FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS v. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Respondent’s Reply to Supplemental Brief

Cal.June 23, 2016

SUPREME COURT COPY SUPREME COUR: FILED JUN 23 2916 Civil No. S214061 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIArankaA.MCUrk =as FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS, Plaintiffand Respondent V. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITYCOLLEGEDISTRICT,et al, Defendants and Appellants. After a Decision by the Court ofAppeal First Appellate District, Division One Civil Number A135892 Affirming the Ruling by the Honorable Clifford Cretan San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 508656 RESPONDENT’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTALBRIEFS Susan Brandt-Hawley / SBN 75907 Brandt-Hawley Law Group P.O. Box 1659 Glen Ellen, CA 95442 707.938.3900, fax 707.938.3200 susanbh@preservationlawyers.com Attorney for Respondent Friendsofthe College of San Mateo Gardens am] Civil No. 8214061 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS, Plaintiffand Respondent Vv. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGEDISTRICT,et al., Defendants and Appellants. After a Decision by the Court ofAppeal First Appellate District, Division One Civil Number A135892 Affirming the Ruling by the Honorable Clifford Cretan San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 508656 RESPONDENT’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTALBRIEFS Susan Brandt-Hawley / SBN 75907 Brandt-Hawley Law Group P.O. Box 1659 Glen Ellen, CA 95442 707.938.3900, fax 707.938.3200 susanbh@preservationlawyers.com Attorney for Respondent Friends ofthe College of San Mateo Gardens Table of Contents INCFOGUCTION. «2.0. cece cccecccecccecccccccccucececesescseccecececeuressuesusenaeees 4 DISCUSSION.........0..0cccccceccecceccaccccccucccusseccececeeseesscuceuvuuseassuuceeccrsens 4 A. Legislative History Unambiguously Sets Out Standards for Supplemental and Subsequent EIRs That Do Not Apply to Negative Declarations...............0ccccccccceeeseeceeseeeeecceeeeeeeeeseneeeeeess 4 B. There are Significant Differences Between CEQA Processes for Negative Declarations and EIRs. .................0000. 6 C. Application of Section 21166 Consistent with its Plain Language and Legislative History Will Enforce CEQA.......... . 8 CONCIUSION. ...........cccccceccceccccceccccececcccecsecuecsucceteuscececccureeuaecetenens 9 Table of Authorities California Cases Page Benton v. Board ofSupervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467.........cccccssscssssesscesseescessscessescscesesens 2 Bowmanv.City ofPetaluma (1986) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467.......:cccsscccsssessssssscsesssessscsssesesesssenseseeseessees 2 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 ou... ccccscsccessssscessccessstscscssscsssesevsssseseceseseaeees 1,3 Friends ofSierra Madre v. City ofSierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165 .........cssscccsssessssccesseesstccsssecssesseseesseceesssssessceseusecs 3 Laurel Heights ImprovementAss’n v. Regents ofUC (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 ........ccccsesccssscessceceesccesecccesecssscnsecesscssescssucessessesesees 9 NoOil, Inc.v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 .u.......ccccccssssssscesesccessscsssssssssccccssssseesessesessscecacccesesas 2 Sierra Club v. County ofSonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 .........csscccsssssessscsscsccssesesscesssccsessessssssesessseeees 9 Public Resources Code Sections 21082.2.......cccssscsscssssssccsccnsssssscceccescsctscscessccsceesecssessvscessesecesceseesesecesrscsas 1 2Q11OO .......cccccsccecccccceneeeessssscceeeessccccececesssesessececceccnsssesseanescecssecececsecessecenes 1 QL151 ....cesceccccsccccccccecescecsnscccenenecscceccseecccsescscsceeccasscsescnssceccecsssccesscecseesees 1 21166 .....eeeeccsscsccsssesscctscceseesssrecsssseesnsssenssesscscessesessseseseceeaereeneeees passim CEQA Guidelines Sections 15OO3......cccccscessssscsscsssccssenscssccccecscesceecenensescscascussssssecscsceseseessceesssssssescess 6 15O71........scscscsssssssscnsessscsenssseceecccseceececcncnsescececsoasenssescaseesusssaceceeeeeesesssess 6 15073 ..cccsescscccccssccscescescsssssescecaesssscesccccesnssssssseccesscssecceeneeesceceeeeanenseseeeees 6 15082-15090 .......csssscccssssscccccccccccssssneneccscensseccscesseseeessececeeecssstessseseeerss 7 151OD ..ccccsscecscecssscecccccccececveseccessssssseccceaeesssssesecececceecesesseesesccsseecaceeseses 6,7 15121-15132 .ocrecssssccccsssnsccceccceccessncoeesersseeccecesssesssseascnsscssessesseneeeeeses 7 L51O2D 00... eseeeceseccesssccecsssecensscessrecessscceesessscesseeeecesssesseseesessnseenseees passim 151OG oo... eeeeesenccenccssssccecssccceescsssccceecsaccessssesessnnacesesssesseesecesssresseees passim APPeNix G ou... eeessssesscsesccseesceccsscscesscsssssenseessenscassceesessessssseesceseeeneeses 6 il Introduction CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 are “clearly erroneous and unauthorized under CEQA,” the applicable standard this Court applied in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, p. 390 (CBIA). Neither the appellants, the Resources Agency, nor the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) can justify an interpretation of Public Resources Code (“CEQA”[§§ 21000et seq.]) section 21166 that applies to negative declarations. Theplain language of section 21166 is not ambiguous: it solely applies to EIRs. Thelegislative history is equally straightforward: the goal was to reduce unnecessary delays in the EIR process. Harmonization of section 21166 with multiple sections of CEQAthat require preparation ofan EIR for any project that “may have a significant impact on the environment”is seamless. (CEQA, §§ 21082.2, subd.(d), 21100, subd.(a), 21151, subd.(a).) There is good reason why CEQAdoes not support application of the substantial evidence standard to a proposed supplemental or subsequent negative declaration; the deferential standard of review only makes sense after an initial in-depth EIRis prepared. Manydecadesof consistent case law apply the unique low- threshold ‘fair argument’ standardto any discretionary public agency decision to approve a project with potentially significant impacts, consistent with No Oil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, p.75. Wheneverthere has not yet been an in-depth environmental review, the EIR processis always favored. While disagreeing on the abovepoints, the parties agree that: * The CEQA Guidelines adopted the substantial evidence standard of review applicable to EIRs in order to implement section 21166, in response to Bowman v. City ofPetaluma (1986) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Bowman). (E.g., RJN, 5:562.) ¢ The Guidelines’ interpretation of section 21166 to apply the substantial evidence standard to supplemental negative declarations was a response to Bentonv. Board ofSupervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Benton).' (RJN,5:563.) * Nolegislative history allows directly or by implication any possible application of section 21166 to negative declarations. 1 Friends’ supplementalbrief inadvertently overstated the influence of Benton at the outset, but then madeclearthat the problem with Benton was expansionofthe reach of the substantial evidence standard ofreview (first asserted in the Bowmancase) to proposed supplemental negative declarations. (Friends’ SupplementalBrief, p. 9.) Whether a negative declaration suffices for a discretionary project approval is decided via the ‘fair argument’ standardof review, accordingto evidence thenin the record. Without plain wordsorlegislative history supporting their position, appellants, the Resources Agency, and OPRprimarily rely on the passageoftimeto infer a legislative intent to expand CEQA section 21166 to encompass negative declarations. They also urge the Court to defer to the discretion of the Resources Agency and OPRto promulgate the CEQA Guidelines. However, this Court has cogently ruled that a CEQA Guideline, like any other administrative regulation, “may not exceed the scope of authority granted byor be inconsistent with the statute pursuant to whichit is promulgated.[citations].” (Friends ofSierra Madrev. City ofSierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4* 165, p. 189; see also CBIA, supra, 62 Cal.4th 369,p. 390.) Because section 21166 never has and does not encompass negative declarations, Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 exceed their statutory authority in applying the substantial evidence standard to consider supplemental negative declarations and to addendaapprovedwithout public notice. | Discussion Thebrevity of this reply directly correlates to the clarity of the questions posedbythe Court. The cases, statutes, regulations, and discussion in the opposing supplementalbriefs are largely irrelevant. It is uncontroverted that the Resources Agency and OPRarecharged with the importantanddifficult task of promulgating regulations to implement CEQA.It is also uncontroverted that CEQA Guidelines are not valid when clearly erroneous and unauthorized under CEQA, howeverlong they may have beenin place. And,as noted above,it is also uncontrovertedthatthe legislative history of section 21166 provides no evidence of an intention to expand beyondplain words. A. Legislative History Unambiguously Sets Out Standards for Supplemental and Subsequent EIRs That Do not apply to Negative Declarations Theinitial codification of section 21166 occurred in 1972, via Assembly Bill 889. (Joint Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), 1:5.) Thebill also providedthat “... if, on the basis of an initial study, [an agency] finds and determinesthat a proposedprojectwill not have a significant effect on the environment, the environmental impact report prescribedbythis division shall not be required.” (RJN,1:4.) That section, 21108, was describing what would later be called a negative declaration. Five yearslater, in 1977, the Legislature substantially amended CEQAwith “provisions governing the review and approvalby public agencies of developmentprojects.” (RJN, 2:145.) Assembly Bill 884 codified new sections to the Public Resources Code to implement negative declarations, including sections 21080.1, 21080.3, and 21100.2. (RJN, 2:149, 150.) In amendingsection 21166 at the sametime, the Legislature adopted languageto include supplemental EIRsto the statute’s original application to subsequent EIRs, expandingthereachofthe statute. (RJN, 2:152.) But the Legislature did not add negative declarations to the expandedsection 21166. There is no evidenced intent to include negative declarations or to otherwise expand section 21166 in a mannerthat would eviscerate CEQA’s mandate that an EIR mustbe preparedfor any project that may have a potentially significant environmental impact. B. There are Significant Differences Between CEQA Processes for Negative Declarations and EIRs Thedistinctions between the CEQAreviewofnegative declarations and EIRs are substantial. The EIR processfor projects that may havea significant environmental impact provides in-depth review and can span many months. A negative declaration must generally contain a brief project description, the location of the project (preferably on a map), the nameofthe project proponent, a proposedfinding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, a copy of an initial study that may bein the checklist format provided in CEQA’s Appendix G to summarize environmental impacts, and a description of mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, 15071, Appendix G.) Public review mustoccur for 20 to 30 days depending on whetherthe negative declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghousefor review bystate agencies. (Id., §§ 15073. 15105.) An EIR,on the other hand, has exponentially more detailed requirements to considerall phasesof a project in detail, including its environmental setting and consideration and discussion ofsite- specific and cumulative environmentalimpacts and mitigation measures. Because EIRs addressprojects with potentially significant environmental impacts, project alternatives must be considered and discussed. Thisis a critical distinction; no alternatives need be considered in a negative declaration process becauseto qualify for a negative declaration the project must have no potentially significant impacts — and withoutsignificant impacts there is no need to consider alternatives. An EIR is published and madeavailable to the public and concerned agencies for commentfor noless than 30 days. The lead agency must substantively respond to written comments and publish the responsesin a Final EIR. (Guidelines, §§ 15082- 15090, 15105, 15121-15132.) While small-scale projects may complete an EIR process in a few months, complex projects take longer to achieve environmental protection and public disclosure. As discussed in the supplementalbrief, the impetus for section 21166 wasto avoid delay in the EIR process. Whenthere has already been in-depth review,the Legislature has determinedthatfinality in the CEQAprocess outweighs decreased environmental protection. That goal doesnot apply to already-streamlined negative declarations; theyare notatall on “equal footing with EIRs after they are adopted.” (Appellants’ Supplemental Brief, p. 3; Friends’ SupplementalBrief, p. 7, RJN, 2:300.) C. Application of Section 21166 Consistent with its Plain Languageand Legislative History Will Enforce CEQA Appellants claim that application of the fair argument standard to proposed supplemental negative declarations would somehow“create havoc acrossthestate,” but provide no basis for such a prediction. (Appellants’ SupplementalBrief, p. 4.) When a project may havea significant environmental impact, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared;thefact that a related prior project may have been approvedwith a negative declarationis largely irrelevant. The approval wasfinal for the original project. Whenthereis evidence supporting a fair argumentthat a current project needing a new discretionary approval mayhave significant impacts, an EIRis triggered to assess impacts and feasible mitigations and alternatives. This case does not provide the best example of supplemental review, because the proposed demolition of the 60-year old campus gardensis a new project. Supplemental review standards cannot apply, even hadthere been a prior EIR. As the Court knows, because the gardensandhorticulture complex were proposed to be retained in full in a campusplan approvedwith a negative declaration, environmental impacts of demolition were not considered.Asin Sierra Club v. County ofSonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App. 41307, a demolition project that follows a preservation project is a new project under CEQA,and thefair argumentstandardapplies. The very real danger would beif the Court held thatthe fair argumentstandard doesnotapply to all negative declarations; that indeed would create uncertainty and environmental harm. Conclusion Appellants, the Resources Agency, and OPRrepeatedly pronouncethat the substantial evidence standard applies to supplementalnegative declarations, claiming authorization by CEQA section 21166, and repeatedly rely on quotes addressing EIRs asif the same quotes must apply to negative declarations. Yet there is no 2 The state agenciesare incorrect in arguing that the substantial evidence standard wasapplied in Sierra Club, and, beyondthe scope of the supplementalbriefing, that a decision as to whethera project is new or supplemental is a factual determination. (Resources Agency/OPRBrief, p. 5, n.4.) Further, Laurel Heights ImprovementAssociation v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia (1993) 6 Cal.4t 1112, relied upon by opposing parties, addressed recirculation of EIRs. The Court cited Bentonin dicta, stating that the fair argumenttest has been applied “only to the decision whether to prepare an original EIR or negative declaration.” (Id., p. 1135.) At that time, the statement wastrue; but the merits ofBenton were not discussed andthelegislative history of CEQA section 21166 was not before the Court. support in the record for their position that reasonably complies with the framework, mandates, and goals of CEQA. Friends respectfully request that this Court affirm the judgment, without remand.Friends further request the Court’s determination that Guideline sections 15162 and 15164 are clearly erroneous and unauthorized under CEQAtothe extent that they apply section 21166 andthe substantial evidence standard to supplemental negative declarations. The Resources Agency and OPR can then amendthe guidelines throughtheir established administrative procedures, separate from this concluded case. Counsel’s Certificate ofWord Count per Word:mac?"!: 1934 June 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Susan dt-Hawley Attorney for Respondent Friendsof the College of San Mateo Gardens 10 fF G R R E A E R O S Friendsofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardensv. San Mateo County Community College Dist., et al. Supreme Court No. $214061 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Sonoma. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business addressis P.O. Box 1659, Glen Ellen, California 95442. On June 22, 2016, I served onetrue copyof, | SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF v By emailing a copy to counselas noted below: SabrinaV.Teller, Attorney for Defendant and Appellants at steller@rmmenvirolaw.com Jeffrey Reusch, Deputy Attorney General jeffrey.reusch@doj.ca.gov v By placing a true copy enclosedin a sealed envelope with prepaid postage, in the United States mail in San Francisco, California, to addresseslisted below. See attached Service List I declare underpenalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct andis executed on June 22, 2016, at San Francisco, California. Susan Brandt-Hawley Friends ofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. Supreme Court No. $214061 SERVICE LIST Sabrina Teller James Moose Remy Moose Manley LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorneyfor Defendant andAppellants Jeffrey P. Reusch Deputy Attorney General California DepartmentofJustice 1300 IStreet / P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento CA 94244-2550 Attorneyfor Defendant andAppellants AndrewB. Sabey LindaC.Klein Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP 555 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorneysfor California Building Industry Association, Amicus curiae Building Industry Association ofthe BayArea, Amicus curiae California Business Properties Association, Amicus curiae Joanna Lynn Meldrum Amanda Jean Monchamp Holland & Knight LLP 50 California St Ste 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneysfor The Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia, Amicus curiae Michael WardGraf Law Offices of Michael W. Graf 227 BehrensStreet EI Cerrito, CA 94530 Attorneysfor High Sierra RuralAlliance, Amicus curiae Friendsofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardensv. San Mateo County Community College Dist. Supreme Court No. $214061 SERVICE LIST, continued Jan Chatten-Brown AmyChristine Minteer Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2200Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attorneysfor California Preservation Foundation, Amicus curiae Christian Lucier Marsh Downey Brand LLP 333 BushStreet, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorneyfor The LeagueofCalifornia Cities, Amicus curiae, California State Association ofCounties, Amicus curiae, Association ofCalifornia WaterAgencies, Amicus curiae Sara Hedgpeth-Harris Law Office of Sara Hedgpeth-Harris,Inc. 2125 Kern Street, Suite 301 Fresno, CA 93721 AttorneyforAssociation ofIrritated Residents, Amicus curiae, Madera Oversight Coalition, Amicus curiae, Revive the San Joaquin, Amicuscuriae, Sierra Club, Amicus curiae San Mateo County Superior Court Attn: Clerk of the Court Main Courthouse — Hall of Justice 400 County Center Redwood City CA 94063-1655 California Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division 1 Attention: Clerk of the Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco CA 94102-3800