CITY CLERK'S DATE STAMP
CITY OF RIALTO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL FORM CITY OF RIALTO
2022 NOV 21 AM 9: 32
CITY CLERK BECEIVED
1. A filing fee of $1,369.60 must accompany this Appeal Form. Check made payable to the City of Rialto.
2. Appeal Form and Filing Fee must be submitted to the City Clerk's Office within 15 days after the decision.
RETURN TO: Rialto City Clerk's Office Mail: 150S. Palm Ave., Rialto, CA 92376 Address: 290 W. Rialto Ave., Rialto, CA 92376
APPELLANT INFORMATION:
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (represented by Lozeau Drury LLP)
FULL NAME
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
ADDRESS (510 ) 836-4200
TELEPHONE NO.
Oakland, CA 94612
CITY, STATE & ZIP ALTERNATE TELEPHONE NO.
_APPLICANT _BONAFIDE AGENT _ CITY DEPARTMENT PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 300 FEET _SAFER has members who live and/or work in the vicinity of the proposed Project
1. DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 11/9/22
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS:
2558 N. Locust Ave., Rialto, CA 92377
2. PLEASE INDICATE WHY YOU ARE APPEALING THIS DECISION:
SAFER objects to the City of Rialto's ("City") proposed action to exempt the Project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
As demonstrated in the attached letter, the Class 32 exemption is inapplicable because (1) the Class 32 exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the unusual circumstances exception to the exemption applies. The Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required. See the attached letter for details.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR AGENT
Received by:
Set Public Hearing Date: 11/18/2022
DATE
Public Hearing Date:
7/09
LOZEAU DRURYLLP T 510.836 4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com 510.836 4205 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]
November 18, 2022
Via E-Mail
Deborah Robertson, Mayor Barbara McGee
Ed Scott, Mayor Pro Tem City Clerk
Rafael Trujillo, Council Member City of Rialto
Andy Carrizales, Council Member 150 S Palm Avenue
Karla Perez, Council Member Rialto, CA 92376
City of Rialto [email protected]
150 S Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of the Rialto Planning Commission's Approval for PC-22-01003; Golden Land Warehouse Project (Conditional Development Permit No. 2021-0047, Precise Plan Design No. 2021-0061; Environmental Assessment Review No. 2021-0060)
Dear Mayor Robertson, Mayor Pro Tem Scott, Honorable City Council Members, and Ms. McGee:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the proposed exemption for the Golden Land Warehouse, a 62,248 square- foot industrial warehouse building, proposed to be developed on a 2.84 acres, at the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and Stonehurst Drive, in Rialto, California (Conditional Development Permit No. 2021-0047, Precise Plan Design No. 2021-0061, Environmental Assessment Review No. 2021-0060) (the "Project").
SAFER objects to the City of Rialto's ("City") proposed action to exempt the Project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. As demonstrated below, the Class 32 exemption is inapplicable because:
(1) the Class 32 exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the unusual circumstances exception to the exemption applies. Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a 62,248 square-foot industrial warehouse building. According to the November 9, 2022 Staff Report ("staff report"), the Project will accommodate up to six trucks and trailers and 63 passenger vehicles; trucks will constitute approximately 115 of the Project's estimated 179 daily trips. The staff report also states that, while there is no proposed tenant for the project at this time, the proposed building will accommodate various storage and distribution uses.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 (Pocket Protectors). The EIR is an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.
An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC §§ 21100, 21064. Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration... has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 ("Hollywoodland"). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report ("EIR") is required. Id. Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. "Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and '[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125. The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., 2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 ("[QJuestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents 'a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.") Here, the City is relying on the Class 32 in-fill exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332. However, as discussed below, this exemption is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR or a mitigated negative declaration, must be prepared for this Project.
Ill. DISCUSSION
a. The Class 32 Exemption Does not Apply on its Face.
The Class 32 exemption provides:
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].
By its terms, the exemption does not apply if the project site has any value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the exemption does not apply if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 14 CCR § 15332(d).
Here, there is no evidence that the Project falls within the language of the exemption.
Specifically, there is no evidence that the vacant Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Moreover, there is no evidence that adding a warehouse to the site, when combined with the other industrial development in the area, will not have air significant quality impacts on local and regional air quality. Therefore, the Project is ineligible for exemption.
IV. CONCLUSION
Reliance on a Class 32 infill exemption for the Project is improper and is not supported by substantial evidence. The City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review, whether a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR, and allow for meaningful public participation in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Un !
Adam Frankel
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
CITY OF RIALTO
REC#: 02389016 11/21/2022 10:22 AM
OPER: CITY TERM: 033
REF#: #15099
TRAN: 90.0000 APPEAL FEES
LOZEAU DRURY, LLP
APPEAL FEES 1,369.00CR
TENDERED: 1,369.00 CHECK
APPLIED: 1,369.00-
CHANGE: 0.00
CITY OF RIALTO
MONDAY-THURSDAY
7 AM - 6 PM
ORIGIN ID: JEMA (510) 836-4200 ®
TOYER GREAR
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1939 HARRISON STREET CAD: 101246452/INET4530
SUITE 150
OAKLAND, CA 94612 BILL SENDER
UNITED STATES US
TO ATTN: CITY CLERK
290 W RIALTO AVENUE
581JБ/E4B8/FE2D
RIALTO CA 92376
(510) 836-4200 REF:
INV:
PO:
DEPT
FedEx.
Express
FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s) E
MON - 21 NOV 10:30A
TRK# 7705 3641 8584 PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
0201
92376
WM RIVA CA-US SBD
11/18/22, 9:33 AM
B15
vi!! annl