City of San Diego v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.

• Decision Date: 03 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. S199557.,S199557.
• Citation: 61 Cal.4th 945,190 Cal.Rptr.3d 319,352 P.3d 883
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent.

61 Cal.4th 945

352 P.3d 883

190 Cal.Rptr.3d 319

CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants

v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent.

No. S199557.

Supreme Court of California

Aug. 3, 2015.

Jan I. Goldsmith, City Attorney, Donald R. Worley, Andrew Jones and Daniel Bamberg, Assistant City Attorneys, Donald R. Worley, Assistant City Attorney and Christine M. Leone, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiffs and Appellants City of San Diego and Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego.

John F. Kirk, San Diego; The Sohagi Law Group, Margaret M. Sohagi, Philip A. Seymour and Nicole H. Gordon, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants San Diego Association of Governments and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

Ronald W. Beals, Thomas C. Fellenz, Sacramento, David H. McCray, Brandon S. Walker and Elizabeth R. Strayer for State of California Department of Transportation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Sabrina V. Teller, Laura M. Harris, Sacramento; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Beth Collins–Burgard, Santa Barbara, and Dylan K. Johnson for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Michael S. Lawson, East Palo Alto; Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman, Stuart M. Flashman, Oakland; Best Best & Krieger, Harriet A. Steiner and Kara K. Ueda, Sacramento, for Hayward Area Planning Association and City of Hayward as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Horvitz & Levy, Bradley S. Pauley, Jeremy B. Rosen, Mark A. Kressel, Encino; Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, Carlsbad, Mark J. Dillon, Michael S. Haberkorn and Danielle K. Morone for Defendant and Respondent.

Heather Wallace, Sacramento, Erika Frank; and Robert Lapsley for The California Chamber of Commerce and The California Business Roundtable as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

In this case we consider a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) (CEQA) to a decision by the Board of Trustees (Board) of the California State University (CSU) certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). The EIR concerns the Board's project to expand the campus of San Diego State University (SDSU) to accommodate more than 10,000 additional students over the next several years—part of a larger program to expand CSU's statewide enrollment capacity by 107,000. The SDSU project will contribute significantly to traffic congestion off-campus in the City of San Diego. Although the Board has budgeted substantial state and non-state funds to expand its campuses ($9.9 billion), the Board has declined to use those funds, or any of CSU's financial resources, to reimburse other public agencies for its self-determined fair share of the statewide cost of mitigating its projects' off-campus environmental effects ($15 million). Instead, based on dictum in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 138 P.3d 692 (Marina ),¹ the Board has taken the position that CSU may not lawfully pay to mitigate the off-campus environmental effects of its projects unless the Legislature makes an appropriation for that specific purpose. Anticipating the Legislature might not make an earmarked appropriation for mitigation, given the resources already budgeted for campus expansion, the Board has found that mitigation is infeasible and certified the EIR for SDSU based on a statement of overriding considerations, that is, a determination the project offers benefits that outweigh its unmitigated effects. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subds. (a)(3) [mitigation infeasible], (b) [overriding benefits]; see also Cal.Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); id., §§ 15091, subd. (a)(3) [findings], 15093 [statement of overriding considerations].)

We granted review to determine whether the Board's EIR complies with CEQA and to reexamine the dictum in Marina, supra, 39 Cal.4th 341, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 138 P.3d 692. We conclude the dictum does not justify the Board's assumption that a state agency may contribute funds for off-site environmental mitigation only through earmarked appropriations, to the exclusion of other available sources of funding. The erroneous assumption invalidates both the Board's finding that mitigation is infeasible and its statement of overriding considerations. Accordingly, we will affirm the Court of Appeal's decision directing the Board to vacate its certification of the EIR.

I. Background

CSU is a public institution of higher education established by the Legislature in 1960 to offer undergraduate, graduate and professional instruction. (Ed.Code, § 66010.4, subd. (b).) Currently the largest four-year public university in the United States, CSU enrolls 447,000 students and employs 45,000 faculty and staff members on 23 campuses throughout the state. SDSU, one of CSU's campuses, enrolls over 33,000 students and employs 3,000 faculty and staff members on a 280–acre campus in the City of San Diego, eight miles from downtown.

Defendant Board is the governing body of CSU (Ed.Code, § 66600 ) and the lead agency responsible for preparing and certifying the EIR for SDSU's master plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21067 [lead agency], 21100, subd. (a) [duties of lead agency]; see also Ed.Code, § 66606 [Board's powers] ). Plaintiffs, who challenge the Board's decision to certify the EIR, are the City of San Diego (City); the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), a regional agency with statutory responsibilities that include transportation and transit; and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), a public agency that serves San Diego and SDSU with light rail and buses.

In 2003, the Board directed CSU to take the steps necessary to accommodate a projected long-term increase in enrollment of 107,000 students statewide. To support higher enrollment with additional physical facilities, the Board approved a multi-year capital improvement program budgeting $5.9 billion in state funds and $4 billion in non-state (i.e., nonappropriated) funds.² As part of this program, the Board determined that SDSU should expand to enroll 10,000 more full-time equivalent students by the 2024–2025 academic year. The planned expansion will enlarge SDSU's actual enrollment of full- and part-time students by 11,385, raising total enrollment from 33,441 to 44,826, and also add 1,282 faculty and staff members.

In 2005, the Board prepared an EIR and campus master plan revision (the 2005 EIR) proposing to undertake several construction projects on the SDSU campus. The proposed projects included a housing development for faculty, staff, and graduate students, a research and instructional facility, the expansion of a student residence hall, a new student union building, and a hotel.

In the 2005 EIR, the Board found the proposed projects would contribute significantly to cumulative traffic congestion at several identified locations off-campus. The Board declined, however, to contribute its share of the cost of improving the affected roadways and intersections to the other public agencies responsible for making the necessary improvements (the City and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)). Any contribution of funds for off-site mitigation, the Board asserted, would amount to a prohibited assessment of state property (cf. Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 3, subd. (d)) and an unlawful gift of public funds (cf. id., art. XVI, § 6). Based on those assumptions, the Board concluded that SDSU was “not legally responsible for funding or constructing physical road improvements” and that the improvements were instead the responsibility of others. For the same reasons, the Board found that SDSU could not feasibly mitigate its project's traffic impacts and that those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Having found mitigation infeasible, the Board on September 21, 2005, certified the 2005 EIR as complete and in accordance with CEQA based on a statement of overriding considerations.

On October 20, 2005, the City challenged the Board's decision by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the San Diego County Superior Court. Among other things, the City challenged the Board's assumption that payments for off-site mitigation would represent unlawful assessments or gifts of public funds. At that time, the Board was taking the same position in another case challenging its refusal to mitigate the off-site environmental impacts of a project to expand CSU–Monterey Bay (CSUMB). In that other case, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District had filed an opinion accepting the Board's position, we had granted review, and the case was pending in this court. (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (June 17, 2003, H023158), review granted Oct. 1, 2003, S117816.) On July 31, 2006, we reversed the Sixth District's decision. In our opinion (Marina, supra, 39 Cal.4th 341, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 138 P.3d 692 ), we rejected the Board's arguments against fair-share payments for mitigation and concluded the Board had abused its discretion in certifying the EIR for CSUMB.

In light of our decision in Marina, supra, 39 Cal.4th 341, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 138 P.3d 692, the San Diego Superior Court in the case now before us issued a peremptory writ of mandate on September 1, 2006, directing the Board to vacate its decision certifying the 2005 EIR for SDSU. In its writ, the superior court stated that it “retain[ed] jurisdiction ... until [the court] has determined that [the Board] has complied with CEQA and the views expressed by the California Supreme Court in ... Marina ....”

On June 12, 2007, the Board circulated for public comment a new draft EIR and campus master plan revision for SDSU (2007 DEIR). That document, as subsequently revised, finalized and certified by the Board (t...