County of Sonoma v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 4th 1312
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- In 2007 Sonoma County enacted Ordinance No. 5715 regulating zoning of medical cannabis dispensaries, including a permit requirement.
- Marvin’s Gardens Cooperative opened a Guemeville dispensary in 2009 without obtaining a use permit, prompting a stop order and closure.
- Cooperative sued County challenging the Ordinance on equal protection and statutory grounds; trial court voided the Ordinance.
- County moved to dismiss as untimely under Government Code § 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B) and argued exhaustion of remedies.
- Trial court tentatively found facial invalidity and timeliness under § 65009, and the County issued a second stop order.
- This court granted writ review to determine whether the action was timely and appropriately framed as facial vs as-applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 65009 | Cooperative contends as-applied challenge timeliness allows facial relief. | County argues 90-day limit on facial challenges from ordinance enactment, action untimely. | Action barred; facial challenge time-barred under § 65009(c)(1)(B). |
| Applicability of § 65009(c)(1)(E) vs (B) | As-applied challenge modulates timing; Travis allows broader theories within 90 days. | No permit applied for; § 65009(c)(1)(E) does not apply; facial challenge governed by (B). | Cooperative action not within § 65009(c)(1)(E); facial challenge governed by (B) and untimely. |
| Effect of stop orders on limitations | Stop orders marked enforcement; timely as-applied within 90 days of enforcement. | Stop order is not final adjudicatory action; limitations start from ordinance enactment. | Limitations did not start at stop order; still time-barred from ordinance enactment. |
| Travis v. County of Santa Cruz applicability | As-applied timely permits facial challenge per Travis. | Travis does not control where no permit was ever sought; it involved permit conditions. | Travis does not control result; case factually inapplicable; cannot salvage timeliness. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Administrative exhaustion unnecessary for facial challenge. | Exhaustion required; no permit application or administrative appeal pursued. | Exhaustion not cured timeliness; action barred regardless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleburne Living Center, Inc. v. Cleburne County, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection scrutiny of legislative classifications)
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (2004) (timing of as-applied vs facial challenges under §65009)
- Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 169 Cal.App.4th 253 (2008) (facial challenge trigger from ordinance enactment; limitations start date)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (final adjudicatory decision for permit challenges; limitations timing)
- Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal.App.4th 1561 (2008) (limitations period tied to acts of local land-use authorities)