The City of Marina and the Board of Trustees of California State University - Case Study Example

of Marina v Board of Trustees of the California (2006) Introduction In the modern world,issues pertaining to environment are of importance. In particular, it is important to mitigate the effects of environmental pollution and other effects on the environment contributed by man. In this regard, individuals or organizations are obligated to conduct an assessment on the impact of their developmental activities outlining potential effects of their activities on the environment and how they can be mitigated. An environmental assessment must be conducted before regulatory bodies approves a project. This paper focuses on a case between the City of Marina and the Board of Trustees of California State University, the significance of the decision, and the importance of this case. The case background In the context of this case, "The Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) challenges an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by the Board of Trustees of the California State University (Trustees)" (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 1). Fort Ord is a former Army Base situated on the Pacific Coast. FORA, a body formulated in the year 1994 through the Fort Ord Reuse Authority Act was given the role of managing the facility. The roles of the body include ensuring the protection of the distinctive environmental resources within and surrounding the facility. The facility hosts the California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) which sought to expand the campus to meet the growing demand for college education around the State to reach its projected mark of 25,000 students by the year 2030 (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 5). By the time of its conception in 1994, the campus had enrolled 633 students (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 5). To meet its target, the trustees created an action plan that included an Environmental Impact Report. In its explication of environmental impacts that ought to be mitigated, the trustees of California State University outlined five effects that, according to them could only be mitigated with the involvement of FORA. These effects to the environment related to drainage, water supply, traffic, waste-water management, and fire protection (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 7-8). These areas necessitated improvement of infrastructure. The trustees felt that they were not lawfully obligated to finance improvements in traffic and fire protection in terms of infrastructure hence mitigation was infeasible. They also felt that the advantages of the intended expansion overshadow or prevailed over the unmitigated effects to the environment (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 11). The Trustee agreed to provide their fair share in financing water supply, drainage, and waste-water management but not in traffic and fire protection according to the stipulations of the Public Resources Code section 21081 (a)(2) (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 11). After the trustees adopted these measures negating their obligation to provide their fare share to finance the mitigation plans, FORA challenged their report in court. FORA presumed the campus was to pay their share of the cost of improvement amounting to $20.5 million in a span of 18 years (10) in all areas including fire protection and traffic. In their argument to in an effort to avoid the cost of mitigating traffic and fire protection, the Trustees argued under the premise that there was no guarantee that the funds would actually be used for the intended purpose (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 35). Ruling The EIR adopted by the Trustees was vacated by the Supreme Court arguing that their assumptions based on San Marcos Legislation were wrong (Corssmit 167). The Court in their findings found that the Trustees misconstrued San Marcos as the case "Has nothing to say about a discretionary payment made by a public agency that voluntarily chooses that method of discharging its duty under CEQA to mitigate the environmental effects of this project" (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 21). In the ruling, the Supreme Court posited that FORA had the right to impose a capital facility fee to the campus also concluded that the trustees supposition that deliberate improvement imbursements are impermissible does not hold under California law (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 18). The court in simple terms ruled that execution of FORAs action plan to improve infrastructure in and outside the campus represents feasible mitigation and thus FORA and USC were ordered to discuss how the campus would contribute to the infrastructure improvement. The court also ruled that the assumption that there was no guarantee that FORA would use the funds to mitigate the presumed effects was not reason to negate their obligation to make a voluntary contribution (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 35). Significance or legacy of the decision California Planning and Development Report (n.p) expounded that the decision in this case would raise State expenditure in terms of financing the universitys expansion program and other public agencies. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as outlined by City of Marina v. Board of Trustees requires all state organizations to apply or ask for finances indispensable in protecting the environment (34). The Trustees as the Court found had not requested for financial support to help mitigate environmental effects arising from the activities from the legislature. Public entities will also be forced to contribute their fare share to finance mitigation of the effects contributed by their expansion or development activities (California Planning and Development Report n.p). In an article published in Best Best and Krieger Attorneys at Law, Strand and Buckman argue that the decision necessitate or oblige the Trustees as well as other organizations or groups associated with education to reorganize the manner in which they deal with the effects of their ventures on areas outside their premises (n.p). It is also worth noting that the decision sets precedence to the fact that mitigation strategies necessitating financial support to improve infrastructure outside premises conducting a project cannot be discarded or deemed impracticable for the reason that the entity embarking on the venture and additionally conducting the environmental impact assessment, and the entity conducting the infrastructure improvement are different (Strand and Buckman para.6). Opinion on the outcome or importance of this case As outlined by City of Marina v. Board of Trustees, development or expansion ventures in all public organizations cannot be endorsed if there are practicable substitutes available to reduce the effects of these ventures significantly on the environment (35). In cases whereby these practicable alternatives are negatively affected in terms of practicability by social or fiscal factors, the ventures ought to be approved devoid of the unmitigated effects. If there are no substantial alternatives to mitigate the effects of a venture on the environment and the benefits brought by the venture outweigh the unmitigated effects, then it is practical to endorse the venture (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 35). In formulating their action plan, the Trustees of CSU and the court in their ruling failed to consider the long-term impact of the expansion of infrastructure. In my opinion, the fact that campus extension would significantly increase traffic, water shortage, increase waste water, necessitate need for fire protection, and drainage problem is short-term. Improvement of infrastructure particularly roads to ease traffic would have a long-term effect on the environment in terms of air pollution. In regards to traffic, the Trustees noted that the expansion would lead to a "decrease in level of service and will contribute to Highway impacts" (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 7-8). This fails to mention the effects on the quality of air as a result an increase in campus traffic. Since the responsibility of bearing the cost of infrastructure improvements aimed at mitigating environmental effects lies on the beneficiary of the venture, the ruling ought to have considered effects on increased traffic in relation to release of carbon dioxide from car exhaust fumes. It is the responsibility of the benefiting body to implement action plans to ensure carbon dioxide released from car fumes is reduced from the surrounding atmosphere, for instance through planting trees to absorb the carbon dioxide. In relation to the ruling in this case, public and State agencies conducting activities with substantial effects to the environment will not have any excuses against involving themselves in mitigating the effects. In areas where such agencies have no jurisdiction in terms of implementing direct mitigations action plans, the law allows them to hire a third party to conduct the mitigations on their behalf (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 34). The ability of a State organization to deliberately finance or contribute towards mitigating environmental effects from their ventures is subject to governmental control. In other words, such organizations are not obligated to contribute towards mitigations if the legislature fails to provide financial support to do so. There was no evidence that CSUMB actually requested funds for this purpose from the legislature and hence their arguments were overruled. According to the ruling, the Trustees could not renounce their duty to contribute their fare share for the mitigations without having taken the initial step to request the legislature for financial support (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees 35). Conclusion In conclusion, the ruling of the case between the City of Marina and Board of Trustees of California State University clearly explicated the role of public or State agencies in mitigating environmental effects caused by their activities outside their premises. As in the case, development ventures could have an impact the various entities off-site such as drainage system, traffic, water supply, waste water management. It is the duty of the benefiting body in a venture to support, contribute, or finance for mitigation of these effects. In an EIR, it would be important to consider both the short-term and long-term effects of a venture on the general environment. For instance, the short-term need to expand roads to decongest traffic could on the other hand contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in the long-rum. In this regard, mitigation plans should focus on both short-term and long-term effects. Works cited California Planning and Development Report. "University Cant Ignore Off-Campus Growth Impacts." Guide to California Planning 21.9 (2006): n.p. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. City of Marina v. Board of Trustees, 138 p. 3d 692-Cal: Supreme Court 2006. Corssmit, W. Water Rates, Fees, and the Legal Environment. Denver: American Water Works Association, 2011. Print. Strand, Peggy, and Buckman Jeniffer. "Court Hold Public Agencies Can Impose CEQA Mitigation Fees on School Projects." Best Best & Krieger Attorney at Law., 10 August. 2006. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. Read More