Wilson & Wilson v. City Council
191 Cal. App. 4th 1559
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wilson & Wilson filed a reverse validation action seeking to invalidate the ADDA, the EIR Addendum, and related resolutions approving the Project; action remained pending as construction proceeded until substantial completion in 2007-2008.
- Original redevelopment planned Block 2 for office/parking; an amended ADDA redirected to a retail-cinema project with underground parking and parking facilities for Block 2 anticipated but not binding.
- The ADDA and Business Points promised best-efforts parking and potential offsite parking, with final Parking Facilities Agreement to be negotiated later; the Business Points were nonbinding.
- Public hearings in December 2002 approved the ADDA, EIR Addendum, and summary report; notices were sent but one courtesy notice for a second hearing date went missing for Wilson.
- In February 2003, the City Council/Agency decided that the City, not the Redevelopment Agency, would acquire Block 1 properties by eminent domain; Wilson’s property was in Block 2 and not certified as needed for the Project at that time.
- Construction progressed with substantial completion before judgment; the Project’s completion raised mootness and ripeness questions about the ongoing validity of the Resolutions and any future eminent domain action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was justiciable given mootness and ripeness | Wilson argued ongoing controversy despite completion; sought declaratory relief | City contends completion mooted claims and declaratory relief not ripe | Action moot; declaratory relief not ripe; must be dismissed |
| Whether the challenge to the Resolutions was moot after substantial completion | Resolutions still actionable to negate project impact | Project completion moots validity challenges | Moot; reversal and dismissal required |
| Whether Wilson’s declaratory relief regarding potential future eminent-domain action was ripe | Future condemnation could affect Wilson’s property | Contingent and speculative future events not ripe | Not ripe; no justiciable controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Strathmore Public etc. Dist., 102 Cal.App.2d 548 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1951) (completion of work moots challenge to contracts)
- Roscoe v. Goodale, 105 Cal.App.2d 271 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1951) (completion of improvements moots requests to rescind resolutions)
- Hixon v. County of Los Angeles, 38 Cal.App.3d 370 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1974) (mootness when EIR relief no longer available)
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110 (Cal. 1973) (actual controversy requirement for declaratory relief; ripeness)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (Cal. 1982) (ripeness prevents advisory opinions)