Recently, the California Court of Appeals in County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project, rejected a redevelopment project plan on the grounds that the City of Glendora Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) failed to show sufficient evidence of physical blight.[1] This case will help cities establish redevelopment project plans by clarifying the criteria by which redevelopment agencies must find physical blight.
At issue in the case was the “Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Glendora Redevelopment Project” (the “Plan”),[2] which was adopted by ordinance in 2006. The Plan created a new redevelopment project area and merged it with three already existing project areas in Glendora. Shortly after the Plan’s adoption, the County of Los Angeles sued to invalidate the Plan, arguing that it violated the Community Redevelopment Law and that the Agency lacked sufficient evidence for the findings of blight. The trial court held in favor of the county, finding that the administrative record lacked substantial evidence in support of the Agency’s finding of blight in the new redevelopment area.
The court’s analysis centered on whether there was substantial evidence of blight supporting the amendment of Glendora’s redevelopment project area. Generally, a finding of blight is a prerequisite for redevelopment.[3] The statutory criteria for blight include requirements that the area is “predominantly urbanized,” characterized by one or more conditions of physical blight, characterized by one or more conditions of economic blight, and those blighting conditions “predominate in such a way as to affect the utilization of the area, causing a physical and economic burden on the community.”[4] If there is not substantial evidence to find that an area is blighted, the Agency may not adopt a redevelopment plan for that area.
The court found that the standards for physical blight were not met for several reasons. First, the Agency’s reports merely stated that there were code violations and code violations can pose a serious health and safety risk. The Agency did not determine that the code violations actually did cause health and safety risks. Although the Agency showed evidence of code violations, they should have gone one step further and showed that those code violations resulted in unsafe or unhealthy buildings.
Second, the Agency failed to show that the building deterioration demonstrated that buildings were unsafe for human occupancy. The Agency’s report showed that there were a significant number of buildings in need of rehabilitation, but did not show that the physical condition of those buildings made them unsafe or unhealthy.
Third, the Agency did not show that defective designs of buildings rendered those buildings unsafe. Instead, the Agency made assumptions about the buildings based on age and appearance. The Agency should have shown that there were, in fact, hazardous materials present or that the design defects did cause buildings to be unsafe.
Fourth, the court also found that the Agency did not show sufficient evidence that incompatible uses of adjacent parcels in the project area prevented development or caused lower property values. The Agency did not show a causal connection between incompatible uses and property value, nor did the Agency actually show that the uses were incompatible.
Lastly, although the Agency showed the existence of irregular parcel shapes, they did not show that these shapes rendered them inadequate for usefulness and development. Accordingly, the Agency was unable to satisfy the requirement of a showing of physical blight. Because the court found no substantial evidence of physical blight, the court did not consider whether there was economic blight or whether redevelopment was the only possible remedy. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s decision and invalidated the Plan.
This case provides guidance to redevelopment agencies that wish to add or amend redevelopment plans. The court laid out important defects in the redevelopment agency’s reports and decision-making processes. Agencies will have more insight as to how of how courts will analyze the necessary findings for the adoption of a redevelopment plan or amendment.
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin serves as legal counsel to municipal agencies throughout California and is at the forefront of a wide variety of legal issues confronting redevelopment agencies. Please contact Associate John W. Lam at jlam@agclawfirm.com or (562) 699-5500 for more information regarding this case or other municipal law issues.
[1] County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project, No. H032945 (June 15, 2010).
[2] Glendora Ord. No. 1845.
[3] See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 33030, 33031 (2010).
[4] Id.; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 33320.1 (2010); Evans v. City of San Jose, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1123 (2005).
