Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B of CommunityRedevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, In re

• Citation: 389 P.2d 538,61 Cal.2d 21,37 Cal.Rptr. 74
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 27 February 1964
• Parties: , 389 P.2d 538 In the Matter of the Redevelopment Plan for the BUNKER HILL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT 1B OF the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California, and of Bonds therefor. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry GOLDMAN et al., Defendants and Appellants. (And five consolidated cases.) L. A. 26751.

Page 74

37 Cal.Rptr. 74

61 Cal.2d 21, 389 P.2d 538

In the Matter of the Redevelopment Plan for the BUNKER HILL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT 1B OF the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California, and of Bonds therefor.

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry GOLDMAN et al., Defendants and Appellants. (And five consolidated cases.)

L. A. 26751.

Supreme Court of California.

Feb. 27, 1964.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1964.

Phill Silver, Hollywood, Austin Clapp, Redwood City, Wadsworth, Fraser & McClung, Charles E. McClung, Floyd H. Norris, Los Angeles, Gwyn S. Redwine and Kent H. Redwine, Hollywood, for defendants and appellants.

G. G. Baumen, Los Angeles, amicus curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.

Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Henry O. Deque, bruce Beckman, Eugene B. Jacobs, George J. Roth, Roger Arnegergh, City Atty., James A. Doherty and Bourke Jones, Asst. City Attys., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

Bruce F. Allen, San Jose, Joseph E. Coomes, Jr., and McDonough, Holland, Schwartz, allen & Wahrhaftig, Sacramento, amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.

SCHAUER, Justice.

This appeal is from judgments rendered by the superior Court in a special proceeding brought by The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter called the agency), and in five separate actions which were consolidated for trial with such special proceeding. The agency began its proceeding in December 1959, pursuant to sections 33955 through 33961 of the Health and Safety Code ¹ (States.1959, p. 3868 et seq., ch. 1542), to determine (1) the validity of the redevelopment plan for the Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B (hereinafter called the Bunker Hill project), (2) the agency's authority to issue bonds to finance the project in part, (3) the validity of the bonds to be issued by the agency; and (4) for an injunction pursuant to section 33961 permanently enjoining the institution by any person or organization of any action or proceeding raising any issue adjudicated or which could be adjudicated in the subject proceeding. The plaintiffs in the five separate actions which were consolidated (§ 33958) with the agency's special proceeding (hereinafter sometimes called 'objectors') are property owners within the project area and taxpayers of the City of Los Angeles, and suing as such. The defendants in the five actions are the agency, the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter called the city), and in certain cases the city council of the city and the city treasurer.

The complaints in the five actions are for declaratory relief, for injunction, for writ of mandate or certiorari, or for judicial review pursuant to section 33746. The actions attack the proceedings of the agency, the city, and the council leading up to the adoption and the adoption of the ordinance approving the final redevelopment plan. The plaintiffs in the actions, as respondents in the agency proceeding, filed answers in the proceeding setting up defensively the same matters alleged in their several complaints.

As will appear, we have concluded that the trial court correctly determined that the redevelopment plan should be upheld, and that the judgments to that effect should be affirmed, with the exception of the award of costs against certain objectors.

The chronology of the Bunker Hill Project proceedings is in pertinent part as follows:

April 15, 1948. Pursuant to section 33201 the council adopted a resolution declaring a need for a redevelopment agency in the City of Los Angeles and thereafter the mayor appointed five members of the agency.

September 27, 1951. The council adopted a resolution authorizing the agency or the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (hereinafter called the planning commission) to designate redevelopment areas. (§§ 33480-33481.)

October 31, 1951. The agency adopted a resolution designating 15 areas within the City of Los Angeles as blighted and requiring study to determine if redevelopment projects within such districts were feasible. The property embraced within the subject Bunker Hill project is a portion of Central Redevelopment Area 1. At the time of the designation of Central Redevelopment Area 1 as a redevelopmen area there existed, as required by sections 33451 and 33452, a city planning commission and a master community plan which had been adopted by the planning commission, and which plan included the specifications detailed in section 33452.

August 11, 1955. The planning commission selected the area for the Bunker Hill project and formulated a preliminary plan therefor consisting of a preliminary report and a preliminary plan map. (§ 33500.) The project area is delineated by the following sketch.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

August 15, 1955. The planning commission submitted such preliminary plan to the agency and the agency thereafter, with the cooperation of the planning commission, formulated and prepared a tentative plan which was approved by the planning commission on March 26, 1956. (§ 33502.)

March 21, 1956. Pursuant to sections 33530, 33534, and 33535 (see States.1951, pp. 1934-1935), the agency conducted a pulbic hearing on the tentative plan after publication of notice thereof pursuant to section 33531 and mailing of notice thereof pursuant to section 33533. At the hearing opportunity was given to all interest persons and public and private agencies to be heard and to submit alternative redevelopment plans for the project area.

June 15, 1956. The agency submitted the tentative plan to the council together with the agency's report thereon in accordance with section 33560.

July 10, 1956, through September 6, 1956. Pursuant to sections 33562 through 33567, the council conducted a hearing on the adoption of the tentative plan after fixing the date thereof and causing notice to be published as required by section 33563. At such hearing the council considered the report of the agency and the recommendation and report of the planning commission, considered the alternative redevelopment plan submitted to the council, provided an opportunity for all interested persons and agencies to be heard, received evidence and communications presented with respect to the tentative plan and alternative plan and submitted the alternative plan and suggested modifications of the tentative plan to the agency and to the planning commission for recommendations and reports, which recommendations and reports were submitted to the council within 30 days thereafter.

November 7, 1956. The council adopted Ordinance No. 108,424, approving the tentative plan. The ordinance included the matters enumerated by section 33571, among which were specifications of the 'extent and character of blight.' ²

Thereafter, pursuant to section 33573 the council caused to be filed with the county recorder a description of the land within the project area and a statement that proceedings for redevelopment of the area had been commenced under the Community Redevelopment Law. At all times following adoption of the tentative plan, pursuant to section 33574 all applicants for building permits within the project area have been advised by the building and safety department of the city that such sites were within a proposed redevelopment area.

May 7, 1958. Pursuant to sections 33700 through 33710, the agency, with the cooperation of the planning commission, formulated and adopted a redevelopment plan (hereinafter referred to as the final plan) for the project area. Furthermore, pursuant to section 33701, and prior to the adoption of the final plan, the agency adopted and made available for public inspection rules implementing the provisions for owner participation as provided in the final plan.

May 8, 1958. Obedient to section 33704, the final plan was submitted to the planning commission for its report and recommendation. On May 15, 1958, the planning commission considered and approved the final plan and determined that it conformed to the adopted master community plan and on May 16, 1958, the planning commission made and filed with the agency its report and recommendation that the final plan be approved.

May 21, 1958. The agency submitted the final plan together with the report and recommendation of the planning commission to the council. The council fixed a time and place for public hearing on the proposed adoption of the final plan and caused notice thereof to be published, pursuant to section 33730. (Stats.1957, ch. 1696, p. 3069.)

June 24, 1958, through January 8, 1959. As directed by sections 33730 through 33741, the council conducted a public hearing on the final plan on various dates, at which hearing the council considered the final plan, all alternative plans submitted, and all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the final plan and the alternative plans.

March 31, 1959. The council adopted ordinance No. 113,231 in form and substance as required by law, approving and adopting the final plan as the official redevelopment plan for the project area.

October 6, 1959. The agency adopted its resolution No. 193 authorizing the issurance of bonds of an aggregate face value of not to exceed $20,000,000 the principal and interest of which are to be payable from funds which include taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to sections 33950 through 33954.

May 25, 1959 July 25, 1961. The subject actions and the agency's special proceeding (the latter was filed December 28, 1959) were brought, trial was had, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, and judgments were entered in favor of the agency and (as appropriate) its codefendants. These appeals by most of the losing parties followed.

The judgment in the agency's special proceeding decrees in substance that the agency is lawfully extablished and entitled to transact business and exercise its...