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

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

Cal.June 16, 2016

SUPREME COURT COPY SUPREME COURT FILED Civil No. 8214061 JUN 16 2016 Frank A. McGuir&aia IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA__ eet Deputy oe 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 SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF 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 IMtFODUCTION....eee ceeececececsessessserscesseteesavavaetstitevevesteseeeesces. 1 DISCUSSION 0.00... e cece ccccecccesssseeessacsseteatetatersesscstisusavecececeeccee. 2 Section 21166 Legislative HISCOLY .0........cccccccccccccsesccesccceecsccce.. 5 Comparison to Benton and BOWMAN................0.cc0cc0-0000-- 8 CONCIUSION.eeecccecceecscescseeceesecevsesasesatsssseseetevetesteeecesee. 10 Table of Authorities California Cases Page Benton v. Board ofSupervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467........ccccssccesscssessssscesseseees 1, 2,3,4,9 Bowmanv.City ofPetaluma (1986) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467........cc:cccssssscsscssscccsccessescessssesessecseossees 1, 4,8 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.00... cccccssscssscsssscsssssssecessccsssessessecesessesssccssssssces 10 DiamondMultimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1036 .......ccsesccsssscsssssssssccssscccsccsscsscscesscesessessscsscsccasces 6 Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657 ....c..ccsccssssssssssssssssscscsscssscceccesssscsceceasssascssessssssesece 5 No Oil, Inc.v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 .......scessccsscsscssesscecsscsscssccsssccssceescsssscessscesesessesscesens 2 Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3(a).....ccescsssccssscesscsscescsscssscsccscscscsssssecssescesssesesseccssecsaseesecseceses 6 21082.2.......ceccsscesssceseessecescsesssssccsscesesscssscsececessscssesasessasecsscecssscsecesescee 2 21LOO ..........cssssececssccececcccccccesssscescesscceeseessscessescccesssesseeeeeeccessssseserseseeses 2 21100.2 2... ...sccssscccccceesosccececccseeescesesescescsseescoseseccsscnscsscsesecesceascereesssssseescs 7 QLD 2... cccscesseecececccesecceececcconsescesecesececenscsccoececcusnscssscceseessseasessesssssecenses 2 QUI51(A) «2.0... eessssssscesscessessccsscssscsscssscsesesseseesscesssecsesacsscecssecsecsesesascsceees 9 QLI51.5 ....cessssssccccccscseccsccececccnseesecsscesccessessscessesecascccsccessesessrsceceressscsssseses 7 21166 0... eeeescessessscessseccsscessnssssssccsssssscsscerssessseccecsscesecssssenssess 1, 5, 6, 7,9 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15OO4(L).......esssseccsssssscssestesscsssscssesssscssscsssecsccseesseseasssesecsecsssssssssssnsveses 2 1512 00... eescccsscssssecccscsssccssssscecssecesssccccenssssesseacecessscessecesscens 1, 2, 3, 8,9 151O4 ....secccescsssscesscssesscessessscesssecssesssecscssssssececsesscensesseaseessesesceses 1, 8,9 il Introduction The California Legislature enacted CEQA section 21166 solely to apply to supplemental review “[w]Jhen an [EIR] has been prepared...” in order to avoid delay in the EIR process. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166,italics added; see, e.g., Joint Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), 2:150-152, 300, passim.) The Friendsofthe College of San Mateo Gardensaskthis Courtto rule that section 21166 does not apply to negative declarations,by its plain languagethat is consistent with CEQA’s salutary purposesand,further, that the Guidelines’ implementation of section 21166 to include negative declarations and addenda in sections 15162 and 15164 exceeds CEQA’sstatutory authority. The Guidelines’ application of the substantial evidence standardto section 21166 wasgenerated solely by Bowmanv.City of Petaluma (1986) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Bowman), to which Friends do not object. The Guidelines’ expansive interpretation ofsection 21166 to encompassnegative declarationswassolely in response to Bentonv. Board ofSupervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Benton), to which Friendsstrongly object. The fact that the subject guidelines have been implemented for over two decadesis irrelevant. As Friendshavebriefed and argued, the Court of Appeal’s judgmentshould be affirmed on multiple grounds. The record confirms that demolition of the horticulture complex and gardensat the College of San Mateo would havepotentially significant environmental effects. An EIR must be prepared to analyze impacts andto identify feasible alternatives for campus parking needs. Discussion (1) Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15162, what standard ofjudicial review applies to an agency's determination that no environmental impact report (EIR) is required as a result of proposed modifications to a project that wasinitially approved by negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration? (See . generally Bentonv. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1479-1482.) The Court’s first question regarding Guidelinessection 15162 identifies the problem created by Benton.It is well-settled that CEQA requires agenciesto apply the ‘fair argument’ standard and to prepare an EIRfor projects that may have anysignificant environmental impact. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082.2, 21100, 21151; Guidelines, § 15064, subd.(f); No Oil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,p.75.) Section 15162 mistakenly directs that agencies mayrely on the deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard when makinga threshold decision as to whetherornot they mustcertify a “supplemental EIR” after “an EIR hasbeencertified or negative declaration adoptedfor a project ...” (Guidelines, § 15162,italics added.) Guidelines section 15162 was adoptedsolely in response to Benton, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, which considered an approved winery that choseto relocate. (Id., pp. 1482-1483.) The Court upheld a second negative declaration addressing the environmental impacts of the changedlocation, reasoningthat: In a case in whichaninitial EIR has beencertified, section 21166 comesinto play precisely because in-depth review of the project has already occurred,the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original CEQA documenthaslong since expired, and the question... is whether circumstances have changed enough tojustify repeating a substantial portion of the process. [Citations.] These sameprinciples apply with even greater force in a case suchasthis,in whichtheinitial environmentalreview resulted in the issuance of a negative declaration, rather than an EIR. Ifa limited review ofa modified projectis proper whentheinitial environmental document was an EIR,it stands to reason that no greater review should be required ofa project thatinitially raised so few environmental questions that an EIR wasnotrequired, but a negative declaration wasfoundto satisfy the environmental review requirements ofCEQA. Tointerpret CEQAasrequiring a greater level of review for a modification of a project on which a negative declaration has been adopted and a lesser degree of review of a modified project on which an EIR wasinitially required would be absurd. (d., pp. 1488-1489,italics added.) The rulemakingfile shows neither discussion nor controversy over the amendmentto apply Benton’s reasoning, above,to section 15162. (RJN, 4:563, passim.) (2) Does CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as applied to projects initially approved by negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration rather than EIR, constitute a valid interpretation of the governing statute? (Compare Bowmanv.City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073-1074 with Benton at pp. 1479-1480.) The short answeris “no.” Friends urge the Courtto rule that Guidelines section 15162 (and 15164)’s application to negative declarations and addendais not a valid interpretation or proper implementation of Public Resources Code section 21166. Respectfully, at the outset of this discussionit is important to keep in mindthe other question accepted by this Courtfor review: the applicable standard of review whenaninitial project has been addressed in a prior EIR. Whenis a related project considered ‘new’ versus ‘supplemental’ to the prior project? Importantly, that question does not apply to negative declarations, because whether a project is ‘newor‘supplemental’ doesnot changethe application of the fair argument standardto a negative declaration — whether the second or tenth negative declaration. Butto the extent that this Court’s ruling may addressprojects that follow a related projectfor which an EIR was prepared and certified, Bowman’ssubstantial evidence standard applies to ‘supplemental’ projects but not ‘new projects. And whethera project is new or supplementalpresents an issue oflaw, as addressed in the Answerbrief, Amicus ResponseBrief, Errata, and at oral argument. Section 21166 Legislative History. Thelegislative history for the supplemental EIR provisions of section 21166 informsthe comparison ofBenton and Bowman. In construing a statute, the language chosenbythelegislature controls. (E.g., Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, p. 663.) If the language "is clear and unambiguousour inquiry ends. Thereis no need for judicial construction and a court may not indulge in it.” (Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1036,p. 1047.) The parties have nonetheless provided legislative history for the Court’s reference.It turns outthat the history is consistent with the Friends’ interpretation of the plain languageof the statute; Friends’ discussion need not beextensive. Section 21166 was amendedvia AssemblyBill 884 in 1977, providing in relevantpart: Whenan environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuantto this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmentalimpactreportshall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless.... (RJN, 2:152,italics in original.) The samebill codified a new section 21080.1, referencing both EIRs andnegative declarations: The lead agency shall have the responsibility for determining whetheran [EIR] or a negative declaration shall be required for any project subject to [CEQA]... (RJN,2:149.) Similarly, AB 844 included newsection 21080.3 (a) that addressed both EIRs and negative declarations: Prior to determining whether an [EIR]or negative declaration is required for a project, the lead agency shall consult withall responsible agencies. (RIN, 2:149; see also new §§ 21100.2 (2:150), 21151.5 (2:151.) Friends’ pointis that the Legislature addressed both EIRs and negative declarations in the same comprehensive CEQAbill, AB 844, and while section 21166 was amendedit was not changed to encompassnegative declarations. The Legislature well knew the difference between EIRs and negative declarationsin passing AB 844, andits actions were consistent with the underlying intent for codifying section 21166: to reducedelayin the EIR process. Negative declarations entail no such delay — andalso provide muchless environmentalprotection. After an initial EIR has been prepared with an in-depth review of a proposed project, the benefits of further environmentalanalysis are trumped by the competing interests in concluding the project’s CEQA process. Indeed,“[t]he purposeofthis bill is to streamline and expedite procedures governing environmental impact reports.” (E.g. RJN, 2:300.) Thelegislative history is consistent with the plain language of section 21166, applying solely to the preparation of supplemental and subsequent EIRsandnotto negative declarations. Comparison of Benton and Bowman.Sections 15162 and 15164 (thelatter improperly allowing an addendum to a negative declaration or EIR without any public notice) both rely on an interpretation of section 21166 as if it encompasses a project related to a prior project approved onthebasisof a negative declaration. The Bowmancaseinvolved a project initially approved on the basis of an EIR. A change wasproposedto the project’s traffic configuration. (Bowman,supra, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, p. 1070.) The Court applied the substantial evidence standard to the question of whether a supplemental EIR would be required: [S]ection 21166 comesinto play precisely because in-depth review hasalready occurred... and the question is whether circumstances have changed enoughto justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. Thus, while section 21151 is intendedto create a ‘low threshold requirementfor preparation of an EJR’[citation] section 21166 indicates a quite different intent, namely, to restrict the powers of agencies ‘by prohibiting [them] from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report’ unless the stated conditions are met. (Id., pp. 1073-1074.) The parties agree with Bowman’s assessment that the fair argument standard doesnotapply to supplemental projects (unlike the Gardensproject) that are within the scope of section 21166. Friends do not seek this Court’s criticism of Bowman or invalidation of Guideline section 15162 in the applicationofthe substantial evidence standard to subsequent and supplemental EIRs. However, Benton should be overturned.Its expansion of Bowmarn’s substantial evidence standard to “subsequentnegative declarations”is unauthorized by CEQA.It is self-evident that an agency maylawfully approveaninitial negative declaration on a minimal administrative record, while by the time of a supplemental project approval the record may contain substantial evidence supporting a fair argumentof significant environmental impacts. At that point there has been no in-depth environmental review to trigger a truncated processallowed by section 21166 after an EIR. Nothingin the plain languageorlegislative history of section 21166 indicateslegislative intent to undo CEQA’s mandaterequiring preparation of an EIR for any project “which may havea significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151, subd.(a).) The Friends appreciate the Court’s interest in the inputofthe Natural Resources Agency regardingits adoption of Guideline section 15162 (and, by extension, 15164). Friends understand, and the rulemakingfile proves, that the Office of Planning and Research expandedthe application of section 21166 to negative declarations in response to Benton, which wasitself unauthorized. (RJN, 4:563.) As in California Building Industry Ass’n v. BayArea Air Quality ManagementDist (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 390 (CBIA), the guideline’s expansionis “clearly erroneous and unauthorized under CEQA.” Conclusion 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 CEQA. Counsel’s Certificate of Word Count per Word:mac2": 1945 June 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Susan Brandt-Hawley Attorney for Respondent Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens 10 Friends ofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardens v. 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 andnota party to this action. My business address is P.O. Box 1659, Glen Ellen, California 95442. On June15, 2016, I served onetrue copyof, SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF v By placinga true copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope with prepaid postage, in the United States mail in Glen Ellen, California, to addresseslisted below. See attached Service List I declare underpenalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct and is executed on June 15, 2016, at Glen Ellen, California. { Ne) Jeanie Stapleton Friendsofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardensv. 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 I Street / P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento CA 94244-2550 Attorneyfor Defendant andAppellants Andrew B. Sabey Linda C. 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 Bay Area, 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 Ward Graf Law Offices of Michael W. Graf 227 Behrens Street E] Cerrito, CA 94530 Attorneysfor High Sierra Rural Alliance, Amicus curiae Friendsofthe College ofSan Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. Supreme Court No. $214061 SERVICELIST, continued Jan Chatten-Brown AmyChristine Minteer Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2200 Pacific 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 Water Agencies, Amicus curiae Sara Hedgpeth-Harris Law Office of Sara Hedgpeth-Harris,Inc. 2125 KernStreet, Suite 301 Fresno, CA 93721 AttorneyforAssociation ofIrritated Residents, Amicus curiae, Madera Oversight Coalition, Amicus curiae, Revive the San Joaquin, Amicus curiae, 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 ofAppeal First Appellate District, Division 1 Attention: Clerk of the Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco CA 94102-3800