California Court of Appeal

In a suit challenging a city's handling of a company's proposal to build a large distribution facility in the city, alleging a) that the city's approval of the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provisions of the city's municipal code regarding permits, and b) that the city's agreement to reimburse the company for street improvements associated with the new facility constituted an illegal expenditure of public funds because it violated a section of the city municipal code prohibiting payments to developers, the trial court's dismissal of the action is reversed where a notice of exemption filed before the final approval of a proposed project is invalid and does not trigger the 35-day statute of limitations set forth in section 21167(d). Here, because plaintiffs have alleged that the city approved the project after it filed the notice of exemption, it cannot be concluded that the 35-day limitations period applies and bars the CEQA claim. However, the trial court properly held that plaintiffs have not established that the company, a private party, has any public duty that can be enforced by a writ of mandate.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/14/2012
• Published 09/14/2012

Judges

• Franson

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel