Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, D069638

Background

In 2006 San Diego issued a Site Development Permit (SDP) for a new Mission Beach lifeguard station that stated the permit would void if not "utilized" within 36 months.
The City pursued a Coastal Development Permit and funding; the coastal permit lapsed and was reissued and extended; funding delays (post-2008 downturn) prevented construction until 2015.
In early 2015 the City notified neighbors, obtained a building permit (April 20, 2015), and contractor work began; construction paused for the summer beach moratorium.
Citizens for Beach Rights sued August 26, 2015 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandate, arguing the SDP had expired in 2009 and construction was unlawful; trial court agreed and enjoined further work.
The City appealed, arguing Citizens’ claims were time-barred by 90-day limitations (SDMC §121.0102; Gov. Code §65009) and laches, and alternatively that the SDP had not expired because City actions (pursuit of permits/funding) constituted "utilization."
Court of Appeal reversed: (1) Citizens’ challenge was untimely under the 90-day statutes because it effectively attacked the City’s 2015 decision validating the SDP when issuing the building permit; and (2) on the merits the City’s steps to secure permits/funding constituted utilization so the SDP remained valid.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of 90‑day limitations (Gov. Code §65009; SDMC §121.0102)	Citizens: no agency "decision" was being challenged — SDP simply expired by its own terms, so limitations do not apply	City: suit is a challenge to the City’s 2015 decision validating the SDP and issuing the building permit; suit filed >90 days after that decision so barred	Held: Citizens actually attacked the City’s 2015 validation/permit decision; 90‑day limitations apply and Citizens’ action (filed Aug 26, 2015) was untimely
Whether the SDP expired for failure to "utilize" within 36 months	Citizens: "utilize" means commencement of construction, grading, or demolition within 36 months; none occurred, so permit void	City: utilization includes pursuit of required regulatory approvals and funding (CIP process); City’s actions satisfied utilization	Held: deference to City interpretation; pursuit of funding and required permits constituted utilization so SDP remained valid
Proper procedural vehicle (declaratory relief v. writ of mandate)	Citizens used declaratory relief and injunction, asserting the permit voided on its terms	City: challenge to an administrative decision should be by writ of mandate under §1085	Held: Citizens pleaded both §1060 and §1085; courts may treat declaratory complaint as writ — procedural objection is moot given reversal
Laches defense	Citizens: delay was reasonable given facts and permit language	City: delay prejudiced project reliance; laches bars suit	Held: Court did not reach laches because the statute‑of‑limitations ruling disposes of the case; laches argument therefore moot

Key Cases Cited

Simonelli v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 240 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (defines scope of what constitutes a reviewable "decision" for certain limitations contexts)
Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal.App.4th 1484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (purpose and strict enforcement of Gov. Code §65009’s 90‑day limitation)
Honig v. S.F. Planning Dept., 127 Cal.App.4th 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (challenge to building permit may be treated as challenge to underlying land‑use decision and be untimely)
Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004) (discussion of administrative decision review and limitations)
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 184 Cal.App.4th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (agency interpretations of municipal code entitled to deference)
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (framework for judicial deference to agency interpretation)