Haro

In April 2008, the City of Solana Beach (City) determined a mixed-use development proposal was inconsistent with certain local zoning *546 and specific plan requirements, and directed the project’s proponents to redesign the project. About 16 months later, on September 2, 2009, plaintiffs Rosa Maria Haro and Carlos Ibarra filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint, alleging the City’s actions violated state laws pertaining to affordable housing and land use. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint without leave to amend, concluding plaintiffs’ claims were untimely and the complaint failed to state a cause of action (except for one claim).

On appeal, plaintiffs contend the court erred in determining their claims were governed by the 90-day limitations period in Government Code section 66499.37, and the court instead should have applied the one-year period set forth in Government Code section 65009, subdivision (d). 1 We conclude that even assuming plaintiffs are correct that section 65009(d) applies, their action is untimely because they filed their action more than one year after the limitations period…