Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond

184 Cal.App.4th 70, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 478 (2010)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond

Court of Appeal of California
184 Cal.App.4th 70, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 478 (2010)

Facts

Chevron Products Company (Chevron) (defendant) submitted an application to the City of Richmond (Richmond) (defendant) in California for permits to construct the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project (the Project). The Project’s purpose was to upgrade manufacturing facilities at a Chevron refinery to process a wider variety of crude oil from a wider variety of sources. Richmond began compiling an environmental-impact report (EIR), as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21000. However, in the initial draft of the EIR, Richmond declined to make any finding regarding whether the Project’s greenhouse-gas emissions would have a significant impact on the environment. After objections, Richmond acknowledged the significance of greenhouse-gas emissions but, in the final EIR, still refused to state that the Project’s greenhouse-gas emissions would have a significant impact on the environment. Richmond finally issued a new publication of the EIR, which stated that the Project’s greenhouse-gas emissions would likely have a significant impact on the environment. Because of this admission, the EIR was required under CEQA to describe, evaluate, and adopt mitigating measures. The EIR accordingly put forth a mitigation plan that required Chevron to submit a mitigation plan to Richmond within one year of permit approval. The EIR’s mitigation plan did not require any specific measures from Chevron but rather suggested certain measures from Chevron. Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) (plaintiff) filed a petition for a writ of mandate against Richmond and Chevron, arguing that the EIR was flawed because the EIR had failed to disclose, analyze, and mitigate all potential environmental impacts of the Project. The trial court granted the writ, and the defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ruvolo, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership