Facts

On May 21, 2018, environmental groups and Richmond city residents filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Richmond City Council and City of Richmond to overturn the city's approval of a land development agreement for Point Molate because it was in violation of the Brown Act and California Planning and Zoning laws. On October 23, 2018, plaintiffs added Guideville Rancheria (Tribe) and its associated developer Upstream Molate, LLC to the complaint. The parties then held a settlement conference but the conference did not result in a settlement. Instead, the Council, in closed session, approved by a single vote a settlement agreement and stipulated judgment with the Tribe and Upstream Point Molate, to resolve Guidiville Rancheria of California et al v. United States of America et al, a federal Northern District case. The judgment would allow a minimum of 670 residential units that it allots to open space and dictated historical renovations. The City approved a Point Molate development project tailored to fit the requirements of the judgment, including certifying a final subsequent environmental impact report on September 8, 2020. The judgment also included a provision requiring them to sell the 270 acres of property to Upstream and the Tribe for $300 if the project had not been approved.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs claimed that the City of Richmond approved a development agreement with its settlement of the Guidiville action that locked in Point Molate's future land use and circumvented the open, transparent, and public process required by the Brown Act and Planning and Zoning statutes. Moreover, plaintiff maintained that the actions taken in the judgment committed the City by contract to take certain actions that can only be made through a development agreement that requires public approval. Plaintiff also alleged that residents and others who attended the planning meeting to provide input on the development could not propose any alternative to the zoning plan that did not include a housing option and therefore, the planning commission was not allowed to consider a full range of options. Moreover, the City's language regarding the settlement and the way they treated comments in the supposedly open session suggested that they were not open to certain changes regarding the number of housing units provided, the ratio of open space to development area, and the destruction of any historic district buildings.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that the violations alleged in the complaint have been cured and thus, the complaint was moot. Additionally, defendants alleged that their amended judgment added language confirming that it did not grant any entitlements and thereby mooted the Brown Act claims.

Result

Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.