Upland Community First v. City of Upland
(2024) (Case No. E078241)
California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal published its decision in Upland Community First v. City of Upland, a case addressing the City of Upland’s (City) approval of a warehouse/parcel delivery service building and corresponding mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court upheld the MND, finding that its greenhouse gas (GHG) and transportation analyses were supported by substantial evidence.
Background
In April 2020, the City approved the project at issue: a 201,096-square foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building on a site currently used for a rock and gravel crushing operation. As the CEQA lead agency, the City adopted an MND for the project.
Upland Community First (UCF) filed a petition for writ of mandate, claiming the City violated CEQA because a fair argument could be made that the project would have significant impacts, thereby necessitating preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). The trial court granted UCF’s petition due to insufficient evidence supporting the City’s use of two GHG thresholds discussed below. Both UCF and the developer appealed the judgment.
Project GHG Analysis
The City’s GHG analysis used two numeric thresholds developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). First, the draft MND applied the 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year threshold adopted by SCAQMD for industrial projects. The draft MND concluded that the project would result in the net addition of 5,222 MT CO2e per year and, therefore, be below the first threshold.
In response to comments that the 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was too high, the City also prepared a supplemental GHG analysis that applied the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold developed by SCAQMD for nonindustrial projects. That analysis reflected project refinements, including the incorporation of sustainability features, as well modifications to the baseline emissions estimate. The supplemental analysis concluded that the project would result in the net addition of 2,904 MT CO2e per year and, therefore, be below the second threshold.[1]
Court of Appeal Analysis: Developer’s Appeal
Substantial Evidence Supported Use of the 3,000 MT CO2e per Year Threshold
A lead agency has significant discretion in determining appropriate thresholds of significance under CEQA, as long as the choice is supported by substantial evidence. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that environmental impact determinations must be based on scientific and factual data, and provides that agencies may consider thresholds recommended by other agencies or experts.
Here, the court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s use of the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for assessing the project’s GHG emissions. More specifically, public comments and other evidence from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and SCAQMD provided a scientific and factual basis for applying the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold to nonindustrial projects. The cited OPR data analyzed GHG emissions from 711 residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects, showing that 90% of these projects had emissions ranging from 2,983 to 3,143 MT CO2e per year for residential/commercial projects, and varying ranges for other mixed-use categories. Based on this data, SCAQMD had identified a 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for nonindustrial land use types, capturing the emissions levels of approximately 90% of such projects.
The court found that “it [is] reasonable to consider nonindustrial projects exceeding 3,000 threshold (ten percent of all nonindustrial projects) to be cumulatively considerable contributors to GHG emissions in comparison to nonindustrial projects with GHG emissions below the 3,000 threshold” (italics in original).[2] Therefore, the court held the City did not abuse its discretion in utilizing the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold.
Increase in Baseline Emissions Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court found record evidence “plainly indicates” that the 1,537 MT CO2e per year increase in the baseline emissions estimate was due to the 78 trucks used in the existing crushing operations, which were omitted in the original analysis but included in the supplemental analysis. The court concluded, therefore, that substantial evidence supported the City’s updated baseline.[3]
CEQA Findings Were Proper
The court held that the City’s resolution adopting the MND was supported by substantial evidence, including the supplemental GHG analysis’ demonstration that the project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold. The court found UCF’s claim that the supplemental analysis lacked sufficient authority – because it was prepared “for informational purposes only” – unpersuasive, as the supplemental analysis and overall record adequately supported the City’s determination.
No Fair Argument of a Significant GHG Impact
After concluding that substantial evidence supported use of the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold, the court emphasized that its acceptance of the threshold did not preclude consideration of other evidence of impact. That is because, under CEQA, if substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a project may have significant environmental impacts, the agency must prepare an EIR.
UCF argued that the project’s GHG emissions might be cumulatively considerable due to increased mobile source emissions compared to the existing crushing operations and potentially inaccurate traffic counts. However, the court ultimately found that UCF failed to present a fair argument of a significant GHG impact, based on the discussion of its arguments on appeal below.
Court of Appeal Analysis: UCF’s Appeal
MND Did Not Undercount “Passenger Car Equivalent” (PCE) Trips
UCF argued that the project’s transportation impacts were understated, claiming the wrong trip generation rates and classifications were used. The court found no substantial evidence supporting these claims. To the contrary, the record showed that the City calculated the project’s daily PCE trips using both classifications, and found no significant impacts under either.
UCF also argued that delivery van and truck trips were inadequately factored into the project’s total PCE trips. The court, however, found that the City had clearly and properly explained its methodology, including the use of a 3.0 multiplier for 4-axle trucks per the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan’s guidelines.
Lastly, the TIA included a “retail analysis memorandum” comparing the project’s traffic impacts as a parcel hub warehouse to a hypothetical retail building, showing that retail use would generate significantly more daily PCE trips and truck traffic. UCF argued this comparison was misleading under CEQA. The court disagreed, stating that the comparison was used as an additional analysis and did not misrepresent the project’s environmental impacts.
UCF’s Transportation Impact Claims Were Either Moot or Unsupported
UCF argued that the MND was flawed because it failed to account for parking spaces and related vehicle trips. The court found this claim moot, as it was based on outdated level of service standards relating to congestion.
UCF also asserted that the City should have performed a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. The court rejected this challenge because the City did, in fact, prepare a VMT analysis, which demonstrated project impacts would not be significant. Further, the court found held that UCF failed to exhaust administrative remedies on this matter.
In sum, the court concluded that UCF had pointed to “no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project could have significant … transportation impacts, based on a VMT methodology or any other analysis.”
Conclusion
In this case, the court upheld an MND (in the face of a challenging standard of review that typically favors petitioners), affirming the City’s discretion under CEQA to set GHG thresholds and emphasizing that substantial evidence supported the City’s analyses of both GHG and transportation impacts. The decision highlights the importance of thorough and evidence-based environmental reviews to meet CEQA requirements and withstand legal challenges.
[1] The supplemental analysis was validated by two peer review entities. Additionally, both the draft MND and supplemental analysis estimated GHG emissions for a building more than 75,000-square feet larger than what was approved, resulting in a conservative emissions estimate.
[2] As the court affirmed application of the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold, the court decided it need not consider the developer’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold.
[3] Procedurally, the court found that UCF failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on this topic during the administrative process (“no one asked the City to explain the sources of” the original and updated baselines) and forfeited the claim by failing to raise it in the trial court proceedings until its reply brief.
[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert. Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]