30 Cal. App. 5th 545
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Campbell Union School District (CUSD) adopted a 2012 Level 1 developer fee resolution based on a Jack Schreder & Associates "Level 1 Developer Fee Study," imposing $2.24/sq ft (district share) on new residential construction.
- The fee study calculated per-student costs using hypothetical construction of two new schools (600-student elementary and 1,000-student middle) and statewide loading/yield factors, producing a $6.21/sq ft figure (exceeding statutory max) and supporting the $3.20 cap; CUSD received 70% ($2.24).
- The study projected total enrollment growth but provided only a single vague paragraph on new residential development: "in excess of 133 residential units" over five years; only the City of Campbell supplied quantified development data.
- SummerHill Winchester, LLC paid fees for a 110‑unit project under protest and sued for refund and declaratory relief, arguing the fee lacked the required nexus and quantification (students from development, facilities needed, and cost).
- The trial court found the fee study deficient under the three-factor Shapell test (failed to project total new housing, estimate students from that housing, and link students to specific facilities/costs) and ordered refund of SummerHill's fees; CUSD appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the fee study did not supply the necessary quantified data or a reasonable methodology connecting development to required facilities and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee study met the Shapell three-factor test (project total new housing; estimate students from new housing; estimate facility costs) | Fee study failed to quantify total new housing and students and used hypothetical schools, so fee lacks nexus and is excessive | Because district is at/over capacity, every new student imposes a cost; hypothetical school-cost methodology is a reasonable alternative | Held for plaintiff: study failed Shapell factors; hypothetical new‑school cost basis without quantified development/students is insufficient |
| Whether an alternative reasonable methodology could justify the fee despite Shapell failures | Must use Shapell factors or some other quantified method; mere assertion of financial impact is unquantified | District claimed alternative methodology valid given overcapacity and per‑student cost uniformity | Held for plaintiff: claimed alternative lacked quantification tying fee to facilities actually needed |
| Whether the fee could be recalculated (remand) rather than ordered refunded | Recalculation could correct defects | District requested opportunity to revise study and resolution | Held for plaintiff: recalculation impossible because the original study lacked the necessary underlying data (no quantified development/student/facility basis) |
| Admissibility/weight of post-hoc declarations offered by district | Declarations did not supply missing data and were extra-record; trial court properly disregarded them | Declarations showed background/context and supported district's capacity and costing assertions | Held for plaintiff: extra-record declarations immaterial because they did not supply the essential missing quantified data |
Key Cases Cited
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Bd., 1 Cal.App.4th 218 (test requiring projection of new housing, students from housing, and cost of needed facilities)
- Garrick Dev. Co. v. Hayward Unified Sch. Dist., 3 Cal.App.4th 320 (fee study sufficient where it projected large, quantified new development and corresponding school needs)
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559 (extra‑record evidence generally inadmissible in challenges to quasi‑legislative decisions)
- Outfitter Properties, LLC v. Wildlife Conservation Bd., 207 Cal.App.4th 237 (extra‑record evidence may be admissible for background but cannot contradict the administrative record)