HUM CPR Affiliates v. County of Humboldt CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 2022A161918California4,979 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

HUM CPR filed its petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court on October 4, 2019, making January 2, 2020, the deadline under

2 As a result, we need not resolve HUM CPR’s claim that the trial court erred by denying the petition on the basis that the County complied with CEQA, although we question whether the claim has merit. The threshold issue here is whether substantial evidence supports the County’s finding under section 21166 that no further environmental review was required, yet HUM CPR focuses primarily on whether the County complied with section 21094, which does not apply unless a project is subject to section 21166. (See § 21094, subd. (b)(3); Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1319–1320.)

2 section 21167.4(a) for it to submit a written request for a hearing. It did not file such a request by that date. The procedural background includes some irregularities. On October 17, 2019, shortly after the petition was filed, HUM CPR lodged with the trial court an uncertified administrative record. Usually, in a CEQA action the public agency prepares and certifies the administrative record and submits it to the…

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.