Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, No. A123859 (Feb. 24, 2010) available at CourtWebsite
In the Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond decision, neighborhood and environmental groups alleged that the City of Richmond (City) violated CEQA by entering into a municipal services agreement (MSA) with the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California (Tribe) to provide police, fire and other public services for the Tribe’s proposed casino. The litigation centered on whether the MSA and casino were a “project,” for which the City should have performed environmental review under CEQA. The First District Court of Appeal sided with the City in finding that a public agency must consider whether the execution of an agreement is a “project” under CEQA in light of all the circumstances.
Following the Tribe’s proposal to build a 225,000 square foot casino on land held in trust for the Tribe, the City began negotiating the terms of a proposed MSA with the Tribe. During these negotiations, City staff determined that the casino project would have a tremendous impact on the City. Because the City would have no say over federal or state decisions concerning the casino, the City approved the MSA in order to secure funding to mitigate the casino’s impacts and to improve services.
After the MSA was executed, a lawsuit was filed contending that the casino and MSA were a “project” requiring the City to conduct environmental review under CEQA before executing the MSA. The court, however, found that the casino was not a “project” requiring environmental review by the City because the City had no legal authority over the property on which the casino was to be developed. Citing the California Supreme Court’s recent Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood decision, the court further found that the totality of the circumstances confirmed that the MSA itself was not a project. Important to the court’s holding was the fact that the City did not commit itself to making any of the physical improvements referenced in the MSA nor did the MSA require the City to issue any land use entitlements. Instead, the court found that the MSA was merely a funding mechanism for uncertain, future improvements. The court found it noteworthy that the MSA included a provision requiring that future improvements undergo environmental review under CEQA. Although not the sole basis for its ruling, the court found that this CEQA compliance provision was a “legitimate ingredient” of the MSA.
The court’s ruling is important because it reaffirms the Save Tara decision by holding that a public agency must consider whether the execution of an agreement is a “project” under CEQA – and hence whether environmental review is required prior to executing that agreement – in light of all the circumstances, such as those described above.
