevant that the City was not acting as a zoning board when it approved the tree removal Agreement. The court found that section 65009 applied to "matters listed" in sections 65901 and 65903 (including zoning permits), "regardless of the legislative body charged with making the decision." Still, the court agreed with Save Lafayette Trees that section 65009 did not apply to its CEQA action. The court found that section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E) and Public Resources Code sections 21167 and 21167.6 both related to the same subject: "the time period within which service of a petition chal- lenging approval of a zoning permit must be made." The court explained that, in cases such as this —where the statutes cannot be harmonized —the more specific applies. Thus, in the case, the court concluded that the more specific Public Re- sources Code provisions governed. Applying the Public Resources Code's 180- day statute of limitations, the court concluded that Save Lafayette Trees' CEQA action was timely filed and served. See also: Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119, fn 6, 23 Cal. Rpti: 3d 282, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20017 (4th Dist. 2005). © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9