City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District
208 Cal. App. 4th 362
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Maywood challenged LAUSD's FEIR for South Region High School No. 8 under CEQA, asserting inadequacies in environmental impact analysis and alternatives.
- Trial court found FEIR deficient on pedestrian safety, hazardous materials, cumulative impacts of 1-710, and alternatives; issued peremptory writ and awarded fees.
- FEIR design left 58th Street as an active roadway bisecting the campus, connected by a pedestrian bridge; controversy centered on safety and mitigation efficacy.
- LAUSD determined hazards and materials through ESA, PEA, health risk assessment, and rail safety studies; DTSC oversight anticipated remediation actions.
- CDE later flagged Title 5 siting noncompliance, prompting an addendum and new findings that mitigations could be enforced via Vehicle Code provisions; district certified FEIR and approved project.
- Maywood challenged Education Code siting requirements (17211, 17213.1) arguing failure to test/remediate and to assess pedestrian safety, costs, and alternatives; these challenges were partially upheld and partially rejected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FEIR adequately analyze pedestrian safety given 58th Street through the campus? | Maywood contends design creates significant pedestrian hazards unmitigated by bridge. | LAUSD argued bridge mitigates hazards and traffic controls elsewhere suffice; FEIR responded to comments. | FEIR failed to provide substantial evidence addressing 58th Street pedestrian hazards. |
| Was cumulative impacts analysis required for the 1-710 corridor off-ramp? | Maywood urged inclusion of 1-710 off-ramp in cumulative impacts. | 1-710 was too speculative/early planning stage to be a 'probable future project'. | FEIR was not required to analyze 1-710 cumulative impacts; decision upheld. |
| Did FEIR adequately address hazardous materials and related remediation responsibilities? | Testing was incomplete (27 parcels untested); remediation costs and site cleanup plan lacked sufficient detail. | CEQA allows commitment to remediation actions overseen by DTSC; SSI/RAW to follow DTSC standards; full pre-certification testing impractical. | FEIR adequate under CEQA, with appropriate DTSC oversight and commitment to future remediation actions. |
| Did FEIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives? | LAUSD failed to consider a reduced-project alternative maintaining classrooms and did not adequately discuss Site No. 26. | Reduced-project alternative violates density guidelines; Site No. 26 would worsen pedestrian safety and hazardous materials; other sites infeasible. | FEIR provided a reasonable range of feasible alternatives; rejection of some alternatives was supported by evidence. |
| Did LAUSD's approvals violate Education Code sections 17211 or 17213.1 before site acquisition? | LAUSD failed to complete required environmental assessments and cost analyses prior to site acquisition and FEIR certification. | Code sections apply before acquiring property, not before EIR certification; actions challenged were permitted sequence. | LAUSD’s FEIR certification and site approval did not violate Education Code sections 17211 or 17213.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1988) (informational CEQA document standard; skip perfection)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 2003) (substantial evidence and disclosure standard)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (deference to agency factual conclusions; CEQA information disclosure)
- Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland, 195 Cal.App.4th 884 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (mitigation via regulatory compliance; deferral allowed under certain criteria)
- Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2008) (reasonableness of including future projects in cumulative analysis)
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008) (adequacy of environmental impact statements; practicality of detail)
- Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 2010) (Whitley: nonpecuniary interests cannot defeat 1021.5 fees; Whitley applicability to public actions)
- RiverWatch v. County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health, 175 Cal.App.4th 768 (Cal. App. Dist. 4 2009) (necessity and financial burden criteria for fees)