Save The Riviera The OFFICIAL Homepage of Redondo Beach and Torrance 90277 Hollywood Riviera

City of Redondo Beach Rebuttal/demur against the Legado Lawsuit

City of Redondo Beach Rebuttal/demur against the Legado Lawsuit

These are the official documents that the City of Redondo Beach filed to throw out the Legado Lawsuit. Great legal work, proving that what we asked for was legally correct!

You can fight City Hall, and WIN!

The City of Redondo Beach’s response: Pay us our Legal fees!!!

The City of Redondo Beach’s Response/Demur to the Lawsuit 9-16-16

Redondo Beach: Throw this lawsuit out! dismiss with prejudice!

legado redondo v. city of rb complaint. This is the actual Legado Lawsuit

Here are the main points:

  1. If Legado wants 180 units, apply for it. They applied for 146, got 115.
  2. The only application Legado was asking to hear was the 146 or 149 unit project, NOT the 180 unit.
  3. Legado is, of course, free to refile an application with the City for the 180-unit project
    and demand a final decision on that project at a noticed public hearing.
  4. The 146 ad 149 unit project did not include “Affordable housing” (STR said that all along!)
  5. The City was allowing full development of the property, Legado was only developing 3/4 of it!
  6. City Council is required to listen to the people! Amazing!

CITY’S MPA IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PETITION AND COMPLAINT
CASE NO. BS 164373
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ……………………………………………………………………………… 1
STANDARD OF REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
I. The Demurrer to Legado’s First Claim for Relief Should Be Sustained Because the
180-Unit Project Was Not Pending Before the City Council. ……………………………………… 3
II. The Demurrer to Legado’s Second Claim for Relief Should Be Sustained Because
The Housing Accountability Act Does Not Apply to Legado’s Project. ………………………. 7
III. The Demurrer to Legado’s Third Claim for Relief Should Be Sustained Because
Mandamus is Not Necessary to Provide the Relief Legado Seeks in its Prayer. ……………. 8
IV. The Demurrer to Legado’s Fourth Claim for Relief Should Be Sustained. …………………… 8
A. Legado’s Takings Claim Based on the City’s “Denial” of the 180-Unit
Project Is Unripe. ………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
B. The Resolution Did Not Effect a Taking. …………………………………………………….. 10
1. The Economic Impact Factor Fails to Support a Takings Claim. …………… 12
2. The Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectations Factor Further
Undercuts Legado’s Takings Argument. ……………………………………………. 12
3. The Character of the Governmental Action Fails to Support a
Taking. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
C. The City’s Responsiveness to the Views of the Public Regarding Legado’s
Project Does Not State a Takings Claim. ……………………………………………………… 13
D. Rational Basis and Proportionality Are Not Valid Takings Tests. …………………… 14
V. Legado’s Fifth and Seventh Claims for Relief for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief Fail to State Causes of Action. ……………………………………………………………………. 14
VI. Legado’s Sixth Claim for Relief for a Writ of Mandate Commanding the City to
Approve the 180-Unit Project Is Unripe. ……………………………………………………………….. 15
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15