Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - S.4 MAY -jam 1"7-- 90 MON 9 t 14 SUP TOM TORLAKSON t' P . 03 j LAW OFFICESOF ���j R JEFFREY D. HUFFAKER �EFFREY D. Hiam FFAK`R Ttlt/MON[ ATTORNEY AT LAW (416) 767.0771 CHERYL L. HAMMERS 811 WEST THIRD STREET LtGM. ASSIDTANT ANTIOCH.CALIFORNIA 94809 RecitIVEr April 18, 1990 � " 2 19 Tom Torlakson, Supervisor District Five 300 East Leland Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 RE: Fees on New Developers Dear Tom: This is a follow up to our discussion held in your office last week, wherein I advised you that the California Court of Appeal had recently ruled in a case ijupholding a City ordinance requiring new developers to pay a fee to defray the cost of additional public facilities 4nd capital improvements. The case is. Building Industry Association ;of Southern California v. The City of Oxnard, Cal. App. ;d, No. B037716, March 23, 1990. The text of this case appears in the Daily Appellate Report on page 3316. I do {not have an official citation for the case as of this date. In this case, the City of Oxnard passed an ordinance requiring that developers pay a "growth requirements capital :teeF1 at the time that they apply for building permits. Thejcity passed this ordinance in response to the need forj additional public facilities and capital improvements ,created by increased residential and commercial development. The fees were placed by the City into a "capital outlaylfund11 which they used for the cost of-capital-i-mprovements. `, The Building Industry Association . of Southern California challenged this ordinance contendingthat it was facially void, and that contending that thelfee was an unconstitutional taking. They further contended that it was an illegal tax, and was pre-empted by-the Subdivision Map Act. The Trial Court upheld the ordinance based upon a finding that the fee had a reasonable relationship to the need for public improvements created by new development and further held that the fee did not violate the California Constitution. The California Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the Trial Court's decision, MAY - 21 - 90 M O N S : 1 5 S U P T O M T O R L A K S O N P . 04 upholding the ordinance. The Court of Appeal held there was a reasonable nexus between the fees charged and the need created by new development. Had the ordinance constituted a "buy-in" plan wherein newcomers were required to buy-in to existing facilities, the Court would have probably struck the ordinance down. Instead, the Court found that the fee would be used to support new or expanded public facilities to meet the need created by new development. As we discussed in youroffice; `would 'contend that the same principals should be applicable to any public facilities or capital improvements needed by a community, in particular, the capital improvements required to develop and put in place new parks needed by new subdivisions. The current park dedication fee of $1,350.00 only meets the land acquisition need, and does not .provide any monies whatsoever to provide for developed park land. Similarly, the park dedication fee of $1,350.00 only meets land acquisition requirements for neighborhood parks only, and does not meet the need for community parks under the parks master plan requirements. It is our calculation that in order to not only acquire the land for park development but to develop that . land so that it is useable, will require a fee of approximately $2,500.00 per dwelling. This fee would be somewhat more were we to include the cost of acquisition and development of the trail system. I would be interested in your County Counsells comments L on the applicability of. SIA v. Oxnard to this question. Thank you for your continuing support and cooperation. re uffaker airman OMAC Parks and ecreation Subcommittee JDH:ch .cc: Members of Parks Subcommittee