Opinion ID: 2631711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Mitigation Exclusively the Responsibility of FORA?

Text: CEQA, as previously noted, does not require a public agency to undertake identified mitigation measures, even if those measures are necessary to address the project's significant environmental effects, if the agency finds that the measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(2).) The Trustees have made such a finding with respect to the measures necessary to mitigate CSUMB's projected effects on drainage, water supply, wastewater management, traffic, and fire protection. As to each such effect, the Trustees have found that the specific measure to mitigate [each] impact to a level of insignificance is to implement the planned regional FORA . . . improvements, and that [i]mplementation of the planned regional improvements is FORA's responsibility. Certainly FORA has responsibility for implementing the infrastructure improvements it has proposed. (See Gov.Code, § 67679.) Just as certainly, however, the FORA Act contemplates that the costs of those improvements will be borne by those who benefit from them. (See ibid. ) A finding by a lead agency under Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(2), disclaiming the responsibility to mitigate environmental effects is permissible only when the other agency said to have responsibility has exclusive responsibility. As the CEQA Guidelines explain, [t]he finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (c).) The Guidelines' logical interpretation of CEQA on this point avoids the problem of agencies deferring to each other, with the result that no agency deals with the problem. This result would be contrary to the strong policy [requiring the mitigation or avoidance of significant environmental effects] declared in Sections 21002 and 21002.1 of the statute. (Discussion of Resources Agency following CEQA Guidelines, § 15091; see also 1 Kostka, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2005) § 17.19, pp. 821-823.) The Trustees offer two arguments in support of their finding disclaiming responsibility for the measures necessary to mitigate CSUMB's off-campus environmental effects. Neither withstands close scrutiny. The Trustees' first argument that they may not lawfully contribute to FORA in view of San Marcos, supra, 42 Cal.3d 154, 228 Cal.Rptr. 47, 720 P.2d 935, and the constitutional exemption of state property from taxation (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 3, subd. (a))has already been considered and rejected. The Trustees' second argumentthat they lack the power to construct infrastructure improvements away from campus on land they do not own and controlis beside the point. Certainly the Trustees may not enter the land of others to widen roads and lay sewer pipe; CEQA gives the Trustees no such power. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21004[[i]n mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than this division.].) CEQA does not, however, as we have explained, limit a public agency's obligation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects to effects occurring on the agency's own property. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, subd. (b), 21060.5.) CEQA also provides that [a]ll state agencies . . . shall request in their budgets the funds necessary to protect the environment in relation to problems caused by their activities. ( Id., § 21106.) Thus, as we have also explained, if the Trustees cannot adequately mitigate or avoid CSUMB's off-campus environmental effects by performing acts on the campus, then to pay a third party such as FORA to perform the necessary acts off campus may well represent a feasible alternative. To be clear, we do not hold that the duty of a public agency to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (b)), combined with the duty to ask the Legislature for money to do so ( id., § 21106), [16] will always give a public agency that is undertaking a project with environmental effects shared responsibility for mitigation measures another agency must implement. Some mitigation measures cannot be purchased, such as permits that another agency has the sole discretion to grant or refuse. Moreover, a state agency's power to mitigate its project's effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist. For the same reason, however, for the Trustees to disclaim responsibility for making such payments before they have complied with their statutory obligation to ask the Legislature for the necessary funds is premature, at the very least. The superior court found no evidence the Trustees had asked the Legislature for the funds. In their brief to this court, the Trustees acknowledge they did not budget for payments they assumed would constitute invalid assessments under San Marcos, supra, 42 Cal.3d 154, 228 Cal.Rptr. 47, 720 P.2d 935. That assumption, as we have explained, is invalid.