City of LA Sued As Bike Lanes Are Health Risk to Children

By Scott Zwartz

August 11, 2017

Bike Lanes in major streets pose an unreasonable health risk to children who have to peddle here the air pollution is greatest.  Two groups have sued the City of Los Angeles over its refusal to study the health impacts of bike lanes on children health.  Following is a copy of their lawsuit as it applies to Bike Lanes.

 

===========================

Richard S. MacNaughton, Esq. SBN 077258
Attorney at Law
Hollywood Office
1916 North Saint Andrews Place
323/957-9588 Tel 323/464-7066 Fax
MacNaughtonEsq@gmail.com, AbramsRL@Gmail.com

Edward W. Pilot, Esq. SBN 136812
A Professional Corporation
9107 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, California 90210-5525
310/274-9602 Tel 310/274-7749 Fax
ed_pilot@hotmail.com

Attorneys for Petitioners:
Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP]
Citizens Coalition Los Angeles [CCLA]

 

 

LOS ANGLES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CEQA CASE requires
CEQA JUDGE
see Related cases. ……

 

HOLLYWOODIANS ENCOURAGING ) CASE: BS159626
LOGICAL PLANNING [HELP], CITIZENS) ASSIGNED TO DEPT 86
COALITION LOS ANGELES [CCLA], ) related cases BS157813, BS157831, BS159574
) 1ST VERIFIED PETITION-COMPLAINT
) 1) Declaratory Relief, C.C.P, § 1060
) Improper Pattern and Practices
Petitioners ) 2 & 3) Declaratory Relief, C.C.P., § 1060,
vs. ) L.A M.C. § 11.5.6, City Charter § 555
) 4) Petition for Writ, CEQA-
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY ) Pub.Res. Code, § 21000 set seq
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ) 5) Gov’t Code, § 6250 et sq., Public
ANGELES, DOES 1 through 30, inclusive ) Request for Public Records
) 6) January 20, 2016 Readoption of MP 2035
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This Petition-Complaint concerns City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035, Case Number: ENV 2013-0911-EIR, Related Case Numbers CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC, State Clearinghouse No. 2013041012, City of Los Angeles Council File Number 15-0719 approved by Los Angeles City Council on August 11, 2015 and with Notice of Determination post by the clerk of Los Angeles County starting August 14, 2015 with # 2015 212006 – Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Transportation, and Planning and Land Use Management Committee Report, and Resolutions relative to proposed General Plan Amendment to adopt the Mobility Plan 2035 as a comprehensive revision of the adopted 1999 City of Los Angeles Transportation Element [collectively hereinafter referred to as Mobility Plan 2035 I or MP 2035 I] This Petition-Complaint also concerns the November 25, 2015 rescission of MP 2035 I and its three amendments and simultaneous adoption of the EIR, # 2015 212006 – Final Environ-mental Impact Report (FEIR), Transportation, and Planning and Land Use Management Committee Report, and Resolutions, without the three amendments which were part of MP 2035 I. The November 25, 2035 adoption of the EIR etc is referred to as Mobility Plan II or MP 2035 II. On January 20, 2016, The City adopted another version of the Mobility Plan [Mobility Plan 2035 III or MP 2035 III].

2. The time for the City Council to adopt the EIR for Mobility Plan 2035 I expired on or about August 24, 2015 or in the alternative the EIR was impliedly rejected and terminated by the City Council’s adoption of MP 2035 I with its three amendments on August 11, 2015.

 

3. On or about August 11, 2015, The City Council adopted Mobility Plan 2035 with three amendments (MP 2035 I). Prior to adopting Mobility Plan I, there was no certification or adoption of Mobility Plan 2035’s EIR without the three amendments.

4. On or about January 20, 2016, The City Council re-adopted Mobility Plan 2035 [MP 2035 III]. Prior to adopting Mobility Plan I, there was no certification or adoption of Mobility Plan 2035’s EIR without the three amendments.

5. For all times herein relevant, Petitioner HOLLYWOODIANS ENCOURAGING LOGICAL PLANNING [HELP] (1926 North Saint Andrews Place, Los Angeles, California 90068) was and is an unincorporated association of residents of Los Angeles County who are concerned about the quality of life in the City of Los Angeles and in particular with the quality of life in the area of the City known as Hollywood.

6. For all times herein relevant, Petitioner CITIZENS COALITION LOS ANGELES [CCLA] was and has been an unincorporated association of persons residing in the City of Los Angeles, who have been concerned with logical planning for the City and County of Los Angeles, referred to as CCLA. Petitioners HELP and CCLA are sometimes referred to collectively as PHC.

7. For all times herein relevant, Respondent City of Los Angeles was and is a charter city within the State of California with City Hall located at 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 [hereinafter The City]. The City is a public agency under Public Resources Code, § 21063 and authorized and required by law to hold public hearings in order to determine the adequacy of and certify the environmental documents prepared by its agencies and departments and to reject motions, ordinances, projects, EIR’s and plans which fail to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [CEQA].

8. For all times herein relevant, Respondent City Council of City of Los Angeles, which was and is the lead CEQA agency, was and is the legislative body, the governing board and the highest administrative body of The City with its City Hall located at 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 [hereinafter The City Council]. Sometimes The City and The City Council are collectively referred to as Respondents.

9. PHC is unaware of the true names and identities of those Respon-dents sued under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 30, inclusive.

10. Each Respondent was and is the agent, servant and employee of each remaining Respondent was and is acting within the scope of that agency in doing all the acts wherein alleged and in failing to perform all the omissions herein alleged.

11. Jurisdiction of the Petition falls within the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1085, 1094.5 and 187 and Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq.; venue is proper in central district (Code of Civil Procedure, § 394).

12. PHC has satisfied each and every exhaustion-of-remedies require-ment that must be satisfied in order to maintain this proceeding. California Public Resources Code, §§ 21177(a), § 21177(b) Respondents’ approval of MP 2035 II is now final.

13. PHC and its members made many comments on Mobility Plan 2035 I and on MP 2035 II during the administrative proceedings including but not limited to:

(a) April 29, 2015 Garcetti’s Sustainability pLAn is Based on Fatally Flawed Data, Zwartz Talking

(b) May 14, 2015 submission to City re Mobility 2035, Power Corrupts article from JwalshConfidential. What Density Doesn’t Tell Us About Sprawl, 2010, Eric Eidlin, AICP,

(c) April 30, 2015, LA Times, Judge [Chalfant] Halts $1 Billion Millennium Hollywood Skyscraper Project, by Rong-Gong Lin II,

(d) 1915 Study of Street Traffic Conditions in the City of Los Angeles by City of Los Angeles

(e) May 16, 2015 submissions to City re Mobility 2035,
March 27, 2015, Still Moving to Texas: The 2014 Metropolitan Population Estimates, by Wendell Cox,

(f) March 30, 2015, Los Angeles Daily Journal, 5 Ways Los Angeles County’s Population Is Changing, by Brenda Gazzar,

(g) May 16, 2015, CEQA Greenhouse Gas Regulation and Climate Change, by David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez

(h) May 19, 2015 submissions to City re Mobility Plan 2035
May 1, 2015 California Department of Finance, New State Population Report:

(i) Manhattan Institute Civic Report, No. 71 September 2012, THE GREAT CALIFORNIA EXODUS: A Closer Look, by Tom Gray & Robert Scardamalia

(j) Page from which the following may be downloaded as a pdf. A New Planning Template for Transit Oriented Development, Mineta Trans-portation Institute, 2001.

(k) May 24, 2015 three comments:
(k-1) May 24, 2015 letter from HELP and CCLA,
(k-2) The 1993 Final Report for the City of Los Angeles Telecommuting Project,
(k-3) May 21, 2015, The Eastsider, Is Silver Lake’s Rowena Road Diet a Disaster

(l) What is a City For? By Joel Kotin

(m) June 7, 2015, Zwartz Talk, City’s Bike Lanes Pose Serious Health Danger to Children

(n) June 17, 2015 comment to LB, 2LB, a website which The City established for people to make comments on MP 2035. PHC are informed, believe and thereupon allege that The City did not include the comments to LB, 2LB in the public record for MP 2035 which mislead an unknown number of people to believe that they had made official comments on the public record when in fact they had not.

(o) July 29, 2015, Hollywoodians Encouraging Local Planning (HELP) submitted a series of hyper-linked articles that thema-tically addressed air pollution concentration on major thorough-fares, the pollution exposure to bicyclists,

(o-1) Bikers Suck Down Less Pollution When They Ride In Separated Bike Lanes http://bit.ly/1lrU2nC

(o-2) August 15, 2014, Science Direct, Impact of bicycle route type on exposure to traffic-related air pollution, by Piers MacNaughton, Steven Melly, Jose Vallarino, Gary Adamkie-wicz, John D. Spengler [Abstract] http://bit.ly/1B5SFoG

(o-3) Don’t Like Pollution In Your Home? Plant A Row Of Trees And Breathe Easier By Half, http://bit.ly/1JMSsYH

(o-4) Quantifying The Economic Value Of Trees To Cities, http://bit.ly/1B5SFoG

(o-5) What is i-Tree? http://bit.ly/1xL2HG8

(o-6) February 2013, American Lung Association, EPA’s Stronger “Soot” Standards Protect Public Health from Dangerous Air Pollutants, http://bit.ly/1e6jheZ

(o-7) EPA, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report), http://1.usa.gov/1FMlZwH

(o-8) April 21, 2015, Science of Cities, Wearable Sensors Will Measure How Much Air Pollution City Cyclists Inhale, by Sarah Laskow, http://bit.ly/1zHeaWm

(o-9) September 26, 2011, LA Times, Bicyclists May Be Inhaling Twice as Much Soot as Pedestrians, by Jeannine Stein http://lat.ms/1f5vEYF

(o-10) Bicycle BluePrint, Chapter 18: Air Pollution, a) Bad Air, Pollutants and Damage They Do http://bit.ly/1f5wzIG

(o-11) Feb 16, 2012, ZD net, Are bicycle lanes really green? http://zd.net/1FMrDih

(o-12) Dec 6, 2012, The Atlantic CityLab, People Trying to Reduce Air Pollution Might Be Inhaling Even More Pollution, Bicyclists and Public-bus Commuters in San Diego Are Exposing Themselves to a Whole Lot of Crap in the Air, According to New Research, John Metcalfe @citycalfe Dec 26, 2012 http://bit.ly/1e6pesa

(o-13) 2010, BikeRadar, Health: Air Pollution, the Invisible Threat Why Cycling in Traffic Can Be Dangerous for Your Health, http://bit.ly/1cOknKM

(o-14) 2013, Environmental Health, Cyclist route choice, traffic-related air pollution, and lung function: a scripted exposure study, http://bit.ly/1JN1PHR

(o-15) June 30, 2010 Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Aug; 118(8): 1109–1116. Published online doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901747, PMCID: PMC2920084, Review, Do the Health Benefits of Cyc-ling Outweigh the Risks? http://1.usa.gov/1KTSj7F

(o-16) Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Jun; 118(6): 783–789. Published online 2010 Feb 25. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901622 PMCID: PMC2898854 Research Commuters’ Exposure to Particulate Matter Air Pollution Is Affected by Mode of Transport, Fuel Type, and Route, http://1.usa.gov/1MwIU3K

(o-17) Air Pollution and Children’s Health, A fact sheet by Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assess-ment and the American Lung Association of California, [02/28/02] [revised 11/26/03] http://bit.ly/1Qf66Jl

(o-18) November 2003, Air Pollution and Children’s Health, Ca VEPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, http://bit.ly/1QeUINz

(o-19) 2011 Determination of Personal Exposure to Traffic Pollution While Travelling by Different Modes, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Auckland, New Zealand, http://bit.ly/1F3cF65

(o-20) 2013, Oregon Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Health Impact Assessment, http://1.usa.gov/1JB3XST

(o-21) Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct; 119(10): 1373–1378. Published online 2011 Jun 14. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003321, PMCID: PMC3230442, Article, Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Acute Changes in Heart Rate Variability and Respiratory Function in Urban Cyclists, http://1.usa.gov/1GtKrZt

(o-22) July 2007, Main page for Kaur, Nieuwenhuijsen, and Colvile, Fine Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide Exposure Concentrations in Urban Street Transport Microenviron-ments, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 41, Issue 23, page 4781, July 2007. http://bit.ly/1MzVC1N

(o-23) October 28, 2010, Study: Separated Bikeways Mean Better Air Quality for Bikers, Walkers, Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on October 28th, 2010 at 1:10 pm, http://bit.ly/1G9NlRP

(o-24) Thursday, May 22, 2014, Sweet New Protected Bikeway On Beautiful Rosemead Blvd in Temple City, STREETS BLOG LA, by Joe Linton, http://bit.ly/1pvSs3s

(o-25) Synonym.Com, What Do Trees Do to Air Pollution?, by David C. Laine, Demand Media, http://bit.ly/1MwESb4

(p) August 1, 2015 Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP] and Citizens Coalition Los Angeles [CCLA] Comment on Mobility Plan 2035 for failure to Study CEQA Alternative of Virtual Presences as Part of Future Transportation Infrastructure (37 pages)

(q) August 3, 2015 Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP] and Citizens Coalition Los Angeles [CCLA] Comment on Mobility Plan 2035 for Failure to Study CEQA Alternative of Virtual Presence as Part of Future Transportation Infrastructure – Los Angeles City Council File # 15-0719 MOBILITY PLAN 2035 IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO STUDY REASONABLE RANGE OF CEQA ALTERNATIVES

(r) August 3, 2015 Re: Mobility Plan 2035 (MP 2035) Council File # 15-0719 Analysis of The Mineta Transportation Institute May 2015 Changes in Transit Use and Service and Associated Changes in Driving Near a New Light Rail Transit Line

(s) August 3, 2015 submission of Changes in Transit Use and Service and Associated Changes in Driving near a New Light Rail Transit Line by Mineta Transportation Institute

(t) August 5, 2015, two comments (1) resubmit PHC’s May 24, 2015 letter re CEQA deficiencies, (file name 2035-1005-Search.pdf) (2) another copy of The 1993 Final Report for the City of Los Angeles Telecom-muting Project.

(u) Sunday, August 9, 2015 HELP CCLA nine (9) page comment re: (1) The City Misuses the CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations and (2) Mobility Plan 2035 Is Based on a Material Misunderstanding of the Law
(v) Furthermore, PHC have made reference to the 1915 Study of Street Traffic Conditions in the City of Los Angeles and the Mineta Institute’s 2001 A New Planning Template for Transit-Oriented Development and PHC has provided The City numerous copies of its own study.

Nov 3, 2015 @ 02:55 PM, So Much For The Death Of Sprawl: America’s Exurbs Are Booming, by Joel Kotkin

(x) June 16, 2015 CityLinksLA’s Request for Participants CityLinkLA Initiative for Deployment of Advanced Broadband Systems

14. In February 2015, the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report [RDEIR] was issued after which the public submitted comments. In particular, members of the public objected to Mobility Plan 2035 I’s being based on the misinformation and flawed population projections along with many other objections to MP 2035 I’s deficiencies.

 

15. In May 2015, the Final EIR was issued and circulated and the public including PHC made many comments both orally and in writing on the gross deficiencies and unlawful nature of Mobility Plan 2035 I.

16. Thereafter, members of the public including PHC and their members continued to submit comments objecting the false data, on which Mobility Plan 2035 I rested, and objecting to Mobility Plan 2035 I’s persistent failure to consider the reasonable population alternatives, objecting to its disregard for the health implications for bicyclists, its exclusion of Virtual Presence as a form of Transportation. A CEQA study of Virtual Presence would show that TODs are harmful to the environment, increase auto pollution, increase commute times; such a bona fide CEQA study would show that subways and above ground light rail transit systems are not only unduly expensive but also deprive buses of the funding which they need. Had MP 2035 I studied Virtual Presence, it would have discovered that buses can be a much more efficacious mode of mass transit than any fixed rail system when Virtual Presence removes traffic from surface streets. As Virtual Presence is a newer mode of transportation, the public cannot understand the interrelationship of Virtual Presence and other vital aspects of The City’s infrastructure and housing unless the EIR undertakes an extensive study of the state of Virtual Presence’s technology as it exists today and the reasonable expectations of Virtual Presence’s enhance technology over the next few decades. Although The City had a duty to study Virtual Presence sua sponte, PHC explained nature of Virtual Presence as a form of Transportation to The City and The City Council.
17. The City excludes materially relevant data from sources such as the US Census, the California State Department of Finance, The USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, The Manhattan Institute, which prepare independent data on demographics, and by such exclusion The City engages in substantial misconduct in that CEQA requires the Lead Agency to make certain full and accurate data is included in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15200-15209. The City includes materially false and misleading information in the EIR which also violates CEQA Guidelines § 15200-15209. The City is under an affirmative duty to share its expertise, which it fails to do when it conceals material data and includes false data and wishful thinking. The City is under an affirmative duty to disclose the analyses by the City Planning Department which it fails to do when it conceals material data and includes false data and wishful thinking. The City breaches its affirmative duty to disclose the analyses by the City Planning Department and The City fails to check for accuracy and to check for omissions when it conceals material data and includes false data and wishful thinking. When the City disregards the known public concerns in its EIR, the City violates CEQA Guidelines § 15200(e). All these violations occurred in both MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II.

18. Public Resources Code § 21102 prohibits the approval of a project “if there are feasible alternatives . . . available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” Based on the 1993 Study of Los Angeles Study of Telecommuting, Virtual Presence could reduce traffic by 30%. Thus, the data which The City has possessed for over twenty (20) years shows that Virtual Presence will greatly reduce green house gases and make the streets and freeways move faster which will also reduce the gasoline emissions. MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II, on the other hand, will increase vehicular traffic by promoting TODs and by slowing the traffic speed which increases the green house gases.

19. MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II also ignored the Hollywood Specific Plan mandate to include garden Woonerfs (aka Shared Streets) in Hollywood. HELP has been persistently bringing SNAP with its requirement of Woonerfs and Share Streets to The City’s attention since 2005, but The City has ignored Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Ordinance No. 173,749, Effective March 1, 2001, §2 L and Vermont Western Station Neighborhood Area Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines, CPC No. 00-1976 SP, Accompany Ordinance #173749, Section III, Parks First Program. CEQA does not allow The City to ignore applicable laws as if they did not exist.

20. On or about August 14, 2015, The City filed its Notice of Deter-mination with The County of Los Angeles as to MP 2035 I.

21. On September 8, 2015, PHC served by mail and email a Notice of Commencement MP 2035 I on Respondents prior to the filing of its Petition on September 10, 2015. On December 17, 2015 PHC served via email and US mail their CEQA Letter of Intent to Sue over the November 25, 2015 approval of MP 2035 II. Marked as Exhibit #1 and attached to the original Petition for Writ and incorporated by reference herein is a copy of PHC’s December 17, 2015 Notice of Commencement of Action.

22. PHC is familiar with the CEQA condition subsequent to furnish the California State Attorney General a copy of this Petition within ten (10) days of their filing the same.

23. PHC has standing to bring this lawsuit as entities beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of mandate because Mobility Plan 2035 II, as alleged more specifically herein, will have significant adverse environmental impacts on members of the associations and individuals and will adversely affect the goals and objectives of the PHC to provide for better quality of life for current and future people of Los Angeles and to compel The City to undertake logical planning based on facts.

24. PHC has no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, since its members and other members of the public will suffer irreparable harm as a result of The City’s violations of CEQA and other laws. The City Council’s approval of Mobility Plan 2035 also rests on the failure to satisfy a clear, present, ministerial duty to act in accordance with those laws. Even when Respondents are permitted or required by law to exercise their discretion in approving projects and plans under those laws, they remain under a clear, present, ministerial duty to exercise their discretion within the limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws. Respondents have had and continue to have the capacity and ability to approve Mobility Plan 2035 within the limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws, but Respondents have failed and refuse to do so and have exercised their discretion beyond the limits of and in a manner that is not consistent with those laws. In the absence of such remedies, The Council’s certification of the EIR and its approval of Mobility Plan 2035 II will remain in effect in violation of State law. CEQA also authorizes petitioners to avail themselves of injunctive relief.

25. PHC has a beneficial right and interest in The City’s following the substantive and procedural law.

26. Unless Respondents, and each of them, are enjoined from imple-menting Mobility Plan 2035 II, Petitioners and other members of the community will suffer irreparable harm from which there is no remedy at law.

27. Furthermore, HELP and CCLA have pending litigation against MP 2035 I in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number BS157813, and it is related to a lawsuit filed against MB 2035 I by Fix The City, case number BS157831. These two related cases are in Department 1 waiting assigning to a CEQA judge. In light of the purported rescission of MP 2035 I, the status of case BS157813 and BS157831 is in doubt and the parties need all cases challenging MP 2035 I and all cases challenging MP 2035 II to be related in one department.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Code of Civil Procedure, § 1060
Improper Pattern and Practices

28. PHC hereby realleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action, paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive of this Petition-Complaint.

29. The City and The City Council have engaged in an improper pattern and practice over several years to intentionally exclude material data from CEQA Environmental Impact Reports and to approve CEQA projects which violate the law including but not limited to Specific Plans. The City and The City Council have engaged in that same improper pattern and practice with respect to MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II.

30. The City and The City Council include fatally flawed data in their EIRs, the base EIRs on wishful thinking, they exclude highly relevant data which disagrees with The City’s and The City’s preferred CEQA Alternative, they submit misleading data at the 11th hour depriving opponents of the chance to add accurate data to the public record, they refuse to follow the requirements of “responsible agencies” as that term is used under CEQA, and they approve CEQA projects which They know blatantly violate the law including Specific Plans. The courts have adjudicated that The City and The City Council engage in this improper pattern and practice:

A) Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning v City of Los Angeles, Case # BS 138370, wherein judge Allan Goodman found that The City’s EIR for the 2012 Update for the Hollywood Community Plan was based on fatally flawed data (1-15-2014 Decision, 19:2-13) and wishful thinking (1-15-2014 Decision, 18:23-28 fn 14).

B) Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles case # BS140930, wherein The City granted an exception to the Specific Plan, SNAP, to “to grant a special privilege, nor to grant relief from self-imposed hardships” contrary to LAMC 11.5.7 F.3(a). 7-17-2014 Judge Richard Fruin’s Final Decision page 11

///
C) La Mirada v City of Los Angeles, case # BS132533, wherein the court allowed Petitioner to augment the record by adding intra-city emails under its declaratory relief cause of action because “it evinces impropriety in the process itself.” Judge Ann I. Jones’ 7-23-2012 Decision, p 1 fn1

D) StopTheMillennium v City of Los Angeles, Case # BS144606. After “Caltrans asserted that this conclusion was ‘not based on any credible analysis that could be found anywhere in the DEIR,’” The City’s EIR ignored CalTrans although it was the CEQA responsible agency in this area. Judge James Chalfant’s 4-30-2015 Decision, page 15-16, 19-25
E) Prior to the time of hearing, PHC can produce additional cases where the Los Angeles Superior Courts have found that The City and The City Council has engaged in the improper pattern and practices. For example, The City is currently using ENV 2014-4706-EIR, which is based on the same improper pattern and practices for the development known as 6220 West Yucca Project in Hollywood, and The City is currently using the same improper pattern and practices for the development known as 5901 Sunset in Hollywood. The Initial Study in connection with the Crossroads Project at 6665 Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood is using the same improper pattern and practices.

31. The City and The City Council also engage in the improper pattern and practice to ignore data, which members of the public have added to the public record, which The City and The City Council dislike when discussing the CEQA Alternative as the data tends to establish that The City’s and the City Council’s decisions are based on fundamentally flawed and false data, on wishful thinking, and that The City and The City Council’s misinformation subvert the law. For example, despite HELP and CCLA including substantial material on Virtual Presence in the public Record, The City refused to discuss HELP’s and CCLA’s comments or data in their responses to public comments.

32. Substantial Evidence under CEQA is a legal concept which requires that any opinions offered by experts has to be based upon data and studies which are generally accepted by others in the same field and which does not exclude foundational treatises, nor may the expert opinions of City Planning Staff or opinions of the outside consultants disregard facts such as the data from the Bureau of the Census, as defined in Title 13 U.S.C. § 11 [US Census] nor may The City substitute its own methods and procedures for that of any “responsible agency” as used in CEQA or the standard methods and procedures for their field of expertise. Mobility Plan 2035 I materially departs from the standards and procedures used by reasonable experts in the field of demographics, transportation, logic and analysis. The City’s and The City Council’s improper pattern and practices renders CEQA’s concept of “substantial evidence” meaningless.

33. PHC is entitled to conduct discovery under this cause of action and under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7(b)(3) to obtain additional information about the City’s and The City Council’s improper pattern and practices including but not limited to any guidelines for preparing EIRs, all communications with outside consultants, all data on the manner in which The City determined which outside consultants to retain, information on outside consultants including prior EIRs on which they worked, all emails and other intra-city communications about the preparation of the EIR, the FEIR, responses to public comments.

 

34. After The City Council October 30, 2015 motion to rescind MP 2035 I and adopt MP 2035, The City and The City Council had an opportunity to cease and desist from engaging in the improper pattern and practices, but they did not do so. Despite additional relevant material being added to the public record including the City’s own RFP for citywide 1 gigabyte WiFi, a first step towards Virtual Presence, The City and the City Council refused to discuss Virtual Presence as a form of Transportation and The City refused to provide public documents concerning the RFP in a timely manner so that they could be added to the public record. After the October 20, 2015 City Council Motion, The City and The City Council refused to address the material CEQA issue of the health risks to bicyclists who use bike lanes located on major thoroughfares. Thus, The City and The City Council are refusing to cease and desist from their improper pattern and practice, and they should be enjoined from engaging in said pattern and practices and furthermore they should be enjoined from taking advantage of the improper pattern and practice with respect to MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II. Rather, MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II should be remanded to The City for it to conduct a draft EIR which is not tainted by the improper business practices.

35. Judicial efficiency and the public interest are served by the Court enjoining The City and The City Council from engaging in the improper pattern and practices at this time rather than many parties litigating the misconduct over and over again as each Project is brought before the court.

36. PHC is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

///

SECOND OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Code of Civil Procedure, § 1060
Charter § 555 and Municipal Code § 11.5.6
Amendments to General Plan
37. PHC hereby realleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action, paragraphs 1 through 36, inclusive of this Petition-Complaint.

38. Los Angeles Municipal Code, § 11.5.6 requires that all amendments to the General Plan must done according to the procedures set forth in the Charter § 555 and LAMC 11.5.6. The removal of the Transportation Element [MP 2035 I] from the General Plan is an amendment to the General Plan. The addition of a new Transportation Element [MP 2035 II] to the General Plan is an amendment to the General Plan. Neither the removal of MP 2035 I nor the addition of MP 2035 II was done according to LAMC 11.5.6 and the City Charter § 555.

39. Pursuant to LAMC § 11.5.6 C and Charter §555 (b), when the City Council initiates an amendment to the General Plan, it shall transmitted to the Director (of Planning) for report and recommendation to the City Planning Commission. The removal of MP 2035 I was not transmitted to the City Planning Commission, but rather to the Transportation Committee and the PLUM Committee for a joint hearing on November 10, 2015, and then directly to the City Council for a vote on November 25, 2015 without any recom-mendation from the City Planning Commission.

40. LAMC § 11.5.6 C and Charter § 555 (c) require that after a hearing before the Director of Planning or before the City Planning Commission, the City Planning Commission shall prepare a report for the Mayor and the City Council recommending that the amendment be approved or disapproved and the reasons for the City Planning Commission’s recommendation. The City Planning Commission prepared no report and made no recommendation to the Mayor or to the City Council as to MP 2035 II.

41. Because the City Planning Commission made no recommendation to the Mayor as to MP 2035 II, the Mayor could not and did not act upon any recommendation by the City Planning Commission to approve the amendment to remove MP 2035 I nor to approve the amendment to add MP 2035 II.

42. Pursuant to LAMC § 11.5.6 E, the City Council may act on an amendment to the General Plan only after its receives the recommendation from the City Planning Commission. Because the City Planning Commission made no recommendation to the City Council, the City Council had no power to hold a public hearing on rescission of MP 2035 I nor on adoption of MP 2035 II and it had no power to rescind MP 2035 I nor adopt MP 2035 II.

43. Pursuant to LAMC § 11.5.6 E, The City Council must act within seventy-five (75) days of the Mayor’s approval of an amendments. The Mayor approved MP 2035 II on May 28, 2015. If The City Council does not act within seventy-five (75) days of the Mayor’s May 28, 2015, the amendment is disapproved. The City Council did not act upon the Mayor’s May 28, 2015 approval of MP 2035 II until November 25, 2015, which was more than seventy-five (75) days of the Mayor’s May 28, 2015 approval.

44. Because the rescission of MP 2035 I and the addition of MP 2035 II to the General Plan were contrary to Charter 555 and contrary to LAMC 11.5.6, neither the rescission of MP 2035 I nor the adoption of MP 2035 II was legally effective. Insofar as the August 11, 2015 adoption of MP 2035 I was also contrary to Charter 555 and LAMC 11.5.6 F., MP 2035 I never became part of the General Plan. Thus, the present Transportation Element of the General Plan is the same one which existed on August 10, 2015.

45. PHC is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Code of Civil Procedure, § 1060

46. PHC realleges and incorporates by reference into this cause of action paragraphs 1 through 45 inclusive of this Petition-Complaint.

47. Due to the violations of City Charter 555, a real controversy exists between PHC, on the one hand, and The City and The City Council, on the other hand, as at least seven (7) alternatives exist, and without knowing which alternative is correct, the parties do not know how to proceed.

Alternative MP 2015 #1: The November 25, 2015 rescission was not effective and The General Plan still contains MP 2035 I as its Transportation Element;

Alternative MP 2015 #2: The November 25, 2015 rescission was effective and it removed the Transportation Element from the General Plan.

Alternative MP 2015 #3: The November 25, 2015 adoption on MP 2035 without the three prior amendments was not effective due to The City’s and The City Council’s failure to follow City Charter § 555.

Alternative MP 2015 #4: Due to the lack of a new CEQA EIR prior to removing MP 20235 I, the November 25, 2015 rescission was ineffective.

Alternative MP 2015 #5: Due to the lack of a new CEQA EIR, the November 25, 2015 adoption of MP 2035 II was not effective

Alternative MP 2015 #6: Due to the improper attempted adoption of MP 2035 I as the Transportation Element to the General Plan on August 11, 2015 and the improper adoption of MP 2035 II as the Transportation Element to the General Plan on November 25, 2015, the Transportation Element of the General Plan is that which was in effect on August 10, 2015.

Alternative MP 2016 #7: The Alternative of MP 2035 which was readopted on January 20, 2016 based upon and incorporated the prior defects set forth above as to the prior alternatives.

No 2015 or 2016 Alternative of MP 2035 is in effect. None of the alternatives from the years 2015 or 2016 was properly adopted and the current Transportation Element of the General Plan is the one which was in effect on January 1, 2015.

48. The Parties need this Court to declare which version of the Transportation Element of the General Plan is the one on which the Parties may proceed in the future.

49. PHC is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Public Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.,
Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 526, 1085 & 1097;
Request for Writ to Enjoin Mobility Plan I and Mobility Plan II
and to Remand to The City for a New Notice of Preparation and New Draft Environmental Report

50. PHC hereby realleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action, paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive of this Petition.

51. CEQA requires (i) that Mobility Plan 2035 I, MP 2035 II and MP 2035 III be based on substantial evidence, (ii) that they adhere to the prior General Plan Framework, (iii) that the all Draft EIRs consider all reasonable Alternatives [Cal. Code Regs., Title. 14, § 15126.6(a)] and (iv) that members of the public may make meaningful comment thereon and that the public comments be more than perfunctory. PHC will show that Mobility Plan 2035 is a teleological work of secular myths and wishful thinking and that is based on fatally flawed data. In addition, the CEQA process was fatally defective in that it provided no bona fide means for the public to be heard, but rather the public input was manipulated to make it appear as if the public supported MP 2035 I & II.

(a) The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 I have no evidence to support its basic premise that Los Angeles’ population will grow ten (10) times faster per year starting in 2011 than it had in the prior decade. In the decade 2000 to 2010, the US census found that The City grew by only 97,801 persons for the entire decade. MP 2035 I asserts that between 2010 and 2012, The City population increased by 105,890 persons per year. According to the California Department of Finance, The City’s rate of growth hovers around 1% per year, which would be about 38,000 to 39,000 people per year.

(b) Credible evidence indicates that the rate of population increase is slowing from just over 1.1% to less than 1% between mid 2014 and mid-2015. If this population trend continues, L.A. could have a smaller population in 2035 than it had in 2010.

(c) As Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo stated on the record on August 11, 2015, the conclusions of MP 2035 I were reached without input of the constituents of his Council District #1, and MP 2035 I set goals and made plans which were not beneficial for residents of Council District #1. Councilmember Cedillo pointed out that The City used a website targeted to those who would favor MPB 2035 I, knowing that the website would by pass the overwhelming majority of the residents of Council District #1. Councilmember Cedillo’s testimony highlighted, but did not exhaust, the ways in which The City violated CEQA’s requirement for public input.

(d) The General Plan Framework requires updates to The City to con-sider population decreases as well as population increases, and The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 ignore the twenty (20) year population decline. Hence, The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 are contrary to the General Plan Framework, which states, “The General Plan Framework Element is population growth neutral: it is not the intent of the Framework Element to cause any specific level of population growth to occur. It is a plan to accommodate whatever growth does occur in the future, which could include loss of population. General Plan Framework Chapter 2

(e) Because their data is fatally flawed, no one can ascertain whether The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 are consistent with the General Plan or whether they collide with other portions of the General Plan such as the 35 community plans. Los Angeles City Charter § 556 The State also mandates consistency among the elements of a General Plan. Government Code § 65300.5 There was no analysis of the financial impact The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 will have upon The City and whether it will drain resources away from other vital services.

(f) The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 are not based upon facts or the input from The City’s residents. Rather, The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 pick and choose those concepts which support their teleological goal for a vastly denser city, with substantially more Transit Oriented Districts [TODs], with increased traffic congestion, and increased reliance on expensive mass transit such as subways and also The City also relies on bicycles to further slow down vehicular traffic. The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 pretend to foster walking, which is essentially a myth. The City used the same consultants for The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 that it used for The Hollywood Community Plan Update, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case # BS 138 370, which the courts rejected on January 15, 2014 as based on fatally flawed data, wishful thinking and subverted the public’s right. Thus, the City was on notice that its consultants used fatally flawed data and wishful thinking and materially strayed from CEQA requirements to the point they subverted the public’s rights. The similarly flawed method of preparing and defending MP 2035 I’s EIRs raises questions which impinge on The City’s credibility.

(g) Substantial Evidence under CEQA is a legal concept which requires that any opinions offered by experts has to be based upon data and studies which are generally accepted by others in the same field and which does not exclude foundational treatises, nor may the expert opinions of City Planning Staff or opinions of the outside consultants disregard facts such as the data from the Bureau of the Census, as defined in Title 13 U.S.C. § 11 [US Census] nor may The City substitute its own methods and procedures for that of any “responsible agency” as used in CEQA or the standard methods and procedures for their field of expertise. The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 materially departs from the standards and procedures used by reasonable experts in the field of demographics, transportation, logic and analysis.

(h) As PHC and others commented during the administrative phase, The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035’s population projection for the year 2035 is more than double the population based upon the trend established by the US Census and Sol Price School of Public Policy, California Demographic Futures – The Los Angeles Projec-tions, The Generational Future of Los Angeles: Projections to 2030 and Comparisons to Recent Decades, March 2013, Dowell Myers and John Pitkin

(i) If the current trend, however, continues Los Angeles could exper-ience a population decrease by 2035. The council district where The City has already tried some of the proposals since 2000, lost so much population between 2000 and 2010 that it ceased to qualify as a legal council district. Thus, there is a reasonable data base from which to conclude that by 2035, Los Angeles may have fewer residents than it had in 2010. That realistic likelihood is one alternative which the EIR had a duty to study, but which it ignored. The City’s refusal to base The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 EIR and its alter-natives on facts replicates one of the fatal flaws in its Hollywood Community Plan Update.

(j) The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 also ignored the data which shows that Transit Oriented Districts [TODs] attract more vehicles to small geographic areas due to their increased population density and that subways do not and cannot compensate for the increase vehicular density in or near TODs. Rather the data from reliable agencies around the globe shows that the increased traffic congestion uses more gasoline and increases toxic emissions, makes commute times longer, but enhances the profitability of the landowners who own the property in TODs. As The City warned itself in 1915, TODs benefit a few landowners while harming everyone else. The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 did not study the negative impacts of TODs which The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 was designed to benefit. Furthermore, The City was under a duty to study the situation where additional TODs could result in more population flight as occurred between 2001 and 2010 in council District 13.

(k) The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 ignored the most important new modes of transportation, Virtual Presences, aka Cisco’s TelePresences ©. The burden rests on The City to study this newer form of transportation, and in fact, in 1993, The City did release is Telecommuting Study, which PHC added to the public record, showing how Virtual Presence substituted for other modes of transportation using 1992 technology. Virtual Presence, however, competes with subways and light rail systems, and it drastically reduces the need for all forms of physical transportation. CEQA required that The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 study Virtual Presence and how it will interact with other transportation modes and how Virtual Presence reduces traffic, reduces air pollu-tion, and influences people to have larger homes rather than small condos and apartments. Virtual Presence also provides a new tech-nology and opportunities for new industries, which Los Angeles needs in order to maintain a decent tax base. These facets and ramifications of Virtual Presence are unknown to Respondents because they have keep themselves consciously ignorant of this mode of transportation.

(l) The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 disregard the worldwide consensus that bicycles lanes in heavily traveled thoroughfares are harmful to the health of the individuals who use Bike Lanes in major avenues and boulevards. In response to PHC’s comments, The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035’s consultants briefly commented on the health risks, but they refused to take the world-wide consensus seriously, despite the fact that CEQA required The City to completely revise the Bike Lanes in busy thoroughfares. The only way The City could assess the health hazards was to re-do the Bike Lane aspect of the DEIR from the beginning. A few terse comments based on inaccurate representation of the data does not substitute for revising the defective portion of the EIR. CEQA requires that significant health impacts on individuals be studied during the EIR process. MP 2035’s dismissive approach to material flaws in the EIR replicates The City’s behavior when its failure to study significant data came to light during the Hollywood Com-munity Plan. It is relevant under CEQA when an agency repetitively follows the same unwarranted procedures.

52. When The City Council adopted MP 2035 II on November 25, 2015, it incorporated all the flaws in MP 2035 I’s EIR into MP 2035 II and the purported re-adoption on January 20, 2016 likewise incorporated all of the prior flaws of which PHC complain.

53. Transportation is inextricably involved with the projected popula-tion and Transportation is similarly dependent upon housing, type of housing, the density of the housing. When a plan requires the spending of billions of dollars in anticipation of a population surge which has little or no prospect of occurring, the EIR is not supported by substantial evidence and the EIR is fatally defective as it is based on fatally flawed data and/or wishful thinking.

54. The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 are designed to promote high density housing which is one of the teleological goals of the mayor and members of the City Council, but which the public rejects. People including older Millennials move away from high density. As PHC’s data shows, the fervor of the major and City Council to create a west coast Manhattan, especially along Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards is not even shared by the generation whom demographers have termed “The Millennials.” As The Millennials age, they overwhelmingly move away from mixed-use projects in the urban core in favor of other parts of Los Angeles County and to other states such as Texas, The Carolinas, and to Utah and the southern Great Lakes region, where they can buy a single family home with a yard, no traffic congestion, less air pollution, and good schools. The City had the affirmative duty under CEQA to study the actual preferences of Americans and the actual data of what has been occurring in Los Angeles near the subways, light rail systems, and mixed-use projects. PHC submitted data showing that the goals of MP 2035 cause new businesses to avoid Los Angeles and its decaying infrastructure. As the data shows, employers realize that the most stable portion of the work force is not the young, transient Millennials to whom MP 2035 caters, but rather workers with families. The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 refused to study the harm which its TODs, mixed-use projects and rail systems bring to Los Angeles by causing a desirable portion of the work force to leave Los Angeles.

55. The deficiencies in The various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 con-ceal the real world detriment which its implementation will bring to Los Angeles. MP 2035 I itself will bring unmitigatable environmental impacts on the City. For example, spending billions of dollars on mass transit, which data show is unnecessary, deprives The City of other needed public services such as police, paramedics, parks, libraries, water mains, sewers, repair of sidewalks, etc. Constructing mass transit infrastructure for highly dense TODs and mixed-use projects results in the City subsidizing the developers when their projects are economic failures. As mentioned in the public record, when these type of policies are implemented, they result in the area having lower socio-economic status and increased crime. As shown in the public record, The City concealed the increased crime rate by under reporting crime. One result of under reporting of crime is the failure to allocate necessary resources to combat the conditions which lead to increased crime. As is now known, there has been upsurge in crime and increase in violence in the City. Similarly, the actual data shows that when the City removed hundreds of millions of dollars from the Fire Department budget, the County Grand Jury found that the City Council knew that one result would be more needless deaths due to worse emergency response time. The June 2013 Grand Jury concluded that there were in fact more needless deaths due to the downsizing of the paramedics. For the same reasons, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is without substantial evidence.

56. Because each of the various versions of Mobility Plan 2035 as a whole is contrary to the evidence and brings a host of adverse environmental impacts upon Los Angeles, Mobility Plan 2035 needs to be remanded to The City for a new Notice of Preparation [NOP] for a new Draft EIR to be based on actual input from the residents and on accurate data and not based upon falsehoods and/or wishful thinking. When The Court sets a timetable to issue a new Notice of Preparation [NOP] and the Court should also set forth guidelines advising The City what it needs to study but not how to study it. The court should set a series of Returns for The City to report back in writing to the court, to all petitioners in the various lawsuits filed over MP 2035, and to the public in sixty (60) day intervals of the progress it is making with the new Draft EIR and subsequent EIRs for MP 2035.

57. The City needs to issue a new Notice of Preparation [NOP] so that the public and appropriate agencies may make their input and that the NOP enumerate certain goals including but not limited to studying Virtual Presence as a major mode of future transportation, the health dangers associated with Bike Lanes in major thoroughfares, the negative impacts which TODs and mixed-use projects have on a City, the financial consequences caused by the allocation of city revenues to support fixed-rail transit and TODs, the amount of money which The City has provided to developers in way of subsidies, tax breaks, loans guarantees and any other financing which may require tax payers to bear part or all the cost of a mixed-use project, a TOD, or additional mass transit, that the City publish in advance the outside names of consultants which it will use and the prior projects on which the consultants and/or their companies have worked in the past, publish at least once every two (2) months the publications, e.g. US Census, The Manhattan Institute, USC The Sol Price School of Public Policy, etc. on which The City and/or its consultants are relying. The data on which The City and its consultants and the origin of the data needs to be made public at least one every two (2) months so that the public may assess whether the new MP 2035 is another example of “Garbage in, Garbage out.”

58. PHC is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Government Code, § 6250 et seq.
Request for Public Records

59. PHC hereby realleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action, paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive of this Petition-Complaint.

60. On November 18, 2015, HELP submitted its request for public records to Ms. Agnes Lung-Tam, The City of Los Angeles, Information Technology Agency, 200 N. Main Street, Room 1400, Los Angeles, California 90012, requesting: Request #1 Each and every Table of Contents submitted by “Proposers.” Request #2 Each and every Executive Summary submitted by “Proposers.” Request #3 Each and every “sign-in” sheet for the July 16, 2015 mandatory conference. Request #4 Each and every Writing which shows who attended the July 16, 2015 mandatory conference, whether they attended in person or electronically.
61. After asserting Government Code, § 6255, the City refused to produce any documents other than those responsive to Request #4

62. On December 14, 2015, HELP explained why Government Code, § 6255 and Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1065) was inapplicable. HELP still has not received the requested documents.

63. For reasons which HELP explained to The City and on which HELP will elaborate at its hearing, HELP’s need for the records outweighs the alleged confidential which The City has asserted and HELP is entitled to these documents at this time.

64. HELP is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Government Code, § 6259(d) and Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
January 20, 2016 Readoption of MP 2035

65. PHC hereby realleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action, paragraphs 1 through 63, inclusive of this Petition-Complaint.

66. On January, The City Council considered council agenda item (30) Environmental Impact Report and Addendum Thereto (ENV-2013-911-EIR- ADD1), Communications from the Mayor and Los Angeles City Planning Commission, and Resolution relative to the General Plan Amendment to adopt the amended Mobility Plan 2035 and adopted Item #30 council file number 15-0719-315, Case No. CPC-2013-910-GPA-SP-CA- MSC-M1.

67. Said January 20, 2016 re-adoption of MP 2035 failed to cure any of the prior CEQA defects or the other procedural defects of which Petitioners complain of herein and Petitioners hereby reassert their prior objections to the January 20, 2016 version of MP 2035. Petitioners do not waive any of their prior objections to the MP 2035 in any of its various manifestations.

68. HELP is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Government Code, § 6259(d) and Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 to the extent their action protects a public right or confers a benefit on the public over and above Petitioners’ personal interests.

WHEREFORE PHC prays for relief as follows:
First Cause of Action
Declaratory Relief
Improper Pattern and Practices

1. That This Court order The City and The City Council to cease and desist from engaging in the improper pattern and practices as herein alleged.

2. That pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5, this Court award Petitioners reasonable attorney fees and costs due to their conferring a substantial benefit on the community.

3. For such other and additional relief as this court deems just and proper.

Second and Third Causes of Action
Declaratory Relief
Which Alternative of MP 2035 is the Operant One

1. That this court identify and declaration which Alternative of Mobility Plan 2035 is the operant version.

2. That pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5, this Court award Petitioners reasonable attorney fees and costs due to their conferring a substantial benefit on the community.

3. For such other and additional relief as this court deems just and proper.

Fourth Cause of Action
Request for Writ to Enjoin Mobility Plan I and Mobility Plan II
and to Remand to The City for a New Notice of Preparation and New Draft Environmental Report

4. That this Court issue a new Writ of Mandate and Judgment compelling Respondents to rescind their approval of MP 2035 I and Mobility Plan II, along with any and all revisions to the Community Plans and other General Plan elements done to conform to MP 2035 I and MP 2035 II, any ordinances implementing MP 2035 I and Mobility Plan II, including but not limited to Complete Streets Design Standards, which were adopted to conform to MP 2035 I and Mobility Plan II. That this Court enjoin Respondents from taking any action to implement MP 2035 I or MB 2035 II, and/or from taking any action to implement any of the associated changes.

5. That this Court remand Mobility Plan 2035 I and MP 2035 II back to The City for the City to write a new Draft EIR which is based on reasonable future population estimates and upon all modes of transportation including Virtual Presence and that the EIR study the health impacts of its plans on the population, especially for any bicycle lanes in major streets.

 

6. That this Court order that The City issue a Notice of Preparation [NOP] so that the public and appropriate agencies may make their input and that the NOP enumerate certain goals including but not limited to:

(a) studying Virtual Presence as a major mode of future transportation,
(b) the health dangers associated with Bike Lanes in major thoroughfares,
(c) the negative impacts which TODs and mixed-use projects have on a City,
(d) the financial consequences caused by the allocation of city revenues to mass transit projects and TODs,
(e) the amount of money which The City has provided to developers in way of subsidies, tax breaks, loans guarantees and any other financing which may require tax payers to bear part or all the cost of a mixed-use project, a TOD, or additional mass transit,
(f) that the City publish in advance the names of outside consultants which it will use and the prior projects on which the consultants and/or their companies have worked in the past,
(g) that The City publish and distribute to all petitioners and the public at least once every two (2) months the publications, research studies, demographic and economic articles, e.g. US Census, The Manhattan Institute, USC The Sol Price School of Public Policy, California Department of Finance, the 1915 Study of Street Traffic Conditions in the City of Los Angeles by City of Los Angeles’ Department of Engineering, Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG], etc. on which The City and/ or its consultants are relying and those research studies, demographic and economic articles on which it is not relying.

7. That this Court order that thereafter a new Draft EIR has been written, the circulation time be sufficient to allow the various Neighborhood Councils to comment on said Draft EIR under the applicable laws, ordinances and rules allowing for the Neighborhood Councils to make comment on such matters. Neighborhood Councils need a minimum of sixty (60) days to comment as they have to first have their PLUM committees study the Draft EIR.

8. That this Court order a series of Returns so that PHC, other peti-tioners, the public, the Neighborhood Councils and the court may closely monitor The City’s process so that The City does not unduly delay in updating the EIR or replicate the same deficiencies in the current MP 2035 I and II.

9. That pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5, this Court award PHC reasonable attorney fees and costs due to its conferring a substantial benefit on the community.

10. That this Court provide such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
Fifth Cause of Action
Government Code, § 6250
Request for Documents

1. That this Court order The City to provide to HELP the public documents which it has requested.

2. That pursuant to Government Code, § 6259(d) this Court award HELP reasonable attorney fees and costs, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5, this Court award HELP reasonable attorney fees and costs due to its conferring a substantial benefit on the community.

3. That this Court provide such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

Sixth Cause of Action
January 20, 2016 Version of MP 2035

1. Petitioners incorporate by reference and restate their prayers to the prior five causes of action into this prayer for the Sixth Cause of Action.

2. That this Court provide such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

DATED: Thursday, February 17, 2016

Edward W. Pilot, A Professional Corp., and
Richard S. MacNaughton, Esq.
Co-counsel for Petitioners Hollywoodians
Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP] and
Citizens Coalition Los Angeles [CCLA]

By _______________________________
Richard S. MacNaughton, Esq.

2035Mobility:2035-P2-FAC-ver#3