Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 1110·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 61·2005 Daily Journal DAR 688·23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282·35 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20017
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 2005G033763California5,255 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

Essex Property Trust, Inc. (Essex), applied for a conditional use permit to construct an apartment building in an industrial area of Irvine, California (the City). The City issued a negative environmental declaration and a conditional use permit. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (Royalty), filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s actions, alleging the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it issued the negative declaration and the conditional use permit without preparing an environmental impact report (EIR). The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the petition. The court concluded that although the petition was timely filed, it was not timely served. We affirm.

As a general principle, if two different statutes of limitation apply to a particular claim, then the shorter period controls over the longer one, unless the statutes can be harmonized. Here, two different statutes apply to the period for service of Royalty’s petition, and can be harmonized. Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E) applies generally to challenges to a conditional use permit, and requires personal service…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.