Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito
(Case No. H051322)

In the recently published Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito decision, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, addressed important issues concerning the statute of limitations for filing legal challenges arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court’s decision underscores that CEQA’s statute of limitations only is triggered by the final decision of the lead agency, not by an intermediate decision that is subject to appeal.

Factual Background

This case involved the Betabel Project, a commercial roadside attraction in San Benito County, proposed by the McDowell Trust (applicant). The project received initial approval from the County Planning Commission (Planning Commission), which filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) on October 14, 2022, following its certification of the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Commission’s decision was later appealed to the County Board of Supervisors, which denied the appeals, certified the EIR, and filed a second NOD on November 10, 2022.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Protect San Benito County and Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (collectively, petitioners) challenged the Board of Supervisors’ approval by filing petitions for writ of mandate with San Benito County Superior Court on December 9, 2022. These petitions alleged that the project’s EIR violated CEQA and the project approvals violated state planning and zoning laws.

The applicant demurred on the grounds that the CEQA causes of action were time-barred because the petitions were filed after expiration of the 30-day statute of limitations period provided by Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c). The applicant argued that the 30-day period commenced when the Planning Commission filed its NOD on October 14, 2022.

The petitioners opposed the demurrer, contending that the 30-day limitations period commenced only when the Board of Supervisors filed its NOD on November 10, 2022, after denying their appeals from the Planning Commissions’ decision and approving the project.

The trial court agreed with the applicant, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgments of dismissal. The petitioners subsequently appealed from the judgments of dismissal on the ground that the trial court erred in ruling that their CEQA causes of action were time-barred under Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c).

Key Legal Issue

The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the statute of limitations for filing a CEQA challenge began upon the filing of the first NOD by the Planning Commission or after the filing of the second NOD by the Board of Supervisors.

Appellate Court Decision

To begin, the Court of Appeal, citing Public Resources Code section 21152, subdivision (a), observed that NODs are to be filed by local agencies “after the [project] approval or determination becomes final.” (Italics added.) The Court also referred to CEQA Guidelines section 15352, subdivision (a), which defines “approval” for purposes of CEQA. Under section 15352, “approval” occurs when the agency renders a decision that “commits the agency to a definite course of action.” Importantly, under section 15352, “[t]he exact date of approval of any project is a matter determined by each public agency according to its rules, regulations, and ordinances.”

Therefore, turning to the local rubric, the Court noted that, under the San Benito County Code, an approval from the Planning Commission is not final if it is appealed. More specifically, in San Benito County, the County Code specifies that the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit becomes final only if no appeal is filed within a designated 10-day period. If an appeal is filed, the approval is not considered final until action to approve or deny is taken by the Board of Supervisors.

In this case, the petitioners timely appealed the Planning Commission’s decision within the County Code’s 10-day period. As a result, the Planning Commission’s approval was not final, and its NOD did not trigger the 30-day statute of limitations for challenging the adequacy of the EIR. The project’s approval did not become final until the Board of Supervisors made its decision. Therefore, the Court found that the second NOD (filed on November 10, 2022) was the operative notice that triggered the 30-day statute of limitations for filing a CEQA challenge. As a result, the Court held the petitions filed by the petitioners were validly and timely filed after exhausting their administrative remedies at the local level.

Conclusion

In summary, this decision serves as a reminder that the statute of limitations under CEQA begins to run only after a final project approval is made by the lead agency. Clients should be aware that the timing of appeals and the finality of decisions are crucial in determining the deadlines for legal actions under CEQA. This case reinforces the importance of understanding the local agency’s procedures and the specific timing of when project approvals become final, particularly where multiple NODs are filed by the agency.

[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert.  Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]