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 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) 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).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
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.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples