Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco
227 Cal. App. 4th 1036
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island redevelopment: a phased 15–20 year mixed‑use project on former naval lands, up to 8,000 housing units (25% affordable), commercial/office space, parks, transit hub, and historic building reuse.
- Site has documented contamination (soil, groundwater, building asbestos/lead, low‑level radiological material); Navy is conducting parcel‑by‑parcel remediation and issues Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) before conveyance; the EIR addresses remediation responsibilities and oversight.
- Lead agencies (City of San Francisco and TIDA) certified a project EIR analyzing full buildout; adopting SUD zoning and a detailed Design for Development (D4D) that sets binding standards and consultation triggers (e.g., Coast Guard, Tidelands Trust overlay).
- Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island (CSTI) petitioned for writ of mandate claiming CEQA violations: EIR should have been a program EIR, project description unstable, inadequate hazardous‑materials analysis and mitigation (including Site 12/24 redesign), failure to recirculate after Coast Guard comments, insufficient historic‑resource analysis, and tidelands trust inconsistency.
- Trial court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding CSTI failed to show prejudicial abuse of discretion or legally required disclosure/recirculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a program EIR was required instead of a project EIR | CSTI: Project is conceptual and lacks project‑level detail; tiering/program EIR required | City/TIDA: EIR substance satisfies CEQA content requirements; label immaterial; project‑level analysis of full buildout was reasonable | Held: EIR adequate; labeling irrelevant—court assesses substance and "rule of reason"; substantial evidence review applies |
| Whether project description was accurate/stable | CSTI: Description too conceptual/indeterminate (building siting, street layout), so EIR is misleading | City/TIDA: SUD and D4D provide detailed, binding standards (heights, streets, flex zones); EIR gave sufficient, non‑speculative detail | Held: Project description was accurate, stable, and met CEQA informational needs |
| Hazardous materials analysis and deferred mitigation (including Site 12→24 redesign) | CSTI: EIR lacks project‑level remediation details; improperly defers mitigation and fails to analyze redesign impacts | City/TIDA: Navy will remediate pre‑transfer; EIR documents contamination, regulatory standards, oversight, and contingency mitigation (M‑HZ‑1); redesign speculative and would trigger supplemental review | Held: EIR’s hazardous‑materials analysis and contingent mitigation adequate; speculative redesign need not be analyzed now |
| Whether recirculation required after Coast Guard VTS comments | CSTI: Coast Guard comment created significant new information about vessel safety/homeland security requiring recirculation | City/TIDA: Final EIR added consultation/mitigation (D4D consultation trigger); refinements did not disclose a new significant impact or deprive public of meaningful comment | Held: No recirculation required; substantial evidence supports agency decision that consultation avoids significant impacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Mun. Water Dist., 38 Cal.App.4th 1609 (court review requires EIR adequacy but not perfection)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (distinguishes procedural de novo review from deferential substantial evidence review)
- Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (EIR must provide sufficient information to foster informed participation; pragmatic standard)
- Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, 82 Cal.App.4th 511 (EIR label not determinative; level of specificity determined by project and rule of reason)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (project description must be accurate, stable, and finite)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (agency’s decision not to recirculate final EIR reviewed under substantial evidence standard)
- Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (baseline and worst‑case analysis principles for EIRs)
- Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (fair‑argument standard applied where later project presents materially different impacts than those addressed in program EIR)
- Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland, 195 Cal.App.4th 884 (upheld deferral of site‑specific mitigation when regulatory scheme ensures mitigation effectiveness)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (invalidated improper deferral of GHG mitigation where proposed mitigation lacked objective, enforceable criteria)