Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego
10 Cal. App. 5th 1301
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- City of San Diego obtained a Site Development Permit (SDP) for a new Mission Beach lifeguard station on September 27, 2006; the SDP stated it would automatically void if not "utilized" within 36 months.
- City pursued a coastal development permit and funding; the 2007 coastal permit lapsed, was renewed in 2011, and ultimately extended into 2015 as the City obtained funding. City officials say pursuit of funding and regulatory approvals constituted "utilization."
- In early 2015 the City issued a Notice to Proceed and obtained a building permit (April 20, 2015); preliminary construction occurred but stopped for the beach construction moratorium.
- Citizens for Beach Rights (led by Giavara) filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief on August 26, 2015, claiming the SDP expired in 2009 and construction was unlawful. The trial court agreed, declared the SDP void, and enjoined further construction.
- On appeal the City argued Citizens’ suit was time-barred by 90‑day limitations (SDMC §121.0102 and Gov. Code §65009) and by laches, and that the SDP remained valid in 2015 under the SDMC and the City’s longstanding practice. The appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 90‑day statutes of limitations (SDMC §121.0102 & Gov. Code §65009) | Citizens argued no discrete challengeable "decision" occurred in 2015 because they were attacking expiration by the SDP's own terms. | City argued the challenged agency decision was its 2015 determination that the SDP remained valid (culminating in issuance of the building permit), and any challenge required filing within 90 days. | Court held Citizens actually challenged the City's 2015 decision validating the SDP (building permit issuance) and the claims were barred as filed more than 90 days later. |
| Whether the SDP expired after 36 months by its own terms | Citizens argued the SDP’s condition meant utilization required commencement of construction/ grading/ demolition within 36 months, so SDP auto‑expired. | City argued utilization under SDMC §126.0108 and permit conditions included pursuit of funding and required regulatory approvals, and the City’s consistent practice treated those as utilization. | Court held the City’s interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference; the City’s actions constituted utilization and the SDP did not expire. |
| Proper procedural vehicle (declaratory relief v. mandate) | Citizens used declaratory relief and injunctive claims asserting the SDP was void; they also included a petition for writ of mandate. | City argued the proper remedy to challenge the City’s administrative decision was an administrative writ (Code Civ. Proc. §1085). | Court found Citizens had pleaded both forms and that treating the action as a mandamus challenge was proper; procedural objection was moot given reversal. |
| Laches defense | Citizens contended any delay was reasonable given permit language and circumstances. | City asserted laches should bar Citizens given longstanding knowledge of the project and delay. | Court declined to reach laches because it resolved the appeal on statutory‑limitations and SDP validity grounds (and noted laches argument was moot after ruling limitations barred the suit). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal.App.4th 1484 (rejects attempts to evade Gov. Code §65009 limitations and explains policy behind 90‑day rule)
- Honig v. S.F. Planning Dept., 127 Cal.App.4th 520 (challenge to variance cannot be resurrected by later challenge to a building permit)
- Simonelli v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 240 Cal.App.4th 480 (statute of limitations analysis where definition of "decision" mattered)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (framework for deference to agency interpretation)
- Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 184 Cal.App.4th 1032 (deference to city interpretation of municipal code)
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (limits applicability of §65009 where appropriate)