Tag: Statute of Limitations

SIXTH DISTRICT HOLDS CEQA ACTION IS BARRED UNDER COVID-19 EMERGENCY RULE 9’S EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

In Committee for Sound Water and Land Development v. City of Seaside (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 389, certified for publication on June 1, 2022, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that a nonprofit group’s CEQA claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations, even with the extended period afforded by Emergency rule 9, which the Judicial Council adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background

This case involves the City of Seaside’s certification of an EIR for the Campus Town 122-acre development project located on the former Ford Ord military base.

On March 6, 2020, the City issued a notice of determination for the Project. On April 5, the Committee for Sound Water and Land Development (the Committee), a nonprofit organization, submitted a request to the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) to receive written notice of (1) the City’s request of FORA to determine the Project’s consistency with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), and (2) FORA’s consistency determination hearing. On June 6, FORA held a hearing at which it determined the Project was consistent with the Reuse Plan. It did not notify the Committee.

On April 6, 2020, the Committee filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s approval of the Project and FORA’s consistency determination under CEQA. The trial court subsequently granted its request to dismiss the petition without prejudice. On September 1, 2020, the Committee filed a second petition, alleging that the City violated CEQA and that FORA violated its constitutional due process rights.

The trial court sustained the City’s and Real Party’s demurrers on the grounds that (1) the CEQA claims were time-barred, (2) the due process causes were moot because FORA ceased existing as of June 30, 2020, and (3) the second writ petition was a sham pleading because it was only filed to cure the Committee’s failure to request a hearing within 90 days of filing the original petition, as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.4. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Statute of Limitations

First, the court held that the petition was time-barred under the deadlines established by Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c), as extended by Emergency Rule 9, subdivision (b).

The original Emergency rule, adopted by the Judicial Council on April 6, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled the statute of limitations in civil cases for 90 days until Governor Gavin Newsom lifts the state of emergency order that the Governor had declared on March 4, 2020. In response to requests from the CEQA bar, the rule was subsequently amended to end the tolling period on August 3, 2020 for 30-day statute of limitations applicable to CEQA causes of action. Thus, the last day for the Committee to file its CEQA petition was August 4, 2020. The Committee relied on the original version of Emergency rule 9 and claimed that its counsel was unaware of the amendment. The petition, filed on September 1, 2020, was therefore untimely.

The court was unpersuaded by the Committee’s argument that the amendment of the rule resulted in impermissible “truncation” of the limitations period. It explained that the rule was not unreasonable because the 30-day period would have ended on April 6, 2020—several months earlier—but for Emergency rule 9, as amended.

The court, consequently, did not address the sham pleading doctrine issue.

Mootness

The court also held that no effectual relief could be provided to the Committee for the alleged due process violation because the relief requested—that the City re-notice and conduct a new consistency determination hearing regarding the Project—could not be granted because the law requiring the consistency determination was repealed. By law, former Government Code sections 67650–67700 were repealed, dissolving FORA and eliminating the statutory requirement for FORA to determine whether projects at the base are consistent with the Reuse Plan.

The court rejected the Committee’s arguments that the City is a “successor in interest” to FORA’s obligations under the Reuse Plan and should be charged with correcting the improperly unnoticed hearing. It explained that the repeal of the law means that there is currently no requirement for a Reuse Plan consistency determination. Therefore, the Committee’s due process cause of action is moot.

Because the matter was moot, declaratory relief was also not available, and the court accordingly held that it was appropriate for the trial court to sustain the demurrers without leave to amend.

SECOND DISTRICT FINDS 90-DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO LAWSUIT ALLEGING CITY FAILED TO OBTAIN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO ADOPTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE

In Coastal Act Protectors v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 526, the Second District Court of Appeal held a lawsuit alleging the City of Los Angeles was required to obtain a coastal development permit (CDP) prior to the adoption an ordinance imposing restrictions on short-term vacation rentals was subject to the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009 subdivision (c)(1)(B). Because the lawsuit was not filed with 90 days, the court dismissed the case.

Background

The City adopted an ordinance imposing restrictions on short-term vacation rentals in December 2018. More than a year later, Coastal Act Protectors (CAP) filed a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandate to enjoin the City from enforcing the ordinance in the Venice coastal zone until the City obtained a CDP pursuant to the California Coastal Act, arguing that the ordinance constituted a “development” under the Act.

The trial court concluded that the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B), applied to the City’s adoption of the ordinance, and CAP’s petition was therefore untimely. It reasoned that the City’s purported duty to obtain a CDP was a procedural task to perform in enacting a lawful ordinance; therefore, CAP’s petition challenging the City’s failure to obtain a CDP constituted an action to “attack, review, set aside void, or annual” the decision of the City to adopt the ordinance, bringing it within the ambit of Government Code section 65009 subdivision (c)(1)(B). The trial court also addressed the merits of the petition and concluded that the ordinance was not a “development” under the Coastal Act. CAP appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, CAP argued that the City’s purported failure to comply with the Coastal Act when it adopted the ordinance was not an “action” or “decision” contemplated by section 65009 of the Government Code, but was instead subject to the three-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (a), for actions “upon a liability created by statute.”

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that CAP’s petition constituted an action to “attack, review, set aside void, or annual” the decision of the City to adopt the ordinance, and therefore, the 90-day limitations period applied. The court explained that, unlike in cases where it would have been impossible for a petitioner to bring a lawsuit within 90 days, the Coastal Act predated the County’s ordinance. If the City did have a duty to obtain a permit for application of the ordinance to residences in the Venice coastal zone, the court held, that duty would have existed when the City enacted the ordinance. The statute of limitations in the Government Code therefore applied. Because CAP waited over a year to file suit, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the petition was untimely. The court concluded by noting its determination comported with the Legislature’s stated intent to “provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding” local zoning and planning decisions. (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (a)(3).)

Since its holding on the statute of limitations issue was dispositive, the Court of Appeal did not address whether the ordinance constituted a “development” subject to the CDP requirements of the Coastal Act.

– Elizabeth Pollock

In a Procedurally-Dense Opinion, First District Court of Appeal Clarifies that Real Parties in CEQA Cases Are Not Always Indispensable Parties

In Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of California (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 705, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s determination that the developer and operator of a proposed campus expansion project were not indispensable parties to a lawsuit challenging the Regents of the University of California’s (Regent’s) approval of that project. In doing so, the court held that Assembly Bill No. 320 (AB 320) (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.)—which amended CEQA to require agencies to identify the recipients of project approvals on a project’s notice of determination (NOD) and to require CEQA petitioners to name and serve those persons or entities listed on the NOD—did not alter the court’s analysis of whether a party is “indispensable” to the lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (b) (CCP section 389(b)).

Background

The Regents approved a project to demolish an existing parking structure, construct student housing above a new parking structure, and develop a new academic building adjacent to the new residential building (project). The Regents prepared and certified a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for the project. On May 17, 2019, the Regents filed an NOD, which identified American Campus Communities (ACC) and Collegiate Housing Foundation (CHF) as the parties undertaking the project. ACC is the developer for the project, and CHF is the ground lessee and borrower for the housing component of the project.

On June 13, 2019, petitioner Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the Regents’ certification of the SEIR on the ground that the Regents violated CEQA. The petition named the Regents as a respondent, but did not name ACC or CHF as parties. Nor did petitioner serve ACC and CHF. On September 18, 2019, petitioner filed a first amended petition, which added ACC and CHF as real parties in interest. The amended petition acknowledged that ACC and CHF were listed as parties undertaking the project in the NOD, and thus were being named pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5, subdivision (a), which requires the entities identified as recipients of project approvals on an NOD to be named as real parties in interest.

ACC and CHF filed demurrers to the first amended petition, asserting that petitioner failed to name them as parties within the applicable statute of limitations and that they are necessary and indispensable parties to the litigation, so the entire action should be dismissed. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, but did not dismiss the lawsuit. The court held that ACC and CHF should have been named as real parties because they were listed on the NOD as the parties undertaking the project. Because petitioner had failed to amend its petition to name them as parties within 30 days after the Regents filed the NOD, petitioner’s challenge against ACC and CHF was time-barred under Public Resources Code section 21167. The court held, however, that the failure to timely name ACC and CHF as real parties did not justify dismissing the case because ACC and CHF were not indispensable parties under CCP 389(b).

ACC and CHF appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding they were not indispensable parties. Petitioner filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in applying CEQA’s 30-day statute of limitations to the lawsuit because, according to petitioner, the Regents’ NOD for the project – the filing of which triggered the 30-day statute of limitations – was defective. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer.

Discussion

Appealability

As a threshold matter, the appellate court considered whether the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer was appealable. Petitioner argued that it was not because the appeal arose from an interlocutory (non-final) order and thus violated the “one final judgment” rule. Furthermore, petitioner argued, the issue of whether AOC and CHF are indispensable parties remained in the underlying action because that issue was also raised by the Regents, who remained a party to the action, so the court should not consider that issue yet. The court rejected these arguments. The court explained that in actions involving multiple parties, an order fully disposing all of the issues as to one party is appealable, even if those same issues remain as to the other parties. Accordingly, the appeal was proper.

Necessary and Indispensable Parties

The court next considered whether the trial court erred in determining that CHF and ACC were not indispensable parties. If CHF and ACC were indispensable parties, the lawsuit must be dismissed in full. If they were not indispensable, then petitioner’s lawsuit against the Regents could move forward. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that CHF and ACC were not indispensable parties.

Assembly Bill 320 Did Not Alter a Court’s Analysis of Whether a Real Party is “Indispensable”

CEQA currently requires petitioners to name, as a real party in interest, any person or entity identified on an NOD as a recipient of the project’s approval. Prior to 2012, however, CEQA did not require the recipients of the project approvals to be identified on the NOD. CEQA did, however, require any recipient of a project approval to be named as a real party in interest. The phrase “any recipient of an approval” was not defined by the statute, leading to confusion in the courts.

In 2011, the Legislature passed AB 320, which amended CEQA to require agencies to identify the recipient of a project’s approval on the project’s NOD. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21108.) It also amended CEQA to require petitioners to name the entities identified on the NOD as real parties in interest and to serve the petition on those entities. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6.5, subd. (a)). The AB 320 amendments also provided that the “failure to name potential persons, other than those real parties in interest described in Public Resources Code, § 21167.6.5, subdivision (a), is not a ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6.5, subd. (d).)

ACC and CHF argued that AB 320 was intended to provide “finality and certainty” as to who must be joined in a CEQA action and, therefore, CCP 389(b), which provides an equitable balancing test for determining who constitutes an indispensable party, does not apply. The court rejected this argument, holding that the AB 320 did not alter judicial analysis of whether a party is indispensable.

ACC and CHF argued that the express language of Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5, as amended by AB 320, demonstrates that CCP 389(b) does not apply. Specially, subdivision (d) of that statute states: “Failure to name potential persons, other than those real parties in interests described in subdivision (a), is not grounds for dismissal pursuant to Section 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Italics added.) The court disagreed that this language indicates that CCP 389(b)’s equitable balancing test does not apply when the petition fails to name a real party. As the court explained, the statute does not explicitly state that CCP 389(b) cannot be applied in CEQA actions in which the real party has not been properly named and served. Rather, that statute only suggests that the failure to name a real party in interest may be grounds for dismissal, depending on the equitable factors set forth in CCP 389(b).

Turning to the Legislative intent, the court found that in enacting AB 320, the Legislature did not intend to prevent application of CCP 389(b). Rather, the bill was only meant to clarify who constitutes a real party in interest, as there had been confusion on that issue in the courts. Moreover, AB 320’s Legislative history suggests that rather than intending to limit CEQA actions, AB 320 was intended to “prevent the dismissal of important and meritorious CEQA cases.” Applying a blanket rule that the failure to timely name a real party in interest constitutes a ground for mandatory dismissal of a CEQA case would frustrate that intent.

Application of CCP 389(b)’s Equitable Factors

The court next considered whether the trial court erred in holding that ACC and HCF were not indispensable parties. Under CCP 389(b), if a necessary party cannot be joined, “the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscious the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; (2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; (4) whether the plaintiff or cross-complainant will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (b).)

Applying these factors, the trial court held that ACC and CHF were not indispensable parties. Among other things, ACC and CHF’s interests were closely aligned to that of Regents because ACC and CHF were undertaking the project for the Regents’ own use and benefit. Moreover, petitioner would have no way of challenging the SEIR if the case was dismissed. On the other hand, ACC and CHF were parties in a related case challenging the same SEIR and were thus unlikely to be harmed by a settlement.

On appeal, ACC and CHF argued that they had fundamentally different interests in the project than the Regents. The Regents’ interest was to add housing and academic space to the campus, whereas ACC and CHF’s interest was to develop and operate the project. The court disagreed, explaining that the Regents, like ACC and CHF, had a strong interest in moving forward with the project; the fact that the Regents might have different motivations for doing so was immaterial. Further, contrary to ACC and CHF’s assertion, the Regents had a strong economic interest in the project because the Regents would manage and operate the new parking structure and the new academic building and the Regents would regain ownerships of the project once the project’s debt was repaid. ACC and CHF had failed to cite any evidence that they had unique financial interests or would be more harmed by an adverse judgment than the Regents. Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that ACC and CHF were not indispensable parties.

Petitioner’s Cross Appeal – Did the Trial Court Err in Applying CEQA’s 30-Day Statute of Limitations?

Turning to the cross appeal, the court held that the trial court properly applied CEQA’s 30-day statute of limitations to the first amended petition. Petitioner argued that the statute of limitations should not apply because the Regents’ NOD for the project failed to accurately describe the project. In particular, the NOD did not explain that the project would result in an increase in student enrollment. The court disagreed that such information was required, holding that an increase in student enrollment was not a material component of the project. To the contrary, the NOD and SEIR indicated that the project was intended to accommodate the existing student body and planned growth, not necessarily to increase enrollment. Although it is possible that the project could result in an increase in enrollment, the record did not suggest that increasing enrollment was a component of project. Therefore, the trial court correctly held that the Regents’ filing of the NOD triggered CEQA’s 30-day statute of limitations.

Implications

The Court of Appeal was unwilling to interpret AB 320’s amendments to CEQA as modifying judicial analysis of whether a party is indispensable in a CEQA case. Although Public Resources Code 21167.6.5, as amended, could be interpreted as implying that the failure to name a real party in interest is a ground for dismissal under CCP 389(b), as the court noted, the statute does not explicitly require such a result. Thus, where a CEQA petitioner fails to name all parties listed as approval recipients on an NOD (or a notice of exemption (NOE)), case law decided under the former statute is still relevant to the question of whether a party is indispensable. The case also clarifies that although a project might result in changes to the existing baseline (e.g., an increase in student enrollment), that change need not be described as a component of the proposed project in the NOD or NOE.

First District Court of Appeal Holds That a Necessary and Indispensable Party is Not Bound to a Tolling Agreement That It Did Not Sign

In Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay Regional Park District (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 21, the First District Court of Appeal held that PG&E, a necessary and indispensable party in the case, was not bound to an agreement to toll the CEQA statute of limitations executed by only the petitioners and the respondent public agency.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2017, the East Bay Regional Park District’s (District) Board of Directors issued a resolution accepting funding from PG&E as compensation for the removal of 245 trees on District property near PG&E’s natural gas transmission pipelines. PG&E issued this funding as a part of its “Community Pipeline Safety Initiative.” The District and PG&E later signed an MOU for the implementation PG&E’s initiative and ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the area near the natural gas pipeline. On June 27, 2017, the District filed a Notice of Exemption after finding the MOU and related activity categorically from CEQA.

On July 31, 2017, Save Lafayette Trees, Michael Dawson and David Kosters (Appellants), and the District entered into a tolling agreement to toll all applicable statutes of limitations for 60 days. PG&E did not consent to this agreement. On September 29, within the 60-day tolling period, Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the District’s approval of the MOU under CEQA, as well as for violations of local ordinances and state constitutional due process rights. The action named PG&E as a real party in interest. PG&E demurred to the CEQA cause of action as time-bared by both the 35-day and 180-day statute of limitations periods under Public Resources Code section 21167. The trial court sustained the demurrer.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Upholding the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal determined that PG&E was not bound to the tolling agreement between Appellants and the District. The court concluded that PG&E was both a necessary and indispensable party in the litigation, and therefore, was entitled to assert or waive the statute of limitations defense. The court noted that CEQA does not statutorily authorize tolling agreements, which means that they are not a statutory right. Rather, tolling agreements are private agreements between parties that have no effect on parties not in privity. Citing Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 195 (“Salmon Protection”), the court explained that CEQA does not prohibit tolling agreements to extend the limitations period, but to be effective they must include the recipient of an approval (the project proponent), the public agency, and the would-be petitioner. Because PG&E was a necessary and indispensable party, it was not bound to the tolling agreement to which it was not a signatory.

The court further reasoned that binding an indispensable party like PG&E to a tolling agreement to which it did not consent would defeat the purpose of the limitations period in Public Resources Code section 21167 to “protect project proponents from extended delay, uncertainty and potential disruption of a project caused by a belated challenge to the validity of the project’s authorization.”

The court also rejected Appellants’ argument that the 180-day limitations period had not run because they did not have constructive notice of the project. Appellants claimed there was no constructive notice because the removal of the trees was not included in the Board’s agenda for the project nor the accompanying description of the Board’s resolution. Public Resources Code section 21167 provides that the 180-day period begins after the agency’s decision or commencement of a project. The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that a public agency’s formal decision to carry out or approve a project is deemed constructive notice for potential CEQA claims. In this case, the court determined that the MOU for funding the tree replacement was consistent with the Board’s resolution and the project as outlined in the staff report, and did not, as Appellants asserted, constitute a “substantial difference” that would not provide constructive notice. The court explained that any flaws in the project approval process do not delay the applicable limitations period where, as here, the public agency gave notice of the very approval Appellants challenged.

The court concluded that the 180-day limitations period thus began to run on March 21, 2017, when the Board made its final decision and expired on September 18, 2017, eleven days before Appellants commenced their action. Therefore, the court held that the CEQA cause of action was properly dismissed as untimely.

– Veronika S. Morrison

Sixth District Holds City’s Failure to Send Notice of Determination Did Not Excuse Plaintiff’s Failure to Name Indispensable Party Within Limitations Period

The Sixth District Court of Appeal in Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose (Feb. 9, 2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 783, held that the City of San Jose’s failure to send a Notice of Determination to a member of the petitioner organization, in violation of Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), did not excuse the petitioner’s failure to name an indispensable party in a CEQA action before the statute of limitations expired.

BACKGROUND

A light industrial center project was planned for construction on a primarily fallow farmland site in San Jose. Mark Espinoza, a member of the petitioner organization, Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, requested that the City’s environmental project manager place him on the list to receive the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Project.
Later that month, Microsoft Corporation purchased land from the original owner and took over as the project applicant. The San Jose City Council initially approved the project and associated EIR at an October 2017 meeting. The meeting agenda incorrectly referenced the previous landowner instead of Microsoft. Microsoft was, however, correctly referred to as the project applicant at the hearing. A second meeting was held to reconsider the project approval and EIR in December 2017. The notice for that hearing correctly identified Microsoft as the property owner, but the resolution approving the project incorrectly referenced the previous owners.

The City filed two NODs for the project. The first NOD, which was sent to Espinoza, listed the wrong project applicant. The City later realized the mistake and issued a second NOD that correctly listed Microsoft as the applicant. The City did not send Espinoza the second NOD.

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate within 30 days of the first NOD, alleging violations of CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law. The petition named the previous property owners as real party in interest, based on the information in the first NOD. Two weeks after the 30-day statute of limitations for the CEQA cause of action expired, the previous owners’ attorney notified the petitioner’s counsel that Microsoft had acquired the property and was named as the applicant in the second NOD. A month after receiving this notice—and well after the 30-day limitations period had run—the petitioner filed an amended petition naming Microsoft as a real party in interest.

Microsoft and the City demurred to the CEQA action in the amended petition, arguing that it was time-barred because petitioner failed to name Microsoft as the real party in interest before the limitations period expired. The trial court determined that the initial petition was defective for failing to join Microsoft, and consequently dismissed the CEQA cause of action as untimely.

COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Failure to Name Applicant in NOD as Real Party in Interest
Under Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5, subdivision (a), in addition to naming as a defendant the agency that approved the project, a petitioner must name as a real party in interest the “person or persons identified by the public agency” in the NOD. Here, the petitioner did not dispute that Microsoft was a necessary and indispensable party under CEQA because it was named as the applicant in the NOD. Instead, the petitioner argued that its failure to name Microsoft should be excused because the NOD sent by the City named the wrong party and the City did not resend the new NOD after the error was corrected. The court disagreed.

Although the court acknowledged the City violated Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), by failing to send the second, corrected NOD to Espinoza, it concluded that CEQA contains no relief for the City’s violation. The court ruled that the City’s violation could not excuse or cure the amended petition’s untimeliness because Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), itself provides that the “date upon which [the NOD] is mailed shall not affect” the statute of limitations. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s emphasis that potential CEQA litigants must pay close attention to NOD filings before initiating litigation.

Additionally, the court reasoned that the second NOD was properly filed with the county clerk, posted at the county clerk’s office, and made available for review by all potential litigants—thereby providing constructive notice of the correct parties to name in a potential action. The court further noted that petitioner had actual notice of Microsoft’s status as the applicant because it had participated in the public hearings at which Microsoft was identified and the public notice for the City’s re-approval hearing listed Microsoft as the owner.

Because the petitioner failed to name Microsoft within the 30-day statute of limitation period after the corrected NOD was filed, the court held that the trial court’s dismissal was appropriate.

Material Defect
The petitioner also argued that the 30-day statute of limitations was not triggered because the NOD was materially defective, and therefore, the 180-day limitations period should apply. The court easily rejected this argument because the petitioner did not claim that the second NOD was insufficient or incorrect. The petitioner only claimed that the posting of two contradictory NODs essentially amounted to an NOD defect. The court disagreed, determining that the second NOD contained all required information and was therefore not defective.

Relation-Back Doctrine
The court also disagreed with the petitioner’s argument that the relation back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 should apply. The court determined the petitioner’s ignorance of Microsoft’s status as the project applicant was unreasonable because the second NOD was correct and provided constructive notice of Microsoft’s identity. Additionally, the petitioner had received actual notice of the second NOD from the former owners’ attorney and still proceeded to wait two months to file its amended petition—a delay, which the court pointed out, was longer than even the initial limitations period.

Estoppel
Finally, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the City and Microsoft should have been equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. It concluded that even if the City’s failure to send Espinoza the second NOD was intentional, the petitioner’s reliance on that failure would be unreasonable. Again, the City’s timely filing of the second NOD with the county clerk’s office gave all potential litigants constructive notice of the correct parties to name in a CEQA action.

– Veronika Morrison

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of CEQA Action as Untimely

On April 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/Macarthur Park v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 7 Cal.App.5th 368 affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend because the petitioner’s claims were barred by the famously short statute of limitations for actions brought under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

On March 3, 2017, after holding a public hearing, the advisory agency for the City of Los Angeles approved a vesting tentative tract map for the Lake on Wilshire Project, a mixed-use project consisting of a hotel, a residential tower, and a multi-purpose center with a theater. Prior to approving the tentative map, the advisory agency adopted a mitigated negative declaration. The city filed a notice of determination (NOD) on March 15, 2017.

Subsequently, on October 12, 2017, the planning commission approved conditional use permits for the project—finding that no subsequent review was required. Two tenants of an existing building on the project site appealed the planning commission’s decision. The city council denied the appeals on January 31, 2018, and further adopted a resolution approving general plan amendments in connection with the project.

On March 2, 2018, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the approval of the MND as violating CEQA. The city and real parties in interest filed a demurrer. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds that the petitioner’s claims were time-barred under CEQA for failure to seek relief within 30 days after the NOD was filed on March 15, 2017.

In holding that the petitioner’s suit was untimely, the court found that application of the statute of limitations bar to the petitioner’s challenge was straightforward. The petitioner did not bring the CEQA action until March 2, 2018, nearly a year after the city approved the tentative map and posted the NOD. The court explained that there were only two situations where the filing of a NOD would not trigger CEQA’s statute of limitations—if the NOD is invalid on its face because the information required by the CEQA Guidelines is missing or incorrect, or where the NOD is filed before a decision-making body has approved the project. The court found neither of those circumstances existed.

Rather, the petitioner had attacked the validity of the NOD based on the advisory agency’s authority to make CEQA finding, including that: (1) the planning commission (not the advisory agency) was responsible for initial project approval and CEQA review; (2) the advisory agency lacked authority under the municipal code to make CEQA findings; (3) the advisory agency’s CEQA decisions were not properly appealable to an elected body; and (4) the authority to approve the project was improperly bifurcated from the authority for CEQA approval. In rejecting this argument, the court, quoting the California Supreme Court’s decision in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 499, stated that the petitioner ‘confuses the timeliness of a lawsuit with its merits.’” To the extent a petitioner wished to challenge the advisory agency’s authority to make the initial project approval or adopt the MND, the court held that those arguments needed to be made within the applicable statute of limitations period. Because they were not, the petitioner was precluded from raising such arguments.

Fourth District Reverses Dismissal, Holds Streets and Highway Code Does Not Exempt Caltrans Project from CEQA Review, and Petition Adequately Pled Equitable Estoppel

In Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned the San Diego County Superior Court’s judgment sustaining the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) demurrer and dismissal of Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision’s (CRCD) petition for writ of mandate. The petition claimed Caltrans improperly exempted a highway interchange project from CEQA review and engaged in misconduct that precluded Petitioner from timely filing the action. The Court of Appeal found that Streets and Highway Code section 103 did not exempt the project from CEQA review, and the petition sufficiently plead facts about Caltrans’ misrepresentation of the review process to establish a factual dispute about whether Caltrans was equitably estopped from asserting the 35-day statute of limitations defense.

Background

In 2005, Caltrans filed a notice of preparation (NOP) for an EIR analyzing construction of two freeway interchange ramps that would connect the I-5 and SR 56 highways in San Diego (the I-5/SR56 Project). The I-5/SR56 Project was part of the larger North Coastal Corridor (NCC) project — a multi-project effort proposed by Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to improve transportation in the La Jolla and Oceanside area.

Streets and Highway Code section 103 went into effect in January 2012. The section provides the California Coastal Commission with integrated regulatory review of a “public works plan” (PWP) for NCC projects, rather than traditional project-by-project review and approval. Four months later, Caltrans circulated a Draft EIR for the I-5/SR56 Project. The Draft EIR explained that “following circulation of the FEIR, if the decision is made to approve the Project, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be published for compliance with CEQA and a Record of Decision will be published for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”

In October 2013, Caltrans issued an FEIR for a separate NCC highway-widening project. The report explained that section 103 did not eliminate project-specific CEQA or NEPA review—rather, it provided the Coastal Commission with streamlined review. In 2014, Caltrans and SANDAG issued, and the Coastal Commission approved, the PWP for the 40-year NCC project. The PWP explained that it did not supplant CEQA, NEPA, or other regulatory review schemes for individual projects proposed under the NCC.

In June 2017, Caltrans released a Final EIR for the I-5/SR56 Project. The report reiterated that, if it approves the Project, the agency will publish a NOD to comply with CEQA and a Record of Decision to comply with NEPA. However, in contradiction to the language above, the Final EIR also added that the passage of section 103, together with Public Resources Code section 21080.5, “mandate that instead of being analyzed under CEQA, the [NCC Project] and all of the projects included therein, shall be addressed under the CCC’s review per its certified regulatory program.” The FEIR reasoned that because the I-5/SR56 Project was identified in the PWP, and the Coastal Commission approved it in 2013, CEQA review was no longer required.

Though Caltrans concluded CEQA no longer applied to the I-5/SR56 Project, it maintained that public disclosure of the Project’s impacts was “still desirable.” Therefore, it released the Final EIR to satisfy CEQA’s analytical and disclosure requirements, and provided the public with a 30-day review and comment period from July 14, 2017 to August 14, 2017. However, before this period commenced, Caltrans approved a “project report” for the I-5/SR56 Project on June 30, 2017, and filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) on July 12, 2017. The NOE concluded that the Project was exempt from CEQA and its impacts were analyzed pursuant to the Coastal Commission’s certified regulatory program.

CRCD’s counsel first became aware of the NOE on September 28, 2017. After Caltrans refused CRCD’s request to rescind the NOE or agree to a 180-day statute of limitations, CRCD filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief 35 days later on November 1, 2017. Caltrans filed a demurrer to the petition and the trial court sustained it without leave to amend. The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice. CRCD appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Fourth District reviewed the trial court’s decision denying CRCD leave to amend and sustaining Caltrans’ demurrer de novo, and considered: (1) whether Streets and Highway Code section 103 exempts the I-5/SR56 Project from CEQA review; and (2) whether CRCD’s petition sufficiently alleged facts showing Caltrans was equitably estopped from raising the 35-day statute of limitations. The Court treated Caltrans’ demurrer as having admitted all of the properly pled material facts in the petition. The Court stated that a demurrer brought on statute of limitations grounds will be overruled if the relevant facts do not clearly establish that the action is time-barred.

Section 103 Does Not Exempt Caltrans from Conducting CEQA Review of the I-5/SR56 Project

First, the Court applied traditional rules of statutory construction to interpret section 103 as a matter of first impression. The Court held that the section did not statutorily exempt Caltrans from conducting CEQA review of the I-5/SR56 Project because it only exempted the Coastal Commission’s approval of the PWP. The Court reasoned that the Legislature intended the PWP to function as a “long range development plan” that could be approved under a certified regulatory program, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21080.09 and 21080.5. This certified regulatory program only provided the Coastal Commission with approval authority. Further, section 103 only authorizes the Coastal Commission to prepare substitute documents when certifying or approving the PWP; it did not exempt Caltrans from conducting project-level CEQA review and preparing an EIR for the I-5/SR56 Project.

Finally, the Court rejected Caltrans’ argument that the Coastal Commission’s approval of the PWP implicitly approved the I-5/SR56 Project. The Court explained that the PWP included numerous alternative projects for the NCC, but did not include the I-5/SR56 Project, as defined in the Final EIR. Had the Legislature intended to exempt Caltrans from preparing an EIR for the Project, or provide Caltrans with a certified regulatory program, it would have expressly done so. Because the plain language of section 103 does not provide for such exemptions, Caltrans was required to conduct individual, project-level CEQA review of the Project.

Petitioner Alleged Sufficient Facts Showing Caltrans Was Equitably Estopped from Relying on the Statute of Limitations Defense to Overcome Caltrans’ Demurrer

The Court’s independent review of the petition indicated that CRCD pled facts that sufficiently showed Caltrans was equitably estopped from relying on the 35-day statute of limitations for actions challenging notices of exemptions. A government agency may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense if the petition indicates that the agency’s fraudulent or misrepresentative conduct prevented a reasonably prudent person from timely seeking legal advice or commencing litigation. Here, Caltrans informed the public in its Draft and Final EIRs that Caltrans would file a NOD if it decided to approve the I-5/SR56 Project. However, Caltrans did not inform the public, commenters, or interested parties about its decision to file a NOE instead of a NOD. Caltrans’ statements and conduct further suggested that it would not approve the Project until mid-August 2017, after the public comment and review period closed. The Court held that there was, at minimum, a disputed question of fact whether, by approving the Project in early July after repeatedly stating that project approval would follow the announced Final EIR circulation and review period, Caltrans misled CRCD about facts Caltrans intended to be acted on. CRCD’s petition adequately pled that CRCD was ignorant of the true state of facts, which precluded CRCD from commencing the instant action before the 35-day statute of limitations period expired.

For these reasons, the Court held that Caltrans’ demurrer must be overruled and the trial court’s judgment dismissing CRCD’s petition must be reversed and vacated.

Bridget K. McDonald

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Ruling that Mitigation Measures are Inadequate and EIR is Required for Mixed-Use Development Project in Agoura Hills

On February 24, 2020, the Second Appellate District in Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll et al. v. City of Agoura Hills et al. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665 affirmed the trial court’s decision to require an EIR instead of an MND for a mixed-use development on 8.2 acres because the adopted mitigation measures deferred action, lacked performance criteria, and/or were otherwise inadequate.

Background

The “Cornerstone Mixed-Use Project,” proposed by Agoura and Cornell Roads, LP, and Doron Gelfand (“Appellants”), consists of 8.2 acres of development, including 35 residential apartment units, retail, a restaurant, and office space on an undeveloped hillside in the City of Agoura Hills. The project site is covered mostly by the Agoura Village Specific Plan (adopted in 2008 after its final EIR was certified) with a small portion located within a Significant Ecological Area. After Appellants submitted applications for a development permit, conditional use permit, oak tree permit, and tentative parcel map, the City prepared and finalized an MND for the project in November 2016. The Planning Commission voted to approve the project and adopt the MND. The local chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, but the City Council approved the project and adopted the MND. The City Council found “no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment” because the project included feasible mitigation measures, reducing all effects to less than significant.

Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll filed a petition for writ of mandate followed by a first amended petition on August 10, 2017, adding CNPS as a petitioner (“Petitioners”), alleging multiple CEQA violations, a violation of planning and zoning law, and a violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. The trial court granted the petition as to the CEQA and oak tree ordinance claims, denied the planning and zoning law claim, and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its project and permit approvals, and to set aside the MND to make way for preparation of an EIR. The project applicants appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s CEQA Decision

The Court reviewed Appellants’ claims under the “fair argument” standard, which requires finding that a lead agency abused their discretion if substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. This standard creates a relatively low threshold for requiring an EIR pursuant to “‘legislative preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.’” Three CEQA resource areas were litigated—cultural, biological, and aesthetic. Appellants asserted, repeatedly, that mitigation was adequate and an EIR was not required, and the Court repeatedly disagreed. Overall, the Court found that certain mitigation measures set forth in the MND were “not feasible,” “improperly defer[] mitigation,” or were “inadequate to mitigate the project’s potentially significant impacts.” Affected resource areas are briefly discussed below.

Cultural Resources

The project site contains an identified prehistoric archaeological site that was previously determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. Three mitigation measures were included in the MND to address potential impacts to the site: (1) construction monitoring, notification of finds, and preservation in place of any resources (i.e., avoidance); (2) notification if human remains are encountered; and (3) a data-recovery excavation program if the site cannot be avoided. The Court found this mitigation constituted improper deferral because, pursuant to an expert opinion on the record, the site could not be avoided as prescribed in the first measure without a project redesign and therefore the third measure would be necessary. The Court also found that the third measure delayed “formulation of several components of the data recovery plan until some future time.” For example, the third measure called for the preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), yet did not explain how this MMRP would actually mitigate impacts, and there was no evidence in the record that inclusion of such information was impractical or infeasible prior to project approval. Appellants challenged the “evidentiary value” of the expert opinion, but the Court noted that any “conflict in the evidence” should be resolved in an EIR and that there was no debate as to whether the project would have a significant effect on a cultural resource, just on how it might be mitigated.

Biological Resources

The project site contains three special-status plant species that could be significantly impacted by project grading, landscaping, and fuel modification activities: Agoura Hills Dudley, Lyon’s pentachaeta, and Ojai navarretia. Again, three mitigation measures were included in the MND to reduce impact significance: (1) avoidance if feasible for two of the species, but if not, preparation of a restoration plan that includes plant surveys, onsite restoration, and offsite preservation; (2) the same measure for the third species; and (3) locating and flagging of all three species within the fuel modification zone and the use of buffers, other protocols, and monitoring for protection. The Court found the first two measures inadequately mitigated impacts and were infeasible, largely because of statements on the record asserting that restoration of “‘rare plants is next to impossible’” and “‘experimental’” and because the City relied on outdated surveys conducted during the drought in adopting the measure. The measures called for updated surveys but the record provided no evidence as to why such surveys could not be conducted prior to project approval. The measures also failed to provide performance criteria for determining the feasibility of avoidance or in the alternative, maintenance plans. The third measure was found to be inadequate because it did not properly consider the full expanse of fuel modification zones nor did it account for ongoing fuel modification activities, as it applied only to construction.

The project site also contains native oak trees, 35 of which would be removed by the project. Two mitigation measures were included in the MND to reduce significant impacts: (1) replacement of oak trees either onsite or via in-lieu fees paid to the City to acquire land for new tress; and (2) submittal of an oak tree survey, report, and preservation program to the City for approval. The Court found the first measure to be inadequate because mass grading required for the project would cause a loss of subsurface water to any onsite replacement trees, which could result in failure; yet this water deficit was not addressed in the measure. Also, substantial evidence existed showing that oak woodlands are “‘impossible to recreate’” or at least “‘often unsuccessful.’” Lastly this measure was inadequate because the in-lieu fees to be paid to the City would not be not part of a program that has undergone its own CEQA review, which is required “‘to provide a lawful substitute for the “traditional” method of mitigating CEQA impacts.’” The second mitigation measure was found to potentially lack effectiveness because that same subsurface water deficit was not considered, thereby calling into question any claims of long-term survival of preserved oak trees.

Aesthetic Resources

The project site contains a “distinct” knoll of oak trees that likely would be removed for project development. The MND acknowledged the potential loss of this scenic resource but claimed mitigation reduced the impact to less than significant. This mitigation included some avoidance measures and also pointed to the oak tree measures (discussed above) for restoration and preservation. The trial court found this mitigation to be inadequate. Although Appellants claimed the Petitioners failed to properly exhaust this issue (discussed below), the Court found that evidence in the record demonstrated that the knoll may not be preserved under project design and that, even if it were, the subsurface water deficit would jeopardize its continued existence, and no in-lieu fee could “reduce the impacts on aesthetic resources” of this loss.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision on Appellants’ Other Claims

Administrative Remedies Were Exhausted

Appellants repeatedly contended that Petitioners did not exhaust their administrative remedies and therefore forfeited their claims. They also contended that Petitioners did not address the issue of exhaustion in their first opening brief, and therefore could not submit supporting evidence. Addressing the second claim first, the Court found that Petitioners did preserve the general issue of exhaustion because there is no requirement that the issue must be argued in an opening brief and, nevertheless, their opening brief cited evidence that was later used in Petitioners’ reply brief to show exhaustion. This evidence demonstrated that exhaustion was “not a new legal theory raised for the first time” on reply. The Court also found that Petitioners expressly alleged exhaustion in their petition and “lodged the complete administrative record” as part of the writ proceedings. Further, the trial court’s rejection of Appellants’ supplemental brief on this issue was warranted because in filing it they had directly violated a court order stating that “the issue of exhaustion was thoroughly argued.”
As to the first contention, appellants raised exhaustion as a defense to each of Petitioners’ CEQA claims. The Court considered “the totality of [the] record” by looking to various portions demonstrating that most of Petitioners’ claims were preserved. It looked specifically to public comments, City Council hearing transcripts, other correspondence from environmental groups and experts, and documentation from the City’s own consultants to find again and again that the City was “‘fairly apprised’” of the “underlying concerns behind Petitioners’’ claims and thereby had the “‘opportunity to decide matters [], respond to objections, and correct any errors before the courts intervene.’”

Court Rejected Standing and Statute of Limitations Defenses

Appellants asserted both that Petitioner Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll lacked standing because Petitioners failed to show that they timely objected to project approval and that Petitioner CNPS was barred from the action because they joined the suit after the statute of limitations had run. The Court declined to consider the merits of either claim. It found that Appellants had forfeited their statute of limitations argument by not properly asserting it “‘in a general demurrer or pleaded in answer’” and, therefore, without a statute of limitation violation, CNPS remained a petitioner with uncontested standing. The Court was quick to point out that Appellants claims on these points were made for the first time in their appellate reply brief “[n]otwithstanding their [own] arguments on forfeiture.”

Attorney’s Fees Are Recoverable and Appellants Are Jointly and Severally Liable

The trial court awarded attorneys’ fees to Petitioners and assigned joint and several liability to both the developer Agoura and Cornell Road and its representative Doron Gelfand. Appellants first argued against the award by asserting that Petitioners did not provide notice of the CEQA action to the Attorney General “in accordance with section 21167.7 [of the Public Resources Code] and Code of Civil Procedure section 388” that requires notice be served within 10 days of filing a pleading. On this point, the Court found that, although Petitioners did not serve the Attorney General notice of the first amended petition, they did properly notice their original petition, which was not materially different than the first amended, thereby giving the Attorney General “ample time to intervene.” The Court further pointed to case law emphasizing that a lack of strict compliance with the 10-day notice rule “was not an absolute bar to attorney’s fees.” It further concluded that a declaration from Petitioners’ attorney attesting to notice could stand as evidence in lieu of formal proofs of service of that notice. Appellants then argued that Gelfand could not be held personally liable because he was neither the applicant nor the property owner. But, in utilizing the test articulated in Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1181, the Court found that Gelfand was a “real party who pursued a direct interest in the project that gave rise to the CEQA action and actively participated in the litigation” and, therefore, was liable. The record contained ample evidence showing that Gelfand was, at one time, “‘the owner of the property’” and had personally made several requests to the City regarding the project, and was listed “as the sole project applicant” on City resolutions approving project entitlements.

Oak Tree Ordinance Was Violated

The City’s oak tree ordinance allows the cutting of oak trees with a permit but disallows removal of more than 10 percent of a subject property’s total estimated canopy or root structure. The project would result in removal of up to 36 percent of oak trees on site in violation of this ordinance. Appellants did not argue against that fact but did assert Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on this claim. The Court addressed both the merits of the claim and exhaustion (see above) and agreed with the trial court in finding that, in approving the oak tree permit for the project, the City violated its own “‘duly adopted law’” and therefore the permit must be vacated.

Casey Shorrock

Fourth District Court of Appeal Holds City’s Scenic View Ordinance Is Considered a Zoning Ordinance under Gov. Code Section 65901 and Therefore Subject to 90-Day Service Deadline for Petition in Section 65009

In a unanimous opinion, the court in Weiss v. City of Del Mar (2019) 39 Cal.App. 5th 609, upheld the trial court and found that the 90-day service deadline in Government Code section 65009 applied to a planning commission action on a municipal scenic view ordinance. As a result, the court held that a petition for writ of mandate that was served on the City three months after the deadline was time barred.

Background

In August 2016, Petitioner Shirli Weiss submitted an application to the City of Del Mar under its Scenic View Ordinance requesting that Torrey Pacific Corporation, her neighboring property owner, trim its “‘wildly overgrown’” vegetation and trees to restore the ocean view from her property. The Planning Commission held a hearing on the application and, though divided, denied her request. The City Council issued a 2-2 split decision on her appeal in July 2017 which, under the City’s rules, reinstated the Planning Commission’s decision to deny her request.

Weiss filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City and Torrey Pacific in September 2017, but did not serve the City with the petition until December 2017. The respondents jointly moved to dismiss under the 90-day service requirement in Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E). The trial court granted the motion and found it was “‘undisputed’” that this statutory deadline was not met. Weiss appealed. In her appeal, she acknowledged that she served the City more than 90 days after the City Council denied her appeal but contended that section 65009’s deadline did not govern her action.

Time Barred by Section 65009

The Court of Appeal considered the “‘usual and ordinary meanings’” of the plain language in section 65009 within the context of the entire statute. Section 65009, subdivision c, plainly states that a “challenger must file and serve the public entity within 90 days of the challenged decision.” This statute of limitations, the court explained, applies to adoption or amendments of specific plans, general plans, zoning ordinances, development agreements, and regulations attached to specific plans, and all actions “‘done or made prior to any of these decisions.’” (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (c)(1).) The service requirement also applies to “‘any decision on the matters listed in Sections 65901 and 65903.’” (Id.) Sections 65901 and 65903 primarily apply to actions related to a zoning ordinance, such as a conditional use permit, variance, or “‘any other powers granted by local ordinance’” to the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator. (Id. at § 65901, subd. (a).) The court noted that section 65903 includes zoning board of appeals decisions.

Weiss argued that the City’s Scenic View Ordinance is not a zoning ordinance because it is not within the Municipal Code zoning rules and regulations. The court disagreed, and determined that the Planning Commission was “functionally acting in a zoning board capacity” when it ruled on Weiss’s application. The court explained that the substance of the Scenic View Ordinance required the City to “undertake[] zoning and planning responsibilities,” and therefore it did not matter whether the ordinance was within the City’s Municipal Code. The court cited to Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 148, where the court held that a tree ordinance was a zoning ordinance. The court noted that any decision made under the Scenic View Ordinance is “quintessentially a public entity decision involving…a land use and zoning determination.” But, the court said, even if it were not a zoning/land use determination, the “‘any other powers’” clause in section 65901 is broad and includes decisions on “a range of issues outside” the categories listed in sections 65901 and 65903.

Weiss also argued that sections 65009 and 65901 only apply to planning or zoning decisions on a project or development, but do not apply to enforcement of an ordinance. Weiss cited section 65009’s stated purpose—to provide “’certainty regarding decisions’” so that owners and governments can “‘proceed with projects.’” The court disagreed with this argument because, particularly where statutory language is “clear and unambiguous,” general statements of statutory purpose “do[] not override the substantive portion” of a statute.  Weiss also argued that the 90-day deadline in section 65009 had only ever been applied to projects or development and never in circumstances like those at issue here. The court agreed with Weiss, but explained that there was no authority stating that section 65009 is triggered only for challenges to projects or developments.

The court also rejected several final arguments from Weiss. First, she argued that the court’s decision to apply the 90-day service rule here would render the statute applicable to all of the Planning Commission’s actions. The court disagreed, pointing back to statutory language that limits 65009 to “zoning and similar land use determinations.” Next, Weiss claimed that the lack of urgency of the current dispute, unlike the expedience necessary for development, precluded applicability of section 65009. The court rejected this argument as an attempt to add language that does not exist in the statute. Additionally, the court explained that tree removal and maintenance issues do need to be resolved promptly. Lastly, Weiss argued that the Scenic View Ordinance specifically mentions Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, but does not mention section 65009, so that section must not apply. The court explained that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 addresses filing deadlines but is silent on service of a petition. Both regulations, the court said, can therefore apply simultaneously.