Friends of the Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.

• Decision Date: 19 September 2016
• Docket Number: S214061
• Citation: 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 314,1 Cal.5th 937,378 P.3d 687
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants.

1 Cal.5th 937

378 P.3d 687

207 Cal.Rptr.3d 314

FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants.

S214061

Supreme Court of California

Filed September 19, 2016

Eugene Whitlock, County Counsel; Remy Moose Manley, James G. Moose, Sabrina V. Teller and John T. Wheat, Sacramento, for Defendants and Appellants.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Andrew B. Sabey and Linda C. Klein, San Francisco, for California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area and California Business Properties Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Michael W. Graf for High Sierra Rural Alliance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Downey Brand, Christian L. Marsh, San Francisco, Andrea P. Clark and Amanda M. Pearson, Sacramento, for League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and Association of California Water Agencies as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Charles F. Robinson, Kelly L. Drumm, Oakland; Holland & Knight, Amanda Monchamp and Joanna Meldrum, San Francisco, for The Regents of the University of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Brandt–Hawley Law Group and Susan Brandt–Hawley, Glen Ellen, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Chatten–Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten–Brown, Amy Minteer, Santa Monica, and Josh Chatten–Brown, Hermosa Beach, for California Preservation Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Law Office of Sara Hedgpeth–Harris, Inc., and Sara Hedgpeth–Harris for Association of Irritated Residents, Madera Oversight Coalition, Revive the San Joaquin and Sierra Club as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorney General, Tracy L. Winsor and Jeffrey P. Reusch, Deputy Attorneys General, for California Natural Resources Agency and Governor's Office of Planning and Research as Amici Curiae.

Kruger, J.

To ensure that governmental agencies and the public are adequately informed about the environmental impact of public decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) requires a lead agency (id. , § 21067) to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) before approving a new project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Id. , § 21151, subd. (a).) When changes are proposed to a project for which an EIR has already been prepared, the agency must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR only if the changes are “[s]ubstantial” and require “major revisions” of the previous EIR. (Id. , § 21166.) Guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) extend this subsequent review framework to projects for which a negative declaration was initially adopted, and no EIR prepared, because the agency had concluded the project would have no potentially significant environmental effects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162 ; hereafter CEQA Guidelines.)

In this case, a community college district proposed a district-wide facilities improvement plan that called for demolishing certain buildings and renovating others. The district approved the plan after determining that it would have no potentially significant, unmitigated effect on the environment. Years later, the district proposed changes to the plan. The changes included a proposal to demolish one building complex that had originally been slated for renovation, and to renovate two other buildings that had originally been slated for demolition. The district approved the changes after concluding they did not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 (section 21166 ) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Court of Appeal invalidated the district's decision, finding it “clear” as a matter of law that the district's proposed demolition of the building complex was not merely a change to its previously approved project, but a new project altogether. The court ruled that the district's proposal was therefore subject to the initial environmental review standards of Public Resources Code section 21151 (section 21151 ) rather than the subsequent review standards of section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162.

We conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in its application of this new project test. When an agency proposes changes to a previously approved project, CEQA does not authorize courts to invalidate the agency's action based solely on their own abstract evaluation of whether the agency's proposal is a new project, rather than a modified version of an old one. Under the statutory scheme, the agency's environmental review obligations depend on the effect of the proposed changes on the decisionmaking process, rather than on any abstract characterization of the project as “new” or “old.” An agency that proposes project changes thus must determine whether the previous environmental document retains any relevance in light of the proposed changes and, if so, whether major revisions to the previous environmental document are nevertheless required due to the involvement of new, previously unstudied significant environmental impacts. These are determinations for the agency to make in the first instance, subject to judicial review for substantial evidence.

I.

A.

“In CEQA, the Legislature sought to protect the environment by the establishment of administrative procedures drafted to ‘[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.’ ” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66 (No Oil ).) At the “heart of CEQA” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (a)) is the requirement that public agencies prepare an EIR for any “project” that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” (§ 21151, subd. (a) ; see id ., §§ 21080, subd. (a), 21100, subd. (a).) The purpose of the EIR is “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.) The EIR thus works to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made,” thereby protecting “ ‘not only the environment but also informed self-government.’ ” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, 276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 801 P.2d 1161, quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278 (Laurel Heights ).)

Under CEQA and its implementing guidelines, an agency generally conducts an initial study to determine “if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (a).) If there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, then the agency must prepare and certify an EIR before approving the project. (No Oil , supra , 13 Cal.3d at p. 85, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66 ; see also Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100 [state agencies], 21151 [local agencies].) On the other hand, no EIR is required if the initial study reveals that “there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(2).) The agency instead prepares a negative declaration “briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project ... will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR.” (Id. , § 15371; see id ., § 15070.) Even when an initial study shows a project may have significant environmental effects, an EIR is not always required. The public agency may instead prepare a mitigated negative declaration (MND) if “(1) revisions in the project plans ... before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.)

For many projects, this is the end of the environmental review process. But like all things in life, project plans are subject to change. When such changes occur, section 21166 provides that “no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required” unless at least one or more of the following occurs: (1) “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report,” (2) there are “[s]ubstantial changes” to the project's circumstances that will require major revisions to the EIR, or (3) new information becomes available. (§ 21166.)

Although section 21166 does not, by its terms, address cases in which a negative declaration or an MND, rather than an EIR, has been prepared, CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that no subsequent EIR is required either “[w]hen an EIR has [previously] been certified or [when] a negative declaration [has previously been] adopted for a project,” unless there are substantial changes to a project or its circumstances that will require major revisions to the existing EIR or negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a), italics added; see also § 21166.) “If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration,” and if no subsequent EIR is required, the agency “shall determine...