21 Cal. App. 5th 1186
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- First Street developed a five-story apartment building and submitted a square-footage worksheet to the City of Santa Ana to calculate a school impact fee; it used the City’s then-standard "net rentable" method that counted only individual apartment unit area (272,943 sq ft).
- Tustin Unified School District objected, asserting Government Code § 65995(b)(1) requires all square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure be assessed, including interior common areas.
- The City abandoned its net-rentable practice and recalculated by building perimeter, adding ~70,000 sq ft and increasing the fee; First Street paid under protest and won at the City administrative hearing (which applied the City’s former standard practice).
- The District refused to refund; First Street sued for declaratory relief, writ of mandate, and tort claims (torts were dismissed on anti-SLAPP, affirmed separately).
- At bench trial the court found § 65995(b)(1) precluded the net-rentable method and ruled for the District; First Street appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "assessable space" under § 65995(b)(1) includes interior common areas (hallways, mechanical rooms, fitness centers, lounges, etc.) | "Structure" means individual apartment unit; therefore interior common areas are excluded | "Structure" means the building; "all square footage within the perimeter" includes interior common areas | Court: Includes interior common area; "structure" refers to building and statute’s plain language controls |
| Whether a city’s "standard practice" of measuring (net-rentable) overrides § 65995(b)(1) | City's prior standard practice that excluded common areas must govern the calculation | The statute requires standard practice only for calculating perimeter-based square footage; a standard practice that measures something else does not immunize noncompliance | Court: City’s prior net-rentable practice did not satisfy § 65995(b)(1); standard-practice clause applies only to perimeter calculation |
| Whether First Street had vested rights preventing the City from changing its measurement method | First Street asserted a vested right to rely on the City’s then-standard practice and that change was a violation of vested rights | The City may adopt measures to comply with state law; tentative vesting map/agreements do not allow ignoring state statutory mandates | Court: No vested-right protection for a noncompliant local practice; City could change method to conform with state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Fishback v. County of Ventura, 133 Cal.App.4th 896 (appellate court review of statutory interpretation is de novo)
- Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (definition of "walkway" in common usage contexts)
- People v. Drennan, 84 Cal.App.4th 1349 (noscitur a sociis statutory-construction principle)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (appellate courts generally consider only the trial record when resolving appeals)