Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto
208 Cal. App. 4th 899
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- City approved a 230,000 sq ft retail center anchored by a 24-hour Wal-Mart; Rialto Citizens challenged multiple approvals including EIR certification, general/specific plan amendments, and a development agreement.
- Trial court invalidated the resolutions and development agreement; appellate court conducted de novo review and reversed the judgment.
- Rialto Citizens sought public interest standing to challenge CEQA and non-CEQA grounds; court held public interest standing exists and need not show benefiting interests.
- Trial court found Planning and Zoning Law violations: defective notice omitting planning commission recommendations and lack of consistency finding for the development agreement; court addressed prejudice requirements under section 65010.
- CEQA issues: EIR allegedly inadequately analyzed cumulative traffic impacts and greenhouse gas emissions; court found EIR adequate for traffic, and that greenhouse gas impacts were too speculative to determine under the then-existing standards.
- Court ultimately found no prejudicial abuse of discretion and denied the challenged invalidations, ordering Wal-Mart to recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Rialto Citizens to challenge the approvals | Rialto Citizens has public interest standing | Wal-Mart contends no standing | Rialto Citizens has public interest standing; standing upheld |
| Notice of public hearing defective but not prejudicial | Defective notice violated 65094/65010; prejudicial injury shown | Notice defect was harmless; no prejudice shown | Notice defective but harmless; no prejudicial invalidation relied on prejudice evidence |
| Consistency finding for development agreement | City failed to find consistency with General Plan and Gateway Plan | Consistency finding not expressly required to invalidate; relied on other findings | Omission lacked prejudicial impact; the ordinance not invalidated for lack of a consistency finding |
| CEQA cumulative impacts on traffic | EIR failed to adequately discuss cumulative traffic impacts | EIR complied by referencing CMP/areawide data | EIR adequately analyzed cumulative traffic impacts; no prejudicial abuse |
| Cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change | EIR improperly deemed impact too speculative; should list as significant | Climate change is inherently cumulative; no definite thresholds at the time; acceptable to conclude too speculative | EIR properly treated climate-change impacts as too speculative to determine; no standalone significant/unavoidable impact required |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda, 79 Cal.App.4th 1223 (2000) (public interest standing framework for public-right challenges)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (2011) (corporate standing equal to natural persons for public interest)
- Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra, 158 Cal.App.4th 877 (2008) (notice must include planning commission recommendations as part of the explanation to be considered)
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of West Hollywood, 153 Cal.App.4th 825 (2007) (standing and mandamus considerations in local actions)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (2009) (guidance on evaluating cumulative air quality impacts)