County of San Diego v. Grossman-Cuyamaca Community College District (2006), 141 Cal.App4th 86

Grossman-Cuyamaca Community College District (District) prepared a master plan covering 20 construction and remodel projects (projects), certified a Final EIR for the porject, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and CEQA findings , and approved the project, identifying it is legally and economically infeasible for the District to pay for any off-campus road improvements for the project’s off-campus traffic impacts.

The County filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the certification, adoption of the CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations, based on the findings not being supported by substantial evidence and the CEQA requirement for the District to adopt feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts of the project on off-campus traffic.  The petition was denied and judgment made in favor of the District.  The County appealed this decision, and the appellate court (Court) determined that the District did abuse its discretion, that it is authorized by law to spend public funds to mitigate the project’s significant off-campus traffic impacts, and that the claim of economic infeasibility is not supported by substantial evidence.

In the review of background information, it is noted that the Draft EIR identified that certain roadway improvements were planned as part of the County Circulation Element and identified those improvements as mitigation measures, and also identified that several recommended mitigation measures would be incorporated into the County improvements planned in the Circulation Element.  In its CEQA findings, the district make the finding that certain economic and legal considerations rendered the traffic mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR infeasible (discussed herein as the infeasibility finding), and stated that Caltrans and the County have jurisdiction over the roadway improvements and the District lacks authority to even fund its proportional share of off-site traffic improvements.  One of the overriding considerations the District used was “inability of the District to fund off-campus traffic improvements.”

The County contends the District is subject to CEQA’s mitigation requirements, that the District’s infeasibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence, and the District’s claim of legal infeasibility is erroneous.

The District contends that its findings are supported and mitigation is not “feasible” within the meaning of CEQA because: 1) the County has exclusive jurisdiction over the affected roads, 2) the District cannot assure the needed road improvements will actually be implemented 3) construction of many of the mitigation measures is constrained by limited right-of-way, and 4) the District cannot legally pay for the off-site traffic improvements.

The Court first addressed the infeasibility finding, identifying that the Education Code section 14020.1 the District relied on only restricts a portion of the state funds provided to the District.  Stating that the District’s reliance on the Education Code was “further undermined” by Education Code section 81952 which allows use of funds for “construction, or completion of any project” for the accomplishment of purposes in the associated chapter.  The Court also reasons Legislature contemplated that the state would be required to provide assistance to community college districts to contrsuct “adequate community college facilities” to accommodate the state’s growth.  The CEQA Guidelines are expressly adopted as part of the implementing regulations for the Community College Construction Act of 1980.  The Court notes that another Education Code section relied upon by the district makes no mention of CEQA and does not include language prohibiting the District from fulfilling its obligation under CEQA to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible mitigation measures to reduce/avoid those effects.  The Court also found that the County’s request for payment of road fees was not a “special assessment” and, thus, San Marcos does not apply nor would such payment be a “gift of public funds.”

The District’s claim of economic infeasibility was based on the premise that construction of many of the improvements was 1) constrained by limited right-of-way, and 2) would require eminent domain and displace residents.  Referencing the CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, “feasible” (for CEQA purposes) means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”  The Court notes that the administrative record contains no estimate of the cost of the District’s proportional share, and without such evidence, the Court concluded that there was no substantial evidence supporting the claim of economic infeasibility and the District abused its discretion by certifying the EIR, adopting the statement of overriding considerations and CEQA findings, and approving the master plan.

Read more about this decision.