Traffic-Congestion Ruling Could Benefit Developers

SAN DIEGO—A recent California Supreme Court ruling on traffic-congestion mitigation finds that state agencies must mitigate the offsite impacts of their development projects. The Court ruled in favor of the City of San Diego over the Board of Trustees of CSU, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision and directing the Board of Trustees to vacate its environmental-impact study.

As GlobeSt.com reported exclusively in June, Sacramento-based Stoel Rives' attorney Allison Smith told us City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University involves the obligation of CSU to pay fair-share traffic-mitigation fees to the City of San Diego following the environmental review of CSU's plan to expand the San Diego State University campus and increase enrollment. The City of San Diego challenged the environmental review of that plan, primarily because CSU found that expansion would have significant impacts on traffic in the area around SDSU, but CSU did not promise to help pay for improvements that would mitigate those traffic impacts. Had the ruling gone the other way, the City could have ending up footing the bill, or some or all of the improvements wouldn't be done. CSU agreed to pay its “fair share” of the costs of these improvements if it was appropriated additional funding by the Legislature for that purpose. For more information on the case, click here. For a brief on the case, click here.

To get another viewpoint on the case and its outcome, we spoke exclusively with Arthur Coon, co-chair of the land-use practice at Miller Starr Regalia and chair of its appellate practice, for his views on the ruling.

GlobeSt.com: What is the most significant takeaway for the CA Supreme Court's ruling on this case?

Coon: State agencies must mitigate the offsite impacts of their development projects and cannot find it is infeasible to do so merely because the legislature has not appropriated specific funds earmarked for that purpose.

GlobeSt.com: What should state universities and local communities do to make these mitigations feasible?

Coon: They can put mitigation expenses in their project budgets from the outset, treating them as an integrated component of the project rather than as an afterthought. In addition to requesting adequate funds from the legislature, they can look to private partners, gifts, user fees and other non-state revenues for funding.

GlobeSt.com: What implications does this have for other parts of the real estate industry, if any?

Coon: It will benefit local and regional agencies responsible for carrying out transportation projects and approving other projects affecting the transportation network and may indirectly benefit private developers responsible for mitigating for their own contributions to cumulative traffic impacts.

GlobeSt.com: What else should our readers know about this case and its implications for future development?

Coon: Depending on CSU's response in terms of efforts to obtain mitigation funding or pursue alternative mitigation, there may be additional litigation developing the rules under CEQA governing economic infeasibility, or there may be campus expansion projects that are altered or reduced in scope to lessen their impacts if adequate mitigation funds are unavailable.