Culver City Loses Suit on Fee for Tennis Court : Courts: A judge rules the city can’t force the owner of a private sports club to replace municipal facilities that would be lost if he builds condominiums.

A judge has ruled that Culver City cannot require the owner of a private sports club to pay for replacement tennis courts if he wants to demolish his club and erect condominiums.

The former Westside Sports Club was always private property, and owner Richard K. Ehrlich was always free to go out of business, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Zebrowski ruled late last week.

As a condition of allowing him to proceed with his plan to erect condominiums at the site, the city assessed Ehrlich $280,000 to be used to build replacement recreation facilities. But the judge ruled that the assessment amounted to a discriminatory tax and a taking of private property.

The judge also said the city had the option of condemning the plot and paying the property owner for his land.

Ehrlich had no duty to provide tennis courts to the city, and the city’s fee was “simply an effort to shift the cost of providing a public benefit to one no more responsible for the need than any other taxpayer,” Zebrowski ruled.

Ehrlich proposed the 30-townhouse project when he closed the club in 1988, after what he said was nearly 15 years of barely breaking even. The site, at 4901 Overland Ave., was zoned by the city for use as a sports club.

The City Council rejected the townhouse plan because of concerns over the loss of the tennis courts and other facilities, but also determined that the city could not afford to buy the club.

The developer sued the city in July, 1989. Possible settlements, such as Ehrlich’s building four tennis courts on city land, fell through. The City Council reconsidered and approved the condominiums with the $280,000 fee, which the city estimated was the cost of building four tennis courts.

Ehrlich’s attorney, Fred Gaines, hailed the ruling as an “important decision because these kinds of fees are more and more common.”

“As city governments feel strapped for funds, they have looked to places where they could raise funds without raising the general taxation. One group of people who’s currently unpopular . . . is developers,” Gaines said.

“No one’s arguing the city doesn’t need more parks or recreation facilities--but everyone has to pay.”

The judge also found that the $280,000 was unreasonable given that state law already requires developers to contribute land or pay fees for neighborhood parks. In Ehrlich’s case, the fee would be $30,000.

The city, represented by City Atty. Eleanor Egan, argued that it “had the constitutional authority to prevent Ehrlich from going out of business” and that the fee was “for replacing a facility that we had and were not going to have anymore.”

But she said the case is “not likely to be repeated” because its circumstances are “very peculiar.” The recreational-use zoning on the lot, for example, was “unusual and highly restricted,” she said.

The City Council on Monday began talking about whether to appeal the ruling and plans to hold another closed-session discussion next month, Egan said.

As part of his suit, Ehrlich has sought $1 million in damages because of delays he contends were caused by the city, and a separate hearing on the claim will be held within a few months, Gaines said. Meanwhile, construction of the townhouses is under way, with completion scheduled early next year.

The judge also upheld the city’s public arts fee of $30,000 on Ehrlich’s project. Under the city’s 2-year-old program, developers must install artwork on their property that is open to the public or they must pay 1% of their construction costs to a city arts fund. Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles have similar requirements.