Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City of S.F.

• Decision Date: 07 July 2014
• Docket Number: A137828
• Citation: 227 Cal.App.4th 1036,174 Cal.Rptr.3d 363
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR A SUSTAINABLE TREASURE ISLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents; Treasure Island Community Development, LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

227 Cal.App.4th 1036

174 Cal.Rptr.3d 363

CITIZENS FOR A SUSTAINABLE TREASURE ISLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents;Treasure Island Community Development, LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest.

A137828

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed July 7, 2014

See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 832 et seq.

San Francisco Superior Court Hon. Teri L. Jackson (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CPF-11-511452)

Counsel for Appellant Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island: Lippe Gaffney Wagner, LLP, Keith G. Wagner, Sacramento, Brian Gaffney, Thomas N. Lippe, Kelly A. Franger, San Francisco

Counsel for Respondents City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, San Francisco Planning Commission, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Treasure Island Development Authority [TIDA is also a Real Party in Interest]: Dennis J. Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney, Andrea Ruiz-Esquide, Deputy City Attorney

Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Cross-Appellant Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative, Inc.: Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Michael H. ZischkeAndrew B. Sabey, San Francisco

Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Cross-Appellant Treasure Island Community Development, LLC: Remy Moose Manley, Whitman F. Manley, Sacramento, Howard F. Wilkins III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Mary G. Murphy, Neil H. Sekhri, San Francisco

RUVOLO, P.J.

I.INTRODUCTION

In this petition for writ of mandate, appellant Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island (CSTI) contends that respondents City and County of San Francisco (City) ¹ and respondent and real party in interest Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) ² failed to certify a legally adequate environmental impact report (EIR) for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Project (the Project), and therefore violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.).³ The Project, which was unanimously approved by the City's board of supervisors, is a comprehensive plan to redevelop a former naval station located on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island in the middle of San Francisco Bay into a new, mixed-use community with updated infrastructure and vastly increased open space and recreational facilities.

CSTI's principal argument is that the EIR should have been prepared as a program EIR, not a project-level EIR, because there is insufficient detail about various aspects of the Project, including remediation of hazardous materials, building and street layout, historical resources and tidal trust resources, for “project-level” review. Furthermore, CSTI claims the project description was not sufficiently accurate and stable to meet CEQA's requirements. CSTI also argues that significant new information developed after the draft EIR was circulated for public review, thereby requiring recirculation of the EIR for additional public comment.

We conclude that CSTI has failed to carry its burden to prove that the EIR was inadequate. (Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Mun. Water Dist. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1617, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 688 (Barthelemy ).) Therefore, we affirm the judgment. This resolution makes it unnecessary to address the cross-appeals, claiming that Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative, Inc. (TIHDI) is an “indispensable” party to this action.

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS

The area designated for the Project has an interesting history. Treasure Island is a man-made island consisting of about 404 acres of landfill placed on former tidelands and submerged lands in the middle of San Francisco Bay between San Francisco and Oakland, California. Yerba Buena Island is an adjacent, approximate 160–acre, natural rock outcropping. Treasure Island and the causeway that connects it to Yerba Buena Island were constructed in the late 1930's for the Golden Gate International Exposition. The exposition was held in 1939 to celebrate the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge.

Shortly thereafter, during World War II, the United States Department of Defense converted the area into a naval station, which it operated for more than five decades. Naval Station Treasure Island consisted of approximately 550 acres, including Yerba Buena Island. Naval Station Treasure Island was subsequently closed in 1993, and ceased operations in 1997.

The existing conditions on the Project site are characterized by aging infrastructure, environmental contamination from former naval operations, deteriorated and vacant buildings, and asphalt and other impervious surfaces which cover approximately 65 percent of the site. The City and the community have been formulating plans for the reuse of former Naval Station Treasure Island, and the adjacent Yerba Buena Island, since its closure.

In June 2011, after more than a decade of planning, study and community input, the City's board of supervisors approved the Project by a vote of 11–0. In approving the Project, the board amended the City's general plan and planning code maps and text, and approved policies and standards for redevelopment of Naval Station Treasure Island.

The Project has been described implicitly as a veritable “Shining City on the Fill.” The EIR envisions the Project as including a new, mixed-use community, including up to 8,000 residential units (with at least 25 percent designated as affordable units available at below-market prices); up to 140,000 square feet of new commercial and retail space; up to 100,000 square feet of new office space; restoration and reuse of historic buildings on Treasure Island; about 500 hotel rooms; public utilities; 300 acres of parks, playgrounds, and public open space; bike and transit facilities; and a new ferry terminal and intermodal transit hub. An existing school building would be rehabilitated or rebuilt as a kindergarten through eighth grade public school in coordination with the San Francisco Unified School District. As described by the City's attorney at oral argument, when the Project is implemented, “Treasure Island is going to go from being an underutilized naval station to a whole new state-of-the art section of the City.”

Construction and buildout of the Project would be phased, and anticipated to be completed over an approximate 15– to 20–year period.

On July 18, 2011, CSTI filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging the City's decision to certify the EIR for the Project. The hearing on the petition took place over four days. On December 14, 2012, the trial court issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety. Judgment was entered on January 28, 2013. CSTI filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2013.

TIHDI filed its cross-appeal on February 25.2013. Treasure Island Community Development (TICD), the master developer selected by TIDA for the Project, filed its cross-appeal on February 27, 2013. The cross-appeals focus on the trial court's decision to deny TIHDI's motion to dismiss CSTI's petition for writ of mandate on the grounds TIHDI was an indispensable party to this action.

III.DISCUSSION

A. General CEQA Principles and Standard of Review

“ ‘The EIR is the heart of CEQA’ and the integrity of the process is dependent on the adequacy of the EIR. [Citations.]” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.) “The purpose of an [EIR] is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” (§ 21061.) “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.... The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (Guidelines, § 15151.) ⁴

We review an agency's determinations and decisions for abuse of discretion. An agency abuses its discretion when it fails to proceed in a manner required by law, or when its determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426–427, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709 (Vineyard ).) Judicial review of these two types of error differs significantly: While we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements, we accord greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 275, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 310 (Santee ).) In CEQA cases, as in other mandamus cases, we independently review the administrative record under the same standard of review that governs the trial court. (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 301.)

CSTI claims its “challenge to the EIR's adequacy as an information disclosure document is a procedural claim reviewed de novo by the courts, and thus the question of whether ‘substantial evidence’ supports the City's determinations is irrelevant.” (Italics omitted.) Despite CSTI's strenuous efforts to reframe the issues to allege procedural violations under CEQA, virtually all of the issues it raises on appeal challenge the sufficiency of the information provided to the public...