Tag: Permitting

SECOND DISTRICT HOLDS 90-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS TO “ATTACK, REVIEW, SET ASIDE, VOID, OR ANNUL” LAND USE DECISIONS, RATHER THAN 4-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED BY POLITICAL REFORM ACT, APPLIED TO ACTION CHALLENGING ALLEGEDLY CORRUPT PERMITTING DECISIONS

General Posted by   

In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 322, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009, for actions to “attack, review, set aside, void, or annul” certain land use decisions, barred challenges to land use decisions made by City officials alleged to be involved in an extensive bribery scheme.

Background

The Los Angeles City Council planning and land use management (PLUM) committee has various roles, including reviewing and recommending proposed real estate development projects. In 2020, one former member of the PLUM committee was arrested, and another was indicted, for allegedly accepting bribes and engaging in other corrupt behaviors in relation to PLUM committee work. Both members left the PLUM committee in the fall of 2018.

In August 2020, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) filed suit against the City, alleging that an “ongoing corruption scandal regarding the approval of real estate projects” violated the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA or Act). AHF sought an order restraining all building permits granted by the City while the corrupt former members served on the PLUM committee, as well as an order restraining the City from supporting any of the affected projects with taxpayer money.

The City demurred to AHF’s complaint, arguing that the claims were time-barred. The superior court sustained the demurrer, concluding that the action had not been brought within the applicable 90-day statute of limitations. AHF appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

Applicable Statute of Limitations

In the trial court, AHF argued that the PRA provided the applicable statute of limitations. The PRA permits suits for injunctive relief where public officials are alleged to have used their official position to influence government actions for their own personal financial interests. Relevant here, the PRA permits courts to set aside official actions tainted by violations of the Act. The PRA includes a four-year statute of limitations for civil actions brought under the Act.

On appeal, AHF argued instead that the three-year “catch-all” statute of limitations for statutorily-created liability in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (a) applied to the action. The City consistently argued that the 90-day limitations period provided by Government Code section 65009 for actions “to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul” various land use and zoning decisions applied to the action.

The Second District agreed with the City that the 90-day statute of limitations barred the action. Citing Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 888 (Ching), which addressed a similar question, the court reasoned that the plain language of section 65009 encompassed AHF’s action. The Ching court noted that section 65009 had no exceptions for actions brought under the PRA. Additionally, the Ching court explained that “specific statutes control general ones” and thus held that the more specific 90-day statute of limitations in section 65009 applied to the type of challenge at issue, rather than the general limitations period provided by the PRA. After reviewing Ching and other similar opinions, the court concluded that section 65009 provided the applicable limitations period for AHF’s action.

Gravamen of the Complaint

Seeking to avoid the 90-day limitations period, AHF argued that the gravamen of its action was a challenge to corruption by City officials, even if the ultimate relief sought was the invalidation of improperly-issued permits.

The court rejected AHF’s argument, explaining that AHF could not escape the short limitations period by characterizing its claim as “necessarily dependent on a finding of a violation of the PRA,” rather than a challenge of project approvals by the PLUM committee.

Constitutional Considerations

Acknowledging that the California Constitution generally limits the Legislature’s power to amend or repeal initiative statutes, the court nevertheless rejected AHF’s argument that applying the limitations period in section 65009 to the action constituted “an unconstitutional legislative amendment to a duly-enacted voter initiative” for several reasons.

First, the court noted that the PRA contained express provisions allowing amendments to the Act by the Legislature, and that AHF failed to address these provisions in its briefing. Second, recognizing that the limitations period in section 65009 pre-dated the PRA by almost 10 years, the court remarked that the Legislature could not have intended to limit or amend the PRA in enacting section 65009. Third, the court explained that the four-year limitations period in the PRA was added by a later legislative amendment, not by voter initiative. Thus, the limitations period in the PRA was not enacted by voter initiative, as AHF claimed. Finally, even if the electorate had enacted the PRA’s four-year limitations period through an initiative, the court reasoned that the electorate did nothing to expressly abrogate other existing and potentially applicable statutes of limitations when it passed the PRA. For these reasons, the court held that the application of the pre-existing 90-day limitations period provided in section 65009 to the PRA action did not conflict with or amend the original PRA.

Policy Arguments

While AHF urged that important policy reasons justified the application of a longer limitations period to “discover and ferret out corruption,” the court declined to consider the policy goals underlying both the PRA and section 65009. The court explained that the statutory language of 65009 contained no ambiguity, and thus, it was required to apply the 90-day limitations period contained therein to AHF’s action.

— Louisa Rogers

Federal District Court Holds the United States Army Corps of Engineers Violated the Endangered Species Act in Reissuing Nationwide Permit 12 Without Initiating Section 7 Consultation

General Posted by   

In Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Mont. 2020) 454 F.Supp.3d 985, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana overturned Nationwide Permit 12 (“NWP 12”). Of practical importance, the court’s ruling on this matter applies throughout the nation.

Under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) is authorized to issue general nationwide permits to streamline the permitting process for certain categories of activities. Nationwide permits may last up to five years, at which point they must be reissued or allowed to expire. NWP 12 authorizes impacts to waters of the United States as a result of construction, repair, maintenance, and removal of utility infrastructure. All nationwide permits, including NWP 12, are subject to 32 general conditions contained in the federal regulations. As relevant here, General Condition 18 prohibits the use of any nationwide permit for activities that are likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat for such species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)

NWP 12 is one of 52 nationwide permits the Corps reissued in 2017. In reissuing NWP 12, the Corps determined that NWP 12 would result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment under the CWA and further concluded that NWP 12 complied with both the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.). The Corps determined there would be “no effect” to ESA-listed species or critical habitat and did not initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, the “Services”). Pursuant to NEPA, the Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Northern Plains Resource Council, et al. challenged the Corps’ action to reissue NWP 12, alleging it violated the ESA, NEPA, and the CWA.

Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the Corps’ failure to initiate programmatic consultation with the Services violated the ESA. The Corps, in response, contended that it did not need to conduct programmatic consultation because project-level review and General Condition 18 ensure that NWP 12 will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The court disagreed, finding there was substantial evidence supporting the contrary conclusion, therefore requiring the Corps to initiate consultation to ensure that activities authorized by NWP 12 complied with the ESA. The court emphasized that the Corps had acknowledged the many risks associated with discharges authorized by NWP 12 when it was reissued in 2017. For example, the Corps found that the construction of utility lines “will fragment terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems” and further stated that activities under NWP 12 “will result in a minor incremental contribution to the cumulative effects to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources.” Moreover, the Corps had initiated consultation when it reissued NWP 12 in 2007 and 2012. The court also relied on expert declarations submitted by plaintiffs stating that the Corps’ issuance of NWP 12 authorized discharges that may affect endangered species and their habitats.

The court further held that General Condition 18 fails to fulfill the Corps’ obligations under the ESA. General Condition 18 requires the permittee to submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the permittee believes that its activity “might” affect listed species or critical habitat. The court found that this improperly delegated the Corps’ responsibility to make the initial effect determination under the ESA.

Holding that the Corps’ “no effect” determination and resulting failure to initiate consultation prior to reissuance of NWP 12 was arbitrary and capricious, the court remanded NWP 12 to the Corps for compliance with the ESA. The court determined that it need not decide the plaintiffs’ remaining claims as it anticipated that Section 7 consultation will inform the Corps’ assessment under NEPA and the CWA based on the findings of the consultation.