54 Cal.App.5th 714
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Treelake Storage sits within the Treelake Village planned unit development; the original Treelake Village approvals (1987 EIR and later addendum) and CUP-1006 authorized storage uses within a powerline easement.
- In 1996 the County modified CUP-1006 to remove a residents-only restriction and approved mini-storage for general public use; initial construction and two earlier expansions proceeded with permits and certificates of occupancy (1999, 2002, 2005).
- In August–October 2016 the County approved plans and issued a building permit for a further 28,240 sq. ft. expansion; construction finished and a certificate of occupancy issued in October 2017.
- Parkford filed a writ petition in Feb–Mar 2017 challenging the 2016 building permit under CEQA (no EIR) and the Planning & Zoning Law (claiming CUP invalid/expired), and sought injunctive relief; preliminary injunction/TRO were denied because construction was nearly complete.
- The trial court held issuance of the 2016 building permit was ministerial (so CEQA did not apply) and later granted judgment on the zoning claim as time‑barred under Gov. Code § 65009; the Court of Appeal concluded Parkford’s claims were moot and dismissed the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issuance of the 2016 building permit was discretionary (triggering CEQA) or ministerial | Parkford: CUP‑1006 had expired/was not valid, so the permit was discretionary and required an EIR | County/Moss: CUP‑1006 ran with the land (implemented by final map); issuing a building permit under county code is ministerial, so CEQA does not apply | Trial court: permit was ministerial; CEQA not triggered. Appellate court dismissed appeal as moot. |
| Whether Parkford’s Planning & Zoning Law claim is time‑barred | Parkford: challenge is to the 2016 permit itself, not the 1996 CUP modification, so the 90‑day limitation should not bar relief | County/Moss: claim was filed more than 90 days after the permit; Gov. Code § 65009 applies | Trial court: claim barred under Gov. Code § 65009; judgment for respondents; appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Whether completion of construction renders the challenge moot | Parkford: relief remains possible (County could modify project, impose mitigation, or require restoration) | County/Moss: project completion and CO make writ relief ineffective; no practicable relief remains | Court of Appeal: completion of expansion and issuance of CO rendered challenge moot because no effective relief could be granted; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 (2011) (completion of a development project can moot a CEQA challenge)
- Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu, 193 Cal.App.4th 1538 (2011) (appeal should be dismissed as moot when effective relief is impossible)
- Hixon v. County of Los Angeles, 38 Cal.App.3d 370 (1974) (requiring an EIR is moot where the project is completed and the informational benefit cannot be achieved)
- Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc., 77 Cal.App.4th 880 (2000) (completion after order to prepare an EIR does not automatically moot claim where an EIR could still lead to modification or removal of project)
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (2004) (mootness analysis may differ where only partial completion occurred or issue presents recurring public interest)