San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City of S.F.
Decision Date | 22 August 2018 |
Docket Number | A141138 |
Citation | 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 893,26 Cal.App.5th 596 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | SAN FRANCISCANS FOR LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. |
Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant: Kathryn R. Devincenzi, San Francisco, Amy Minteer, Esq., Chaten-Brown & Carstens, LLP
Counsel for Defendant and Respondent: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Audrey Williams Pearson, Deputy City Attorney
After preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) defendant City and County of San Francisco (City) approved revisions of the housing element of its general plan. San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods (SFLN) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the adequacy of the City's EIR. The trial court denied relief and we affirm.
SFLN is an unincorporated association that includes several neighborhood organizations: the Cow Hollow Association, the Francisco Heights Civic Association, the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, the Jordan Park Improvement Association, the Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club, the Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc., the Marina-Cow Hollow Neighbors & Merchants, the Miraloma Park Improvement Club, the Pacific Heights Residents Association, the Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors, the Russian Hill Neighbors, the St. Francis Homes Association, the Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee, Inc., and the Westwood Highlands Association. The City is the "lead agency" for the subject approvals for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. )1 and is charged with duties to disclose, analyze, and mitigate significant impacts from the project. (§§ 21067, 21165.)
Before delving into the facts and procedural history of this matter, it is necessary to discuss the relevant statutory and regulatory framework. CEQA requires an agency to conduct an initial study to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,2 § 15063, subd. (a).) "If there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, then the agency must prepare and certify an EIR before approving the project." ( Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 945, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 314, 378 P.3d 687.) The EIR is "the heart of CEQA" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (a) ), and its purpose 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" ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21061 ; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e)).
( Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 233, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 736.)
( Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 234, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 736.)
Therefore, " ( Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 533, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334.) Consequently, in considering a challenge to a program EIR, "
( Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052 .)" ( Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 426, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 ( Cleveland National Forest ).)
Declaring housing availability to be of "vital statewide importance" and the "attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment ... a priority of the highest order," the Legislature enacted the Housing Element Law, which requires local governments to adopt a "housing element" as a component of its general plan. ( Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq., added by Stats. 1980, ch. 1143, pp. 3697-3698, § 3; Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ( Fonseca ).) The purpose of the Housing Element Law is, among other things, "[t]o assure ... cities [will] recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal," including "housing affordable to low-and-moderate-income households." ( Gov. Code, §§ 65580, subd. (c), 65581, subd. (a).) A local government's housing element must be reviewed and revised every five to eight years. ( Gov. Code, §§ 65583, 65588, subds. (b), (e).)
The housing element of a general plan must contain specific components, analyses, goals and policies. ( Gov. Code, § 65583.) The housing element must include, among other things, "[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs," including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as well as a program "to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element." ( Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (a), (c).)
The housing element must also identify actions that will be taken to make sites available to accommodate the local government's share of the regional housing needs. ( Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) The Legislature enacted the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) procedure (see Gov. Code, §§ 65584 - 65589 ) to address the state's shortage of affordable housing. ( Gov. Code, § 65580, subd. (a).) To achieve the state's housing objectives, the law requires each local jurisdiction to zone adequate numbers of sites to accommodate the regional housing burden allocated to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tiburon Open Space Comm. v. Cnty. of Marin
...the agency was legally prohibited from contributing to the mitigation costs; San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 636–637, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 893 [municipal infeasibility determination supported by substantial evidence].) Here......
-
Golden Door Props., LLC v. Cnty. of San Diego
...it is these objectives that a proposed alternative must be designed to meet. ( San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 632, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 893.) The SEIR identifies these Project objectives:1. Reduce community and County oper......
-
Scheiber Ranch Props. v. City of Lincoln
...... (See San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City. and County of San Francisco ......
-
Tiburon Open Space Comm. v. Cnty. of Marin
...... Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles . (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, ... mitigation costs; San Franciscans for Livable. Neighborhoods v. City and County of San ......
-
Second District Confirms Parking Is (Still) Not A CEQA Impact, Reverses Judgment That Found EIR For San Gabriel Mountains Wilderness Recreation And Preservation Project Deficient For Not Sufficiently Analyzing “Impact” Of Reducing Recreational Parking
...plaintiff’s argument in this regard. (Citing San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 633; Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 199.) Rejecting Plaintiff’s footnote treatment......
-
2021 CEQA 4th QUARTER REVIEW
...under the facts of this case as stated in San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596. Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444. In a partially published decision, the First District Court of Appeal reaffirme......