26 Cal. App. 5th 596
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods (SFLN) challenged the City and County of San Francisco’s certification of a combined EIR for revisions to the 2004 and 2009 housing elements of its General Plan; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
- The 2009 Housing Element is a program-level policy document adopting strategies to meet RHNA targets, encourage affordable housing, prioritize housing near transit, and guide future rezoning and approvals; it does not itself rezone or authorize specific development.
- The City certified the Housing Element EIR in 2011 and identified one significant unavoidable cumulative impact: potential transit overcapacity (MUNI exceeding an 85% capacity standard by 2025).
- SFLN’s CEQA challenges focused on (1) the choice of baseline (use of future/ABAG projections for traffic and water rather than existing conditions), (2) alleged failure to disclose/analyze impacts (traffic, water, land use/visual, regional impacts), (3) adequacy of alternatives (lack of reduced-density alternatives), and (4) mitigation (feasibility of transit mitigation, and recirculation given new SFPUC water info).
- The trial court upheld virtually all aspects of the EIR but found some deficiencies in analysis of alternatives and mitigation findings; on appeal the court largely affirmed, holding the EIR adequate under CEQA and substantial-evidence standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate baseline for impact analyses | EIR improperly used ABAG/future (2025) projections as the sole baseline, concealing impacts of policies that would induce density | City may use projected future conditions where justified; Housing Element is growth-accommodating, not growth-inducing, and future baseline reasonably informs long-range plan impacts | Court upheld use of future baseline as within agency discretion (Neighbors for Smart Rail standard) because existing-conditions analysis would be unhelpful or misleading for long-range plan |
| Traffic and cumulative projects inclusion | EIR failed to disclose/assess traffic impacts of major pipeline projects and underestimated cumulative transit impacts | Pipeline projects were subject to their own EIRs; Housing Element EIR included pipeline projects in cumulative 2025 analysis and analyzed 60 intersections | Court found EIR’s cumulative traffic analysis adequate; inclusion of projects in the 2025 projection satisfied CEQA requirements |
| Water supply analysis and recirculation | EIR failed to analyze long-term (post-2030) water uncertainty and new SFPUC memo required recirculation | EIR reasonably relied on SFPUC WSAS showing supplies adequate through 2030; acknowledged post-2030 dry-year risks and mitigation (rationing); new memo did not present information so new and significant to require recirculation | Court held water analysis adequate for program-level EIR; recirculation not required because subsequent memo did not change conclusions in a way that would require new public review |
| Alternatives and reduced-density options | EIR lacked feasible reduced-growth/density alternatives (including RHNA-focused alternatives) and thus failed rule-of-reason alternatives analysis | EIR analyzed a reasonable range (no-project/status quo, 2004-adjudicated, intensified alternative) that met most project objectives; several proposed alternatives were infeasible or would not reduce the identified transit impact | Court held alternatives analysis adequate under CEQA’s rule of reason; no abuse of discretion in rejecting SFLN’s alternatives |
| Mitigation for transit impacts (fees or density limits) | EIR should have considered enforceable mitigation: transit impact fees or density limits along overloaded corridors | City considered mitigation but found measures (new guaranteed SFMTA funding, capacity increases) infeasible or not guaranteed; limiting density would defeat project objectives and resemble no-project alternative | Court upheld EIR’s mitigation analysis; substantial evidence supported finding that proposed mitigation was infeasible or would not be effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist., 1 Cal.5th 937 (explaining EIR and certification prerequisites)
- Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal.4th 439 (agency may use future conditions baseline if justified)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (EIR as informational and accountability document)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (scope of alternatives and CEQA review standards)
- POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board, 12 Cal.App.5th 52 (baseline and project-definition issues in environmental review)
- Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 (alternatives analysis must meaningfully reduce impacts while meeting most objectives)
- Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, 17 Cal.App.5th 413 (program EIR scope and rule of reason for specificity)