Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 12 <br />Limitation of Actions —Individuals Challenge <br />City's Action in Rejecting a Project Proposal, <br />Saying It Violated State Laws <br />City contends challenge is untimely because it was not <br />brought within statutory limitations period <br />Citation: Haro v. City of Solana Beach, 2011 WL 1797292 (Cal. <br />App. 4th Dist. 2011) <br />CALIFORNIA (05/12/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />when a cause of action challenging a city's denial of a project ac- <br />crued, and thus, whether the action was brought timely. <br />The Background/Facts: In April 2008, the City of Solana Beach <br />(the "City") determined that a mixed -use development proposal — <br />the Cedros Crossing proposal —was inconsistent with certain local <br />zoning and specific plan requirements. The city directed the proj- <br />ect's proponents to redesign the project. <br />About two months later, on July 3, 2008, Rosa Haro and Car- <br />los Ibarra (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") gave the City written notice <br />that the City's failure to approve the project constituted a failure to <br />implement the City's Housing Element. The City's Housing Element <br />was a required part of the City's general plan. It contained policies <br />to provide for the City's regional housing needs. <br />The Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to take formal legal ac- <br />tion if the City did not amend and/or implement the Housing Element. <br />The City responded by adopting Resolution 2008-152, retaining <br />outside defense counsel to represent the City in the challenge to the <br />Housing Element. <br />More than one year later, on September 2, 2009, the Plaintiffs <br />filed a legal action against the City. Among other things, the Plain- <br />tiffs action alleged that the City "failed to implement" its Housing <br />Element by rejecting the Cedros Crossing proposal. <br />The City demurred to all causes of action. The City argued that <br />the Plaintiffs' claims were untimely. The City pointed to California <br />Government Code § 66499.37, which establishes a 90-day limita- <br />tions period for claims challenging a public entity's actions "con- <br />cerning a subdivision," including "the approval of a tentative map <br />or final map." <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />