Honig

Honig v. San Francisco Planning Department

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 520·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 348·2005 Daily Journal DAR 2975·25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2166
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 2005A106305California3,619 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

After the neighbors of Lisa Honig (appellant) obtained a variance and building permit authorizing an expansion of the size of their home, appellant unsuccessfully appealed those decisions to the board of appeals. Appellant then petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate against defendants and respondents, the planning department and the board of appeals (defendants), and real parties in interest and respondents, David Robins and Marge Chambers (real parties). Respondents demurred to the petition on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations set out in Government Code section 65009, and the demurrers were sustained without leave to amend.

On appeal to this court, appellant contends that, as to the building permit decision, her petition was timely. Alternatively, she contends the board of appeals should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations because she was deliberately misled regarding the applicable limitations period. We disagree. Government Code section 65009 applies to a writ petition challenging issuance of a building permit issued in conjunction with a zoning variance, if the gravamen of the petition is that the variance was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.