A California Court of Appeal recently considered a developer’s request that a city provide it a “private open space credit” against park and recreation fees under § 66477(e) of the Subdivision Map Act. The Court concluded the developer was not entitled to the credit because the city had not adopted an ordinance allowing for such a credit. (Branciforte Heights, LLC, v. City of Santa Cruz (2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4712, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3271, Cal.App. 6 Dist., Apr. 19, 2006)).
Facts
The Santa Cruz City Council (“City”) approved a planned development for Branciforte Heights, LLC (“Developer”). Pursuant to City’s conditions for approval of the planned development, Developer dedicated usable open space for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Developer then asked City to give it a “private open space credit” against park and recreation fees assessed against it. The Santa Cruz Municipal Code does not provide for private open space credit, and City denied Developer’s request. Developer paid the applicable fees and then sued, requesting the trial court to direct the City to issue a credit; the trial court ordered City to allow a private open space credit. City appealed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal first addressed the procedural question of which statute of limitations to apply – the statute of limitations under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66499.37) or the statute of limitations under the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66020)? The Court held as follows: “[W]here a party properly avails itself of the fee protest procedures of § 66020 to challenge allegedly excessive fees imposed upon a development project (see § 66020, 66021), the limitations period is the one established by § 66020. Contrariwise, where a party does not comply with the fee protest procedures of § 66020 to challenge [§ 66477] ordinance fees imposed as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map . . . , a traditional mandate action must be brought within the time specified by § 66499.37, the statute of limitations generally applicable to subdivision decisions.” The Court concluded Developer’s lawsuit was timely under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Relying on Government Code § 66477(e) (known as the Quimby Act and which is part of the Subdivision Map Act), Developer claimed that it was entitled to a private open space credit against fees imposed for park and recreation purposes. Section 66477(e) recognizes a credit for private open space, providing as follows: “Common interest developments . . . shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, . . . for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses.” The Court of Appeal rejected Developer’s argument, concluding that the phrase “as determined by the legislative body” shows that the California Legislature intended to allow local legislative bodies flexibility in deciding whether to implement a private open space credit. Because City has not adopted legislation providing for such a credit, it has no clear duty to provide Developer with a credit. Therefore, the trial court erred when it issued a writ of mandate compelling City to give Developer a private open space credit.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.