63 Cal.App.5th 1072
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In June 2016 El Dorado County voters adopted Measure E, which amended General Plan policies (notably TC‑Xa 3 and TC‑Xf) to require that necessary road capacity improvements be completed to prevent Level of Service (LOS) F before discretionary project approval; it also added an implementation statement directing Caltrans to determine LOS on Highway 50 and required County acceptance.
- County staff prepared a pre- and post-election memo identifying ambiguities and potential constitutional problems (e.g., that Measure E might require a single developer to build improvements beyond its fair share or produce a de facto moratorium).
- Alliance for Responsible Planning filed a facial writ petition challenging Measure E as imposing unconstitutional exactions and conflicting with existing General Plan policy; Sue Taylor intervened and defended the measure, arguing the County could implement it constitutionally (e.g., via reading TC‑Xa 3 in light of TC‑Xf, reimbursement agreements, or delaying approval until others build improvements).
- The trial court granted the petition in part, striking the amendments to TC‑Xa 3 and TC‑Xf and implementation statement eight, concluding the provisions were not reasonably susceptible to a constitutional construction and conflicted with Policy TC‑Xd.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the challenged provisions violate Nollan–Dolan/Koontz principles and that an initiative cannot be sustained by contingent future administrative action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness: whether a facial challenge was premature | Measure E is ripe for facial review because its text produces concrete legal consequences and is not dependent on future factual development | Challenge is premature because the County had not adopted implementing guidelines and staff advised a constitutional interpretation was feasible | Court: challenge ripe; facial review appropriate because constructional issues are sufficiently concrete and delaying causes uncertainty |
| Whether TC‑Xa 3(complete improvements before approval) is an unconstitutional exaction | TC‑Xa 3 either requires a developer to build all programmed improvements or to mitigate cumulative impacts beyond its fair share, violating Nollan–Dolan/Koontz | Measure E governs timing, not payment; read with TC‑Xf it only requires necessary improvements tied to the project and allows other implementation mechanisms (reimbursements, waiting for others) | Court: Unconstitutional. Both reasonable readings demand mitigation beyond a project’s rough proportional share and thus fail Nollan–Dolan/Koontz |
| Whether TC‑Xf (conditioning subdivisions that “worsen” traffic to build improvements) is constitutional | Reading TC‑Xf as the specific rule still forces affected developers to pay for improvements addressing cumulative growth, exceeding rough proportionality | TC‑Xf is a concurrency/timing rule; practical remedies (reimbursement agreements, county contribution, or denial until others build) preserve constitutionality | Court: Unconstitutional as applied; conditioning approval on construction of improvements that benefit others and lack reimbursement violates exaction limits; dependence on hypothetical future county acts cannot salvage it |
| Whether Implementation Statement Eight (Caltrans determines LOS on Hwy 50) conflicts with General Plan | Statement eight improperly delegates County DOT’s judgment on analysis periods and LOS to Caltrans, conflicting with TC‑Xd | Statement eight merely requires the County to use Caltrans data alongside County professional judgment; provisions can be harmonized | Court: Statement eight conflicts with TC‑Xd and was properly invalidated because it vests determinations in Caltrans contrary to County policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (takings/exaction doctrine; rough proportionality requirement)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Com., 483 U.S. 825 (essential nexus requirement for permit conditions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (Nollan–Dolan principles apply to monetary exactions and permit denials)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (ripeness and facial challenge standards)
- Larson v. City & County of San Francisco, 192 Cal.App.4th 1263 (facial‑challenge standard requiring invalidity in the generality or great majority of cases)
- San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 (facial challenge analysis guidance)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (distinguishing permissible land‑use conditions from compensable exactions)
- Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors, 54 Cal.App.4th 565 (initiative constitutionality and limits on relying on future administrative action)
- Citizens for Jobs & the Economy v. County of Orange, 94 Cal.App.4th 1311 (initiative invalid if it depends on future legislative or administrative acts)