In Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, the court upheld the environmental review conducted for the new basketball arena for the Golden State Warriors (and related development), in what is known as the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan Area in San Francisco. (See http://www.chasecenter.com/.)
The project is to construct a 488,000-square-foot multipurpose event center with a capacity of up to 18,500 seats and a variety of mixed-use structures, including two 11-story office and retail buildings, parking facilities, and 3.2 acres of open space. The arena is projected to host over 200 events annually.
The City approved the project based on a 1998 EIR certified as part of its approval of a larger redevelopment plan for that part of the City, and a 2015 supplemental EIR that was tiered from the 1998 EIR. Petitioner alleged that some potentially significant environmental impacts were inadequately addressed or not addressed at all. Both the trial court and the court of appeal rejected Petitioner’s arguments, finding that the environmental review was adequate, if not exhaustive. Specifically, it held that:
- inclusion of a basketball arena and events center in the redevelopment project did not present any significant, unstudied effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
- the EIR’s inclusion of city special events transit service as a component of project, rather than as a mitigation measure, did not improperly interfere with identification of the transportation consequences;
- the EIR sufficiently analyzed the project’s effect on greenhouse gas emissions;
- only the project’s retail components, rather than entire project, counted toward allowable square footage for retail establishments in the redevelopment plan area; and
- substantial evidence supported the City Entertainment Commission’s finding that the arena project had sufficient safeguards to protect the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring properties from substantial noise emissions.
©2017 Miles J. Dolinger
Latest posts by Miles Dolinger (see all)
- California Supreme Court Holds That Landowners Forfeited Their Right to Bring A Lawsuit Challenging Coastal Development Permit Conditions Imposed By The Coastal Commission By Accepting The Permit And Constructing The Project. - November 5, 2017
- California Supreme Court Clarifies That The Restriction On Implied Public Dedications On Non-Coastal Property Set Forth In Civil Code Section 1009(b) Is Not Limited to Recreational Uses Only. - November 5, 2017
- Judge Rules “Game Over” In Dismissing A Homeowner’s Wrongful Foreclosure Suit After Multiple Prior Suits On The Same Issues Were Dismissed. - June 30, 2017