CA Appeals Courtroom Holds Influence Mitigation Charge was Not Topic to the Heightened Scrutiny of the Nollan/Dolan Check

This publish was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

On this case, plaintiff George Sheetz challenged the $23,420 visitors affect mitigation charge (“TIM charge”) imposed by the defendant El Dorado County as a situation of issuing him a constructing allow for the development of a single-family residence on his property in Placerville. Sheetz appealed from the judgment entered after the trial court docket sustained the County’s demurrer with out go away to amend and denied his verified petition for writ of mandate. On attraction, Sheetz contended for reversal was required as a result of the TIM charge was invalid underneath each the Mitigation Charge Act and the taking clause of the US structure.

The court docket first discovered that the trial court docket correctly decided that the TIM charge was not topic to the heightened scrutiny of the Nollan/Dolan take a look at. The court docket discovered that the topic charge was not an “advert hoc exaction” imposed on a property proprietor on a person and discretionary foundation, however was a improvement affect charge imposed pursuant to a legislatively approved charge program that was usually utilized to all new improvement initiatives inside the County. The document mirrored that this charge was calculated utilizing a components that thought of numerous components. As such, the validity of the charge and this system that approved it was solely topic to the differential “affordable relationship” take a look at embodied within the Mitigation Charge Act.

On attraction, Sheetz argued the trial court docket erred in concluding that he may solely state a cognizable declare underneath subdivision (a) of part 66001, somewhat than underneath each subdivision (a) and (b) of the statute. Particularly, Sheetz claimed that the County was required to judge the precise visitors impacts attributable to his explicit venture earlier than imposing the charge. The court docket famous that there have been two ways in which an area company may fulfill the Mitigation Charge Act’s “affordable relationship” requirement for the imposition of improvement charges; subdivision (a) utilized to quasi-legislative choices to impose improvement affect charges on a category of improvement initiatives; and subdivision (b) utilized to adjudicatory, case-by-case choices to impose a improvement affect charge on a selected improvement venture. The court docket discovered that for a basic charge utilized to all new residential developments, a site-specific displaying was not required. The court docket discovered as an alternative that this displaying might be derived from district broad estimates regarding new residential improvement and affect on faculty services. Due to this, the court docket held that the trial court docket correctly decided that part 66001, subdivision (b) didn’t apply to Sheetz’s improvement venture.

Sheetz subsequent argued the trial court docket erred in figuring out that his fourth and fifth causes of the motion failed as a matter of legislation as a result of the only treatment for “as utilized” challenges to native company motion was administrative mandamus, somewhat than declaratory aid. The court docket famous that it was properly established {that a} declaratory aid reason for motion is an applicable methodology for difficult a statute, regulation, or ordinance as facially unconstitutional or in any other case invalid, however that the executive mandamus is “the right and sole treatment” to problem an area company’s software of the legislation.

Right here, the document mirrored that the County thought of the related components and demonstrated a rational connection between these components and the charge imposed. The restricted parts of the document relied upon by Sheetz didn’t show that the charge was arbitrary, completely missing in evidentiary help, or in any other case invalid. The court docket subsequently held that Sheetz failed to point out that the document earlier than the County clearly didn’t help the County’s determinations relating to the reasonableness of the connection between the charge and its improvement venture. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Sheetz v County of El Dorado, 2022 WL 10993726 (CA App. 10/19/2022)

You May Also Like

More From Author