Neighbors for Fair Planning v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/3
158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Neighbors for Fair Planning challenges SF City approvals for Booker T. Washington Center Project, a 68,206 sq ft mixed-use development with 48 affordable units and expanded community center, replacing the current 13,745 sq ft building.
- Project includes five-story residential component, gym, child care, and youth programs; on-site affordable housing and potential on-site management units.
- CEQA process involved Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft) and comments/responses; EIR certified April 28, 2011; CUP and Presidio-Sutter Special Use District approved subsequently.
- Petition for writ of mandate sought to invalidate EIR certification, CUP, and Special Use District; superior court denied; appeal followed.
- Court conducted independent review and affirmed the City’s actions as lawful and supported by substantial evidence.
- Key procedural posture: publication of the opinion notes that it is not certified for publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City preapproved the project before CEQA review | Save Tara-like preapproval in 2010–2011 | Predevelopment loan and staff involvement did not constitute approval | No preapproval; CEQA review proper before final approvals |
| Whether the EIR adequately describes the project and setting | Baseline/vicinity description was flawed and affected decisions | EIR provided adequate description; corrections made; no prejudicial error | EIR adequate despite minor inaccuracies; no prejudicial abuse of discretion |
| Whether the Special Use District ordinance constituted project approval before CEQA | SUD introduction amounted to legislative action approving project | Legislative action is not per se approval; final approval occurred after CEQA process | Not CEQA-approval; approval occurred after EIR certification; no error |
| Whether the Code Compliant alternative was properly rejected as infeasible | Alternate smaller project should be analyzed | Feasibility issues supported by operating cash flow analyses and policy considerations | Code Compliant alternative infeasible; supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2008) (timing of CEQA approval and agency commitments)
- Cedar Fair, L.P. v. City of Santa Clara, 194 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (earlier commitments and approval timing under CEQA)
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. App. 1990) (adequacy of EIR disclosures and decisionmaking standard)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. App. 2003) (scope of EIR adequacy and alternatives analysis)
- Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (reasonableness in evaluating alternatives and mitigation measures)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, 177 Cal.App.4th 957 (Cal. App. 2009) (reasonableness standard for alternatives and information disclosure)