Lippman

Lippman v. City of Los Angeles

Bad Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1183·234 Cal. App. 3d 1630·286 Cal. Rptr. 406·91 Daily Journal DAR 12563·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8232
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 1991B052715California2,151 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Appellants appeal from a judgment denying a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the City of Los Angeles and its community redevelopment agency to fund and consult with the project area committee in the implementation of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project. We ordered the appeals consolidated. For the reasons set forth, we affirm the judgment.

Facts and Proceedings Below

The Project Area Committee for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project (PAC) was formed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33385 et seq. and section 401 of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Los Angeles City Council. The city’s community redevelopment agency con- suited with PAC in preparation of the plan and for the first three years of its implementation.

In May 1989, the city council adopted a resolution by which it chose not to continue consultation with PAC. The effect of this resolution for all intents and purposes was to abolish the PAC. In June 1989, PAC filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court seeking to compel the city, through its redevelopment agency, to continue funding and consulting PAC in the implementation of the redevelopment project.

The trial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.