Court Opinion

ID: 9401760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 21:04:03.698276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.005017
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/13/23
                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                         DIVISION EIGHT

GREGORY LUCAS,                              B310777

        Plaintiff and Appellant,            (Los Angeles County
                                            Super. Ct. No. 19STCP05618)
        v.

CITY OF POMONA,

        Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

      Channel Law Group, Julian K. Quattlebaum III and Jamie
T. Hall for Plaintiff and Appellant.

     Best Best & Krieger, Alisha M. Winterswyk and Ali V.
Tehrani for Defendant and Respondent.

                        _________________________
       The City of Pomona (the City) decided to allow commercial
cannabis activities in specific locales within its boundaries. In
doing so, the City determined it was exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)1 (CEQA) and the Guidelines
adopted to implement CEQA (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et
seq.) (Guidelines). Thus, when the City chose areas to locate
commercial cannabis activities, it did not conduct additional
environmental review under CEQA.
       Appellant Gregory Lucas (Lucas) wanted his storefront
property included among the locales where commercial cannabis
activity would be allowed. The City, however, excluded Lucas’s
property. Lucas then filed a petition for writ of mandate to
overturn the City’s designation of areas for permissible
commercial cannabis activities. He contended the City made the
decision improperly by foregoing further environmental review.
The superior court denied the petition and entered judgment in
favor of the City.
       We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Legalization of Cannabis Use
      On November 8, 2016, California voters approved
Proposition 64, titled “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of
Marijuana Act,” and enacted a state statutory scheme legalizing,
controlling, and regulating the cultivation, manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of nonmedical (adult-use or recreational)

1    Undesignated statutory references are to the Public
Resources Code.

                                2
cannabis and cannabis products for use by adults 21 years of age
and older. On June 27, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed
Senate Bill No. 94 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), titled the “Medicinal
and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.” Senate Bill
No. 94 creates one state regulatory structure for medical and
adult-use commercial cannabis activities and provides that a
state license will not be approved for a business to engage in
commercial cannabis activity if the business activity violates any
local ordinance or regulation. The Bureau of Cannabis Control,
the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the
California Department of Public Health were charged with
licensing and regulating commercial cannabis activities in
California. They released regulations outlining licensing
procedures for adult-use commercial cannabis and issued licenses
for such activities commencing January 1, 2018.
II.   The City’s General Plan, General Plan Update, and
      Environmental Impact Report
      By way of background, we digress because it is important to
know about the City’s General Plan, General Plan Update, and
the Environmental Impact Report, upon which the City’s
cannabis regulations were superimposed.
      State law requires that each city and county adopt a
comprehensive General Plan. (Gov. Code, § 65300.) Because the
General Plan is the constitution for all future development, any
decision by a city affecting land use and development must be
consistent with the General Plan. The City’s General Plan was
developed in 1976.
      The City’s General Plan Update, developed in July 2013, is
“intended to function as a policy document to guide land use
decisions within the City’s planning area.” It provides

                                3
“comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure,
public service, resource conservation and public safety policies for
the entire City.”
       The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to
“[i]nform public agency decision-makers and the public generally
of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify
possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe
reasonable alternatives to the project” in accordance with CEQA
and its Guidelines. An EIR also identifies whether imposition of
mitigation measures or specific alternatives to a project may
reduce significant2 or potentially significant environmental
effects to less-than-significant3 levels. Once an EIR has been
prepared, “subsequent activities within the program must be
evaluated to determine what, if any, additional CEQA
documentation needs to be prepared.”
       The City’s final EIR, certified in March 2014 (2014 EIR),
evaluated possible environmental issues—pursuant to CEQA and
its Guidelines—associated with the implementation of the
General Plan Update for the development of the City through the
year 2035, and identified its environmental impacts—including
potential impacts to air quality, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, scenery and aesthetics, hydrology and

2      A “significant” effect is defined by Guidelines section 15382
as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in
any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, [and] ambient noise.”
3     An impact is considered “not significant” when it “may be
adverse, but does not exceed the significance threshold levels and
does not require mitigation measures.”

                                 4
water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and
housing, public services, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions. It
also proposed feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
potentially significant impacts or effects. The 2014 EIR and its
appendices comprise 889 pages total.
III.   Ordinance Nos. 4254 and 4257
       On August 6, 2018, the City Council voted to place a
cannabis business tax measure, Ordinance No. 4254 (Tax
Ordinance) on the ballot for the November 6, 2018 general
municipal election. The City’s voters approved the Tax
Ordinance, which established a tax on commercial cannabis
activity within the City.
       On April 1, 2019, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4257
(Business Ordinance), which established a formal application
process to obtain a license to operate a commercial cannabis
business within the City. The Business Ordinance provides that,
in addition to complying with all other applicable zoning
regulations and state and local permit requirements, no
commercial cannabis permit is valid if the proposed commercial
cannabis business is located within a 1,000-foot radius of a school
providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12,
a day care center, or a youth and recreation center, which is in
lawful existence at the time a successful application is submitted
to the City.
       As a result of the adoption of the Tax and Business
Ordinances, the Pomona Municipal Code was amended by adding
chapter 68, “Commercial Cannabis Businesses,” to regulate the
cultivation, manufacturing, sale, delivery, and transportation of
medicinal and adult-use cannabis and cannabis products in a
responsible manner to protect the health, safety, and welfare of

                                5
City residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from
disproportionately negative impacts and to enforce rules and
regulations consistent with state law.
IV.   Ordinance No. 4273 – Commercial Cannabis Permit
      Program Overlay District
       Before formally accepting applications for its Commercial
Cannabis Permit Program, the City had to designate locations
where cannabis-related land uses would be permitted. This
action of designating specific parcels within the City where
cannabis businesses could operate in compliance with certain
ordinances was “brought forth as an ‘overlay’ within the Pomona
Zoning Ordinance.” An “overlay district” provides additional land
use regulation beyond the “underlying” zone that already exists
on the parcel.
       The City’s proposed Ordinance No. 4273 establishes a
Commercial Cannabis Permit Program Overlay District (Overlay
District) in the City. The Overlay District was further divided
into four subareas in the City where cannabis-related uses would
be allowed and grouped by zoning designations and cannabis use
permits. The City planned to award up to eight commercial
cannabis permits. We refer to Ordinance No. 4273 and the
Overlay District it establishes as the Project4.

4      A “project” is an activity that 1) is undertaken or funded by
or subject to the approval of a public agency and 2) may cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. (§ 21065; Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,
Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1180 (Union).)

                                 6
       To establish the Overlay District for commercial cannabis
land use activity, the City, through its City Staff, conducted a
multistep analysis that included studying the scientific basis of
cannabis as it relates to potential land use impacts,
understanding existing state, federal, and industry regulations,
identifying and verifying sensitive uses, conducting a parcel-level
analysis, considering community feedback, and studying
potential environmental impacts.
       As the first step in developing the Overlay District, City
Staff identified all parcels in the City that would remain eligible
for inclusion after buffering out sensitive uses (for example, the
1,000-foot buffer established by the Business Ordinance between
any retail commercial cannabis business and any public or
private K-12 school, day care center, or youth and recreation
center). As part of developing the Business Ordinance, the City
created a list of sensitive uses in June 2018, which established a
Sensitive Use Buffer Map. The remaining eligible parcels were
next grouped into Cannabis Permit Areas, based on similar
zoning, land use, and geographical features, and were field
investigated by City Staff.
       City Staff analyzed the potential environmental impacts of
cannabis-related land uses. City Staff conducted field trips to six
legally operating cannabis businesses in cities similar to the City
in terms of size and demographics. City Staff also met with
planning staff from various cities with existing commercial
cannabis permit programs, including Los Angeles (L.A.) and Long
Beach, to obtain information on the day-to-day operations of
various types of cannabis businesses. City Staff met with the
L.A. County Sanitation District and L.A. County Fire
Department to understand how cannabis uses are similar or

                                7
distinct from other types of industries with respect to
environmental impacts. City Staff met with three agencies
regulating cannabis in California to understand licensing
requirements, operational requirements for cultivation and
manufacturing, and inspection/enforcement. City Staff met with
the City’s police department to better understand enforcement
against illegal dispensaries and heard directly from officers about
specific challenges related to cannabis enforcement in the City.
      On May 1, 2019, at a joint meeting of the City Council and
City Planning Commission (Planning Commission), City Staff
released a draft map to the general public as a starting point to
discuss and further develop a draft Project. Throughout the year
2019, City Staff held a series of community meetings to answer
questions and address concerns related to the development of the
Project; concerns raised were incorporated into its analysis.
Lucas’s address/area was identified as a storefront location on the
draft map and was initially included within the proposed Overlay
District.
      On August 28, 2019, City Staff presented a draft map at a
Planning Commission meeting and an Open House at the City
Council. Based on comments received, many revisions were
made to the Overly District draft map.
V.    Determinations of Similarity
       Based on research, interviews, and field visits, a total of six
types of commercial cannabis permits were identified based on
their typical land use activity:
       1) “Storefront Retail” is a commercial permit type issued by
the Bureau of Cannabis Control. Storefront retail operations are
brick-and-mortar retail establishments that sell packaged
cannabis products. Customers must be over 21 years old. “This

                                  8
permit type is similar in land use activity to other convenience
retail uses, such as drug stores.”
       2) “Manufacturing” is a commercial cannabis permit type
issued by the California Department of Public Health.
Manufacturing refers to the extraction of cannabinoids and
terpenes from the cannabis plant for use in the production of
various cannabis products. “This permit type is similar in land
use activity to other manufacturing uses, such as the extraction
of essential oils or food and beverage production.”
       3) “Cultivation” is a commercial cannabis permit type
issued by the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s
CalCannabis Division. The Business Ordinance does not permit
outdoor cultivation of any type. Indoor cultivation requires
artificial lighting to conduct indoor agricultural raising of the
cannabis plant. CalCannabis currently permits up to 22,000
square feet of indoor cultivation. “This permit type is similar in
land use activity to other crop raising uses, such as large
nurseries.”
       4) “Testing” is a commercial cannabis permit type issued by
the Bureau of Cannabis Control. All cannabis products for sale
in the State of California must pass laboratory testing conducted
by a permitted cannabis testing facility. “This permit type is
similar in land use activity to other processing uses, such as
medical imaging and testing labs or scientific research facilities.”
       5) “Distribution” is a commercial cannabis permit type
issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control. Cannabis products
cannot be transported from one facility to another in California
without a license. Distribution licenses include General
Distribution for brick-and-mortar facilities that stock cannabis

                                 9
items, and Distributor–Transport for transportation between
licensed facilities.
       6) “Microbusiness” is a commercial cannabis permit type
issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control. To qualify, an operator
must conduct three of the following four activities: storefront
retail, distribution, indoor cultivation up to 10,000 square feet, or
nonvolatile manufacturing. Such operations basically sell product
grown or manufactured on site in microbusiness storefronts.
       Based on the entirety of its research into commercial
cannabis permit types and their associated land use activities,
City Staff determined that the six proposed land uses related to
commercial cannabis are similar enough to existing and defined
land uses within the Pomona Zoning Ordinance and the General
Plan Update or were so defined using a Determination of
Similarity (DOS) process. The DOS process applies to any land
use in the City that is not specifically listed in the zoning
ordinance.
       On October 9, 2019, City Staff approved the six DOS
findings. That is to say, the City determined the six proposed
cannabis uses are consistent with and similar to already existing
land uses. As such, they would be required to meet all state,
county, and local regulations, including but not limited to zoning
standards, construction codes, fire codes and other City codes
applicable to and governing similar businesses before cannabis-
related uses could be established within the City.
       The six commercial cannabis uses determined to be similar
to existing business practices are: 1) cannabis cultivation is a use
similar to raising of crops; 2) cannabis distribution is a use
similar to distributing plants; 3) cannabis manufacturing is a use
similar to manufacturing, compounding, processing, or packaging

                                10
of products; 4) cannabis retail is similar to retail stores;
5) cannabis retail storefronts are similar to retail storefronts; and
6) cannabis lab testing is similar to laboratory testing. The six
DOS findings also provide, as relevant to this appeal, that the
proposed cannabis use is not of greater intensity or density than
similar uses and would not generate more environmental
impacts.
       The six DOS findings also state that the findings “shall be
final unless an appeal is made within ten (10) days after the
decision.” Nothing in the record indicates that Lucas or any
other member of the public initiated any appeal of the DOS
findings within 10 days of October 9, 2019.
VI.   Findings of Consistency
       In addition to its own investigation and research, the City
hired an expert environmental planning firm, Rincon
Consultants, Inc., to prepare the necessary CEQA analysis for
the Project, known as Findings of Consistency.
       In October 2019, Rincon Consultants circulated its
Findings of Consistency, which evaluated the Project’s
consistency with the findings of the 2014 EIR prepared for the
General Plan Update to determine whether the Project would
have new or increased significant environmental effects beyond
those identified in the 2014 EIR.
       Permitted land uses in the Project would be subject to the
development standards set forth in the existing base zoning
district (e.g., commercial zones) or base specific plan(s) (e.g., the
General Plan Update). Pursuant to Guidelines section 15183,
subdivision (a)—“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan,
General Plan Update, or Zoning”—additional environmental
review is not required for projects “which are consistent with the

                                 11
development density established by existing zoning, community
plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,”
except as might be necessary to determine whether there are
project-specific significant effects.
       The four established subareas in the City “were designated
upon consideration of existing sensitive uses identified in the
City . . . as well as land use analysis.” Parcels not identified
within a sensitive use buffer were “further analyzed against a
methodology which included consistency with the [General Plan
Update] land use designation, site accessibility, incompatible
land uses, and existence of legal non-conforming residential
uses.”
       The Findings of Consistency included a table that identified
permitted uses and how they fall into existing, defined land use
classifications in the City based on the Pomona Zoning
Ordinance, the General Plan Update, and the six DOS:
Commercial Cannabis Permit Type           Land Use Classification(s)
Manufacturing                             Manufacturing
Indoor Cultivation                        Raise Crops
Outdoor Cultivation                       N/A5
Distribution                              Manufacturing
Testing                                   Processing
Microbusiness                             Manufacturing, Commercial,
                                          Raise Crops
Retailer-Storefront                       Convenience Use, Retail
                                          Store

5     Outdoor cultivation of cannabis would not be permitted in
any of the four designated subareas.

                                12
       The Findings of Consistency addressed each of the
environmental issues studied in the 2014 EIR for the General
Plan Update, comparing the effects of the proposed Project to the
effects of the adopted General Plan Update.
      A.    Air Quality
       The proposed Project would not cause growth beyond that
accommodated by the General Plan Update or result in an impact
to the Air Quality Management Plan beyond that identified in
the 2014 EIR.
       Forecasted development under the General Plan Update
would generate temporary construction and long-term
operational air pollutant emissions (e.g., vehicle trips and
stationary sources), including potential increases in carbon
monoxide (CO) odors and concentrations. The 2014 EIR had
concluded that adherence to applicable General Plan policies and
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD)
regulations would reduce potential air pollutant emissions on a
site-specific basis to a less-than-significant level. The 2014 EIR
had further determined that future development, per the General
Plan Update, would not result in traffic congestion at
intersections that would create objectionable odors or exceed CO
standards that may affect a substantial number of people.
       Implementation of the Project would not allow development
of greater intensity than is allowed under the General Plan
Update and, as such, would not result in air pollutant emissions
or CO concentrations beyond those forecasted in the General Plan
Update. As regulated by Pomona Municipal Code section 68-27,
odor control devices and techniques—such as carbon filters and
air systems—are required in all commercial cannabis businesses
to ensure that odors from cannabis are not detectable off-site.

                               13
The proposed Project would not result in air quality impacts from
construction or operation emissions beyond those identified in the
2014 EIR.
      B.    Greenhouse Gas Emissions
       Cannabis-related development in the Project would remain
subject to development standards set forth in the existing base
zoning district and the General Plan Update and would occur
within designated subareas currently consisting of other retail,
commercial, or industrial uses. As with other uses that could be
developed in the Project subareas, cannabis-related development
would result in greenhouse gas emissions and a demand for
energy, particularly from indoor cultivation. As regulated by
Pomona Municipal Code section 68-30, cannabis cultivation is
required to comply with state and local laws related to electricity,
water usage, water quality, discharges, and similar matters.
Cannabis-related development would be subject to regulations
aimed at achieving statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets, including the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction from
emission levels outlined in Senate Bill No. 32 (2021–2022 Reg.
Sess.). Permitted uses in the Project are also required to comply
with energy conservation measures in the California Green
Building Standards Code and 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which include measures that increase building
performance so that new development does not result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed
Project would not result in an impact related to greenhouse gas
emissions or energy consumption beyond that identified in the
2014 EIR.

                                14
      C.    Land Use and Planning
      The Project would not introduce new land use designations
or otherwise alter the general land use patterns or development
standards; rather, it would establish locations in the City that
permit land uses related to commercial cannabis, which would
remain subject to the development standards set forth in the
existing base zoning district or the General Plan Update.
Implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing
land use designations or physically divide an established
community. It would not generate growth that would exceed
growth forecasts, impacting the Air Quality Management Plan.
Thus, the proposed Project would not involve consistency conflicts
with land use plans, policies, or regulations not identified in the
2014 EIR.
      D.    Noise
       Because permitted use in the Project would remain subject
to existing development standards set forth in the base zoning
district or the General Plan Update to which the Project is added,
operational noise associated with such development would not
differ from what was considered in the 2014 EIR.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in
temporary or operational noise impacts beyond those identified in
the 2014 EIR.
      E.    Public Services
       The 2014 EIR concluded that “development facilitated by
the General Plan increase demand for police protection services
and potentially create the need for new police protection
facilities; however, compliance with applicable codes and
regulations and compliance with General Plan Update policies

                                15
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.” Because
permitted use in the Project areas would remain subject to
existing development standards set forth in the base zoning
district or the General Plan Update, impacts to police protection
services would not differ from what was considered in the 2014
EIR. The proposed Project would not result in the need for
additional police protection facilities. No impacts beyond those
identified in the 2014 EIR would occur.
      F.    Traffic
       Cannabis-related development would occur within
designated subareas that currently consist of other retail,
commercial, or industrial uses. Because permitted uses in the
Project areas remain subject to existing development standards
set forth in the base zoning district or General Plan Update to
which the Project is added, and allowed development intensity
would not increase, traffic impacts associated with such
development would not differ from what was considered in the
2014 EIR. Cannabis-related development would also be required
to meet all applicable local and state regulatory standards for site
design and emergency access, including those in the California
Building Code, Pomona Municipal Code, and Fire Code.
Therefore, the Project would not generate traffic hazards or site
accessibility issues and would have no impact beyond that
identified in the 2014 EIR.
       Operation of the commercial cannabis uses (i.e., cultivation,
distribution, and retail) would not substantially change traffic
patterns on area roadways and would not be expected to impact
levels of service at any nearby intersections or induce a
substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled when compared to
existing uses in designated subareas. The Project would not

                                16
increase traffic impacts to the roadway network beyond those
identified in the 2014 EIR since it would not increase
development intensity compared to the General Plan Update.
      G.    Conclusion
       The Findings of Consistency concluded that the Project
“would not introduce new land use designations or otherwise
alter general land use patterns or development standards.” It
found “integration of the proposed [Project] would not result in
any new or increased severity of significant environmental effects
beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR.” Mitigation beyond that
identified in the 2014 EIR is “not required for any of the analyzed
environmental issue areas.” It concluded that “no additional
environmental review or documentation is required.”
VII. The City’s Public Hearing Held October 9, 2019 and
     Lucas’s Objections
      During a public hearing held October 9, 2019, the Planning
Commission considered a recommendation to the City Council to
approve the Project. The final draft did not include Lucas’s
storefront business property in the Overlay District.
      The minutes of the public hearing identify Lucas as a
longtime resident of the City and owner of property in the City,
who “stated he was excited to be included in the overlay, because
additional security would no longer make his property a soft
target. He shared all the problems he has witnessed [in] the area
over the last several years (murder, fires, stolen copper). He
stated he doesn’t understand why his property was taken off the
overlay, because there aren’t children or other pedestrians. . . .
He stated it’s an industrial and office area where cannabis should

                                17
be welcome. He requested the Planning Commission reconsider
including this area.”
       The transcript of the October 9, 2019 proceedings sets out
Lucas’s stated position at the public hearing: “Originally I saw
my area was included in the map and I thought that was a great
thing for that area. . . . [¶] So I was pretty excited when I seen
that we were included in that . . . . We had a bunch of problems
over the years. . . . In 2015 my building burnt down. In 2016 the
Fairplex sign was caught on fire. Then we had a small kitchen
fire in 2014 and by the time they got there to do the repairs
somebody had stole all the copper. So we need some help there.
There’s no residence in that area. There’s none whatsoever. I
don’t understand why [my property has been] taken off the
overlay.” “I think in this area, this is an industrial office area,
cannabis should be welcome. There’s no residents right there.
The security that has been a strength in the area, something
that’s paramount to somebody like me that has supported the
City of Pomona for 26 years. Allowing cannabis to operate in the
area will bring us a level of security that we deserve and I just
hope and pray that this Council will reconsider improving that
area.”
       Other parties opposed, for different reasons, the proposed
commercial cannabis area boundaries. The City of La Verne
submitted a letter dated October 1, 2019, stating it “previously
passed an ordinance which prohibits [cannabis-related] activity
within [its] boundary.” It requested that the City of Pomona
“revise the map to consider [their] shared boundary as a sensitive
use, with a 1,000 [foot] buffer from these shared jurisdictional
lines.”

                                18
       The City of Walnut, which does not permit cannabis-related
activities and shares a border with Pomona, submitted a letter
dated October 9, 2019, stating it is “formally objecting to the
establishment of a Cannabis Permit Program Overlay District, as
currently proposed.” It contended the DOS “attempting to deem
cannabis related activities (such as cultivation, distribution,
retailing and manufacturing) consistent with Pomona’s General
Plan and 2014 [EIR]” was “questionable” and expressed “concern”
that the “proper analysis required by [CEQA] has not been
attempted.” The letter provided that the proposed Overlay
District boundaries are “literally adjacent” to the City of Walnut
and “ignored how its proposal would impact the . . . proposed land
uses and development in the City of Walnut.”
       At the October 9, 2019 public hearing, the City Council
voted not to recommend approval of the Project. The matter was
referred back to the Planning Commission for additional
deliberation and revisions and to make changes to the proposed
Project.
VIII. Post-October 9, 2019 Hearing Objections
      On October 11, 2019, Lucas sent an email to the City
stating: “I saw when Pomona was approving my area for cannabis
and I was excited. Finally we will have enough security and be
important enough for regular police patrols. [¶] I have heard
people say cannabis should not be approved [in my area] because
kids walk home from school down that street. [¶] That is not true.
I have owned 1740 Gillette Rd since 1993 [and] have never seen
even one school kid walk by. All I see is the criminal element
from . . . surrounding fields. [¶] . . . [¶] There is no residence on
Gillette. The only people here are the homeless and criminals
from . . . surrounding areas. . . . [¶] I was thinking of selling my

                                 19
building and reinvesting in a safer area. Then I saw the first
map draft and my area was on the block for a micro business so I
changed my mind and decided [to] stay. . . . [¶] . . . So why was
my area omitted? [¶] Allowing cannabis to operate in this area
will bring a level [of] security . . . that is much needed and greatly
desired. . . . [¶] I hope and pray you see the logic and the
unlimited benefits of allowing this in my area. I am begging you
[to] reconsider or correct the wrong. This is and will be one of the
best areas in the whole City to allow cannabis.”
       In a letter dated October 29, 2019, the City of Claremont
expressed “concern with the proposed area along Foothill Blvd
which you are considering for the permitting of retail cannabis
sales. This particular area . . . lies in the center of what we
consider one of [the] most vulnerable communities.” Claremont
requested that “City Council consider the addition of a 1,000 foot
buffer from neighboring City borders be added” to the Overlay
District zones; Claremont posited “this buffer would preserve and
protect our neighborhoods from any potential negative impacts.”
       In a letter dated October 29, 2019, the City of La Verne
again requested that the City maintain a 1,000 foot buffer from
its jurisdictional boundary.
       The City of Walnut submitted a letter dated October 30,
2019, stating that the Walnut City Council “voted to formally
oppose the Overlay District as presently proposed.” Walnut City
“strongly urge[d] the City of Pomona to eliminate the
southernmost portion of Sub Area 3 along Valley [Blvd.] adjacent
to the City of Walnut.” The City of Walnut also objected to
Pomona’s reliance on Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (a) as
improper, and argued the Findings of Consistency failed to
adequately consider new and increased significant environmental

                                 20
impacts posed by commercial cannabis uses. In addition, the City
Manager of Walnut expressed concern that the City’s
determination that cannabis-related activities were consistent
with the General Plan Update and 2014 EIR “raises substantial
concern that the proper analysis required by [CEQA] has not
been attempted.”
       In addition, other public commenters, including a school
principal, lodged concerns about: increased traffic from residents
of surrounding cities who would come to the City because
cannabis is illegal in their cities; hazardous chemicals used in
growing released in faulty water discharges; proximity of
cannabis facilities to schools; increase in air pollution; noise from
back-up generators to be used in case of power outages; odor from
live plants; increase in crime and enforcement issues; and
greenhouse gas emissions.
IX.   The City’s Hearings on November 4 and 18, 2019
      At the public hearing on November 4, 2019, the City
Council introduced “for first reading” the ordinance to establish
the permissible locales for commercial cannabis activities. The
minutes of the meeting reflect that an amendment was
introduced to the Project which included an additional 600-foot
buffer from the City’s boundaries. Also removed from the Project
were 122 of the 414 parcels originally contemplated, leaving 292
parcels eligible for commercial cannabis activities. The City
Council unanimously approved the ordinance, as amended.
      On November 18, 2019, the City’s development services
director replied to Lucas’s email and stated: “Thank you for
inquiring about [your] parcel along Gillette Road and its removal
from the Draft Commercial Cannabis Permit Program. I wanted
to provide you with additional information on the methodology

                                 21
that we used in removing these parcels. [¶] As part of our
analysis into cannabis zoning, one step was to look at the parcel’s
General Plan ‘land use designation.’ This designation is a long-
range vision for how the City intends to use the land, beyond
existing zoning. . . . In the case of the area along Gillette Road
adjacent to the freeway, it is contemplated as ‘Neighborhood
Edge’ and ‘Activity Center.’ This would allow a combination of
retail but also multi-family residential uses. As residential uses
may be problematic in this area, given their proximity to air
quality emissions from the neighboring freeway, we believe this
is one area of the city where the long-range vision needs to be
revisited and possibly amended. Therefore, rather than
introduce a new land use such as cannabis in this area, we have
paused on these parcels and removed them from consideration at
this point in time, until we can revisit and clarify an appropriate
long-range vision and land use designation for this area. This
same analysis also led to the removal of parcels along Second
Street east of Reservoir, which have a long-term designation that
posed various land use challenges that need to be revisited.”
       At the City Council meeting and public hearing held
November 18, 2019, a “second reading” and discussion of the
Project was held. The City Council adopted as appropriate the
DOS and found the Project, as amended, in compliance with
CEQA, the Business and Tax Ordinances, and the General Plan
Update. It also found the Project reflects community feedback.
The meeting minutes specify that a few individuals “spoke on
concerns” regarding the proposed cannabis locations or the
cannabis application process. The meeting minutes further
specify that Lucas “spoke in opposition of” the Project.
       The transcript of the November 18, 2019 public hearing

                                22
provides context as to what exactly Lucas “spoke in opposition
of”: The property Lucas owns has “always been zoned commercial
ever since I bought it. . . . [¶] [On] May 6, 2019, Pomona issued a
map outlining the proposed cannabis areas. . . . My area was
identified as the only storefront location at that time. . . . [¶]
Then in August was the first time I’d seen an overlay with any
type of exclusion for [my] area.” Lucas “reached out” to the City
and was informed “that it was part of the general plan that
possibly that area is going to be zoned residential in the future.
I’ve owned that property for 26 years. That area will never be
residential.” “I was real excited when I saw the City of Pomona
was finally going to get into the cannabis arena, especially after
seeing Santa Ana had made 7.9 million dollars last fiscal year on
taxes.” Lucas “spen[t] two million dollars on a [commercial]
building” in that area. “I stand to lose millions. You know, if the
City takes a wrong path and discriminates against me, I don’t
think this is fair and my attorney does not think it’s fair. Failure
to do the right thing and approve the right area will not only cost
me millions; it’s going to cost the City of Pomona millions, too. So
I hope and pray that this Council sees the error in the proposed
map and the potential liability placed on the City before we even
issue our first license and make a correction.” Lucas did not
object based on Guidelines section 15183, nor did he raise any
environmental concerns.
       Following City Council and City Staff discussion, a motion
to adopt the Project was approved unanimously. The motion
concluded the ordinance was exempt from CEQA and adopted the
Findings of Consistency which asserted the Project met the strict
streamlined review process and requirements in Guidelines
section 15183 and concluded that no additional environmental

                                23
review or documentation was required. The City Council directed
City Staff to file a Notice of Exemption outlining its CEQA
determination.
      On November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission filed a
Notice of Exemption for the Project with the county recorder.
The exempt status relied on Guidelines section 15183. It
reasoned: “According to Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a
Community Plan or Zoning) of the CEQA Guidelines, additional
environmental review is not required or projects ‘which are
consistent with the development density established by existing
zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an
EIR was certified.’ Findings of Consistency with the 2014 [EIR]
were prepared and approved by City Council.”
X.    Petition for Writ of Mandate
       On December 24, 2019, Lucas filed a petition for writ of
mandate (petition) against the City pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.5. It alleged a single cause of action—a
violation of CEQA. Lucas challenged the City’s determination
that the Project qualified for an exemption under Guidelines
section 15183, subdivision (a), and argued the City’s approval of
the ordinance establishing the Project must be vacated and
voided.
       Lucas cited the Findings of Consistency and disagreed with
its conclusion. He alleged the City “is one of the few jurisdictions
in the area that allows the sale of commercial cannabis” and “the
establishment of a limited number of locales in which commercial
cannabis may be purchased will result in traffic and related air
quality impacts that were not, and could not have been, analyzed
in the 2014 EIR” because the City did not allow commercial
cannabis activities at the time the 2014 EIR was prepared. He

                                24
alleged the impacts of this “newly permitted use” are not similar
to the “impacts of the typical development contemplated” in the
2014 EIR. “Increased traffic from residents of many surrounding
communities who will come to [the City] because cannabis is
illegal in their communities is a specific impact that was not
analyzed in the 2014 EIR.”
       Lucas also alleged the discussion of greenhouse gas
emissions in the 2014 EIR and the Findings of Consistency “does
not support the conclusion that there would be no significant
project specific or site-specific [greenhouse gas emission]-related
impacts.” The Findings of Consistency also “failed to take into
account . . . that there will be significant project-specific and site-
specific noise impacts due to the fact that indoor cultivation . . .
will require installation of back-up generators which will produce
significantly greater noise than the uses studied in the 2014
EIR.”
       Lucas requested that the court order the City to vacate and
set aside its approval of the Project, including all permits and the
Notice of Exemption adopted by the City to facilitate the Project,
because the City “failed to comply with the provisions set forth
under [CEQA] and therefore failed to proceed in a manner
required by law.” Lucas also requested that the court order the
City to “prepare and certify a legally adequate environmental
review for the Project.”
XI.   The City’s Answer
       On August 5, 2020, the City filed its answer to Lucas’s
petition for writ of mandate and denied improper adoption of
exemption. The City asserted many affirmative defenses against
Lucas, including, but not limited to, lack of standing under
section 21177, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, claim

                                  25
preclusion, failure to comply with CEQA, no prejudicial abuse of
discretion, and legislative discretion.
XII. Hearing, Ruling, and Judgment
       The hearing on Lucas’s petition to set aside the City’s
approval of the Project took place on November 24, 2020. The
court admitted into evidence the nearly 12,200-page
administrative record. After lengthy argument, the trial court
denied Lucas’s petition.
       The trial court found the “facts establish that the [Project]
excluding Lucas’s property has an impact on his business
opportunity” and thus he has “beneficial interest” standing to
raise a CEQA challenge to the City’s environmental analysis.
The court next found Lucas did not have “public interest”
standing. The court also found Lucas “exhausted his
administrative remedies.”
       The trial court ruled the City was entitled to rely on
Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (a) and that the Project is
consistent with the General Plan and meets the foundational
criterion of the exemption. The court found the six DOS findings
were final and most of Lucas’s issues stemmed from the City’s
decision to approve the DOS, which “conclusively determined that
the [permitted] cannabis-related uses . . . are sufficiently similar
to the uses allowed by the underlying zoning.” (Italics added.)
       In addition, the court found the substantial evidence
standard applies to review of the City’s section 21083.3
exemption. The court found substantial evidence that the Project
“do[es] not alter general land use patterns because they fall
within the uses permitted by the underlying zoning”; does not
substantially impact air quality; and will not result in increased
traffic, odor, noise, and greenhouse gas emission impacts beyond

                                26
those addressed by the 2014 EIR.
      On December 15, 2020, the trial court entered judgment
against Lucas.
XIII. Measure Ballot6
      Three weeks before the November 24, 2020 trial court
hearing and resulting decision, the City Council placed two
cannabis-related measures on the ballot for the general
municipal election held on November 3, 2020: 1) Measure PO,
which adopted a cannabis permit overlay identical to the Project;
and 2) a competing ballot measure, Measure PM. Measure PO
passed with 59.11 percent votes in favor to 40.89 percent against.
      On December 7, 2020 (after the trial court issued its
November 24, 2020 decision), the City deemed Measure PO
adopted and ratified pursuant to City Resolution No. 2020-181.
      On February 1, 2021, Lucas filed a notice of appeal from
the December 15, 2020 judgment denying the petition for writ of
mandate. He did not file an appeal from or obtain a court-
ordered stay as to the results of the November 3, 2020 election on

6      On May 25, 2022, the City filed a motion requesting
judicial notice of three documents: 1) the City’s Resolution
No. 2020-124, ordering the submission of Ballot Measure PO to
affirm the Project Ordinance and Business Ordinance at the
general election held on November 3, 2020; 2) the City’s
Resolution No. 2020-181, ratifying and adopting Measure PO
after the results of the November 3, 2020 election; and 3) the City
Council’s report dated December 7, 2020 regarding the official
election results of the November 3, 2020 election. We grant the
request for judicial notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252; Evid.
Code, §§ 452, subd. (b), 459; see also Evid. Code, § 200 [“public
entity” defined to include a city].)

                                27
Measure PO or the December 7, 2020 City Resolution No. 2020-
181 adopting and ratifying Measure PO.

                        DISCUSSION
      Many issues are raised on appeal. The City argues Lucas
lacks standing to maintain his writ petition, which, it also
contends, is moot. The City also argues Lucas is precluded from
proceeding because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
We assume Lucas prevails on these procedural issues and
proceed to the merits of the appeal: whether the City’s
determination that the Project is exempt per section 21083.3
and/or Guidelines section 15183 was proper and whether
additional environmental review is needed.
I.   CEQA, Generally
       CEQA and its Guidelines embody California’s strong public
policy of protecting the environment. (Arcadians for
Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88
Cal.App.5th 418, 428–429 (Arcadians).) CEQA was enacted to
advance four related purposes: to 1) inform the government and
public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental
impacts; 2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental
damage; 3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project
changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible;
and 4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental
approval of a project that may significantly impact the
environment. (Arcadians, at pp. 428–429.)
       CEQA provides a three-tiered process to guide agencies in
carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant
effect upon the environment. (Arcadians, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th
at p. 429.)

                               28
       The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring the agency to
conduct a preliminary review to determine whether the proposed
activity is subject to CEQA. (Arcadians, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at
p. 429; Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite
Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 636.)
CEQA applies if the proposed activity is a “project” under the
statutory definition, unless the project falls within one of several
exemptions to CEQA. (See §§ 21065, 21080.) If the agency finds
the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the stated
exemptions,7 an agency’s CEQA inquiry ends and the agency may
proceed to file a notice of exemption, citing the relevant section of
the Guidelines and including a brief statement of reasons to
support the finding. (Guidelines, § 15062; Arcadians, at p. 429;
San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco

7     The agency must decide whether the activity qualifies for:

      1) A statutory exemption, enacted by Legislature (see
§ 21080, subd. (b); North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands
Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 850 (North Coast);
Union, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1186); or

      2) One of the 33 categorical exemptions articulated in the
Guidelines (see Guidelines, §§ 15300–15333 [listing 33 classes of
projects categorically exempt from CEQA]).

      A critical difference between statutory and categorical
exemptions is that statutory exemptions are absolute, which is to
say that the exemption applies if the project fits within its terms.
(North Coast, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 850.) Categorical
exemptions, on the other hand, are subject to exceptions that
defeat the use of the exemption, and the agency considers the
possible application of an exception in the exemption
determination. (Ibid.)

                                 29
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1019–1020 (San Francisco).) If,
however, the project does not fall within an exemption, the
agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial
study. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa
Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 792; Union, supra, 7 Cal.5th
at p. 1186; see Guidelines, § 15063.)
       One exemption under Guidelines section 15183, subdivision
(a), does not require additional environmental review for projects
“which are consistent with the development density established
by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for
which an EIR was certified,” except as might be necessary to
determine whether there are project-specific significant effects.
Guidelines section 15183 was promulgated on the authority of
section 21083.3, which provides a public agency need examine
only those environmental effects that are peculiar to the project
and were not addressed or were insufficiently analyzed as
significant effects in the prior EIR. (§ 21083.3, subds. (a), (b).)
       The second tier of the CEQA process requires the agency to
conduct an initial study to determine whether the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. (Arcadians, supra,
88 Cal.App.5th at p. 429; Guidelines, § 15063.) If the initial
study finds no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect, the agency is excused from preparing an EIR,
and instead, must prepare a negative declaration, briefly
describing the reasons supporting the determination;
environmental review ends. (Arcadians, at p. 430; San
Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist.
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 389–390; Guidelines, §§ 15063,
subd. (b)(2), 15070.) If the initial study identifies potentially
significant environmental effects but 1) those effects can be fully

                                30
mitigated by changes in the project, and 2) the project applicant
agrees to incorporate those changes, then the agency must
prepare a mitigated negative declaration. (Arcadians, at p. 430.)
       Finally, if the initial study finds substantial evidence that
the project may have a significant environmental impact that
cannot be mitigated—and thus, the project does not qualify for a
negative declaration—then the third tier of the CEQA process is
reached. (San Francisco, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1020;
§§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(1), 15080.) The
agency must prepare and certify an EIR on the proposed project
before approving or proceeding with the project. (Union, supra,
7 Cal.5th at p. 1187.) The EIR is the “heart” of CEQA, providing
agencies with in-depth review of projects with potentially
significant environmental effects. (Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th
1112, 1123; Pacific Palisades Residents Association, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1363.)
       The CEQA requirements apply to discretionary projects
carried out or approved by public agencies, including enacting
and amending zoning ordinances, issuance of conditional use
permits, and approving tentative subdivision maps (§ 21080), but
“[m]inisterial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by
public agencies” and those the agency rejects or disapproves are
expressly exempted from CEQA. (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (5).)
Keeping these principles in mind, we turn to the merits.

                                31
II.   The City Properly Determined that the Project is
      Exempt per Guidelines Section 15183 and Requires
      No Additional Environmental Review
      Guidelines section 15183’s parallel provision in CEQA is
section 21083.3. (See generally, Remy et al., Guide to the Cal.
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999) pp. 511–517.)
We discuss Guidelines section 15183 instead of the statutory
provision because that is the way the parties primarily presented
their arguments to this court.
      A.    Guidelines Section 15183, Generally
       Guidelines are “binding on all public agencies in
California.” (Guidelines, § 15000.) “In interpreting CEQA, we
accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are
clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano
County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380, fn. 2;
California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California
(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 227, 240, fn. 3.)
       Section 15183 of the Guidelines is a statutory provision, not
a categorical exemption—i.e., it is not among those exemptions
set forth in Guidelines sections 15300 through 15333. Guidelines
section 15183 provides that exempt classes of projects include,
but are not limited to, qualifying projects “consistent with the
development density established by existing zoning, community
plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,” as
was the case here. (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (a).) Such projects
“shall not require additional environmental review, except as
might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific
significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”
(Ibid.; see also id. § 15183.3, subd. (d)(2)(A).) “This streamlines

                                32
the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare
repetitive environmental studies.” (Id., § 15183, subd. (a); see
also id. § 15183.3, subd. (c).)
       In approving a project meeting the requirements of
Guidelines section 15183, a public agency shall limit its
examination of environmental effects/impacts to those which the
agency, in its initial study or other analysis, determines: 1) are
peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be
located; 2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR
on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which
the project is consistent; 3) are potentially significant (whether
off-site or cumulative) and were not discussed in the prior EIR
prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action;
or 4) are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than
discussed in the prior EIR. (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (b)(1)–(4);
see also § 21083.3.)
      B.    Standard of Review
      One dispute between the parties concerns the applicable
standard of review in evaluating an exemption claimed under
Guidelines section 15183.
      Lucas contends the fair argument standard applies to the
question of whether the claimed exemption obviated the
requirement for an EIR. (See Georgetown Preservation Society v.
County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358, 370 [“This
unusual ‘fair argument’ standard of review over a public agency’s
decision has been characterized as setting a ‘low threshold
requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a
preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review
when the question is whether any such review is warranted.’ ”].)
The standard presents a legal question, i.e., the sufficiency of the

                                 33
evidence to support a fair argument; under this standard,
deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate and its
decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is
no credible evidence to the contrary. (Ibid.)
       The City, however, contends we should employ the
substantial evidence standard of review in determining whether
the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA.
       As explained below, we agree with the City.
       Appellate review under CEQA is de novo in the sense that
we review the agency’s actions as opposed to the trial court’s
decision. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v.
City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 (Vineyard);
North Coast, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 849.) In considering a
petition for writ of mandate in a CEQA case, our task on appeal
is the same as the trial court’s; we examine the City’s decision.
(San Francisco, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021; Banker’s Hill,
Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of
San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 257.)
       Judicial review of the City’s compliance with CEQA is
governed by the prejudicial abuse of discretion standard set forth
in section 21168.5. Such an abuse “is established if the agency
has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the
determination or decision is not supported by substantial
evidence.” (§ 21168.5; see Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018)
6 Cal.5th 502, 512; see Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 426–
427; see Arcadians, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p.428; see also
Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1375
(Gentry).) Therefore, we resolve the CEQA issues before us by
independently determining whether the administrative record
demonstrates any legal error by the City and whether it contains

                               34
substantial evidence to support the City’s factual determinations.
(North Coast, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at pp. 849–850; Sierra
Club, at p. 512 [whether the public agency employed the correct
procedures and followed applicable law is subject to independent
judicial review; whether the public agency made findings of fact
supported by substantial evidence (or not)].) Also, when the
agency acts in its role as the finder of facts, its findings are
subject to deferential review under the substantial evidence
standard. (Sierra Club, at p. 512.)
       An agency’s finding that a statutory exemption applies to a
project will be upheld if substantial evidence supports the finding
of exemption. (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013)
214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311.) In determining whether an
agency’s findings concerning the use of a statutory exemption
from CEQA may be upheld, we review the administrative record
to see that substantial evidence supports each element of the
exemption. (North Coast, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 850.)
There must be substantial evidence that the project is properly
within an exempt status; that evidence may be found in the
information submitted in connection with the project, including
at any hearings that the agency chooses to hold. (Ibid.) Our
application of substantial evidence review in the context of a
challenge to an agency’s use of a statutory exemption means we
determine whether the administrative record contains relevant
information that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to
support the conclusion reached. (Id. at p. 851.) All conflicts in
the evidence are resolved in support of the agency’s action and we
indulge all reasonable inferences to support the agency’s findings,
if possible. (Ibid.; Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v.
City of Chino (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 845.)

                                35
       Lucas’s reliance on Gentry—for the notion that the fair
argument standard applies—is misplaced. The court in Gentry
found the party challenging the adoption of the negative
declaration has the burden of proving there is substantial
evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental
effects. (Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1379.) Gentry
involved proceedings reviewing a city’s adoption of a negative
declaration and approval of a residential development project.
(Ibid.) The Gentry decision did not hold that the fair argument
standard applies to our review of a city’s adoption of a notice of
exemption finding no additional CEQA review is required
because the Project would not result in significant environmental
impacts or mitigation beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR.
       The matter before us involves Lucas’s writ petition
challenging the City’s November 19, 2019 Notice of Exemption
determining that the Project qualifies for an exemption per
Guidelines section 15183. Because Guidelines section 15183
requires an agency to examine whether a project’s environmental
effects were analyzed as significant impacts in a prior EIR on a
general plan or zoning action with which the project is consistent
(here, the 2014 EIR on the General Plan Update), the substantial
evidence standard applies. “[F]air argument is not the proper
standard of review. Substantial evidence is the proper standard
where . . . an agency determines that a project consistent with a
prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse
effect.” (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment
& Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 174; see, e.g., Citizens
for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of
San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598,
611 [“the fair argument standard does not apply to review of an

                                36
agency’s determination that a project’s potential environmental
impacts were adequately analyzed in a prior program EIR”].)
      C.    Analysis
       At the first tier, we determine whether the proposed
activity is subject to CEQA. A “project” is an activity that 1) is
undertaken or funded by or subject to the approval of a public
agency, and 2) may cause either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment. (§ 21065; Union, supra, 7 Cal.5th at
p. 1180.) The creation of the Overlay District qualifies as a
project, as it was an activity undertaken by and subject to the
City’s approval, that may cause reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects.
       Lucas argues the Project does not fall within any
exemption, and that the Project’s significant environmental
impacts were not adequately addressed in the 2014 EIR based on
the General Plan Update, requiring further environmental
review.
       However, we agree with the City that the Project falls
within one of several statutory exemptions to CEQA—Guidelines
section 15183—and thus, did not require additional
environmental review, warranting the City’s issuance of the
Notice of Exemption.
       We address in detail below.
            1.    Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption
                  Applies to the Project
      For the exemption under Guideline section 15183 to apply,
the Project must be “consistent with the development density
established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan

                                37
policies for which an EIR was certified.” (Guidelines, § 15183,
subd. (a).) “Consistent” is defined as “the density of the proposed
project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the
involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning
action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project
complies with the density-related standards contained in that
plan or zoning.” (Id. § 15183, subd. (i)(2).)
       Thus, Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (a) requires the
Project to be “consistent with the development density
established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan
policies”—here, the Pomona Municipal Code, Pomona Zoning
Ordinance, California Building Code, the City’s General Plan
Update, and the certified 2014 EIR. Any environmental impacts
associated with the Project would be similar to those anticipated
in the General Plan Update and 2014 EIR, taking into
consideration applicable municipal code and zoning
requirements. No additional CEQA environmental review shall
be required so long as the Project would not result in any new or
increased significant environmental impacts or mitigation beyond
those identified in the 2014 EIR based on the General Plan
Update.
       Lucas argues Guidelines section 15183 does not apply to
exempt the Project because it was not consistent with the
development density established by existing zoning or general
plan policies for which the 2014 EIR was certified. (See
Guidelines, § 15183, subds. (a), (d)(1)(B)–(C), (i)(2); Gov. Code,
§ 65860, subd. (a) [“zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the
general plan”].) More specifically, Lucas contends, “Where there
are no density-related standards contained in the zoning
applicable to the parcels to which the Project relates, there is no

                                38
way for the Project to be deemed ‘consistent.’ ” He focuses on the
fact that the “word ‘density’ does not even appear anywhere else
in the entire Findings of Consistency.” Lucas argues the
Findings of Consistency do not constitute “substantial evidence
for the adopted [f]inding or the conclusion by the City that the
exemption applied . . . to the Project.”
       Lucas’s Appellate counsel Gregory T. Wittmann filed a
declaration on March 30, 2022, stating to this court that he
“reviewed the City of Pomona Zoning Code and City Code for
density regulations applicable to non-residential uses” and
“declare[s] that there are no provisions in the Pomona Municipal
Code or Zoning Code which use the term ‘density’ specifically
with reference to non-residential zones.”
       Lucas takes quite a literal approach—one with which we do
not agree. The fact that the exact word “density” or exact phrase
“density-related standards” is not included in the zoning
ordinances, General Plan Update, and 2014 EIR does not
necessarily mean that those topics were not discussed with
different verbiage. Plus, a review of the administrative record
shows “land use distribution and density” and “zone
density/intensity” are, in fact, discussed in the 2014 EIR.
Furthermore, the DOS expressly provide that the six proposed
commercial cannabis uses share “characteristics common with,
and not of greater intensity, density or generate more
environmental impact, than those uses listed in the land use
district in which it is to be located.”
       And, as already discussed in a preceding section, Lucas did
not file an appeal of the DOS conclusions. They are now final.
The DOS determined that each of the six types of commercial
cannabis uses/permits was deemed “similar” to other land use

                               39
activities. For instance, cannabis retail permit type was deemed
“similar” in density and/or land use activity “to other convenience
retail uses, such as drug stores.” Cannabis manufacturing
permit type was deemed “similar in land use activity to other
manufacturing uses, such as the extraction of essential oils or
food and beverage production.” Cannabis cultivation permit type
was deemed “similar in land use activity to other crop raising
uses, such as large nurseries.” Testing permit type was deemed
“similar in land use activity to other processing uses, such as
medical imaging and testing labs or scientific research facilities.”
Cannabis distribution permit type was found similar to land use
activity of distributing plants. Microbusiness is a permit type
similar to many land use classifications, such as manufacturing,
commercial, and raising of crops.
       Lucas is now foreclosed from challenging any of the
foregoing commercial cannabis activities/land findings.
Moreover, the Findings of Consistency adopted the City’s
conclusions made in the DOS, as the Findings of Consistency
included a table that identified the six commercial cannabis
permitted uses and how they fall into existing, defined land use
classifications in the City based on the Pomona Zoning
Ordinance, the General Plan Update, and the DOS. All of this,
taken together, constitutes substantial evidence.
       Substantial evidence shows the Project’s proposed
commercial cannabis activities were similar to or “consistent”
with existing land uses or development density established by the
2014 EIR and General Plan Update, and thus meet the statutory
exemption per Guidelines section 15183.

                                40
            2.    No Additional Environmental Review
                  Necessary
         Lucas again first takes a literal approach, arguing the 2014
EIR “does not include either the word ‘marijuana’ or the word
‘cannabis,’ ” so how could the EIR have possibly addressed the
significant environmental impacts related to cannabis use
activities. Lucas also argues the Findings of Consistency are
“patently erroneous” for claiming the proposed Project “would not
. . . alter general land use patterns” because the Project
“establishes permissible locations for a land use that has never
before existed legally within the City.” (Italics added.) His
arguments miss the point. The City determined via the six DOS
that the proposed cannabis uses are not of greater intensity or
density, nor would they generate more environmental impacts,
than those listed in the land use district in which it is to be
located. This is a nonissue, given that the six commercial
cannabis activities were deemed similar to already existing land
uses, and as such, were covered by the uses contemplated by the
2014 EIR and 2013 General Plan Update.
         Lucas next contends, based on Guidelines section 15183,
subdivision (b), the City’s decision that the Project is exempt from
additional environmental review is not supported by substantial
evidence. Lucas argues the 2014 EIR did not address the
Project’s “unique and peculiar impacts associated with cannabis-
related businesses.”
         The City argues the Project merely imposes an overlay use
on existing zoning; it does not guarantee anyone the automatic
right to establish a cannabis-related business, but rather,
provides the option to apply for a cannabis business permit. In
that sense, the Project does not cause project-specific effects

                                 41
“peculiar” to it. Put differently, the Project does not cause effects
dissimilar from effects caused by existing businesses.
      We agree.
      Resolving all conflicts in the evidence in support of the City
and indulging all reasonable inferences to support the City’s
findings, we find substantial evidence—the General Plan Update,
the 2014 EIR, the Project, the DOS, and Findings of
Consistency—shows the Project “has no project-specific effects”
that are “peculiar” to it. An examination of the record shows
there would not be reasonably foreseeable project-specific
changes that were significant and peculiar to the Project, any
amendments to applicable zoning, or to the Overlay District map.
      The DOS specifically undertook this analysis and
concluded—based “on the entirety of its research into commercial
cannabis permit types and their associated land use activities”—
that cannabis uses were sufficiently similar to existing uses
allowed by the underlying zoning. This research and effort spent
constitute substantial evidence supporting the City’s
determination that commercial cannabis-related uses within the
Overlay District do not alter the general land use patterns
because they fall within the uses permitted by the underlying
zoning.
            3.    Impacts
       Lucas next argues the Project’s impacts were “not analyzed
as significant effects” in the 2014 EIR, and as such, are not
exempt from further environmental review. According to Lucas,
many of the Project’s environmental impacts were found to be
less-than-significant effects in the 2014 EIR and not exempt from
environmental review, including traffic, air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land use/planning, noise, and public services.

                                 42
      We address each environmental impact below.
                  a.    Traffic
       Lucas argues “there is no evidence in the [r]ecord that the
City made any finding, based on substantial evidence, that the
policies or standards, when applied to future projects, would
substantially mitigate the impact” on traffic. Lucas also argues
the Project will generate increased vehicle traffic causing more
vehicle emissions.
       The Project would not increase traffic impacts to the
roadway network beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR since it
would not increase development intensity compared to the
General Plan Update.
       The 2014 EIR acknowledged that traffic impacts were
significant and unavoidable, and adopted two mitigation
measures. To mitigate the impact, the General Plan Update was
amended to include a policy to “work with future developers to
implement the [specific] improvements identified” in the 2014
EIR. Impacts were less than significant and no mitigation
measures required; but it was “recommended” to consider
“measures [that] could include radar speed limit signs, bulb outs,
chicanes, or raised crosswalks.” Cannabis-related development
would also be required to meet all applicable local and state
regulatory standards for site design and emergency access,
including those in the California Building Code, Pomona
Municipal Code, and Fire Code. Therefore, substantial evidence
shows the Project would not generate traffic hazards or site
accessibility issues and would have no impact beyond that
identified in the 2014 EIR.

                                  43
                  b.    Air Quality
       Lucas argues there is no substantial evidence in the record
to support the Findings of Consistency that the Project’s impacts
to air quality would be less than significant per the 2014 EIR. He
raises air quality impacts via the possibility of “odors [being]
released due to faulty ventilation systems” which “cause release
of unpleasant odors.”
       We disagree with Lucas and find there is substantial
evidence showing any environmental impact on air quality by the
Project is less than significant per the 2014 EIR.
       Individual development projects facilitated by the General
Plan Update would generate construction-related emissions,
which may result in “temporary adverse impacts to local air
quality.” However, these emissions can be mitigated on a specific
development basis and impacts would be less than significant.
       The 2014 EIR found mitigation measures are not required
because “existing regulations, policies in the General Plan
Update . . . and mitigation on a specific development basis would
address potential impacts.” Similarly, implementation of the
Project would not allow development of greater intensity than is
allowed under the General Plan Update and, as such, would not
result in air pollutant emissions or CO concentrations beyond
those forecasted in the General Plan Update. While outdoor
cultivation of cannabis is not permitted, cannabis cultivation and
manufacturing facilities can be a source of odor even if operations
are completely indoors. As regulated by Pomona Municipal Code
section 68-27, odor control devices and techniques—such as
carbon filters and air systems—are required in all commercial
cannabis businesses to ensure that odors from cannabis are not
detectable off-site. The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence

                                44
that the Project would not result in air quality impacts from
construction or operation emissions beyond those identified in the
2014 EIR.
                  c.    Greenhouse Gas Emissions
      Lucas argues the primary source of greenhouse gas
emissions related to cannabis cultivation is energy usage for
lighting, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. He contends
“these standards are not tailored to the extraordinary impacts
that cannabis related business” have on such emissions.
      The 2014 EIR provides the General Plan Update would
encourage compact development; promote the establishment and
practice of alternative transit (such as walking and biking) as a
mode of transportation; increase use of renewable energy
resources; and reduce per capita energy consumption, which will
contribute to long-term reductions in per capita greenhouse gas
emissions, in accordance with Senate Bill No. 375 (2007–2008
Reg. Sess.). The 2014 EIR concluded that the increase in per
capita greenhouse gas emissions under the General Plan Update
would be less than significant.
      Cannabis-related development in the Project would remain
subject to development standards set forth in the existing base
zoning district and the General Plan Update and would occur
within designated subareas currently consisting of other retail,
commercial, or industrial uses. As with other uses that could be
developed in the Overlay District subareas, cannabis-related
development would result in greenhouse gas emissions and a
demand in energy, particularly from indoor cultivation. Thus,
substantial evidence supports the finding that the Project would
not result in any significant impact related to such emissions
beyond that identified in the 2014 EIR.

                               45
                   d.    Land Use and Planning
       Lucas next argues the Findings of Consistency’s conclusion
of “no new land use impacts was not based on substantial
evidence.” He contends it is “glaringly erroneous” that the
Project “would not . . . alter the general land use patterns” as it is
establishing “an entirely new land use (one only legalized in the
last few years).”
       We disagree with Lucas again and find substantial
evidence supports the Project’s less-than-significant impact on
land use/planning as contemplated by the 2014 EIR.
       The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the
General Plan Update would be consistent with applicable
regionally adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations are
applicable to development in the City. “Minor policy changes are
recommended to address any potential inconsistencies.”
       The Project would not introduce new land use designations
or otherwise alter the general land use patterns or development
standards; rather, it would establish locations in the City that
permit land uses related to commercial cannabis, which would
remain subject to the existing development standards set forth in
the existing base zoning district (e.g., Commercial Zones) General
Plan Update. The Project would not involve consistency conflicts
with land use plans, policies, or regulations not identified in the
2014 EIR.
       Because permitted use in the Overlay District would
remain subject to existing development standards set forth in the
base zoning district, impacts to police protection services would
not differ from what was considered in the 2014 EIR.

                                 46
                  e.    Noise
       Lucas argues there is “no substantial evidence in the record
to support the claim” of no significant impacts on noise. For
instance, Lucas argues there is “nothing in the record to establish
that the noise created by back-up generators required at cannabis
businesses by the City would be consistent with the sources of
noise addressed in the EIR.” Lucas argues the “operational
noise” associated with cannabis business are unique noise
impacts specific to the Project.
       Lucas’s arguments fail.
       The 2014 EIR provides that implementation of the City’s
existing noise regulations and standards, as well as goals and
policies of the General Plan Update, “would generate or expose
persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance.” Goals and policies
contained in the General Plan Update, as well as development
standards and regulations would minimize these impacts, which
were classified as “less than significant.” Additionally,
implementation of the General Plan Update “could expose noise-
sensitive receptors to substantial temporary or periodic ambient
noise increases. However, these impacts would be temporary,
limited in their geographic scope, regulated by the [Pomona
Municipal Code], and in some cases reduced by policies of the
proposed General Plan Update.” Impacts were classified as “less
than significant.” In fact, the only noise impacts classified as
“significant but mitigable” requiring mitigation measures were
the construction and operation of projects near rail lines and
airports, not commercial cannabis activities and/or land uses. In
addition, Pomona Municipal Code section 18-305 regulates and

                                47
allows noise sources associated with construction, repair,
remodeling or grading of any real property.
       Because permitted use in the Overlay District would
remain subject to existing development standards set forth in the
base zoning district or plan to which the Project is added,
operational noise associated with such development (i.e., back-up
generators) would not differ from what was considered in the
2014 EIR. Surely back-up generators are also utilized by other
retail stores or manufacturers in times of a power outage. The
foregoing constitutes substantial evidence the implementation of
the proposed Project would not result in temporary or operational
noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR.
                  f.    Public Services
       Lucas contends substantial evidence does not support the
City’s determination that the Project’s impact on police services
would not differ from what was considered in the 2014 EIR. We
disagree.
       The 2014 EIR concluded that development facilitated by
the General Plan Update would increase the City’s population
and density of development, and would increase demand for
police protection services, and potentially create the need for new
police facilities. The City “is considering several options for new
police facilities, most of which involve conversion of existing
uses.” Impacts would be “less than significant” as the General
Plan policies “would address potential impacts.” In addition,
compliance with applicable codes, regulations, and with General
Plan Update policies would reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
       Because permitted use in the Overlay District would
remain subject to existing development standards set forth in the

                                48
base zoning district or base plan, impacts to police protection
services would not differ from what was considered in the 2014
EIR. The Project would not result in the need for additional
police protection facilities. No impacts beyond those identified in
the 2014 EIR would occur.
      There are no peculiar, project-specific characteristics that
make the previous analysis inadequate, and, based on Guidelines
section 15183, the proposed Project’s environmental impacts
require no further study. However, additional study was indeed
performed to determine if there would be project-specific
measures that could further reduce the level of impact.
      The City justifiably relied on the exemption provided in
Guidelines section 15183.
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment in favor of the City is affirmed. The City
shall recover its costs on appeal.

      CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

                                          STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.                   WILEY, J.

                                49