CP&DR

San Clemente Must Return Unused Parking Impact Fees, Fourth District Rules

by William Fulton on Sep 21, 2015

Development impact fees, Orange County, Vol. 30 No. 9 September 2015

The City of San Clemente must refund $10 million in beach parking impact fees accumulated over a 20-year period because it did not build parking facilities with the money nor make the necessary findings under the Mitigation Fee Act to retain the money for more than five years, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.

San Clemente imposed the "Beach Parking Impact Fee" of $1,500 per unit in 1989 because it concluded that new residential development in inland area of the city would increase the demand for parking near the beach. The city collected $10 million in the next 20 years but expended only $350,000 to purchase one parcel of property. >>read more

Flawed Engineering Report Dooms Prop. 218 Assessment

Aug 10, 2011

Calaveras County, Development impact fees, Legal Digest, Legislation, Prop. 218, Vol. 26, No. 14 July 15, 2011, William W. Abbott

Assessments for services traditionally funded by property tax have faced an uphill battle after the passage of Proposition 218, the 1996 voter initiative that requires the local governments and special districts to seek voter approval for any proposed new or increased assessment before it could be levied. That hill has gotten steeper in the wake of a recent decision.

Exemptions May Limit Local Impacts of Prop. 26

Dec 7, 2010

Bill Fulton, California, Development impact fees, Insight, Legislation, Proposition 26, Vol. 25 No. 23 Dec 1 2010

When voters emerge from the ballot box in California, you never know what the consequences are going to be.

Impact Fees Need Not Be Earmarked

Jun 23, 2010

Development impact fees, Kings County, Legal Digest, Vol. 25 No. 12 June 18-30 2010, William W. Abbott

In upholding the City of Lemoore's development impact fees for a wide range of municipal facilities, an appellate court has rejected a homebuilders association argument that such fees must be based on a specific list of public facilities.

In Brief: Beaumont Removed From Regional Transportation Program

Oct 22, 2009

CP&DR Staff, Development impact fees, In Brief, Riverside County, Vol. 24 No. 14 Oct 2009 - 2

In this roundup of the news: The Western Riverside Council of Governments has removed the City of Beaumont from a regional transportation program because, the council says in a lawsuit, Beaumont has spent impact fees that were intended for the program; Santa Barbara County has finally adopted a plan for the Santa Ynez Valley; dam removal on the Klamath River comes closer to reality.

Air District Fee On New Development Upheld

Oct 21, 2009

Development impact fees, Legal Digest, Paul Shigley, Vol. 24 No. 14 Oct 2009 - 2

An air pollution fee levied on new development in the San Joaquin Valley has been upheld by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In rejecting all arguments presented by the California Building Industry Association and its allies, the court concluded that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District fee is not bound by restrictions in the Mitigation Fee Act and is a properly adopted regulatory fee.

Cities Cut, Delay Development Fees

May 21, 2009

California, Development impact fees, Featured Articles, Paul Shigley, Vol. 24 No. 06 Jun 2009

The recession and slack development activity have caused about 10 cites and counties to reduce their development impact fees, while more jurisdictions have delayed collecting fees until new buildings are ready to occupy. Some interest groups regard the fee deferrals as helpful in generating local activity. But whether fee reductions are similarly stimulative is debatable.

Coastal Commission In-Lieu Fee Upheld

Jul 15, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Development impact fees, Legal Digest, Monterey County, Vol. 23 No. 08 Aug 2008

An unusual Coastal Commission mitigation fee to offset the impact of a private seawall has been upheld by the Sixth District Court of Appeal, which rejected arguments that the fee was unconstitutional, was prohibited by the Coastal Act and was the result of post hoc rationalization.

Air Pollution Fee On Development Upheld

Mar 21, 2008

California, CP&DR Staff, Development impact fees, Featured Articles, Vol. 23 No. 04 Apr 2008

An air pollution fee on new development in the San Joaquin Valley has been upheld by a Fresno County Superior Court. Judge Donald Black rejected numerous arguments against the fee in a lawsuit filed by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the Modesto Chamber of Commerce, Valley Taxpayers Association and affordable housing developer Coalition of Urban Renewal Excellence.

Supreme Court Permits Validation Suit

Jan 1, 2006

CP&DR Staff, Development impact fees, Legal Digest, San Bernardino County, Vol. 21 No. 01 Jan 2006

The state Supreme Court has rejected most claims of a development company fighting building permit fees in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. However, the court did decide that the builder, Barratt American, could contest the validity of a city fee ordinance adopted in 2002 — a reversal of a lower court ruling.