City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of the CSU 6/17/03 CA6

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of the CSU 6/17/03 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H023158

Case Date: 06/17/2003

Preview:Filed 6/17/03

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CITY OF MARINA et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Appellant. H023158 (Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. M41795 & M41781)

Fort Ord, once the largest military base on the West Coast of the United States closed in the early 1990's creating economic difficulty for adjacent cities. In 1994 the Legislature passed the Fort Ord Reuse Authority Act, called "the FORA Act" to finance and construct public facilities and uses on the old army base. The members of FORA are, among others, the County of Monterey and the cities of Monterey, Salinas, Carmel, Marina and Pacific Grove. Off campus traffic and fire improvements have been sought by way of an administrative writ proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 on the Board of Trustees of the California State University (the Trustees) for its campus at Monterey (the University). The Trustees have refused to pay for those

1

Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.

services claiming to do so would violate its duties under the Constitution and would constitute a gift of public funds. It has agreed to pay for statutorily authorized, sewage and water facilities, but not anything else. In 1986, the California Supreme Court decided San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 154 (San Marcos). There the water district imposed a " `sewer capacity right fees' " on the school district. (Id. at p. 157.) The court found that the sewage charges for capital improvements in question could not be assessed against the school district. Indeed, the Supreme Court found generally that one tax-supported entity may not siphon revenues from another tax-supported entity. Disputes concerning capital improvements necessary in the surrounding area to a public university campus, the nature of this case, have also occurred, and with the same result. (See, e.g., Regents of University of California v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 547 (hereafter Regents I); Regents of University of California v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 451 (hereafter Regents II).) In 1988, the Legislature accepted the invitation extended to it by the concurring opinion of Justice Grodin in San Marcos, supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 169 to "establish a different rule" and enacted Government Code section 54999 et seq., in which the holding in San Marcos was reiterated and an exception was then created for public utility facilities defined as "a facility for the provision of water, light, heat, communications, power, or garbage service, for flood control, drainage or sanitary purposes, or for sewage collection, treatment, or disposal." (Gov. Code

Download City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of the CSU 6/17/03 CA6.pdf