San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco
229 Cal. App. 4th 498
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parkmerced Investors proposed a 20–30 year redevelopment of the 152-acre Parkmerced rental complex in San Francisco to replace 1,538 townhouse units, retain 1,683 tower units, and add 5,679 net new units (project total 8,900 units), plus transit, open space, and sustainability measures.
- The City prepared a Draft and Final EIR, amended the General Plan, created a Parkmerced Special Use District (SUD), approved a development agreement, and certified the FEIR; Planning Commission recommended approval and the Board of Supervisors ultimately approved the project in 2011.
- Appellants (San Francisco Tomorrow and Parkmerced Action Coalition) petitioned for a writ to challenge: adequacy of the General Plan (population density/building intensity standards), project consistency with General Plan priority policies (Prop M/Planning Code §101.1), CEQA sufficiency of the EIR (project description, impacts, alternatives, responses, recirculation, findings), a due process claim by PMAC, and inclusion of committee transcripts in the administrative record.
- The trial court denied the writ and sustained a demurrer to PMAC’s due process cause; the Court of Appeal affirmed on all counts.
- The appellate court applied deferential review for General Plan consistency (abuse of discretion / substantial evidence) and CEQA review (prejudicial abuse of discretion; substantial evidence standard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Plan adequacy (population density & building intensity) | Urban Design Element lacks required standards for population density and building intensity under Gov. Code §65302(a). | General Plan (Housing Element Table I-27 & Map I-2 and Urban Design maps/tables) adequately state recommended population densities and building intensity (heights, bulk, FAR guidance). | Affirmed: General Plan sufficiently states population density and building intensity standards. |
| Consistency with Priority Policies (Prop M / Planning Code §101.1) | Measure M requires strict, particularized findings of consistency with each of eight priority policies; City erred by balancing or using "on balance" findings. | Priority policies are not mandatory in the strict sense; City may weigh and balance policies and its consistency findings are entitled to deference. | Affirmed: City permissibly balanced policies; findings supported by substantial evidence; no strict construction required. |
| CEQA adequacy of FEIR (project description, impacts, alternatives, responses, recirculation, findings) | FEIR’s project description was unstable/ambiguous (duration, towers), failed to identify significant impacts (seismic, displacement, pipelines, GHG), omitted feasible alternatives, gave inadequate responses, and failed to recirculate after San Bruno. | FEIR used reasonable assumptions (20-year buildout), described existing towers and impacts, analyzed significant effects (including seismic and displacement) with substantial evidence, considered a reasonable range of alternatives, responded adequately to comments, and recirculation not required. | Affirmed: FEIR and CEQA findings sufficient; substantial evidence supports conclusions; no prejudicial CEQA error shown. |
| Procedural due process (PMAC) | PMAC tenants have vested property interests affected by the development agreement and were denied required notice/hearing when material terms changed. | Approval of the development agreement and related entitlements are legislative acts; procedural due process does not attach to legislative decisions. | Affirmed: Development agreement is legislative; no procedural due process right to individualized hearing; demurrer properly sustained. |
| Administrative record scope (inclusion of LUEDC transcripts) | LUEDC committee transcripts were not before the Board at the time of decision and should be excluded. | Committee hearings occurred before Board action, were publicly available, and are relevant under Pub. Resources Code §21167.6(e) as "other written materials." | Affirmed inclusion: LUEDC hearings fall within §21167.6(e) scope; inclusion not prejudicial to appellants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twain Harte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Tuolumne, 138 Cal.App.3d 664 (Cal. Ct. App.) ("population density" refers to persons per area unless correlation to dwelling units is explicit)
- Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App.) (deferential review of plan consistency; maps may be illustrative)
- Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App.) (a plan inconsistency is reversible when project directly conflicts with specific, mandatory general plan policies)
- Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, 200 Cal.App.4th 1552 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standards governing review of consistency determinations; agencies may weigh plan policies)
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal.) (limits on admitting extra-record evidence in CEQA mandamus review)