208 F. Supp. 3d 1095
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiff AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) sought conditional use authorization to build a project in San Francisco under newly enacted zoning "Interim Controls."
- The San Francisco Planning Commission disapproved AHF’s conditional use application on January 28, 2016 and expressly stated the decision’s effective date depending on whether it was appealed to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days.
- AHF did not appeal to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days; instead it filed this federal action 91 days after the Planning Commission decision seeking a writ of mandate (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085/§ 1094.5) and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged unconstitutional targeting.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the claim for judicial review is time-barred by Cal. Gov. Code § 65009’s 90-day limitations rule, (2) AHF failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the Board of Supervisors, and (3) AHF’s § 1983 claim is barred by preclusion/res judicata principles.
- The Court concluded Section 65009 applies to Planning Commission denials of conditional use authorizations and dismissed AHF’s state-law writ claim with prejudice for failure to comply with the 90-day rule and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The Court denied dismissal of the § 1983 claim on preclusion grounds, but dismissed that claim without prejudice and permitted AHF to reassert it in the related case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Cal. Gov. Code § 65009 statute of limitations | §65009(c)(1)(E) does not apply because Planning Commission is not a zoning administrator/board of appeals and denials are outside the statute’s scope | §65009’s 90-day limit applies broadly to challenges to conditional use decisions, including Planning Commission denials | §65009 applies; AHF’s state-law claim is time-barred and dismissed |
| Start of the 90-day limitations period | Clock starts only after the 30-day appeal period to Board of Supervisors expires | Planning Commission’s motion made the effective date clear and put AHF on notice; clock began upon that decision | Court rejects AHF’s timing argument; AHF had notice and time ran |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies (appeal to Board of Supervisors) | Appealing was impracticable or unavailable (subscription requirement) or futile, so exhaustion should be excused | S.F. Planning Code permitted appeals; AHF made no attempt to comply; appeals are routinely taken—remedies were available | AHF failed to exhaust; dismissal of state-law claim without leave to amend is appropriate |
| Preclusive effect on federal § 1983 claim | AHF’s failure to seek mandamus should preclude § 1983 claim (Briggs-style preclusion) | Preclusion improper because the Planning Commission could not have adjudicated constitutional § 1983 claims and administrative proceedings lack judicial character | Court declines to give preclusive effect to the Planning Commission decision; § 1983 claim not dismissed on res judicata grounds (but dismissed without prejudice to reassert in related case) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo, 207 Cal.App.3d 1180 (holds strict application of § 65009’s timing rule)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal.App.4th 1484 (applies § 65009 to decisions by nontraditional local decisionmakers acting in zoning roles)
- Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept., 127 Cal.App.4th 520 (treats form-over-substance arguments skeptically; § 65009 applies to challenges rooted in conditional use/variance matters)
- Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y v. County of Sutter, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (federal court refuses to foreclose § 1983 review by giving preclusive effect to administrative decisions)
- Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates, 40 Cal.App.4th 637 (describes preclusion where aggrieved party fails to seek available mandamus review)
- Pac. Lumber Co. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 37 Cal.4th 921 (sets standards for collateral estoppel/preclusive effect of prior proceedings)