should not be imposed for the square footage already in existence at the time of the new
development project, absent a study that reasonably supports that reconstruction of
preexisting square footage increases student population. The District's school impact fee
study did not make this showing. Accordingly, Cresta Bella is entitled to a refund of the
portion of the fees derived from the preexisting square footage in its project. We reverse
the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the
mandate petition and order the refund. Given our holding providing relief under the
mandate petition, we need not reach the constitutional taking and declaratory relief
claims.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
To pay for the construction of school facilities necessitated by student population
increases, school districts are authorized to impose school impact fees for new residential
construction. The fees are subject to statutorily-defined maximum amounts for each
square foot of the new residential construction. (Ed. Code, § 17620, subd. (a); Gov.
Code, § 65995.) There are several alternative statutory formulas for calculating the
maximum fee per square foot (Gov. Code, §§ 65995, 65995.5, 65995.7), which are
commonly known as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 fees. Relevant here, in July 2008 a
2
consulting firm retained by the District prepared a district-wide school facilities needs
analysis (SFNA) in which it calculated that the maximum Level 2 fee for the District was
$3.89 per square foot of new residential construction. Based on the SFNA, in August
2008 the District passed a resolution which adopted a school impact fee of $3.89 per
square foot, and which applied the fee to the entire square footage of a development
project, including preexisting square footage (i.e., existing footage that was demolished
and reconstructed).
Cresta Bella owned an apartment complex consisting of 248 units and 258,169
square feet. It demolished this complex and built a new apartment complex consisting of
368 units and 371,612 square feet. Thus, the new apartment complex had 120 more units
and 113,443 more square feet than the complex being demolished. The District charged
Cresta Bella school impact fees based on the entire square footage of the new apartment
complex (i.e., 371,612 square feet multiplied by $3.89, totaling $1,445,570.60).
In June 2009, Cresta Bella paid the school impact fees under protest. Cresta Bella
argued it should not have to pay fees for the preexisting square footage in the project
because the District did not evaluate whether preexisting footage in new residential
construction impacts school facilities by increasing student population. It claimed the
District had improperly charged fees for the entire square footage of its project, resulting
in $1,004,277.40 in excess fees.1
1 If the preexisting square footage had been excluded, the fees would have been $441,293.27 (113,443 additional square footage multiplied by $3.89) rather than $1,445,570.60. 3
After exhausting its administrative remedies, in May 2010 Cresta Bella filed a
petition for writ of mandate in superior court seeking a refund of the alleged excess fees.
It also pleaded causes of action alleging an unconstitutional taking and requesting
declaratory relief. To refute Cresta Bella's challenge to the imposition of fees for the
preexisting square footage, the District argued there was no improper fee calculation
because in an attached exhibit (Exhibit H) the SFNA considers the impact of preexisting
units in new residential construction.
After considering the parties' evidentiary presentations and arguments, the trial
court, citing Exhibit H of the SFNA, concluded that the District had not imposed an
improper or unconstitutional fee. Accordingly, the court denied the writ petition and
entered judgment in favor of the District on all claims.
DISCUSSION
To review Cresta Bella's challenge to the school impact fees, we first summarize
the statutes and case authority governing school impact fees. We then set forth
information in the SFNA and other matters relevant to the District's imposition of the fees
and the trial court's decision denying Cresta Bella's request for a partial refund.
As we shall detail below, under the statutory scheme and relevant case authority, a
school district that qualifies for a Level 2 fee must set the maximum amount of the fee
based on a rather complex formula that incorporates a variety of statutorily-defined
variables. The Level 2 statutory formula setting the maximum fee does not allow the
school district to recoup the total actual costs estimated for new school facilities
necessitated by the projected increases in student population from new residential
4
development; rather, only a portion of these estimated costs are recoupable under the
Level 2 formula. In addition to calculating the maximum Level 2 fee, the school district
must establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the development activity
and the impact on the school district; i.e., that the type of development activity subjected
to the school impact fees tends to increase the student population and thereby requires
the district to construct new school facilities.
The District's SFNA concludes that the District may properly charge school
impact fees for reconstruction of existing residential units (i.e., preexisting square
footage) because the statutorily-defined maximum Level 2 rate does not allow the District
to recoup the estimated actual costs of constructing new school facilities to accommodate
projected new students from newly-added (nonpreexisting) square footage. However, as
we shall explain, the SFNA does not contain any information showing that reconstruction
of preexisting square footage contributes to an increase in student population in the
District. Accordingly, the District's imposition of fees for the preexisting square footage
in Cresta Bella's project does not pass the required reasonable relationship test.
A. The Statutory Scheme
Legislation authorizing school impact fees was enacted to provide a " 'reasonable
method of financing the expansion and construction of school facilities resulting from
new economic development within the district.' " (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing
Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 227 (Shapell).) To this end, Education Code section
17620, subdivision (a)(1)(B) permits school districts to levy fees against new residential
construction in the district to fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities,
5
subject to the limitations set forth in Government Code section 65995 et seq.2 Under the
relevant Government Code provisions, the school impact fees are based on a particular
monetary amount for each square foot of "assessable space" of residential construction.
(§§ 65995, subd. (b)(1), 65995.5.) Section 65995.5 provides for a Level 2 fee that may
be used when the school district meets certain statutorily-specified criteria that show a
particular need for additional funds for school construction.3 The school district must
also follow specified procedures to adopt the fee, including "[c]onduct and adopt a school
The SFNA is designed "to determine the need for new school facilities for unhoused
pupils that are attributable to projected enrollment growth from the development of new
residential units over the next five years." (§ 65995.6, subd. (a).)4 The projections are
"based on the historical student generation rates of new residential units constructed
during the previous five years that are of a similar type of unit to those anticipated to be
2 Education Code section 17620 states in relevant part: "(a)(1) The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee . . . against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitations set forth in [Government Code] Section 65995 [et seq.] . . . . This fee . . . may be applied to construction only as follows: [¶] . . . [¶] (B) To new residential construction." Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Government Code.
3 The district must satisfy at least two of four criteria related to multitrack year- round scheduling of students; voting results on a school financing local bond measure; school debt obligations for capital outlay; and relocatable classrooms. (§ 65995.5, subd. (b)(3).)
4 "Unhoused pupils" refers to students for whom there are no seats in the existing school facilities.
6
constructed . . . ." (Ibid.) The SFNA must evaluate the funds necessary to meet the
district's facility needs, and include a consideration of such factors as surplus property
owned by the district, excess capacity in existing facilities, and local sources of revenue
other than fees. (§ 65995.6, subd. (b).)
Further, the school district must calculate the maximum Level 2 fee that may be
imposed per square foot of residential construction based on a formula set forth in section
65995.5, subdivision (c). The Level 2 formula involves calculations based on a variety of
statutorily-defined variables, and ultimately provides for a fee that reflects only a portion
of the estimated new facilities costs generated by the projected new unhoused pupils
identified in the SFNA. (§ 65995.5, subds. (c), (h).) After the preparation of the SFNA,
the district must provide a 30-day period for public review and comment, and thereafter
at a public hearing adopt the SFNA and the authorized Level 2 fee for a one-year period.
(§ 65995.6, subds. (c), (f).)
In addition to these specific provisions governing imposition of school impact fees
on new residential development, the Government Code also contains provisions (known
as the Mitigation Fee Act, § 66000.5) which include a general reasonable relationship
standard for imposition of developer fees. This statute provides that when a local agency
imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, it must determine that
there is a reasonable relationship between (1) the need for the public facility for which
the fee will be used, and (2) the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
7
(§ 66001, subd. (a)(3) & (4).)5 As explained in Shapell: "[F]acilities fees are justified
only to the extent that they are limited to the cost of increased services made necessary by
virtue of the development. [Citations.] The Board imposing the fee must therefore show
that a valid method was used for arriving at the fee in question, 'one which established a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.' " (Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235.)
In the context of school impact fees, the reasonable relationship standard can be
satisfied by showing: (1) the projected total amount of new housing expected to be built
within the District; (2) the estimated number of students to be generated by the new
housing; and (3) the estimated cost to provide the necessary school facilities for that
approximate number of students. (Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235; Warmington
Old Town Associates v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 840, 860
(Warmington).) This showing may properly be derived from district-wide estimations
concerning anticipated new residential development and impact on school facilities.
(Garrick Development Company v. Hayward Unified School District (1992) 3
Cal.App.4th 320, 335 (Garrick); Canyon North Co. v. Conejo Valley Unified School
District (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 243, 251; Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 862.)
5 Section 66001 states: "(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall do all of the following: [¶] (1) Identify the purpose of the fee. [¶] (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put . . . . [¶] (3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. [¶] (4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed." 8
The district is not required to evaluate the impact of a particular development project
before imposing fees on a developer; rather, the required nexus is established based on
the justifiable imposition of fees "on a class of development projects rather than
particular ones." (Garrick, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 335.) Further, because the fee
determination process "will necessarily involve predictions regarding population trends
and future building costs, it is not to be expected that the figures will be exact. Nor will
courts concern themselves with the District's methods of marshalling and evaluating
scientific data. [Citations.] Yet the court must be able to assure itself that before
imposing the fee the District engaged in a reasoned analysis designed to establish the
requisite connection between the amount of the fee imposed and the burden created."
(Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235.)
In Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 840, the court recognized that the required
reasonable relationship between school facility needs and fees on new residential
construction does not necessarily exist when a district imposes fees on the demolition and
reconstruction of already-existing units. The Warmington court evaluated the statutory
scheme and concluded that although the statutes did not require a district to exclude
preexisting square footage from the fees for new residential construction, the district
could reasonably include the preexisting footage only if its fee study determined that
9
reconstruction of preexisting square footage contributes to an increase in student
population. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 852-867.)6
Warmington held that under the reasonable relationship standard set forth in
section 66001, school impact fees on preexisting square footage in new residential
construction required an evaluation by the school district as to whether the demolition
and reconstruction of preexisting units in a new development project causes an increase
in student population. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 857-867.) That is,
the school district's methodology for imposing the fees must consider whether
reconstruction of existing units will "generate additional numbers of students over and
above those who occupied the previous homes at the site." (Id. at p. 859, italics added.)
The trial court in Warmington found that fees could be imposed only for the additional
square footage created by the development project, and thus awarded a partial refund to
the developer based on the fees imposed for the preexisting square footage. (Id. at p.
847.) The appellate court in Warmington affirmed the trial court's partial refund order,
6 Warmington's conclusion that the statutory scheme did not mandate exclusion of preexisting footage was based on the fact that in some statutory provisions the Legislature explicitly required a credit for preexisting footage, for example for new commercial or industrial construction (Ed. Code, § 17620, subd. (a)(1)(A)), for remodeling in the same residential structure (Ed. Code, § 17620, subd. (a)(1)(C)(i)), and for reconstruction of structures destroyed in a disaster (Ed. Code, § 17626). In contrast, there is no provision mandating a credit for preexisting footage in new residential construction. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 854, 856.) However, Warmington then applied the reasonable relationship standard generally applicable to developer fees and concluded this required an evaluation of whether reconstruction of preexisting footage increased student population. (Id. at pp. 857-867.) 10
reasoning that the district's school impact fee study did not analyze whether the
replacement of preexisting units would generate new students. (Id. at pp. 859-862, 867.)
B. The District's SFNA
As mandated by the Level 2 statute (§ 65995.6, subd. (a)), the District's SFNA
evaluates the need over the next five years for new school facilities for projected new
students generated by anticipated new residential development (i.e., unhoused students)
in the District. The SFNA estimates that 269 new "[n]on-mitigated" residential units
would be constructed in the District; these new units would total 629,770 square feet; and
they would generate 147 new students.7 An evaluation of the District's existing
resources revealed that the District did not have adequate seats to house all students
generated from existing residential units, and there were no surplus properties or local
funds available to meet the expected school facility needs arising from the estimated new
residential construction.
Using the statutory formula set forth in section 65995.5, subdivision (c), the SFNA
calculates the maximum Level 2 rate at $3.89 per square foot of new residential
construction. To reach this figure, the SFNA divides the statutorily-permitted costs for
new school facilities required for the estimated 147 new students ($2,450,543) by the
total square footage of the projected new residential units (629,770 square feet) in the
7 Nonmitigated units referred to units for which the impact on the District had not already been mitigated. In this regard, the SFNA explains that the construction of an additional 1,652 units was actually anticipated in the District, but the impacts of these units on the District had already been mitigated through "participation in community facilities district[s.]" 11
District. The SFNA explains the $2.4 million school facilities cost used in this formula
was not an estimate of the actual cost of the anticipated new facilities, but rather was
derived from a statutory standard using one-half of site acquisition and development costs
and per-pupil construction grant figures.
In addition to calculating the Level 2 rate, the SFNA also evaluates whether the
$3.89 Level 2 fee complied with the statutory reasonable relationship standard, and
concludes it did. In support of this conclusion, the SFNA compiles the actual costs of
constructing existing schools in the District, and using these figures calculates that the
estimated 147 new students generated by the anticipated new residential housing in the
District would actually result in $9,259,987 in school facility costs, which in turn could
support a fee of $14.70 per square foot of new residential housing (i.e., $9,259,987 school
facility cost divided by 629,770 total square feet of new future units). The SFNA
concludes: "The amount to be included in the [Level 2 fee] is specified by statute. . . .
The estimated average school facilities cost impacts on the School District per square
foot of residential development is $14.70. As the actual school facilities cost impacts per
square foot of residential construction is greater than the [Level 2 fee], it is reasonable for
the School District to determine that the [Level 2 fee] of $3.89 per square foot . . . [is]
roughly proportional and reasonably related to the actual impacts caused by residential
development on the School District."
In an attached exhibit (Exhibit H), the SFNA also considers an estimation that
some of the projected new residential units would arise from "[r]esidential
[r]edevelopment"; i.e., the demolition and replacement of existing units with new units.
12
Based on a review of historical data, the SFNA estimates that 23 of the 269 new units
would be replacement units, which would result in 131 estimated new students (instead of
147 new students). Using the actual cost data from past school construction in the
District, the SFNA then calculates that the estimated actual school facilities costs for the
131 net new students would be $8,307,585, which translates to a fee of $13.19 per square
foot of new residential housing (i.e., $8,307,585 total cost for net new students divided by
629,700 total square footage of all new units, including replacement units). The SFNA
then reasons that because the actual cost impact of $13.19 per square foot is greater than
the maximum Level 2 fee of $3.89 per square foot, the District would be "fully justified"
in levying the Level 2 fee on all new residential units, including on units that replace
existing units.8
After complying with the public review requirements and holding a public hearing
on August 18, 2008, the District passed a resolution adopting the SFNA and "Level 2
8 This portion of the SFNA states: "[T]he total cost impact per square foot . . . is $13.19 which is greater than the Alternative No. 2 Fee of $3.89 per square foot calculated in the Analysis. It should be noted that the actual cost impact produced by students generated from all non-mitigated Future Units, without consideration of those who have been displaced by Residential Redevelopment is $14.70 per square foot. . . . In summary, Residential Redevelopment was considered by reducing the projected number of unhoused student[s] from non-mitigated Future Units by the estimated number of students occupying units projected to be demolished over the next five (5) years. As a result, the number of projected unhoused students was reduced. The cost impact generated from this reduced number of unhoused students was then divided by the total assessable square footage, including that attributable to Residential Redevelopment. Despite reducing impacts by considering existing students living in units to be demolished, the total cost per square foot . . . exceeds the Alternative Fees justified in the Analysis. The School District is, therefore, fully justified in levying the Alternative Fees calculated in the Analysis on all non-mitigated Future Units, including those from Residential Redevelopment which may occur over the next five (5) years." 13
Fees in the amount of $3.89 per square foot of new non-mitigated residential
construction, including square footage realized as a result of demolition and
the District's resolution adopted the SFNA's recommendation that the fees be imposed on
preexisting square footage.
When denying Cresta Bella's request for relief in the ensuing litigation, the trial
court found that in Exhibit H of the SFNA, the District had considered the cost impact of
the preexisting residential units. The court concluded the District's methodology satisfied
the reasonable relationship test required by the statutory scheme and constitutional
principles.
C. Analysis
A school district "has the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to
demonstrate . . . a reasonable relationship between the [school impact] fee charged and
the burden posed by the development." (Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties,
Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 562.) If the district meets this
burden, the developer challenging the fee must "show that the record before the local
agency clearly did not support the underlying determinations regarding the
reasonableness of the relationship between the fee and the development." (Ibid.) When
reviewing the imposition of district-wide school impact fees, we apply the standard
applicable to quasi-legislative acts. (Garrick, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 328.) We
perform the same function as the trial court, and determine whether the school district's
14
action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (Ibid.;
Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 233.)
In the context of school impact fees imposed on new residential development, the
Warmington court recognized that the statutory reasonable relationship standard is
satisfied if there is a connection between the new construction activity and an increase in
student population. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 860.) Furthermore, in
the context of fees on development that includes both newly-added and preexisting
square footage, Warmington held that although the statutory scheme does not mandate a
credit for preexisting footage, the imposition of fees on preexisting footage nevertheless
must pass muster under the reasonable relationship standard. To justify fees on
preexisting footage, Warmington interpreted the reasonable relationship standard to
require a showing that reconstruction of preexisting footage also contributes to an
increase in student population. If the school district does not show this connection
between replacement of preexisting footage and increase in students, the fees may be
imposed only on the newly-added footage that has been shown to increase student
population. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 854-867.)
We agree with Warmington's conclusions on these points. Given that the entire
focus of the school impact fee statutory scheme is to impose development fees for
increases in student population, the reasonable relationship standard properly turns on the
connection between new construction and an increase in student population. (See, e.g.,
§ 65995.6, subd. (a) [SFNA should "determine the need for new school facilities . . .
attributable to projected enrollment growth from the development of new residential
15
units . . . ,"], italics added; Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 857 [underlying
purpose of school impact fee statutory scheme is "to address the impact on the affected
school district of the increase in student population generated by the development"],
italics added.) Further, to justify fees on preexisting square footage, there must be a
correlation between reconstruction of preexisting square footage and an increase in
student population. (Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 859.) Absent a showing
that replacement of preexisting square footage generates new students, there is no
" 'reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.' " (Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235.)
It is apparent from the record of the proceedings before the trial court that Cresta
Bella did not dispute the District's calculation of the Level 2 fee of $3.89 per square foot,
and for the most part did not dispute that the District's imposition of this fee for newly-
added square footage of residential construction satisfied the statutory reasonable
relationship standard. The essential focus of Cresta Bella's challenge was that the District
did not show the imposition of this fee on the preexisting square footage passed the
reasonable relationship test. At times, both before the trial court and now on appeal,
Cresta Bella has made cursory suggestions that the entire school impact fee was
improper. Cresta Bella has not presented any developed argument explaining why fees
on the newly-added square footage were improper, and we reject any such contention.
The District's SFNA supports that the development of additional square footage in
residential construction generates additional students, and Cresta Bella has not refuted
this showing. Accordingly, the District properly collected fees for the newly-added
16
square footage. (See Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 860.)9 Thus, we turn to
the crux of Cresta Bella's challenge, which is the propriety of the fees for the preexisting
square footage.
Consistent with the reasonable relationship test delineated in Shapell, supra, 1
Cal.App.4th at page 235, the District's SFNA shows the projected amount of district-wide
new housing is 629,770 square feet; the estimated number of students generated by this
new housing is 147 students; and the estimated costs to provide school facilities for these
new students is $9,259,987 or $14.70 per square foot of new residential construction.
Further, in Exhibit H the SFNA reflects that under its methodology the demolition and
reconstruction of preexisting units in residential construction projects will not generate
new students. Thus, based on the preexisting units factor, the SFNA reduces the
projected new students to 131 and the estimated school facilities costs to $8,307,585 or
$13.19 per square foot. The SFNA then concludes that the District may reasonably
impose fees on preexisting square footage because under the statutory formula setting the
maximum Level 2 rate at $3.89 per square foot, the District cannot recoup all of its
facilities costs generated by the estimated new residential construction.
The District argues that unlike the circumstances in Warmington, its imposition of
the school impact fee on preexisting square footage satisfied the reasonable relationship
9 Likewise, to the extent Cresta Bella is attempting to raise a challenge to the fees on the newly-added square footage under constitutional taking principles, any such claim was not supported by developed argument either before the trial court or on appeal. Thus, we decline to evaluate any such contention. (See T.P. v. T.W. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1440, fn. 12.) 17
standard because in Exhibit H the SFNA considers the reduced cost impact from
preexisting square footage. We are not persuaded.
As stated, without a showing that reconstruction of preexisting footage increases
student population, there is no reasonable relationship between the school impact fee and
the burden posed by the development activity. Here, the SFNA's analysis contains no
evaluation of the nexus between replacement of preexisting footage and the generation of
new students. To the contrary, Exhibit H of the SFNA recognizes that under the
methodology used in its analysis, replacement of preexisting units do not generate new
students because the units were already in existence prior to the new construction. The
fact that under the statutory formula the District cannot recover all its new facilities costs
created by the increased students arising from the construction of additional residential
units does not show that reconstruction of preexisting units was projected to be a
contributing cause of the need for new school facilities. Rather, the premise of the
SFNA's analysis is that the cause of the District's need for new school facilities is
additional residential units, not preexisting units.
There is no information or analysis in the District's SFNA reflecting that the
District can be expected to incur an increase in student population based on the
demolition and reconstruction of preexisting square footage in the District's residential
units. Under the analysis in Exhibit H, the District's position is that it is reasonable to
charge fees for reconstruction of preexisting square footage (even though it has not been
shown to increase student population) because (due to the statutory formula setting a
maximum fee) the District cannot charge fees to fully recoup the costs generated by
18
newly-added footage. Hence, in the District's view, fees on preexisting footage are
reasonable because a developer is not being charged more than the burden created by
newly-added footage. The problem with this position is that it is the statutory cap, not
the reconstruction of preexisting units, that has burdened the District with uncompensated
costs arising from newly-added units. In short, under the District's study, the
reconstruction of preexisting units is not the cause of the increased financial burden on
the District; rather, newly-added units, combined with the statutory cap, cause this
burden.
There may be circumstances in a particular school district's housing reconstruction
trends that could support a correlation between reconstruction of preexisting residential
units and the generation of new students; however, it is not contained in the SFNA under
consideration in this case. Thus, the District did not carry its burden to produce evidence
showing a reasonable relationship between the need for new school facilities and the
replacement of preexisting square footage. Accordingly, the District's failure to exclude
preexisting square footage from its fees for new residential construction was arbitrary and
unreasonable under the statutory scheme, and Cresta Bella is entitled to a refund for the
fees imposed on the preexisting square footage in its project.
We note that when rejecting Cresta Bella's protest to the imposition of fees on the
preexisting square footage, the District pointed out that the preexisting units had never
been subjected to school impact fees because they were built in 1964, which was before
the enactment of the school impact fee statutes. On appeal, the District suggests that for
this reason Cresta Bella should now pay fees for the preexisting square footage. In
19
Warmington, the court rejected this contention, and we agree with its conclusion.
(Warmington, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 862.) The fact that no fees had been levied
for preexisting units in the past does not show that the units cause an increased need for
school facilities when the units are demolished and reconstructed.
Given our conclusion that Cresta Bella is entitled to a partial refund under the
statutory reasonable relationship standard, we need not reach its constitutional taking
claim nor its request for declaratory relief.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court. The trial
court shall grant the petition for writ of mandate and order a partial refund to Cresta Bella
based on the portion of the fees derived from the preexisting square footage in the
development project. Respondent to pay appellant's costs on appeal.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
20
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. School impact fees cannot be imposed on the square footage of preexisting residential structures unless the school district's fee study demonstrates that the reconstruction of such footage increases the student population. Because the District's study failed to establish this nexus, the developer is entitled to a refund of fees collected on the preexisting square footage.
Issues
Whether a school district may impose school impact fees on the entire square footage of a residential development project, including preexisting square footage.
Whether the District's school facilities needs analysis (SFNA) established a reasonable relationship between the reconstruction of preexisting square footage and an increase in student population.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the fees should not be imposed for the square footage already in existence at the time of the new development project, absent a study that reasonably supports that reconstruction of preexisting square footage increases student population.”
“the District's imposition of fees for the preexisting square footage in Cresta Bella's project does not pass the required reasonable relationship test.”
“Cresta Bella is entitled to a refund of the portion of the fees derived from the preexisting square footage in its project.”