Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP: Decision to Deny a Zoning Change Subject to 90-Day Statute of Limitation

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP: Decision to Deny a Zoning Change Subject to 90-Day Statute of Limitation

General Development Co., L.P. v. City of Santa Maria, 2d Civil No. B228631 (Super. Ct. No. 1320579) (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd Dist., January 25, 2012)

By Katharine J. Mueller

An action challenging a legislative body's decision to deny a zone change is subject to a 90-day limitation period set forth in section 65009(c) of the California Planning and Zoning Law (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.). In June, 2009, General Development Co., L.P., filed for a zone change on property in the City of Santa Maria (the City). On February 16, 2010, the City Council denied the application. The developer challenged the City Council's action 97 days after the City Council's denial. The trial court ruled that the developer's challenge was time-barred by section 65009(c)(1)(B) of the Government Code, which requires an action or proceeding "to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul [a] decision . . . to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance" to be filed and served within 90 days of such decision. The Court of Appeal agreed.

General Development argued in its appeal that denial of a rezoning application was not a "decision" because City did not "adopt or amend a zoning ordinance" within the meaning of section 65009. It claimed that the 90-day limitation period applied only to a "decision" granting a zone change, not "decisions" denying a zone change, and asserted that a three-year statute of limitation should apply.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the word "decision" is broad and includes grants and denials. To read the wording in the narrow way suggested by General Development, said the court, would be contrary to the stated legislative goal of providing "certainty for property owners and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to this division." (§ 65009(a)(3).) There should not be a three-year "cloud" hanging over the property that could inhibit the free alienation and use of land; that, said the court, would be poor land use law.

View more from the Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog.

Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. 

In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. 

By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Disclaimer

....

Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Real Estate Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Real Estate Law publications:

Non-subscribers can purchase Property Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore

Non-subscribers can purchase Real Estate Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.