Exactions, Impact Fees, Service Charges and Property Taxes

Save the date and check back to reserve your spot for our virtual conference taking place January 21-25, 2021.

From January 21 to 25, 2021 Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. will present its 20st annual educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential

By William Abbott and Jessica Melms

Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (July 9, 2020) 2020 Cal.App.LEXIS 634.

In 2010, residents of Redondo Beach passed an initiative allowing the City to establish a public-private partnership for development of the Redondo Beach King Harbor Pier waterfront area. The initiative (“Measure G”) sought to

By William Abbott and Jessica Melms

North Murrieta Community LLC v. City of Murrieta, 2020 Cal.App.LEXIS 496 (Cal.App.4th Dist. June 8, 2020).

Developers acquire protection from changing land use laws through vesting tentative maps or development agreements. In many situations, a development project may include vesting maps and a development agreement, and occasionally, these vesting

Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 290.

In 2014, the City of Alameda adopted updated Development Impact Fees pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (“MFA”), including fees for park acquisition and improvement.  A property owner/developer (“Boatworks”) timely filed a facial challenge to the park fee and the trial court

1901 First Street Owner, LLC v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1186

The methodology for imposing local impact fees is largely left to the discretion of the local agency adopting the impact fees. (AB 1600; Gov. Code §66000, et seq.; the “Mitigation Fee Act”.) As long as there is a reasonable basis for

Building Industry Association  – Bay Area v. City of Oakland, 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18822 (Case No., 15-cv-03392, Feb. 5, 2018)

Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use exactions and permit conditions are governed by the two-part test in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512

 By William W. Abbott

Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Mgt. Agency (October 14, 2013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___. 

The long saga of the groundwater augmentation strategy for Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County has reached its next, and possibly final stopping point. The underlying saga is a telltale forecast of what lies ahead for California, with the inevitable conflicts generated by resource allocation and management. In Griffith, the specific conflict stems from the intersection of groundwater management strategies designed in part to better manage water resources and to reduce saltwater intrusion with the citizen rights created by Proposition 218.

Continue Reading Court Affirms Groundwater Augmentation Charge Exempt From Proposition 218 As A Water Service Charge

By William W. Abbott

As developers pursue infill or re-use opportunities, a predictable question regarding impact fees will arise: To what extent is the developer entitled to a credit for the existing uses onsite which ultimately are displaced by a new project? At least in the case of school facilities, we know from the recent decision in Cresta Bella, LP v. Poway Unified School District (July 31, 2013, D060789) ___ Cal.App.4th ___,that the burden is on the agency to justify the fee, and in the absence of sufficient justification, that the developer may be entitled to a fee refund. 

Continue Reading School District Failed to Document Justification For Applying Full School Fees to Demolition of and Development of a Multi-family Project

By Glen C. Hansen

For nearly twenty years, Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use exactions and permit conditions have been governed by the dual Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). In Nollan, the Court held that a government could, without paying the compensation, demand the easement as a condition for granting a development permit the government was entitled to deny, provided that the exaction would substantially advance the same government interest that would furnish a valid ground for denial of the permit. The Court further refined that requirement in Dolan, holding that an adjudicative exaction requiring dedication of private property must also be “‘roughly proportional’ . . . both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” However, Nollan and Dolan involved the dedication of real property interests. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4918 (2013), the Court held in a 5-4 decision that “the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money.” 

Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court’s Nollan/Dolan Jurisprudence Is Catching Up With The California Supreme Court in Ehrlich v. Culver City

By William W. Abbott

In California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (June 6, 2013, H038563) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the City of San Jose adopted an inclusionary ordinance, requiring that new residential projects include units affordable to specified income ranges. Alternatively, the ordinance permitted the developer to pay an in lieu fee or dedicate land. The California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) filed suit, challenging the validity of the ordinance on its face on the basis that the ordinance lacked any nexus to the deleterious effects of new residential development. CBIA did not allege that a compensable takings had occurred, but rather argued that the City lacked sufficient justification for the ordinance. The trial court agreed with CBIA and invalidated the ordinance. The City appealed.

Continue Reading Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Invalidation Of Local Inclusionary Ordinance; Remanded For Further Review