This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
On this case, plaintiff George Sheetz challenged the $23,420 site visitors impression mitigation price (“TIM price”) 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 depart 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 price was invalid beneath each the Mitigation Payment Act and the taking clause of america structure.
The court docket first discovered that the trial court docket correctly decided that the TIM price was not topic to the heightened scrutiny of the Nollan/Dolan take a look at. The court docket discovered that the topic price was not an “advert hoc exaction” imposed on a property proprietor on a person and discretionary foundation, however was a growth impression price imposed pursuant to a legislatively licensed price program that was typically utilized to all new growth initiatives inside the County. The report mirrored that this price was calculated utilizing a formulation that thought-about numerous components. As such, the validity of the price and this system that licensed it was solely topic to the differential “cheap relationship” take a look at embodied within the Mitigation Payment Act.
On attraction, Sheetz argued the trial court docket erred in concluding that he may solely state a cognizable declare beneath subdivision (a) of part 66001, moderately than beneath each subdivision (a) and (b) of the statute. Particularly, Sheetz claimed that the County was required to guage the precise site visitors impacts attributable to his explicit mission earlier than imposing the price. The court docket famous that there have been two ways in which a neighborhood company may fulfill the Mitigation Payment Act’s “cheap relationship” requirement for the imposition of growth charges; subdivision (a) utilized to quasi-legislative selections to impose growth impression charges on a category of growth initiatives; and subdivision (b) utilized to adjudicatory, case-by-case selections to impose a growth impression price on a selected growth mission. The court docket discovered that for a common price utilized to all new residential developments, a site-specific exhibiting was not required. The court docket discovered as an alternative that this exhibiting could possibly be derived from district extensive estimates regarding new residential growth and impression on faculty amenities. 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 growth mission.
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, moderately than declaratory reduction. The court docket famous that it was nicely established {that a} declaratory reduction explanation for motion is an acceptable methodology for difficult a statute, regulation, or ordinance as facially unconstitutional or in any other case invalid, however that the executive mandamus is “the correct and sole treatment” to problem a neighborhood company’s utility of the legislation.
Right here, the report mirrored that the County thought-about the related components and demonstrated a rational connection between these components and the price imposed. The restricted parts of the report relied upon by Sheetz didn’t exhibit that the price was arbitrary, completely missing in evidentiary help, or in any other case invalid. The court docket due to this fact held that Sheetz failed to indicate that the report earlier than the County clearly didn’t help the County’s determinations concerning the reasonableness of the connection between the price and its growth mission. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Sheetz v County of El Dorado, 2022 WL 10993726 (CA App. 10/19/2022)