Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista
197 Cal. App. 4th 327
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- CEQA review: City of Chula Vista adopted an MND for a larger Target store replacing existing facilities, including a smog check site and small market.
- Citizens filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the MND approval without an EIR.
- MND found potential significant impacts in hazards/hazardous materials, air quality, geology, hydrology, and traffic, mitigable by plan.
- Record shows a former gas station on site with contaminated soil; corrective action plan exists but details are not in record.
- Air quality assessment concluded no significant impact on sensitive receptors and no health risk assessment required; mitigation focused on dust control and GHG design features.
- Court remanded to determine whether corrective action plan addresses contaminated soil; if not, require an EIR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazards and soil contamination | Citizens: contaminated soil may cause significant impact; soil remediation plan unaddressed. | Target/City: remediation will occur and plan sufficient; soils not a barrier to permits. | Remand to assess if corrective action plan addresses contaminated soil; if not, order an EIR. |
| Sensitive receptors and air quality impacts | Project threatens sensitive receptors; health risk assessment needed and MND lacks analysis. | Air quality assessment shows no significant impact; no health risk assessment required. | No substantial fair argument of significant impact on sensitive receptors. |
| Cumulative impact on particulate matter and ozone | Project may contribute to nonattainment area, causing significant cumulative air quality impact. | Emissions below District thresholds; no significant cumulative impact. | No fair argument of significant cumulative air quality impact. |
| Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change | GHG assessment underestimates emissions and thresholds; AB 32/alternative thresholds contested. | City properly used AB 32 threshold; 29% reduction surpasses AB 32 goal; thresholds discretionary. | No fair argument of significant GHG/climate change impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974) (fair argument standard governs EIR duty)
- Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (de novo review with doubt in favor of environmental review)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (agency guidance on health risk assessments and air quality standards)