242 Cal. App. 4th 833
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- CSU East Bay adopted a 20–30 year Master Plan to expand campus capacity from ~12,586 to an assigned ceiling of 18,000 FTE students, adding academic space, ~3,770 student beds and parking projects.
- A program EIR and two project-level EIRs (student housing, parking structure) were prepared; Trustees certified the EIRs in 2009 and adopted a statement of overriding considerations for remaining significant impacts.
- City of Hayward and two neighborhood groups petitioned for writs of mandate, arguing the EIR inadequately analyzed impacts on fire/public safety, traffic/parking mitigation, air quality, and parklands.
- The trial court granted the petitions; this appeal followed. The Court of Appeal issued a prior opinion, the Supreme Court granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees.
- On remand the Court of Appeal: upheld EIR analysis as adequate for fire/emergency services, traffic/TDM, and air quality (except for funding feasibility reconsideration), but found the parkland analysis inadequate and required reconsideration of feasibility of funding off-site traffic mitigation in light of City of San Diego.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fire & emergency services | Increased population will degrade response times; EIR must treat inadequate services as a significant environmental effect and require CSU to fund station/staff | EIR analyzed service ratios, identified need for 11 firefighters, concluded required station expansion would be small, urban, and not cause significant physical environmental impacts; funding for public safety is city responsibility | EIR adequate: substantial evidence supports conclusion that constructing/expanding fire facilities would not cause significant environmental effects; CEQA does not require CSU to fund city fire services here |
| Traffic mitigation / TDM program | TDM is speculative and defers essential mitigation; EIR must identify specific, enforceable measures now | TDM is part of the project, lists concrete measures, quantitative goals, monitoring, and deadlines; site-specific mitigation can be deferred in a program EIR | EIR adequate: TDM is a permissible, non-illusory mitigation program for a program EIR; site-specific measures may be deferred to later project-level review |
| Funding fair-share for off-site traffic mitigation | CSU cannot rely solely on a legislative appropriation; it must evaluate other funding sources and cannot treat mitigation as infeasible merely because legislative funds may be denied | CSU sought legislative funding and treated mitigation as feasible only if appropriated | Remand required: in light of City of San Diego, Trustees must reconsider feasibility of funding off-site mitigation and evaluate other available funding sources rather than relying only on earmarked legislative appropriations |
| Parkland impacts (Garin / Dry Creek parks) | EIR failed to analyze likely increased use and physical deterioration of adjacent regional parks; campus recreation is not comparable to regional park uses | EIR concluded on-campus facilities and ‘‘nominal’’ off-campus use make impacts insignificant; analysis of overall East Bay park district sufficed | EIR inadequate: no substantial evidence on current or projected use of adjacent Garin/Dry Creek parks or on capacity; remand required to analyze parkland impacts specifically |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 61 Cal.4th 945 (guidance that state agencies must consider available funding sources for off-site mitigation; cannot treat mitigation as infeasible based solely on lack of earmarked appropriation)
- City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 39 Cal.4th 341 (state university may make voluntary payments to mitigate off-site impacts; addresses availability of voluntary contributions)
- Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California, 37 Cal.App.4th 1025 (socioeconomic increases not per se CEQA impacts absent physical change; mitigation obligations tied to physical effects)
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (EIR must connect identified environmental harms to health/safety consequences where relevant)
- Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 (programmatic mitigation may set performance criteria and defer specific measures until practicable)
- Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, 119 Cal.App.4th 1261 (deferral of mitigation specifics permissible if agency commits to mitigation, lists alternatives, and sets performance standards)