Hanford No On Wal-Mart Supercenter v. City of Hanford

Filed 6/26/06 Hanford No On Wal-Mart Supercenter v. City of Hanford CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James LaPorte, Commissioner.

Herum Crabtree Brown, Steven A. Herum, Brett S. Jolley, and Natalie M. Weber for Plaintiff and Appellant Hanford No On Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Law Offices of Richard L. Harriman and Richard L. Harriman for Plaintiff and Appellant Valley Advocates.

Kahn, Soares & Conway, Michael J. Noland and Rissa A. Stuart for Defendants and Respondents.

Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Arthur J. Friedman, Shirley E. Jackson, and David M. Marquez; Sagaser, Jones & Hahesy, Timothy Jones and John P. Kinsey, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

Appellants Hanford No On Wal-Mart Super Center and Valley Advocates challenge the denial of a petition for writ of mandate, which sought to overturn the certification of the environmental impact review statement (EIR) and the issuance of a planned development permit approving the proposed Hanford Station Shopping Center (project) by real party in interest RHA Hanford, LLC and Olga T. Griswold (collectively developers). The project is to include construction of a Wal-Mart Super Center and various outpads. Appellants contend that respondents City of Hanford and Hanford City Council (collectively Hanford) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)^[1] and California's Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et. seq.) because the EIR contains a defective air quality analysis and because Hanford's general plan is internally inconsistent.

We find no merit to either contention and affirm the denial of the petition for writ of mandate.Factual and Procedural histories

In conjunction with developer's application for a discretionary planned development permit for the proposed shopping center, a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for comment to appropriate agencies and for a period of public comment. The EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts. Most could be fully avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Two negative impacts, those to air quality and preservation of agricultural farmland, could not be fully mitigated or avoided. There are no issues raised on appeal related to the loss of agricultural land.

The final EIR (FEIR) incorporates the public comments received and Hanford's responses to the comments. Public hearings were conducted before Hanford's planning commission according to local ordinances. The planning commission recommended that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR be adopted as conditions of the project. It found overriding considerations which justified approval of the project as mitigated, despite the inability to fully mitigate or avoid negative impacts to air quality and loss of farmland. The planning commission voted to recommend certification of the EIR and approval of the project as mitigated.

The matter proceeded to the city council for consideration, with appellants opposing the planning commission's recommendation. Further public hearings were held before the council. The city council found that the project includes â€