Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog
Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog http://blog.aklandlaw.com/2010/01/articles/redevelopment-1/too-late-challenge-at-the-time-of-project-implementation-is-not-timely/print.html
Too Late! Challenge at the Time of Project Implementation is not Timely
By Katherine J. Hart
A state appellate court has upheld the adoption of design guidelines that are intended to implement a City of Los Angeles redevelopment plan.
PR/JSM Rivara LLC v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles involves adoption by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, and the city (collectively, the “city”) of design guidelines for the North Hollywood redevelopment project area in September 2007. A developer in the project area, PR/JSM Rivara challenged the guidelines on the grounds the guidelines illegally reduced the maximum allowable densities in the commercial portion of the project area. In other words, the developers claimed their property was down zoned. The developers also argued the city improperly rezoned the properties without complying with the Planning and Zoning Law. Clearly, the developers’ interest in this case was preserving their right to build at densities contained in the city’s zoning ordinance.
The trial court denied the developers relief, finding that the densities within the project area were set years ago when the redevelopment plan was amended in 1997. Thus, the time to challenge those densities had long expired. The lower court also rejected the argument that the design guidelines acted as a de facto amendment to the zoning code.
The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling. In doing so, the Second District first gave an overview of redevelopment agency law. It then proceeded to explain why the adopted guidelines are not a zoning ordinance within the Planning and Zoning Law, and emphasized the difference between adopting a redevelopment plan (a legislative act) and implementing one (an administrative act). If the guidelines were found to be a zoning ordinance, then the Planning and Zoning Law requires public notice and a hearing prior to adoption. Redevelopment law also requires certain procedures when adopting or amending a redevelopment plan. The court found that there were no provisions in either the Planning and Zoning Law or the Redevelopment Law that required public notice and a hearing prior to the administrative act of implementing the redevelopment plan. Because the guidelines were merely implementing the plan, public notice and a hearing were not required prior to adoption. The court then determined the developers had not provided any evidence as to how the guidelines were inconsistent with the city’s general plan – despite the court’s admission that developer had demonstrated that provisions of the guidelines and general plan were different with respect to certain land uses.