Richmond Shoreline Alliance v. City of Richmond CA1/5

Filed 12/13/22 Richmond Shoreline Alliance v. City of Richmond CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RICHMOND SHORELINE ALLIANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A166004 CITY OF RICHMOND et al., Defendants and Respondents, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. CIVMSN201967) HRP CAMPUS BAY PROPERTY, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION HRP Campus Bay Property, LLC (HRP), the developer of a project in Richmond and the real party in interest in plaintiffs’ action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal from a judgment denying plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandate. The issue presented is whether the time to appeal runs from the date of the order after hearing denying the petition or whether it runs from the notice of entry of the subsequent judgment that reiterates the ruling. The issue is pending before the California Supreme Court (Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) 76

1

Cal.App.5th 43, review granted June 15, 2022, S274147). However, multiple Court of Appeal decisions support HRP’s position that an order denying a petition for a writ of mandate that disposes of all claims between the parties is an immediately appealable final judgment. (E.g., City of Calexico v. Bergeson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 180, 190 (Calexico); Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579, 583 (Laraway); Valero Refining Co.–California v. California Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. Hearing Bd. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 618, 633, fn. 10 [“the appealable judgment was the court’s order granting writ of mandate, not a ‘judgment’ that it subsequently entered”]; Martis Camp Community Assn. v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 587, fn. 11 (Martis Camp).) Plaintiffs (Richmond Shoreline Alliance; Sustainability, Parks, Recycling, and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; Citizens for East Shore Parks, Inc.; Sunflower Alliance; and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Inc.) filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief under CEQA challenging the City of Richmond’s approval of a mixed use project providing housing, commercial space, and parks and open space. HRP, the project developer, was named as the real party in interest and opposed the petition. The first and second causes of action challenged the city’s approval of the project under CEQA. The third cause of action alleged the hearing process for the project’s approval was unfair. The fourth cause of action sought declaratory relief regarding the rights and duties of the city and the public regarding the conduct of future administrative hearings for project approvals. On May 25, 2022, following a hearing on the petition, the trial court issued a detailed “ORDER AFTER HEARING (Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate),” finding against plaintiffs on their first, second and third causes