California Court of Appeal

In plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate against a city and Chevron, claiming that an environmental review of a new construction project was flawed because the EIR failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential environmental impacts of the project, trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) trial court correctly concluded that the EIR is inadequate as a matter of law because it does not adequately address the issue of whether the project includes any equipment changes that would facilitate the future processing of heavier crudes at the refinery; 2) trial court correctly concluded that the city's decision to approve the project, after giving the city council final approval over a mitigation plan that Chevron formulates a year later outside the EIR process, does not satisfy CEQA's requirements; and 3) trial court's finding that the city improperly "piece-mealed" the project by failing to include and analyze the hydrogen pipeline as part of the project is reversed as there was no improper segmentation of a larger project here.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/26/2010
• Published 04/26/2010

Judges

• RUVOLO, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Pillsbury WinthropShaw Pittman, Ronald E. Van Buskirk, Kevin M. Fong, Todd W. Smith for Chevron Products Company and Chevron Corporation., Randy E. Riddle, City Attorney, K. Scott Dickey, Chief Deputy City Attorney; Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellen J. Garber, Jeannette M. MacMillan, Kristin B. Burford for City of Richmond.


• For Appellees:
  
• Communities for a Better Environment, Adrienne L. Bloch, Shana Lazerow; Earthjustice, William B. Rostov, Deborah S. Reames, for Respondents., Center for Biological Diversity, Matthew Vespa for Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Defense Center and the Planning & Conservation League as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.