Russ Building Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LOW, P. J.
We hold that the San Francisco Transit Impact Development Fee Ordinance is valid.
*
In this consolidated appeal, plaintiff Russ Building Partnership 1 (hereafter Russ Building plaintiff), and plaintiffs Pacific Gateway Associates Joint Venture (Pacific), Crocker National Bank (CNB), and Crocker Properties, Inc. (hereafter collectively Crocker plaintiffs), appeal from a judgment upholding the validity of San Francisco’s Transit Impact Development Fee Ordinance (the Ordinance). They contend that the trial court erred (1) in *1503treating the Ordinance as a development fee and (2) in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- City and County of San Francisco v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Warner Construction Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS ETC. v. City of Walnut CreekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- City of Dublin v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.