Kelber v. City of Upland
| Citation | 155 Cal.App.2d 631,318 P.2d 561 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1957 |
| Parties | Mike KELBER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. The CITY OF UPLAND, California, a municipal corporation, Eugene G. Nisbett, E. Tweed Stone, Donald C. Carr, Abner B. Haldeman, Robert A. Thrall and Elwin Alder, Defendants and Appellants. B. F. HUNGERFORD, J. T. Harris, and J. Shewell, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The CITY OF UPLAND, California, a municipal corporation, Eugene G. Nisbett, E. Tweed Stone, Donald C. Carr, Abner B. Haldeman, Robert A. Thrall and Elwin Alder, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 5578, 5579. |
Henry M. Busch, City Atty., Upland, for appellants.
Kelber & Kelber, Ontario, for respondents.
These are actions to recover a refund of certain subdivision fees required of the plaintiffs by the defendant city as a condition for its approval of final subdivision maps. The defendant city is a city of the sixth class and the other defendants are the city manager and members of the city council. The actions, consolidated at the trial and on appeal, involve similar facts and identical principles of law.
These appeals involve the validity of two amendments to the city's Subdivision Control Ordinance. One of these, adopted in May. 1952, provides as follows:
'That at the time of the approval of the final map of any subdivision or record of survey there shall be paid to the City of Upland, as a fee for such approval, the sum of Thirty and no/100 dollars ($30.00) per lot for each lot in said subdivision or record of survey. Said fee shall be placed in a fund with the City Treasurer of the City of Upland to be known and designated as
The other, adopted in January, 1954, after requiring drainage structures both inside and outside the subdivision 'necessary to the proper use and public safety', further provides 'In lieu of the construction of drainage structures outside the subdivision or record of survey the subdivider shall pay into a fund to be designated 'Subdivision Drainage Fund', the following fees for acreage contained within the subdivision'. It then fixes a fee of $99.07 per acre for such residence property as is here involved.
The facts are undisputed. Briefly stated, the material facts in the first of these cases are as follows. The plaintiff owned about 15 acres within this city in an area zoned for residential development. In October, 1954, the plaintiff started proceedings to subdivide this land and in due course filed with the city an application for approval of the subdivision map. As a condition precedent to the granting of this application, and the approval of said map, the defendants required the plaintiff to pay as a fee for such approval the sum of $1,440 for the 'Park and School Site Fund' mentioned in the first of these articles, and the further sum of $1,500 for the 'Subdivision Drainage Fund' mentioned in the other ordinance. These demands were made pursuant to the provisions of these two ordinances, and the defendants refused to approve said subdivision map or permit the plaintiff to subdivide his property until and unless he first paid said sums for the purposes indicated in the ordinances. By reason of the requirements and demands thus made the plaintiff paid to the City of Upland a total sum of $2,940. These sums were paid by the plaintiff involuntarily and under protest, and under compulsion in the sense that they were paid in order that he might obtain the necessary approval of the subdivision map. The plaintiff complied with and fulfilled all conditions precedent to the granting of the application and the approval of said subdivision map as required by law or regulation. After the payment of the said $2,940 as contributions to these two funds the plaintiff's application was granted and his subdivision map was approved. Thereafter, the plaintiff subdivided his land and improved the same pursuant to all requirements for improvement and design as made by the defendants and under the law, and each and all of these improvements and design were approved by the defendants and accepted by the city. These improvement included provisions for local traffic and surface drainage of water upon and from said land and subdivision, and the city accepted all dedications of public streets, alleys and easements provided for by said plans and map. Thereafter, the plaintiff made written demand for repayment and refund to him of the $2,940 thus paid, which demand was refused by the city. The plaintiff is the owner of other land in the City of Upland which he intends to subdivide and improve in the future, and the defendants intend to require him to make contributions to the two funds as provided for in these ordinances as a condition precedent to the granting of any application for approval of subdivision maps with respect to any other land owned by the plaintiff in said city.
The court found the facts above stated, among other things, and as conclusions of law found that the provisions of these two ordinances which require the payment of such sums as contributions to the 'Park and School Site Fund' or the 'Subdivision Drainage Fund' of said city, as a condition precedent for the approval of a subdivision map, are void and of no force and effect; that the provisions of these ordinances are in conflict with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of this state; that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the city in the sum of $2,940; and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree enjoining the defendants from attempting to enforce these provisions as a condition of its approving any application for subdivision maps of the property owned by the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly in each of these actions and the defendants have appealed from each of said judgments.
The appellants contend that the Subdivision Map Act (Secs. 11500 et seq. of the Bus. and Prof.Code) does not fully occupy the field of subdivision control; that such a city has the authority to adopt and enforce reasonable requirements which are not specifically set forth in the Map Act as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision map; and that such a city has authority to require the payment of fees in lieu of a dedication or an improvement as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision map, where the dedication or improvement required, or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, is reasonably related to the character of local and neighborhood planning. It is argued that the purpose of the city in requiring such contributions to funds established for the general benefit of the city, and to meet its growing needs, is in line with the modern tendency to extend the earlier concept of the police power as confined to matters of public peace, safety, morals and health so as to include the broader field of general welfare; that the ordinances here in question bear a reasonable relation to the problem sought to be solved by the requirement made; that if a city may require dedication and improvement in some cases it logically follows that it may require contributions in lieu of such dedication or improvement; that it would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co.
...194, 202, 24 Cal.Rptr. 905; City of Buena Park v. Boyar (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 61, 67, 8 Cal.Rptr. 674; Kelber v. City of Upland (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 631, 638, 318 P.2d 561; and Hoover v. County of Kern (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 139, 142, 257 P.2d A similar contention made in opposition to a mu......
-
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek
...181, 65 Cal. Rptr. 37; Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, supra, 275 A.C.A. 464, 79 Cal.Rptr. 782.) In Kelber v. City of Upland, supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 631, 318 P.2d 561, the city attempted to require payment of $1,440 for a Park and School Site Fund, and $1,500 for a subdivision drainage fun......
-
Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Const. Co.
...case before us argues that the correct law is that of cases such as Haugen v. Gleason, 226 Or. 99, 359 P.2d 108; Kelber v. City of Upland, 155 Cal.App.2d 631, 318 P.2d 561; and Rosen v. Village of Downers Grove, 19 Ill.2d 448, 167 L.E.2d 230, where subdividers of land were required to pay s......
-
The Pines v. City of Santa Monica
...a broader local charge on subdivision approval is invalid because it interferes with the statutory scheme. (Kelber v. City of Upland (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 631, 636-638, 318 P.2d 561; see also, Benny v. County of Alameda (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011, 164 Cal.Rptr. 776; Santa Clara County......