Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University.

Country/Territory
United States of America
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 28, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Court of Appeal of California, First Appelate District.
Judge
Pollak, Siggins and Jenkins.
Reference number
A131412, A132424
Language
English
Subject
Land & soil, Environment gen.
Keyword
Land-use planning
Abstract
the Board of Trustees of the California State University (Trustees) wished to expand its Hayward campus in order to meet its assigned enrollment ceiling. In 2009, the Trustees approved a master plan to guide campus development for the next 20-30 years. The City of Hayward (City) sued claiming the Trustees’ environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze impacts on fire protection and public safety, traffic and parking, air quality, and parklands. The California First Appellate District reversed the trial court’s holding and found that the Trustees’ EIR was adequate, with the exception of parklands. The court therefore modified the writ of mandate ordering the Trustees to revise the analysis of potential environmental impacts to surrounding parklands. Based on the Trustees’ analysis on fire protection and public services, the court came to four conclusions: there was substantial evidence to support the Trustees’ conclusion that additional and expanded fire facilities will not have a significant environmental impact, the Trustees did not have to provide mitigation measures for the new fire facilities since they concluded that more fire protection services would not result in significant environmental impacts, the Trustees do not need to fund the expansion of the fire department services but rather the city has a constitutional duty to provide such services and the EIR was sufficiently analyzed the impact of the campus expansion on the city’s public services and properly came to the conclusion that the “cumulative effect would be less than significant.” On the issue of traffic and parking. The court first held that the Trustees’ analysis of potential sites for faculty housing was sufficient. Since the Trustees prepared a program EIR as opposed to a project EIR, they properly deferred site-specific analysis of possible environmental effects of building faculty housing until a later time. The court next examined the Trustees’ mitigation measures. With the main goal of shifting commuters out of single-occupant cars and into carpools, transit, biking, and walking, the court found “no deficiency” in the way the EIR considered impacts of the master plan on parking and traffic, incorporated mitigation measures, and reached the conclusion that some environmental impacts are unavoidable. Pertaining to impacts on air quality, the court supported the Trustees’ EIR. While the EIR concluded that the master plan would produce long-term emissions of pollutants, it presented transportation mitigation measures that would reduce some, though not all, emissions to a less than significant level. The court also explained that since neither the trial court nor the City suggested further mitigation measures the Trustees should consider, then that portion of the Trustees’ EIR was sufficient and did not need to be reexamined
Full text
COU-159627.pdf