32 Cal. App. 5th 1253
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- 7th & Witmer proposed a mixed-use project with affordable housing; the City Planning Director issued a Project Permit Compliance Determination on June 15, 2016.
- 1305 Ingraham filed an administrative appeal on the last day of the 15-day appeal period; a hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2016 but, according to plaintiff, never occurred and the file was not transmitted to the Area Planning Commission.
- The City approved the project on August 1, 2016 and a Notice of Determination was filed August 8, 2016; construction proceeded.
- Nine months later plaintiff sued, initially alleging CEQA violations (subject to a 30‑day limitation), then amending to allege the City violated LAMC §16.05.H.1 by failing to hold the required appeal hearing and seeking writ relief and to stay the project.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time‑barred under Gov. Code §65009(c)(1)’s 90‑day limitations rule; trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the suit was governed by §65009(c)(1) (90 days), not the general three‑year statute (CCP §338(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Gov. Code §65009(c)(1) 90‑day limitations | §65009(c)(1) does not apply because no "legislative body" rendered a "decision" (appeal was never heard) | §65009(c)(1) applies to challenges to permit decisions; the Director's Determination became final when the Commission failed to act | Held: §65009(c)(1) applies; the Director's decision was final under LAMC §16.05.H.4 and triggered the 90‑day period |
| Definition of "decision" and effect of LAMC §16.05.H.4 | A "decision" requires the Commission to hold a hearing first; limitations cannot start until a hearing occurs | LAMC §16.05.H.4 makes the Director's action final if the Commission fails to act within the time specified, providing an actionable decision | Held: LAMC §16.05.H.4 makes the Director's determination final when the Commission fails to act; that finality starts the §65009(c)(1) clock |
| Whether "legislative body" in §65009(c)(1) excludes single decisionmakers (e.g., Director/hearing officer) | "Legislative body" should mean elected governing body; single officers are not "legislative bodies" | §65009(c)(1) covers decisions listed in §§65901/65903 regardless of which local body (including zoning administrators or directors) made them | Held: "Legislative body" in context of §65009(c)(1) encompasses decisions by delegated local decisionmakers; Stockton supports that construction |
| Applicability of CCP §338(a) (three‑year) vs. §65009(c)(1) (90‑day) | Claim alleges statutory duty (LAMC) so CCP §338(a) applies, giving three years | The matter attacks a specific permit/determination and proceedings leading up to it, so the more specific §65009(c)(1) controls | Held: Specific 90‑day rule in §65009(c)(1) governs over the general three‑year rule; Urban Habitat is distinguishable as it addressed a different kind of ongoing statutory duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Williams‑Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 524 (standards on assuming facts on demurrer)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal.App.4th 1484 (construction of §65009 and inclusion of decisions by zoning administrators)
- Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal.App.4th 1561 (distinguishing challenges to discrete permits from suits alleging failures to perform statutory duties)
- Honig v. San Francisco Planning Department, 127 Cal.App.4th 520 (purpose and scope of §65009's 90‑day limitations)
- Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette, 28 Cal.App.5th 622 (standard of review on demurrer and interplay of statutes of limitation)