STOCKTON CITIZENS v. City of Stockton

The majority opinion reached its conclusion that the 35-day statute of limitations did not run by wrongly voiding a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) "approval." It did this by (1) claiming the City of Stockton (City) did not give timely notice of its approval even though the City did in fact give notice; and (2) improperly ruling in favor of plaintiffs' claims on the merits. Neither ground is a legitimate basis for tolling the statute of limitations. I therefore dissent. 1. Approval and lack of notice Relying on County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ] ( County of Amador ), the majority opinion concludes a public agency's approval must not be defective procedurally in order for it to trigger the 35-day limitations period. County of Amador , *Page 351 however, did not so hold. There, the issue was not whether the statute of limitations ran because the approval was procedurally defective; it was whether the statute ran where there had been no approval at all. We concluded there was no approval in that case because the public agency's action did not, as required by CEQA,…

Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Judy V. Davidoff, San Francisco, Michael D. Early, and Beth C. Tenney; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Arthur J. Friedman, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Briscoe Ivester & Bazel, John Briscoe, Lawrence S. Bazel, San Francisco, and Christian L. Marsh, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc.

William D. Kopper, Davis, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

Real Parties in Interest A.G. Spanos Construction Co., Inc. (Spanos) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) appeal from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate that set aside the approvals for a 207,000 square foot Wal-Mart retail store to be constructed in the mixed use (M-X) zone of a Spanos commercial and residential development in the City of Stockton (City) called Spanos Park West (also known as The Business Park). [1] The approvals were based on a letter to Spanos from the City's Community Development Department Director (Director) stating that "it has been determined" by an "[i]nitial staff review" that the plans for the store were "in substantial conformance" with a Master Development Plan…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS OPINION IS DEPUBLISHED UPON GRANTING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. THE OPINION APPEARS BELOW WITH A GRAY BACKGROUND.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 334 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 335 OPINION Real parties in interest A.G. Spanos Construction Co., Inc. (Spanos), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), appeal from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate that set aside the approvals for a 207,000 square foot Wal-Mart retail store to be constructed in the mixed use (M-X) zone of a Spanos commercial and residential development in the City of Stockton (City) called Spanos Park West (also known as The Business Park). 1 The approvals were based on a letter to Spanos from the City's community development department director (Director) stating that "it has been determined" by an "[i]nitial staff review" that the plans for the store were "in substantial conformance" with a master development plan adopted by the City. *Page 336 The master development plan…