Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure
6 Cal. App. 5th 160
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Project: GSW Arena LLC proposed a 488,000 sq. ft. multipurpose arena (≈18,500 capacity) plus mixed-use buildings on an ~11-acre site in Mission Bay South, San Francisco, to host NBA games and ~200+ events/year.\
- Procedural posture: OCII certified a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) tiered to the 1998 Mission Bay program EIR; Board of Supervisors approved project; plaintiffs (Mission Bay Alliance, SaveMuni, Jennifer Wade) filed CEQA petitions; trial court denied petitions; appeal followed.\
- Key approvals challenged: adequacy of the FSEIR (scope and analysis), secondary use findings, place-of-entertainment permit, and related permits (transportation plan, design review, subdivision).\
- Primary contested environmental topics: land use compatibility, biological resources/wetlands, hazardous materials, transportation and regional transit, noise, wind, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and toxic air contaminants (TACs).\
- Mitigation & findings: FSEIR identified mitigations (TMP, Muni TSP, performance standards/monitoring), adopted statement of overriding considerations for some significant impacts (notably regional transit and certain traffic intersections).\
- Court’s disposition: Affirmed the trial court; held the FSEIR and approvals adequate under CEQA on the issues raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope: Land use / community character | Arena was not analyzed sufficiently—fair argument that it will impede UCSF/hospital and neighborhood uses | Initial study + FSEIR analyzed relevant effects (traffic, noise) and concluded arena wouldn’t impede operations; change fits within program EIR and tiering | Substantial evidence supports OCII; separate land‑use chapter not required; plaintiffs’ claim is policy disagreement, rejected |
| Biological resources / wetland | Excavation pit is a wetland supporting birds; FSEIR omitted significant biological impacts | Site survey found sparse ruderal vegetation; feature has limited habitat value; impact not significant | Substantial evidence supports finding of limited biological value; no significant impact |
| Hazards / contaminated soil | Risk management plan outdated; possible importation of contaminated soil after 1998 FSEIR | 2015 site assessment addressed current conditions; 1999 plan requires compliance with current standards | No CEQA violation; hazards adequately addressed |
| Transportation & regional transit (Muni TSP) | Muni TSP was treated as part of project (not mitigation); funding/feasibility uncertain; insufficient alternatives and enforceability | FSEIR analyzes with‑and‑without TSP scenarios, adopts TMP with performance standards, monitoring, and enforcement; substantial evidence of funding and agency cooperation | Mischaracterization not prejudicial; analysis sufficient; some impacts remain significant/unavoidable and were appropriately covered by statement of overriding considerations |
| Noise (operational and crowd noise) | Thresholds ignore high existing levels and health impacts; incremental method understates harm | Incremental (ambient+increment) thresholds are reasonable and supported by CEQA Guidelines and Caltrans methods; FSEIR discloses health effects and cumulative impacts | Thresholds and analysis adequate; noise impacts disclosed and many are significant/unavoidable as stated |
| GHG emissions | FSEIR should quantify project GHGs and quantify mitigation effects | CEQA Guidelines permit reliance on performance‑based standards and qualified area‑wide GHG reduction plans (San Francisco’s plan); quantification discretionary | Agency did not abuse discretion; consistency with qualified city GHG strategy supports conclusion of no significant GHG impact |
| Toxic air contaminants (TACs) | Any project adding ≥10-in‑1,000,000 cancer risk is significant per some Air District guidance | FSEIR used total cumulative threshold (100-in‑1,000,000) consistent with EPA and other guidance; FSEIR quantified project contribution and disclosed risks | Use of 100-per‑million cumulative threshold supported by substantial evidence; analysis adequate |
| Place-of-entertainment permit (noise safeguards) | Post-event crowd noise will violate local noise limits; therefore permit should be denied | Police Code limits fixed commercial/industrial noise, not mobile crowd noise; permit conditions (noise control plan, good-neighbor policies, enforcement) provide safeguards | Substantial evidence supports permitting decision and sufficiency of permit conditions; commission’s factual findings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (1993) (standards on CEQA review scope and court’s limited role in weighing evidence)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (2015) (discussion of challenges in assessing project GHG impacts and acceptance of compliance-with-plans approach)
- Lotus v. Department of Transportation, 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (2014) (distinguishing project elements from mitigation measures and importance of applying significance thresholds)
- Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco, 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (2014) (standard of review for subsequent environmental review under program EIR)
- Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal.4th 439 (2013) (permitting mitigation measures that require action by other agencies where appropriate)
- Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, 157 Cal.App.4th 149 (2007) (CEQA does not require identification of funding sources for mitigation if there is substantial evidence mitigation will be implemented)