Blue

Blue v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1131·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 408·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3573·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2489
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 2006B180319, B182624California9,661 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Robert B. Blue, Betty L. Blue individually and doing business as Ketro Company and as trustees for the Blue Family Trust (collectively, Blue or the Blues) and John Walsh (Walsh) (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal a judgment in a validation action in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles (City), City Council of the City of Los Angeles (City Council) (sometimes collectively referred to as the City) and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA) (collectively referred to as respondents). The judgment validates an amendment (hereafter, the first amendment) to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project.

Plaintiffs also appeal a postjudgment order denying their motion to strike or tax costs.

The essential issues presented are whether the City and the CRA duly approved and adopted the first amendment to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and whether respondents’ findings of blight are supported by substantial evidence.

We conclude there was no procedural defect in the adoption of the first amendment and that substantial evidence supports the finding the project area remains blighted. The…

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.