Action Apt. Assoc. v. City of Santa Monica, B201176
In plaintiff's challenge to Ordinance No. 2191, which modified existing requirements on multi-family housing construction, judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's facial Constitutional claims are without merit; 2) the two pronged Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to plaintiff's facial challenge to the Ordinance; and 3) there is no merit to plaintiff's argument the Ordinance required state approval.
- Decided 08/28/2008
- Published 08/28/2008
- California Court of Appeal
- For Appellant:
- Rosario Perry, Santa Monica, James S. Burling, Sacramento, Graham Owen, and Damien M. Schiff, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
- For Appellees:
- Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney (Santa Monica), Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney, and Alan Seltzer, Chief Deputy City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents.