The Upland City Council voted 3-2 to join the appeal of a court ruling that postponed a warehouse project during closed session Jan. 9. The court ruling had halted the construction of a 201,096-square foot warehouse project, and requested the city investigate the project’s effect on greenhouse gas emissions before proceeding. The warehouse developer, Bridge Development Partners, had appealed the ruling.
Upland Mayor Bill Velto made the motion to join the appeal, city attorney Stephen Deitsch reported during the city council meeting. Councilmembers Rudy Zuniga and James Breitling voted to join the appeal, and Councilmembers Shannan Maust and Carlos Garcia opposed, Deitsch said.
“My reason for voting in favor of joining the action is due to the city of Upland being named in a lawsuit by Upland Community First. We were not named originally in that lawsuit, and as mayor, it is my duty to defend the city from any lawsuit filed against the city,” Velto said during council communications at the end of the meeting.
Five of the six public commenters at the city council meeting voiced opposition to joining the appeal, including former councilmember Janice Elliot. Elliot urged the council to read each of the warehouse developer’s legal briefs before voting to join the appeal.
“I know everyone that is involved in this case cares very deeply about the city of Upland. Some people have financial gain for this development, and that’s something that you all know who that is what they have to gain, and I hope you weigh that accordingly,” Elliot said.
“I hear things such as greenhouse gasses, the only reason they’re on to greenhouse gasses now is because every other thing they challenged was thrown out,” Bob Cable said in support of the project during public comment. Cable said the program would bring jobs and tax revenue, and urged the city council to move the project forward as fast as possible.
Since the city council’s discussion was during closed session, it was not disclosed what arguments the council discussed.
The council approved the warehouse project April 1, 2020, with one councilmember, Janice Elliot, opposing. The warehouse would be in undeveloped land northeast of Central Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, according to a city staff report. The size of the whole project would be 50 acres, and the size of the warehouse would be comparable to three and three quarter football fields.
The council had adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, a MND replaces an environmental impact report. It is only adopted after a body such as a city council finds that the project won’t significantly impact the environment. Elliot requested a full environmental report, instead of an MND, council minutes show.
“The proposed action supports the City’s economic development goals related to business attraction to increase the number of quality jobs in Upland in order to improve the balance of jobs and housing, and will result in the construction of a substantial amount of public improvements that will assist in revitalizing the western Foothill Boulevard Corridor,” the city’s staff report said.
Upland’s attorney in the case, Ginetta Giovinco, declined to comment.
Lawyers for Upland Community First and the project developer, Bridge Development Partners, have not responded to requests for comment.
Petition filed
Upland Community First filed their petition against Upland and Bridge July 15, 2020. They argued that the approval should be invalidated for two reasons: because there were issues with public comment during the virtual meeting held by the council when they approved the project, and because, they argue, it was illegally approved.
They claimed the project violated CEQA because it should have been reviewed with an environmental impact report, and they claimed it also violated the Planning and Zoning Law and the Upland Municipal Code.
The city denied their claims.
San Bernardino Superior Judge David Cohn vacated Upland’s approval of the project Oct. 21, 2021. He directed the city to investigate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the project, to determine if it warranted a full environmental impact report, but denied the petition’s arguments regarding the public hearing.
“Substantial evidence does not support the ‘threshold of significance’ chosen by the city for GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions under CEQA,” Cohn wrote.
The ruling does not force the end of the project, and the city council would reconsider their approval and whether to commit to an environmental impact report or an MND after the additional investigation.
Bridge appealed Cohn’s ruling Dec. 16, 2021.
Elliot said the court’s order to carry out additional investigation does not warrant city opposition. She said it would make sense to study the impact on traffic, and use that information to come up with a new project plan that better controls increased traffic.
Upland Community First filed a cross appeal Dec. 20, 2021, court documents show.
Case information
Oral argument is not yet scheduled.
Cory Briggs and Janna Ferraro of Upland’s Briggs Law Corp. represent Upland Community First.
Ginetta Giovinco and Steven Flower of Los Angeles’ Richards Watson & Gershon represent Upland.
Amanda Monchamp of San Francisco’s Monchamp Meldrum represents Bridge Development Partners.
San Bernardino Superior Judge David Cohn presided.
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS2013558.
Appellate case number E078241.
Read the petition here.
