Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Citation: 231 Cal.App.3d 243,284 Cal.Rptr. 745
• Decision Date: 16 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. B042936,B042936
• Parties: David MORGAN, Norton Halper, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants/Respondents. Susan B. NELSON, President of Save Hollywood Our Town, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants/Respondents.

Page 745

284 Cal.Rptr. 745 231 Cal.App.3d 243 David MORGAN, Norton Halper, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Susan B. NELSON, President of Save Hollywood Our Town, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants/Respondents. No. B042936. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. May 16, 1991.
Review Denied Aug. 22, 1991.

[231 Cal.App.3d 247] David Morgan, Los Angeles, in pro. per.

James K. Hahn, City Atty., Patricia V. Tubert, Susan D. Pfann, and Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, R. Bruce Tepper, Jr., and Kathryn Reimann, Los Angeles, for respondents.

Gronemeier & Barker, Elbie J. Hickambottom, Jr., and Dale L. Gronemeier, Pasadena, for appellants/plaintiffs, Susan Nelson, Karen Hale Wookey, Katherine Armour and Jamie Riehl, officers of Save Hollywood Our Town ("SHOT").

Gronemeier & Barker, Dale L. Gronemeier and Elbie J. Hickambottom, Jr., Pasadena, for appellant/plaintiff, Norton Halper.

INTRODUCTION

[231 Cal.App.3d 248] KALIN, Associate Justice. ^*

The Hollywood Redevelopment Project (the Project) was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council on May 7, 1986, and signed by the mayor on May 9, 1986. It establishes a project area of approximately 1,100 acres in that part of the city known as Hollywood. The primary goals of the Project are the elimination of blight and revitalization of the area. The Project would divert tax increment funds to the community redevelopment agency (CRA) during its lifetime of 30 years.

The area encompassed is an older portion of Hollywood generally bounded by LaBrea Avenue on the west; Franklin Avenue, the Hollywood Freeway and Hollywood Boulevard on the north; Serrano Avenue on the east; and Fountain Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard on the south.

Included in the area are residential, commercial and industrial development constituting 796 net acres (exclusive of streets, freeways and other right of way) which are subdivided into 2,908 separate parcels of land with 2,033 separate owners.

The CRA commenced setting up a project area committee (PAC) in 1983. Elections to the PAC were conducted on December 13, 1983, and joint public hearings on the Project were held on April 16, 1986. The proceedings leading up to the adoption of the redevelopment plan (the Plan) was a process of Plan review which required two and one-half years, resulted in one hundred twenty community meetings, three days of public hearings and review by the city planning commission and the Los Angeles City Council. The PAC approved the adoption of the Plan. The Los Angeles City Council adopted the Plan by a two-thirds majority vote.

Plaintiff/appellant Norton Halper filed a validation action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County which was consolidated with a similar action filed by parties identified as SHOT (Save Hollywood Our Town). Judgment was entered in favor of defendants/respondents the CRA and the City of Los Angeles on April 20, 1989, and a timely notice of appeal was filed.

231 Cal.App.3d 249

ISSUES

Appellants have raised the following issues on appeal.

1. The PAC did not meet the statutory requirements of self formation and representativeness.

2. The project area residents, and property owners, due process rights were violated by inadequate notice of the PAC formation and the joint public hearing.

3. The CRA and the Los Angeles City Council were erroneous in their determination that the project area is blighted and that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

4. Appellants were improperly denied discovery by the trial court.

5. The trial court applied the improper standard of review in granting judgment upholding the validity of the Project as approved and adopted by the Los Angeles City Council.

6. The trial court's finding that there was no credible evidence of appellants' allegations of fraud by the CRA and the City of Los Angeles in the formation and adoption of the Plan.

7. The redevelopment is not consistent with the City of Los Angeles General Plan.

8. The trial court erred in awarding costs to respondents and against appellants Susan B. Nelson, Karen Hale Wookey, Janice Riehl and Katherine Armour.

DISCUSSION

The PAC Was Self-formed as Required by Law and Was Representative Within the Meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 33385.

The Legislature has made provisions for the formation of a project area committee in section 33385 of the California Health and Safety Code.

"The legislative body of a city or county shall call upon the residents and existing community organizations in a redevelopment project area, within which a substantial number of low- and moderate-income families are to be [231 Cal.App.3d 250] displaced by the redevelopment project, to form a project area committee. The project area committee shall include, when applicable, residential owner occupants, residential tenants, businessmen, and members of existing organizations within the project area. The members of the committee shall serve without compensation.

"The legislative body shall approve a representative project area committee in each project area within 60 days after the project area is selected."

The trial court made the following findings regarding the formation of the PAC which are consistent with the record and supported by substantial evidence. The city adopted a resolution calling for the formation of a PAC to include property owners, residential tenants, business owners, and existing community organizations. Four community organizations were to be appointed to the PAC by the council office; the remaining twenty-one members were to be elected by the community within the proposed project area.

The CRA sent two separate mailings of a notice of formation of the project area committee to the property owners of record in the proposed area and in addition distributed approximately twenty-five thousand circulars throughout the project area on two occasions in August and November of 1983. Notices were published in community newspapers by the agency and other publicity was generated by newspaper articles.

Six community meetings were held from June to November 1983 at which redevelopment and the formation of the PAC was discussed. An election was held in the Hollywood High School Auditorium on December 13, 1983, to form the PAC. Over 250 community members attended, a secret ballot was conducted. Nominations were accepted by a procedure prior to the meeting and from the floor, all nominees were given an opportunity to speak. The trial court found that the election of the PAC members was reasonably and regularly conducted.

The election resulted in a PAC consisting of four residential property owners, four residential tenants, six business owners or tenants, three industrial or manufacturing property owners or operators, and four community organizations. Four additional community organizations were appointed to the PAC by the city council office. Within 60 days of the selection of the project area, the city council approved as representative the PAC.

Health and Safety Code section 33385 as in effect in 1983 did not specify the method of the selection of the PAC members nor does the law provide for or require selection by the process of an election, appointment of [231 Cal.App.3d 251] members is not precluded. The legislative body has broad discretion in the formation of the PAC. The PAC as formed had 21 elected members and 4 appointed members.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that the PAC was self-formed and representative of the project area. The methods used in the formation of the PAC were consistent with Health and Safety Code section 33385 and independently reasonable.

There was no credible evidence that the PAC was unduly influenced or dominated by any group or agency in either its formation or functioning. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33386 the redevelopment agency is to consult with and obtain the advice of the PAC. This was accomplished and the PAC approved the adoption of the Plan which was then adopted by the Los Angeles City Council by a two-thirds majority.

The Agency Complied With the Law in Providing Adequate Notice of the PAC Formation and the Joint Public Hearing.

Health and Safety Code section 33385 as it existed in 1983 did not describe the nature of notice to be given to residents of the project area and community organizations, "The legislative body of a city or county shall call upon the residents and existing community organizations," regarding the formation of the PAC. As will be subsequently discussed, no statute specifies the manner of notice of the joint public hearing on the Plan. In the absence of statutory provision the notice should be such as to reasonably give notice to those within the project area.

During the formation of the PAC the Agency made two mailings to the property owners in the project area, on two occasions distributed approximately twenty-five thousand flyers, published notice three times in newspapers and conducted six pre-PAC formation community meetings. There is a lack of credible evidence that any other form of notice would have been more effective or that any persons were denied participation in the PAC formation.

The joint public hearing is a public hearing concerning the enactment of the Plan. Notice of the hearing is provided for in Health and Safety Code section 33349: "The agency shall publish notice of the hearing not less than once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the community, or if there is none, in a newspaper selected by the agency. The notice of hearing shall include a legal description of the [231 Cal.App.3d 252] boundaries of the area or areas designated in the proposed redevelopment plan...