CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUIREMENTS

Santa Rita Unified School District v. City of Salinas (Rexford Title, Inc. et al) – California Supreme Court (Case No. S281912)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Santa Rita Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case relates to the obligation of land developers and permitting agencies to properly consider environmental impacts on schools and their surrounding communities and the need to expand or adjust school facilities to address such impacts. The decision reached by the appellate court exacerbated a situation in which school districts are already on the short end of a deal because it created a new hurdle for school districts to clear when seeking support from local agencies and developers to include school facility concerns as a point of emphasis in the land use and planning process.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
On Jan. 16, 2020, the Santa Rita Unified School District (District) and Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD) filed their Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Petition) in the Monterey County Superior Court against the City of Salinas (City). The Petition’s causes of action were related to the City’s approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Western Area Specific Plan (WASP), which did not properly consider the impacts of development on schools. For broader context, before the City’s approval of the FEIR, the District and SUHSD made numerous, timely written requests to the City to include proper information regarding the indirect environmental impacts of the WASP on schools, specifically: analysis of the likely scenario where the schools identified in the specific plan are not built in a manner that keeps pace with development. The District communicated that due to a lack of funding, schools within the development were unlikely to be built on pace with the development, thus necessitating students attending schools outside of the WASP’s boundaries. As a result, the District requested the City analyze the reasonably foreseeable indirect environment impacts of the WASP on schools, including changes in traffic patterns, air quality and noise issues, and other construction-related impacts at other district schools.

Monterey Superior Court’s Judge Anderson ruled on the merits that “it was reasonably foreseeable that existing school facilities would need to be expanded or adjusted in some way to accommodate the influx of students from the [WASP],” and that the FEIR “inadequately analyzed school-related environmental impacts because it only addressed impacts from the construction of new schools and failed to include potential impacts arising from the expansion of existing school facilities, and those impacts are external to the facility, not on the facility.” Judge Anderson further found that the WASP’s “impacts to the non-school physical environment from the construction of temporary or permanent additional school facilities at an existing site, such as dust that degrades air quality or noise caused by the construction activity,” were not impacts on school facilities for purposes of Senate Bill 50’s capped statutory fee for mitigation.

In her final order, Judge Anderson found that “the FEIR was insufficient because the FEIR failed to include discussion of potential off-site environmental impacts resulting from the WASP due to the Petitioner school districts’ presented concerns that it will lack sufficient funding to build the proposed new school sites identified within the WASP.” Judge Anderson also found that the City provided insufficient responses to the Districts’ comments “with regard to potential off-side impacts.” Following that, in a win for the District, the Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding the City to comply with CEQA with respect to the FEIR.

APPELLATE COURT DECISION:
While the City complied with the Superior Court order and judgment, Real Parties in Interest appealed the judgment to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued the opinion on Aug. 10, 2023. In the opinion, the appellate court found that the City’s FEIR was sufficient under CEQA, adequately informing the public of the potential environmental impacts of the WASP and concluding that the City used its best efforts to disclose all that it could reasonably foresee under the circumstances. In reaching these holdings, the opinion determined the indirect impacts of the WASP on schools were too speculative to require any meaningful analysis in the FEIR, in part, because the school districts did not provide the City with the information necessary to perform a meaningful analysis. In reaching these conclusions, the opinion applied substantial evidence review, giving deference to the City’s factual analysis that there were no reasonably foreseeable impacts generated by the Districts’ concerns and, thus, consideration and analysis of the Districts’ concerns and comments was unnecessary. Finding the FEIR sufficient under CEQA, the opinion reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and directed the Superior Court below to vacate its order, enter a new order and judgment, and recall the Writ of Mandate.

The opinion’s dismissal of the numerous letters and ongoing engagement by the District in the WASP FEIR process as inadequate to necessitate FEIR analysis on school-related impacts raised great concerns legally, practically and environmentally. Compounding this problem is the opinion’s reasoning that such analysis was not necessary because the FEIR is a “program-level” document and the District’s concerns would be more properly addressed at the project-level, e.g., such as when the District was required to add portable to an existing site. By kicking the can down the road, the opinion acknowledged that there are reasonably foreseeable impacts, but deprived the community of the opportunity for related impacts (like traffic) to be considered at the macro- or program-level. In effect, the obligation to mitigate such impacts is shifted from the development (through the program-level review) to the District (at the project-level). Such a shift is contrary to basic tenets of CEQA, which supports a tiered application of environmental review and analysis.

Also contrary to well-established CEQA precedent, the opinion shifted the burden from the lead agency to school districts to prove impacts are reasonably foreseeable. It is long understood that the burden of environmental analysis lies with the lead agency and not the public. From a legal and environmental policy perspective, the effect of the opinion is to establish new precedent under which the indirect impacts of development on schools are of lesser importance than other non-school environmental impacts. The opinion radically redrew the manner in which local agencies and school districts engage in the planning process, making an already beleaguered process even more so. Due to these issues, the District filed a Petition for Rehearing on Aug. 25, 2023.

On Sept. 7, 2023, the Court of Appeal denied rehearing and issued an order modifying the opinion in certain respects, but without modification to the judgment.

PETITION FOR REVIEW AND ELA INVOLVEMENT:
On Sept. 19, 2023, the District filed its Petition for Review asking the Supreme Court to take up the matter and consider two main questions. The first asks whether the application of substantial evidence review to the City’s failure to analyze indirect environmental impacts on schools in the FEIR is in conflict with Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016 (“Chawanakee”) and CEQA’s procedural requirement that the FEIR provide the public with complete information, which is regularly subject to de novo review. Second, the petition asks whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the repeated, timely written information provided by school districts as a part of the environmental review process and consistent with Chawanakee’s holdings was too speculative to obligate the City as lead agency to analyze the offsite environmental impacts of its project.

The ELA submitted an amicus curiae brief that supported the District and further illustrated how the appellate court’s decision exacerbated an existing burden for school districts statewide. Specifically, the ELA’s brief provided context and explanation as to why the environmental review process includes consideration of the reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to the District. It also illustrates the ways in which case law supports the review approach used by the District and how it required more from the City. Through this explanation, the brief highlighted the ways in which the opinion constrained the opportunities for school districts to receive proper consideration in long-range planning.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:
On Nov. 15, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the District’s Petition for Review and therefore the Order stands.
Back to Report