BLUE v. LOS ANGELES
Filed 3/1/06; pub. order 3/24/06 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ROBERT B. BLUE et al., as Trustees, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B180319 consolidated w/B182624 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC299195) |
APPEALS from a judgment and a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Andria K. Richey, Judge. Judgment affirmed; postjudgment order reversed in part and affirmed in part.
C. Robert Ferguson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman, Barbara Blinderman and Dennis A. Winston for Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area Committee as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Susan D. Pfann, Curt Holguin; Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Murray O. Kane, June Ailin, Susan Y. Apy and Deborah L. Rhoads for Defendants and Respondents City of Los Angeles, City Council of the City of Los Angeles, The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.
Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, Patricia L. Glaser and Clare Bronowski for Defendant and Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District.
Grant T. Burton, Senior Deputy General Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
_________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants Robert B. Blue, Betty L. Blue individually and dba Ketro Company and as trustees for the Blue Family Trust (collectively, Blue or the Blues) and John Walsh (Walsh) (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal a judgment in a validation action in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles (City), City Council of the City of Los Angeles (City Council) (sometimes collectively referred to as the City) and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA) (collectively referred to as respondents). The judgment validates an amendment (hereafter, the first amendment) to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project.[1]
Plaintiffs also appeal a postjudgment order denying their motion to strike or tax costs.[2]
The essential issues presented are whether the City and the CRA duly approved and adopted the first amendment to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and whether respondents' findings of blight are supported by substantial evidence.
We conclude there was no procedural defect in the adoption of the first amendment and that substantial evidence supports the finding the project area remains blighted. The validation judgment is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Earlier proceedings.
On May 7, 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 161202, by which it adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (project area) pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.)[3] The Redevelopment Plan, inter alia, allowed the CRA a 12-year period to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire real property in the project area for the public purpose of redevelopment and the elimination of blight.
David Morgan (Morgan) and others filed a validation action challenging the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.[4] In 1989, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the City and the CRA, finding that the Redevelopment Plan was valid. The judgment was affirmed by Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 243 (Morgan).
In its discussion of blight, Morgan, which we set forth as part of the factual background, includes this description of the project area: â€
