County of LOS ANGELES v. GLENDORA REDev. PROJECT
| Decision Date | 29 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. H032945.,H032945. |
| Citation | 185 Cal.App.4th 817,111 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLENDORA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Allison E. Burns, Jennifer Yu, Newport Beach, Horvitz & Levy LLP, David S. Ettinger, Jeremy B. Rosen, Encino, for Appellants.
of Kathryn Reimann, Kathryn Reimann, Monterey, for Respondent.
This appeal concerns the validity of the appellants' redevelopment plan, adopted by ordinance in July 2006. The trial court invalidated the ordinance, concluding that the necessary findings of blight were not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Having independently reviewed the record, we reach the same conclusion. We shall therefore affirm.
The appellants are the City of Glendora, the City Council of the City of Glendora, and the Glendora Redevelopment Agency (collectively, Glendora). The respondent here is the County of Los Angeles (the County).
This case involves the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). (Health & Saf.Code, § 33000 et seq.) 1
“The California Redevelopment Act was enacted in 1945 to address problems of urban blight.” ( Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1131, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 ( Evans ).) “Redevelopment agencies are authorized to combat blight using three extraordinary powers-the diversion of property taxes that otherwise would have gone to the state or other government entities; the use of public funds to subsidize private enterprise; and the power of eminent domain.” ( Neilson v. City of California City (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 633, 642, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 ( Neilson ).)
[1] “A finding that a project area is blighted is the absolute prerequisite for redevelopment.” ( Evans, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, citing Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. v. City of National City (1976) 18 Cal.3d 270, 277, 133 Cal.Rptr. 859, 555 P.2d 1099.) “ The physical and economic conditions demonstrating the existence of blight are set forth in sections 33030 and 33031.” ( County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616, 624, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 606 ( Riverside ).) “In summary, an area is blighted, and hence eligible for redevelopment, if it is predominantly urban and if it is adversely affected by economic and physical conditions too serious to be cured by private or governmental enterprise, thus necessitating redevelopment.” ( Id. at pp. 624-625, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 606.)
[2] “This required finding of blight is subject to judicial review in a validation action [citation], and if there is insufficient evidence that the area is indeed blighted, the court must issue a judgment invalidating the redevelopment plan.” ( Boelts v. City of Lake Forest (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 116, 120, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 164 ( Boelts ).)
Over the years, Glendora has adopted redevelopment plans for five project areas; four are at issue here. Project Area 1 was established in 1974, followed by Project Areas 2 and 3 in 1976. Project Area 4, which was established in 1982, “is no longer operational” and is not at issue in this case. Project Area 5 was created in 2006, by adoption of the ordinance challenged here.
In July 2006, Glendora adopted Ordinance No. 1845, which approved the “Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Glendora Redevelopment Project,” called the “Merged Redevelopment Plan” for short. The Merged Redevelopment Plan (1) amended the redevelopment plans for existing Project Areas 1, 2, and 3; (2) created a new Project Area 5; and (3) merged Project Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5 “for financing purposes” under the Community Redevelopment Law and “to extend the period during which the power of eminent domain is available to” Glendora's redevelopment agency.
Ordinance No. 1845 incorporates findings that blight exists in Project Area 5 and remains in Project Areas 1, 2, and 3. It also includes this finding: “The elimination of the remaining blight and the continuation of the redevelopment of the Merged Project Area would not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency.”
In September 2006, the County filed this reverse validation action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (§ 33501, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.; see McLeod v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1166, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 109.) The complaint challenged “the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Glendora Redevelopment Project adopted by Ordinance No. 1845, on July 18, 2006.”
In its complaint, the County alleged violations of the Community Redevelopment Law. The County also asserted the lack of sufficient evidence for the blight findings made by Glendora in adopting Ordinance No. 1845. The County sought a declaration that the ordinance was invalid.
In October 2006, Glendora answered the complaint, denying the County's substantive allegations and interposing twenty affirmative defenses.
B. Change of Venue
In December 2006, venue was transferred to Monterey County.
C. Record; Briefs; Hearing
In June 2007, the administrative record was certified and lodged with the court. Thereafter, by stipulation, three supplemental volumes of administrative record were lodged. As supplemented, the entire administrative record was received in evidence.
Pursuant to a stipulated schedule, the County submitted an opening trial brief, Glendora filed opposition, and the County replied. In December 2007, the court conducted a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under submission.
D. Decision; Judgment
[3] In February 2008, the trial court filed a 62-page statement of decision. In its statement of decision, the court first addressed the issue of tax increment caps on the existing project areas. 2 The court considered the County's arguments, advanced as questions of law, that Glendora could not (1) amend the tax increment limits for its first two redevelopment projects or (2) merge and combine the separate tax increment caps of its first three projects into a single limit. The court rejected both contentions.
The court next considered the sufficiency of Glendora's blight showing. The court exhaustively discussed the evidence of blight, first in Project Area 3, then in Project Area 5, and then in the Merged Project Area, which includes Project Areas 1 and 2. After extensive discussion, the court ultimately determined that “Glendora's findings of blight are not supported by substantial evidence” in the administrative record. Furthermore, the court concluded, given the absence of blight, “Glendora is without eminent domain authority in this instance.”
Based on its determination that the administrative record contains insufficient evidence of blight, the court invalidated Ordinance No. 1845.
In April 2008, judgment was entered. Consistent with the court's statement of decision, the judgment declares Ordinance No. 1845 “null, void ab initio, and invalid in all respects.”
In May 2008, Glendora brought this appeal. The County did not cross-appeal. The record consists of 29 volumes of appellant's appendix, comprising nearly 6,800 pages.
In its opening brief, Glendora defends its approval of the redevelopment plan as legal and proper. More specifically, Glendora argues, substantial evidence supports the creation of Project Area 5 and the amendments to Project Areas 1, 2, and 3, as well as the reestablishment of the power of eminent domain.
In its respondent's brief, the County disputes Glendora's arguments. Further, pressing its own claims of error, the County asserts that the trial court erred in recognizing Glendora's authority to amend and merge the tax increment caps for its earlier redevelopment projects.
In its reply brief, Glendora discusses several points. First, Glendora reasserts that its redevelopment plan is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. As part of that discussion, Glendora cites the post-judgment enactment of section 33333.13, which includes a legislative finding that the redevelopment plan for Project Area 3 “contains an unrealistically low dollar limit on the receipt of tax increment” that “severely restricts” Glendora's ability “to address conditions of blight which remain within its Project Area No. 3.” (§ 33333.13, subd. (a).) Additionally, Glendora's reply brief also addresses the County's assertions of error concerning the tax increment caps.
In addition to their appellate briefs, the parties submitted a number of other documents in this court, most of them relating to section 33333.13. The County asks this court to take judicial notice of 10 documents reflecting the legislative history of that section. 3 The County also requests permission to file supplemental briefing on the validity of section 33333.13, attaching a proposed brief. Glendora opposes that briefing on the merits, supported by its own request for judicial notice of four documents. 4
We requested and received further briefing on questions germane to the scope of this appeal. 5
At the threshold, we discuss the scope of our review. As we explain, (I) the County's claims of error are not cognizable, and (II) section 33333.13 has no application here.
[4] “As a general matter, ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cmty. Youth Athletic Ctr. v. City of Nat'l City
...actions in the time frame in which they were conducted, in this case, 2007. (See County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 817, 832, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 (Glendora ) .) We do not speculate what action the City may take in the future to pursue any eminent ......
-
In re Morganti, A132610.
...who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citations.]” ( County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 817, 828, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 104.) Recognizing the statutory exception to this rule (Code Civ. Proc., § 906), which permits a r......
-
In re Morganti, A132610.
...from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citations.]” ( County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 817, 828, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 104.) Recognizing the statutory exception to this rule (Code Civ. Proc., § 906), which permits a respondent to “ ‘asser......
- People v. BENNER