57 Cal.App.5th 122
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Education Code §17620 allows school districts to levy fees on new residential construction; Government Code §66001 requires a reasonable relationship (nexus) between the fee’s use/need and the type of development.
- Chico Unified commissioned Koppel & Gruber to prepare a districtwide fee study projecting ~2,894 new units, ~709 new students, and a facilities impact of $4.22/sq ft; the District adopted the study and imposed the statutory maximum fee of $3.48/sq ft.
- AMCAL developed a 173‑unit, adults‑only student housing project (college students), argued it would generate no K–12 students and sought exemption; the District treated it as general multi‑family residential.
- AMCAL paid $537,576.50 under protest and sued seeking a refund, alleging (1) noncompliance with §66001 (no nexus), (2) invalid special tax, and (3) a taking.
- Trial court found the District’s districtwide fee study satisfied §66001 and rejected the special‑tax and takings claims; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District complied with Gov. Code §66001 (nexus) when imposing fee on AMCAL’s student housing | AMCAL: project is a distinct class (adults‑only student housing) that generates zero K–12 students; District should have analyzed project‑specific student generation | District: §66001 allows districtwide/quasi‑legislative findings for a class/type of development (residential); no individualized project analysis required | Court: Fee study analyzing new residential development satisfied §66001; no project‑specific analysis required; fee upheld |
| Whether the fee is an invalid special tax | AMCAL: fee exceeds the cost attributable to this project and thus is a tax requiring stricter authorization | District: fees are authorized and based on a reasonable cost‑based study; fees not a tax if reasonably related to facility costs | Court: Fee did not constitute an invalid special tax; reasonably related to costs and within statutory framework |
| Whether imposition of the fee was an uncompensated taking | AMCAL: no nexus → taking without just compensation | District: fee meets Mitigation Fee Act requirements and is not a taking when reasonably related to impacts | Court: No taking; fee complied with Mitigation Fee Act and Ehrlich precedent |
| Whether adults‑only/student‑targeted housing is a separate "type" requiring special treatment | AMCAL: adults‑only characteristic is a distinguishing type that was not considered and needs project‑specific analysis | District: adults‑only is project‑specific, not a statutory "type"; the fee applies to residential class generally | Court: Adults‑only designation is project‑specific and does not defeat a districtwide residential fee study; no separate treatment required |
Key Cases Cited
- Cresta Bella, LP v. Poway Unified School Dist., 218 Cal. App. 4th 438 (fee studies may rely on districtwide estimations to show nexus)
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Bd., 1 Cal. App. 4th 218 (development fees are valid when reasonably related to cost of facilities)
- Garrick Dev. Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., 3 Cal. App. 4th 320 (distinguishes quasi‑legislative districtwide findings from project‑specific adjudicatory determinations)
- Warmington Old Town Assocs. v. Tustin Unified School Dist., 101 Cal. App. 4th 840 (redevelopment cases require analysis when preexisting square footage is charged)
- Tanimura & Antle Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Salinas Union High School Dist., 34 Cal. App. 5th 775 (districtwide fee studies satisfy §66001; project‑specific adult‑only housing does not negate a general residential nexus)
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal. 4th 854 (fees that are reasonably related to development impacts do not constitute a taking)