Rialto council upholds appeal, denies Rialto Springs warehouse project

The City Council of Rialto on Wednesday adopted Resolution No. 8317 to uphold an appeal and deny the Rialto Springs warehouse project on Locust Avenue, voting 4-1.

The resolution enacts the council’s November decision in written form after a period of further settlement discussions among the applicant, neighborhood representatives and a community group. "The appeal was formally withdrawn by the appellant...on Jan. 21," land-use attorney Paige Gosney told the council, adding that the applicant and appellant had been working toward a compromise.

The council’s action matters because it makes the Nov. 12 decision — to uphold an appeal brought by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and deny the project — the city’s final decision unless the council later votes to reverse it. "You are free this evening to take any action that you deem appropriate," the city attorney advised before the council voted.

Supporters of the project, including labor representatives and the property owner’s team, told the council the development would bring jobs, infrastructure and fees to the city. Juan Serrato of the Laborers’ International Union urged the council to allow the project to proceed, saying the proposal was "about creating good paying jobs, stable jobs that support families right here in our community." Jose Garcia, also with the union, said, "We can't afford to lose a job right now." Developers and their counsel described a newly negotiated community benefits agreement and asked the council to let the Planning Commission approval stand.

CEQA and technical consultants also addressed the council. Dana Privette of Kimley-Horn, who prepared the project addendum to the EIR, told members that the addendum's analyses supported the finding that impacts would be less than significant and warned that some language in the draft resolution omitted those conclusions. Privette said the addendum’s conclusions were not represented fully in the denial resolution’s factual statements.

Council members questioned whether the city had been involved in negotiating the community benefits agreement and whether the agreement included direct mitigation funds to nearby residents. The council heard that an earlier draft had included a $150,000 mitigation fund for property improvements within 150 feet of the project; that provision was later removed because of concerns about "optics," the applicant's representative said. The developer also described voluntary concessions including greater setbacks and sidewalk and traffic improvements.

After public comment and council discussion, Councilmember Ed Scott moved to adopt the resolution upholding the appeal and denying the project; the motion was seconded (second not specified in the record) and passed on a roll call vote: Mayor Pro Tem Scott, Councilmember Carrie Salas, Councilmember Metoyer and Mayor Joe Baca voted aye; Councilmember Carla Perez voted no.

The council’s formal adoption of Resolution No. 8317 means the Planning Commission’s prior approval of the project will not stand unless the council later rescinds its action or the applicant submits a materially different application and begins the process anew.

Council discussion noted options for future steps: the applicant may file a new application and the council retains the authority to rescind its action. City staff and the applicant said they had engaged with neighbors and that the developer had made voluntary concessions aimed at reducing impacts.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution No. 8317 — Motion to adopt resolution upholding the appeal and denying the Rialto Springs project (Locust Avenue). Mover: Councilmember Ed Scott; second: not specified in the public record. Vote: 4–1 (Aye: Mayor Pro Tem Scott; Councilmember Carrie Salas; Councilmember Metoyer; Mayor Joe Baca. No: Councilmember Carla Perez). Outcome: approved; effect: denial of the project.

The council did not adopt the alternative suggested by the applicant — rescinding the Nov. 12 action and returning a modified project to the Planning Commission — and instead formalized the November decision. The city attorney noted the council retains the option to rescind its final action in the future, and the applicant may submit a new application.

The council’s resolution and supporting record will be part of the administrative record should further legal steps follow.