Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), state and local agencies must undergo a required analysis and disclosure of the environmental effects of proposed projects and devise a plan to mitigate the harmful impact of the development. One of the questions raised by CEQA review is whether supplemental review is necessary when alterations are to be made to an approved project. The fundamental issue for developers and agencies is whether these changes render the development a “new project” that is subject to a subsequent review process.

The California Supreme Court recently visited this issue in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District. In the case, a community college district had approved alterations to a renovation plan for a college campus and determined that the alterations did not warrant the filing of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An EIR identifies the mitigating measures to be undertaken to reduce the potentially harmful impact of the project. The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the new plan constituted a “new project” as a matter of law, and therefore required a supplemental study to assess the need for an EIR. The “new project” test used by the court requires that an EIR be submitted if there is a reasonable belief that the new activity will lead to significant environmental impacts.

As this test has been widely criticized by the appellate courts, the Supreme Court sought to review the applicability of this standard in assessing renovations to existing projects. In doing so, the Supreme Court concluded that the interpretation of the district court was erroneous. CEQA does not empower the courts to nullify an agency’s action when it approves alterations to a project based on a speculative assessment of whether the renovation is a new project or simply a modification. Essentially, the courts do not have standards to make this type of inquiry and therefore its judgment should not supersede that of the agency. The Court therefore reiterated its view that agency determinations should be granted considerable deference when subsequent review is required to assess the environmental impact of a project.

Contact Shane Coons at 949-333-0900 or visit his website at www.ShaneCoonsLaw.com to find out more about his practice.