84 Cal.App.5th 394
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- El Dorado County adopted a 2004 General Plan and (in 2006) a legislatively authorized Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) fee program imposing formulaic, zone- and project-type fees to fund road improvements.
- The TIM fee is a two-part, generally applicable development-impact fee (Highway 50 and local road components); rates are set by formula and updated administratively.
- In 2016 Sheetz applied for a building permit for a single-family residence in Zone 6, was charged a $23,420 TIM fee, paid under protest, then sought a refund and challenged the fee.
- Sheetz sued for writ of mandate and declaratory relief alleging the fee violated the Mitigation Fee Act (§ 66000 et seq.) and the federal takings clause under the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional-conditions framework (and related state-law claims).
- The trial court sustained the demurrer to declaratory claims, denied the writ after administrative review, finding the fee is a legislatively prescribed, generally applicable impact fee (so Nollan/Dolan does not apply) and that the administrative record supported the fee under the Mitigation Fee Act; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional-conditions scrutiny applies to the TIM fee | Sheetz: the fee is an exaction that must satisfy Nollan/Dolan (essential nexus and rough proportionality); County failed to make individualized findings | County: fee is a legislatively prescribed, generally applicable impact fee imposed by formula, so Nollan/Dolan does not apply | Nollan/Dolan does not apply to formulaic, legislatively imposed fees; Mitigation Fee Act review is the proper standard |
| Whether § 66001(b) (individualized amount relation) applies, requiring project‑specific impact accounting | Sheetz: County must evaluate traffic impacts attributable to his particular project (§ 66001(b)) | County: fee is a general class fee subject to § 66001(a); no site‑specific showing required for generally applicable fees | § 66001(a) governs quasi-legislative, class-based fees; § 66001(b) applies to adjudicative, individualized decisions — no per‑project individualized accounting required here |
| Whether declaratory relief was a proper remedy for an "as-applied" challenge | Sheetz: declaratory relief may redress the as-applied constitutional/statutory invalidity | County: as-applied challenges to agency application must proceed by administrative mandamus | Declaratory relief improper for as-applied challenges to local agency permit determinations; administrative mandamus is the proper, exclusive remedy |
| Whether the administrative record supports the TIM fee under the Mitigation Fee Act (reasonable relationship) | Sheetz: record lacks evidence tying the fee amount/use to impacts of his development; includes costs for existing deficiencies | County: record (General Plan, DOT reports, trip-generation data, fee methodology) shows a reasonable relationship and rational basis | County met initial evidentiary burden; record supports the fee as reasonably related to class-based impacts — petition for writ denied; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (established "essential nexus" test for land‑use exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (established "rough proportionality" requirement for exactions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (U.S. 2013) (extended Nollan/Dolan to monetary "in lieu" exactions)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (framed land‑use exaction doctrine within takings jurisprudence)
- San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2002) (distinguished ad hoc exactions from legislatively prescribed fees for Nollan/Dolan purposes)
- California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 2015) (confirmed Nollan/Dolan does not apply to legislatively mandated, generally applicable fees)
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1996) (applies heightened scrutiny to ad hoc monetary exactions)
- AMCAL Chico LLC v. Chico Unified School Dist., 57 Cal.App.5th 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (upheld use of district‑level estimations for general development fees; no site‑specific showing required)