1

Filed 11/29/16

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MISSION BAY ALLIANCE et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

GSW ARENA LLC et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

A148865

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. Nos. CPF-16-514892,

CPF-16-514811)

Plaintiffs Mission Bay Alliance and others1appeal from the trial court‟s denial of 

two consolidated petitions to set aside the certification of the environmental impact report 

and related permits for the construction of an arena to house the Golden State Warriors 

basketball team, as well as other events, and the construction of adjacent facilities, in the 

Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area of San Francisco.

2

The project proposed by real parties in interest GSW Arena LLC, an affiliate of 

Golden State Warriors LLC, and David Kelly is to construct a 488,000-square-foot 

 

1

Plaintiffs are two citizens groups, Mission Bay Alliance and SaveMuni, and an 

interested citizen, Jennifer Wade, who alleges that if the project is approved she will be 

adversely affected by impeded access to University of California at San Francisco 

medical facilities for her minor son with a congenital heart condition.

2

Throughout this opinion we shall refer to the City and County of San Francisco as 

San Francisco or the city.
2

multipurpose event center with a capacity of up to 18,500 seats3and a variety of mixeduse structures, including two 11-story office and retail buildings, parking facilities, and 

3.2 acres of open space. The proposed event center is designed to host the Golden State 

Warriors basketball team during the National Basketball Association season and to

provide a venue for a variety of other uses, including concerts, family shows, other 

sporting events, cultural events, conferences, and conventions. The arena is projected to 

host over 200 events annually. The project purports to incorporate on-site and off-site 

improvements to accommodate traffic and to include a transportation management plan 

“to facilitate multimodal access at the event center during project operation.”

The project is proposed to be constructed on an approximately 11-acre site (blocks 

29-32) in the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area in the southeastern part of San 

Francisco. Attached as appendices to this opinion are a diagram and an aerial photograph 

showing the location of the proposed project and the approved uses of the immediately 

surrounding parcels, which include the Mission Bay campus and medical center of the 

University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) and a mix of residential, light 

industrial, office and open space uses.

The relevant development history of the area begins in 1990 with the adoption by 

the San Francisco Board of Supervisors of the Mission Bay plan, an area plan of the San 

Francisco general plan.4 A Mission Bay final environmental impact report (1990 FEIR) 

was certified in connection with the approval of the Mission Bay plan. That plan was 

never implemented but in 1997 the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 

(subsequently replaced by defendant Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure 

(OCII))5proposed a new project for the Mission Bay area, consisting of two separate 

development plans: Mission Bay North redevelopment plan and Mission Bay South 

 

3

The capacity for basketball games will be 18,064 seats. The 488,000-squarefootage figure includes 25,000 square feet of Golden State Warriors office space.

4

Prior to this time, the Mission Bay plan area was a largely underutilized industrial 

area with no established residential community. 

5 Defendants are OCII, the city, and other city agencies.
3

redevelopment plan. Both plans were approved in late 1998 after certification of a 

combined Mission Bay final subsequent environmental impact report (1998 FSEIR), 

which incorporated information from the 1990 FEIR and applied to both the north and 

south redevelopment plans.6

In April 2015, the Governor certified the currently proposed project as an 

“environmental leadership development project” within the meaning of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.),

7

specifically 

section 21178 et seq., requiring expedited environmental review and litigation.

8 On June 

5, 2015, OCII, as the lead agency, released a draft supplemental environmental impact 

report (DSEIR) for the project, tiered to the 1998 FSEIR. (§ 21094; CEQA Guidelines,

 

6

Separate design guidelines were adopted for each of the two areas. Between 2000 

and 2013, nine addenda to the 1998 FSEIR were approved.

7 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Public Resources 

Code.

8

Pursuant to the directive in section 21185, rules of court have been adopted 

establishing procedures and a time line designed to resolve judicial proceedings 

challenging the adequacy of the environmental impact report or the issuance of permits or 

other government approvals for such a project within 270 days of certification of the 

record of the administrative proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.702.) Section 

21185, unlike section 21168.6.6, subdivision (d) which created the same time limit under 

comparable provisions applying to an arena project in Sacramento, does not state 

explicitly that the issues should be resolved within 270 days “to the extent feasible.” 

However, the same qualification is implicit because the statute “does not impose any 

penalty for review that exceeds the 270 days.” (See Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento 

(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 837, 855-856.) Rule 8.702 expressly recognizes that the briefing 

and oral argument schedule may be modified by order of the reviewing court. (Cal. Rules 

of Court, rule 8.702(f), (g).)

Two hundred and seventy days from certification of the administrative record in 

this case ran on September 9, 2016, so that the 270-day target was not met. In part 

because more than two months were consumed by proceedings to transfer one action 

from Sacramento where it was filed improperly to the Superior Court in San Francisco, 

the plaintiffs‟ appellate reply brief did not become due until more than two weeks after 

270 days had passed. Nonetheless, the parties and the courts have adhered to most of the 

applicable deadlines. The petitions have been resolved in this court considerably sooner 

than would have been the case had the project not been certified under section 21184 as 

an environmental leadership development project.
4

§ 15152.)9Following the receipt of public comments and responses thereto and a public 

hearing, on November 3, 2015, OCII certified the final supplemental environmental 

impact report (FSEIR) now under consideration. OCII found that the project would have 

certain significant and unavoidable effects on the environment and adopted a statement of 

overriding considerations, and authorized the executive director to implement a 

“mitigation monitoring and reporting program.” OCII‟s executive director adopted 

secondary use findings for the proposed event center. On December 8, 2015, the board of 

supervisors rejected plaintiffs‟ appeal from the actions taken by OCII, approved 

certification of the FSEIR, adopted the CEQA findings, and approved the project.

Plaintiffs filed two separate actions seeking to set aside the certification of the 

FSEIR, approval of the secondary use findings, and several other approvals relating to the 

project.10 Following transfer of one action from the Sacramento County Superior Court to 

the San Francisco Superior Court, the superior court heard argument on the consolidated 

petitions. On July 18, 2016, the court issued a 54-page order, substantially as proposed by 

defendants, rejecting all of plaintiffs‟ contentions and denying their petitions for a writ of 

mandate. This appeal promptly followed.

We have carefully considered each of plaintiffs‟ contentions raised on appeal. 

Although in some instances defendants‟ analysis of potential environmental impacts 

might have been expanded, as is commonly the case, in general the record reflects a 

 

9 References to the CEQA Guidelines are to the regulations issued pursuant to the 

statute, California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 15000 et seq. The guidelines are 

given “great weight in interpreting CEQA, except where they are clearly unauthorized or 

erroneous.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 

204, 217, fn. 4.)

10 Plaintiffs filed actions to set aside the following additional approvals granted by 

the city: a place of entertainment permit granted by the city‟s entertainment commission

and affirmed on appeal by the city‟s board of appeals; a design review/office space 

allocation granted by the city‟s planning commission and affirmed on appeal by the board 

of appeals; a transportation service plan approved by the city‟s municipal transportation 

agency and affirmed by the city‟s board of supervisors; and a subdivision map granted by 

the city‟s public works department and affirmed on appeal by the city‟s board of 

supervisors.
5

thorough and exhaustive study of all environmental impacts to be anticipated that were 

not considered in the 1998 FSEIR, and identification of numerous mitigation measures to 

lessen adverse impacts to the extent feasible. We conclude there is no merit to plaintiffs‟ 

objections to the sufficiency of the city‟s environmental analysis and its approval of the 

proposed project.

DISCUSSION

The 1998 FSEIR provides a portrait of the Mission Bay project area as it existed at 

that time. The area was described as “a primarily industrial area occupied by block-long 

warehouses, concrete and gravel processing facilities, truck terminals, and surface 

parking with large tracts of undeveloped land that previously contained rail lines and a 

rail yard. Building heights generally range from one to two stories. The conveyor towers 

of two concrete and gravel processing facilities dominate the landscape at heights of 

about three stories. There are truck terminals and about 50 warehouses, buildings, other 

structures, and recreational uses including a golf driving range and in-line skating facility. 

Buildings range from small materials sheds to large warehouses. . . . Building uses 

include distribution and storage facilities for food products, clothing, rental furniture, and 

personal effects; light manufacturing; and some office uses. Uses of undeveloped areas 

include maintenance yards, parking areas for container trucks and commercial buses, and 

storage areas for construction materials.” The baseball stadium, with over 40,000 seats, 

was under construction and would not open for another two years.

The 1998 FSEIR proposed a complete redevelopment of the area “intended to 

eliminate blight by facilitating development on primarily vacant and underutilized land” 

and “demolition of almost all existing buildings.” The project area “would change from 

an underdeveloped industrial area with large swaths of vacant land, to a fully developed 

mixed use urban area, with 30,000 employees and about 11,000 residents” and change the 

landscape from “industrial areas into residential and commercial neighborhoods.” In the 

Mission Bay South project area of 238 acres, approximately 61 acres was planned for 

development by UCSF with most of the remaining area—about 128 acres—planned for 
6

commercial industrial development.11 An arena is not mentioned in the 1998 FSEIR. The 

1998 FSEIR states that secondary uses in the commercial industrial designated areas 

could include “nighttime entertainment.”

The November 1998 redevelopment plan for Mission Bay South lists seven 

principal land uses: residential, hotel, commercial industrial, commercial industrial/retail, 

UCSF, public facility (such as a police station), and open space. Potential secondary use 

as nighttime entertainment was defined to include “dance halls, discotheques, nightclubs, 

private clubs, and other similar evening-oriented entertainment activities.”

Much has changed in Mission Bay South since preparation of the 1998 FSEIR. As 

the initial study notes, “large portions of the Mission Bay plan area have been built out. 

The UCSF Mission Bay campus is located west, northwest, southwest, and partially south 

of the project site, and it currently includes a mix of parking structures, office buildings, 

research buildings, student housing, and hospital buildings. Other office buildings and 

vacant lots are located north and south of the site . . . .”

Environmental review of the proposed project was made in the context of this 

setting, with which all parties are in agreement. Plaintiffs contend that the environmental 

review was inadequate both because several issues requiring consideration were not 

addressed in the FSEIR and because several issues that were addressed assertedly were 

not analyzed correctly. We consider each of these contentions in turn.

I. Sufficiency of the environmental review

A. Issues excluded from review in the FSEIR

1. Land use in Mission Bay South

The Mission Bay FSEIR adopted in 1998 is a “program” environmental impact 

report (EIR). “A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions 

that can be characterized as one large project and are related” geographically, “[a]s 

logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,” or in other relevant respects. (CEQA 

 

11 The 1998 SEIR designates 2,650,000 square feet (61 acres) for the UCSF site; 

4,163,000 square feet (96 acres) for commercial industrial and 1,394,000 square feet (32 

acres) for commercial industrial/retail.
7

Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (a).) Adoption of a program EIR allows for “tiering,” in which 

a program EIR “covers general matters and environmental effects” and is followed by 

“narrower or site-specific” EIRs as needed. (§ 21068.5.) “Subsequent activities in the 

program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an 

additional environmental document must be prepared.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, 

subd. (c).)

OCII conducted an initial study to determine if the arena project “may have a 

significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (a).) The 

initial study concluded that some of the project‟s effects warranted more detailed 

environmental analysis, leading to the 2015 FSEIR, while other effects were insignificant 

or adequately examined in the 1998 FSEIR. The initial study determined that a 

supplemental EIR would be prepared to discuss, among other subjects, the project‟s 

potential impact on transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas 

emissions, wind and shadow, utilities and service systems, public services and hydrology 

and water quality.

The initial study analyzed potential land use impacts, including whether the arena 

project would “physically divide an established community,” “conflict with any 

applicable land use plans, policies or regulations,” or “have a substantial impact on the 

existing character of the vicinity.”12 The initial study found that the proposed project 

would be incorporated within the established street plan and would “not include any 

physical barriers or obstacles to circulation that would restrict existing patterns of 

movement between the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. To the contrary, 

the project would include a number of features designed to encourage and promote public 

access and circulation.” The initial study found no apparent conflict with regional plans 

 

12 These criteria for land use impact are based on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G,

which contains a sample environmental checklist that lead agencies may use to conduct 

an initial study. Impact on the existing character of the vicinity is not a criterion included 

in the sample checklist but lead agencies may tailor the checklist to their own needs and 

OCII has done so here. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (f).)
8

or policies, and noted that “[a]s part of the project approval process, OCII, the San 

Francisco Planning Commission, and other relevant regulatory agencies would determine 

whether the proposed project is consistent with their respective plans as applicable to the 

proposed project.13

The initial study also found that the proposed project would not have a substantial 

impact upon the existing character of the vicinity. It was noted that the 1998 FSEIR 

contemplated commercial, retail and nighttime entertainment uses. The event center‟s 

commercial and retail character was found compatible with the UCSF medical center and 

other existing uses in the neighborhood. The event center‟s entertainment use was 

deemed similar to the nighttime entertainment uses analyzed in the 1998 FSEIR although 

it was acknowledged that “the size and intensity of the event center use was not 

previously analyzed.” The initial study concluded, nevertheless, that there was no 

significant adverse impact on community character. “Although the presence of [event 

center] attendees on streets and sidewalks in the vicinity of medical research, clinic, and 

office uses in the surrounding Mission Bay neighborhood would be noticeable compared 

to existing conditions, these additional people would not impede the operation of those 

existing uses such that adverse land use impacts would occur. Each use would continue to 

function as intended.” In evaluating cumulative impact, the initial study stated that the 

 

13 In later permit proceedings in which OCII approved the project as a secondary use 

consistent with the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan, the OCII found the project to 

be consistent with existing plans and compatible with the adjacent UCSF campus and 

neighborhood as a whole. The director found that the event center “at the size and 

intensity contemplated and at the proposed location, will provide a development that is 

both necessary and desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood and the 

community.” “The project, including its retail uses, restaurants, and open space, would 

contribute vitality to Mission Bay‟s street life and activate its pedestrian realms, which 

. . . would generally benefit the employees, students, and visitors that use the UCSF 

campus.” Although recognizing “that views differ on issues of compatibility,” the 

director found that “[u]se of the event center would not preclude operation of the adjacent 

uses. . . . [¶] . . . [T]he FSEIR demonstrates the UCSF Medical Center and event center 

can operate successfully and safely together. The FSEIR includes a number of measures 

to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and community. . . .”
9

proposed project and further planned development would “create a wider mix of uses 

than currently exists in this portion of the City. Although this would represent a change in 

land use character, the combined effect would not be adverse. Each use would still 

function as intended, and many of the uses would be complementary.” 

On the basis of these findings, the subject of “land use” as such was not explicitly 

analyzed in the FSEIR. Plaintiffs dispute the statement in the initial study that the 

proposed arena will not impede the operation of existing uses of property in the vicinity, 

claiming that the project will adversely affect the operation of the hospital, biotechnology 

companies, and other occupants of the Mission Bay South area. They contend there is a 

“fair argument”14 that the project will have an adverse impact on land use so that the 

issue was required to be fully analyzed in the FSEIR.

Initially, “fair argument” is not the proper standard of review. Substantial evidence 

is the proper standard where, as here, an agency determines that a project consistent with 

a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect. (Citizens for a 

Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 

1036, 1049 [“For purposes of the standard of review, the same substantial evidence 

standard applies to subsequent environmental review for a project reviewed in a program 

EIR or a project EIR.”]; see also, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental 

Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 

611 [“[T]he fair argument standard does not apply to review of an agency‟s 

determination that a project‟s potential environmental impacts were adequately analyzed 

in a prior program EIR.”]; Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 

114 Cal.App.4th 689, 702 [“When an agency has already prepared an EIR, its decision 

not to prepare an SEIR for a later project is reviewed under the deferential substantial 

 

14 See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Sierra Club v. 

County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316; Protect the Historic Amador 

Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109 [“[I]n preparing 

an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about 

the possible significant environmental effects of a project . . . .”]
10

evidence standard.”] Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of 

California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1135 [“[T]he „fair argument‟ test has been applied only

to the decision whether to prepare an original EIR or a negative declaration.”]

There was a reasonable basis for OCII to conclude that the presence of the arena 

would not necessarily impede the operation of others in the area, including the UCSF 

hospital facilities. As the initial study observed, most basketball games and concerts 

drawing large crowds will generally occur during evening hours, “after commercial and 

medical office hours of nearby uses.” Moreover, the initial study identified the particular 

impacts that might affect others in the area, including particularly traffic and noise, and 

designated those impacts for full analysis.15 It is unclear what additional environmental 

impacts might have been studied under the label “land use” or “character of the 

neighborhood” that were not covered in the FSEIR. In response to questions by this court, 

plaintiffs have articulated no such subject.

The issue of compatibility of the event center with the surrounding area was 

addressed in the FSEIR and certainly brought to the attention of the decision makers. 

OCII received numerous comments during the CEQA review process concerning its land 

use determination. One comment asserted that the project would disrupt planned 

development of Mission Bay South as a “biotechnology and medical hub.” A nurse 

expressed a concern that increased traffic from the project would impede access to the 

hospital. Other comments asserted the project‟s compatibility with the neighborhood‟s 

existing uses and the project‟s desirability. One area homeowner said the project‟s open 

space area and entertainment events would enliven the area for child residents and 

“enhance our neighborhood in a way that few alternatives really could achieve.”

OCII responded at length to the public‟s comments. OCII noted that the Mission 

Bay development plan “contemplates a diverse array of uses to address blight and 

enhance economic development of the area” and asserted that “operation of office, 

 

15 In response to concerns expressed during the review process, the FSEIR also addressed 

measures taken to ensure that vibrations caused by construction of the project facilities 

would not adversely affect activities of nearby biotechnology companies.
11

entertainment and retail uses at the project site would not conflict” with the medical 

center and other existing uses. In addressing specific concerns about the project‟s 

potential impact on land use, OCII described project construction measures to minimize 

noise and vibration and thus avoid disruption of local biotechnology operations and 

transportation plans to assure emergency access to the hospital by ground and air.

Community concerns remained about traffic impeding access to the hospital, 

especially on those occasions when events are held at both the event center and AT&T 

Park. In response to those concerns, the city created a dedicated transportation 

improvement fund generated by project revenues and the project‟s sponsor agreed to 

work with UCSF and the city to manage traffic impacts and to limit overlapping events as 

necessary. UCSF expressed satisfaction with this resolution and agreed to support the 

project.

Thus, although—as the initial study recognized—an arena was not contemplated 

by the 1998 FSEIR and the proposed project “would alter the overall land use character 

of the project site from that analyzed” in the earlier program EIR, the potential effects of 

the project on the surrounding neighborhood was neither overlooked in the initial study 

nor omitted from the FSEIR. OCII concluded that this alteration would not impede the 

operation of existing uses and that conclusion finds support in the initial study, responses 

to comments and other information in the record, all of which must be considered. 

(Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006)140 Cal.App.4th 911, 

918; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15132.) Petitioner‟s land use argument is essentially a 

policy disagreement with OCII‟s determination that an event center will enhance the 

neighborhood. Under CEQA, “[a] court‟s task is not to weigh conflicting evidence and 

determine who has the better argument.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents 

of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.) Our limited function is “to compel 

government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind.” 

(Ibid.) The land use consequences were fully considered here. The fact that land use was 

not specified as a separate subject for further study did not preclude analysis and 

disclosure of all aspects of the project bearing upon the impacts to be expected from the 
12

project on the character of Mission Bay South and activities of UCSF and others in the 

vicinity.

2. Biological resources and habitat

The initial study evaluated the project‟s potential impact on biological resources 

and found no significant environmental effects that were not previously identified and 

assessed in the Mission Bay 1998 FSEIR. Plaintiffs contest this conclusion. They note 

changes to the physical characteristics of the project site from the time of the prior EIR 

and claim the site now contains a wetland and other habitat features that will be adversely 

impacted by development of the site.

At the time of preparation of the Mission Bay FSEIR, the 11-acre project site 

“contained several buildings and facilities and was noted as lacking any notable 

vegetative habitat,” with no threatened, endangered or rare plants or animals “known to 

occur in the upland portion of the Mission Bay plan area, including the project site.” 

According to the initial study, “Subsequent to that time, the project site has been subject 

to building removal, grading, excavation, and construction of paved surface parking lots, 

fencing and utilities on portions of the site.” Today, the project site consists of two paved 

parking lots and an undeveloped lot “largely covered in gravel” with “sparse” vegetation 

“dominated by non‐native annual grasses and opportunistic weedy species.” Adjacent to 

one of the parking lots is “a depressed area (measuring approximately 320 feet by 280 

feet) created by an excavation and backfill associated with a prior environmental cleanup 

of that portion of the site. A surface swale extends west within this portion of the site to 

allow for drainage of surface water into the depression.”

Plaintiffs characterize the excavation pit as a half-acre wetland and argue that 

draining and filling the pit will significantly impact endemic and migratory birds.16 The 

 

16 Plaintiffs also state, with no elaboration, that the initial study failed to consider the 

site‟s potential as a wildlife nursery and bat migration area. In fact, the initial study 

includes a detailed assessment of wildlife nursery and migration and reasonably relies 

upon a biological site survey and existing mitigation measures in finding no adverse 

impact on bird nesting or bat migration.
13

initial study found the project would have no significant effect on biological resources 

even if the excavation pit were deemed a wetland because its value “is limited due to the 

sparse and ruderal nature of onsite vegetation, as well as the site‟s location in a densely 

urbanized environment.” A biologist conducted a site survey and found no protected 

species or “desirable habitat that could support” them. The initial study concluded: 

“While several bird species were observed foraging and hunting onsite, these species are 

common to San Francisco and would continue to be supported by vegetation 

communities and water features found in the project vicinity. Because the excavation 

depressions on the site are small, isolated features resulting from recently completed 

hazardous materials remediation activities and are surrounded by paved areas and urban 

development, these features do not provide the important biological habitat functions and 

values that are typically associated with federally protected wetlands. As such, the 

proposed removal of these features would not constitute a significant adverse impact on 

wetland habitat resources.”

The initial study‟s conclusion of no significant impacts on biological resources is 

well-supported by the record. OCII reasonably concluded, following a site survey, that 

the only impact would be loss of an excavation pit with limited biological value. In 

response to public comments, OCII noted that “the loss of such marginal habitat on site 

would not threaten” bird populations as other suitable habitat exists near the project site. 

Plaintiffs contend the site survey itself supports their claim of a significant impact on 

biological resources because the survey found the excavation pit and surrounding 

depressions to be “features that exhibit hydrology and vegetation characteristics of 

wetlands.” It is true that the biologists who conducted the site survey noted wetland 

characteristics but they concluded that the site, even if characterized as wetland, did not 

provide valuable habitat. The biologists found that the “Habitat quality of the wetlands, 

as with the upland portions of the proposed project site . . . is of limited value to resident 

and migratory birds and common urban wildlife. Occasional visitation by waterfowl . . .

or by passerine and raptor species stopping over seasonally . . . may occur; however, the 

site would not be considered essential habitat for these species or of local or regional 
14

importance to wildlife due to its overall ruderal nature and surrounding built-up 

environment. Site conditions suggest that the most likely species to use the site would be 

common wildlife, described above, which readily adapt to urbanized environments.” No 

substantial evidence suggests, nor has a fair argument been made, that the project will 

have a significant adverse effect on biological resources.

3. Hazardous materials

The project site contains soil and groundwater contaminated by the historical 

operation of heavy industry. The 1998 Mission Bay FSEIR addressed the impact to 

construction workers, the public, and the ecological environment from exposure to 

potentially hazardous chemicals in soil and groundwater. Over the years there have been 

several remediation efforts that removed underground fuel storage tanks and over 

100,000 tons of contaminated soil. Nonetheless, the soil at the project site remains 

contaminated with heavy metals, as revealed in an environmental site assessment 

completed by the project sponsor in 2015.

OCII concluded that an existing risk management plan adequately addresses 

human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to contaminated soil and 

groundwater, making further environmental study unnecessary. Plaintiffs argue that the 

risk management plan is inadequate because it fails to address contaminated soil imported 

to the project site following certification of the 1998 FSEIR and because it employs 

outdated toxicity screening levels.

Plaintiffs‟ assertion that “contaminated soils from other parts of Mission Bay were 

imported to the site” is not supported by their citations to the administrative record and 

we find no support elsewhere in the record. The assertion may refer to earlier 

remediation, which removed soil tainted with petroleum hydrocarbons and backfilled the 

excavations. OCII addressed plaintiffs‟ concern with “imported” soil by explaining, in its 

response to public comments: “in 2005, a portion of the site (located in the south‐east 

area) was excavated as the „Pier 64‟ response action in order to remove petroleum 

hydrocarbon free product. After the clean‐up was completed, the area was backfilled with 

concrete rubble and overburden soil that had been excavated and stock‐piled in order to 
15

remove the hydrocarbon contamination. This material came from the same area that was 

addressed as part of this cleanup. The Regional Water Quality Control Board—the 

agency with regulatory authority over the cleanup—determined that this use of the rubble 

and overburden was appropriate.” (Italics added.) In any event, any “importation” of 

contaminated soil following adoption of the 1998 FSEIR is accounted for by the 2015 site 

assessment that identified current conditions at the site. 

Likewise, there is no basis for plaintiffs‟ claim that impacts related to hazardous 

materials are inadequately addressed in the initial study because the analysis relies upon a 

risk management plan that uses outdated methodologies for assessing human health and 

environmental risk. It is true, as OCII acknowledges, that toxicity screening levels have 

changed since preparation of the 1999 risk management plan. However, the 1999 plan 

requires compliance with current regulatory standards, not those that existed in 1999. As 

OCII explained in its response to public comments, the risk management plan mandates 

compliance with the current health code to “ensure that remediation of the soil and 

groundwater would meet current health risk standards, and that the public and site 

occupants and visitors would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of site contaminants 

during construction and operation of the project.”

Thus, there was no CEQA violation in the exclusion of hazards and hazardous 

materials from the scope of the FSEIR.

4. Recreational areas

The initial study also concluded that the “proposed project would not increase the 

use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration 

of the facilities would occur or otherwise result in physical degradation of existing 

recreational resources.” Plaintiffs challenge this conclusion but the conclusion is wellsupported by the record. Impact on existing parks will be eased by a planned six-acre 

Bayfront Park and three acres of open space within the 11-acre project site. Plaintiffs

contend that the event center will attract more visitors to Bayfront Park than previously 

expected, but ample evidence supports the initial study‟s finding that the planned park 

will not be physically degraded by event center visitors, especially given the project‟s 
16

inclusion of on-site open space. The exclusion of this issue from the scope of the FSEIR 

did not violate CEQA.

B. Adequacy of analysis of issues in the FSEIR

1. Transportation impacts

Chapter 5.2 of the FSEIR analyzes the potential project-level and cumulative 

impacts on transportation and circulation during construction and operation of the 

proposed project. “Transportation-related issues of study include transit, vehicle traffic on 

local and regional roadways, bicycles, pedestrians, loading, emergency vehicle access, 

parking, and construction-related transportation activities.”

The FSEIR does not mask the significant traffic and congestion concerns 

presented by the proposed project. There is no doubt that traffic in the area will be heavy 

before and after basketball games and other events attended by more than 18,000 people, 

especially when overlapping with a game at AT&T Park which may draw more than 

45,000 people. For this reason, the project was defined to include a transportation 

management plan (TMP) to address and mitigate the transportation and circulation 

impacts of the arena. The project also includes new or upgraded traffic signals or lane 

reconfigurations at 20 intersections and construction of six new street segments, as well 

as expansion or modification of light rail passenger platforms, construction of new 

sidewalks and bicycle lanes and expansion or relocation of existing sidewalks and bicycle 

lanes.

Following circulation of the DEIR, the city received approximately 80 comments 

predicting “traffic grid-lock” as a result of the project and questioning the impact of 

traffic congestion on access to adjacent UCSF hospitals and residences. In response, prior 

to adoption of the FESIR, the TMP was modified in consultation with city agencies and 

representatives of UCSF.

As explained in the FSEIR, “The TMP includes various management strategies 

designed to reduce use of single-occupant vehicles and to increase the use of rideshare, 

transit, bicycle, and walk modes for trips to and from the project site.” The TMP includes 

provisions for the expansion of the existing Mission Bay Transportation Management 
17

Association shuttle program, as well as event transportation and travel demand 

management strategies. Event transportation management strategies include, among many 

other components, designating taxi and shuttle stops, positioning parking control officers 

at key intersections and a parking control officer supervisor at a command center, and

temporarily closing certain traffic lanes post-event. Travel demand management 

strategies include, among many other elements, participating in pre-tax commuter benefit 

programs, contributing to and promoting the Mission Bay Transportation Management 

Association shuttle program, and determining the feasibility of bundling the cost of a

round-trip Muni fare into the cost of ticketed events.

The TMP also incorporates the San Francisco Municipal Travel Agency (SFMTA 

or Muni) special event transit service plan (Muni TSP), which provides for additional 

transit service during large evening events. The Muni TSP increases the frequency and 

capacity of light rail service on the T Third line, adds a Muni Metro shuttle via The 

Embarcadero, and adds Muni special event shuttles running (1) between the event center 

and the 16th Street Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, (2) between the event center 

and Fort Mason, and (3) between the event center and the new Transbay Transit Center 

and the Ferry Building.

The TMP also includes a “local/hospital access plan” to facilitate emergency 

access and movement by residents and employees of UCSF in and out of the Mission Bay 

area. The plan, which is to be implemented by SFMTA before all large weekday evening 

events at the event center (i.e., events anticipating more than 12,500 attendees starting 

between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m., approximately 50 times per year), is configured to 

discourage event attendees who arrive by car from using portions of Fourth Street, Owens 

Street, UCSF campus internal roads, and local residential streets. Under the plan, special 

temporary and permanent signage will be positioned at appropriate locations to direct 

event traffic towards designated routes in order to access off‐street parking facilities 

serving the event center and away from streets within the local/hospital access plan 
18

network. In addition, parking control officers will be stationed at key intersections before 

an event to facilitate local driver access.17

Finally, the TMP includes specific performance standards and provisions for 

monitoring and refinement. “Monitoring methods include field monitoring of operations 

during the first four years and an annual surveying and reporting program thereafter. 

Surveys of event attendees and event center employees would be conducted annually, and 

visitor surveys of Mission Bay neighbors and UCSF staff and emergency providers 

would be conducted in the initial years of operation.” Performance standards include, 

among others, a maximum 53 percent of event attendees arriving by car for weekday 

events and a maximum 59 percent of event attendees arriving by car for weekend events, 

specified limits on vehicle queuing on city streets, and all patrons able to board Muni

light rail and special event shuttles within 45 minutes after the end of an event. The 

project proponents are required to meet all identified performance standards by the 

middle of their third season at the event center and for every Golden State Warriors 

season thereafter.

According to the FSEIR, “In the event that ongoing monitoring shows at any time 

that the performance standards outlined above are not being met, the project sponsor 

would explore additional travel demand strategies, operational efforts, or design 

refinements to meet the goals identified in the TMP. Revisions to this policy would be 

brought before the Mission Bay [Community Advisory Committee] or its successor body, 

for approval.” A representative list of possible strategies includes, among other things, 

increasing “project sponsor contribution to the Mission Bay [Transportation Management 

 

17 In addition to development of the local/hospital access plan, the city, project 

proponents and UCSF entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) under which 

UCSF agreed “to support the entitlement and construction of the project proponents

proposed project” subject to specific terms and conditions limiting, if possible, the 

number of overlapping events at the arena and AT&T Park. The MOU also requires the 

project proponents to take action should overlapping events cause an unacceptable traffic 

condition (as defined in the MOU) and imposes additional restrictions on the number of 

overlapping events that can be held should unacceptable traffic conditions continue to 

occur.
19

Association] to directly fund incremental, event-only service, which may include 

additional shuttle bus purchases and/or expanded hours of operation,” establishing “a 

partnership with a private shuttle provider for incremental, event-only service to and from 

satellite parking locations (if designated) or transit centers,” offering “special event ferry 

service to the closest ferry station to the project site (similar to the existing service 

provided between AT&T Park and Alameda, Marin and Solano Counties by Golden Gate

Transit, Alameda/Oakland and Vallejo ferry service),” and providing “transit fare 

subsidies to event ticket holders.” Under the mitigation monitoring and reporting 

program, “If any mitigation and improvement measures are not implemented as required, 

OCII may, in conjunction with other entities listed above, pursue corrective actions 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) a written notification and request for 

compliance; (2) withholding of permits; (3) administrative fines; (4) a stop-work order; 

(5) criminal prosecution and/or administrative fines; (6) forfeiture of security bonds or 

other guarantees; and (7) revocation of permits or other entitlements.”

The FSEIR analyzes transportation impacts based on the type of activity at the 

event center (no event, a convention event with 9,000 attendees, and a basketball game 

with 18,000 attendees) at various times of day. The impacts of these activities are 

evaluated under conditions without a San Francisco Giants (SF Giants) baseball game 

and conditions with an overlapping SF Giants game. The large event activity is evaluated 

under these conditions with and without implementation of the Muni TSP.

The FSEIR identified significant vehicle traffic impacts at 11 of the 41 study 

intersections for the overall plan area, seven of which remain significant and unavoidable 

with mitigation. The FSEIR concludes further that without implementation of the Muni 

TSP, the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts at several additional 

study intersections. With respect to transit, the FSEIR concludes that, with proposed 

mitigation including enhanced Muni transit service during overlapping events,18 the 

 

18 Mitigation Measure M-TR-13, which provides for enhanced Muni transit service 

during overlapping events, states “As a mitigation measure to accommodate Muni transit 

demand to and from the project site and AT&T Park on the T Third light rail line during 
20

proposed project‟s impacts on Muni would be less than significant under all conditions.

Without implementation of the Muni TSP, however, “the proposed project would result 

in a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by adjacent 

Muni transit capacity such that significant adverse impacts to Muni transit service” would 

occur during large arena events.

The FSEIR concludes that significant adverse impacts to regional transit services

provided by Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit and the Water Emergency Transportation 

Authority (WETA) would occur under the basketball game scenario both with and 

without an overlapping SF Giants baseball game and that significant adverse impacts to 

BART would occur under the basketball game scenario with an overlapping SF Giants 

game. The FSEIR explains, “In order to accommodate the additional transit demand to 

the South Bay during weekday and Saturday evening conditions, one additional train car 

(average capacity of 130 passengers per car) on at least one inbound train per hour would 

be needed. For the weekday late evening period, two additional train cars (average 

capacity of 130 passengers per car) on at least one outbound train per hour would be 

needed. Alternatively, the transit demand could be accommodated within one special 

outbound train (total capacity up to 650 passengers) at the end of the basketball game, 

similar to the service currently being offered for SF Giants home games (two special 

outbound trains). [¶] In order to accommodate the additional transit demand to the North 

Bay, four additional Golden Gate Transit buses (40 passengers per bus) plus one ferry 

boat (250 to 320 passengers per boat) per hour, or alternatively seven additional buses per 

hour would need to be provided.” The FSEIR continues, “During the weekday late 

evening following the end of a SF Giants evening game, BART occasionally provides 

 

overlapping evening events, the project sponsor shall work with the Ballpark/Mission 

Bay Transportation Coordinating Committee to coordinate with the SFMTA to provide 

additional enhanced shuttle buses between key Market Street locations and the project. 

Examples of the additional enhanced service include Muni bus shuttles between Union 

Square and Powell Street Montgomery BART/Muni station and the project site. The need 

for additional enhanced Muni service shall be based on characteristics of the overlapping 

events (e.g., projected attendance levels, and anticipated start and end times).”
21

additional capacity to accommodate the SF Giants post-game demand. With overlapping 

events, additional capacity would be required to accommodate the combined BART East 

Bay transit demand.” The FSEIR indicates that additional regional transit services “would 

reduce or minimize the severity of the capacity utilization exceedances for the regional 

transit service providers, and would not result in secondary transportation impacts” and 

adopts mitigation measures that require the project sponsor to work with the 

ballpark/Mission Bay transportation coordinating committee to coordinate with the 

regional transit providers to provide the needed additional transit service. Nonetheless, 

the FSEIR concludes that because “the provision of additional East Bay, South Bay, and 

North Bay service is uncertain and full funding for the service has not yet been 

identified,” implementation of additional transit service as a mitigation measure are 

uncertain and the impacts remain “significant and unavoidable with mitigation.”

The city adopted a statement of overriding considerations with respect to the 

significant impacts on identified intersections and on regional transit. On appeal, 

plaintiffs contend that the city erred in adopting a statement of overriding considerations 

for the transit and transportation impacts without adequately considering additional, 

feasible mitigation measures.

Under CEQA, an agency may approve a project with significant, unavoidable 

environmental impacts if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations finding that 

“particular economic, social, or other considerations make the alternatives and mitigation 

measures infeasible and that particular project benefits outweigh the adverse 

environmental effects.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles

(2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1198.) “[B]efore adopting a statement of overriding 

considerations, an agency must show that it has considered the mitigation measures and 

project alternatives identified in the EIR that would lessen the significant environmental 

effects.” (Id. at p. 1201.) The agency is not required to “consider additional mitigation 

measures and project alternatives apart from those identified in an adequate EIR.” (Ibid., 

italics added.) Plaintiffs do not challenge the sufficiency of the “overriding 
22

considerations” identified by the city and challenge only the adequacy of the underlying 

FSEIR.

(a.) The Muni TSP

Plaintiffs contend that the FSEIR improperly includes the Muni TSP as a 

component of the project rather than as a mitigation measure, so that the FSEIR fails to 

consider alternative feasible mitigation measures. 19 The CEQA Guidelines define a 

“project” as including “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in 

either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect 

physical change in the environment . . . .” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).) A 

mitigation measure, by contrast, involves “feasible changes in any or all activities 

involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the 

environment . . . .” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15041, subd. (a).)

In Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656, 

footnote 8 (Lotus), this court observed, “The distinction between elements of a project 

and measures designed to mitigate impacts of the project may not always be clear.” In 

that case, the EIR prepared for a highway construction project described “ „Avoidance 

Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures‟ ” that were “ „incorporated into the project to 

avoid and minimize impacts as well as to mitigate expected impacts‟ ” to the root systems 

of old growth redwood trees adjacent to the highway project. (Id. at p. 650.) We 

explained, “[T]he use of „Cement Treated Permeable Base . . . to minimize the thickness 

of the structural section, provide greater porosity, minimize compaction of roots, and 

minimize thermal exposure to roots from Hot Mix Asphalt paving‟ might well be 

considered to define the project itself. It would be nonsensical to analyze the impact of 

using some other composition of paving and then to consider use of this particular 

composition as a mitigation measure. However, the same cannot be said of most of the 

 

19 Project applicants are encouraged to develop comprehensive transportation 

management plans. (See, e.g., City of Hayward v. Trustees of the California State 

University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 851-852 [transportation demand management 

program included in proposed master plan and identified as mitigation measure in the 

EIR].)
23

„avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures‟ here, such as the restorative 

planting and replanting, invasive plant removal, and use of an arborist and of specialized 

equipment. These are plainly mitigation measures and not part of the project itself.” (Id. 

at p. 657, fn. 8.)

Other cases have wrestled with this distinction as well. For example, in Save the 

Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 863, 

882, the court held that the imposition of a 10 cents fee as part of an ordinance restricting 

the use of disposable bags at retail stores was, “from the inception, „part of the project 

design‟ which directly addressed the problem of single-use bags, a problem that 

preexisted the proposed project. It was not a „mitigation measure‟ to try to alleviate some 

perceived difficulties in the original plan.”

Arguably, some components of the TSP might be characterized as mitigation 

measures rather than as part of the project itself. Any mischaracterization is significant, 

however, only if it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project‟s 

environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.

For example, in Lotus, we concluded that the mischaracterization of mitigation 

measures as part of the project compounded a significant omission in the EIR: the failure 

to apply a standard of significance to impacts on the root systems of old growth redwood 

trees. (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 654-655.) We explained, “Absent a 

determination regarding the significance of the impacts to the root systems of the old 

growth redwood trees, it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are 

required or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should 

be considered. Should Caltrans determine that a specific tree or group of trees will be 

significantly impacted by proposed roadwork, that finding would trigger the need to 

consider a range of specifically targeted mitigation measures, including analysis of 

whether the project itself could be modified to lessen the impact. [Citation.] . . . Simply 

stating that there will be no significant impacts because the project incorporates „special 

construction techniques‟ is not adequate or permissible.” (Id. at p. 656.)
24

Here, characterization of the Muni TSP as part of the project and not as a 

mitigation measure did not, as plaintiffs suggest, interfere with the identification of the 

transportation consequences of the project or the analysis of measures to mitigate those 

consequences. Unlike the situation in Lotus, the environmental impacts of the project on 

vehicle traffic and transit are fully disclosed in the FSEIR. The FSEIR includes analysis 

both with and without implementation of the Muni TSP and applies the same threshold 

standards to determine the significance of those impacts. By comparing the significance 

of the impact on local transit with and without the TSP, a reader learns that while 

implementation of the TSP will reduce impacts on Muni travel to a less than significant 

level, the impact without the TSP remains significant and unavoidable, even with 

alternative mitigation measures.

Plaintiffs suggest that by including the TSP in the project description the FSEIR 

conceals or fails to consider potentially significant impacts on Muni service outside the 

project area. In response to a comment, the FSEIR explains, “[T]he project includes the 

provision of additional bus and light rail service to accommodate the transit demand 

associated with the event center, and this transit demand would be accommodated within 

the existing and proposed Muni service. On days without events, the additional transit 

demand generated by the proposed office and retail uses would also be accommodated 

within the planned transit service.” Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. In 

addition to the transit information discussed above, the FSEIR also analyzes the project‟s 

impacts on ten additional Muni lines throughout the city under the no event and 

convention event scenarios and determines that the impacts will be less than significant. 

The data shows that under the convention event scenario, the project is expected to 

generate a total of 572 trips on the 10 additional Muni lines analyzed. With the additional 

rides, those lines would operate overall at 70 percent of capacity and no individual line 

would exceed 84 percent capacity. Under the basketball game scenario, there should be 

lesser impacts because the Muni TSP shuttle service provides “additional options to 

accommodate attendees traveling to and from the event center.” The Muni TSP was 
25

specifically “intended to avoid the possibility that special events would overwhelm the 

existing transit system.”

Despite the above, plaintiffs argue that the FSEIR is inadequate because it fails to 

consider whether the diversion of two streetcars from other lines, as provided for in the 

Muni TSP (in addition to the purchase of four new Muni streetcars), would cause 

significant impacts on the Muni lines from which those cars are diverted. Plaintiffs argue 

the FSEIR should have considered, as alternative mitigation, whether two additional 

Muni cars should be purchased rather than two cars diverted. Nothing in the record, 

however, suggests that diversion of two train cars from another line will cause significant 

impacts to that line. The FSEIR is not rendered inadequate by the failure to consider this 

entirely speculative environmental impact. (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of 

Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26 [“CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith 

effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to 

be exhaustive.”].)

Plaintiffs also argue that the FSEIR should have considered “alternate mitigation 

requiring the Warriors to pay for implementation of the TSP.” However, “ „ “CEQA does 

not require analysis of every imaginable alternative or mitigation measure; its concern is 

with feasible means of reducing environmental effects.” ‟ ” (Concerned Citizens of South 

Central L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 841; 

Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1187 

[Mitigation measures “may be deemed sufficient if those measures are based on a 

reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to 

implementing.”].) The FSEIR determines that the Muni TSP will reduce impacts on local 

transit to a less than significant level. The FSEIR explains, “San Francisco fully 

anticipates implementation of [the Muni TSP] and has identified sufficient funding to 

implement this plan.” The city has approved a Mission Bay transportation improvement 

fund in which project revenue will be earmarked to cover, among other things, 

implementation of the Muni TSP. Economic analyses contained in the record support the 
26

city‟s determination that the project will generate $14.1 million in revenue for the city 

and exceed estimated city expenses by approximately $1.5 million.

Plaintiffs‟ suggestion that the Muni TSP relies on “an admittedly uncertain 

[funding] scheme” relies on a single statement in the record, taken out of context. The 

city did not admit that funding for the Muni TSP is uncertain. Rather, the SFMTA stated, 

in a letter to the OCII, that “The SFMTA cannot unequivocally guarantee future funding 

for the TSP at the levels analyzed in the project description in perpetuity; nevertheless, I 

am confident the SFMTA will be able to deliver the proposed service for the following 

reasons: [¶] 1. In September 2015, an independent fiscal feasibility analysis of the project 

conducted by economic & planning systems and peer reviewed by Keyser Marston 

Associates, Inc., shows annual anticipated project-generated city revenues of more than 

$14 million. This projection is anticipated to more than cover the event center related 

operating costs as outlined in the attached updated pro forma. [¶] 2. The FY 19 operating 

costs, the first full year of the event center operations, are estimated at $8.2 million. Of 

this amount, the SFMTA estimates that $2 million from transit fares and parking 

revenues will be available to cover these costs. In addition, $3.4 million is projected to be 

available from incremental general fund baseline and parking tax mandated by the charter 

associated with the event center. The remaining $2.8 million is projected to be available 

through the Mission Bay transportation improvement fund (Fund), a reserve fund set 

aside by the board of supervisors from incremental general fund revenues associated with 

the event center. [¶] 3. In addition to the operating needs, the project requires capital 

investments totaling nearly $61.9 million of which $27.4 million is expected to be 

available from an in lieu transit impact development fee (TIDF) payment and general 

fund sources associated with the event center. The remaining $34.5 million will require 

financing that will be paid back from the Fund. Therefore, it is expected that the city and 

SFMTA will apply project-generated one-time and annual revenues to address these 

capital needs for the project without impacting SFMTA operations or other capital 

projects underway or planned by the city and SFMTA.” Nothing in this letter from 

SFMTA, or elsewhere in the record, suggests that the city will be unable to fund the Muni 
27

TSP as planned. Accordingly, the FSEIR is not inadequate because it fails to consider 

alternative funding for the Muni TSP.

Moreover, should a problem with funding the Muni TSP arise at some future date, 

the performance standards and alternative mitigation strategies identified in the TMP will 

require the project operators to mitigate impacts on local transit. For example, if the 45-

minute Muni boarding standard is not met, the Warriors must employ additional 

strategies to mitigate the delay. These additional measures may include the Warrior‟s

funding the purchase of additional shuttle buses or contracting with private shuttle 

services to transport passengers.

(b.) Regional Transit Services (BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, WETA)

As set forth more fully above, the FSEIR determines that the project will have 

significant impacts on regional transit and identifies the additional regional transit service 

necessary to mitigate these impacts. The mitigation measures adopted in the FSEIR

require the Warriors to “work with” the regional transit agencies “to provide” the 

necessary additional service.

20

Initially, we reject plaintiffs‟ argument that the proposed mitigation measures are 

unenforceable and improperly defer mitigation. Although the mitigation measures call for 

cooperation in the provision of additional transit services, contrary to plaintiffs‟ argument 

these mitigation measures do not “allow the Warriors‟ owners to determine how much 

additional transit service is needed at a later date . . . without a performance standard in 

place.” The mitigation measures require the Warriors to gather data on transit use and to 

coordinate the provision of regional transit based on the information gathered. And, as 

 

20 Mitigation Measure M-TR-5a provides, “As a mitigation measure to accommodate 

transit demand to and from the South Bay for weekday and weekend evening events, the 

project sponsor shall work with the Ballpark/Mission Bay Transportation Coordinating 

Committee to coordinate with Caltrain to provide additional Caltrain service to and from 

San Francisco on weekdays and weekends. The need for additional service shall be based 

on surveys of event center attendees conducted as part of the TMP.” Mitigation Measures 

M-TR-5b and M-TR-14 impose identical requirements regarding Golden Gate Transit 

and WETA and BART respectively.
28

noted above, the TMP imposes specific performance standards, including target auto 

usage and Muni boarding times. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program 

requires ongoing monitoring and reporting to the OCII and authorizes the OCII to take 

corrective action against the Warriors if mitigation measures are not implemented as 

required. Although there are no specific standards with respect to the capacity of regional 

transit carriers, if regional carriers should fail to provide additional capacity following 

arena events, automobile usage may be expected to exceed targeted limits, triggering the 

necessity of corrective action by the Warriors. The FSEIR observes that “[d]espite the 

lack of any guaranteed outcome,” the cooperative efforts of the agencies and the Warriors 

are expected to be successful “based on past experience.” The FSEIR adds that “[t]the 

provision of additional regional transit service during special events is common in San 

Francisco.” Substantial evidence supports the city‟s confidence that these mitigation 

measures will reduce the impacts on regional transit to a less than significant level.

Each of the impacted agencies has indicated a willingness to work with the 

coordinating committee to meet the transit demands and the record demonstrates a 

successful history of cooperation between the regional transit agencies. Caltrain and 

BART regularly provide additional transit service before and after SF Giants baseball 

games and special event ferries are provided between the ballpark and Alameda, Marin,

and Solano Counties following games. In response to public comment, the FSEIR offers 

another example of how agencies are cooperating to reduce regional transit impacts: 

“[T]he city is working with BART on the Embarcadero‐Montgomery capacity 

implementation plan study in a regionally coordinated approach to develop improvements 

to accommodate the current and increased ridership at the Montgomery Street and 

Embarcadero Muni/BART stations. The SFMTA and [San Francisco County 

Transportation Agency] are working with BART to develop concepts to increase 

platform capacity at these two stations, including a potential project to build new side 

platforms on the opposite side of the existing tracks. Matching funds for this study were 

provided by the SFMTA (Proposition K), the Golden State Warriors, and the San 

Francisco Giants.” (See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction 
29

Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 465, citing (§ 21081, subd. (a) and CEQA Guidelines 

§ 15091, subd. (b) (now subd. (a)(2)) [“CEQA . . . allows an agency to approve or carry 

out a project with potential adverse impacts if binding mitigation measures have been 

„required in, or incorporated into‟ the project or if „[t]hose changes or alterations are 

within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can 

and should be, adopted by that other agency.‟ ”].)

Although a specific funding source has not been secured, there is substantial 

evidence that funding will be available to provide any additional transit service that may 

be required. As the chief planning and development officer at BART noted, a portion of 

the additional costs would be offset through farebox recovery. The FSEIR explains 

further that San Francisco funds “a large number of transportation improvements to local 

and regional transportation facilities. Funding for these improvements comes from a 

variety of sources including state and federal grants, tolls collected from Bay Area 

bridges, and a countywide 1⁄2‐cent sales tax dedicated toward funding transportation 

improvements authorized under San Francisco‟s Proposition K. The [Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC)], as the transportation planning, coordinating and 

financing agency for the nine‐county San Francisco Bay Area, administers and distributes 

federal, state and regional moneys among the various regional transit operators. For 

example, MTC‟s Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program commits $7.5 billion

(including federal, state and regional funds) over 15 years to fund high‐priority transit 

capital improvements to the region‟s largest transit systems, including BART. The grant 

program will fund transit vehicle replacement fleet expansion, and key facility upgrades 

noted in the comments.” The record also includes a letter from the planning director of 

the MTC indicating that because the arena is located in a “priority development area” it 

would qualify for consideration under the One Bay Area Grant program to which the 

MTC has “committed $320 million through 2017 (and $14.6 billion through 2040—the 

life of the plan), from federal surface transportation legislation.”

Finally, as noted above, the FSEIR requires that additional actions be taken to 

reduce impacts should the performance standards not be met. The identified options 
30

include, in addition to the provision of additional shuttle busses, providing special event 

ferry service to the closest ferry station to the project site (similar to the existing service 

provided by the SF Giants after baseball games). These strategies can be employed to 

mitigate impacts on regional transit in the unlikely event that some or all of the additional 

regional transit services identified cannot be provided.

Despite the reasonable certainty that these regional transit impacts will be 

mitigated, the FSEIR deems the impacts to regional transit remain significant and 

unavoidable because “full funding for the service has not yet been identified.” On appeal, 

plaintiffs fault the FSEIR for not considering alternative mitigation requiring the 

Warriors to guarantee funding for the regional transit service.

CEQA, however, does not require identification of a guaranteed funding source 

for mitigation measures specified in the EIR. (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning 

the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 149, 163 [CEQA does 

not require “the EIR to discuss funding for mitigation measures.”].) Rather, CEQA 

requires substantial evidence to conclude that “feasible mitigation measures will actually 

be implemented.” (Ibid.; see also Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, supra, 

130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1187 [Mitigation measures “may be deemed sufficient if those 

measures are based on a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency 

commits itself to implementing.”]; Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County 

Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 141 [CEQA requires “a reasonable plan for 

mitigation.”].)

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los 

Angeles, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 149, is instructive. In that case, the EIR for a residential 

subdivision proposed remediation of water wells as a mitigation measure to reduce the 

project‟s significant impacts on water services. (Id. at pp. 152, 156.) Project opponents 

pointed to evidence that the estimated cost of remediation was $500,000 per well and 

argued the EIR was deficient because no source of funding for the remediation was 

identified in the EIR. (Id. at p. 163.) The court rejected this argument, citing a statement 

in the EIR evidencing a reasonable basis on which to conclude that the mitigation 
31

measures would be implemented: “ „Due to the high value of this local water resource, 

the purveyors have placed a high priority on replacing the impacted groundwater capacity 

by installing wellhead treatment and the construction of new wells.‟ ” (Ibid.; compare 

with Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 

Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260-1261 [No reasonable basis to conclude mitigation measures 

would “actually be implemented as a condition of development” where the city 

acknowledged that there was “great uncertainty” as to whether the mitigation measures 

would ever be funded.].)

As set forth above, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Warriors 

can be expected to work with the transits agencies “to provide additional . . . service” 

sufficient to mitigate the project‟s impacts on regional transit. The FSEIR is not 

inadequate because it fails to identify a specific funding source for increased regional 

transit service. Given the adequacy of the FSEIR, the city was not required to consider 

alternative funding sources before adopting a statement of overriding considerations. 

That the city, in an apparent overabundance of caution, did adopt a statement of 

overriding considerations should the specification of a funding source be deemed 

essential, does not negate the sufficiency of the FSEIR. The FSEIR fully informs the 

public and decision-makers of the impact the project will have on traffic congestion in the 

Mission Bay area and articulates meaningful methods to minimize those impacts.

2. Noise

Chapter 5.3 of the FSEIR assesses anticipated construction and operational noise 

impacts of the arena project on sensitive noise receptors such as the UCSF hospitals and 

nearby residences.21 The FSEIR concludes that noise impacts from construction of the 

proposed project will be less than significant with mitigation. The FSEIR also concludes 

that, with mitigation, impacts from stationary operational noise, such as “back-up diesel 

generators for maintenance purposes and mechanical equipment as well as the operation 

of public address systems and amplification equipment not only interior to the event 

 

21 This chapter also assesses potential vibration impacts that are not at issue on 

appeal.
32

center but also for occasional outdoor performances and events at the proposed Third 

Street plaza” will be less than significant. The FSEIR concludes, however, that mobile 

operational noise sources, such as vehicular traffic and crowd noise, will result in 

significant and unavoidable “permanent, long-term increases in ambient noise levels.” 

The FSEIR explains: “Noise levels generated by crowds prior to, during, and after events 

is expected to result in a substantial increase in noise levels at the receptor adjacent to the 

northbound Muni T-Line transit platform, particularly during nighttime egress hours of 

9 p.m. to 11 p.m., and this impact would be significant and unavoidable. [¶] Operation of 

the proposed project would introduce new mobile noise sources that would contribute to 

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Increases in roadway traffic noise would be 

significant and unavoidable during events either with or without implementation of the 

Muni [TSP], even with implementation of [specified mitigation measures]” 

Plaintiffs contend the threshold used in the FSEIR to analyze the significance of 

the noise impacts is inadequate. “A threshold of significance is an identifiable, 

quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non‐

compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by 

the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to 

be less than significant.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7 subd. (a).) The lead agency has 

substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate 

the severity of a particular impact. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b); Save 

Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068; Lotus, 

supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 655, fn. 7 [“The standard of significance applicable in any 

instance is a matter of discretion exercised by the public agency „ “depending on the 

nature of the area affected.” ‟ ”].)

Under the FSEIR, a noise impact is considered significant if it were to, among 

other things: “Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards 

of other agencies; [¶] . . . [¶] Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; [¶] Result in a 
33

substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 

above levels existing without the project.” The FSEIR adopts various thresholds of 

significance designed to identify perceptible increases in ambient noise levels. “Traffic 

noise level significance is determined by comparing the increase in noise levels (traffic 

contribution only) to increments recognized by Caltrans as representing a perceptible 

increase in noise levels. . . . [F]or noise environments where the ambient noise level is 65 

dBA DNL[22]or less, the significance threshold applied is an increase of 5 dBA or more, 

which Caltrans recognizes as a readily perceptible increase. In noise environments where 

the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA DNL, the significance threshold applied is an 

increase of 3 dBA or more, which Caltrans recognizes as a barely perceptible increase. 

[¶] Operational noise from non-transportation sources such as egress of patrons from 

events or sound amplification equipment in common areas are assessed based on noise 

increases of 8 dBA (for noise generated by commercial uses) over existing ambient 

(L90)

[23]

levels and any applicable restrictions of the city‟s noise ordinance and Police 

Code.” “[P]ersistent construction equipment noise related to an increase of 10 dBA over 

the existing noise levels” is also considered significant.

Plaintiffs contend the “ambient plus increment” methodology “ignores the severity 

of existing noise levels” and “fails to assess the significant impacts of noise on human 

health.” Plaintiffs argue that “Using „ambient plus increment‟ thresholds where existing 

noise levels are already high „disregards the fact the project will make severe conditions 

worse‟ and „results in an unsustainable gradual increase in ambient noise.‟ ”

The CEQA Guidelines support the use of an increment-based approach. As the 

FSEIR explained in response to public comments: “[E]xisting‐plus‐project increment 

thresholds are appropriate to assess operational noise under CEQA in the Mission Bay 

 

22 “dB” refers to decibels. The “dBA,” or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale of 

noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds 

of different frequencies. “DNL” refers to the day-night noise level, a 24-hour noise 

descriptor in which a 10 dBA penalty is added during the evening hours of 10:00 p.m. to 

7:00 a.m.

23 “L90” is a noise metric used to describe existing ambient noise levels.
34

Plan area for two reasons. The first reason is that CEQA Guidelines Appendix G 

identifies a noise impact criterion to address whether the proposed project would result in 

„exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in 

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies 

standard.‟ As stated on page 5.3‐13 of the FSEIR, the applicable noise ordinance limits 

for commercial and industrial properties ([S.F. Police Code] Section 2909(b))[24]provide 

that „no person shall produce or allow to be produced, a noise level more than 8 dBA 

above the local ambient level at the property plane.‟ Consequently, the FSEIR must 

consider operational noise impacts of commercial properties in terms of increased noise 

levels over existing ambient noise levels. [¶] The second reason existing‐plus‐project 

increment thresholds are appropriate to assess operational noise under CEQA is because 

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines inquires whether the proposed project would result 

in a „substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 

levels existing without the project.‟ Here CEQA suggests that an appropriate threshold to 

apply is an increase over existing ambient noise levels without the project but leaves the 

determination of the quantitative threshold to be applied at the discretion of the lead 

agency.” This explanation is entirely reasonable and amply supports the city‟s selection 

of the incremental standard of significance.

The incremental standard applied in the FSEIR does not ignore the severity of 

existing noise levels. To the contrary, the FSEIR expressly incorporates a smaller 

incremental threshold at intersections with ambient traffic noise in excess of 65 dBA in 

recognition of the “widely accepted methodology by both [Federal Transit 

Administration] and the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise . . . that thresholds 

should be more stringent for environments that are already noise impacted.” 

The FSEIR also adequately analyzes the cumulative noise impacts. Petitioner‟s 

argue, “Using „ambient plus increment‟ thresholds where existing noise levels are already 

high „disregards the fact the project will make severe conditions worse‟ and results in an 

 

24 See part III, pp. 53-57, post.
35

unsustainable gradual increase in ambient noise. It is a formula for ever-increasing noise 

levels because each new project establishes a new, higher, baseline; then when the next 

project is approved, the incremental change will be added to the new baseline.” However, 

the FSEIR explicitly addresses cumulative impacts and concludes—as plaintiffs argue—

that “[o]peration of the proposed project when considered with other cumulative 

development would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 

project vicinity.” The FSEIR explains that the operational noise impacts “would primarily 

result from increased traffic on the local roadway network.” A corresponding table (Table 

5.3-11) includes modeled noise information for the existing, cumulative and cumulative 

plus project categories at several testing locations.

25 Thus, despite petitioner‟s quarrel 

with the standard of significance, they do not dispute the accuracy of the data presented 

in the FSEIR or its conclusion that noise impacts of the project will be significant and 

unavoidable.

Finally, contrary to plaintiffs‟ argument, the FSEIR adequately discloses the 

significance of the noise impacts on human health. The FSEIR provides considerable 

background information and “general guidelines” for noise sensitivity. According to the 

FSEIR, “sleep disturbance can occur at levels above 35 dBA; interference with human 

speech begins at about 60 dBA; and hearing damage can result from prolonged exposure 

to noise levels in excess of 85 to 90 dBA.” Table 5-3.1 sets forth typical sound levels 

measured in the environment. For example, an accelerating motorcycle at a few feet away 

is deafening at 110 dBA, a noisy urban street is very loud at 90 dBA, near freeway traffic 

is loud at 60 dBA, and an average whisper is very faint at 20 dBA. The FSEIR includes a 

comprehensive section on the health effects of environmental noise which explains, “The 

World Health Organization (WHO) is perhaps the best source of current knowledge 

regarding the health effects of noise impacts because European nations have continued to 

study noise and its health effects, while the United States Environmental Protection 

 

25 The cumulative analysis assumes future development under the UCSF, 2014 long 

range development plan, Mission Bay campus, the eastern neighborhoods area plans, 

Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48 mixed‐use project and Pier 70 mixed‐use development.
36

Agency all but eliminated its noise investigation and control program in the 1970s.

According to WHO, sleep disturbance can occur when continuous indoor noise levels 

exceed 30 dBA or when intermittent interior noise levels reach 45 dBA, particularly if 

background noise is low. With a bedroom window slightly open (a reduction from 

outside to inside of 15 dB), the WHO criteria suggest that exterior continuous (ambient) 

nighttime noise levels should be 45 dBA or below, and short-term events should not 

generate noise in excess of 60 dBA. WHO also notes that maintaining noise levels within 

the recommended levels during the first part of the night is believed to be effective for the 

ability of people to initially fall asleep. [¶] Other potential health effects of noise 

identified by WHO include decreased performance for complex cognitive tasks, such as 

reading, attention span, problem solving, and memorization; physiological effects such as 

hypertension and heart disease (after many years of constant exposure, often by workers, 

to high noise levels); and hearing impairment (again, generally after long-term 

occupational exposure, although shorter-term exposure to very high noise levels, for

example, exposure several times a year to concert noise at 100 dBA, can also damage 

hearing). Finally, noise can cause annoyance and can trigger emotional reactions like 

anger, depression, and anxiety. WHO reports that, during daytime hours, few people are 

seriously annoyed by activities with noise levels below 55 dBA or moderately annoyed 

with noise levels below 50 dBA. [¶] Vehicle traffic and continuous sources of machinery 

and mechanical noise contribute to ambient noise levels. Short-term noise sources, such 

as truck backup beepers, the crashing of material being loaded or unloaded, car doors 

slamming, and engines revving outside a nightclub, contribute very little to 24-hour noise 

levels but are capable of causing sleep disturbance and severe annoyance. The 

importance of noise to receptors depends on both time and context. For example, longterm high noise levels from large traffic volumes can make conversation at a normal 

voice level difficult or impossible, while short-term peak noise levels, if they occur at 

night, can disturb sleep.” (Fns. omitted.)

Applying this information to the traffic noise level tables in the FSEIR, a reader 

can evaluate the severity of the existing ambient noise levels at a particular location and 
37

understand how those noise levels might affect the health of nearby residents. The reader 

will also be able to determine whether the increase in ambient noise levels as a result of 

the project will be perceptible (based on the threshold of significance) and how severe the 

resulting change will be. The potential impact of project noise on health is thus clearly 

disclosed. The FSEIR need not, as plaintiffs‟ suggest, apply a separate health-based 

threshold in determining the significance of noise impacts. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over 

the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [“[T]he 

determination of EIR adequacy is essentially pragmatic. Whether an EIR will be found in 

compliance with CEQA involves an evaluation of whether the discussion of 

environmental impacts reasonably sets forth sufficient information to foster informed 

public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental 

factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.”].)

In sum, we find no deficiency in the FSEIR‟s analysis of noise impacts.

3. Wind impacts

Chapter 5.6 of the FSEIR addresses the wind and shadow impacts of the project.

Plaintiffs dispute the sufficiency of the analysis only with respect to wind impacts. Under 

the threshold of significance applied in the FSEIR, the proposed project “would have a 

significant impact related to wind if it were to . . . alter wind in a manner that 

substantially affects public areas.” Wind will be considered to substantially affect public 

areas when wind speed exceeds the wind hazard criterion of 36 miles per hour. The 

FSEIR studied existing wind impacts at 46 off-site locations and relates that wind speeds 

exceeded the wind hazard criterion at seven locations. According to the FSEIR, “Under 

existing-plus-project conditions, the total net number of off-site study test points at which 

wind speed would exceed the wind hazard criterion would be reduced from 7 to 6. 

However, there would also be a net increase in the total duration of wind hazards on the 

off-site public walkways in the project vicinity, increasing from 106 hours per year under 

existing conditions to 139 hours per year under existing-plus-project conditions (an 

increase of 33 hours).” Because the project will result in a net increase in the total 

duration of the wind hazard exceedance at off-site public walkways in the project 
38

vicinity, the FSEIR considers the impact significant. Based on mitigation measures 

modified following public comments, including incorporation of design features 

demonstrated to be effective at reducing wind hazards, the FSEIR concludes that the 

impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.

Plaintiffs contend that the FSEIR is insufficient because it addresses only wind 

impacts to “off-site public areas” and fails to address significant impacts at the publicly 

accessible areas on the project site. Defendants argue correctly that CEQA does not 

require analysis of the wind impacts on the project.

“[T]he purpose of an FSEIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the 

environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona 

Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 [FSEIR 

was not required to discuss the impact of sea level rise on the project.]; see also City of 

Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905 

[FSEIR was not required to discuss the impacts on staff and student health of locating 

proposed school near freeways.]; Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 

1464, 1468 [Whether preexisting physical conditions will have an adverse effect on the 

proposed project‟s residents is beyond the scope of CEQA.].) As explained in Ballona, 

supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at page 474, “identifying the effects on the project and its users 

of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with 

CEQA‟s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes.” Accordingly, the city 

was not required to consider in the FSEIR the extent to which patrons of the project may

be subject to windy conditions.

Nonetheless, because “project wind effects at on-site publically accessible areas 

that would be subject to substantial pedestrian use may be of interest to members of the 

public and to decision-makers,” the FSEIR includes such an analysis for informational 

purposes. The DSEIR reported: “Under existing-plus-project conditions, three on-site 

study test points at the proposed event center on the north side pedestrian path would 

exceed the wind hazard criterion, for a total of 31 hours per year. No exceedances of the 

wind hazard criterion would occur at any of the other areas of substantial pedestrian use 
39

at the project site.” In response to public comments, the FSEIR points out that the “the 

project sponsor shall develop and implement a range of feasible design refinements to 

effectively reduce on‐site wind effects, including but not limited to, the proposed addition 

of landscaping within the plazas; and the potential installation of vertical porous screens, 

overhead protection such as tilted foils and archways, and/or other screening features on 

the event center perimeter walkway and other publicly accessible areas. . . . [¶] It should 

also be acknowledged that the event center and office and retail building operators would 

have control of all on‐site areas so as to be able to manage or preclude pedestrian access 

in the event of hazardous windy conditions (e.g., during a storm), which are actions 

typical of other private developments in the City that have on‐site publically accessible 

open space. This would include the building podium roofs, food hall roof, event center 

bayfront terrace, as well as plaza areas and on‐site pedestrian walkways. This can be 

effectively achieved through use of on‐site security personnel, temporary signage and/or 

barriers to limit public access where needed and direct pedestrians to alternate access 

points and pathways.” Although unnecessary, the additional information and discussion 

negates plaintiffs‟ contention that the environmental report fails to evaluate the wind 

impacts of the project, and to identify measures to mitigate those impacts.

4. Greenhouse gas emissions

The FSEIR found the project‟s greenhouse gas emissions would have no 

significant adverse effect on the environment because the project‟s construction and 

operation meet San Francisco‟s energy efficiency and conservation standards designed to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Plaintiffs contend that compliance with these 

qualitative performance standards does not disclose the magnitude of the greenhouse gas 

emissions that will result from the project and that the FSEIR must quantify the project‟s 

greenhouse gas emissions and calculate the effect of proposed mitigation measures.

The FSEIR acknowledges, “Individual projects contribute to the cumulative 

effects of climate change by directly or indirectly emitting greenhouse gas during 

construction and operational phases” and that “the proposed project would contribute to 

annual long-term increases in greenhouse gas as a result of increased vehicle trips 
40

(mobile sources) as well as event-related, commercial, and office operations that would 

result in an increase in energy use, water use, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. Construction activities would also result in temporary increases in greenhouse 

gas emissions.” The FSEIR concludes, however, that the project will not generate 

greenhouse gas having a significant effect on the environment because the project will 

comply with San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The FSEIR does not 

include “an individual project-specific impact assessment” because “the proposed 

project‟s impact on climate change focuses on the project‟s contribution to cumulatively 

significant [greenhouse gas] emissions.”26

Plaintiffs contend that exclusive reliance on performance based standards—the 

project‟s consistency with San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas strategy—is inadequate and 

that CEQA requires the FSEIR to quantify the project‟s expected greenhouse gas 

emissions and the amount those emissions will be reduced by implementation of the 

greenhouse gas strategy or specified mitigation measures. Plaintiffs are mistaken.

“Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role 

in the CEQA process.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (a).) A public agency may not 

approve a project that has a significant effect on the environment unless those effects are 

mitigated or unavoidable but acceptable due to overriding considerations. (CEQA 

Guidelines, § 15092, subd. (b)(2).) As our Supreme Court has observed, however, there 

are inherent difficulties in determining whether a project‟s greenhouse gas emissions will 

have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (Center for Biological Diversity v. 

 

26 The FSEIR also states that the Governor‟s certification of the project for expedited 

judicial review found that the project would not result in any net additional greenhouse 

gas emissions after purchase of carbon credits and cites this finding as further support for 

the conclusion that the project‟s emissions will be less than significant. (Pub. Resources 

Code, § 21184.) As the parties agree, the Governor‟s certification serves a distinct 

purpose and is not a substitute for a CEQA determination on the significance of 

greenhouse gas emissions. For purposes of appeal, we consider whether consistency with 

San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas strategy alone is sufficient to support the FSEIR‟s 

finding that the project‟s greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant effect on the 

environment.
41

Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219 (Center for Biological 

Diversity).) “First, because of the global scale of climate change, any one project‟s 

contribution is unlikely to be significant in itself. The challenge for CEQA purposes is to 

determine whether the impact of the project‟s emissions of greenhouse gases is 

cumulatively considerable, in the sense that „the incremental effects of [the] individual 

project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the 

effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.‟ ” (Ibid., 

quoting § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) “Second, the global scope of climate change and the fact 

that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, once released into the atmosphere, are 

not contained in the local area of their emission means that the impacts to be evaluated 

are global rather than local.” (Id. at pp. 219-220.)

In recognition of the difficulty, and importance, of evaluating global climate 

change impacts, the Legislature directed the California Natural Resources Agency to 

adopt CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (§ 21083.05.) 

Those guidelines grant agencies “discretion to determine, in the context of a particular 

project, whether to: [¶] (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas 

emissions resulting from a project, and which model to use . . . and/or [¶] (2) Rely on a 

qualitative analysis or performance based standards.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, 

subd. (a).) Utilizing the second method, an agency may adopt an area wide plan to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and determine that a project‟s incremental contribution to 

climate change is not significant if the project complies with the requirements of the 

previously adopted plan. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15183.5, subd. (b).)

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) encourages local 

agencies to adopt greenhouse gas reduction plans and to use those plans in making CEQA 

determinations.27 In its May 2010 CEQA Guidelines update, the Air District stated: “If a 

 

27 The Air District “is a regional agency authorized to adopt and enforce regulations 

governing air pollutants from stationary sources such as factories, refineries, power 

plants, and gas stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. The District‟s purpose is to 

achieve and maintain compliance, in its regional jurisdiction, with state and federal 
42

project is consistent with an adopted Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that 

addresses the project‟s greenhouse gas emissions, it can be presumed that the project will 

not have significant [greenhouse gas] emission impacts.”

In 2010, San Francisco adopted its greenhouse gas strategy. The greenhouse gas 

strategy is a 321-page document with multiple elements based on the California Natural 

Resources Agency CEQA Guidelines and the Air District‟s interpretation of those 

guidelines. San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas strategy includes a quantification of baseline 

levels of greenhouse gas emissions28 and planned reductions from the baseline 1990 level 

of 25 percent less emissions by 2020, 40 percent less by 2025 and 80 percent less by 

2050. The Air District approved San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas strategy and found that, 

in some areas, it “surpassed the minimum standard elements” of a qualified greenhouse 

gas reduction strategy as laid out in the Air District‟s CEQA Guidelines. The Air District 

found the planned reductions to be “more stringent” than state standards and observed 

that San Francisco is “on track for meeting this aggressive target.”

At the heart of San Francisco‟s greenhouse gas strategy are measures, to be 

implemented on a project-by-project basis, that are designed to achieve the specified citywide emission level. These measures focus on four primary areas for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions: transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and solid 

waste. The greenhouse gas strategy includes 42 specific regulations to reduce the 

emissions from new developments, such as energy efficiency standards and a 

construction debris recovery ordinance. The strategy includes measures such as tree 

planting and installation of bicycle racks, the effects of which plaintiffs minimize. But the 

greenhouse gas strategy also contains stringent energy usage and other regulations to 

 

ambient air quality standards.” (Cal. Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality 

Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 378, fn. 27.)

28 San Francisco‟s 1990 greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 9.1 million 

tons of carbon dioxide and equivalents (CO2E). In 2004, San Francisco projected 2012 

greenhouse gas emissions at 10.8 million tones of CO2E based on a business‐as‐usual 

scenario (without citywide actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
43

reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

29 San Francisco successfully reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions by 14.5 percent between 1990 and 2010 despite a population increase of 11 

percent during that time period.

The CEQA Guidelines expressly allow agencies to either quantify greenhouse gas 

emissions from a project or rely on performance based standards (CEQA Guidelines, 

§ 15064.4, subd. (a)), and to “determine that a project‟s incremental contribution” to 

climate change is not significant “if the project complies with the requirements in a 

previously adopted plan” for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (CEQA 

Guidelines, § 15183.5(b)). It is true, as plaintiffs note, that the Guidelines also provide 

that an agency “should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific 

and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas 

emissions resulting from a project” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a)) and to 

consider “[t]he extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting” (CEQA Guidelines, 

§ 15064.4, subd. (b)(1)). But the Guidelines do not compel a numeric estimate of every 

project‟s greenhouse gas emissions.

The Guidelines grant agencies “discretion to determine, in the context of a 

particular project, whether to: [¶] . . . quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a 

project . . . and/or [¶] [r]ely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.” 

(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a).) In its statement of reasons for adopting the 

greenhouse gas guidelines, the California Natural Resources Agency explained that 

 

29 For example, the strategy requires all commercial buildings greater than 5,000 

square feet “to be at a minimum 14% more energy efficient than Title 24 energy 

efficiency requirements” and “to provide enhanced commissioning in compliance with 

LEED®Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3,” and “to provide on-site renewable energy or 

purchase renewable energy credits pursuant to LEED®Energy and Atmosphere Credits 2 

or 6. Credit 2 requires providing at least 2.5% of the building‟s energy use from on-site 

renewable sources. [¶] Credit 6 requires providing at least 35% of the building‟s 

electricity from renewable energy contracts.” “All new commercial buildings greater than 

5,000 sf are required to reduce the amount of potable water used by 20%.” The amount of 

potable water used for landscaping must be reduced by 50 percent.
44

“CEQA does not require quantification of emissions in every instance.” (Cal. Natural 

Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action (Dec. 2009) p. 22

<http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ Final_Statement_of_Reasons. pdf> [as of Nov. 29, 

2016].) “If the lead agency determines that quantification is not possible, would not yield 

information that would assist in analyzing the project‟s impacts and determining the 

significance of the [greenhouse gas] emissions, or is not appropriate in the context of the 

particular project, section 15064.4(a) would allow the lead agency to consider qualitative 

factors or performance standards.”30 (Ibid.) Given the nature of greenhouse gas 

emissions—gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change 

but with little immediate perceptible effect on the locale from which they emanate—a 

project‟s compliance with an area-wide greenhouse gas reduction plan may be more 

useful in determining the significance of those emissions on a global scale than 

quantification of its incremental addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

Plaintiffs fail to show that OCII abused its discretion in approving the FSEIR 

because it fails to quantify the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the project.31

The FSEIR concludes that the project complies with energy efficiency and conservation 

standards set by the greenhouse gas strategy and, thus, is consistent with city-wide (and 

state-wide) greenhouse gas reduction targets. This choice of methodology is not 

unreasonable, nor unprecedented. The California Supreme Court expressed approval for a 

methodology that uses consistency with greenhouse gas reduction plans as a significance 

criterion for project emissions under CEQA. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 

Cal.4th at pp. 220-221, 229-230.) Our high court observed: “Given the reality of growth, 

 

30 Amici maintain that quantification of the project‟s greenhouse gas emissions is 

feasible and request that we take judicial notice of EIRs prepared in connection with 

other projects that contain such quantifications. We deny the request; feasibility is not in 

dispute.

31 Although not relevant to the sufficiency of the FSEIR analysis, we note that 

quantitative estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions from the event center (not 

including the office buildings) have been made and were included in the application for 

certification of the project as an environmental leadership development project.
45

some greenhouse gas emissions from new housing and commercial developments are 

inevitable. The critical CEQA question is the cumulative significance of a project‟s 

greenhouse gas emissions, and from a climate change point of view it does not matter 

where in the state those emissions are produced. Under these circumstances, evaluating 

the significance of a residential or mixed-use project’s greenhouse gas emissions by their 

effect on the state’s efforts to meet it long-term goals makes at least as much sense as 

measuring them against an absolute numerical threshold.” (Id. at pp. 220-221, italics 

added.)

Plaintiffs concede that an agency may rely on an area-wide greenhouse gas

reduction plan to assess the significance of a project‟s greenhouse gas emissions but 

contend that Center for Biological Diversity requires the agency to first quantify the 

project‟s emissions. While the agency in Center for Biological Diversity did quantify 

project emissions, the court did not hold quantification to be necessary in every case. The 

court identified “potential pathways to compliance” with CEQA, among them a 

performance-based methodology in which an agency evaluates the significance of a 

project‟s greenhouse gas impact by “looking to compliance with regulatory programs 

designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 

62 Cal.4th at p. 229.) Such compliance may, standing alone, provide sufficient evidence 

that the project will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. As the court 

observed: “To the extent a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures 

sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions necessary, one 

can reasonably argue that the project‟s impact „is not “cumulatively considerable,” 

because it is helping to solve the cumulative problem of greenhouse gas emissions as 

envisioned by California law.‟ ” (Id. at p. 220.)

In summary, substantial evidence supports the FSEIR‟s conclusion that the project 

is compliant with energy efficiency and conservation standards set by San Francisco‟s

greenhouse gas strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the project therefore 

will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment in this respect.
46

5. Toxic air contaminants

Plaintiffs challenge the FSEIR‟s conclusion that toxic air contaminant (TAC) 

emissions during construction and operation of the project will not have a significant 

adverse effect on air quality and human health. A TAC is “an air pollutant which may 

cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a 

present or potential hazard to human health.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 39655, subd. (a).) 

Hundreds of pollutants are identified as TACs, including benzene and formaldehyde. (42 

U.S.C. § 7412(b).) TACs are distinct from the six “criteria air pollutants” pervasive in 

urban environments (ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, and lead) regulated by specific public-health-based criteria for permissible 

concentration levels in ambient air. TACs are not subject to ambient air concentration 

limits but are regulated using a risk-based approach. The Air District Guidelines note that 

“TACs are primarily regulated through State and local risk management programs” 

designed to avoid or minimize “adverse health effects from exposure to TACs.” The 

known health risk from those TACs that cause cancer is evaluated by estimating the 

increased risk of cancer from exposure over a defined period of time, commonly 70 

years, and is generally expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed 

individuals. That is, cancer risk is estimated as the incremental probability that an 

individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as the direct result of exposure to airborne 

carcinogens.

The FSEIR relates that the project will generate TACS from diesel engine exhaust. 

According to the FSEIR, “The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different 

gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic.” Diesel exhaust will be 

emitted during construction by diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks hauling 

excavated materials and during operations by back-up diesel generators and vehicle 

traffic.

A health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate potential health risks from 

TACs generated by diesel fuel use related to the project. The health risk assessment, 

appended to the FSEIR, evaluated TAC emissions by measuring “total organic gases” 
47

and particulate matter. Particulate matter includes diesel particulate matter, the solid 

material in diesel exhaust. Diesel particulate matter is a TAC and “is used as a surrogate 

measure of carcinogen exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust 

as a whole.” 32 The health risk assessment calculated emissions from construction 

equipment and trucks, diesel generators, and vehicle traffic. The health risk assessment

then multiplied dose (based on exposure and breathing rate) by toxicity factors to 

determine the carcinogenic toxicity of TACs that will be emitted during the project‟s 

construction and operation.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the health risk assessment focused on the 

pollution‟s impact on the most sensitive members of the public. (CEQA Guidelines, 

Appex. G III. (d).) “Sensitive receptors” in the vicinity of the project were identified as 

children resident at UCSF Hearst Tower 200 feet from the project and, to a lesser extent, 

children patients at UCSF Benioff Children‟s Hospital at a distance of 560 feet. Children 

are at greater risk from pollution than adults due to several factors, including higher 

breathing rates, longer lifetime exposure rates and greater sensitivity during development. 

In determining a child resident‟s cancer risk from the project, the health risk assessment

used the Air District breathing rates33 and made highly conservative “health protective” 

assumptions of exposure periods of 24 hours per day at outdoor air concentrations. Based 

on the health risk assessment, the FSEIR finds that construction of the project (with 

measures in place to reduce construction emissions) will cause a child resident‟s lifetime 

cancer risk to increase by 11 in one million and that operation of the project will cause an 

 

32 The health risk assessment measured particulate matter in two size ranges, 

particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. 

Diesel particulate matter was assumed to be less than 10 microns.

33 Plaintiffs contend the FSEIR improperly applies scientifically-outdated breathing 

rates, contrary to the good faith full disclosure requirement (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151) 

upheld in Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissioners, supra, 

91 Cal.App.4th at pages 1364-1367. However, although application of the higher rates 

apparently would increase a child resident‟s cancer risk caused by the project from 18 to 

31 per million, the resulting cumulative cancer risk would remain below the significance 

threshold utilized in the FSEIR.
48

excess cancer risk of 7.2 in one million. The existing cancer risk in the area is 26 in one 

million, making the total risk 44 in one million. The EIR concludes that the project‟s 

TACs will not have a significant adverse effect on a child resident‟s health because the 

excess cancer risk will be less than the cumulative threshold of significance of 100 in one 

million.

Plaintiffs dispute the validity of using the 100 in one million total cancer risk as 

the threshold of significance. As they did during the public comment period, they argue 

that the assessment of health risks based on a child resident‟s total cancer risk fails to 

assess the project-specific impact of TACs. Based on a disputed Air District standard 

discussed below, plaintiffs contend that any project that individually increases cancer risk 

by 10 or more in one million, as does this project, must be found to have a significant 

effect on human health.

Initially, it is not accurate to say, as do plaintiffs, that the FSEIR fails to analyze 

project-specific impacts. The FSEIR includes a detailed inventory of all TAC emissions 

related to the project‟s construction and operation. As just indicated, the FSEIR quantifies 

the increased cancer risk posed by these emissions. The FSEIR deems the project-specific 

increased cancer risk greater than 10 per million significant only if the increase produces 

a cumulative risk greater than 100 per million. Plaintiffs‟ dispute lies with the threshold 

of significance used in the FSEIR.

Substantial evidence supports the FSEIR‟s methodology. As explained in the 

FSEIR, San Francisco policy is to keep a neighborhood‟s cumulative cancer risk below 

100 per million. The city partnered with the Air District to inventory and assess air 

pollution and exposures from vehicles and other sources to identify areas in the city with 

a cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, termed air pollutant exposure zones. In 

those zones, a project increasing cancer risk by 10 or more per million is deemed to have 

a significant adverse environmental effect. In areas of the city such as the project site that 

are not within such a zone, a project is not deemed to have a significant effect unless it 

both increases cancer risk by 10 or more per million and increases the cumulative risk for 

the neighborhood to greater than 100 per million. The FSEIR explains in its response to 
49

public comments that a project‟s contribution to existing health risks is insignificant if a 

resident‟s lifetime cancer risk from all pollutants in the neighborhood remain below 100 

per million.

Plaintiffs incorrectly contend that this threshold of significance is contrary to Air 

District standards. In 2010, the Air District did adopt recommended CEQA thresholds of 

significance containing a threshold of increased cancer risk of more than 10 per million 

(or compliance with a qualified community risk reduction plan). However, the Air 

District was ordered in 2012 to set aside those thresholds and invalidation of those 

thresholds was recently partially upheld on appeal. (Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. Bay Area 

Air Quality Management Dist. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1074-1076, 1087-1088, 1090.)

The currently operative 2012 air quality guidelines do not recommend CEQA thresholds 

of significance for use by local governments. Instead, the Air District refers agencies to 

“a number of resources” for “reference” and directs them to “examine the substantial 

evidence in determining appropriate air quality thresholds.” Among the referenced 

resources are its 1999 CEQA Guidelines that includes a TAC threshold of significance of 

10 in one million, which is the one advocated by plaintiffs. (BAAQMD CEQA 

Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (Dec. 1999) p. 18 

<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqaguid.pdf> [as of 

Nov. 29, 2016].) However, the Air District‟s current guidelines do not “endorse or 

recommend” that particular threshold and other cited resources use the 100 in a million 

threshold of significance used in the FSEIR, including the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). (71 Fed. Reg. 47680, Aug. 17, 2006; 54 Fed. Reg. 38044-01 

(Overview) Sept.14, 1989.) In assessing the risk from TACs, the EPA has “determined 

that a maximum individual risk of approximately 100-in-a-million should ordinarily be 

the upper end of the range of acceptable risks associated with an individual source of 

emissions.” (71 Fed. Reg. 47680.) In doing so, the EPA observed that “[t]he 

determination of what represents an „acceptable‟” risk is based on a judgment of „what 

risks are acceptable in the world in which we live.‟ ” (Ibid.)
50

Indeed, in the May 2010 document issued by the Air District proposing CEQA 

thresholds of significance, the agency observed that it “is not aware of any agency that 

has established an acceptable level of cancer risk for TACs. However, a range of what 

constitutes a significant increment of cancer risk from any compound has been 

established by the U.S. EPA. EPA‟s guidance for conducting air toxics analyses and 

making risk management decisions at the facility- and community-scale level considers a 

range of acceptable cancer risks from one in a million to one in ten thousand (100 in a 

million).”

California‟s CEQA Guidelines likewise recognize that an agency‟s adoption of a 

threshold of significance requires an exercise of reasoned judgment. “The determination 

of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for a careful 

judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on 

scientific and factual data.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b).) “CEQA grants 

agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance” and an agency‟s 

choice of a significance threshold will be upheld if founded on substantial evidence. 

(Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) 

The FSEIR‟s use of a significance threshold consistent with EPA standards is founded on 

substantial evidence. The FSEIR provides all of the information necessary to inform the 

public of the risks and for the city‟s decision makers to make an informed choice in 

weighing the health risks from TACs in deciding whether to approve the project.

II. Compliance with zoning requirements

Plaintiffs contend the project does not conform to the zoning designation in the 

Mission Bay South redevelopment plan. Plaintiffs‟ contentions in this regard have been 

rather fluid, often ill-defined, and arguably waived by their failure to timely present them 

in the administrative proceedings or in the superior court.34 We address and reject on the 

 

34 In the trial court, plaintiffs challenged the city‟s approval of the project on the 

ground that the arena does not qualify as a permissible secondary use under the plan. The 

trial court rejected this argument and plaintiffs have not challenged the trial court‟s 

ruling. In their opening appellate brief, plaintiffs note only that “Under the plain meaning 
51

merits their principal contention in this court, that the project exceeds the allowable 

square footage for retail establishments. 

The project is located on blocks 29-32 in Zone A of the Mission Bay South 

redevelopment plan area. The blocks are zoned “Commercial Industrial/Retail.” “Retail 

sales and services” is one of numerous principal land uses permitted at the project 

location.35 The plan defines “retail sales and services” as a “commercial use which 

provides goods and/or services directly to the customer including outdoor activity areas 

and open air sales areas. It may provide goods and/or services to the business community, 

provided that it also serves the general public.” Under the redevelopment plan, Zone A 

may include up to 20,700 leasable square feet of city-serving retail and 159,300 leasable 

square feet of neighborhood-serving retail. 

The FSEIR points out that after deducting previously authorized uses from the 

square footages designated in the redevelopment plan, 50,464 leasable square feet remain 

available for retail use in Zone A. As the FSEIR states, this remaining allocation is 

sufficient to accommodate the project‟s proposed 29,732 leasable square feet of 

neighborhood-serving retail and 20,700 leasable square feet of city-serving retail. A 

memorandum prepared by OCII staff supports this conclusion.36

 

of the words, the arena does not meet criteria for any of those uses and cannot qualify as 

a secondary use. However, since the arena cannot be approved in the Zone A retail 

zoning, the secondary use violations are not at issue.” In their opening brief plaintiffs also 

assert that the project “does not align with the plan‟s allocation of almost 6 million square 

feet of leasable space intended to accommodate expansion of biotech research facilities” 

but they provide no citations or further argument in support of that statement and we 

therefore deem the argument waived.

35 Other principal uses include, among others, office use, restaurants, arts activities 

and spaces, parking, and outdoor activity area. Discretionary secondary uses include,

among other classifications, nighttime entertainment, recreation building and public 

structure.

36 The memorandum states: “The project is proposing to use 1,003,209 leasable 

square feet for commercial uses and up to 50,464 for retail uses and to use 228,917 

square feet of developable area, as is depicted in the combined basic concept/schematic 

designs that the commission is scheduled to consider on November 3, 2015. Based on 

these figures and the analysis of other Zone A projects and other [Height Zone-5] 
52

Plaintiffs‟ argument that the city abused its discretion in approving the project 

because “the 488,000 square foot arena . . . exceeds the limit” relies on the faulty premise 

that the entire arena building is devoted to retail use. The event center, however, includes 

numerous components in addition to retail sales and services, including spectator seating 

and suites, restaurants/bars and clubs, meeting rooms; spectator support facilities such as 

food service/kitchens, concessions, merchandising and restrooms; Golden State Warriors 

management offices, practice facility and locker rooms; command center and operations 

space for police/security, fire protection services and traffic control; media support 

facilities; and event center operation and maintenance areas. The OCII reasonably 

counted only the square footage of the retail components against the allocation for retail 

use in Zone A. 

Contrary to plaintiffs‟ argument, the city has not conceded that the entire event 

center constitutes a retail use under the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan. The 

planning department determined in a different context that the arena meets the definition 

of “retail use” under the Planning Code.37 The Planning Code, however, does not govern 

 

projects, the project square footage is within the allowable allocations under the 

redevelopment plan . . . . Staff has recommended that the [OCII] commission adopt a 

condition of approval for the project that requires deed restrictions for the applicable 

retail spaces under 5,000 square feet that have been excluded from the gross square 

footage calculations to ensure that the limitations on these small retail type of spaces are 

maintained throughout the life of the project.”

37 Plaintiffs cite to a brief filed by the planning department in connection with an 

appeal from the approval of the design of the two office buildings included in the project. 

In this brief the planning department explained that the 25,000 square feet of office space 

proposed for the arena is not considered “office space” under the Planning Code because 

it is reasonably characterized “as accessory to the retail use of the event center building.” 

The planning department noted that “retail use” is defined in the Planning Code as “uses 

that involve the sale of goods, typically in small quantities, or services directly to the 

ultimate consumer or end user including, but not limited to, retail sales and service uses, 

commercial entertainment, arts and recreation uses, and retail automotive uses.” The 

department concluded that the event center came within the definition of “entertainment, 

arts and recreation, retail” which includes “arts activities, general entertainment, livery 

stables, movie theater, nighttime entertainment, outdoor entertainment, and sports 
53

permissible uses in the project area. The Mission Bay South redevelopment plan provides 

explicitly that it “shall supersede the San Francisco Planning Code in its entirety, except 

as otherwise provided herein.” Under the definition included in the redevelopment plan, 

quoted above, the bulk of the arena space does not constitute retail space. Actual retail 

uses, as defined, do not exceed the limitations of the governing redevelopment plan.

III. Place of Entertainment permit

Plaintiffs challenge the city‟s entertainment commission‟s issuance of a place of 

entertainment permit to the operators of the planned event center. 

Article 15.1 of the San Francisco Police Code regulates ownership and operation 

of a “place of entertainment” within the City of San Francisco.38 This article includes 

provisions making it unlawful for any person to own or operate a place of entertainment 

without a permit and sets forth the requirements for obtaining the necessary permit.

(§§ 1060.3, 1060.4.) As relevant here, Police Code section 1060.5, subdivision (f), 

provides that the city “shall grant or conditionally grant a permit for a place of 

entertainment pursuant to this Article unless it finds that: [¶] . . . [¶] (3) The premises or

the proposed operation of the business lacks adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of 

noise . . . that would substantially interfere with the public health, safety and welfare or 

the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring property.” Because the proposed project meets the 

 

stadium.” As pointed out in the text above, the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan 

employs a far more limited definition of “retail sales and service.”

38 A “place of entertainment” is defined under article 15.1, section 1060, 

subdivision (k) of the San Francisco Police Code as “Every premises to which patrons or 

members are admitted which serves food, beverages, or food and beverages, including 

but not limited to alcoholic beverages, for consumption on the premises and wherein 

Entertainment as defined in Subsection (g) is furnished or occurs upon the premises.” 

“Entertainment” is defined to includes among other things “Any act, play, review, 

pantomime, scene, song, dance act, song and dance act, or poetry recitation, conducted in 

or upon any premises to which patrons or members are admitted” and “The playing or 

use of any instrument capable of producing or used to produce musical or percussion 

sounds, including but not limited to, reed, brass, percussion, or string-like instruments, or 

karaoke, or recorded music presented by a live disc jockey on the premises. . . .” (S.F. 

Police Code, § 1060, subd. (g).)
54

definition of a “place of entertainment” under the Police Code, project proponents are 

required to obtain a place of entertainment permit in order to hold events at the arena.

On November 10, 2015, the entertainment commission conditionally granted a 

place of entertainment permit for the proposed project and on December 11, 2015, the 

board of appeals upheld the issuance of the conditional permit. The board found that the 

project complies with San Francisco Police Code section 1060.5, subdivision (f)(3) 

because “[t]he noise control plan and the good neighbor policy are both imposed as 

conditions of the [permit] and will ensure that there will not be substantial interference 

with the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring properties” and “[t]he Police Code 

enforcement provisions for the suspension and revocation of place of entertainment 

permits will work to ensure on-going compliance with conditions of approval.” On 

appeal, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the city‟s factual findings 

and whether the findings support the city‟s decision. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic 

Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515.)

Plaintiffs contend that the commission was required to reject the permit 

application because noise levels generated by post-event crowds will violate San 

Francisco Police Code section 2909, subdivision (b), which governs commercial and 

industrial property noise limits.

39 In this regard, the FSEIR acknowledges the obvious:

“Noise generated by event patrons and retail customers could result in increased noise 

along surrounding streets, particularly during the evening and nighttime hours (depending 

on the event timing) and at the end of scheduled games/events when large numbers of 

people would be departing the event center and walking on local streets to access their

transit connections or access their vehicles at local parking locations.” The DSEIR 

estimates that “over 3,000 people would be using the northbound Muni T-Line platform, 

 

39 San Francisco Police Code section 2909, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part:

“No person shall produce or allow to be produced by any machine, or device, music or 

entertainment or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property over 

which the person has ownership or control, a noise level more than eight dBA above the 

local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.”
55

which is approximately 70 feet from and facing the UCSF Hearst Tower housing 

building. Observations of current platform occupancy during these hours indicate that 

fewer than 10 persons are typically present on the platform at any one time. 

Consequently, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in people 

gathering in the median of Third Street across from the UCSF Hearst Tower housing 

complex during the targeted 45-minute post-event egress period for approximately 45 

basketball games per year and up to 60 additional full capacity concerts and other 

sporting events per year.” The DSEIR estimates that following basketball games and 

other large events, noise levels at the Muni platform adjacent to the UCSF Hearst Tower 

residence will average 14 decibels above the ambient noise level, which plaintiffs assert 

is six decibels greater than that permitted under section 2909.40

As defendants point out, the San Francisco Police Code does not govern mobile 

noise emanating from disbursing crowds. The ordinance governs fixed noise levels 

produced “by any machine, or device, music or entertainment . . . on commercial or 

industrial property over which the person has ownership or control.” (§ 2909, subd. (b).) 

The FSEIR states, expressly and correctly, that the San Francisco noise ordinance “does 

not address or establish restrictions on mobile sources.” Moreover, even if section 2909 

applied to mobile sources such as crowd noise, the Police Code would not compel 

disapproval of a project with an anticipated temporary increase in ambient noise level in 

excess of the eight decibel limit. Section 1060.5, subdivision (g)(2) of the Police Code

expressly authorizes the city to “require the permittee as a condition of the permit to 

comply with noise limits that are lower or higher than those set forth in Article 29 [of the 

Police Code].” (Italics added.)

 

40 The FSEIR notes, in response to public comment, that under the new Muni 

UCSF/Mission Bay station variant, the existing northbound and southbound platforms at 

the UCSF/Mission Bay light rail stops will be relocated approximately 300 feet further 

south of the residential buildings. No new estimates were made of the extent to which the 

relocation will reduce noise impacts on the surrounding structures, and the conclusion 

remains in the FSEIR that the noise impact will be significant and unavoidable.
56

Extensive sound testing was performed in conducting the environmental analysis 

and the FSEIR concludes that the estimated increase in ambient noise levels from the 

project will be significant. The threshold of significance utilized in the FSEIR, however, 

is not the standard that governs approval or rejection of a place of entertainment permit. 

An EIR is “ „an informational document‟ and . . . „[t]he purpose of an environmental 

impact report 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.‟ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement 

Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 391.) In contrast, the 

permit decision is discretionary and requires a determination of whether the project 

“lacks adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of noise . . . that would substantially 

interfere with the public health, safety and welfare or the peaceful enjoyment of 

neighboring property.” Although overlapping, the focus of each is different.

Substantial evidence supports the city‟s finding that the project has sufficient 

safeguards to protect the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring properties from substantial 

noise emissions. Under the terms of the entertainment commission‟s good neighbor 

policy and the project‟s security plan and noise control plan, the permittee is required to 

take various steps to minimize disruption of the neighborhood. The arena operators must 

display notices prominently at all exits urging patrons to leave the establishment in a 

quiet, peaceful and orderly fashion and to station employees at all exits from 10:00 p.m. 

until after closing to ensure that those exiting the premises are urged to respect the quiet 

of the neighborhood. The permittee agreed to meet or exceed the required 1:100 security 

staffing requirement and to take all reasonable measures to ensure the sidewalks adjacent 

to the premises are not blocked or unnecessarily affected by patrons due to the operations 

of the premises and to provide security whenever patrons gather outdoors. Finally, the 

permittee must provide a cell phone number to all interested neighbors that will be 

answered by someone with authority to respond to complaints. In conditionally approving 

the permit, the entertainment commission acknowledged its “monitoring and reporting 
57

responsibility” to ensure compliance with the permit conditions, including conducting

sound tests to ensure compliance with allowable noise limits. In addition, under San 

Francisco Police Code section 1060.20.1, subdivision (a) the entertainment commission 

may suspend an entertainment permit if the permittee has operated the business “[i]n a 

manner that has harmed the public health, safety or welfare by significantly increasing 

pedestrian congestion, the incidence of disorderly conduct, or the level of noise in the 

area in which the premises are located” if the permittee has failed, upon request of the 

police department or entertainment commission, to take reasonable steps to alleviate the 

conditions. It is not for the court to second guess the adequacy of these measures. There 

can be no doubt that noise levels in the neighborhood will rise before and after basketball 

games and other events in the arena. But the record contains substantial evidence 

supporting the finding that the conditions imposed will prevent these events from 

substantially interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding properties.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
58

_________________________

Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Jenkins, J.

A148865
59
1
Trial court: City & County of San Francisco Superior Court

Trial judge: Honorable Garrett L. Wong

Counsel for plaintiffs and appellants 

Mission Bay Alliance, SaveMuni, and 

Jennifer Wade:

BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP, Susan Lynne 

Brandt-Hawley

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS N LIPPE, Thomas 

Neil Lippe

SOLURI MEERVE, A LAW CORPORATION, 

Patrick Matthew Soluri and Osha R. Meserve

Counsel for amicus curiae of Center 

for Biological Diversity, Coalition for 

Clean Air Communities for a Better 

Environment, and Sunset Coalition on 

behalf of appellants:

CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS

Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens, Josh 

Chatten-Brown, and Michelle Black

Counsel for defendants and 

respondents Office of Community 

Investment and Infrastructure, the City 

of San Francisco:

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

Dennis J. Herrera, James M. Emery, and Brian F. 

Crossman,

OFFICE OF THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE, James B. Morales

THOMAS LAW GROUP, Tina A. Thomas and 

Christopher J. Butcher

Counsel for real parties in interest and 

respondents GSW Arena LLC and David 

Kelly:

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Daniel 

Miles Kolkey, Mary G. Murphy, Matthew S. Kahn, 

Kirsten Galler, and Theordore M. Kider 

REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP

Whitman F. Manley, James G. Moose, and 

Christopher L. Stiles

A148865