Citizens for Sensible Traffic v. City of Beaumont

Filed 8/4/06 Citizens for Sensible Traffic v. City of Beaumont CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge. Affirmed.

Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson and Veera K. Tyagi for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Aklufi & Wysocki, Joseph S. Aklufi for Defendant and Respondent.

Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, John C. Nolan and Jennifer M. Guenther for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

1. Introduction^[1]

This appeal involves the construction of a now-completed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont. The Wal-Mart includes a major retail store, a gas station, a pharmacy, and other retail and commercial space on about 23 acres.

The plaintiff is Citizens for Sensible Traffic in Beaumont and Banning (Citizens) and includes affected residents of Beaumont as its members. Respondents are the City of Beaumont and real party in interest, Beaumont Retail Partners.

Plaintiff's primary objection to the underlying CEQA^[2] approval was the alleged failure of the City of Beaumont properly to analyze and mitigate three areas of environmental impact: traffic, air quality, and noise, as well as project alternatives.

After reviewing the appellate briefs, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of mootness for the reasons discussed in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1202-1204. We are of the opinion that plaintiff has made a fairly weak showing that any effective relief in the form of modification or mitigation can ultimately be granted. (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479; Assn. for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 641.) Nevertheless, following the policy that cases should be decided on the merits, we review the judgment.

In doing so, we hold the EIR^[3] and the CEQA findings are supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

The project began in October 2002 with an application for environmental review and processing and a plot plan for a Beaumont retail center. The draft EIR was completed in March 2003.

On May 9, 2003, plaintiff's counsel submitted written comments about the traffic, air quality, noise impacts, aesthetics, and project alternatives, as analyzed in the draft EIR.

The final EIR was completed in January 2004 and specifically addressed plaintiff's objections. The planning commission also addressed those issues in its CEQA findings dated January 27, 2004. At the hearing on that date, the planning commission recommended the city council approve the project.

On February 17, 2004, plaintiff's counsel submitted further written comments about the inadequacies of the EIR and the CEQA findings. The CEQA findings addressed those issues again. After a public hearing, the city council found the benefits of the project outweighed and served to override any possible adverse environmental consequences. The city council adopted resolutions certifying the EIR, amending the city's general plan, and approving the specific plan.

The trial court found the city had complied with CEQA and denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate.3. Standard of Review

The parties agree on the standard of review for CEQA compliance, as set forth in section 21168.5, whereby plaintiff must show a prejudicial abuse of discretion, either because of illegality or lack of substantial evidence:

â€