Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal. App. 4th 1484

Plaintiffs petitioned for writ of mandate to challenge Wal-Mart Supercenter approvals in Stockton’s Spanos Park West development.
Supreme Court in Stockton Citizens held CEQA suit timeliness tied to NOE filing; no 35-day window bypassing NOE.
Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, deeming non-CEQA claims time-barred under Govt. Code §65009(c)(1)(E).
NOE filed Feb. 17, 2004; Director’s December 15, 2003 letter/approval formed the basis for NOE.
Director acted as City’s zoning administrator under local ordinances; his actions approved the project as ministerial under the MDP.
Appellate court affirmed, holding the 90-day limit applies to zoning-administrator decisions under §65009(c)(1)(E).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Director’s letter constituted a ‘legislative body’s decision’ trigger	Stockton Citizens: Director isn’t legislative body; no trigger	Spanos/Wal-Mart: letter is approval under 65901/65903 powers	Yes, letter falls within §65009(c)(1)(E) and triggers the 90-day period.
Whether non-CEQA claims are time-barred by §65009(c)(1)(E) despite CEQA ruling	Second cause should survive as CEQA-only ruling previousl had no bearing	Second cause barred; rest derivative and barred as well	Second and derivative causes barred; judgment affirmed.

Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481 (Cal. 2010) (CEQA NOE timing governs 35-day filing window; Director’s NOE valid)
County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cal. App. 2010) (Counts as authority on scope of §65009(c)(1)(E) decision types)
Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004) (Addressed final administrative action and timing under §65009)
People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama County Bd. of Supervisors, 149 Cal.App.4th 422 (Cal. App. 2007) (Discussed interplay of timing/approval in limitations context)