September 19, 2023
City Attorney's Office
DATE: September 19, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Subject:
Settling the Fourth Cause of Action in Richmond Shoreline Alliance et al. vs. City of Richmond (Campus Bay)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The settlement agreement requires the City to pay the Plaintiffs $435. The costs to implement the agreement
are expected to be de minimus
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that the City
improperly conducted the hearings for the Campus Bay
project and others. This settlement will provide enhance the public hearing procedures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the proposed settlement agreement and
implement enhanced public hearing procedures - City
Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509).
DISCUSSION:
The Campus Bay project is being challenged by groups of Plaintiffs including Richmond Shoreline Alliance; Sustainability, Parks, Recycling, and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; Citizens for East Shore Parks, Inc.; Sunflower Alliance; and Greenaction for Health AGENDA
REPORT
September 19, 2023
and Environmental Justice, Inc. They have challenged the City’s approval of the project on the basis of CEQA and issues related to the hearing process. HRP, the project developer, was named as the real party in interest and is defending the court action.
The fourth cause of action seeks declaratory relief regarding the rights and duties of the City regarding the conduct of future administrative hearings for project approvals.
The Council Subcommittee has proposed a settlement agreement to resolve the fourth cause of action. To improve public participation and make sure that the hearing process is fair, and speakers are treated consistently, the Plaintiffs and Subcommittee Committee have agreed to five steps for hearings, which are largely current practice.
These include:
1. Announce the hearing procedures at the start of the hearing process including time limits, allowing for representative speaker, and deadlines for written comments. Time limits may be limited depending on the hour and number of speakers so long as all are treated equally.
2. Speakers can speak their minds and ask questions so long as they comply with time limits and are orderly.
3. Members of the body may ask questions of speakers and that time does not count against the speaker’s time limits. Members are not to make arguments or state opinions during this time.
4. The close of the public hearing shall be announced and new speakers may be allowed to speak if there is still time under the established time limits.
5. Members may ask staff and experts questions after the close of the hearing.
The City has consistently denied that the hearing process was flawed but it is in the interest of the City to eliminate lawsuits or parts of lawsuits that can easily be eliminated. The Subcommittee has reviewed the proposal and believes these procedures are enhancements to the City’s processes and will not unduly burden the public hearing process.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Settlement Agreement