In Blue v. City of Los Angeles (2006 WL 475788, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Mar. 1, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered a challenge to an amendment of a city redevelopment plan, on the grounds that the city had not made “Walker Sheets” (the raw data from the parcel-by-parcel evaluation of properties used to determine whether an area is blighted) available to the public prior to a public hearing on the amendment.
The Court found that while the city must make a report on its findings public, there is no requirement that the public be given access to the raw data behind the findings. It additionally found that the lack of public access to the raw data did not infringe on the public’s right to a hearing on the amendment.
Facts
In 2003, the Los Angeles City Council (“City”) voted to amend the City’s Hollywood Redevelopment Plan to extend the eminent domain powers of the City’s Community Redevelopment Agency (“CRA”) for 12 years.
Robert Blue and other property owners (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit asking that the amendment be found invalid because the City unlawfully withheld the “Walker Sheets” from the public, and that denial resulted in their being denied a fair hearing on the amendment. They also claimed the City was legally required to form a Project Area Committee (PAC) to evaluate the amendment and had failed to do so, and alleged the City had insufficient evidence to support its finding of blight. The trial rejected all of Plaintiffs’ claims and found for the City. The Plaintiffs appealed.
Decision
The Court reviewed Health and Safety Code Section 33457.1, which provides that amendments to redevelopment plans require public reports and information on findings of blight in the redevelopment area. Had the Legislature intended for the raw data underlying the reports to also be made available, it plainly could have done so, the Court said. In any event, the Court added, the lack of access to the data did not preclude Plaintiffs from commenting on the amendment, or on the existence or extent of blight in the area. Also, the real “raw data” is not the “Walker Sheets,” but rather, the actual conditions of properties in the project area, which Plaintiffs remained free to observe and analyze.
The Court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the City should have formed a PAC. A PAC is required, the Court said, when a CRA uses eminent domain powers to acquire property on which persons legally reside. Since the amendment provided that the CRA would not use eminent domain to acquire property on which people lawfully reside, a PAC was not required in this case, the Court ruled.
Finally, the Court found no merit to the Plaintiffs’ claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the City’s finding of physical and economic blight. The finding was justified by the existence of deteriorated or dilapidated structures that posed a threat to public health and safety, as well as findings of depressed property values and high vacancy rates.
The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.