In City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal. 3d 860, a city sought to condemn land near an airport. The "principal valuation issue at trial" was the highest and best use for the property. ( Id. at p. 864.) The landowner's appraiser testified that the highest and best use was airport-related purposes, "especially parking." (Ibid.) The city's appraisers testified that the highest and best use was residential. (Ibid.) In argument to the jury, the city's attorney denied that there was demand for airport parking. ( Id. at pp. 864-865.) The jury found a value based on residential use. ( Id. at p. 865.) Shortly after entry of judgment, the city approved an environmental impact report recommending construction of a parking facility on the property. (Ibid.) It was assumed that the city knew, at the time of trial, that the property was going to be used for a parking lot. ( Id. at p. 866.) The court considered the "intersection of . . . two rules" ( Decker, supra, 18 Cal. 3d 860 at p. 867), i.e., (1) that "condemned property is not to be valued as part of the proposed improvement" ( id. at p. 866), and (2) that " 'if . . . the condemnor's proposed use is one of the highest and best uses of the property, the adaptability of the property for that purpose may be shown by the property owner' " ( id. at p. 867, quoting 12 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1974) 1263.330, p. 1834). The court reasoned that "the city's determination as to the adaptability of the property for airport parking purposes was relevant to show that the property in the hands of defendant and not as part of the project could have been used for airport parking." (Decker, at p. 869, ) Thus "the evidence of the city's determinations as to the need for airport parking and the suitability of defendant's property for such purpose would have been admissible to show the highest and best use of the property in the hands of defendant." (Ibid.) The court held that the city, through its attorney, committed misconduct warranting reversal. ( Id. at pp. 871-872.)