Posts Tagged ‘Demurrer’


In May v. City of Milpitas (2013) __Cal.App.4th__ (Case No. H038338), a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge was found time-barred by a 30-day statute of limitations in the Government Code even though appellants argued that a 35-day statute of limitations in CEQA should control.  The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to sustain the city’s demurrer on the basis that the later-enacted and more-specific statute of limitations in Government Code section 65457, which provided an exemption applicable to the residential development project, must prevail over a statute of limitations in CEQA that may conflict.

Facts and Procedural Background

The City of Milpitas certified a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Transit Area Specific Plan on June 3, 2008.  Three years later, a 732-unit condominium project was proposed within the area covered by the Transit Area Specific Plan.  On November 1, 2011, the city adopted a resolution approving amendments to permits and a tentative map for the residential development project.  The city’s resolution also found the project to be exempt from CEQA review because it was consistent with the 2008 specific plan and did not have any significant effects on the environment.  On November 3, 2011, the city filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the project.  Both the resolution and the NOE expressly reference CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(2), and section 15061, subdivision (b)(3).

On December 7, 2011, petitioners Michael May and Carpenters’ Local Union No. 405 filed a CEQA challenge to the city’s approval of the resolution on November 1, 2011. The city and real parties in interest demurred on the ground that the action was time-barred by the 30-day statute of limitations under Government Code section 65457, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15182. The petitioners argued that the action was not time-barred because the filing of the NOE triggered the 35-day statute of limitations in Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (d), and CEQA Guidelines sections 15112 and 15062 instead. The trial court sustained the demurrer, finding that Government Code section 65457 governed, and the November 1, 2011 approval had triggered the 30-day limitation period in section 65457.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The court began its discussion with an overview of CEQA, the application of exemptions to projects, and the “usual limitations periods for CEQA challenges” provided by Public Resources Code section 21167.  In particular, the court emphasized that even meritorious lawsuits may be time-barred because the legislative intent behind CEQA and section 21167 was to ensure “extremely prompt resolution” of legal challenges brought under CEQA.

Proceeding to the merits, first the court explained why the 30-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65457 controls. Enacted in 1984 as part of the Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65457 provides an exemption from CEQA for residential development projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified after January 1, 1980.  Section 65457 only provides a qualified exemption, however, because a supplemental EIR for the specific plan must be prepared if any event listed in Public Resources Code section 21166 occurs.  Therefore, if substantial changes to the specific plan occur, or substantial changes to the circumstances surrounding the specific plan occur, or new information that could not have been known at the time the specific plan’s EIR was certified becomes available and major revisions to the EIR are required, then a supplemental EIR for the specific plan must be certified before section 65457’s exemption may be used for the residential development project.

Under subdivision (b) of Government Code section 65457, where a public agency approves a project using the exemption in section 65457, a legal challenge alleging that a supplemental EIR for the relevant specific plan was required must be filed within 30 days of the agency’s decision to “carry out or approve the project.”  This limitations period is mirrored in CEQA Guidelines section 15182, subdivision (e).

The court found that the City’s resolution factually invoked Government Code section 65457’s exemption and that the petition essentially alleged that a supplemental EIR for the 2008 specific plan is required because substantial changes to the circumstances have occurred and new information has come to light.  Although neither the resolution nor the NOE explicitly references section 65457, the court concluded that the resolution invoked section 65457’s exemption because it stated that the project was “consistent with the certified EIR for the Transit Area Specific Plan.”  The court also found that the resolution’s reference to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(2), implied that the City had concluded no events listed in Public Resources Code section 21166 had occurred.  Similarly, the court found that the resolution’s reference to CEQA Guidelines section 15061, subdivision (b)(3), reflected the City’s conclusion that the residential development project would not cause any new environmental effects.

Having established that Government Code section 65457 applied, the court found that the 30-day statute of limitations under subdivision (b) of section 65457 had started running upon the City’s decision to approve the project on November 1, 2011. Consequently, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer because the action filed on December 7, 2011 was time-barred.

Then, the court turned to the reasons why it rejected appellants’ arguments.  The court noted that appellants’ argument that they are requesting a “free-standing EIR” or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the development project, not a supplemental EIR for the 2008 specific plan, was in conflict with their petition’s factual allegations and ignored the appropriate use of tiering allowed by CEQA.  To support its conclusion, the court provided a brief examination of the legislative history of Government Code section 65457 and its predecessor former section 65453 to establish that the purpose of section 65457 is to excuse residential development projects from having to do a “free-standing EIR” or MND if they are consistent with a prior-approved specific plan.

The court also set forth reasons why Public Resources Code section 21167, and CEQA Guidelines sections 15062 and 15112 do not apply.  Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (d), provides a 35-day statute of limitations that runs from the filing of a NOE in actions alleging that a public agency has improperly determined that a project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to section 21080.  The court found section 21167 did not apply because the exemptions listed in section 21080 do not include Government Code section 65457.  In particular, the court noted that the exemption applied in this case was not one of the 33 categorical exemptions designated pursuant to of Public Resources Code section 21084 and specifically referenced by section 21080, subdivision (b)(9).  Therefore, the 35-day statute of limitations in section 21167 could not be controlling.

Regarding CEQA Guidelines section 15062, which provides a 35-day statute of limitations triggered by the filing of a NOE where a public agency finds a project exempt pursuant to section 15061, the court similarly concluded that section 15062 did not apply because Government Code section 65457 does not fall within the scope of exemptions described by CEQA Guidelines section 15061.  Concluding that section 15062 did not apply, the court also rejected the argument that the 35-day limitations period in CEQA Guidelines section 15112, subdivision (c)(2), applied because section 15112, subdivision (c)(2), only applies to situations where a NOE is filed in compliance with section 15062.

Finally, the court held that, to the extent any conflict existed between the statute of limitations in Government Code section 65457 and statutes of limitations in CEQA, the later-enacted and more specific statute of limitations controls.  Since Government Code section 65457 and Public Resources Code section 21167 both apply to CEQA challenges, they are equally specific to CEQA claims.  Therefore, because Government Code section 65457 was enacted after Public Resources Code section 21167, the statute of limitations in the former must prevail.

Jamulians Against the Casino v. Iwasaki (3rd Dist. March 29, 2012 [modified April 26, 2012]) __Cal.App.4th__ (Case No. C067138)

Plaintiff association Jamulians Against the Casino (JAC) contested the execution of a 2009 settlement agreement between Caltrans and Jamul Indian Village. The agreement had resolved federal litigation between Caltrans and the Tribe over application of CEQA to the Tribe’s plans to upgrade an interchange.  JAC alleged the agreement itself was subject to CEQA. JAC argued Caltrans had committed itself in the agreement to granting a permit for the interchange upgrade.

JAC filed a petition for mandate, to which Caltrans demurred. The Tribe made a special appearance to quash summons based on sovereign immunity. The Tribe asserted it was an indispensable party. The trial court sustained Caltrans’ demurrer and dismissed the action. The trial court declined to rule on the Tribe’s motions. JAC appealed.

On appeal, the Third District invited supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the trial court exceeded the proper scope of judicial notice in taking provisions of the agreement into account that did not appear on the face of the petition. The appellate court determined that the trial court had erred when ruling on the demurrer.

When it ruled on the demurrer, the trial court took judicial notice of the entire agreement. The trial court determined the agreement “as a whole” defeated JAC’s interpretation of a portion of the agreement upon which JAC based its assertion that Caltrans had committed to approval; however, in its pleadings, JAC had only cited small portions of the agreement.

The appellate court rejected the trial court’s approach, stating that a demurrer tests the pleading alone.  A court cannot sustain a demurrer on the basis of extrinsic material not appearing on the face of the pleading, except for matters subject to judicial notice. While the existence of documents can be judicially noticed, the truth of the contents of documents may only be judicially noticed in limited circumstances, such as for orders, judgments, conclusions of law, or findings of fact. It was therefore inappropriate for the trial court to take judicial notice of the terms of an ordinary document, such as the agreement, submitted in support of the demurrer. Further, it was inappropriate for the trial court to interpret the terms of the agreement. The appellate court was concerned that this use of judicial notice could convert a demurrer into an incomplete evidentiary hearing. The agreement, as a whole, was not properly before the trial court, and a demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading alone. Based on these facts and reasoning, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment.

The court also briefly discussed the issue of whether the Tribe was an indispensable party. The court noted that the designation of a party as indispensable is a discretionary determination requiring consideration of four relevant criteria: (1) the extent to which a judgment would prejudice the absent party; (2) the extent to which measures are available to mitigate any prejudice; (3) the ability of the court to address the issues in the absence of the party; and (4) the adequacy of the plaintiff’s alternate remedies if the action is dismissed. The appellate court declined to rule on this issue, stating appellate courts will not review an issue in the first instance that involves a trial court’s discretionary application of the law to the particular facts of a case.

This case may potentially increase the difficulty of prevailing on a demurrer where the contents of documents necessary to support the demurrer are not set forth in the pleadings. Other procedures, such as summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, may become necessary to place certain documents before a court for review and interpretation and obtain the same result as a demurrer.