With no coverage from any news media, the California Court of Appeal on November 27, 2023, disposed of the long standing challenge to the Point Molate SEIR (Subsequent Environmental Impact Report) by the Point Molate Alliance and the North Coast River Alliance by directing the trial court to, “set aside its certification of the final SEIR and to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its certifications of the final SEIR and related project approvals.” Click here for the decision.

It is ironic the only notice of this was caction with potentially substantial consequences to the City of Richmond was in a Sierra Club newsletter article authored by Norman La Force, a long-time out-of-town Point Molate development opponent.

This is presumably good news for the Richmond Progressive Alliance and their City Council members who have fought Pont Molate development for years. It is probably not so good news for the City of Richmond and its residents and taxpayers.

First of all, let’s analyze the decision.

The Plaintiffs who challenged the EIR did so on multiple fronts, some of which were programmatic and some of which targeted specific impacts. The Appeal Court found that the EIR was adequate in all but two narrow areas, both of which could have been easily corrected. More on that later.

1. The Plaintiffs argued that objectives and purpose of the project were framed too narrowly and should have considered a “total parkland.” Option. The Court found no error in the City’s statement of objectives.
2. The Plaintiffs argued that the SEIR applied an improper baseline. The Court disagreed.
3. The Plaintiffs argued that the investigation of tribal cultural resources should have been expanded. The Court agreed.
4. The Plaintiffs argued that analysis of impacts on Ospreys was insufficient. The Court disagreed.
5. The Plaintiffs argued that the analysis of potential impacts from wildfire were inadequate. He Court found only that the SEIR mitigations should have included ana actual Wildfire Emergency Response Plan (WERP) rather than deferring it until the start of construction.
6. The Plaintiffs argued that analysis of impacts on eelgrass was insufficient and hat a deferred monitoring plan was inappropriate. The Court found no error.
7. The Plaintiffs argued that deferral of an Open Space Plan is an unallowable deferred mitigation. The Court disagreed.
8. The Plaintiffs argued that development of Design Guidelines for the Winehaven Historic District released after public review was improper. The Court disagreed.
9. The Plaintiffs argued that the project was inconsistent with the general Plan. The Court concluded the City did not err.
10. The Plaintiffs argued that the SEIR did not examine a range of feasible alternatives, including a regional park. The Court found that, “The SEIR was not required to consider a regional park alternative because it did not meet the project objectives. Nor was it required to accept alternatives that did not meet the minimum housing objectives.”
11. The Plaintiffs argued that the development was inconsistent with the General Plan. The Court disagreed.
12. The Plaintiffs argued that the City, “violated its duty under Article 11, section 5 of the California Constitution to exercise its independent land use discretion over use of the Project site unfettered by purported land use restrictions imposed by private development agreements with Winehaven and its predecessors and parties aligned with them.” The Court rejected this claim.

Of the twelve challenges to the SEIR, the Court upheld only two. Had the Richmond Progressive Alliance controlled City Council not barred the city attorney from defending the case, the two challenges ultimately upheld by the Court could have been easily removed by amendments by the City. But they weren’t, and now the previously approved General Plan change, Zoning and Final Map will also go away. This will substantially diminish the potential value of the 30 percent of Point Molate now owned by Point Molate Futures, LLC, (the tribe and Upstream) but it will also potentially increase the value of the Winehaven legacy, LLC, (SunCal) lawsuit against the City – bad news for the City of Richmond.

The Plaintiffs in the Point Molate Alliance and the North Coast River Alliance appeal can also recover attorney fees from the City of Richmond – more bad news for the City.

At the end of this day and 28 years after this saga started, what is the status of Point Molate?

• The City of Richmond acquired Point Molate from the Navy for $1.00.
• The City of Richmond sold 30 percent of Point Molate in 2022 to Point Molate Futures, LLC, for $400.00.
• The Winehaven Historic District buildings, which were once the crown jewel of the California Wine Industry continue to deteriorate form gross neglect.
•  There is no public access to Point Molate except for the small shoreline park at the south entrance.
• The Richmond Progressive Alliance dream of a regional park at Point Molate remains just that – a dream.