Aiuto v. City & County of San Francisco
201 Cal. App. 4th 1347
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Condominium owners with Below Market Rate (BMR) units challenged San Francisco’s 2008 Ordinance No. 320-08 amending and adding provisions to the BMR program under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA).
- Ordinance 320-08 amended §§ 1341, 1385 and added 1344 to SF Subdivision Code, applying BMR restrictions in perpetuity to units purchased before or after the effective date.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Ordinance constituted a regulatory taking, preemption, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiffs filed federal suit in 2009, which the court dismissed except for a § 1983 claim; plaintiffs then filed this state court action in 2010 asserting regulatory taking, preemption, and § 1983 claims.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction in 2011 maintaining status quo, ruling the 90-day limitations in § 66499.37 and § 65009 did not apply.
- Appellate court reversed the injunction, holding § 66499.37 applies to facial challenges to subdivision-related ordinances, making the claims time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 66499.37 bars plaintiffs’ facial challenges | Plaintiffs argued § 66499.37 does not apply to challenges to a city ordinance changing a housing program. | City urged § 66499.37 applies to any subdivision-related decision including facial challenges to ordinances. | Yes, § 66499.37 applies and bars the facial challenges. |
| Whether § 66499.37 or § 65009 applies to limit the action | Plaintiffs contended these sections do not govern their non-subdivision-approval-style claims. | City argued both sections apply to subdivision decisions and land-use ordinances. | § 66499.37 governs; the claims were untimely under 90 days. |
| Whether the trial court properly resolved likelihood of success on the merits | Plaintiffs claimed likelihood of success on merits despite limitations issue. | City argued lack of likelihood due to time-barred claims. | No likelihood of success given § 66499.37 bar. |
| Whether the injunction should have been maintained or dismissed | If timeliness issues resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, injunction possible. | With timeliness bar, injunction improper. | Preliminary injunction reversed; dismissal not warranted on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (§ 66499.37 applies to land-use regulations and related actions under the SMA)
- Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 169 Cal.App.4th 253 (2008) (new burden triggers anew 90-day period under § 66499.37)
- Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors, 231 Cal.App.3d 665 (1991) (§ 66499.37 timing in subdivision challenges)
- Hensler (supra), 8 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (principle that § 66499.37 applies to subdivision-related challenges)