Aids Healthcare Found., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of S.F.

7 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Cnty. of Humboldt

    22-cv-05725-RMI (N.D. Cal. May. 12, 2023)

    Plaintiffs do not offer any factual dispute about these code provisions; therefore, judicial notice of these local laws is appropriate here. See Aids Healthcare Found., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1098 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 954-56 n.3-4 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of undisputed contents of local ordinances and resolutions)). The Statutory Framework

  2. Elevations Plus, LLC v. City Council of Riverbank

    No. 1:20-cv-01469-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2021)

    "Section 65009 is located in division 1 (Planning and Zoning) of title 7 (Planning and Land Use) of the Government Code." Aids Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2016). "It establishes a short, 90-day statute of limitations, applicable to both the filing and service of challenges to a broad range of local zoning and planning decisions." Id.

  3. Aids Healthcare Found. v. City of L. A.

    86 Cal.App.5th 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    ( Ibid . ) Among them, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2016) 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1102, where section 65009 barred AHF's untimely challenge to a planning commission disapproval of a conditional use permit. In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 242, 248, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 742, disapproved on other grounds in Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 241, 250, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 255 P.3d 958, the plaintiffs challenged a tax ordinance.

  4. Weiss v. City of Del Mar

    39 Cal.App.5th 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 23 times
    In Weiss v. City of Del Mar, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th 609, the appellant claimed that a statute imposing a short limitations period on challenges to actions by certain agencies, which had the stated purpose of avoiding delays of housing projects, did not apply to her challenge to a view ordinance because there was "no urgency to resolving the view dispute."

    It is true that most courts interpreting section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E) and section 65901 have done so in the context of a challenge to the application of a zoning ordinance to a particular project or development. (See, e.g., Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1046-1047, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ( Okasaki ) [challenge to variance issued to property owners to build pool within setback]; Aids Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal.2016) 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1100-1102 [denial of conditional use application for proposed building project]; Honig, supra , 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 523-524, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 649 [challenge to zoning variance decision underlying building permit authorizing expansion of home]; Stockton, supra , 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1488-1490, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 [approval of retail store construction in master planned development].) But Weiss has not cited, nor has our independent research disclosed, any authority supporting that section 65009 is triggered only when a specific project or development is challenged.

  5. Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette

    32 Cal.App.5th 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The courts "have rejected the notion that the reviewing body, rather than the underlying decision being reviewed, determines the applicability of Section 65009." ( AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2016) 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1101, and cases there cited.) To the extent that People v. Gates (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 590, 596-598, 116 Cal.Rptr. 172, decided under subsequently repealed section 65907, implies the contrary, we disagree.

  6. Elec. Co. v. City of Lafayette

    28 Cal.App.5th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

    The courts "have rejected the notion that the reviewing body, rather than the underlying decision being reviewed, determines the applicability of Section 65009." (AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2016) 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1101, and cases there cited.) To the extent that People v. Gates (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 590, 596-598 , decided under subsequently repealed section 65907, implies the contrary, we disagree.

  7. Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette

    239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The courts "have rejected the notion that the reviewing body, rather than the underlying decision being reviewed, determines the applicability of Section 65009." ( AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (2016 N.D.Cal.) 208 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1101, and cases there cited.) To the extent that People v. Gates (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 590, 596-598, 116 Cal.Rptr. 172, decided under subsequently repealed section 65907, implies the contrary, we disagree.