33 Cal. App. 5th 321
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Forest City proposed the "5M Project," a mixed‑use redevelopment of a four‑acre site in SoMa, San Francisco, retaining two historic buildings and constructing four new towers with variable office/residential mixes. The Planning Department circulated a DEIR (with "office" and "residential" schemes), received comments, and issued an FEIR. The Planning Commission certified the FEIR and the Board of Supervisors adopted CEQA findings, rezoning (a Fifth & Mission Special Use District), and a development agreement.
- Plaintiffs (SOMCAN, SOS, Friends of Boeddeker Park) petitioned for writ of mandate in superior court alleging multiple CEQA defects in the FEIR and approvals; the trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The DEIR analyzed two project schemes, four feasible alternatives (including No Project, Code‑Compliant, Unified Zoning, Preservation), and concluded a preservation alternative was environmentally superior; the FEIR resulted in a revised project largely based on the preservation alternative.
- Key contested topics were adequacy of the project description; cumulative impacts and study area; traffic/circulation analysis and mitigation; wind and shadow impacts (notably on Boeddeker Park and Yerba Buena Gardens); open space; and consistency with area plans/policies.
- The court applied CEQA standards: procedural adequacy reviewed de novo; factual/methodological choices reviewed for substantial evidence; EIR sufficiency judged by whether it permits informed agency decision‑making and public participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project description | DEIR gave multiple project "options" (office vs residential) creating an unstable, confusing project description that impeded meaningful comment | DEIR described a single mixed‑use project with two alternative allocations; it disclosed dimensions, uses, renderings, and analyzed impacts for both schemes | Court: Project description adequate; two schemes were related, disclosed, analyzed, and did not frustrate public participation or CEQA requirements |
| Cumulative impacts / project list and study area | City relied on an outdated 2012 project list and narrow geographic study area, under‑estimating growth and cumulative impacts | City used SF‑CHAMP growth projections and a list‑based approach, validated the 2012 list before DEIR, and reasonably defined study area | Court: No abuse of discretion; methodology and cut‑off date supported by substantial evidence; study area selection within agency discretion |
| Traffic & circulation (study intersections; mitigation) | EIR used too small a set of intersections (omitted adjacent ramps/streets); failed to consider Safer Market Street Plan (adopted later), and did not adopt community‑proposed mitigations (e.g., transit funding, zero‑parking) | City selected 21 study intersections based on proximity/likely project trip routes; used SF‑CHAMP and list methods; SMSP was not reasonably foreseeable at NOP; DEIR analyzed TDM and alternatives, and reduced trips in revised project | Court: Traffic analysis and study area were reasonable; SMSP not a probable project at NOP; mitigation/alternatives analysis not deficient |
| Alternatives (including community and zero‑parking) | City unlawfully omitted community and zero‑parking alternatives urged by plaintiffs | CEQA requires a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most objectives; city evaluated nine alternatives and plaintiffs failed to show their proposals were feasible/adequate | Court: City not required to analyze every public proposal; plaintiffs failed to show omitted alternatives were feasible or necessary |
| Wind impacts / Planning Code §148 compliance | EIR compared revised project to DEIR schemes instead of existing conditions; must consider Planning Code comfort/hazard criteria and prove infeasibility of redesign; reliance on design guidance deferred mitigation | Defects were not raised administratively; EIR compared to existing conditions and used CEQA significance thresholds (hazard criterion) for mitigation; comfort exceedances are informational and not CEQA‑significant; technical analysis supported findings | Court: Arguments waived and meritless; wind analysis supported by substantial evidence; comfort criterion exceedances do not trigger CEQA mitigation requirement |
| Shadow (Boeddeker Park & Yerba Buena) | Project increases net new shadow and City improperly raised shadow limits instead of pursuing mitigation or alternatives; shadows will harm park uses | EIR quantified shadow change, explained timing/location (early morning/winter, small area), and concluded impacts below CEQA significance thresholds; shadow limits are policy tools separate from CEQA thresholds | Court: FEIR adequately disclosed and analyzed shadow impacts; City’s policy action to raise shadow limits does not itself violate CEQA; no significant impact shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (Cal. 2018) (articulates CEQA review standards: procedural de novo, factual/substantial‑evidence review, and sufficiency principles for EIR discussion)
- Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal.4th 439 (Cal. 2013) (prejudice and informational value required for CEQA relief; not all omissions are prejudicial)
- Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, 210 Cal.App.4th 260 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (EIR presumed adequate; burden on petitioner)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (project description must be stable and not misleading)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (EIR must include entirety of project; misleading or conflicting descriptions are inadequate)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of Univ. of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (EIR must show analytic route from evidence to action; look for adequacy not perfection)
- Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks & Recreation, 17 Cal.App.5th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (DEIR must identify a proposed project rather than multiple disparate projects)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (lead agency has discretion to define cumulative study area; review for abuse of discretion)