Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 6 Cal. App. 5th 1237

Background

In 1998 the City certified a combined NEPA/CEQA Final EIR (FEIR) for the Third Street Light Rail Project; the FEIR described an Initial Operating Segment that included a short-turn "Loop" following 18th, Illinois and 19th Streets.
Construction of most of the Initial Operating Segment (including partial Loop track on 18th/19th Streets) was completed by 2003; the Loop completion was deferred for budget/timing reasons.
In 2013 Muni obtained a $10 million TIGER grant; a 2013 NEPA environmental assessment reached a FONSI for the Loop. Muni sought Planning Department concurrence under CEQA in 2012 and again in 2014 that no further CEQA review was required.
In September 2014 Muni's Board approved a contract to complete the last 900 feet of Loop track; Planning Dept. reaffirmed the FEIR covered the Loop and no additional CEQA documents were necessary.
The Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T‑Line Loop sued for writ of mandate alleging CEQA violations; the superior court denied relief and found substantial evidence supported the City's decision. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Loop approval required fresh EIR review under Pub. Resources Code §21151 (fair-argument standard) or could proceed under subsequent-review §21166 (substantial-evidence standard)	The Loop as approved in 2014 was not the same project analyzed in the 1998 FEIR, so the fair-argument standard applies and a new EIR is required	The Loop was described and analyzed as part of the Initial Operating Segment in the 1998 FEIR, so the City permissibly proceeded under §21166 and its determination is reviewed for substantial evidence	Held: substantial evidence supports treating the Loop as part of the FEIR and proceeding under §21166 (deferential review)
Whether substantial evidence supported the City’s determination in 2014 that no supplemental or subsequent EIR was required under §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162-15164	The changed circumstances since 1998 (development, arena proposal, parking/traffic studies, and prior delay in construction) created new significant impacts or showed increased severity, so CEQA required a new EIR	Planning Dept. memoranda, the 2013 NEPA assessment (FONSI), prior FEIR analyses of growth/parking/noise, and constructed portions of the Loop constitute substantial evidence that no major revisions or new significant effects existed	Held: the record contains substantial evidence (planning dept. determinations, NEPA EA/FONSI, FEIR analysis and prior construction) supporting the decision not to prepare a new EIR
Procedural challenge: whether the City failed to follow required procedures in deciding no further CEQA review was needed	Muni relied on unsupported staff conclusions and failed to produce a public, evidence-based analysis before approving the contract	CEQA does not mandate a particular procedure for a decision that no new EIR is required; Muni relied on planning-department determinations, NEPA EA, public comments and hearings	Held: no procedural defect; decision supported by record and CEQA imposes no specific process in these circumstances

Key Cases Cited

Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College Dist., 1 Cal.5th 937 (agency factfinding; substantial-evidence standard for subsequent review)
Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (de novo review of procedural compliance; substantial-evidence review of factual findings)
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (EIR sufficiency and finality; timeliness of challenges)
County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (fair-argument standard for initial EIR determination)
Moss v. County of Humboldt, 162 Cal.App.4th 1041 (application of substantial-evidence standard to subsequent/supplemental EIR decisions)