35 Cal. App. 5th 290
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In 2014 Alameda adopted Ordinance No. 3098 updating development impact fees; the challenged component is the parks and recreation fee based on a Willdan nexus study covering needs through 2040.
- The nexus study used an "existing inventory" methodology, calculated a 2.4 acres per 1,000 residents standard, and concluded 19.82 acres of improved parkland would be required for projected growth, estimating ~$39 million total cost and proposed per-unit fees (~$11,528 single-family; $9,149 multifamily attributable to parks).
- Much of the land for future parks is already owned by the City (largely conveyed from the Navy at no cost); the City intended to use fees primarily to improve existing assets rather than purchase land.
- Boatworks sued, arguing the nexus study/ordinance violated the Mitigation Fee Act by (1) including land-acquisition costs City did not need to incur, (2) counting two parks not yet open in the existing inventory, and (3) misclassifying several open-space areas as parkland.
- The trial court found the fee invalid on all three grounds and ordered excision/vacatur of the parks fee; both sides appealed and the court of appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and adjusted the remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fee improperly includes cost to purchase parkland the City already owns | Boatworks: fee improperly bases large share on land acquisition costs City won’t incur | City: methodology may account for asset values regardless of whether fee proceeds buy new land | Held: Invalid to base fee on land-acquisition costs City does not intend to incur; fee lacked reasonable relationship to burden |
| Whether parks not yet open may be included in existing-inventory baseline | Boatworks: including unopened Jean Sweeney and Estuary Parks inflated baseline and fees | City: reasonable to include them because planned to be part of inventory soon and will be improved with fee revenue | Held: Inclusion of those unopened parks in existing inventory was unreasonable; cannot count a park as "existing" then use fees to build it |
| Whether certain sites classified as parks (vs. open space) was improper | Boatworks: City previously classified Shoreline, model airplane field, boat ramps as open space; reclassification inflated fees | City: nexus study reasonably treated those sites as developed parkland based on improvements | Held: Court reversed trial court on this point — record supported City's treatment as parkland (not arbitrary/capricious) |
| Proper remedy for invalid fee components and attorney fees award | Boatworks: requested vacatur/excision and sought fees under CCP §1021.5 | City: trial court lacked power to order legislative rescission; challenged fee award | Held: Court held remedy should be declaration the parks-fee portion is invalid/unenforceable (not command City to rescind); affirmed substantial attorney-fee award under CCP §1021.5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (1996) (Mitigation Fee Act purpose and standards)
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Bd., 1 Cal.App.4th 218 (1991) (fees must bear reasonable relationship to development burden)
- City of Lemoore v. Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, 185 Cal.App.4th 554 (2010) (approved standard-based method; limits where existing facilities already adequate)
- Bixel Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 216 Cal.App.3d 1208 (1989) (fees cannot be used to cure preexisting deficiencies without nexus)
- Rohn v. City of Visalia, 214 Cal.App.3d 1463 (1989) (invalid exactions lacking nexus to new development)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (administrative change requires reasoned explanation; cited for agency-change principles)