California Court of Appeal

In petition challenging defendant-city's decision to approve three tract maps within a specific area without requiring the applicant to comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures, dismissal of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where: 1) the 90-day service of summons requirement of section 66499.37 applied to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) causes of action concerning a subdivision, because the requirement did not conflict with CEQA procedures such that CEQA actions would be excepted from the broad and well-established rule that any type of action challenging a decision under the SMA must comply with the 90-day requirement; 2) plaintiff's CEQA cause of action concerned a subdivision because it overlapped with the other SMA causes of action in the petition and could have been brought under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA); and thus 3) the trial court did not err when it dismissed the entire petition.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/24/2008
• Published 11/24/2008

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson, Abigail A. Broedling, and Veera K. Tyagi, Temecula, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gregory P. Priamos, City Attorney, and Kristi J. Smith, Supervising Deputy Attorney for Defendants and Respondents City of Riverside and City Council of the City of Riverside., Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Michael H. Zischke, and R. Chad Hales, San Francisco, for Respondents City of Riverside and Rancho La Sierra West Partnership, and Real Parties in Interest Rancho La Sierra West Partnership, Arlington Partners, Meridian, and Zuni Center Limited Liability Company., Lobb Cliff & Lester, Paul Cliff, Robert J. Mitchell, and David Cantrell, Riverside, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents Eddie R. Fischer, John L. West, Beverly J. West, Henry C. Cox II, Jacqueline N. Cox, The Tyler Street Group, and Jurupa Western, Inc.