DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,059 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 7 hours ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
Springbrook Heritage Alliance v. City of Riverside CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal Springbrook Heritage Alliance v. City of Riverside CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 4/27/22 Springbrook Heritage Alliance v. City of Riverside CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SPRINGBROOK HERITAGE ALLIANCE, E076462 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. RIC1900694) v. OPINION CITY OF RIVERSIDE et al.,
Defendants and Respondents;
TRANSITION PROPERTIES, LP, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sunshine S. Sykes, Judge.
Dismissed.
Brandt-Hawley Law Group and Susan Brandt-Hawley, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Office of the City Attorney, Phaedra A. Norton and Anthony L. Beaumon; for
Defendants and Respondents.
1
Allen Matkin Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, K. Erik Friess and Andrew Lee, for
Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
I.
INTRODUCTION The City of Riverside approved the construction of a 300,000-plus square foot
warehouse (the project). In response, Springbrook Heritage Alliance filed a petition
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging the project.
Springbrook argued that the City erroneously approved the project after adopting a
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
mitigated negative declaration (MND) instead of conducting an environmental impact
report (EIR). The trial court denied the petition.
Springbrook appealed. After we issued a tentative opinion but before we held oral
argument, the parties informed us that they had reached a settlement. The parties then
stipulated to dismissing the appeal with various terms. We exercise our discretion to
dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The project’s location is a 15.9-acre, four-lot site on Center Street in north
Riverside along the City’s border with the City of Colton. There is a soccer field to the
southwest of the project site. The Trujillo Adobe, a Riverside County Landmark, a State
of California Point of Interest, and a Historical Landmark, is about 930 feet to the east. It
was built in 1862, making it “the oldest non-Native American structure remaining in
Western Riverside County.”
The parcels directly to the north (in Colton) and to the east (in both Riverside and
Colton) of the project are used predominantly for industry. They include a warehouse, a
port-a-potty servicer, a semi-truck and trailer storage yard, a grease manufacturer, a
concrete contractor, a steel storage yard, and a construction storage yard.
Respondent Transition Properties applied to the City to build the project. The
proposed project is a 308,000 square foot warehouse with access only via Center Street.
It includes “110,591 square feet of landscaping, the potential for up to 167 passenger
vehicle parking stalls, 237 truck trailer stalls, and 62 loading docks.” Construction of the
project would take about 19 months.
B. The Project’s Approval Process
In November 2017, a consulting group prepared an Initial Study “to assess the
short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the []
project.” Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the project’s potential
environmental effects would be less than significant after implementing mitigation
measures. The City thus prepared an MND instead of an EIR.
After the City’s Design Review Committee administratively approved the project
and adopted the MND for the project in February 2018, Springbrook appealed the
decision through three stages of City review.
The first stage was the City’s Planning Commission, which unanimously
determined that the project “will not have a significant effect on the environment based
on the findings set forth in the case record.” The Planning Commission, therefore, denied
Springbrook’s appeal and approved of construction of the project with an MND only.
Springbrook then appealed to the City’s Land Use Committee, which
recommended by a 2-1 vote that the City approve the project. The committee concluded,
however, that the full City Council had to decide whether to approve the project.
Thus, the third and final stage of Springbrook’s appeal was to the City Council.
The City Council held two hearings on the matter. The first was a public hearing in
October 2018. After receiving comments from the public, the City voted to approve the
project in December 2018, at a closed hearing. The City issued minutes from the hearing
explaining that the City “determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment based on the findings set forth in the case record” and thus
C. Trial Court Proceedings Springbrook petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus directing the City
“to set aside the project and reconsider approval only if it conducts an EIR process to
analyze environmental impacts and identify and adopt feasible mitigations and
alternatives.” The trial court denied Springbrook’s petition in a one-line minute order
that stated, “Petition denied – entire case dispositioned.” Springbrook timely appealed.
III.
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL An appellant may not dismiss an appeal as a matter of right. (Huschke v. Slater
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1160 [imposing $6,000 sanctions on attorney for
unreasonable delay in notifying appellate court that parties had settled and dismissed the
underlying case].) Rather, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c)(2), “[o]n
receipt of a request or stipulation to dismiss, the court may dismiss the appeal and direct
immediate issuance of the remittitur.” (Italics added.) Thus, dismissal is discretionary.
Here, because the parties have settled, we grant the parties’ request to dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, (1) Springbrook’s appeal is dismissed with
prejudice and (2) the remittitur shall issue immediately. Each party shall bear their own
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J. AI-generated · verify before citing Holding. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice following a settlement reached by the parties.
Issues
Whether the court should grant the parties' stipulated request to dismiss the appeal following a settlement. Disposition. Dismissed.
“We exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.” “Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, (1) Springbrook’s appeal is dismissed with prejudice and (2) the remittitur shall issue immediately.”