In Upland Community First v. City of Upland (2024) __Cal.App.5th__, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order setting aside an MND for a warehouse project.  The Court of Appeal rejected the petitioner’s claims that impacts related to GHG emissions and traffic triggered the need for an EIR.

Background

The project, as initially proposed, included three warehouse buildings totaling 977,246 square feet located on a 50-acre parcel used for a rock and gravel crushing operation. In response to concerns that the project was too large, the applicant reduced the size to a single, one-level warehouse of 201,096 square feet.

The city prepared an MND for the project. The MND concluded that the project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 10,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold for “heavy industrial stationary projects,” as well as a qualitative evaluation of the project’s consistency with the city’s general plan and climate action plan. In response to comments urging the city to use SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold for mixed-use commercial/non-industrial projects, the project was revised to include sustainability features that reduced GHG emissions to below the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold. In connection with the project revisions, a supplemental GHG analysis was prepared using revised (increased) baseline emissions, which included the existing rock and gravel crushing activity on the project site. The revised GHG analysis concluded that the project would generate less than 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr.

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that an EIR was required because a fair argument could be made that the project would have significant impacts on traffic, transportation, air quality, and GHG emissions. The trial court granted the petition on the sole ground that substantial evidence failed to support the use of the 10,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold. Additionally, the trial court found that even if the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr had been applied, there was no explanation for the revised baseline used in the supplemental analysis.

The developer and the petitioner both appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported the city’s determination that the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr was an appropriate numerical threshold for measuring the project’s GHG emissions. The court found that expert evidence explaining why the 10,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold was inappropriate and urging the city to use instead the more stringent standard demonstrated a scientific and factual basis for use of the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold.

The court further held that the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr threshold was an appropriate threshold for cumulative impacts resulting from a project’s GHG emissions. The court reasoned that in developing the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr, SCAQMD relied on data collected by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which shows that the 90 percent capture rate for commercial/mixed use commercial projects ranged from 1,390 to 1,481 MTCO₂e/yr.

As applied to this project, the court observed that the use of the 3,000 MTCO₂e/yr was conservative since the project is mixed-use commercial/industrial which would generally have higher GHG emissions compared to a mixed-use commercial/residential project.

Regarding the increase in baseline emissions used in the supplemental GHG analysis, the court agreed with the petitioner that the MND did not explain the reason for the increase in baseline emissions. The court nevertheless found that circumstantial evidence in the record showed that the increase was attributable to 78 truck trips used in the existing rock and gravel crushing operation that had not been included in the initial GHG analysis. The court therefore upheld the baseline emissions used in the supplemental GHG analysis.

Regarding the project’s traffic impacts, the petitioner argued that the MND’s analysis was inadequate because it underestimated the project’s daily passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips by using the incorrect trip generation rate classification. The court determined, however, that evidence in the record showed the project would not result in significant impacts using either classification.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that the MND did not explain how delivery vans and truck trips were accounted for in the trip estimates. The court found that the trip generation rate classification used in the traffic analysis included delivery vans and truck traffic, and that additional discussion in the MND was not required.

Finally, the court held that the petitioner’s traffic claims related to congestion were moot given CEQA’s shift to using VMT as the metric for traffic impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.