Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin
205 Cal. App. 4th 195
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- SPAWN filed a CEQA petition in 2010 challenging the Marin Countywide General Plan Update EIR as inadequate.
- County certified the EIR and filed a notice of determination in 2007.
- The parties entered tolling agreements extending the 30-day CEQA filing period during settlement negotiations through September 14, 2010.
- In 2011 interveners sought to dismiss the petition as untimely, arguing tolling was not permitted under CEQA; the trial court sustained demurrers.
- The trial court held tolling agreements were not prohibited by CEQA or Government Code section 65009, and interveners timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May tolling agreements extend the CEQA filing period? | SPAWN argues tolling is permitted to promote settlement. | County contends tolling is allowed to the extent permitted by CEQA and related statutes. | Yes; tolling agreements extending the period are valid. |
| Must the recipient of an approval consent to a tolling agreement? | SPAWN (as challenge to county action) contends concurrence is required by CEQA. | County contends concurrence is not impossibly required when plan-wide actions are at issue. | Recipient concurrence is required; however, tolling between SPAWN and the county was valid in this plan-update context. |
| Does Government Code section 65009 apply to this CEQA challenge and bar tolling? | Interveners rely on 65009 to impose a separate 90-day limit. | County argues 65009 is not applicable or, if applicable, tolling may still occur under CEQA context. | Interveners' absolute 90-day limit does not preclude tolling; tolling agreements were valid notwithstanding 65009 considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (2010) (CEQA prompt resolution policy and settlement considerations.)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481 (2010) (CEQA's speedy resolution policy and costs of delay.)
- Brownrigg v. deFrees, 196 Cal. 534 (1925) (waiver of statute of limitations; public vs. private interests.)
- Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine, 125 Cal.App.4th 1110 (2005) (treatment of tolling in CEQA context with related statutes.)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (2007) (CEQA scope of project and related agency actions.)