Appellate court sides with Walmart

Burbank officials should not be barred from issuing building permits to Walmart for a project adjacent to the Empire Center, according to an appellate court opinion filed Tuesday, which in part reverses a lower-court ruling on the matter.

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by Judge Allan J. Goodman in Los Angeles County Superior Court, who had rescinded the building permits, and directed the lower court to issue a new judgment declaring that Walmart’s proposed store is a permitted use on the former Great Indoors site and that a parking variance is not required.

However, the opinion written by presiding Justice Tricia Bigelow of the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s finding that the city has failed its duty to implement traffic mitigation measures as outlined in an ordinance approved by the Burbank City Council 14 years ago.

The court directed the lower court to command Burbank to implement those measures, which include adding more turn lanes at key intersections on Buena Vista Street at Victory Boulevard and Empire Avenue, or to conduct a new environmental review to modify the measures.

“Ultimately, it was the city’s obligation to implement the traffic-mitigation measures involved in this case,” Bigelow wrote, adding that there was no reasonable argument proposed for why the city’s failure to complete the street improvements should prevent the issuance of routine building permits to Walmart.

The opinion comes about a month and a half after oral arguments in the appeal, filed by Walmart in November 2013, which sought to overturn Goodman’s ruling in a lawsuit filed by Burbank residents Shanna Ingalsbee, Katherine Olson and Yvette Ziraldo.

The trio had sought to block the Walmart project until the mitigations were completed and another environmental impact review was conducted.

The city of Burbank, which had been named in the original lawsuit, declined to appeal Goodman’s decision, which implied that city officials accepted the lower-court ruling, Bigelow wrote in the opinion.

Attorney Rollin Chippey II, arguing on behalf of Walmart, had said that the 2001 ordinance required the city to commence the mitigation measures — but not complete them — before issuing permits.

He said the city’s ordinance made completion of the measures necessary only when traffic impacts became significant, which he said they had not.

Bigelow and her colleagues on the appellate bench were not persuaded by Chippey’s argument on that point and affirmed that the lower court finding that the city had failed to implement the traffic mitigations.

The residents seeking to stop the issuance of building permits did not, however, explain how allowing the retailer to “repurpose” the existing building at the site would prevent the city from making the required street improvements.

The opinion found that the city “did not act contrary to law in declaring Walmart’s store project to be exempt” from environmental review, and also found that there was no requirement under city code for a parking variance or a variance to allow grocery sales at the proposed store.

Shanna Ingalsbee, the Burbank resident who brought the original suit, responded to the news in an email statement via her attorney Gideon Kracov. Kracov also represents United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 770.

“The decision upholds the principles of accountability and demands the city remain consistent with its own environmental protection measures,” Ingalsbee said in the statement. “This is a victory for quality of life in Burbank.”

Delia Garcia, a Walmart spokeswoman, said in an email that the company is pleased with the ruling, which she said validates that the permits were granted properly.

“We’re excited to move one step closer to eventually opening a new store to serve our customers in Burbank and the surrounding communities,” she said.

--

Chad Garland, chad.garland@latimes.com

Twitter: @chadgarland