Under California law, there’s a short statute of limitations (technically, it’s a “statute of repose” but who’s quibbling) for challenges to local government zoning decisions. The statute requires that a challenge must be filed within 90 days to “attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of a legislative body to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 65009(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
The statute “could be drafted with greater precision,” and it doesn’t expressly mention a denial of a request for a zoning change, only the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance. Thus, after a city denied a developer’s request for a zoning change and its petition for a writ of mandate was dismissed because it was filed 97 days later, the developer appealed, asserting that the statute required a 90-day challenge only when the city adopts or amends zoning. General Development Co., L.P. v. City of Santa Maria, No. B228631 (Jan. 25, 2012) (“Developer argues that if section 65009 was intended to apply to the denial of a zone change, the Legislature would have said so.”).
Not so, held the California Court of Appeal. The court applied the rules of statutory construction to reject the argument, holding that the term “decision” includes a denial of rezoning, even if the statute doesn’t expressly say so. The court held that the purpose of section 65009’s short limitations period is to provide certainty, and to allow the government and property owners to go forward without worrying about future challenges. Slip op. at 2.