Previous Article
Next Article

Your authoritative, multi-channel network for natural resources and environmental information since 1989 – by practioners for practitioners.

Line Spacing+- AFont Size+- Print This Article Back To Homepage

San Francisco Superior Court Deems Sufficient the Environmental Review for the NBA® Warriors Arena and Mixed Use Project

The San Francisco Superior Court has denied two petitions for writ of mandate to set aside the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure’s (OCII) certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Golden State Warriors’ Event Center and Mixed-Use Development at Mission Bay (Project). The court found that the SEIR, which tiered from a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the same area, contained an appropriate level of environmental review. However, an appeal of the Superior Court’s decision has been timely lodged and the Court of Appeal is expected to issue its decision before year’s end.[Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, Case No. CPF-156-514892 (San Francisco Super. Ct. July 18, 2016).]

Conclusion and Implications
An appeal was filed by the petitioners on July 25, 2016, and pursuant to the expedited timeline, the Court of Appeal will hear the appeal before the end of the year. (See,
In cases challenging tiered EIRs, it is crucial to review the underlying EIR to ensure that the policies are consistent and can be relied on for subsequent environmental analysis. Here, the trial court found the SEIR went above and beyond its duty under CEQA: Addressing impacts that were previously identified and analyzed in the underlying EIR in the response to comments, and identifying back-up measures for funding and performing more mitigation than legally required. In a highly contentious case such as this, it is prudent to ensure that all of the impacts analysis is completed upfront to avoid future environmental review or studies that will be costly for the project applicant. The Superior Court’s judgment in this matter is accessible online at:
(Juliet Cho, Kristen Castaños)