8A Public - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of San Leandro Page 1-1 Parks Development Impact Fee Study May 14, 2025 Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for parks facilities provided by the City of San Leandro. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in the analysis of impact fees for park land, park improvements, and park maintenance vehicles and equipment, as well as park land dedication requirements and in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act. The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), where applicable. Legal Framework for Impact Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice. U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue. The California Supreme Court has held that the heightened scrutiny required by Nollan and Dolan does not apply to development fees that are generally applicable to a broad class of property owners through legislation. However, in April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that even legislatively adopted impact fees are subject to Nollan and Dolan. What that means as a practical matter remains to be determined. The Supreme Court did not decide whether conditions imposed on a class of properties through legislation must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as conditions that target a particular development (in keeping with the individualized determination required by Chapter 1. Introduction