Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District
1 Cal. 5th 937
Cal.
2016

Background

  • In 2006, San Mateo County Community College District adopted a facilities master plan and certified an initial study with a mitigated negative declaration (MND) concluding no significant environmental impacts for the campus improvements, including renovation of Building 20.
  • In 2011 the District changed course: it proposed demolishing Building 20 (and its gardens) and instead renovating two other buildings previously slated for demolition; the District adopted an addendum to the 2006 MND concluding no subsequent EIR required.
  • Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens challenged the addendum and demolition approval, seeking a writ to compel preparation of an EIR.
  • The trial court granted the writ; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding as a matter of law the demolition constituted a "new project" (relying on Save Our Neighborhood) and so required initial CEQA review.
  • The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether courts should apply a de novo "new project" test and whether CEQA Guidelines §15162 validly extend §21166’s subsequent-review framework to projects originally approved by negative declaration.
  • The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal: agencies decide in the first instance whether the prior environmental document retains informational value and whether changes require major revisions; courts review those agency factual determinations for substantial evidence. The Court also upheld Guidelines §15162 as a valid gap-filling rule.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether courts may decide as a question of law that a proposed modification is a "new project" (so §21151 initial review applies) The Court of Appeal should apply a de novo "new project" threshold and determine if the modification is truly a new project Agency determinations about whether prior document retains relevance are factual and should be made first by the agency and reviewed for substantial evidence Rejected de novo new-project test; agency makes initial factual determination about relevance; courts review for substantial evidence
Whether CEQA Guidelines §15162 validly extend §21166 subsequent-review limitations to projects initially approved via negative declaration §21166 mentions only EIRs, so subsequent-review protections should not apply to projects approved by negative declaration; agencies must redo initial study when plans change Guidelines reasonably fill a statutory gap and were validly adopted; negative declarations deserve finality like EIRs; continuing review limits are sensible §15162 is valid: subsequent-review framework can apply to projects initially approved by MND/negative declaration; agencies must use substantial-evidence standard to justify no further EIR
Standard of review for agency decision that changes do not require "major revisions" to prior document Courts should apply the more exacting fair-argument standard akin to initial EIR determinations Substantial-evidence review applies because whether the prior document retains value and whether major revisions are required are predominantly factual Agency decisions are factual; courts must apply substantial-evidence review to agency determinations under §21166/§15162
Applicability of tiering / program-EIR principles (Sierra Club) to treat the change as a new site-specific project requiring fresh review The Plan was a program/plan and Building 20 demolition is a site-specific action outside the 2006 MND’s scope, so different/tiered rules apply The 2006 MND was not a program/tiered EIR; it analyzed campus-wide impacts and concluded all impacts were mitigated Tiering rules do not apply here; the 2006 MND was not a program EIR, so Sierra Club-based tiering treatment is inapplicable

Key Cases Cited

  • No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (1974) (CEQA’s purpose and EIR requirement explained)
  • Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990) (EIR’s role in informing decisionmakers and public)
  • Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (CEQA procedural and informational purposes)
  • Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman, 140 Cal.App.4th 1288 (2006) (appellate de novo "new project" reasoning challenged in this case)
  • Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.4th 1385 (2007) (criticized Save Our Neighborhood; upheld agency deference and substantial-evidence review)
  • Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (agencies apply a rule-of-reason in deciding whether to prepare supplemental environmental review)
  • Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (2007) (definition of "project" is predominantly legal and depends on undisputed record facts)
  • Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward, 106 Cal.App.3d 988 (1980) ("fair argument" test for initial EIR requirement)
  • Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (1991) (negative declarations entitled to finality; subsequent review should not always restart CEQA)
  • Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (1992) (program EIR/tiering limits and when later projects must be treated as new)
  • Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (tiering and program EIR principles)
  • Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (1986) (balancing CEQA’s environmental objectives with finality/efficiency)
  • Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, 82 Cal.App.4th 511 (2000) (differences in review standards between project EIRs and tiered EIRs)
Read the full case