Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

Good Law
2005 Cal. LEXIS 14240·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14715·37 Cal. 4th 685·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149·124 P.3d 719
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2005No. S117590California7,102 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chin, J.

*691 Opinion

The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000-66025) 1 (the Act) was passed by the Legislature “ ‘in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects.’ ” (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 864 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 , 911 P.2d 429 ].) Although most of the Act is concerned with development fees, it also addresses fees or charges that do not necessarily relate to a development project. (Utility Cost Management v. Indian Wells Valley Water Dist. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 , 36 P.3d 2 ] (Utility Cost Management).) The various sections of the Act cover fees for development projects (§§ 66000-66011), water or sewer connections (§ 66013), and zoning and building permits (§ 66014). This case involves legal challenges to building inspection and permit fees and appropriate remedies when excessive fees are imposed.

Section 66014, subdivision (a), provides that local agency fees for building inspections and permits may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged unless the excess amounts are submitted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.