Parchester Village etc. v. City of Richmond
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 3/25/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE PARCHESTER VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF RICHMOND et al., Defendants and Appellants. A123859 (Super. Ct. No. CIV MSC07-01090) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 24, 2010, be modified in the following particulars: 1. On page 16, footnote 14 is added at the end of the first sentence. Footnote 14 will read: In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend CEQA review is required because the city committed in the MSA to the Station 68 expansion project. The record shows that the City agreed to make the following modification to Station 68, regardless of which fire protection option was ultimately chosen: Addition of second restroom facility for female staff, additional sleeping quarters for 3 additional staff. There is nothing in the record to suggest that these changes to the station will require any physical expansion of the facility. 2. On page 17, in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, the words it does not appear any are deleted; the words only a minor portion are inserted. The sentence will now read: We first observe that only a minor portion of the traffic improvements specified in this provision are within the City s boundaries. 3. Additionally, on page 17, at the end of the first sentence, a footnote will be added. The footnote, which will be footnote 15, will read: These traffic improvements consist solely of repaving two existing streets, a portion of which fall within the City s boundaries. Taken in isolation, it does not appear that the repaving of an existing paved street constitutes a project within the meaning of section 21065. There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. Trial Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court Trial Judge: Hon. Barbara Zúñiga Attorney for Defendants and Appellants ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE George A. Yuhas, Esq. Sarah C. Marriott, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs and Respondents LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER Stephan C. Volker, Esq. Joshua A.H. Harris, Esq. Bridget A. Roberts, Esq. Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, A123859
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
