The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a more expansive legal standard for exactions. But on remand, a California appellate court has found that the "averaging" system used in El Dorado County meets the narrower legal tests from the Nollan and Dolan cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court's exactions ruling left a lot of things up in the air. Most important: Does California's typical "fair share" methodology for general plan-level exactions meet the court's "rough proportionality" rule?
U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously that California's unique exactions rule is unconstitutional. But will it really require California cities and counties to scale back on exactions?
They could simply box in California cities on nexus and proportionality. Or, led by Thomas and Alito, they could throw the bomb and say development is a right and not a privilege
By taking a development fee case from El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court may have the chance to narrow current limitations on exactions -- or get rid of them altogether.
Court also concludes the requirement calling for all roads to be built before any private development is constructed runs afoul of the Nollan/Dolan doctrine.