Alert > Land Use and Development / CEQA and Land Use Litigation
CEQA’s Short Limitations Periods Apply Whenever an Agency Files a Notice of Exemption
In the second significant decision this year emphasizing the need for finality in land use decisions, the California Supreme Court held that notice of a CEQA decision that minimally complies with statutory requirements triggers CEQA’s short statutes of limitations regardless of whether the underlying CEQA determination was procedurally or substantively valid. Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, California Supreme Court, April 1, 2010.
In Stockton Citizens, Stockton’s Community Development Director purported to ministerially approve the construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, relying on a previously approved master development plan for the site. The director did so in the form of a letter stating that staff had reviewed the project plans and determined they were consistent with the master plan. The city subsequently filed a notice of exemption (NOE) under CEQA, announcing that the director’s determination fell within CEQA’s exemption for ministerial acts.
Over five months later, plaintiffs filed an action claiming CEQA violations. They argued that because the proposed store was not consistent with the master plan, and created new impacts that had not been studied before, the approval was not ministerial, and the project was therefore not exempt. They contended that the 35-day statute of limitations period for CEQA challenges after an NOE is filed was inapplicable because the director’s action was procedurally and substantively invalid.
The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding the plaintiffs confused the timeliness of the lawsuit with its merits. It concluded that finding statutes of limitations inapplicable based on the validity of the agency’s underlying action would undermine the legislature’s intent — clearly expressed in CEQA — that suits alleging an agency has “improperly determined” a project to be exempt from CEQA must be brought within 35 days after the filing of an NOE. It affirmed that “CEQA establishes and emphasizes public notification of an agency’s action or decision as the event triggering the shortest applicable limitations periods for lawsuits alleging noncompliance with the statute.”
This is the second decision the California Supreme Court has issued in 2010 articulating a bright line rule that a notice meeting CEQA’s minimal content requirements bars untimely suits. See Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. Of Supervisors, 48 Cal. 4th 32 (2010). In both cases, the court reasoned the notice adequately informed the public that the period within which a CEQA challenge could be commenced had begun to run, which was all that CEQA required. Plaintiffs were free to challenge any aspect of the procedural or substantive sufficiency of the agency’s decision, but only if they brought their action within the period specified by statute.
For more information on this alert, please contact the lawyers listed below:
Geoffrey L. Robinson, Partner
geoffrey.robinson@bingham.com, 415.393.2425
Barbara J. Schussman, Partner
barbara.schussman@bingham.com, 415.393.2380
Circular 230 Disclosure: Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, for the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers may rely only on opinions of counsel that meet specific requirements set forth in the regulations, including a requirement that such opinions contain extensive factual and legal discussion and analysis. Any tax advice that may be contained herein does not constitute an opinion that meets the requirements of the regulations. Any such tax advice therefore cannot be used, and was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties that the Internal Revenue Service may attempt to impose.
© 2010 Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726 ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
To communicate with us regarding protection of your personal information or to subscribe or unsubscribe to some or all of Bingham McCutchen LLP’s electronic and mail communications, notify our privacy administrator at privacyUS@bingham.com or privacyUK@bingham.com (privacy policy available at www.bingham.com/privacy.aspx). We can be reached by mail (ATT: Privacy Administrator) in the US at One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726 or at 41 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HF, UK, or at 866.749.3064 (US) or +08 (08) 234.4626 (international).
Bingham McCutchen (London) LLP, a Massachusetts limited liability partnership regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (registered number: 00328388), is the legal entity which operates in the UK as Bingham. A list of the names of its partners and their qualifications is open for inspection at the address above. All partners of Bingham McCutchen (London) LLP are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers.
Bingham McCutchen LLP, a Massachusetts limited liability partnership, is the legal entity which operates in Hong Kong as Bingham McCutchen LLP. A list of the names of its partners practicing in the Hong Kong office and their qualifications is open for inspection at the address above. Bingham McCutchen LLP is registered with the Hong Kong Law Society as a Foreign Law Firm and does not practice Hong Kong law. Bingham McCutchen LLP operates in Hong Kong in formal association with Roome Puhar, a Hong Kong partnership which does advise on Hong Kong law.
This communication is being circulated to Bingham McCutchen LLP’s clients and friends. It is not intended to provide legal advice addressed to a particular situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.