This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
On this case, plaintiff George Sheetz challenged the $23,420 visitors impression mitigation charge (“TIM charge”) imposed by the defendant El Dorado County as a situation of issuing him a constructing allow for the development of a single-family residence on his property in Placerville. Sheetz appealed from the judgment entered after the trial court docket sustained the County’s demurrer with out go away to amend and denied his verified petition for writ of mandate. On attraction, Sheetz contended for reversal was required as a result of the TIM charge was invalid below each the Mitigation Charge Act and the taking clause of the US structure.
The court docket first discovered that the trial court docket correctly decided that the TIM charge was not topic to the heightened scrutiny of the Nollan/Dolan take a look at. The court docket discovered that the topic charge was not an “advert hoc exaction” imposed on a property proprietor on a person and discretionary foundation, however was a improvement impression charge imposed pursuant to a legislatively licensed charge program that was typically utilized to all new improvement tasks inside the County. The file mirrored that this charge was calculated utilizing a method that thought-about varied elements. As such, the validity of the charge and this system that licensed it was solely topic to the differential “affordable relationship” take a look at embodied within the Mitigation Charge Act.
On attraction, Sheetz argued the trial court docket erred in concluding that he might solely state a cognizable declare below subdivision (a) of part 66001, slightly than below each subdivision (a) and (b) of the statute. Particularly, Sheetz claimed that the County was required to guage the precise visitors impacts attributable to his explicit undertaking earlier than imposing the charge. The court docket famous that there have been two ways in which an area company might fulfill the Mitigation Charge Act’s “affordable relationship” requirement for the imposition of improvement charges; subdivision (a) utilized to quasi-legislative selections to impose improvement impression charges on a category of improvement tasks; and subdivision (b) utilized to adjudicatory, case-by-case selections to impose a improvement impression charge on a selected improvement undertaking. The court docket discovered that for a common charge utilized to all new residential developments, a site-specific exhibiting was not required. The court docket discovered as an alternative that this exhibiting could possibly be derived from district broad estimates regarding new residential improvement and impression on college amenities. Due to this, the court docket held that the trial court docket correctly decided that part 66001, subdivision (b) didn’t apply to Sheetz’s improvement undertaking.
Sheetz subsequent argued the trial court docket erred in figuring out that his fourth and fifth causes of the motion failed as a matter of regulation as a result of the only real treatment for “as utilized” challenges to native company motion was administrative mandamus, slightly than declaratory reduction. The court docket famous that it was properly established {that a} declaratory reduction reason for motion is an applicable methodology for difficult a statute, regulation, or ordinance as facially unconstitutional or in any other case invalid, however that the executive mandamus is “the correct and sole treatment” to problem an area company’s software of the regulation.
Right here, the file mirrored that the County thought-about the related elements and demonstrated a rational connection between these elements and the charge imposed. The restricted parts of the file relied upon by Sheetz didn’t show that the charge was arbitrary, completely missing in evidentiary help, or in any other case invalid. The court docket due to this fact held that Sheetz failed to indicate that the file earlier than the County clearly didn’t help the County’s determinations relating to the reasonableness of the connection between the charge and its improvement undertaking. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Sheetz v County of El Dorado, 2022 WL 10993726 (CA App. 10/19/2022)
