Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board
Decision Date | 22 November 1991 |
Docket Number | No. H006752,H006752 |
Citation | 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818,1 Cal.App.4th 218 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 70 Ed. Law Rep. 1148 SHAPELL INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. |
Joseph P. DiCiuccio, Harvey Levine, John T. Schreiber and Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen, for defendant and appellant.
Schools Legal Defense Ass'n, Karen M. Steentofte, for amici curiae on behalf of appellant.
Steven M. Bernard, Elise M. Balgley and Bernard & Wood, for plaintiff and respondent.
In 1987, the governing board of the Milpitas Unified School District passed two resolutions which authorized the levy of a "school facilities fee" of $1.50 per square foot on new residential development and $0.25 per square foot on new commercial and industrial development throughout the District. Developers were required to pay fees in those amounts to the District as a condition of obtaining a building permit. Shapell Industries, Inc., a developer, tendered payment under protest and brought suit against the District seeking invalidation of both resolutions and a refund of its money. The trial court issued a writ of mandate granting the requested relief and the District appeals from the judgment.
We will affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm that portion of the judgment ordering a refund of all commercial and industrial fees collected pursuant to Resolution 87.12, finding that the District acted without any reasonable basis for imposing those fees. We reverse the judgment, however, insofar as it ordered a refund of all residential fees collected pursuant to Resolution 87.12. As to those fees we direct that the court instead order a partial refund to Shapell Industries, Inc., in compliance with Government Code section 66020, subdivision (e) (hereafter section 66020(e)), and in accordance with the views we express herein. Finally, we reverse the trial court's judgment invalidating Resolution 88.7, which imposed fees on commercial and industrial property only. We find that resolution to be valid and we therefore direct that the trial court enter judgment in favor of the District as to Resolution 88.7.
In the early 1970s, in the wake of increased resistance throughout California to rising property taxes, local governments found themselves faced with the task of devising new methods to finance construction of school facilities. A wave of residential development, causing serious overcrowding in local schools, contributed to the problem. (See, generally, Builders Assn. of Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Counties v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 225, 227-230, 118 Cal.Rptr. 158, 529 P.2d 582 (Builders Assn.); Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 881-885, 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876 (Candid Enterprises ).)
In an effort to keep pace with the continuing influx of new students, local governments began the practice of imposing fees on developers to cover the costs of new school facilities made necessary by the new housing. Such "school-impact fees" were generally considered to be a valid exercise of the police power under the California Constitution (Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7), so long as the local entity could demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee imposed and the need for increased facilities created by the development. (Builders Assn., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 232, fn. 6, 118 Cal.Rptr. 158, 529 P.2d 582; Candid Enterprises, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 885, 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876.)
In 1977, with the passage of Senate Bill 201 (The School Facilities Act, effective January 1, 1978), the Legislature specifically authorized cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring residential developers to pay fees to finance temporary school facilities necessitated by new development. In the preamble to the Act, the Legislature set forth its findings that "residential developments may require the expansion of existing public schools or the construction of new school facilities" and that "funds for the construction of new classroom facilities are not available when new development occurs, resulting in the overcrowding of existing schools." Therefore, "new and improved methods of financing for interim school facilities necessitated by new development are needed in California." (Gov.Code, § 65970.)
The School Facilities Act, as originally enacted, proved to be a stop-gap measure. (Candid Enterprises, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 882, 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876.) In 1986 it was substantially revised and expanded with the passage of a comprehensive multi-bill package, addressing an identified $3.8 billion need for new permanent school facilities to meet the demands of an expanding population. The heart of this legislation, Assembly Bill 2926, consolidated the legal authority for assessment of developer fees for school facilities into a single body of law. It authorized the governing boards of the school districts themselves, rather than city councils or county boards of supervisors, to impose school-impact fees districtwide, subject to certain monetary limitations. (Gov.Code, § 53080, subd. (a), added by Stats. 1986, ch. 887, amended by ch. 888.) 1 No building permit would be issued for any development project within the District until the fees had been paid. (Gov.Code, § 53080, subd. (b).)
The limitations are set forth in Government Code section 65995, which specifies a maximum fee assessment level of $1.50 per square foot for residential construction and $0.25 per square foot for commercial or industrial construction, and provides for annual adjustments for inflation. (Gov.Code, § 65995, subds. (a) and (b)(3).)
Assembly Bill 2926 was intended to provide the exclusive method of raising local financing for permanent school facilities. 2 Funds raised pursuant to sections 53080 and 65995 would provide a "local match" for state funding from various sources. (Ed.Code, § 17705.5, added by Stats. 1986, ch. 887, p. 3076.)
The concerns expressed by the Legislature in 1977 were reiterated in its published findings in 1986. It found that "substantial development" in many areas of the state had resulted in "serious overcrowding in school facilities," that "the lack of availability of the public revenues needed to construct school facilities is a serious problem, undermining both the education of the state's children and the continued economic prosperity of California," and that a "school facilities finance program" was necessary "to ensure the availability of school facilities to serve the population growth generated by new development." Finally, the Legislature found that "the levying of appropriate fees by school district governing boards at the rates authorized by this act is a reasonable method of financing the expansion and construction of school facilities resulting from new economic development within the district." (Stats.1986, ch. 887, § 7(e), p. 3080.)
In anticipation of the passage of Assembly Bill 2926, which was to become effective January 1, 1987, school districts statewide, including the Milpitas Unified School District ("the District,") began accumulating data to evaluate local needs. On January 13, 1987, the governing board of the District (the Board) adopted Resolution No. 87.12. The resolution provided that no building permit could be issued within the District unless the builder first obtained a certificate of compliance from the District, evidencing payment of development fees in the amount of $1.50 per square foot in the case of residential development and $0.25 per square foot in the case of commercial or industrial development. 3
Resolution 87.12 contained certain findings which the Board stated were based upon evidence and testimony presented at a public hearing. It found that conditions of overcrowding existed in district schools due to new development, and that proposed development was anticipated to increase enrollment beyond the capacity of the District's facilities. And it found that fees in the maximum amounts allowable by state law were "reasonably related to the need for schools caused by the development."
At the time of this enactment, the Board had before it a staff report prepared by Robert Nicolai, its Director of Business and Administrative Services, entitled "Supporting Rationale for Developer Fee Implementation." That report in turn relied upon data obtained from three identified sources: 1) enrollment projection figures compiled by a consultant hired by the District, Morgan Woollett and Associates, 2) a report from the Milpitas City Planning Department regarding housing increases and general plan amendments, and 3) information from individual developers relating to their housing development schedules.
Nicolai's "Supporting Rationale" projected that by the year 2000, enrollment in the District would reach a total of 12,211 students, an increase of 4,410 students from the 1986 total of 7,801. He estimated total costs to accommodate the increased enrollment at $17,482,200. Based on the number of housing units expected to be built within the District to reach a building saturation point, Nicolai figured that approximately 7,135,500 square feet of new housing would be available to be assessed. That amount of square footage would have to be assessed $2.45 per square foot in order to finance the needed facilities. Since that exceeded the statutory maximum of $1.50 per square foot, Nicolai concluded that the maximum amount could be imposed. Furthermore, since there would be a substantial shortfall between the amount which could be collected on residential property and the total amount needed, he concluded the District was also justified in imposing the maximum $0.25 per square foot fee on commercial and industrial development. No separate study was available at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manderson-Saleh v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 654, 981 P.2d 499 ; Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 233, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ["[i]n a mandamus proceeding the ultimate question, whether the agency's action was arbitrary or ca......
-
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
...income housing fee on commercial development according to legislated formula]; Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board of the Milpitas Unified School District (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 [school fees of $1.50 per square foot].) Courts have granted considerable discretion......
-
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court
...Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 278-279, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, 878 P.2d 566; Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 231, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818; Wilson v. Hidden Valley Mun. Water Dist. (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 271, 279, 63 Cal.Rptr. 889.) However, r......
-
Kucharczyk v. Regents of University of California
...The question of whether an agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious is a question of law. Shapell Indus., Inc. v. Governing Board, 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 233, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 818 (1991). Therefore, the Court must determine as a matter of law whether the University's decision to enter into t......
-
Case List
...Seiler v. Charter Township of Northville , 53 F. Supp. 2d 957 (E.D. Mich. 1999) Shapell Indus., Inc. v. Milipitas Unified Sch. Dist. , 1 Cal. App. 4th 218, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818 (1991) Simonsen v. Town of Derry , 145 N.H. 382, 765 A.2d 1033 (2000) Smith v. City of Clearwater , 383 So. 2d 681 ......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2019
...Code § 66001(a).149. Summerhill Winchester LLC, 30 Cal. App. 5th at 550.150. Id. at 551.151. Shapell Indus., Inc. v. Governing Bd., 1 Cal. App. 4th 218, 235 (1991).152. Id.153. Id.154. Summerhill Winchester LLC, 30 Cal. App. 5th at 554 (quoting Garrick Dev. Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dis......
-
Chapter 194, AB 2751 – The Mitigation Fee Act authorizes a local agency to charge a variety of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions in connection with the approval of a development project, as defined.
...(1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208; Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463; and Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218. It is further the intent of the Legislature in adding subdivision (g) to Section 66001 of the Government Code to reiterate the requiremen......