Transcription of EHRLICH v. CITY OF CULVER CITY - ImpactFees.com
{{id}} {{{paragraph}}}
Example: air traffic controller
EHRLICH v. CITY OF CULVER CITY - ImpactFees.com
EHRLICH v. city OF CULVER CITYRICHARD K. EHRLICH , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. city OF CULVER city et al., Defendants and Appellants. 12 854 No. S033642. Supreme Court of California Mar 5, A developer planned to build a multi-unit residential condominium on his property, on which he had previously operated a private tennis club and recreational facility. The city found that there was a shortage of recreational facilities in the city and required the developer to pay a mitigation fee of $280,000 as a condition for approval of his project. The city also imposed a $33,200 "art in public places" fee in lieu of placing art on the development site. Upon the developer's petition for a writ of mandate, the trial court invalidated the $280,000 recreation fee, finding that there was no reasonable relationship between the developer's project and the need for public recreational facilities, but the trial court upheld the art fee.
EHRLICH v. CITY OF CULVER CITY RICHARD K. EHRLICH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CULVER CITY et al., Defendants and Appellants. 12 Cal.4th 854 No. S033642. Supreme Court of California Mar 5, 1996. SUMMARY A developer planned to build a multi-unit residential condominium on his property, on which he had
Tags:
Information
Domain:
Source:
Link to this page:
Please notify us if you found a problem with this document: