Appendix — Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency
Supreme Court brief1992
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
(G *, fF FILED ¢§
@irL1LITS | nov ig vw
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CCTOBER TERM, 1991
DAVID MORGAN, ET AL,
PETITIONERS
VS.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
Gases OF
LOS ANGELES, €T AL,
APPENDIX TO
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
David Morgan
6262 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood, Calif.
90028
Petitioner in pro per
A-1
APPENDIX A
Order of California Supreme Court denying
rehearing and depublication of Opinion
dated August 22, 1991
Second Appellate District, Division
Seven, NO. B042936
S021685
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
IN BANK
DAVID MORGAN Et Al, Appellants
Vv.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, Et Al., Respondents
Petitions for review DENIED.
The request for an order directing
depublication of the opinion is
denied.
LUCAS
Chief Justice
B-1l
APPENDIX B
Order of Second Appellate District
Divison 7 denying rehearing dated June
17, 1991
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROBERT N. WILSON, CLERK
DIVISION: 7 DATE: 06/17/91
David Morgan
6262 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood, CA. 90028
RE: Morgan, David
Vs.
Comm. Redeve. Agency/City of
Los Angeles
2 Civil B042936
Los Angeles NO. C607002
THE COURT:
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING ARE
DENIED
C-1
APPENDIX C
Opinion of Second Appellate District
Division 7 denying Appeal dated May 16,
1991 and published at 231 CA3d 243 (1991)
(text of typed Opinion).
Page 243
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN -
No. B042936
(Super. Ct. No. C607002)
DAVID MORGAN, NORTON HALPER, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Vv.
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,
Vv.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants/Respondents.
mee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee”
APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe-
rior Courtof Los Angeles County. Barnet
M. Cooperman, Judge. Affirmed.
Page 244
David Morgan, for Plaintiff and Ap-.-
pellant in pro. per.
C-2
James K. Hahn, Los Angeles City At-
torney, Patricia V. Tubert, Susan D.
Pfann, and Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, R.
Bruce Tepper, Jr., and Kathryn Reimann,
attorneys for Respondents.
Gronemeier & Barker, Elbie J. Hick-
ambottom, Jr., and Dale L. Gronemeier,
attorneys for Appellants/Plaintiffs,
Susan Nelson, Karen Hale Wookey, Kather-
ine Armour and Jamia Riehl, officers of
Save Hollywood Our Town ("SHOT").
Gronemeier & Barker, Dale L. Grone-
meier and Elbie J. Hickambottom, Jr., at-
torneys for Appellant/Plaintiff, Norton
Halper.
Page 248
INTRODUCTION
The Hollywood Redevelopment Project
(the Project) was adopted by the Los An-
+
geles City Council on May 7, 1986 and
Signed by the Mayor on May 9, 1986. It
C-3
establishes a project area of approxi-
mately 1100 acres in that part of the
city known as Hollywood. The primary
goals of the Project is 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 Av-
enue, the Hollywood Freeway ana” 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 residen-
tial, commercial and industrial develop-
ment constituting 796 net acres (exclusive
of streets, freeways and other right of
way) which are subdivided into 2908 sepa-
C.-4
rate parcels of land with 2033 separate
owners.
The CRA commenced setting up a Pro-
ject Area Committee (PAC) in 1983. Elec-
tions to the PAC were conducted on Decem-
ber 13, 1983 and Joint Public Hearings on
the Project were held on April 16, 1986.
The proceedings leading up to the adop-
tion of the Redevelopment Plan (The Plan)
was a process of Plan review which re-
quired two and one half years, resulted
in 120 community meetings, three days of
public hearings and review by the City
Planning Commission and the Los Angeles
City Council. The Project Area Committee
approved the adoption of the Redevelop-
ment 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
C-5
Court of Los Angeles County which was
consolidated with a similar action filed
by parties identified as SHOT (Save Hol-
lywood Our Town). Judgment was entered in
favor of defendants/respondents the
Community Redevelopment Agency and the
City of Los Angeles on April 20, 1989, a
timely notice of appeal was filed.
Page 249 ISSUES
Appellants have raised the following
issues on appeal.
1. The Project Area Committee (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 Pro-
ject Area Committee (PAC) formation and
the Joint Public Hearing.
3. The Los Angeles Community Rede-
velopment Agency (CRA) and the Los Ange-
C-6
les 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 de-
nied discovery by the trial court.
5. The trial court applied the im-
proper standard of review in granting
judgment upholding the validity of the
Hollywood Redevelopment Project as ap-
proved and adopted by the Los Angeles
City Council.
6. The trial court's finding that
there was no credible evidence of appel-
lants' allegations of fraud by the Commu-
nity Redevelopment Agency and the City of
Los Angeles in the formation and adoption
of the Plan.
7. That the Redevelopment is not
consistent with the City of Los Angeles
General Plan.
Guw7
8. That the trial court erred in
awarding costs to Respondents and against
Appellants Susan B. Nelson, Karen Hale
Wookey, Jamia Riehl and Katherine Armour.
DISCUSSION
The Project Area Committee (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 com-
mittee 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
Page 250
eee
C-8
displaced by the redevelopment pro-
ject, to form a project area commit-
tee. The project area committee
shall include, when applicable, res-
idential owner occupants, residen-
tial tenants, businessmen, and mem-
bers of existing organizations
within the project area. The members
of the committee shall serve without
compensation. "Tne legislative body
shall approve a representative pro-
ject area committee in each project
area within 60 days after the pro-
ject 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 prop-
erty owners, residential tenants,
C-9
business owners, and existing community
organizations. Four community organiza-
tions were to be appointed to the PAC by
the council office; the remaining 21 mem-
bers were to be elected by the community
within the proposed project area.
The Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) sent two separate mailings of a No-
tice of Formation of the Project Area
Committee to the property owners of
record in the proposed area and in addi-
tion distributed approximately 25,000
circulars throughout the project area on
two occasions in August and November of
1983. Notices were published in commu-
nity newspapers by the Agency and other
publicity was generated by newspaper ar-
ticles.
Six community meetings were held
from June to November, 1983 at which re-
development and the formation of the PAC
ee aT
C-10
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 regu-
larly conducted.
The election resulted in a PAC con-
Sisting of four residential property own-
ers, four residential tenants, six
business owners or tenants, three indus-
trial or manufacturing property owners or
operators and four community organiza-
tions. Four additional community organi-
zations were appointed to the PAC by the
City Council office. With: n 60 days of
the selection of the project area,
C-11
the City Council approved as representa-
tive the Project Area Committee (PAC).
Health and Safety Code section 33385
as in effectin 1983 did not specify the
method of the selection of the PAC mem-
bers nor does the law provide for or re-
quires election by the process of an
election, appointment of mem-
Page 251
bers is not precluded. The legislative
body has broad discretion in the forma-
tion of the Project Area Committee. 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 inde-
pendently reasonable.
C- 12
There was no credible evidence that
the PAC was unduly influenced or domi-
nated 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 Project
Area Committee. This was accomplished
and the PAC approved the adoption of the
Redevelopment 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 For-
mation 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 resi-
dents of the project area and community
organizations, "The legislative body of a
city or county shall call upon the resi-
C-13
dents and existing community
organizations," regarding the formation
of the Project Area Committee (PAC). As
will be subsequently discussed no statute
specifies the manner of notice of the
Joint Public Hearing on the Redevelopment
Plan. In the absence of statutory provi-
sion 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 occa-
sions distributed approximately 25,000
flyers, published notice three times in
newspapers and conducted six pre-PAC for-
mation community meetings. There is a
lack of credible evidence that any other
form of notice would have been more ef-
fective or that any persons were denied
participation in the PAC formation.
C-14
The Joint Public Hearing is a public
hearing concerning the enactment of the
Redevelopment Plan. Notice of the he@=r~
ing is provided for in Health and Safety
Code section 33349: "Section 33349. "The
agency shall publish notice of the hear
ing not less than once a week for four
successive weeks prior to the hearing.
The notice shall be published in a news-
paper 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 in-
Clude a legal description of the
Page 252
boundaries of the area or areas desig-
nated in the proposed redevelopment plan
and a general statement of the scope and
objectives of the plan. Copies of the
notices shall be mailed to the last known
assessee of each parcel of land in the
C-15
area designated in the redevelopment
plan, at his last known address as shown
on the last equalized assessment roll of
the county; or where a city assesses,
levies, and collects its own taxes, as
shown on the last equalized assessment
roll of the city; or to the owner of each
parcel of land within such boundaries as
such ownership is shown on the records of
the county recorded 30 days prior to the
date the notice is published. Copies of
the notices shall also be mailed to the
governing body of each of the taxing
agencies which levies taxes upon any
property in the project area designated
in the proposed redevelopment plan. The
1.otice shall be mailed by certified mail
with return receipt requested."
Pursuant to the code requirements
the Agency sent notice by certified mail
to the owners of property within the pro-
C-16
posed project area as established by
lists provided by the County of Los Ange-
les in January, 1986. Additionally the
Agency sent notice to all persons re-
questing notice whoappeared on the pro-
ject's mailing list, whether or not such
person owned property within the proposed
project area. Although not required by
the code, the Agency on April 4, 1986
caused to be distributed approximately
21,600 noticesto residences and busi-
nesses throughout the project area.
Although Health and Safety Code section
33349 requires publication of the notice
in one newspaper, the Agency published
notice in two newspapers of general cir-
culation distributed within the project
area. The record also indicates that
prior to and during the hearing process
there was significant media coverage of
the Redevelopment Plan and process.
C-17
Apparently appellants urge that the
Agency was required to send notices of
the Joint Public Hearing toeach assessee
on the 1985-1986 County tax assessment
role, which would include all joint own-
ers of the parcel of property, including
spouses and children of joint owners and
further if an assessee owned more than
one parcel that the Agency would be re-
quired to send he or she a notice for
each parcel within the project area. The
evidence indicates that numerous persons
owned more than one parcel of property,
several owning more than ten parcels
each. Approximately 500 assessees own at
least two parcels each in the Project
area. There are 2,023 property owners
for 2,908 parcels of real property.
Health and Safety Code section 33349
provides that notice be sent to "the last
known assessee" of each” parcel of land.
C-18
If an assessee owns more than one parcel
of landa single notice is sufficient un-
der the statute. Likewise the statute
does not require a notice to be sent to
each joint owner of the parcel of prop-
erty.
Page 253
In the case of Herrington v. Weigel
(1978) 82Cal.App.3d 676, 682-683, the
court held that a directive to send no-
tice to assessees does not require that
each assessee receive a separate notice.
A co-tenant's due process rights were not
violated because separate notices of an
"Intent to Deed Property to the State"
for failure to pay back taxes were not
sent. In that case section 3701 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code provided; " ..
- the tax collector shall send a notice
by registered mail of the intended sale
to the last assessee of each portion of
C-19 »
the property at his last known address.”
The court held that "there is no
requirement in the code that "each"
assessee be sent a separate copy or
copies. The assessees have some duty to
designate how they want their names to
appear on the tax rolls." In Herrington
the co-tenant could lose his interest in
the real property by forfeiture if not
notified by the co-owner assessee who
received notice, a harsh result, the
instant case would not result in such a
drastic action but rather involves the
designation of the property as a parcel
within the Community Redevelopment Plan.
Although it is reasonable to con-
clude from the record that some assessees
may have not received a notice by certi-
fied mail of the Joint Public Hearing,
the number is disputed by the parties and
substantial evidence supports the conclu-
C-20
sion that the Agency made a good faith
effort to satisfy the code requirements,
of notice to those property owners within
the project area. Any defects were
technical and not substantial. There is
substantial evidence that the Agency at-
tempted to inform the public and property
owners in the project area as to the var-
ious steps and meetings in the process of
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan,
there is no credible evidence that the
Agency pursued a policy of suppressing or
failing to make available notices and in-
formation regarding the Redevelopment
Project. The meetings were well publi-
cized and well attended. in
In Downtown Palo Alto Committee for
Fair Assessment v. City Council of Palo
Alto (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 384, 389, 390,
a Streets and Highway Code section 36522
required the notice of the adoption of an
C-21
assessment district be mailed to “each
business in the proposed, or established
area." The facts indicated that about 25
percent of the businesses did not receive
notice, 179 of 727. The appeals court
affirmed the trial court's holding that
the City had substantially complied with
the statute. The court held at pages 394-
396:
"Literal compliance with the statute
would also be unreasonably burdensome to
cities seeking to establish improvement
areas. .. . And if we were to demand
strict compliance with the statute, fail-
ure to send the requisite notice to a
single business in the proposed improve-
ment area could result in
Page 254
the invalidity of the entire procedure.
Nothing in the statutory scheme suggests
C-22
that the Legislature intended such a
harsh result. ...
"The requisite notice must promote
and satisfy the objectives of the law;
but if it does so, mere technical, insub-
stantial noncompliance with the provision
- « « that notice of the hearing must be
sent to ‘each business' in the proposed
improvement area will not invalidate the
proceedings."
The appellants each received notice
of the Joint Public Hearing and no claim
of lack of notice was made at the Joint
Public Hearing. Appellants have failed
to show that a substantial number of per-
sons failed to receive notice or that any
owners of property sustained prejudice by
lack of notice. Any error, irregularity
Or omission by the Agency did not affect
the parties substantial rights. In re De-
C-23
velopment Plan for Bunker Hili (1964) 61
Cal.2d21, 43, 44.)
The Determination by the CommunityY
Redevelopment Agency and the City of Los
Angeles that the Project Area is Blighted
is Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The statutory provisions applicable
in order to make a determination of
blight are as follows:
"Section 33030. Existence of
blighted areas
"It is found and declared that there
exist in many communities blighted areas
which constitute either physical, social,
or economic liabilities, .. . requiring
redevelopment in the interest of the
health, safety, and general welfare of
the people of such communities and of the
state.
" . . .- A blighted . .. area is one
which is characterized by one or more of
C-24
those conditions set forth in Sections
33031 . . .or 33032, causing a reduction
of, or lack of, proper utilization of the
area to such an extent that it consti-
tutes a serious physical, social, or eco-
nomic burden on the community which can-
not reasonably be expected to be reversed
or alleviated by private enterprise act-
ing alone.
"Section 33031. Blighted area; un-
fit or unsafe buildings
"A blighted area is characterized by
the existence of buildings and
structures, used or intended to be used
for living, commercial, industrial, or
other purposes, or any combination of
such uses, which are unfit or unsafe to
occupy for such purposes and are
conducive to ill health, transmission of
disease, infant mortality, juvenile
delinquency, and crime because of any one
C-25
or a combination of the following
factors:
"(a) Defective design and character
of physical construction.
Page 255
"(b) Faulty interior arrangement
andexterior spacing.
"(c) High density of population and
overcrowding .
"(d) Inadequate provision for
ventilation,light, sanitation, open
spaces, and recreationfacilities.
"(e) Age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, mixed character, or shift-
ing of uses."
Health and Safety Code section 33032.
Blight is also found where proper-
ties suffer from economic dislocation,
deterioration or disuse because of one or
more of the following factors:
C-26
"(a) The subdividing and sale of
lots of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size for proper usefulness and
development.
"(b) The laying out of lots in dis-
regard of the contours and other topogra-
phy or physical characteristics of the
ground and surrounding conditions.
"(c) The existence of inadequate
public improvements, public facilities,
open spaces, and utilities which cannot
be remedied by private or governmental
action without redevelopment.
"(d) A prevalence of depreciated
values, impaired investments, and social
and economic maladjustment."
The Los Angeles City council in
adopting the Redevelopment Plan had be-
fore it the Agency's Report to the
Council consisting of 640 pages which in-
Cluded 219 pages describing conditions in
C-27
the project area. The community of Hol-
lywood was originally a low density resi-
dential area which now consists of old
and deteriorating buildings, seriously
overcrowded housing conditions and a sub-
stantial number of seismatically unsafe
commercial buildings. There is a lack of
adequate housing, Open space and trans-
portation. Twenty-five percent of the
commercial structures suffer construction
defects in that they were built with un-
reinforced masonry.
The population of the project area
increased 25 percent from 1970 to 1980,
however, during the same period available
housing only increased 2 percent. In
1980 approximately 5000 households had
three or more occupants but only 2000
housing units had two or more bedrooms.
Areas originally designed and built as
i a
C-28
low density residential have been trans-
formed into
Page 256
high density multi-family dwellings. The
project area is deficient in park land.
The buildings are old and show dete-
rioration. At least 36 percent of the
Single family residences show deferred
maintenance, an additional 27 percent re-
quire moderate to heavy rehabilitation.
There is adult entertainment in Close
proximity to schools and residences,
There are incompatible industrial uses in
the area.
Hotels and motels have shifted to
use as transient rentals and regional re-
tail uses have shifted to transient
specialty shops. |
The project area is poorly subdi-
vided making proper development difficult
because of land ownership patterns. Land
C-29
values have depreciated. There is a need
for housing due to overcrowding but 86
percent of the residential parcels are
below the threshold size for development.
Over 20 percent of the land parcels fail
to meet minimum zoning standards.
Ninety-two percent of the residential
property is separately owned but only 6
percent of the housing is owner-occupied.
New development and reinvestment in the
area is unlikely due to the low income of
residents and their inability to support
higher rents. The project area does not
have the ability to support the present
level of government services.
The reported crime rate for the pro-
ject area is double the City-wide rate.
The street scene is dominated by youthful
runaways and the homeless. Private
revitalization of the area is highly un-
likely. The Redevelopment Agency and the
is; i
C- 30
City Council heard testimony and evidence
for and against the adoption of the Rede-
velopment Plan. The City Council adopted
the Redevelopment Plan and made a deter-
mination that the project area was
blighted. The trial court in addition to
reviewing the record before it from the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Council
hearings permitted appellants to present
contradictory evidence to the Record of
Proceedings. The court heard 60 half
days of testimony and reviewed documents
presented by the appellants. After
review of all the records and the addi-
tional testimony the trial court found
the decisions and determinations of
respondents in adopting the Redevelopment
Plan, including the determination that
the project area was blighted was
supported by substantial evidence.
C-31
In the case of (In re Development
Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21,
the California Supreme Court was faced
with a factual situation very similar to
the case at hand. The Redevelopment Plan
for Bunker Hill was a massive
Page 257
redevelopment within the central city
area of the City of Los Angeles. The re-
spondents objected to the final
Redevelopment Plan, the determination of
blight and the standard of judicial re-
view. The Supreme Court upheld the final
Redevelopment Plan and the determination
of blight. "It becomes immaterial whether
the actions of the agency and the city
council in adoption of the Bunker Hill
project be termed 'legislative' or
‘administrative' in either event the
trial court was correct in its refusal to
reweigh the evidence and in confining it-
C-32
self to determining whether the findings
and determinations of the inferior bodies
were supported by substantial evidence."
(At p. 40.) "The trial court was correct
in its refusal to exercise its indepen-
dent judgment on the evidence upon which
the agency and the city council acted."
(At p. 41.) "Moreover, objections are
being accorded a judicial determination
on the issue of blight through the
substantial evidence review made in the
subject proceeding by the trial court,
and which is now before us on appeal."
(At p. 41.)
The Supreme Court in the Bunker Hill
case on page 40 in defining the scope of
judicial review cited the matter of Pitts
v. Perluss (1962) 58 Cal.2d 824, 833,
835,"As to the quasi-legislative acts of
administrative agencies, judicial review
is limited to an examination of the pro-
C.33
ceedings before the officer to determine
whether his action has been arbitrary,
capricious, or entirely lacking in evi-
dentiary support." "The substitution of
the judgment of a court for that of the
administrator in quasi-legislative mat-
ters would effectuate neither the leg-
islative mandate nor sound public pol-
icy.”
In the matter of Fosselman's v. City
of Alhambra (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 806,
811-812, the appellant challenged the Re-
development Plan adopted by the City and
the finding of blight. The court held
"In Community Development Law the Legis-
lature delegated to the agency and the
city council the power to determine
blight as well as the power to adopt and
implement redevelopment plans, the acts
of the agency and the city council in
carrying out such functions have been
C.34
termed legislative." (At p.811.) "The
substantial evidence standard, not the
independent exercise of the court's judg-
ment, governs judicial review of the
findings and determinations of an agency
and legislative body in the adoption and
approval of a redevelopment plan." (At
p. 810.)
The Redevelopment Agency, the City
Council and the trial court found sub-
stantial evidence of blight within the
project area. This court finds: that
there is substantial evidence to sustain
the determination by these bodies of
blight, and the actions by the Agency and
Council were neither arbitrary, capri-
cious nor entirely lacking in evidentiary
support.
Page 258
Differences of opinion, no matter
how strongly presented, do not warrant
C-35
rejection of respondent's action, where
it has been demonstrated that respondents
were presented with opposing viewpoints,
considered them extensively and on the
basis of evidence selected one alterna-
tive rather than another. (Karlson v.
City of Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d
789, 803.)
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN LIMITING
DISCOVERY
The scope of judicial review of a leg-
islative type activity is limited to an
examination of the record before the au-
thorized decision makers to test for suf-
ficiency with legal requirements.
(Fosselman's, Inc. v. City of Alhambra
(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 806, 811-812.) A
substantial evidence review is limited to
the record before the Community Redevel-
opment Agency and the City Council, it is
an examination of the proceedings before
C-36
the entities to determine if their ac-
tions were arbitrary, capricious, or
entirely lacking in evidentiary support.
The trial court reviews the decision mak-
ing process of the administrative agency
and does not conduct its own evidentiary
hearing, thus discovery is limited.
California Community Redevelopment
Law section 33000 et seq., Sections
33360-33364 set forth detailed provisions
to challenge the adoption of a Redevelop-
ment Plan, it established an administra-
tive procedure to challenge the Plan's
adoption. Notices are given and public
hearings are held, objectors are given an
opportunity to participate in the statu-
tory hearing process. (Redevelopment
Agency of County of Riverside v. Superior
Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1487.) If
the objectors fail to exhaust their
administrative remedies they are fore-
C-37
closed from raising issues before the
trial court not properly raised during
the administrative hearing process.
Appellants attempted to subpoena
parties and notice depositions, respon-
dents filed a motion to quash. In each
hearing before the court appellants
failed to make a sufficient showing to
justify said discovery in a limited
review situation. Appellants had partic-
ipated in the public hearings and were
given an opportunity to present evidence
and raise whatever issues they thought
were important and relevant. Their fail-
ure to raise an issue or present evidence
at the public hearings operates as a
waiver of presenting such evidence or
raising said issue before the trial
court, whose function it is to review the
record. The record exceeded 9000 pages
in length. Appellants were afforded an
C.-38
opportunity to review, challenge and
proffer supplements to the Record of
Proceedings. Appellants are not entitled
to present additional or new evidence at
the trial thus discovery pertaining to
the introduction of new evidence is to be
severely limited and within the sound
discretion of the trial court. In the
matter of Kahn v. East Bay Mun.
Utl.District (1974) 41
Page 259
Cal. App.3d 397, 402, the petitioner
attempted to introduce before the trial
court evidence of water rates charged in
some 23 communities to challenge the
rates set by the municipal utility dis-
trict. Said evidence was rejected in
that petitioner was present at the public
hearing on the setting of the water
rates, and although he objected to the
rates, he presented no evidence to sup-
C-39
port his objections. Thus he could not
present additional or new evidence to the
trial court not introduced at the
hearing.
After the trial court had certified
the Record of Proceedings as complete for
purposes of review, the court denied ap-
pellant's renewed motion for discovery.
Thereafter the court ruled on other re-
quests for depositions and discovery. At
each hearing appellant was permitted to
make a showing that the documents sought
or depositions requested were relevant
and material to the preparation of their
case for trial and had not been
previously produced. Each time the trial
court denied the discovery after full
consideration of the motions. The trial
court exercised its discretion in
determining whether the discovery sought
would lead to relevant and material evi-
C-40
dence. Appellants have failed to show
that the trial court abused its discre-
tion. Appellants sought to discover in-
formation which it could have sought and
presented at the public hearings and has
failed to show said information was not
available at the time of the public hear-
ings. Jeffery v. City of Salinas (1965)
232 Cal. App.2d 29, 39.) Failure to raise
an issue in protest at the public hearing
constitutes a waiver of the right to have
that issue determined by the council of
the court.
Discovery statutes vest a wide discretion
in the trial court and exercise of that
discretion will be disturbed only when it
can be said there has been an abuse of
discretion. An order compelling discovery
must rest on a showing that the discovery
is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence in an adminis-
C-41
trative mandamus proceeding. (Mobil Oil
Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 59
Cal.App.3d 293, 304; City of Fairfield v.
Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768, 774-775.)
On April 8, 1988 appellant Nelson
filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate
with the Appeals Court to seek appellate
review of a discovery protective order
issued by the trial court. It was denied
for failure to show an abuse of discre-
tion.
THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE AP-
PROPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court correctly determined
that there was substantial evidence to
Support the actions of respondents, it is
not for the trial court to
Page 260
involve itself in the decision making
process of a Redevelopment Agency and a
City Council, the Legislature delegated
C-42
legislative decisions to those agencies
and not to the courts. Judicial review
is limited to whether there was
substantial evidence to support the leg-
islative decisions.(In re Redevelopment
Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d2l1,
40; Sanguinetti v. City Council of Stock-
ton (1965) 231Cal.App.2d 813, 817; Na-
tional City Business Assoc. v. National
City (1987) 146 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1065;
Fosselman's Inc. v. City of Alhambra
(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 806,811-812.) "A
de novo type of review does not apply to
quasi-legislative acts of administrative
officers and judicial review is limited
to an examination of the proceedings be-
fore the officer to determine whether his
action has been arbitrary, capricious or
entirely lackingin evidentiary support."
The Redevelopment Agency and the
City Council have authority to designate
—
C.43
redevelopment areas and the court is not
empowered to substitute its determination
for the determination of the agency or
the legislative body. (Babcock v. Commu-
nity Redevelopment Agency (1957) 148
Cal.App.2d 38.) "The trial court should
not reweigh the evidence but confine it-
self to determining whether the findings
and determinations of the inferior bodies
were supported by substantial evidence. .
- « The trial court was correct in its
refusal to exercise its independent
judgment on the evidence upon which the
agency and the city council acted." (In
re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61
Cal.2d 21, 40-41.)
Appellants urge that the trial court
applied the improper standard of review
by determining that all of the acts of
the agency and city council were quasi-
legislative, wherein appellants argue
C.44
that certain acts such as the finding of
blight, the factual findings that the
redevelopment plan is economically sound
and feasible and that the redevelopment
plan conforms to the general plan of the
community require factual findings which
are quasi-judicial in nature.
A redevelopment plan is a comprehen-
Sive method to carry out the redevelop-
ment of an area. Although the process of
adoption of a redevelopment plan provides
for the holding of public hearings and
the taking of testimony along with exami-
nation of various criteria in arriving at
its determinations, these determinations
remain essentially legislative in charac-
ter (City of Santa Cruz v. LAFCO (1978)
76 Cal.App.3d 381, 388); "An administra-
tive agency such as LAFCO is nonetheless
quasi-legislative in nature, though it
holds public hearings and considers
C-45
‘testimony presented by any. . . inter-
ested person who wishes to appear.’ .. .
The Legislature and administrators
exercising quasi-legislative powers com-
monly resort to the hearing procedure to
uncover, at least in part, the facts
necessary to arrive at a sound and fair
legislative decision. . .. Hence the
presence of
Page 261
certain characteristics common to the ju-
dicial process does not change the basi-
cally quasi-legislative nature of the
subject proceedings."
Sanguinetti v. City Council of
Stockton (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 813, 817-
“818. ... =“Pirst it is to be observed
that while the statutes refer to
'findings' to be made by the legislative
body, in this case the city council, the
word 'findings' is not to be equated with
C-46
that term as used in statutory provisions
as to judicial proceedings. The hearing
before the city council is not a judicial
proceeding, nor is it required to be car-
ried out with all the nicety or require-
ments for such proceedings. By the word
'findings' the Legislature plainly refers
to certain specific determinations to be
arrived at by the city council as a pre-
requisite to adoption. ... Of course,
the law does not contemplate that the
legislative body will adopt a proposed
redevelopment plan without determining
generally that it complies with the
applicable law and will be for the bene-
fit of the community to be affected. ..
-But all this is not to say that the
Legislature required specific 'findings'
and determinations in exact accord with
the legislative language. Substantial
compliance is sufficient." The California
C-47
Legislature has delegated to
redevelopment agencies as legislative
bodies the power and authority to deter-
mine blight and effectuate redevelopment.
(In re Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21,
52.) The court's function is to review
the administrative record to determine if
there is substantial evidence to support
the determination of the administrative
agency.
It is only in those cases, unlike
the facts herein, where a party has ac-
guired a fundamental vested right and the
administrative decision substantially af-
fects that fundamental vested right that
the court will conduct an independent re-
view of the evidence and the record. In
those cases the vested right is deemed
substantially significant to preclude its
extinction by a body lacking judicial
power. However, this must be decided on
C-48
a case by case basis. (Whalers Village
Club v. California Coastal Commission
(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 240, 251; Bixby v.
Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 146; 301
Ocean Ave. Corp. v. Santa Monica Rent
Control Board (1981) 91 DAR 3970, 3971.)
THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD BY
THE CRA OR THE CITY IN THE FORMATION OF
ADOPTION OF THE PLAN
Appellants convinced the trial court
to permit testimony and documentary evi-
dence, not contained in the administra-
tive record, to support their allegations
of fraud in the formation and adoption of
the Redevelopment Plan.
Page 262
The trial court made express find-
ings that appellants "produced no credi-
ble evidence supporting any of their
fraud allegations against the Agency and
the City of Los Angeles." Appellants were
C-49
granted wide latitude in the presentation
of evidence, the hearing commenced on May
27, 1988 and concluded on September 23,
1988 and encompassed 60 one-half days of
trial. Appellants called 34 witnesses
and offered 116 exhibits outside the
record of the administrative proceedings.
The court admitted 42 of the exhibits and
after having weighed all of the testimony
and evidence negated the fraud
allegations.
Unlike its review of the ad
3
>
J
>
W
(ct
ry
ww
i
tive record the trial court undertook an
independent, de novo review of appellants
fraud allegations. Although appell
fy
—
(tT
Ww
have urged numerous allegations of fraud,
each and every such allegation was re-~
jected by the court after reviewing the
evidence as being "not credible.”
O*
hth
=
ho
(Johnson v. Pacific Indemnity (196
Cal.App.2d 878, 880.) “The trial court,
C-50
as the trier of fact .. . is the sole
arbiter of all conflicts in the evidence,
conflicting interpretations thereof and
conflicting inferences which reasonably
may be drawn therefrom; is the sole judge
of the credibility of witnesses ...
and, in the exercise of sound legal
discretion, may draw or may refuse to
draw inferences reasonably deducible from
the evidence." (Also see Milligan v.
Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining Com.
(1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1005.) "The
court's function... is to review er-
rors of law and not pass on questions of
fact. Even where a trial court must exer-
cise its independent judgment on the evi-
dence, the power of appellate courts
begins and ends with a determination as
to whether there is any substantial evi-
dence, contradicted or uncontradicted,
which will support the conclusion reached
C-51
by the trier of fact." (Bailey v. County
of Los Angeles (1956) 46 Cal.2d132, 137.)
The appellate court will not disturb
findings of fact which upport the trial
court's orders; so far as it has passed
on the weight of the evidence, the trial
court's findings are conclusive.
The court found that the Agency com-
plied with the law in giving notice of
the formation of the PAC committee and
proper notice of the Joint Public Hear-
ings, that the Agency neither manipulated
nor dominated the PAC committee, that the
operations of the PAC were open and demo-
cratic, that the PAC was independent and
that all hearings were well publicized,
well attended and all public concerns
were well aired.
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN
C-52
Appellants are requesting the court
to invalidate the Redevelopment Plan by
collaterally attacking the City of Los
Angeles General Plan.
Page 263
The Record of Proceedings establish the
existence of a General Plan for the City
of Los Angeles. (Record exhs. 65, 65A,
65B.) The Plan is a lengthy document
containing maps, text and diagrams. The
City Planning Commission considered and
reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and found
that it conformed to the City's General
Plan.
The City's General Plan was adopted
at least ten years prior to the adoption
of the Redevelopment Project in May 1986.
The most liberal statute of limitation
applicable to a challenge to the General
Plan would be Code of Civil Procedure
section 343 which provides, "an action
C-53
for relief not hereinabove provided for
must be commenced within four years after
the cause of action shall have accrued."
It is untimely for appellants to attack
the General Plan.
SHOT an appellant herein in another
case previously challenged a trial
court's determination that the plaintiff
was barred by Code of Civil Procedure
section 343 from attacking the suffi-
ciency of the General Plan, Save Holly-
wood Our Town v. City of Los Angeles,
No.B030192, 2nd District (1988). In an
unpublished opinion the Appeals Court up-
held the trial court's decision. The
same parties are before the court with
the same issue for determination.
The trial court's determination that
the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan conforms
to the City's General Plan is supported
by substantial evidence.
a
2-54
THE AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST SHOT APPEL-
LANTS WAS PROPER
The CRA and the City of Los Angeles
filed a Cost Bill in the amount of
$18,560.16, the court awarded costs
against the SHOT appellants; Susan Nel-
son, Karen Hale Wookey, Jamia Riehl and
Katherine Armour only in the amount of
$6,133.15. The court exercised its dis-
cretion in reducing the amount of costs
requested. The parties against whom
costs were assessed are not property own-
ers within the Project Area.
Appellants contend that under the
reasoning of In re Development Plan for
Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21,71, that
costs cannot be assessed against an ob-
jector in validation proceedings. In the
Bunker Hill case the court held that the
clearance of blighted areas and the
redevelopment thereof are public uses.
C-55
That a property owner in the redevelop-
ment area may be reluctant to give up her
property resulting in eminent domain pro-
ceedings. That even though the party may
not prevail in the trial court or on ap-
peal she would be entitled to be free
from costs in litigation of the action.
(Collier v. Merced Irr. Dist.(1931) 213
Cal. 554, 572.) The owner is entitled to
full compensation for her property, free
from costs.
Page 264
The appellants herein who have been
ordered to pay costs are not property
owners within the Project Area. Their
property will not be subject to condemna-
‘tion and thus the assessment of costs
would not reduce the value of their
property.
The court specifically struck costs
against any appellants who owned real
a
C-56
property within the Project Area to con-
form to the Bunker Hill holding.
As the prevailing parties the re-
spondents are entitled to the costs in
the reduced amount awarded by the trial
court. (Cabello v. ITT General Controls
(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1013; Code
Civ. Proc., Sections 1032, 868.. The
judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUB-
LISHED. KALIN, J. We concur: JOHNSON,
Acting P.J. WOODS (Fred), J.
(Text of typewritten Opinion from Court
of Appeal used, supra. Published version
has minor differences).
ANNOTATIONS TO APPELLATE OPINION, supra,
231 CA3d 243 (1991), presented by Appel-
lant Morgan in Petition for Review to
California Supreme Court:
Page 248
C-57
1. Concealed goals should be men-
tioned which include the imposition of
eminent domain for private developers un-
der the legal fiction of public use and
the confiscation of $ 922 million prop-
erty taxes to subsidize private develop-
ers that would otherwise protect life and
property.
Ze Court correctly ruled CRA set
up PAC thus it could not have been "self-
formed.”
Page 249
36 List of issues omits several
issues such as Neighborhood Impact Report
and includes fraud which was not subject
of appeal.
Page 250
4. Since Council ordered 4 commu-
nity organizations to be appointed PAC
was not "self-formed."
C-58
Se Decision omits fact electorate
was expanded to add businesses and absen-
tee property owners not specified as
electors in HSC Section 33385.
6. Decision does not comment on
Plaintiff survey showing 7859 of 16,000
residential units not notified.
7. Decision is false. CRA attor-
neys stipulated there was no paid newspa-
per notice of PAC election or formation.
(RT 1417:25-27, ARB 32).
8. Decision omits key fact voters
were only allowed by CRA to vote in own
category.
Page 251
9. Appointment by the residents
and existing community organizations is
not precluded but appointment by CRA or
Council is precluded by HSC Section
33385.
C-59
10. Actually HSC Section 33385 only
allows the legislative body two discre-
tionary actions: 1) Whether to call a
PAC. 2) Whether to approve it.
11. Uncontradicted testimony was
there was a voting bloc
controlling PAC and bribed members (RT
3477-87, AOB 34).
‘ 12. See note 7, no paid newspaper
notice was published.
13. Extremely detailed PAC Notice
Survey evidence was offered and not ad-
mitted showing 7859 residential units not
notified and why. No court has ever
weighed the evidence. See Appellant's Mo-
tion to Admit Project Area Committee Evi-
dence filed May 31, 1991 which was not
heard.
Page 252
14. This misstates Appellant posi-
tion. See Petition for Rehearing at vii,
C-60
notes 11:18 - 12:14. Simply notice must
address each owner being notified with
each parcel number being notified.
Page 253.
15. Subjecting tenants and owners
to eminent domain for 30 years for resale
to private developers is certainly harsh
and a drastic action. Tenants got no
mailed notice at any time which is not
due process.
Page 254
16. In CCP Sections 860-870 action
as in class action rights of parties not
appearing are litigated so irrelevant
whether appellants noticed. Strict com-
pliance is required due to imposition of
eminent domain powers when CRA did not
even substantially comply, prejudicing
hundreds of assessees.
Page 255
C-61
17. Appellate Court did not use the
current text of HSC Section 33032 de-
scribing the 7 step "blight" hierarchy
effective Jan. 1, 1985 and has quoted ob-
solete 1976 text with a very lax standard
of "blight," which was given James Regan
(AOB 24, RT 5284:14-5285:27).
18. Many alleged "facts" are ut-
terly false on page 7091. See detailed
criticisms in Petition for Rehearing at
viii-ix.
This is a prime example of the Court not
finding the truth.
Page 256
19. The project area buildings are
the exact opposite of Bunker Hill which
had 60 % dangerous. Not over 3 % to 7 $%
in Hollywood could be called dangerous by
CRA's own evidence.
Page 257
C-62
20. Bunker Hill never ruled
"blight" findings quasi-legislative.
21. Term “substantial evidence” is
not the same as "scintilla of evidence"
which goes with "arbitrary, capricious,
entirely lacking in evidentiary support."
Due to imposition of eminent domain
strict scrutiny de novo review is re-
quired.
Page 258
22. See analysis in Petition for
Rehearing at ix-xi. Since there were
fraud allegations discovery denial was
improper.
23. HSC Sections 33360-33364 were
not in effect in 1986 thus no exhaustion
of remedies was required.
Page 260
24. A CRA is an executive body and
the City Council is its legislative body.
Page 261
C-63
25. Court failed to show its rea-
soning why rights to life, health, prop-
erty, due process do not exist or can be
arbitrarily taken without strict scrutiny
de novo review by preponderance of the
evidence standards.
Page 262
26. Misstates Appellant position.
Respondents admitted the General Plan was
invalid. (Federation of Hillside and
Canyon Associations v. L. A., LASC 526
616, Ap 7715, AOB 42-43, ARB 49). Simply
no redevelopment plan could be adopted
until there was a legal general plan.
When Hamilton exposed this the Mayor
threatened to fire him.
(See also list at pages vi-xii in Appel-
lant Petition for Rehearing and Supple-
mental Briefing filed May 31, 1991 and
discussions.)
ah
D-1
APPENDIX D
Order of Second Appellate District Divi-
sion 7 denying leave to file Appellant's
Motion to Admit Project Area Committee
Evidence dated May 31, 1991.
ORIGINAL JUN 12 1991
Permission to file DENIED
Johnson A. P. J.
—
E-1
APPENDIX E
Judgment of April 20, 1989
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
No. C 607 002 Consolidated With
No. C 607 295 ***
JUDGMENT
Trial in the above-captioned Consol-
idated Actions came on before the Honor-
able Barnet M. Cooperman on May 27, 1988,
in Department 59 of the above Court.
Plaintiff David Morgan appeared in Pro-
pria persona in Case No. C 607 002.
Plaintiffs, Susan B. Nelson, Karen Hale
Wookey, Jamia Riehl and Katherine Armour
in Case No. C 607 295 and Norton Halper,
Plaintiff in C 607 002, appeared through
their counsel of record, Christopher
Sutton, of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta.
Defendants, the City of Los Angeles and
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the
E-2
City of Los Angeles, California, appeared
through their counsel of record, William
F. Childs, Deputy City Attorney, and R.
Bruce Tepper, Jr. and Kathryn Reimann of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman.
Trial was held for in excess of 60
court half-days. Argument over the admis-
Sion of exhibits was heard over an addi-
tional 11 Court half-days. Plaintiffs ex-
amined 34 witnesses. A total of 33 Ex-
hibits were received into evidence, in-
Cluding the 10,000 page Record of Pro-
ceedings certified by Judge Warren H.
Deering on July 6, 1988. Both sets of
Plaintiffs each submitted Trial Briefs;
Defendants jointly submitted a Trial
Brief; Plaintiff David Morgan submitted a
Reply Trial Brief. Supplemental Trial
Briefs were also submitted by both Plain-
tiffs and Defendants during the course of
Trial. In addition, both sets of Plain-
E-3
tiffs each submitted written Final Argu-
ment; Defendants submitted a joint Final
Argument. Plaintiffs also submitted sepa-
rate Reply Final Arguments. After a re-
view of all papers in support of and in
opposition to the Amended Complaints,
after hearing testimonial evidence, and
after hearing oral argument in support of
and in opposition to the Amended Com-
plaints, and after signing the Statement
of Decision for the within action,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
as a judgment which is and shall be for-
ever binding and conclusive upon the par-
ties hereto and all persons interested in
the validity of the Hollywood Redevelop-
ment Project, as follows:
ie A. Ordinance No. 161,202 of the City
Council of the City of Los Angeles ap-
proving and adopting the Redevelopment
Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Pro-
—_ E-4
ject is hereby declared to be adequate,
sufficient, legal and valid in all
respects.
B. The Redevelopment Plan for the Holly-
wood Redevelopment Project and the Holly-
wood Redevelopment Project are hereby
declared to be adequate, sufficient, le-
gal and valid in all respects.
C. Plaintiffs shall take nothing by these
consolidated actions.
II. Judgment is entered in favor of De-
fendants and against plaintiffs on all
Causes of Action.
III. Defendants are to recover costs
against Plaintiffs Susan B. Nelson, Karen
Hale Wookey, Jamia Riehl, and Katherine
Armour only.
Dated: Apr 20 1989
BARNET M. COOPERMAN
Judge of the Superior Court
F-1
APPENDIX F
Statement of Decision of April 20, 1989
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
No. C 607 002 Consolidated With
No. C 607 295
STATEMENT OF DECISION
Trial in the above-captioned Consol-
idated Actions came on before the Honor-
able Barnet M. Cooperman on May 27, 1988,
in Department 59 of the above Court.
Plaintiff David Morgan appeared in pro-
pria persona in Case No. C 607 002.
Plaintiffs, Susan B. Nelson, Karen Hale
Wookey, Jamia Riehl and Katherine Armour
in Case No. C 607 295 and Norton Halper,
Plaintiffs in C 607 002, appeared through
their counsel of record, Christopher
Sutton, of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta.
Defendants, the City of Los Angeles and
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the
F.-2
City of Los Angeles, California [collect-
ively, "Defendants"], appeared through
their counsel of record, William F.
Childs, Deputy City Attorney, and R.
Bruce Tepper, Jr. and Kathryn Reimann of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman. During pre-trial
proceedings, certain causes of action
were dismissed by Plaintiffs and judgment
entered pursuant to Code of Civil Proce-
dure Section 631.8. Immediately prior to
Trial, Plaintiff David Morgan was permit-
ted to amend his complaint in certain
respects in order that it conform to the
causes'of action filed in Case No. C 607
295 by Plaintiffs, Susan B. Nelson, et
al. In doing so, however, a cause of ac-
ticn for violation of Public Records Act
was not permitted because of Morgan's
failure to plead the issue previously in
a timely manner. As amended, the Com-
F.-3
plaints enumerated the foilowing causes
of action:
Morgan et al. v. All Persons Interested
Case No. C 607 002 [First Amended Com-
plaint]
CAUSES OF ACTIONI.
I. Finding of Blight Not Supported By
The Evidence
II. Illegal Inclusion of Non-Blighted
Property Within the Project Area
Liz. No Provisions Have Been Made for
Payment for Property to be Acquired
IV. Project Fails to Promote General
Welfare of Community ~
V. Inadequate Information for the
Purpose of Determining the Economic Fea-
sibility of the Redevelopment Plan
VI. Failure of the Redevelopment Plan
to Adequately Describe the Redevelopment
that is Contemplated
VII. Failure to Make Adequate Findings
F.4
VIII. Lack of Substantial Evidence to
Support Finding that Private Enterprise
Acting Alone Would Not Develop The Area
Ix. The Effect of Tax Increment Fi-
nancing Will Cause a Severe Financial
Burden or Detriment on Any Taxing Agency
Deriving Revenues from the Project Area
xX. Violation of Purposes of Redevel-
opment Law
XI. Failure to Organize a Project Area
Committee To Fairly Represent the Commu-
nity as an Independent Public Body
XII. Lack of Feasible Method or Plan
for Relocation of Displaced Families
XIII. No Basis for Finding of eed tai 1s
ity of Substitute Dwellings at Comparable
Costs
TEV. Failure to Provide Full and Fair
Hearing
F.5
XV. The Redevelopment Plan is not Re-
sponsive to the Fiscal Review Committee
Report
XVI. The Redevelopment Plan Does not
conform to the General Plan
XVII. Inadequate and Misleading Prelimi-
nary Report
XVIII. Validation Action by All Plain-
tiffs Against All Defendants
XIX. Violation of Plaintiffs’ Due Pro-
cess and Equal Protection Rights by all
Plaintiffs Against Agency and City
XxX. Injunction to Restrain Illegal Ex-
penditures and Waste of Public Funds Pur-
Suant to C.C.P. Section 526(a) By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
XXI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P.
Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs Against
All Defendants
|
F-6
XXII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P.
Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs Against
All Defendants
XXIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P.
Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs Against
All Defendants
XXIV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P.Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P.
Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs Against
All Defendants
XXVI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P.Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXVII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXVIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
Fal
XXIX. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXX. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXIV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
titeieieiaeante
F.8
Rea Le Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXVII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXVIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXXIX. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XL. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XLI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XLIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1094.5 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
F.9
XLVI. Project Area Committee Continu-
ing Violations Pursuant to Health &
Safety Code Sections 33385, et seg. By
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
XLVII. Conflict of Interest Violations
Pursuant to Government Code Section 8710C
et g. for Injunction By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
Susan B. Nelson et al. v. CRA. et al.
Case No. C 607 295 [First Amendec Com-
plaint] CAUSES OF ACTION
le Validation Action by all Plain-
tiffs Against All Defendants
II. Violation of Plaintiffs’ Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights by
all Plaintiffs Against Agency and City
III. Injunction to Restrain Illegal
Expenditures and Waste of Public Funds
Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 526 (a) by all
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
F-10
IV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
Vv. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
VI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
VII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
VIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
IX. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Secticn 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
X. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
F.11
Rie Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.Cc.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XIV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XVI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XVII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.Cc.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
F'.12
RVisse Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XIX. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XX « Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXIII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXIV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
F.13
XXV. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.Cc.P. Section 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants [DISMISSED October
21, 1987]
XXVI. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 1094.5 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants
XXVII. Writ of Mandate Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 526(a) by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants [DISMISSED October
21, 1987]
XXVIII. California Public Records Act
Order to Show Cause, Injunction, Pursuant
to Government Code Section 6250, et seq.
By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
XXIX. Project Area Committee Continu-
ing Violations Pursuant to Health &
Safety Code Section 33385, et seq. By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
XXX. Conflict of Interest Violations
Pursuant to Government Code Section
F-14
87100, et seg. for Injunction By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
XXXI. Injunction for Violation of
Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Law, Govern-
ment Code Section 54950, et seq., By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
[DISMISSED October 21, 1987]
During Trial, Plaintiffs introduced
evidence and made argument on the follow-
ing material issues among others as
disclosed by the transcripts of proceed-
ings: (1) the formation and operation of
the Project Area Committee; (2) the
preparation of reports and the Record of
Proceedings; (3) the existence of blight
in the proposed project area; (4) the
provision of notice of the Joint Public
Hearing; and (5) allegations of fraud in
the adoption process.
Trial was held for in excess of 60
court half-days. Argument over the admis-
RAR anna itn
F-15
sion of exhibits was heard over an
additional 11 Court half-days. Plaintiffs
examined 34 witnesses. A total of 33 Ex-
hibits were received into evidence, in-
cluding the 10,000 page Record of Pro-
ceedings certified by Judge Warren H.
Deering on July 6, 1987. Both sets of
Plaintiffs each submitted Trial Briefs;
Defendants jointly submitted a Trial
Brief;Plaintiff David Morgan submitted a
Reply Trial Brief. Supplemental Trial
Briefs were also submitted by both Plain-
tiffs and Defendants during the course of
Trial. In addition, both sets of Plain-
tiffs each submitted written Final Argu-
ment; Defendants submitted a joint Final
Argument. Plaintiffs also submitted sepa-
rate Reply Final Arguments. After a re-
view of all papers in support of and in
opposition to the Amended Complaints,
after hearing testimonial evidence, and
F-16
after hearing oral argument in support of
and in opposition to the Amended
Complaints, the Court rules as follows:
I. Defendants complied with all of
the mandates and requirements of the Com-
munity Redevelopment Law [Health and
Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq.] in
preparing and adopting the Redevelopment
Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment
Project [the "Redevelopment Plan"].
A. Standard of Review: Judicial
review in these actions concerning the
preparation and adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan is limited to that of
review of legislative or quasi-legisla-
tive action and is a substantial evidence
review. Accordingly, in their decisions
and determinations, the actions of the
Defendants must be sustained unless their
decisions are “arbitrary, capricious, en-
tirely lacking in evidentiary support or
eee einai
F’.17
if [the Defendants] failed to follow the
procedure and give the notices required
by law" [Fosselman's, Inc. v. City of Al-
hambra, 178 Cal.App.3d 806, 812 (1986)].
It has also been held that such actions
must be sustained "unless there is no
reasonable justification for their
actions" [In Re Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d
21, 38 (1964)]. De novo type of review
does not apply to judicial review of the
preparation and adoption of a redevelop-
ment plan.
B. Defendants fully complied with
all applicable statutory procedures in
preparing and adopting the Redevelopment
Plan.
1. The Hollywood Project Area Com-
mittee (the "PAC") was properly formed.
Health and Safety Code Section 33385
provides that if a proposed redevelopment
project could result in the displacement
F-18
of a substantial number of low- and mod-
erate-income families, the legislative
body shall call for the formation of a
project area committee. A project area
committee is an advisory committee to the
Agency which must be formed and approved
as representative within 60 days of the
selection of the proposed project area.
In complying with these procedures,
the Defendants took the following ac-
tions:
ae The City adopted a resolution
calling for the formation of a PAC to in-
clude property owners, residential ten-
ants, business owners, and existing com-
munity organizations. Four community
Organizations were to be appointed to the
PAC by the Council office; the remaining
21 members of the PAC were to be elected
by the community within the proposed pro-
ject area.
a
F.-19
De The Agency provided two sepa-
rate mailings of a Notice Of Formation of
Project Area Committee, by first class
mail, to all property owners of record in
the proposed project area. The Agency
also caused approximately 25,000 circu-
lars to be distributed throughout the
proposed project area on two separate oc-
casions, in August and November, 1983. In
addition, the Agency caused a number of
newspaper articles and notices to be
published in community newspapers in the
area,concerning the formation of the PAC.
Ce The Agency conducted a total of
six community meetings from July to
November, 1983, at which meetings the
concept of redevelopment and the forma-
tion of the PAC were discussed.
d. On December 13, 1983, an elec-
tion was held for members of the commu-
nity in the Hollywood High School Audito-
EE
F.20
rium for the formation of the PAC. In ex-
cess of 250 community members attended
and participated in the formation of the
PAC. Secret ballots were passed out and
collected, liberal election qualification
requirements were verified, nominations
were accepted both by prior qualification
and from the floor, and nominees were ac-
corded an opportunity to speak. There was
no evidence that any qualified individual
was denied the opportunity to participate
in this election. The election of members
to the PAC wac reasonably and regularly
conducted.
e. A PAC consisting of four (4)
residential property owners, four (4)
residential tenants,six (6) business own-
ers or tenants, three (3) industrial or
manufacturing property owners or
operators, and four (4) community organi-
zations was selected by the community at
F.21
that election. Four (4) additional commu-
nity organizations were subsequently ap-
pointed to the PAC by the Council office.
£. On January 6, 1984, within 60
days of the selection of the project
area, the City Council approved as repre-
sentative the PAC members elected at the
community meeting of December 13, 1983
and the four members appointed by the
Council office.
The efforts of the Defendants in un-
dertaking the above-described course of
action were reasonable, complied with no-
tions of due process, were supported by
substantial evidence, and did not violate
any statutory or decisional guidelines
concerning the formation of a project
area committee. The categories of PAC
membership mentioned in the statutory
scheme are not exclusive, but serve as
guidance for a determination of represen-
F’.22
tativeness. The actions of Defendants
were reasonable and calculated to include
as many persons in the PAC formation pro-
cess as possible and practical.
Ze The operation of the PAC was
regularly and openly conducted, and the
Agency fully complied with its duty to
consult with and obtain the advice of the
PAC. The PAC or its subcommittees met in
excess of 100 times to advise and consult
with the Agency on the preparation of the
Redevelopment Plan. Actions taken were by
majority rule and minutes of the PAC
meetings were regularly prepared, re-_ ‘
viewed, approved and maintained. Copies
of approved PAC Minutes were included in
the Agency's Report to Council.
No request for funding of legal
counsel or other material or services was
made by the PAC to the legislative body,
as required by Section 33388. Evidence
F.23
established that the PAC was aware of
this provision and consciously took no
action. The Agency reasonably provided
services and materials pursuant to the :
"equivalent resources" provision of Sec-
tion 33388. There was no evidence that
any information material to the PAC's op-
eration was withheld from the PAC.
3. The actions of Defendants
leading to the preparation and adoption
of the Redevelopment Plan *ully complied
with the requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Law. All the documents re-
quired to be prepared and all the reviews
required to be undertaken were performed
and were adequately set forth in the
Record of Proceedings, which was reviewed
and upheld by Judge Deering on July 6,
1987 and accepted into evidence by this
Court on October 21, 1988. The Record of
Proceedings shows clearly what actions
F.24
were taken by Defendants in adopting the
Redevelopment Plan, and the reasons
therefor. The Record of Proceedings
Clearly shows that the Redevelopment Plan
as adopted was the product of consensus
and compromise to the needs of the commu-
nity as perceived by the persons and or-
ganizations who involved themselves in
the process, including the Hollywood PAC,
residents and business owners of the pro-
ject area, the City's Planning Depart-
ment, and the Councilperson representing
the district in which the project area is
located. Approval of the Redevelopment
Plan was not the result of duress or un-_
due pressure on the part of any person or
group. The application of City Charters
97.2 is preempted by the State Community
Redevelopment Law.
4. The Redevelopment Plan was
adopted in conformity with the General
F-25
Plan for the City of Los Angeles. The is-
sue was considered twice by the City
Planning Commission which found the Rede-
velopment Plan to be in conformance with
the General Plan. There is substantial
evidence in the Record of Proceedings
supporting the City Council's determina-
tion of conformity, pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 33367.
5. The actions of Defendants in
providing notice of the Joint Public
Hearing fully complied with the statutory
provisions set forth in Health and Safety
Code Section 33349, as well as notions of
due process. In addition to providing ad-
equate certified mail notice to property
owners in the project area, as estab-
lished by the Record of Proceedings, the
Defendants also caused notice of the
Joint Public Hearing to be distributed
door-to-door in the project area, and
a
——
F-26
caused the Notice of Joint Public Hearing
to be published in two community newspa-
pers. Separate certified mail notice for
each parcel or for each individual as-
sessee is not required.
Cc. The decisions and determina-
tions of Defendants in adopting the Rede-
velopment Plan, including the
determination that the project area is
blighted, are supported by substantial
evidence, contained in the Record of Pro-
ceedings. The Agency's Report to Council
consisted of 640 pages of materials, in-
Cluding 219 pages describing the existing
conditions in the project area. These
materials were made available to the pub-
lic in advance of the Joint Public Hear-
ing. Testimony in favor of and against
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
was heard and considered by Defendants.
The existence of objections to the Rede-
aa cee aaa
F.-27
velopment Plan did not operate to nullify
the substantial evidence presented to the
City Council indicating, inter alia, the
existence of blight within the defini-
tions of Health and Safety Code Sections
33030, et seq. Differences of opinion, no
matter how strongly presented, do not
warrant rejection of Defendants’ action,
where it has been demonstrated that De-
fendants were presented with opposing
viewpoints, considered them extensively
and on the basis of evidence selected one
alternative rather than another. Karlson
v. City of Camarillo, 100 Cal.App.3d 789,
803 (1980). In any event, even at Trial,
Plaintiffs adduced no evidence contra-
dicting the material contained in the Re-
port to Council.
II. There is no evidence to support any
of Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud
against the Agency or City. Because of
F.-28
the seriousness of allegations of fraud
against public entities and the impor-
tance of the Redevelopment Plan to the
City and County of Los Angeles, this
court has reviewed all of Plaintiffs' al-
legations of fraud under a de novo,
independent standard of review, pursuant
to the foundational requirements of City
of Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d
768, 775 (1976). Plaintiffs did
participate in and were heard at the
Joint Public Hearing. There is nothing in
the Record of Proceedings and no evidence
was adduced to show that Plaintiffs made
any allegations of fraud at that time, or
that they were otherwise prevented from
making such allegations.
After carefully considering all the
evidence offered by Plaintiffs on this
issue, the Court finds no credible
evidence to support any of their fraud
een nbeeamaaa
F-29
allegations. Plaintiffs accused the
Agency of committing fraud at nearly
every step in the development of the
plan, including the preparation of the
Record of Proceedings. No evidence was
adduced which supported such allegations.
III. There is no evidence to suggest
that any violation of the Political Re-
form Act has occurred. No evidence was
adduced with respect to any conflict by
any member of the City Council or Agency
Board of Commissioners. Similarly, no
evidence was presented to support any
claim by Plaintiffs that the Hollywood
PAC, at the time of its formation or at
the time the Redevelopment Plan was
adopted, was required to but failed to
comply with any guideline or requirement
of the Political Reform Act. The opinion
of In Re Rotman, 10 FPPC Opinions 1
(1987), overturning the prior opinion of
F-30
In Re Bonfa, 2 FPPC Opinions 146 (1976),
was not issued until May, 1987, more than
one year after the Redevelopment Plan was
adopted. No probative evidence of any
conflict by any person was adduced.
IV. No evidence was presented of
any violation of the Public Records Act
by Defendants.
V. The actions of the City Council
of the City of Los Angeles, and the Board
of Directors of The Community Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Los Angeles,
California, in connection with the prepa-
ration and adoption of the Hollywood Re-
development Plan are therefore validated.
The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan is
therefore found and held to be valid and
effective.
Dated. APR 20 1989
BARNET M. COOOPERMAN
Judge of the Superior Court
G-1
APPENDIX G
Statutes, rules involved
U. S. Constitution Amendment I provides,
in part: Congress shall make no law...
abridging... the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of
grievances.
U. S. Constitution Amendment V provides,
in part: No person shall...be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
U. S. Constitution Amendment XIV provides
in part: ...No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities or citizens of
the Untied States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor
G-2
deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of its
laws...
California Constitution Article III, Sec-
tion 1 provides: The State of California
is an inseparable part of the United
States of America, and the United States
Constitution is the supreme law of the
land.
California Health and Safety Code ("HSC")
provides:
HSC 33032 (Amended Stats 1976 ch 1336
Sec. 3) (effective until December 31,
1984 was superseded).
HSC 33032 (Stats 1984 ch 147 Section 2,
effective after January 1, 1985 and nam-
ing elements 2B, 3, 4, numbers added in-
fra).
A blighted area is characterized by [2B]
properties which suffer form economic
dislocation, deterioration, or disuse be-
aia a
G-3
cause of one or more of the following
factors which cause [3] a reduction of,
or lack of, proper utilization of the
area to such an extent that it consti-
tutes a serious physical, social, or eco-
nomic burden on the community which [4]
cannot reasonably be expected to be re-
versed or alleviated by private enter-
prise acting alone.
(a) The subdividing and sale of lots of
irregular form and shape and inadequate
Size for proper usefulness and develop-
ment.
(b) The laying out of lots in disregard
of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground
and surrounding conditions.
(c) The existence of inadequate public
improvements, public facilities, open
spaces and utilities which cannot be
G-4
remedied by private or governmental ac-
tion without redevelopment.
(d) A prevalence of depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and eco-
nomic maladjustment...
HSC 33320.1. ..."predominantly urban-
ized" means that not less than 80 percent
of the privately owned property in the
project area:
(1) Has been or is developed for urban
uses; or ;
(2) Is characterized by the conditions
described in subdivisions (a), (b), or
(e) of Section 33032; or
(3) Is an integral part of an area de-
veloped for urban uses...
HSC 33321. A project area need not be
restricted to buildings, improvements, or
lands which are detrimental or inimical
to the public health, safety, or welfare,
but may consist of an area in which such
I aaa
G-5
conditions predominate and injuriously
affect the entire area...
HSC 33385. (as in effect in 1986 until
December 31, 1988). The legislative body
of a city or county shall call upon the
residents and existing community organi-
zations in a redevelopment project area,
within which a substantial number of low-
and moderate-income families are to be
displaced by the redevelopment project,
to form a project area committee. The
project area committee shall include,
when applicable, residential owner occu-
pants, residential tenants, businessmen,
and members of existing organizations
within the project area. The members of
the committee shall serve without compen-
sation.
The legislative body shall approve a
representative project area committee in
G-6
each project area within 60 days after
the project area is selected.
For project areas selected prior to
March 7, 1973, the legislative body may,
but shall not be required to, call upon
the residents and existing community or-
ganizations to form a project area com-
mittee.
If the project will not displace a
substantial number of low- and moderate-
income families the agency shall either
call upon the residents and existing com-
munity organizations to form a project
area committee or the agency shall con-
sult with, and obtain the advice of, res-
idents and community organizations as
provided for project area committees in
Section 33386 and provide such persons
and organizations with the redevelopment
plan prior to submitting it to the leg-
islative body.
G-7
Nothing contained in this section
shall prevent an agency, or the legisla-
tive body of any city or county, from
creating any other committee for a pro-
ject area.
HSC 33385. (As amended Stats 1988 ch 1404
sec. 1 effective after January 1, 1989)
CT 20185). Formation of committee; Duties
(a+ The legislative body of a city or
county shall call upon the residents and
existing community organizations in a re-
development project area, within which a
substantial number of low- and moderate-
income families are to be displaced by
the redevelopment project, to form a pro-
ject area committee.
(b) The legislative body shall, by reso-
lution, adopt a procedure pursuant to
this section for the formation of the
project area committee. The procedure
G-8
shall include, but not be limited to, all
of the following:
(1) Publicizing the opportunity to serve
on the project area committee.
(2) Conduct by the agency of a minimum
of one public meeting to explain the es-
tablishment of, functions of, and oppor-
tunity to serve on, the project area com-
mittee. At the public meeting, the agency
shall distribute copies of the procedure
adopted pursuant to this subdivision, the
redevelopment plan or the pertinent por-
tions thereof, and any other materials
the agency determines would be useful.
(3) Providing published notice of all
meetings, hearings, or plebiscites con-
ducted by, or on behalf of, the agency or
legislative body relative to the forma-
tion and selection of the project area
committee in the same manner as specified
G-9
in subdivision (a) of Section 65090 of
the Government Code.
(4) Providing written notice to all res-
idents and businesses in the project area
of all meetings, hearings, or plebiscites
conducted by, or on behalf of, the agency
or legislative body relative to the for-
mation and selection of the project area
committee. This mailed notice requirement
shall only apply when mailing addresses
to all individuals and businesses, or to
all occupants, are obtainable by the
agency at a reasonable cost. The notice
shall be mailed by first-class mail, but
may be addressed to "occupant." In lieu
of providing separate notice for each
meeting, hearing, or plebiscite, the
agency may provide a single notice pur-
Suant to this paragraph stating all
dates, times, and locations of any meet-
ings, hearings, and plebiscites relative
G-10
to the formation and selection of the
project area committee.
If the agency has acted in good faith to
comply with the notice requirements of
this paragraph, the failure of the agency
to provide the required notice to resi-
dents or businesses eaknoen to the agency
or whose addresses cannot be obtained at
a reasonable cost, shall not, in and of
itself, invalidate the formation or ac-
tions of the project area committee.
(5) Any other forms of assistance which
the legislative body requires in connec-
tion with the formation of the project
area committee.
(c) The project area committee shall in-
Clude, when applicable, residential owner
occupants, residential tenants, business
owners, and representatives of existing
organizations within the project area.
G-1ll
The members of the committee shall serve
without compensation.
(d) The legislative body shall approve a
representative project area committee in
each project area within 60 days after
the project area is selected.
(e) For project areas selected prior to
March 7, 1973, the legislative body may,
but shall not be required to, call upon
the residents and existing community or-
ganizations to form a project area com-
mittee.
‘£) If the project will not displace a
substantial number of low- and moderate-
income families the agency shall either
call upon the residents and existing com-
munity organizations as provided for pro-
ject area committees in Section 33386 and
provide such persons and organizations
with the redevelopment plan prior to sub-
mitting it to the legislative body.
G-12
(g) Nothing contained in this section
shall prevent an agency, or the legisla-
tive body of any city or county, form
creating any other committee for a pro-
ject area. However, these committees
Shall not be merged into the project area
committee subsequent to the formation
thereof and the members of these other
committees shall not vote in meetings of
the project area committee.
(h) The agency may charge fees to per-
sons purchasing or leasing property from
the agency in the project area and to
persons participating in redevelopment of
the project area under an owner partici-
pation agreement to defray any cost to
the agency or legislative body in imple-
menting this section.
HSC 33386 The redevelopment agency
through its staff, consultants, and
agency members shall, upon the direction
G-13
of and approval of the legislative body
consult with, and obtain the advice of,
the project area committee concerning
those policy matters which deal with the
planning and provision of residentail fa-
cilities or replacement housing for those
to be displaced by project activities...
Ordinance 161 202 excerpts:
Section 5. The City Council hereby finds
and determines:
(1) The project area is a blighted area,
the redevelopment of which is necessary
to effectuate the public purposes de-
Clared in the Community Redevelopment Law
of the State of California.
(6) The condemnation of real property,
as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan
for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project,
is necessary to the execution of the Re-
development Plan for the Hollywood Rede-
velopment Project and adequate provisions
G-14 o
have been made for payment for property
to be acquired as provided by law.
HUD Local Public Agency Letter No. 458.
Exhibit 108A, pages LC-56 through LC-59
(pages 123 - 126).
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410
| June 24, 1968
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR RENEWAL AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE
LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY LETTER NO. 458
SUBJECT: Increased Citizen Participation
in Urban Renewal Projects - The
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment is expanding its program require-
ments in order to increase opportunities
for citizen involvement in the planning,
development, and execution of HUD-
assisted activities. Accordingly, LPA's
shall encourage resident involvement
G-15
in all phases of urban renewal projects
to the fullest possible extent.
This Letter requires the establish-
ment of a Project Area Committee (PAC),
made up of residents of the project area,
for all urban renewal projects which in-
volve residential rehabilitation and
which are not yet in execution. In addi-
tion, the Letter also encourages the es-
tablishment of a PAC for all other urban
renewal projects, irrespective of the re-
newal treatment involved or the project
stage.
Citizens should have clear and di-
rect access to decision-making in all
Stags of the urban renewal process in or-
der to achieve:
1. More accurate determination of
needs projects should meet and the
development of policies and programs
responsive and relevant to these needs.
G-16
2. Involvement by citizens in the
development and execution of policies and
programs in order to further their own
growth and development.
36 Firmer commitment of citizens
to projects.
This Letter explains how urban re-
newal projects are affected by this
policy and sets forth pertinent proce-
dures designed to carry out the policy.
The provisions of the Letter do not
apply to urban renewal projects in model
neighborhoods under the Model Cities Pro-
gram. In cases of urban renewal projects
in areas being planned as model neighbor-
hoods, Model Cities guidelines and per-
formance standards for citizen participa-
tion will apply.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
All Urban Renewal Projects
G-17
The Survey and Planning Application
for all urban renewal projects shall in-
clude a statement from the Workable Pro-
gram Citizens Advisory Committee on the
appropriateness of the timing and loca-
tion of the proposed project.
Urban Renewal Projects Involving Residen-
tial Rehabilitation
A Project Area Committee (PAC) shall
be established for all urban renewal pro-
jects, except those in model neighbor-
hoods, in which residential rehabilita-
tion activities are contemplated.
The PAC shall be established in co-
operation with local residents and
groups. It shall be representative of a
fair cross section of the residents of
the urban renewal area and shall adopt no
financial deterrents to membership or
participation by residents of the urban
renewal area.
G-18
The LPA shall work closely with the
PAC to assure that citizens participate
in the formulation and execution of plans
for renewal of the area and improvement
of the condition of its residents. Suffi-
cient information about the project shall
be made available to residents for these
purposes.
Where an existing neighborhood orga-
nization in the project area either meets
the requirments for a PAC or adapts it-
self to meet them, it may serve as the
PAC. Other neighborhood organizations
which may exist or be formed in the pro-
ject area shall relate to the LPA through
the PAC. The PAC shall be the forum for
these organizations to participate in the
project.
The LPA may also make arrangements
with the PAC for the PAC to assist in the
utilizations of residents in various ca-
G-19
pacities in the project such as inter-
viewers or relocation aides. Arrangements
may include the PAC selecting residents
or setting up training programs fo them.
The LPA may provide the PAC with neces-
Sary technical assistance.
Other Urban Renewal Projects
The LPA is encouraged to establish a
PAC for all other urban renewal projects,
in which residential rehabilitation ac-
tivites are not contemplated, and to sup-
port and work with such a PAC as de-
scribed above. Establishment of a PAC for
such projects is not a program re-
quirment, however.
ELIGIBLE COSTS
Eligible costs include amounts to
cover the LPA providing the PAC with nec-
essary technical assistance, administra-
tive and secretarial staff, and office
Space and equipment. Costs of arrange-
G-20
ments with the PAC in connection with the
utilization of residents in the project
area are also eligible.
Estimated costs for support of the
PAC shall be submitted with the Survey
and Planning Application and with Part I
of the Application for Loan and Grant.
APPLICABILITY
The submission requirements set forth
above apply to all urban renewal projects
which have not received approval of the
initial Part I or an Application for Loan
and Grant prior to issuance of this Let-
ter. With respect to projects for which a
Part I has been approved, the initial
Part II submission shall include the re-
quired documentation with respect to a
PAC to be established for the execution
stage of the project. The HUD Regional
Office will advise the LPA if the docu-
mentation described in this Letter is re-
G-21
quired to be submitted in connection with
a Survey and Planning Application or with
Part I or Part II or an Application for
Loan and Grant presently under review or
approved after the date of this Letter.
MANUAL REVISIONS TRANSMITTED
Section 4-2-1, Page 3. A new code
Item, R 217, requiring a Report on Citi-
zen Participation, has been added.
Section 10-2-3. A new section, Citi-
zen Participation, has been added requir-
ing the establishment of a Project Area
Committee (PAC) for projects involving
residential rehabilitation activities and
setting forth related criteria for LPA
support of the PAC. The section also de-
scribes documentation required to be sub-
mitted with the Survey and Planning Ap-
plication and with Part I of the Applica-
tion for Loan and Grant with respect to
the PAC.
G-22
Section 109-4-1, Page 3. The Report
on Urban Renewal Area, submitted with the
Survey and Planning Application, has been
expanded to add Item No. 13 covering data
about the PAC, and Item No. 14 requiring
a statement from the Workable Program
Citizens Advisory Commitee as to the tim-
ing and location of the proposed project.
Section 10-4-2, Page 4. A paragraph
("Report on Citizen Participation') has
been added describing data required to be
Submitted with Part I of the Application
for Loan and Grant to substantiate that
the Project Area Committee has been es-
tablished and that it meets the require-
ments set forth in Section 10-2-3.
Section 12-1-3, Page 1. Under the
heading "Survey and Planning and Project
Execution, "Item No. (2) has been ex-
panded to incorporate material formely
set forth under Items NO. (1) (c) and
G-23
(1) (d), and to cover the eligibility of
costs for staff, consultant, and other
Suppoortive services to the PAC.
Section 31-2-2, Page 2. Under the
heading "Rehabilitation and Conservation
Activities," a sentence has been inserted
to cover eligible costs of supportive
services to the PAC.
s/
Assistant Secretary
Attachements
H-1
APPENDIX H
How federal question 1) of failing to no-
tify the residents was raised in state
courts
Morgan First Amended Verified Com-
plaint, filed April 20, 1988, CT 17494 at
17535. EIGHTEENTH/FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.
A. Project Area Committee Violations...
(ii) Agency managerial employees Donald
W. Cosgrove, Donald Pelegrino, David
Lewis and others in mutual agreement and
conspiracy with one another avoided the
requirements for the call of Health and
Safety Cod Section 33385 by stating to
the Los Angeles City Council that such a
call would be made and then with knowl-
edge of the requirement for the call
failing to send notices to the residents,
businesses and existing community organi-
zations within the proposed Project Area
as required by Section 33385 and by Los
H-2
Angeles City Council Resolution 83-1273
by, inter alia: (a) electing to employ a
flier distribution company to satisfy the
requirements of Health and Safety Code
Sec. 33385 and Los Angeles City Council
Resolution 83-1273 rather than using
direct mail to persons throughout the
proposed Project Area, with prior know-
ledge that such flier distribution com-
panies, and in particular Certified Dis-
tributing Service, had failed to deliver
all requisite notices in the past causing
numerous complaints about lack of notifi-
cation from community members in other
redevelopment projects; (b) constructing
deceptive wording of the purported no-
tices, with knowledge from prior experi-
ence that the wording was decep-tive,
which had the intended effect of not
fully informing residents and community
members and the intended effect of affir-
H-3
matively misleading residents and commu-
nity members such that the purposed no-
tices did not constitute a "call" within
the meaning of Section 33385;... CT
17602. NINETEENTH/SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.
Violation of Plaintiff's Due Process and
Equal Protection Rights by All Plaintiffs
Against Agency and City.... By failing to
call upon the residents to form a Project
Area Committee,... by failing to mail re-
quired notices,...
See Petition for Review in California
Supreme Court filed June 25, 1991 by
David Morgan, page 3, Issues presented.
4) Did 1983 PAC and 1986 hearing notices
fail to meet requirements of actual not-
ice and warning or rights to be infringed
(Am I, V, XIV)? DO OVER 30,000 TENANTS
GET DUE PROCESS NOTICE OF PAC FORMATION
SO THEY CAN USE THE PAC TO DEFEND THEM-
SELVES FROM RELOCATION OR DO AMENDMENTS
H-4
I, V AND U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
NOT APPLY?
See Appendix P herein, Notice to Resi-
dents; See Appendix S herein, Declaration
of David Morgan Re: 1983 PAC Election
Notice and Residential Unit Survey by
Plaintiffs of September 22, 1988
("Survey"), with list of evidence.
I-1
APPENDIX I
How federal question 2) of diluting vot-
ing rights of residents was raised in
state courts
Morgan First Amended Verified Com-
plaint, filed April 20, 1988, CT 17494 at
17516. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION. Failure
to Organize a Project Area Committee To
Fairly Represent the Community as an In-
dependent Public Body. Defendants did
not call upon the residents and existing
community organizations to form the pro-
ject area committee. Some members of the
project area committee were appointed.
The committee did not adequately repre-
sent residential owner occupants, resi-
dential tenants and members of existing
organizations within the project area.
Low and moderate income families were not
adequately represented on the Project
Area Committee. Sixteen of twenty-five
[-2
members of the PAC were businessmen, many
of whom had conflicts of interest. CT
17538 EIGHTEENTH/FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.
[Defendants] manipulated the categories
of membership on the Project Area Commit-
tee for the 1983, 1985 and 1986 Committee
elections in a way which controlled the
composition of the Committee and excluded
persons who would otherwise be opposed to
or critical of the proposed redevelopment
project in Hollywood and did so with
knowledge that their actions would have
these effects; such manipulation in-
cluded, inter alia; (a) unilaterally fix-
ing the number of seats in each candidate
category; (b) unilaterally creating an
illegal category of "absentee property
owner" and then combining this candidate
category with the "residential owner-oc-
cupant" category mandated by Health and
Safety Code Section 33385 with the in-
[.3
tended effect of allowing absentee prop-
erty owners to take Committee seats form
residential owner-occupants in violation
of Section 33385; unilaterally creating
an illegal category of "industrial/
manufacturing/warehousing" as a separate
category in addition to the "business"
category mandated by Section 33385 with
the intended effect of allowing busines-
ses, in particular, members of the
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which made
the initial request to have the Community
Redevelopment Agency create a project
area in Hollywood and which advanced the
Community Redevelopment Agency $ 150,000
for an initial study, to acquire a
disproportionately large dominant number
of seats on the Project Area Commit-
tee;... allowing businesses, absentee
property owners and others favoring the
Project to acquire a disproportionately
I-4
large number of seats thereby excluding
residents and persons opposed to the Pro-
ject; and this conspiracy is reflected in
memoranda and other writings between con-
Spirators;.. (viii)...(b) by unilaterally
deciding to limit to one vote each resi-
dential household with the intended ef-
fect of disenfranchising thousands of
residents and skewing the qualified voter
list in favor of businesses and specifi-
cally in favor of the co-conspirator mem-
bers of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
tee CT 17602. NINETEENTH/SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION. Violation of Plaintiff's Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights by
All Plaintiffs Against Agency and City.
122/19. By failing to call upon the res-
idents of the Project Area to form a Pro-
ject Area Committee, by failing to honor
the Project Area Committee represen-
tativeness requirements, by engaging in
ll I i lea
I-5
widespread fraudulent, collusive and cor-
rupt actions, with knowledge of the false
and corrupt nature of such actions, by
failing to mail the required notices, and
by failing to follow statutory procedures
with respect to consideration of the re-
development Plan thereto by a representa-
tive Project Area Committee, plaintiffs
and other interested persons were denied
notice of their right to representation
through a Project Area Committee, were
denied their right to influence decision-
making through a duly-constituted Project
Area Committee, and were denied their
right to require a 2/3 vote of the City
Council to enact Ordinance No. 161,202.
See Petition for Review in California
Supreme Court filed June 25, 1991 by
David Morgan, page 3, Issues presented.
5) Were residents and organizations de-
nied protection form CRA via self-form-
I-6
ing PAC and fair voting (Am I, HSC Sec-
tion 33385)? ARE THE RESIDENTS THREATENED
WITH LOSS OF HOMES AND TENANCIES ENTITLED
TO FORM A PAC TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF
THEIR ADVERSARIES, THE CRA AND CITY, OR
CAN THE CONDEMNORS RIG THE NUMBER IN SEAT
CATEGORIES, APPOINT MEMBERS, ADD BUSI-
NESSES TO THE ELECTORATE, AND PREVENT
RESIDENTS FROM VOTING FOR ALL CLASSES OF
SEATS? 6) Did CRA/City prevent PAC from
full and fair hearings, acting as inde-
pendent body and arms length bargaining
(Am I, V, HSC Section 33366)? MAY CRA
CONCEAL THE PAC VETO POWER, SLIP IN THE
CRA ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE PAC ALSO
AND GIVE FALSE LEGAL ADVICE, DOCTOR THE
MINUTES, OBSTRUCT THE PUBLIC FROM SPEAK-
ING AND SUBVERT THE ENTIRE INTENT OP PAC
LAW?
See Appendix N herein. Memorandum of
Points and Authorities on Legislative In-
I-7
tent of Health and Safety Code Section
33385, Project Area Committees, June 20,
1988, by David Morgan, CT 17908.
See Appendix O herein. Plaintiff's Memo-
randum Re Statutory History of Health and
Safety Code Section 33385 et al, Project
Area Committees, June 20, 1988, by
Christopher Sutton, CT 17889.
See Appendix Q herein. City Council mo-
tion to form PAC, November 18, 1983.
See Appendix R herein. City Council reso-
lution to approve PAC, January 6, 1984.
J-1
APPENDIX J
How federal question 3) of taking eminent
domain powers over predominantly non-
blighted areas was raised in state courts
Morgan First Amended Verified Com-
plaint, filed April 20, 1988, CT 17494 at
CT 17496, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, Finding
of Blight not Supported by the Evidence.
CT 17500, Paragraph 17, The project area
defined by the redevelopment plan which
is the subject of this action is not
predominated by any of the elements of
"blight" as set forth in Health and Safe-
ty Code Sections 33030 through 33032, nor
is any substantial portion of such area
so characterized or predominated. The
project area, in fact, does not exhibit a
preponderance of deteriorating structures
wherein the inhabitants of the area are
subjected to physical dangers or health
hazards. CT 17502 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION,
J-2
Illegal Inclusion of Non-Blighted Proper-
ty Within the Project Area. CT 17511
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION. Lack of Substan-
tial Evidence to Support Finding that
Private Enterprise Acting Alone Would Not
Develop the Area. CT 17531 EIGHTEENTH/
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION. Validation Action
by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants.
CT 17582. i. Inadequate Public Use/Blight
Findings and Violations. CT 17584. J. The
Requisite Blight Finding was Insupport-
able. CT 17585. K. Failure to Make
Specific Blight Findings. CT 17585 L.
Inadequate Eminent Domain Findings and
Violations. There was no evidence of
proposed developments for the Project
Area requiring the use of eminent domain
for parcel assembledge... There was no
evidence of blight in the record to
justify a public-purpose required for
eminent domain by California Constituion
J-3
Article I, section 19, and U. S. Consti-
tution Amendments 5 and 14... CT 17593.
R. Violations of the 80% "Predominantly
Urbanized" Independent Blight Threshold
--. defendants City and Agency failed to
make a finding ... that 80% (eighty
percent) of the private property in the
Project Area is specifically character-
ized by the blight conditions of section
33032 (a) and (b)... CT 17612. TWENTY-
EIGHTH/ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION. Inade-
quate blight findings in 4 sub-parts. CT
17613. TWENTY-NINTH/TWELFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION. Inadequate blight findings. CT
17614. THIRTIETH/THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF
ACTION. Inadequate eminent domain find-
ings. CT 17615. THIRTY-SECOND/FIFTEENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION. Inadequate private
enterprise paralysis findings. CT 17618.
THIRTY-SIXTH/ NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
80 % of private property not "blighted."
es
J-4
CT 17619. THIRTY-SEVENTH/TWENTIETH CAUSE
OF ACTION. Conclusive presumption uncon-
Sstitutional and violates due process,
equal protection and property rights.
See Petition for Review in California
Supreme Court filed June 25, 1991 by
David Morgan, page 3, Issues presented.
2) Has right to employment, work and
business been infringed by adoption of
false private sector Paralysis and no
fiscal detriment findings (Am Vv, XIV, HSC
Sections 33030, 33032)? 3) Did CRA/City
infringe rights to property by failing to
meet seven strict "blight" requirements
(Am V, HSC Sections 33030, 33032)? IS THE
40 YEAR OLD STATUTORY AND CASE LAW MANDA-
TORY PREREQUISITE OP 51 % TO 80 % DANGER-
OUS OR SUBSTANTIALLY DETERIORATED BUILD-
INGS NOW OVERRULED SO 3 ¢ TO 7 % IS
ENOUGH? See Appendix L herein.
K-1
APPENDIX K
Quotations of authorities on condemnation
for private uses. See Reply Brief of
Appellant Morgan, Mar. 18, 1991, 2 - 15.
A. THE TIME OF MOSES
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor
any thing that is thy neighbor's."
(Exodus, 20:17 (ca. 1500 B. C.).
B. ROMAN TIMES
"And it is not pretended that, even
under the arbitrary government of the
Roman emperors, it was lawful or
justifiable for the sovereign to take the
property of one citizen and give it to
another, where the public interest was
not concerned in such transfer." (1
Domant's Civil Law, b. be Gees: 2s 13).
K-2
(Varick v. Smith and the Attorney
General, 5 Paige 137, 159 (N. Y. 1835).
C. THE TIME OF MAGNA CARTA
31. Neither we nor our bailiffs
shall take another's wood for castles or
for other private uses, unless by the
will of him to whom the wood belongs
(Magna Carta, Ch. 31, 1215 A. D.).
"Law of the Land" refers to Magna
Carta (Ch. 39 (a. k. a. Ch. 29), 52, 56).
Private use disseizure of land was termi-
nated after 17 years: "The constitution
of 1777 did not delegate any authority to
the legislature to take the property of
One person and give it to another, with
or without compensation...The words "by
the law of the land," have been held to
mean by due course and process of law."
(Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill 140.). They do
not mean, a statute passed for the
purpose of working the wrong. (Ibid. 145)
K.3
Justice Bronson, in the above case, holds
that the section was taken, with some
modifications, from a part of the 29th
Chapter of Magna Charta, which provides,
that no freeman shall be taken or
imprisoned, or be disseized of his
freehold, but by the lawful judgment of
his peers, or by the law of the land. (2
Story on Const. 661, { 1783.) (Embury v.
J. and W. C . Conner, 4 N. Y. Super.
Court 98, 106 (4 Sandford) 1848) (See
also 3 N. Y. 511 (1850) emphasis added).
See: Nesbitt v. Trumbo, 39 Ill. 110,
113, 117 (1866).
D. THE TIME OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
That they are entitled to life, lib-
erty, and property, and they have never
ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a
right to dispose of either without their
consent. (Declaration of Rights, In
Congress at Philadelphia, Oct. 14, 1774).
K-4
See: Associates of the Jersey Co. v.
Mayor and Common Council of Jersey City
and John C. Morgan, 8 N. J. Eq. (4
Halst.) 715, 722 (1850); Daniel J. Hoye
Vv. James Swan, 5 Md. 237, 244 1853);
Dickey v. Tennison, 27 Mo. 373, 374, 376
(1858); Moore v. Smaw, 17 C 199, 218-9
(1861); Dunham and Beach v. Williams and
Parker, 36 Barbour 136, 163 (N. Y. 1862);
(Bennett v. Boyle, 40 Barbour (N. Y.)
551, 555 (1863); Coster v. The Tide Water
Co., 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Green) 54, 68
(1866); Memphis Freight Co. v. Mayor and
Aldermen of Memphis, 44 Tenn. 419, 428 (4
Coldwell) (1867) Sherman v. Buick, 32 C
241, 242 (1867).
"And it seems to us that the
assertion of a right on the part of the
legislature to take the property of one
citizen and transfer it to another, even
for a full compensation, where the public
K-5
interest is not promoted thereby, is
Claiming a despotic power, and one
inconsistent with every just principle
and fundamental maxim of a free
government. (Osborn v. Hart, 24 Wis. 89,
93 (1869) emphasis added).
See: (Loughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga.
500, 504, 505 (1871); New Central Coal
Co. and Alexander Shaw v. George's Creek
Coal and Iron Co., 37 Md. 537, 551
(1872); Joshua Allen v. Inhabitants of
Jay, 60 Me. 124, 139, 142 (1872); (Con.
Channel Co. v. CPRR Co., 51 C 269, 727-3
(1876); Edgewood RR Co's. Appeal, 79 Pa.
St. 257 (29 P. E. Smith) (1876);
(Moulton v. Parks, 64 C 166, 183 (1883);
Mc Quillen v. Hatton, 42 Ohio St. 202,
204, 205 (1884); Eureka Basin Co. 96 N.
Y. 42, 48, 49 (1884); (Nickey v. Stearns
Rancho Co., 126 C 150, 153 (1899); (In Re
K-6
Opinion of the Justices, 98 NE 611, 614;
211 Mass 624 (1912)).
E. TWENTIETH CENTURY GERMANY
"3. The judge has no right to
scrutinize decisions made by the Fuhrer
and issued in the form of a law or
decree. The judge is also bound by any
other decisions of the Fuhrer which
Clearly express the intention of
establishing law." (Jan. 14, 1936
directive to judges, Pridham, Geoffrey,
ed., Documents on Nazism, 1919-1945,
Viking Press, N. Y., 1945, at 273.
F. JAPANESE-AMERICAN RELOCATIONS
"SO sweeping is the panel majority's
new rule, the executive branch may remove
American citizens from their homes and
impound them in camps, solely on the
grounds of race, and courts will not in-
terfere, no matter what facts are shown.
(Hohri, 793 F. 2d 305).
K-7
G. POSTWAR RELOCATIONS
"It is inconceivable that any one
would seriously contend that the acquisi-
tion of real estate for the declared pur-
poses set forth in the proposed Redevel-
opment Plan is for a public use or pur-
pose." (Adams v. Housing Authority of
Daytona Beach et al, 60 So. 2d 663, 668-9
(1952). See: Housing Authority of City
of Atlanta et al v. Johnson et al, 74S.
E. 2d 891, 893-4 (1953); City and County
of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal. 2d 52,
59; 279 Pac. 2d 529 (1955); People ex rel
Department of Public Works v. Lagiss, 223
CA2d 23, 41; 35 CR 554 (1963)).
STON th rrasamnedane tee
L-1
APPENDIX L
Declaration of David Morgan on Conditions
of Buildings, Exhibit 110. October 18,
1988, CT 20904, extract
DECLARATIONS OF DAVID MORGAN, PATRICIA
MORLEY, AND DOROTHY HALPER RE; PARCELS
ALLEGEDLY "BLIGHTED" ACCORDING TO EX-
HIBITS 43, 44, TRANSFER SHEETS
DECLARATION OF DAVID MORGAN, October 14,
1988, text omitted ***
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA MORLEY, October
14, 1988, text omitted ***
DECLARATION OF DOROTHY HALPER, October
14, 1988, text omitted ***
CT 20915 - 20945, extract
COMPILATION OF DATA FROM TRANSFER SHEETS
OF HOLLYWOOD LAND USE DATABASE ("LUDB")
Re: Parcels alleged blighted
There were about 2920 parcels in the
project area, as of late 1983 - early
1984, (CAR page 2813).
L-2
There are about 3424 primary struc-
tures in the project area. (CAR page
1992).
According to Baseline Market Assess-
ment parcels with buildings in the cate-
gories of substantial deterioration
("SD"), heavy rehabilitation ("RH") and
moderate rehabilitation ("RM") are al-
leged "blighted." ”
(CAR page 2870).
Parcels in the SD, RH and RM cate-
gories have been listed at pages A - xX,
herein. Dividing 695 by 2920 (the number
of parcels in the project area) yields
23.80 % of the parcels with buildings al-
legedly blighted in all categories.
Some 169 parcels have buildings in
the categories of heavy rehabilitation
and substantial deterioration. Dividing
169 by 2920 (the number of parcels in the
project area) yields 5.78 % of the
L-3
parcels with buildings allegedly blighted
in these categories.
The Project Area contains 1100 acres
or 47,960,000 square feet. According to
the sums of the areas of parcels on pages
A - X there are 214,850 square feet of
parcels with the worst condition of a
building substantially deteriorated or
0.45 % of the project area, 1,374,463
Square feet of parcels with the worst
condition of a building heavy rehabilita-
tion or 2.87 % of the project area and
4,990,414 square feet of parcels with the
worst condition of a building moderate
rehabilitation or 10.41 % of the project
area.
The total area of parcels with the
worst building condition substantially
deteriorated, heavy rehabilitation or
moderate rehabilitation is 6,579,727
L-4
Square feet or 13.72 % of the project
area.
The total area of parcels with the
worst building condition substantially
deteriorated or heavy rehabilitation is
1,589,313 square feet or 3.31 % of the
project area.
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLES
Page is the page number in the hand-
written Transfer Sheets, Ex 43 and 44.
Prefix A refers to Ex 43 and B to Ex 44.
Area is the size of the parcel in square
feet.
For convenience REF refers to the
page number from LUDB, ex 73-75. #
refers to the number of the entry on the
LUDB page, which have 10 entries per
page.
Building conditions are shown as
follows:
L.5
Designation Abbreviation
Sound S
Deferred Maintenance DM
Moderate Rehabilitation MR
Extensive Rehabilitation,
Heavy Rehabilitation RH
Substantially Deteriorated SD
Public Improvement Deficiencies
("PUBIMPRV") are designated (Exhibit 33
B, page 1-25, CAR page 2008):
Designation Abbreviation
Curbs and Gutters CG
Driveway Aprons DA
Street Lighting LI
Sidewalks SI
Street surfaces, trees,
maintenance, alleys ST
For comparison blight claimed by
LUDB is marked Y for yes and N for no but
these designations do not appear as such
I
L-6
in Ex 43 and 44. "LOT" means a vacant
lot.
Parcel # is Los Angeles County As-
sessor's parcel number.
DUP BLDGS means duplicate buildings
where more than one building is on a par-
cel.
(Pages A —- X omitted ***)
OTHER DATA SUMMARIZED
On page Y there are reproduced the summa-
tions of the columns from pages A - xX.
L.7
PAGE Y
TOTALS FROM PAGES A - xX
TOTALS BY COUNTS OF BUILDINGS
PG S DM RM RH SD_ PUB LOT
IMPRV ONLY
| A 3 15 28 4 21
i
| B 3 5 23 16 2 6
| c 11 " 17. 13 31
| D 4 7 24 15 17
| E 4 5 21 17 2 15 1
| F 5 10 26 4 25 4
G 3 5 37 4 13 1
H 4 4 28 11 2 11
| I 4 5 39 ss 11
J 2 30 16 1 - 1
K 1 39 : 2 9
‘ 1 $6 a2 8
M 4 a. Wika 6 1
N r a 23 2 3 26 3
O 3 4 26 «117 3 1
P 2 - 37 3 11
Q 1 4 i 4a 7 1
R 3 3 31 9 12
S 5 5 37 3 24
T : 9 25 6 2 20
| U 4 2 22 16 2 9 4
| V 1 5 33 8 1 14 1
W 4 4 32 9 14
x 2 35 12 «1 7
TOTALS
86 130 714 220 25 324 19
L-8
PAGE Z
TOTALS FROM PAGES A - xX
TOTALS BY COUNTS OF PARCELS
PG AREA # PARCELS
RM+RH+SD WITH BLDG
PARCELS CONDITION
(sq. ft.) GIVEN
S DM RM RH SD
A 162,695 38 3 9 23 3
B 296,995 37 3 2 19 10 2
Cc 156,004 33 8 7 ka 4
D 352,863 42 3 6 20 13
E 199,455 42 4 4 20 + 2
F 118,627 38 5 3 19 2
G 374,828 44 2 4 32 4
H 244,926 39 4 4 24 3 2
I 226,324 29 2 5 18 1 3
J 329,932 39 2 23 11 1
K 514,093 36 1 6 26 1 2
L 588,607 40 1 28 9 2
M 360,536 44 3 27 11
N 141,242 43 ee © i? 2 1
O 241,526 35 3 4 12 10
P 190,850 Lh 2 7 24 3
Q 289,875 43 1 3 28 9
R 211,298 37 2 2 20 8
S 184,512 25 3 4 16 3
T 273,011 41 7 8 21 4 2
U 214,871 38 4 2 19 4 2
V 283,250 43 1 2 2S 7 1
W 380,866 37 3 4 21 9
x 242,541 34 1 2$ 7 1
TOTALS
6,579,727 912 7%©6COAQ0 ) «=6S26.~6 «6146 +=~ 23
M-1
APPENDIX M
Quotations and Citations of authorities
on health and mortality effects of relo-
cation. (See Appellate Opening Brief 6-
18, sources reproduced in appeal
appendix, "Ap")." It is a matter of
common knowledge, and hence of judicial
notice, that highway construction (such
as the Hollywood Freeway), and redevel-
Opment (such as that on Bunker Hill, Los
Angeles) resulted in the displacement of
thousands of persons... Eminent domain
awards, depJeted by costs of moving and
relocation, were insufficient... A
natural disaster, perhaps, could not have
created more personal havoc." (Parking
Authority v. Nicovich, 32 CA3d 420, 427,
108 CR 137 (1973) emphasis added).
.---federal urban renewal program has
actually made it more difficult for low-
income and middle-income groups to obtain
aa la lie
M-2
housing...by destroying much more of this
kind of housing than it has created...
Approximately two thirds of the people
who are forced out of their homes are Ne-
groes, Puerto Ricans, or ... minority...
privately referred to as the "Negro re-
moval” program...B y March of 1963 over
609,000 people had been forced to pack
their belongings and leave their homes...
(A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Harvard University study, Anderson,
Martin, The Federal Bulldozer, The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts (1964) (Ap5998,
6009-6010, emphasis added).
San Francisco Yerba Buena redevelop-
ment (extreme stresses on 4000 residents,
mostly lower income and elderly, being
displaced), in two books by Prof. Chester
Hartman. (Yerba Buena, Land Grab and Com-
munity Resistance in San Francisco,
M.3
Ap6474) and The Transformation of San
Francisco, Ap 6599). (Forced displace-
ments for high rise offices, luxury
developments and convention center)
(Chronology, Ap6491, 6605). See: Hartman,
Chester, Relocation: Illusory Promises
and No Relief, Virginia Law Review, 57
(5), 745 (1971) (Ap6436); Hartman,
Chester, The Housing of Relocated Fami-
lies, J. of Amer. Inst. of Planners, 30
(4), 266 (1964) (Ap6413); Hartman,
Chester, The Transformation of San Fran-
Cisco, Rowman and Allanheld,San Fran-
cisco, (1984) (Ap6599); Hartman, Chester,
Yerba Buena, Land Grab and Community Re-
sistance in San Francisco, Glide Publica-
tions for the National Housing and
Economic Development Law Project, Earl
Warren Legal Institute, University of
California, Berkeley, (1974) (Ap6474).
M.-4
Public demolition of 2.38 million units
showed much higher housing costs most
adverse to poorer (Hartman, supra,
Ap6413, 6436).
3. .--88.6 percent of the individu-
als had experienced some level of grief
which was associated with having to move.
Four years later, 57.3 percent of the in-
dividuals are still experiencing some
level of grief. (Hawkins, Homer, Knowl-
edge of the Social and Emotional Implica-
tions of Urban Renewal and the Utility of
this Knowledge to the Practice of Social
Work, Michigan State Univ. Ph. D. Thesis,
(1971), Ap6609).
Even when patients were kindly moved
to new ward after fire death rate rose
from 7.5 % to 20 3%. (Aleksandrowicz, Dov
R., M. D., Fire and its Aftermath on a
Geriatric Ward, Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 25 (1) 23 (Jan. 1961) Ap5991).
M-5
When home for chronically disabled
was Closed for administrative reasons and
its residents relocated anticipated mor-
tality for all ages was 19 % but actual
mortality was 32 % (Aldrich and Mendkoff,
Ap5977). See Aldrich, C. Knight,
Personality Factors and Mortality in the
Relocation of the Aged, The
Gerontologist, 4, 92 (1964) Ap5989)). See
also: Aldrich, C. Knight, M. D. and Ethel
Mendkoff, M. A., Relocation of the Aged
and Disabled: A Mortality Study, Journal
of the American Geriatrics Society, 11
(3), 185, 188 (March 1963), Ap5977)
Stockton patients over 60 had mor-
tality (Killian, Eldon C., Effect of
Geriatric Transfers on Mortality Rates,
Social Work, 15, 19-26, (January
1970) (Ap6636):
79 RELOCATED 65 RELOCATED TO
TO STATE EXTRA~MURAL
HOSPITALS HOMES
M-6
% DEATHS WITHIN
4 MONTHS
CONTROL,
not relocated Leas. % 1.54 %
EXPERIMENTAL,
relocated 6.33 % i3.85 $%
Mrs. A. C. Hagen testified on Dis-
trict of Columbia: "Urban renewal is a
traumatic experience for people involved
in it. Loss of home, neighbors, money,
months of sleepless nights of worry are
the common lot... In a small area near
12th and Independence-8 or so square
blocks-we know of 11 deaths since this
program began, 4 cases of mental illness,
2 strokes, 2 college dropouts, 3 families
broken, tension, allergies, numerous
hospitalizations, mounting medical
expense, and nearly everyone feeling
upset or unwell... it is possible to say
that many health problems were aggravated
by renewal problems." (Hagen, Hagen, Mrs.
A. C., Columbia Plaza Public Hearing, May
M-7
24, 1960; Congressional Record, 106 (11),
14580 (June 27, 1960)Ap7252, emphasis
added).
The relocation major life event,
"moving house," is a skeaenen. Stress
yields organic disease Susceptibility:
cardio-vascular disease, infectious dis-
eases, cancers (Graham, Neil M. H., Univ.
of Adeiaide, Psychological Stress as a
Public Health Problem: How Much do we
Know?, Community Health Studies, 12 (2)
151 (1988) Ap6403).
U. S. Senate testimony of Robert M.
Angier (Ap4405): One item not appearing
in the leaflet is the provable fact that
several deaths must be blamed squarely
upon the machinations and persecutions of
our local Los Angeles Community
Redevelopment Agency (Ap7307, supra,
emphasis added).
M-8
Bryton and Ella Barron wrote a book
(The Inhumanity of Urban Renewal, 1965,
Crestwood Books, Box 301, Springfield,
Virginia, Ap 5174) summarizing re-
development health dangers.
Relocation effects on small business
persons duplicate effects on residents
plus much job loss and business mor-
tality. Redevelopment in 21 projects in
14 American cities led to 756 of 2949
firms ddecontinusd, 25.6 % (Kinnard,
William N., Jr., and Malinowski, Zenon
S., The Impact of Dislocation from Urban
Renewal Areas on Small Business, Univer-
Sity of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn. (July
1960), Ap6644 at 6695-6704). 1/3 of
displaced Providence businesses closed,
86.1 % of owners had lower income
(Zimmer, Basil G., Brown Univ.,
Rebuilding Cities, the Effect of
Displacement and Relocation on Small
M-9
Business, Quadrangle Books, Chicago,
(1964)Ap7366).
«--Over 60,000 small businesses have
been dislocated by over 1,000 urban re-
newal projects in more than 500 citinc.
Of the businesses dislocated, close to
20,000 went out of business upon dis-
placement, a liquidation rate of thirty-
three per cent (Berry, Brian J. L, Par-
sons, Sandra J., and Platt, Rutherford
H., The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small
Business, Center for Urban Studies, The
University of Chicago, Chicago (1968)
Ap6145). Hyde Park A, B and Kenwood rede-
velopment projects in Chicago displaced
641 businesses, 207 (31 %) closed when
dislocated and 201 (30 $) briefly re-
opened but closed by end of 1966
| (Ap6191).
N-1
APPENDIX N
Memorandum of Points and Authorities on
Legislative Intent of Health and Safety
Code Section 33385, Project Area Commit-
tees, Filed June 20, 1988, by David Mor-
gan, L. A. S. C. C 607 002, (Clerk's
Transcript ("CT") 17908. This memorandum
Summarizes and quotes the various
proposed and adopted versions of HSC
33385 from 1968 onwards. See also the
1500 pages of Legislative History in
Exhibit 108.
O-1
APPENDIX O
Plaintiff's Memorandum Re Statutory His-
tory of Health and Safety Code Section
33385 et al, Project Area Committees,
June 20, 1988, by Christopher Sutton, CT
17889. "Voting rights of classes of per-
sons can be unconstitutionally impacted
by the application of an otherwise valid
scheme. Carrington v. Rash 380 U.S. 89,
at 94, 13 L.Ed.2d 675, at 679, S. Ct.
(19 ): "'Fencing out' from the franchise
a sector of the population because of the
way it may vote is constitutionally im-
permissible." [Emphasis added]. The
rights of the low-income, transient,
alien, non-English speaking persons were
adversely affected by allowing the busi-
nesses and absentee owners to vote for
and hold a majority of seats on the Hol-
lywood PAC. Collier v. Menzel i176 Cal.
App. 3d 24, 221 Cal. Rptr. 110 (1985)....
a iaiiaieeeta eerie
O.-2
The Citizens [Against Forced Annexation
v. Local Agency Formation Commission 32
Cal. 3d 816, 187 Cal. Rptr. 423, 654 P.2d
193 (1982)]} case shows why the limitation
to residents is not irrational as defen-
dants contend. It is to protect a weaker
Class of persons during the redevelopment
adoption process. The very purpose of the
PAC's existence (protection of residents)
calls for only those impacted to form the
committee. Such limitations are constitu-
tionally permissible Sayler Land Co. v.
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
410 U.S. 719, 35 L.Ed.2d 659, 93 S.CT
1224 (1973). As applied to the facts in
Hollywood the process used by the agency
was both a violation of the statute and a
violation of due process and equal pro-
tection of the law."
P.1
APPENDIX P
Notice to residents, November 1983.
(Exhibit 117, at Exhibit 5, page 36)
Hollywood Redevelopment Advisory
Committee to be Elected
Notice of two community meetings to form
a Project Area Committee
Wednesday, November 30, 1983 - 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, December 13, 1983 - 6:30 p.m.
To: Residents, Business Owners, Property
Owners and Community Organizations
There will be two community meetings held
at the Hollywood High School auditorium.
The first meeting will be held to discuss
the formation of the Project Area Commit-
tee (PAC) and to answer any general ques-
tions regarding the redevelopment plan-
ning process. The first information meet-
ing will be held on Wednesday, November
30, 1983 - 6:30 p.m. The second meeting
to elect the PAC members will be held on
P.2
Tuesday, December 13, 1983 - 6:30 p.m.
The doors will open for registration at
6:00 p.m. Hollywood High School is lo-
cated on 1521 North Highland and there is
limited parking off Highland. We urge you
to attend these important meetings. The
PAC is an advisory group whose members
are elected by the community at a public
meeting. PAC membership is composed of
resident owner occupants, tenants, prop-
erty owners, business owners and repre-
sentatives from existing Organizations
which serve the community. The responsi-
bility of the PAC is to serve as a formal
means through which the community can
participate by advising the CRA on mat-
ters which affect the area. The CRA will
consult with and obtain the advice of the
PAC during the preparation of the pro-
posed redevelopment plan, and if the plan
is approved by the City Council and CRA,
P.3
during implementation of the redevelop-
ment project. You are eligible to vote
the night of the election if you are lo-
cated within the boundaries outlined in
the attached map; are at least 18 years
of age and you are in one of the above
designated categories. You should bring
proper identification with you to this
meeting, such as a valid driver's license
or current identification card, proof of.
property ownership, business ownerships,
rent receipt, business license, or other
forms of acceptable proof to qualify you
to vote. Please attend these meetings so
that you may elect your representatives
on the Project Area Committee. If you
have any question regarding the informa-
tion meeting and/or the public election
meeting or whether you qualify as a menm-
ber of the PAC, please contact the Commu-
nity Redevelopment Agency at 977-1631
P 4
daily between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. We
will be glad to assist you and answer
your questions.
s/ E Helfeld
Edward Helfeld, Administrator
Attachment-1
These meetings are neither sponsored nor
are they in any way connected with the
Los Angels City School District. The Com-
munity Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Los Angeles, California.
Q-1
APPENDIX Q
City Council motion to form PAC,, Novem-
ber 18, 1983. (Exhibit 117 at Exhibit 4,
pages 25-26).
City of Los Angeles, California, Elias
Martinez City Clerk, Office of City
Clerk, Room 395, City Hall, Los Angeles,
CA 90012, 485-5705.
November 18, 1983. Community Redevelop-
ment Agency, City Administrative Officer,
Chief Legislative Analyst, Councilwoman
Stevenson, Councilwoman Flores. Re: HOL-
LYWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. At the
meeting of the Council held November :8,
1983, the following action was
taken:...Attached motion adopted
(Stevenson - Flores) x eeeS/ Elias
Martinez, City Clerk.
MOTION.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Com-
munity Redevelopment Law (Health and
Q-2
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the
Community Redevelopment Agency/CRA re-
quested the Planning Commission to select
appropriate boundaries for the proposed
Hollywood Redevelopment Project and to
formulate the Preliminary Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Community law re-
quires that the City Council call upon
the residents and existing community or-
ganizations in a redevelopment project
area to form a representative Project
Area Committee ("PAC"), to be approved by
the City Council within sixty days (60)
after the redevelopment project area is
selected. Now, therefor, be it resolved
by the City Council of the City of Los
Angeles, California, as follows:
l. The City Council hereby calls upon
the residents, property owners, existing
community organizations and businesses in
_
Q-3
the project area to form a Project Area
Committee.
2 The City Council hereby further re-
quests the Community Redevelopment Agency
to set the time, place and date of public
meeting to form such Project Area Commit-
tee, and to mail or deliver note of such
meeting to each residence, place of busi-
ness and existing community organization
within the proposed project area and to
publish notice thereof, or use any other
means reasonably calculated-to provide
each residence, place of business and ex-
isting community Organization within the
proposed project area an actual notice of
such meeting.
3 The City Council hereby further de-
termines that the PAC shall be comprised
of not less than 15 nor more than 25 mem-
bers, shall include residential tenants,
property owners, business owners and mem-
Q-4
bers of existing organizations within the
Subject area. The PAC shall be represen-
tative of the different and various seg-
ments of the proposed project area. There
shall be representatives of eight exist-
ing community organizations on the PAC,
four of which shall be elected by the
community and four of which shall be ap-
pointed by the council person of the dis-
trict. Of the 25 PAC members, 21 shall be
selected by a vote of persons attending
the public election meeting. Four will be
appointed by the council person of the
district. Only persons who are in one or
more of the listed categories are eligi-
ble to participate in the selection of
the PAC members.
4. The City Council hereby further de-
termines that as soon as possible after
the PAC has been organized in accordance
with the Motion a list of members of the
Q-5
PAC together with such other information
as is necessary be presented to the City
Council for them to conclude that a rep-
resentative PAC has been formed and is
entitled to City Council approval.
This Motion supersedes the Motion of July
15, 1983, presented by Councilwoman Peggy
Stevenson and Councilman Arthur K. Snyder
and approved by Council.
PRESENTED BY PEGGY STEVEN-
SON, Councilwoman 13th District. SECONDED
BY SUSPENSION REQUESTED.
R-1
APPENDIX R
City Council resolution to approve PAC,
January 6, 1984. (Exhibit 117 at Exhibit
7, Pages 716, 715).
City of Los Angeles, California, Elias
Martinez City Clerk, Office of City
Clerk, Room 395, City Hall, Los Angeles,
CA 90012, 485-5705. 83-1273 CD
January 6, 1984. Community Redevelopment
Agency, City Administrative Officer,
Chief Legislative Analyst, List attached.
Re: HOLLYWOOD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
(PAC). At the meeting of the Council held
JANUARY 6, 1984, the following action was
taken:...Attached resolution adopted
(Stevenson - Bernson) x eeeS/ Elias
Martinez, City Clerk. jd
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Com-
munity Redevelopment Law (Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), and
R-2
City Council Resolution of November 18,
1983 directing the Community Redevelop-
ment Agency (CRA) to set the time, place
and date of a public meeting to form a
Hollywood Project Area Committee in ac-
cordance with redevelopment law, it has
been determined that:
1. The CRA did send out approximately
29,000 circulars and letters to resi-
dents, property owners, existing commu-
nity organizations and businesses in the
proposed project area and informing these
citizens of an election to be held on De-
cember 13, 1983 at the Hollywood High
School from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., and
Ze Approximately 250 members represent-
ing residential property owners, residen-
tial tenants, business property owners
and business tenants and members of cer-
tified community organizations from the
proposed project area did attend, and
R-3
7 Those citizens in attendance filled
out a certification form regarding their
eligibility to vote and this certifica-
tion was verified by staff cf the CRA,
and
4. The CRA did hold such a meeting and
an election whereby 21 members of the
community were elected, and four members
of community organizations were ap-
pointed, and therefore
Se The Hollywood Project Area Committee
(PAC) has been organized in accordance
with the motion of City Council dated
November 18, 1983 and that such a list of
their names and representation is hereby
now presented to the City Council for
Council to conclude that a representative
PAC has been formed and is entitled to
City Council approval.
Presented by: s/ Peggy Stevenson
R-4
PEGGY STEVENSON, Council-
woman, Thirteenth District
Seconded by: S/ Hal Bernson
Res. ADOPTED JAN 6 1984 LOS ANGELES CITY
COUNCIL. SUSPENSION REQUESTED
S-1
APPENDIX S
Declaration of David Morgan Re: i983 PAC
Election Notices and Residential Unit
Survey by Plaintiffs of September 22,
1988 ("Survey"), extracts, with list of
evidence.
Plaintiffs submitted extensive tes-
timony and written evidence of failure of
notice, listed as follows:
1. Testimony of Morley June 27, 28, 29,
1988 (RT2381-2504).
2. Testimony of Rotman June 30, 1988
(RT2599).
3. Testimony of Morgan July 8, 1988
(RT3011-42).
4. Exhibit 24, Residential Unit Survey.
5. Exhibit 25, Residential Unit Survey.
6. Exhibit 26, Circular Trays at Residen-
tial Units.
7. Exhibit 27A, 27B, Notes of Survey Tak-
ers.
S-2 ;
8. Declaration of David Morgan on Notes
of Residential Unit Survey Takers; Notes
(CTi9877).
9. Declarations of Persons not Receiving
Notice of 1983 Project Area Committee
Election ("First Set," CT18051).
10. Declarations of Project Area Owners
and Tenants Re: 1983 PAC Election Notices
("Second Set," CT19008).
11. Third Set of Declarations of Project
Area Owners and Tenants Re: 1983 PAC
Election Notices ("Third Set," CT20030).
12. Declaration of Morgan re: 1983 PAC
Election Notices and Residential Unit
Survey by Plaintiffs ("SURVEY," CT18904).
13. Morgan review of Survey, Oct. 18
(RT6461-6506).
SEPTEMBER 22, 1988. C 607 002 DECLARATION
OF DAVID MORGAN RE:
S-3
1983 PAC ELECTION NOTICES AND RESIDENTIAL
UNIT SURVEY OF PLAINTIFFS, CT 18904 - CT
19007, excerpts.
Declaration of David Morgan, text omit-
ted. ***
Exhibit A
Declaration of John Albee, text omit-
ted.***
Declaration of Ruth Goulet, text omit-
ted. ***
Exhibit B, CT 18920 - 18942, summary:
HOLLYWOOD MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
SURVEY
During June through September 1988 a
Survey team examined individually nearly
all multi-unit residential buildings of
three or more units in the project area
and obtained the following results:
IN 1983
1983 SECURITY UNITS IDENTIFIED 4667
NUMBER OF 1988 SECURITY UNITS
S-4
WITH NO 1983 DATA
AVAILABLE, APPROXIMATELY 3000 +
TOTAL NEW UNITS 1984 - MARCH 1986 135
TOTAL NEW UNITS MARKED
(SINCE MARCH 1986): 1089
TOTAL UNITS IN 1983
(14448 - 135 - 1089 =) 13214
MINIMUM % SECURITY
UNITS IN 1983 35 % +
IN 1988 IN SUBAREA
1 NW 2 NE 3 SW 4 SE ALL
NON-SECURITY
UNITS 1152 1125 763 ~2265 5305
SECURITY
UNITS 5183 1893 668 1399 9143
ALL UNITS 6335 3018 1431 3664 14448
% SECURITY
UNITS 82 %¢ 63 & 47 & 38 &¢ 63 %
SECURITY UNITS ON SECOND FLOOR
OR HIGHER 4996
% OF SECURITY UNITS ON
S-5
SECOND FLOOR OR HIGHER 54 %
NON-SECURITY UNITS ON
SECOND FLOOR OR HIGHER 2302
% OF NON-SECURITY UNITS ON
SECOND FLOOR OR HIGHER 43 %
TOTAL UNITS ON SECOND FLOOR
OR HIGHER 7298
% OF TOTAL UNITS ON SECOND
FLOOR OR HIGHER 50 %
NUMBER HOTELS NOT OTHERWISE
COUNTED: 5
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 16
Subareas are centered on Sunset and
Vine. The reference column shows the
date in June 1988 and the initials of the
Survey takers. September, 1988
S-6
SUMMARY OF TABLE OF UNITS
PAGE NON-SECURITY BUILDINGS SECURITY BUILDINGS
FLOORS FLOORS
SUBAREA ALL 2ND+ SUBAREA ALL ALL 2ND
IN 1988 1988 1983-8 IN 1988 1983 1988 1983
1 2 3 4 T T 1 2 3 4 T T
4 297 297 137 3 168 176 1
5 131 43 174 56 387 75 205 455 1
6 268 268 99 461 45 452 2
7 67 #4117 #132 £424 #+%340 148 #436 = 44 432 480 3
8 36 124 139 305 108 186 8 18 36 186 248 1
9 55 203 258 103 82 299 85 381 2
10 40 14 121 161 63 471 16 63 386 551 3
11119 48 182 351 158 40 83 127 86 250 1
12 298 298 122 63 215 71 278 #1
13 372 120 59 551 346 303 40 48 252 402 2
14 32 11 218 250 110 134 8 164 114 306 1
15 86 152 30 268 107 435 17 339 $51 1
16 47 275 322 150 202 125 327 1
17 126 31 157 64 344 164 30 323 538 3
18 178 18 i96 57 465 11 22 294 498 2
19 65 99 32 4 196 34 342 198 138 14 344 692 2
20 231 231 100 222 = «52 83 160 357 2
21 392 392 224 153 77 144 20 374 2
22 109 4 11 57 181 8S 863 172 15 873 1050 7
23 48 22, 18 88 31 715 66 23 516 804 3
T 1152 1125 763 2265 5284 2302 5183 1913 668 1399 4667 9143 49
S-7
TOTAL OF ALL UNITS: 14448. TOTAL SECU-
RITY UNITS: 9143.
TOTAL UNITS ON SECOND OR HIGHER FLOORS:
7298.
Exhibit C, CT 18943 - 18945
HANDLING IN 1983 OF FLIERS SUCH AS PAC
ELECTION NOTICES AT MULTI UNIT SECURITY
APARTMENT BUILDINGS OF THREE OR MORE
UNITS IN HOLLYWOOD
Investigation was made as to the
handling of fliers such as the 1983 PAC
election fliers by contacting apartment
Owners, managers and residents. Declara-
tions were ohtained from the buildings
listed on the attached table and the re-
Sults tabulated below.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
UNITS
NUMBER OF UNITS IN BUILDINGS
SURVEYED AS TO HANDLING
OF FLIERS INSIDE APARTMENT
S-8
BUILDINGS IN 1983 1560
FLIERS WERE ALWAYS LEFT OUTSIDE
THE BUILDING 656
FLIERS WERE LEFT OUTSIDE OR
RARELY TAKEN IN 37
FLIERS WERE RARELY TAKEN IN 252
FLIERS WERE USUALLY TAKEN IN 174
FLIERS WERE ALWAYS TAKEN IN 284
NO ANSWER GIVEN 195
PLACING FLIERS AT EACH UNIT
OF BUILDING WAS ALLOWED 135
PLACING FLIERS AT EACH UNIT OF
BUILDING WAS NOT ALLOWED 1278
NO ANSWER GIVEN 21
FLIERS WERE DISCARDED IMMEDIATELY
WHEN FOUND 505
FLIERS WERE LEFT A DAY OR MORE
OUTSIDE BUILDING 663
NO ANSWER GIVEN 392
1983 PAC ELECTION FLIER RECEIVED 0
1983 PAC ELECTION FLIER NOT RECEIVED 1560
Baan i
S-9
HANDLING IN 1983 OF FLIERS SUCH AS PAC ELECTION NOTICES
|
ADDRESS UNITS PLIERS PLACING PLIERS DISCARDED PLIER |
LEFT OUT:(0) PLIERS IMMEDIATELY (I) RECEIVED
TAKEN IN: AT EACH AFTER A DAY (D) YES (Y)
RARELY (R) ONIT NO (N)
USUALLY (U) ALLOWED:
ALWAYS (A) YES (Y)
NO (N)
5738 CARLTON 42.0 N D N
5923 CARLTON 6 O, R I N
5950 CARLTON 7 0, R I N
1825 CHEROKEE 66 0 N
1830 CHEROKEE 70 N I N
1842 CHEROKEE 35 JU N N
1760 EL CERRITO 20 Uv N D N
1769 EL CERRITO 30 Jv Y N
1805 EL CERRITO 46 R N D N
6100 FOUNTAIN 13 R N I N
6222 FOUNTAIN 80 0 N D N
6400 FRANKLIN 70 0 N D N
6626 PRANKLIN 50 0 N I N
1545 GORDON 8 O, R I N
1546 GORDON 35. 0 N I N
1830 GRACE 9 JU N N
6533 HOLLYWOOD 66 0 N I N
1611 HUDSON 48 0 N D N
1738 LAS PALMAS 69 y D N
1420 MANSFIELD 30 0 N D N
1330 ORANGE 45 0 N D N
1737 ORANGE 36 OO Y D N
1759 ORCHID 52 A Y
1767 ORCHID 32 «OA N D N
1665 SYCAMORE 55 U0 N D N
1776 SYCAMORE 73. R N D N
1756 TAMARIND 16 0, R N I N
1803-07 VISTA 46 0 N I N
DEL MAR
1850 WHITLEY 200 A N N
1735 WILCOX 70 oR N I N
1755 WILCOX 30 oR N I N
1760 WILCOX 60 oO N I N
1811 WILCOX 17 O N D N
1835 WILCOX 20 oR N I N
6760 YUCCA 8 1@) Zz I N
S-10
Exhibit D, CT 18946 - 18956
HOLLYWOOD MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
SURVEY
o WITH DATES PERSONS FIRST HEARD OF PROJECT
The Declarations submitted by the
residents of the project area have been
analyzed as to when they first heard of
the redevelopment project in Hollywood
with the following results.
Number of Declarations
Subarea 1 33
Subarea 2 22
Subarea 3 43
Subarea 4 38
Status of Declarant
Owners 57
Tenants 79
Not given 6
Date learned of project
1983 5
1984 4
1985 6
1986 before adoption,
Jan - May 23
1986 after adoption,
Jun - Dec 20
1986 date not given 20
1987 18
1988 30
not given 9
" S-11
ADDRESS SUBAREA TENANT NAME FIRST UNITS
NUMBER OR HEARD
. OWNER OF PROJECT
6141 AFTON 4 t Paulkner Jun 88 45
6141 AFTON 4 t Laird Jul 88
6141 AFTON 4 t Mancillas 86
6141 AFTON 4 t McCasky Jul 88
6141 AFTON 4 t Powell Sep 87
6141 AFTON 4 t Vincent Aug 86
6202 AFTON 4 t Abrahamson Mar 86 1
1152 BEACHWOOD 4 0 Doering, PF. 87 1
1154 BEACHWOOD 4 t Doering, N. 87 1
1222 BEACHWOOD 40 Smith, M. Mar 86 1
1222 1/2 BEACHWOOD 4 t Macias, E. Mar 86 1
1222 1/2 BEACHWOOD 4t Macias, G. Mar 86
1249 1/2 BEACHWOOD 4 t Zamudio Jun 86 4
1153 BRONSON 4 t Adams 2
1210 BRONSON 4t Rios 1
1520 BRONSON 2t De Milo Apr 88 2
1545 BRONSON 2¢t Aziz 64
1545 BRONSON 20 Piltness
1545 BRONSON 2t Ibrahim
1545 BRONSON 2t Moussa
6128 1/2 CARLOS 2t Tasic 4
6130 CARLOS 2t Vainisi 84
6142 CARLOS 2t Lewis Nov 87 4
6148 CARLOS 2t Jones 87
573. CARLTON 2t Patino Sep 88 42
5741 CARLTON 2 t Roman 87 51
5900 CARLTON 2 t Abrams Jul 88 4
5923 CARLTON 20 Paias Jun 88 12
5950 CARLTON 20 Paias Jun 88 14
1319 CHEROKEE 3 0 Galarza, P. 86 7
1319 CHEROKEE 3 0 Galarza, R. 86
1331 CHEROKEE 3 0 Glacusa, D. 86 1
1331 CHEROKEE 3 0 Glacusa, H. 86
1825 CHEROKEE 1 t Reimer 87 66
1830 CHEROKEE lt Scholtz 83 53
1842 CHEROKEE 1 T Roberts Sep 85 35
1343 CITRUS 3 0 Halper, D. Sep 84 1
1343 CITRUS 3 0 Halper, N. Jan 85
1343 CITRUS 3 t Halper, s. Apr 86
6552 DE LONGPRE 3 0 Kanan Jun 866 l
6622 DE LONGPRE 3 t Abery 86 l
6635 DE LONGPRE 3 t Connelly 88 5
S-12
ADDRESS SUBAREA TENANT NAME FIRST UNITS
NUMBER OR HEARD
OWNER OF PROJECT
6635 DE LONGPRE 3 0 Lemos 86
6655 DE LONGPRE 3 0 Krakowiak, M. Mar 86 2
6655 DE LONGPRE 3.0 Krakowiak, S. Mar 86
6655 DE LONGPRE 3 t Peters 86
6827 DE LONGPRE 3 0 Robinson Sep 84 3
6831 DE LONGPRE 3 0 Shaw Sep 84 3
1760 EL CERRITO 1 t Voss Aug 88 20
1769 EL CERRITO 1 t Matherne Aug 88 30
1805 EL CERRITO 1 t Ibrar Pall 86 46
5418 FOUNTAIN AVE. 4 t Goulet Apr-May 86
5712-14 FOUNTAIN 4 0 Calderon, Y. Mar 86 2
5718 FOUNTAIN 4 Ramos Nov 87 2
6100 FOUNTAIN 40 Micu, E. Mar 86 13
6100 FOUNTAIN 40 Micu, P. Mar 86
6116 POUNTAIN 4 t Barberra Jun 86 .
6118 FOUNTAIN 4 t Sotelo Nov 86 1
6120 POUNTAIN 40 Morley Mar 66 1
6129 POUNTAIN 4 t Hansen, D. Nov 86 8
6129 POUNTAIN 4 t Hansen, Ff. Nov 86
6143 POUNTAIN 4 0 Hadzick, Danny Nov 86 1
6143 FOUNTAIN 4 t Hadzick, Danya Nov 86
6143 POUNTAIN 4 0 Hadzick, P. Nov 86
6222 POUNTAIN 4 t Estrada Jul 86 80
6400 PRANKLIN AVE. 1t Hernandez Jul 88 70
6626 PRANKLIN AVE. 1 t Pochna Sep 88 50
1151 GORDON 4 0 Marinovich Mar 86 2
1206 1/2 GORDON 4 0 Cauthorn Oct 86 5
1545 GORDON 20 Paias Jun 88 16
1546 GORDON 20 Roux Jul 88 35
1830 GRACE 1 t Parks Aug 87 9
1330 1/2 HIGHLAND 3 0 Spizzerre 86
6533 HOLLYWOOD 1 t Golub Sep 88 66
1611 HUDSON lo Morrison Sep 88 48
1743 HUDSON 1 t Harley Apr 86 1
1743 HUDSON lo Hays Apr 86
1745 HUDSON 10 Jackson Mar 86 |
1746 HUDSON io ii Sep 38 1
1747 HUDSON 1 o Johnson Sep 86 1
1306 JUNE 30 Camacho 86 1
1310 JUNE 3 t Estrom 30
Oe ee
S-13
ADDRESS SUBAREA TENANT NAME FIRST UNITS
NUMBER OR HEARD
OWNER OF PROJECT
1315 JUNE 3 t Benyo, E. Jul 88
1315 JUNE 3 t Benyo, D. Jul 88
1331 JUNE 3 t Scholachman 87 2
1334 JUNE 3 t Berman Jul 88 3
1336 1/2 JUNE 3 t Block 87 1
1340 JUNE 3 t Albee Jul 86 15
1340 JUNE 3 t Gilbert 87
1340 JUNE 3 t Girolami Jul 88
1340 JUNE 3 t Marin 87
1340 JUNE 3 t O'Brien Jul 86
1340 JUNE 3 t Salazar Jul 88
1340 JUNE 3 t Thomas Jun 86
7032 LANEWOOD lo Weiss 21
1424 LAS PALMAS 30 Charon 85 1
1425 LAS PALMAS 30 Valdez, F. Jun 86 1
1425 LAS PALMAS 3 t Valdez, Paul 86
1425 LAS PALMAS 30 Valdez, Pearl Jun 86
1433 1/2 LAS PALMAS 3 t Ayala 86 4
1610 LAS PALMAS 1 t Dolder Mar 86 3
1738 LAS PALMAS 1 t Segal Sep 85 69
6634 LELAND WAY 30 Debalogh 86 1
5514 LEXINGTON 4 0 Kazanchian, £. Jun 88 4
5514 LEXINGTON 4 0 Kazanchian, K. Jun 88
5514 1/2 LEXINGTON 4 Kazanchian, Annik Jun 88
5514 1/2 LEXINGTON 40 Kazanchian, H. Jun 88
5516 1/2 LEXINGTON 4 Kazanchian, Anjik Jun 88
5516 1/2 LEXINGTON 40 Kazanchian, 0. Jun 88
5712 LEXINGTON 4 Calderon, R. 87 10
5746 LEXINGTON 4 Calderon, M. Mar 86 8
1420 MANSFIELD 3 t Goulet, Roger Jul 88 30
1323 MCCADDEN 30 Teller Mar 86 1
1351 MCCADDEN 3 t Cross 86 1
1408 MCCADDEN 3 0 Del Valle 86 2
1408 MCCADDEN 3 t Vasallo 86
1542 MCCADDEN lo Bean Mar 86 1
1330 ORANGE 3 t Dwyer Jun 86 45
1737 ORANGE lt Tafarella 83 36
1745 ORANGE 1 t Holt 83 70
1759 ORCHID 1 t Cusimano Aug 86 $2
1767 ORCHID 1 t Citero Aug 86 32
S-14
ADDRESS SUBAREA TENANT NAME FIRST UNITS
NUMBER OR HEARD
OWNER OF PROJECT
6057 SELMA 20 Nagy Aug 86 3
6077 SELMA 20° Allen 87 2
1420 SEWARD 3 0 Hein Mar 86 12
6655 SUNSET BL. lt Perry 86 1
6665 SUNSET BL. lt West 86 1
6700 SUNSET BL. 3 t Lincoln 86 1
1665 SYCAMORE 1 Gordon 83 54
1776 SYCAMORE lt Rozelle Apr 86 73
1750 VISTA DEL MAR 20 Hopkins Jun 88 1
1750 VISTA DEL MAR 2¢t Smith, G. 87
1750 VISTA DEL MAR 2¢t Smith, P. 87
1803 VISTA DEL MAR 2 ¢t Serrano Aug 88 46
1850 WHITLEY ict Miles 200
1735 wWILcox 1 t Nudelman 83 7
1755 WILCox 1 t Nudelman 83 30
1760 WILCOx lt Goodale Sep 86 60
1811 WILCOX lt Prichel 17
1835 wWILcox lt Miller May 86 20
6218 YUCCA 2 t Walsh 86 16
6760 YUCCA 1 Castenholz Mar 85 8
T-1
APPENDIX T
Quotations of authorities on standard of
review for this action "in the nature of
eminent domain." "Al] Statutory modes of
divesting titles are strictly construed,
and to be strictly followed." (Bensley v.
Mountain Lake Water 13 C 306 (1859). See:
Gilmer v. Lime Point, 19 C 47, 60 (1861);
Leland Stanford, et al v. George A. Worn,
et al, 27 C 171, 174 (1865); (Shipman v.
Forbes, 97 C 572, 574 (1893), emphasis
added); (Mc Carty v. Sacramento, 148 Cc
211, 216 (1905); (Graham v. Bailard, 157
C 96, 103 (1909); (Harrington v. Superior
Court, 194 C 185, 191 (1924); (Bottoms v.
Superior Court, 82 CA 764, 771-2 (1927) ;
(City of Los Angeles v. Glassell, 203 Cc
45, 46 (1928); (San Bernardino Co. Flood
Control District v. Grabowski, 205 CA3d
885, 893 (1988)).
U-1
APPENDIX U
CITATIONS ON NOTICE
Mennonite Board of Missions v.
Adams, 462 US 791 cites cases (CT 18761)
such as Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352
US 112; 1 LEd2d 178; 77 SCt 200 (1956),
Schroeder v. New York City, 371 US 208; 9
LEd 255; 83 SCt 279 (1962) publication
and posting insufficient condemnation
proceedings notice. Re: tenants (Greene
v. Lindsey, 456 US 444; 72 LEd2d 249; 102
SCt 1874 (1982)). See Scott v. Indian
Wells, 6 C3d 541; 99 CR 745; 492 P2d 1137
(1972) CT12486E); In re Central Irr.
Dist., 117 C 382, 392 (1897); Waller v.
Weston, 125 C 201, 203 (1904); (Halistrom
v. Tillamook Co., 107 LEd2d 237, 249
(1989); Quaranta v. Merlini, 192 CA3d 22,
30; 237 CR 179 (1987); Los Angeles v.
Allen, 32 CA 553; 163 P 697 (1861);
Gilmer v. A Certain Tract of Land, 18 C
U-2
229 (1861); Conejo Recreation and Park
District v. Armstrong, 114 CA3d 1016,
1021; 170 CR 891 (1981). Review de novo
under the most stringent standard even
when other issues obtain more lax review.
(Mountain Defense League v. Board of
Supervisors of San Diego County, 65 CA3d
722, 729; 135 CR 588, 590 (1977). Lack of
relocation notice see Goodwin v. Gleid-
man, 463 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup. 1983).
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.