Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/22/2019 03:22 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk 19STCP03103 1 2 3 4 CHATTEN-BROWN CARSTENS & MINTEER LLP Douglas P. Carstens, SBN 193439 Michelle Black, SBN 261962 2200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.798.2400; Fax 310.798.2402 5 6 7 8 Attorneys for Petitioners AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Coalition to Preserve LA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CASENO.: NO.: ) CASE )) )) )) Petitioners, )) v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF )) MANDATE )) CITY OF LOS ANGELES )) ) (Violation of California Environmental Respondent. ))) ____________________________________ )) Quality Act, Community Redevelopment )) Law, Subdivision Map Act, and Planning )) and Zoning Law) 6400 Sunset LLC; )) )) Does 1-10 )) )) Real Parties In Interest )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION; COALITION TO PRESERVE LA 26 27 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 01 01 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 1. 1. Over strong public opposition and in violation of the California 4 ("CEQA"), Community Redevelopment Law, and Planning and Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), 5 Zoning Law, on June 25, 2019, the City of Los Angeles (“City”) ("City") approved approved various 6 entitlements for a mixed use development at 6400 West Sunset Boulevard (“Project”). ("Project"). The 7 Project was proposed by Real Party in Interest 6400 Sunset LLC. 8 2. 2. Instead of conducting environmental analysis of the proposed Project as required 9 by the CEQA, the City relied upon a Sustainable Communities Plan Exemption (“SCPE”) ("SCPE") 10 from CEQA. This This exemption exemption was was inapplicable inapplicable because because the criteria to qualify for such an 11 exemption were not met. The The proposed proposed Project Project would would demolish a cultural resource, the 12 Amoeba Records building, that substantial evidence showed would be eligible for listing on 13 the California register of historic places because of its culturally significant murals associated 14 Furthermore, the the City City failed failed to to comply with the procedural with significant artists. Furthermore, 15 requirements required for utilizing a SCPE because it failed to circulate a draft of the 16 sustainable communities environmental assessment for a period of 30 days. 17 3. 3. The Project fails to provide an amount of affordable housing that would allow 18 the City to comply with the requirements requirements of of the the Hollywood Hollywood Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan. Plan. The 19 Redevelopment Plan requires that 15% of residential units built in the area be affordable units. 20 To this point the City has failed on an areawide basis to provide the required number of 21 affordable units, falling short in production of low and moderate income units by 331 units in 22 Its approval approval of the Project worsens that shortfall 2008 and worsening that shortfall ever ever since. since. Its 23 by providing fewer affordable units than would be necessary to meet areawide affordable 24 housing goals. 25 4. Hollywood has been experiencing explosive development, which has led to 26 increased traffic, the demolition of historic buildings, the destruction of existing affordable 27 housing, and the inadequate provision of affordable housing with new construction of market 28 rate units. Printed on Recycled Paper 02 02 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 5. 5. Because the City failed to provide adequate environmental review with full 2 disclosure of extensive adverse adverse impacts, impacts, reviewable reviewable by by the the public, public, as as required disclosure of the the Project’s Project's extensive required by by 3 the California Environmental Quality Act, and it violated Planning and Zoning Law and 4 Community Redevelopment Law requirements for consistency of the Project with the 5 Community Redevelopment plan and provision provision of of affordable affordable housing, housing, the the City’s City's approvals approvals of of 6 the Project must be set aside as an abuse of discretion. JURISDICTION 7 8 9 10 6. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the writ action under section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This This Court Court also also has has jurisdiction jurisdiction over the writ action under section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 21168 and 21168.5 of the Public Resources Code. PARTIES 11 12 7. 7. AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) is a nonprofit organization based in Los 13 Angeles providing cutting-edge medicine and advocacy to over 1,000,000 people in 43 14 countries. AHF is currently the largest provider of HIV/AIDS medical care in the U.S. 15 Generating new, innovative ways of treatment, prevention and advocacy has been the hallmark 16 of AHF's AHF’s success. success. Since Since 1987, 1987, AHF AHF has has cared cared for for millions of people living with HIV and of 17 AIDS worldwide. AHF creates and implements new programs in communities across the U.S. 18 and abroad, expanding delivery of healthcare and influencing policy with the aim of saving 19 more lives. Many of of AHF's AHF’sclients clientsand and patients patients are are at at risk risk of of homelessness homelessness and are in more lives. Many 20 extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income households that would qualify for 21 Homelessness and and housing housing instability instability have a significant negative impact affordable housing. Homelessness 22 on health, especially for those who who are are already already chronically chronically ill. ill. AHF launched the Healthy 23 Housing Foundation Foundation (“HHF”) to provide provide decent decent housing housing units units at at an an affordable affordable cost cost to Housing ("HHF") to to lowlow- 24 income people, including families with children, and those previously unsheltered or 25 AHF has has purchased purchased and and rehabilitated rehabilitated aa string string of of properties properties in the Los Angeles area homeless. AHF 26 since October 2017 and has renovated them for affordable housing. 27 28 8. 8. Petitioner Coalition to Preserve LA is an unincorporated association composed of concerned residents seeking a positive future for Los Angeles through good land use Printed on Recycled Paper 03 03 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 planning, environmental stewardship, transparent government, availability of affordable 2 housing, and community empowerment. 3 9. 9. 4 California. 5 10. 10. 6 7 8 Respondent City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the State of Real Party in Interest 6400 Sunset, LLC is the applicant and recipient of the approvals associated with the Project. 11. 11. to X X are are given given fictitious fictitious names because their names Real parties named as Does IIto and capacities are presently unknown to Petitioners. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9 10 The Project Site and Its Surroundings. 11 12. 12. The Project site consists of 0.83 non-contiguous acres, located in the 12 Hollywood Community Plan Area where Hollywood Boulevard meets Cahuenga Boulevard. 13 The Project is generally bounded by Sunset Boulevard, Cahuenga Boulevard, and Ivar 14 Avenue, but is split by single-story buildings currently used as nightclubs. 15 13. 13. The site is divided into a northern portion, which is currently developed with 16 the Amoeba Music building, and a southern portion, which consists of a 21-space surface 17 The Project Project proposes proposes to to develop develop only only the the northern portion at this time. parking lot. The 18 19 20 14. 14. The land The land use use designation designation is is “Regional "Regional Center Center Commercial,” Commercial," and and zoned zoned C4C4- 2D-SN. 15. 15. The Project authorizes construction of a mixed-use development containing 21 200 residential units, of which five percent (10 units) would be reserved for Very Low-Income 22 households. The The Project Project would would be be 26 Six of of the floors households. 26 stories stories and and 284 284 feet feet tall. tall. Six the building’s building's floors 23 would serve as a parking garage, four four of of which which would would be be located located aboveground. aboveground. The ground 24 floor of the Project would contain 7,000 square feet of commercial space. 25 16. 16. The Project would demolish an existing three-story, 47-foot-tall commercial 26 structure with 43,077 square feet of floor area and a single-level subterranean parking garage. 27 The existing commercial building has housed Amoeba Music since 2001. 28 17. 17. The Project would construct 231,836 square feet of new floor area, 190,735 Printed on Recycled Paper 04 04 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 square feet of new residential floor area, area, and and aa maximum maximum Floor Floor Area Area Ratio Ratio (FAR) (FAR)of of6:1. 6:1. This 2 FAR depends on the continued use of the southern half of the Project site as a surface parking 3 lot. 4 18. 18. Although the Los Angeles Municipal Code requires the provision of 22,875 5 square feet of open space, the majority of this open space will not be available to the public. 6 Some Other “open space” includes includes Some of of this this open open space space will will be be located located in in aa private private penthouse. penthouse. Other "open space" 7 amenities intended only for Project residents. 8 9 19. 19. The Project is surrounded by a one-story commercial building to the north, the four-story ArcLight Cinema Complex to the east, a one-story commercial building and 10 alley to the south, and the 14-story CNN CNN office office building building to to the the west. west. A 19-story hotel has been 11 approved north of the Project site, but construction has not yet occurred. 12 20. Access to the Project will occur by surface streets and the 101 Freeway, 13 which runs approximately 0.8 miles east of the Project site and has on- and off-ramps at 14 Cahuenga Boulevard, Highland Avenue, Western Avenue, Sunset Boulevard, and Santa 15 Monica Boulevard. 16 17 The Proposed Project Application Process. 18 21. Throughout development of the Project, City staff raised concerns about its 19 reliance on an elevated parking podium, the appearance of the podium, and the barriers such a 20 The applicant applicant updated updated the the podium would present to to activating activating the the Project’s Project's streetscape. streetscape. The 21 Project’s plans plans in in August August 2018 2018 and and March March 2019, 2019, but but failed failed to to satisfy satisfy staff staff concerns. concerns. Project's 22 22. On September 4, 2018, the Urban Design Studio presented the Project to the 23 Professional Volunteer Program. The The program program provided provided feedback concentrated on the 24 monolithic appearance of the parking podium. 25 23. The Project proponent applied applied for for aa “Sustainable "Sustainable Communities Communities Project” Project" 26 exemption from compliance with This exemption, exemption, contained within Public Resources with CEQA. CEQA. This 27 Code section 21155.1, applies to transit priority projects that would not have unmitigated 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 05 05 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 environmental impacts, public health impacts, historic resources impacts, and that meet a 2 multitude of requirements for energy efficiency. 3 24. As the City reviewed the Project, it approved several other large 4 developments in the immediate vicinity. On September 13, 2018, the City Planning 5 Commission approved a density bonus and conditional use permit for the construction of eight 6 buildings, 950 residential units, 308 hotel rooms, and 190,000 square feet of commercial and 7 retail uses in the Crossroads Project, Project, located located at at 6701 6701 West West Sunset Sunset Boulevard. Boulevard. At that same 8 meeting, the City Planning Commission approved entitlements for a mixed-use building at 9 6200 West Sunset Boulevard containing 12,120 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant 10 uses. The previous week, on September 8, 2018, the City Planning Commission approved 11 entitlements for a 275-room hotel hotel at at 6407 6407 Sunset Sunset Boulevard. Boulevard. In February 2018, the City 12 Planning Commission approved entitlements for a 275-room hotel at 1400 North Cahuenga 13 In2016 2016 and and 2017, 2017, the the city city approved approved entitlements entitlements a 200-unit residential building Boulevard. In 14 with 285,719 square feet of office space and 16,315 square feet of restaurant space at 1341 15 North Vine Street; and a 369-unit residential building at 1311 Cahuenga Boulevard; a 200-unit 16 residential building at 6250 West Sunset Boulevard. 17 25. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner Coalition to Preserve LA submitted a letter 18 to the the City Planning and and Land Land Use Use Management (PLUM) Committee, objecting to to City Council’s Council's Planning 19 the potential Sustainable Communities Communities exemption exemption from from CEQA. CEQA. Petitioner described the 20 failure of the Project to be adequately served by existing utilities, its impacts on the historic 21 Amoeba Music store, and the failure to conduct a preliminary endangerment assessment due to 22 the site’s prior use use as as aa gas gas station station and These are are all all requirements requirements of of the the the site's prior and service service center. center. These 23 Sustainable Petitioner’sletter letterfurther further questioned questioned the the failure failure to to Sustainable Communities Communities Exemption. Exemption. Petitioner's 24 The letter letter further further objected objected to failure to to circulate a conduct a health risk assessment. assessment. The to the the City’s City's failure 25 draft of a sustainable communities environmental assessment for at least a thirty day review 26 period as required by Public Resources Code section 21155.2 subdivision (b) (3). 27 28 26. The PLUM Committee of the City Council found the Project exempt from CEQA at a meeting on November 6, 2018. Printed on Recycled Paper 06 06 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 27. On November 21, 2018, the City Council followed suit, deeming the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21155.1. 28. On January 9, 2019, the Advisory Agency approved Vesting Tentative Tract 4 Map No. VTT-74496-CN, merging lots, after after aa public public hearing hearing conducted conducted by by the the merging the the Project’s Project's lots, 5 Hearing Officer for the City Planning Commission Commission and and the the Advisory Advisory Agency. Agency. Members of the 6 public testified that the Project was not properly exempt from CEQA and that the Project 7 contained insufficient affordable housing, would damage historic resources, and would set a 8 negative precedent for the area. 9 10 11 29. The City claimed that the CEQA exemption was not before the Advisory Agency and CEQA compliance compliance at at that that hearing. hearing. Agency and that that no no action action was was taken taken on on the the Project’s Project's CEQA 30. 30. action Petitioner Coalition to Preserve LA appealed appealed the the Advisory Advisory Agency’s Agency's action 12 on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Map on on January January 28, 28, 2019. 2019. The appeal raised the failure to 13 address Petitioner’s previous comments, comments, the the use use of of aa CEQA CEQA exemption exemption for for the the Project, Project, and and the the address Petitioner's previous 14 City’s separate separate review review and and approval approval of entitlements. City's of the the Project’s Project's entitlements. 15 31. 31. On March 13, 2019, Petitioner submitted a letter to the City Planning 16 Petitioner asked the City to require at least Commission outlining its objections to to the the Project. Project. Petitioner 17 15 percent affordable housing (instead of five percent) so that the Hollywood Area may 18 comply with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and Community Redevelopment Law. 19 Petitioner’s letter letter further further explained explained the the Project's Project’s inconsistencies inconsistencies with with the the Hollywood Hollywood Petitioner's 20 Community Plan and incorporated its October 25, 2018 letter. 21 22 23 32. 32. The City Planning Commission approved the Project at a hearing held on March 14, 2009 and affirmed the use of the Sustainable Communities exemption from CEQA. 33. 33. Petitioner Coalition to Preserve LA appealed this approval on April 17, 2019. 24 Petitioner again CEQA exemption, exemption, the the changes changes in Petitioner again enumerated enumerated its its concerns concerns with with the the Project’s Project's CEQA in 25 circumstances and new information that required EIR review, piecemealing of approvals, 26 failure to provide sufficient affordable housing to satisfy Community Redevelopment Law and 27 the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and inconsistencies with adopted City plans. 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 07 07 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 34. 34. 1 2 appeal of of the the On June 7, 2019, the PLUM Committee Committee scheduled scheduled Petitioner’s Petitioner's appeal Project’s approvals approvals for for June June 11, 11, 2019. 2019. Project's 35. 35. 3 On June 11, 2019, Petitioner supplemented its comments regarding the 4 Project and Annual Housing Housing Project and its its failure failure to to provide provide sufficient sufficient affordable affordable housing housing with with the the City’s City's Annual 5 Element Progress Reports. The The documents documents submitted submitted demonstrated that the City has failed to 6 provide the 15 percent of affordable housing units required in the Hollywood Community Plan 7 area. 8 9 10 11 12 36. 36. The PLUM appeal of of the the Project Project on on June June 11, The PLUM Committee Committee heard heard Petitioner’s Petitioner's appeal 2019. The The appeal appeal was was denied, denied, and and the the matter matter was was transmitted transmitted to the City Council. 37. 37. Without notifying Petitioners, on June 21, 2019, the City scheduled the final City Council meeting for the Project on June 25, 2019. 38. 38. The City Council approved the Project on June 25, 2019. 13 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 AND INADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LAW 15 39. 39. Petitioners objected to the Project in the administrative process and fully 16 exhausted their administrative Petitioners submitted letters and testified during administrative remedies. remedies. Petitioners 17 public hearings for the Project during the comment period raising the issues set forth herein. 18 40. Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary 19 law unless this Court grants the the requested requested writs writs of of mandate mandate and and injunctive injunctive relief. relief. In the 20 absence of approval of of the the Project Project would would form form the the basis basis for for aa absence of such such remedies, remedies, Respondent’s Respondent's approval 21 development project that would proceed in violation of state law. 22 41. Petitioners have complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by filing 23 a copy of this petition with the California California Attorney Attorney General. General. A copy of that notice is attached 24 as Exhibit A. 25 42. Petitioners have complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.5 by 26 providing the City of Los Angeles Angeles with with notice notice of of its its intention intention to to commence commencethe theaction. action. A copy 27 of that notice is attached as Exhibit B. 28 43. Petitioners elect to prepare the administrative administrative record. record. A copy of that election is Printed on Recycled Paper 08 08 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 attached as Exhibit C. 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3 (VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) 44. 4 5 The Project is Not Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 45. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Petitioners incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth. CEQA requires the City to conduct an adequate environmental review prior to making any formal decision regarding regarding projects projects subject subject to to CEQA. CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Further, CEQA CEQA requires requires adoption of all feasible mitigation Cal. Code Regs. § 15004). Further, measures that will reduce adverse adverse environmental environmental impacts. impacts. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact on land use if it "conflict[s] with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental environmental effect." effect." (Guidelines §15125 subd. (d).) 12 46. Public Resources Code section 21155.2 requires that a sustainable communities 13 project be (Pub. project be reviewed reviewed through through aa “sustainable "sustainable communities communities environmental environmental assessment.” assessment." (Pub. 14 Thissustainable sustainable communities communities assessment assessment must be Resources Code §§ 21155.2 21155.2 subd. subd. (b).) (b).) This 15 released in released in draft draft and and “circulated "circulated for for public public comment comment for for aa period period of of not not less less than than 30 30 days.” days." 16 Notice must be provided in the same way as (Pub. Resources Code § 21155.2 subd. subd. (b)(3).) (b)(3).) Notice 17 for an EIR under Public Resources Code section 21092. (Ibid.) No such notice was provided, 18 and no such environmental assessment was released in draft form. The Project Cannot Meet the Requirements for Review of a Transit Priority Project. 19 20 47. Public Resources Code section 21155.1 requires that a sustainable 21 communities project can be adequately served served by by existing existing utilities. utilities. (Pub. Resources Code § 22 This finding cannot be made for this project. Five water main ruptures 21155.2 subd. (a)(1).) (a)(1).) This project. Five 23 The water water mains in the area serving the occurred in nearby areas between 2010 2010 and and 2014. 2014. The 24 Therefore, with with massive massive new development, the water main project are all over 75 years old. Therefore, 25 26 27 28 infrastructure is inadequate to serve the Project and other nearby projects approved by the City. 48. Public Resources Code section 21155.1 requires that a sustainable communities project not have a significant significant effect effect on on historic historic resources. resources. (Pub. Resources Code § 21155.2 subd. This finding cannot be made for this subd. (a)(5).) (a)(5).) This this project. project. The Project would Printed on Recycled Paper 09 09 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Amoeba Music, Music, currently occupying the site, meets at demolish the Amoeba Music store. Amoeba 2 least two criteria of significance for registration in the California Register of Historic 3 4 5 Resources under Public Resources Code section 21084.1 for its association with the lives of persons important to local and state history and for its association with events contributing to The murals murals on on the the interior interior and exterior of the Amoeba broad patterns of cultural heritage. The Music building qualify as historic cultural resources as they are by original Amoeba northern 6 California artist Larry Smulian aka Silver, an independent African-American graphic designer 7 of Berkeley, Berkeley, California, Michael Alvarez Alvarez was was of California, and and Brian Brian Blesser, Blesser, the the murals’ murals' executor. executor. Michael 8 commissioned to add interior and and exterior exterior murals murals at at Amoeba. Amoeba. The Historic Resources 9 Technical Report prepared in August 2018 does not mention the murals or their historic 10 11 cultural significance. Consistency with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Was Not Ensured. 12 13 49. “[T]he requirement requirement of of consistency consistency is land use use and "[T]he is the the linchpin linchpin of of California’s California's land and 14 the principle principle which which infused infused the the concept concept of planned growth with the development laws. ItIt isis the 15 force (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 171 Cal.App.3d Cal.App.3d1204, 1204,1213.) 1213.) A force of of law.” law." (Debottari 16 redevelopment plan must be consistent with the general plan and proposed projects must be 17 consistent with both. 18 50. 50. The Project must be consistent consistent with with the the Hollywood Hollywood redevelopment redevelopmentplan. plan. The 19 Project does not meet Hollywood Hollywood Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan Plan goals goals (9) (9) and and (10). (10). These Hollywood 20 redevelopment plan goals include the following: 21 (9) Provide housing choices and increase the supply and improve the quality of housing 22 for all income and age groups, especially for persons with low and moderate incomes; 23 and to provide home ownership opportunities and other housing choices which meet the 24 needs of the resident population. (10) Promote the development of sound residential neighborhoods through mechanisms 25 such as land use, density and design standards, public improvements, property 26 rehabilitation, sensitive in-fill housing, traffic and circulation programming, 27 development of open spaces and other support services necessary to enable residents to 28 live and work in Hollywood. Printed on Recycled Paper 10 10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 51. 51. The Project is not consistent with the redevelopment plan that requires at least fifteen percent (15%) of all new or rehabilitated units developed within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency shall be for persons and families of low or moderate income; and of such fifteen percent, not less than forty percent (40%) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 thereof shall be for very low income households. The Project does not meet, nor does it sufficiently assist the City in meeting, the required housing targets. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING LAW AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW REQUIREMENTS.) 52. Petitioners incorporate and every every allegation allegation 52. Petitioners incorporateby by reference reference herein herein each each and contained in the previous paragraphs. 53. 53. The City failed to require that the Project provide an amount of affordable 12 housing necessary to meet the requirements of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 13 Community Redevelopment Law. 14 54. 54. The Project must be consistent with the general plan and with the 15 (Govt. Code § 65300.5; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural Etc. County redevelopment plan. plan. (Govt. 16 v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1336.) A project is inconsistent if it 17 conflicts with a plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear. (Families Unafraid to 18 Uphold Rural Etc. County v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th. at pp. 1341-1342.) 19 55. 55. The Government Code mandates that if a proposed tentative map is 20 deny approval” of it. (Govt. Code § inconsistent with General Plan policies the City “shall "shall deny approval" of 21 66474.) 22 56. 56. In the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area, the Redevelopment Plan 23 requires that all project proponents, whether public or private, provide at least 15% affordable 24 units in proposed housing development. 25 26 27 28 57. 57. The requirement for the provision of affordable housing is fundamental, The Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan states: mandatory, and clear. clear. The At least fifteen percent (15%) of all new or rehabilitated units developed within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency shall be Printed on Recycled Paper 11 11 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for persons and families of low or moderate income; and of such fifteen percent, not less than forty percent (40%) thereof shall be for very low income households. (Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, P. 17, section 410.4, emphasis added.) 58. In addition to the Redevelopment Plan requirements, Community Redevelopment (Govt. Code section 33413 subds. (b) (1) and edevelopment Law requires requires 15% 15% set set asides. asides. (Govt. (b)(2)(A)(i).) TheSupreme SupremeCourt Courthas hasnoted notedthe theLegislature Legislature has has explicitly explicitly required that new )(2)(A)(i).) The residential esidential development in redevelopment areas include affordable units. (California Building 435, 445–446.) 445-446.) Industry Cal.4th 435, ndustry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Ca1.4th 59. 59. The Project would include 200 units of residential housing, but is proposed with a mere 10 (5%) affordable units. 60. 60. To comply To comply with with the the Hollywood Hollywood Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan’s Plan's and and Municipal Municipal Code’s Code's minimum requirements, the Project must provide at least 15% affordable units (30 units). 61. 61. On an areawide basis, the City has fallen short of its obligation to produce low/moderate income units and has a deficit of at least 331 Low/Moderate Income Units according to page 32 of the the May May 15, 15, 2008 2008 “5-Year "5-Year Implementation Plan (2009-2013).” (2009-2013)." Therefore, whether the project is considered alone or as part of an areawide requirement, the City fails to meet its obligations to produce produce sufficient sufficient low/moderate low/moderate income income units. units. By setting aside only 5% Very Low Income units, the Project is failing to produce the required amount of affordable units, and is not producing any low or moderate income units at all. The City Improperly Relied Upon an Outdated General Plan to Support its Consistency Findings. 62. 62. To be legally adequate, the mandatory elements of the general plan must meet the minimum requirements contained in state law. (Buena Vista Gardens Apartments 'n Ass’n Homeowners Ass Ass’n Ass 'n v. v. City City of of San San Diego Diego (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 298; Twain Harte Homeowners v. County of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal.App. 3d 664, 699.) The land use element must include standards of population density based on accurate and reasonably current numbers of people (Govt. Code Code section section 65302 65302 subd. subd. (a) (a) ["The [“The land use element shall and building intensity. (Govt. include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for for the the various various districts districts and and other other territory territory covered covered by by the the plan.”]) plan."]) Because the current Printed on Recycled Paper 12 12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Hollywood Community Plan contains woefully outdated population projections and densities, 2 it cannot serve as a valid basis for aa finding finding of of consistency consistency with with the the general generalplan. plan. In Camp v. 3 Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 348, the court held it was not possible to 4 approve a development project because appropriate general plan consistency findings could 5 not be made using a general plan that did not meet state requirements for adequacy. 6 63. 63. The Hollywood Community Plan (HCP) has not been updated in a legal way 7 Although the the City City attempted attempted to to update update the the HCP several years ago, that HCP since the 1980s. Although 8 amendment was struck down in Court for violating Government Code consistency 9 requirements. The The Los Los Angeles Angeles Superior Superior Court, Court, the the Honorable Honorable Judge Goodman presiding, 10 found that the Hollywood Community Plan as proposed by the City at that point was 11 “fundamentally flawed." flawed.” (https://patch.com/california/hollywood/judge-rues-hollywood(https://patch.com/california/hollywood/judge-rues-hollywood"fundamentally 12 This case case is Fix the City v. City of Los Angeles, Los community-plan-fundamentally-flawed.) This 13 Until the the new new HCP, under review at the time Angeles Superior Court case number BS138580. BS138580. Until 14 of Project approval, was adopted in a legally sufficient manner, the City could not make a 15 consistency finding with the HCP because the HCP is based on outdated information and 16 assumptions about population growth growth and and density. density. Therefore, the City could not legally 17 approve the Amoeba Project until until after after an an updated updated HCP HCP was was validly validly adopted. adopted. No updated 18 HCP has yet been adopted. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW BY FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE HOLLYWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AREA.) 64. 64. Petitioners incorporate and every every allegation allegation Petitioners incorporateby by reference reference herein herein each each and contained in the previous paragraphs. 65. 65. Redevelopment agencies were created by local legislative bodies in accordance with (Health & & Safety Safety Code accordance with the the State State Community Community Redevelopment Redevelopment Law Law(“CRL”). ("CRL"). (Health Code Redevelopment agencies agencies were were established established to eliminate blight and increase §§ 33101-33105.) Redevelopment the supply of housing in a manner that cannot be accomplished by private enterprises alone. 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 13 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Agencies designated one or more (Health & Safety Code §§ 33030, 33037, 33037, 33320.1.) 33320.1.) Agencies 2 redevelopment project areas, each governed by its own redevelopment plan, to accomplish 3 eradication of blight. (Health & Safety Code §§ 33320.1, 33322, 33367.) 4 66. 66. To increase the supply of housing, the CRL requires the inclusion of 5 affordable housing units when a redevelopment agency or other entity develops any new 6 housing, or substantially rehabilitates existing housing, within the project area. A percentage 7 of these units must be available and affordable to, and actually occupied by, households with 8 very low, low and moderate incomes. (Health & Safety Code § 33413 subd. (b).) 9 67. 67. All redevelopment agencies dissolved as a matter of law on February 1, 2012, 10 pursuant to legislation that amended the CRL, in accordance to Stats. 2011-12 1st Ex. Sess. Ch. 11 5, June Law”), as as modified modified by by the the decision decision of of the the June 29, 29, 2011 2011 (“ABx1 ("ABx1 26” 26" or or “Dissolution "Dissolution Law"), 12 California Supreme Court in CRA v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th Ca1.4th 231 231 (2011), (2011), and and as as amended by 13 Statutes 2012, Chapter 26, enacted June 27, 2012 (AB 1484). When the redevelopment 14 agencies dissolved dissolved pursuant that would would have have been agencies pursuant to to ABx1 ABx1 26, 26, any any “tax "tax increment” increment" that been allocated allocated 15 to redevelopment agencies is instead allocated to successor agencies for payment of 16 enforceable obligations incurred by the former redevelopment agencies; the remaining 17 balances were allocated in accordance with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. 18 (Health & Safety Code § 34183, ABx1 26, at Ch. 5, § 1 (i).) 19 68. 68. The Dissolution Law established successor agencies to carry out the duties of 20 the former redevelopment agencies. Successor agencies could retain the housing functions of 21 the former redevelopment agency or transfer those responsibilities to another entity. (Health & 22 Safety Code § 34176.) 23 69. 69. The obligation to provide affordable housing pursuant to Section 33413 is a 24 duty imposed by law upon the former redevelopment agency, which is now an enforceable 25 obligation under the terms of the Dissolution Law. (Health & Safety Code § 34171 subd. 26 (d)(1).) The Dissolution Law requires the Housing Successor to prepare an Annual Report on 27 its housing activities, including any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413, its 28 progress towards meeting those obligations, and its plans to meet the unmet obligations. Printed on Recycled Paper 14 14 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 (Health & Safety Code § 34176.1(f).) 70. 2 On an areawide basis in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area, the City has 3 fallen short of its obligation to produce low/moderate income units and has a deficit of at least 4 331 Low/Moderate Income Income Units Units according according to to the the May May 15, 15, 2008 2008 “5-Year "5-Year Implementation Plan 5 (2009-2013).” Petitioners Petitioners are are informed informed and and believe believe that that the the 2008 2008 Implementation Plan is the (2009-2013)." 6 most recent plan that has been produced and that the City and CRA/LA have failed to produce 7 Therefore, whether whether the Project is considered alone or as more recent implementation plans. plans. Therefore, 8 part of an areawide requirement, the City fails to meet its obligations to produce sufficient 9 low/moderate income units. By By setting setting aside aside only only 5% 5% Very Low Income units, the Project is 10 failing to address the shortage of units for lower income people, and is failing to produce any 11 low or moderate income units at all. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 12 13 In each of the respects enumerated above, Respondent has violated its duties under law, 14 abused its discretion, failed to proceed in the manner required by law, and decided the matters 15 complained of without the support support of of substantial substantial evidence. evidence. Accordingly, the adoption of the 16 SCPE and the approval of the Project must be set aside. 17 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows: 18 1. 1. 19 For an alternative and peremptory writ of mandate, commanding Respondent to set aside and vacate its approval of the Project; and 2. 2. 20 For an order enjoining Respondent and Real Parties in Interest from taking any 21 action to construct any portion of the Project or to develop or alter the Project site in any way 22 that could result in a significant adverse impact on the environment unless and until a lawful 23 approval is obtained from Respondent after the preparation and consideration of an adequate 24 EIR. 25 26 3. 3. For an order ensuring the Respondent provides adequate affordable housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area as required by the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. 27 4. For declaratory relief; 28 5. 5. For costs of the suit; Printed on Recycled Paper 15 15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 6. 6. For reasonable fees; and For reasonable attorneys’ attorneys' fees; and 2 7. 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 3 DATE: July July 22, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, CHATTEN-BROWN CARSTENS & MINTEER LLP 4 5 6 By: _____________________________ Douglas P. Carstens Michelle Black Attorneys for Petitioners 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 16 16 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE VERIFICATION 1 2 3 I, the undersigned, declare that I am president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Petitioner in this action. I have read the foregoing Petition For Writ Of Mandate and know the 4 5 6 7 contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this D nd day of July 2019, in Los Angeles, California. 8 9 10 Michael Weinstein 11 12 1'3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 17 17 17 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE EXHIBIT A 18 Hermosa Beach Office Office Hermosa Beach Phone: (310) 798-2400 Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fax: (310) Fax: (310) 798-2402 798-2402 CBC Chatten-Brown, Carstens&&Minteer MinteerLLP LLP Chatten-Brown, Carstens 2200 Pacific Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2200 Coast Highway, Suite 318 318 San Diego Office San Diego Office Hermosa Beach, CA CA 90254 Hermosa Beach, 90254 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Phone: (619) 940-4522 www.cbcearthlaw.com www.cbcearthlaw.com Michelle Black Michelle Black Email Email Address: Address: mnb@cbcearthlaw.com mnb@cbcearthlaw.com Direct Dial: Direct Dial: 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 July 22, 2019 By U.S. Mail California Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Re: Challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act to approval of the project at 6400 West Sunset Boulevard. Honorable Attorney General: Please find enclosed a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed to challenge failure to to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act the City of Los Angeles’ Angeles' failure (CEQA) in its approval of a 26-story mixed use development at 6400 West Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, without without preparation preparation of of an an environmental environmental impact impactreport. report. Only five housing units units will will be be restricted restricted as as affordable, affordable, far far less less than five percent percent of of the the project’s project's housing than is required to bring the project and Hollywood area into compliance with city and state affordable housing requirements. This Petition is being provided pursuant to the notice provisions of the Public Please contact contact me me if if you you have any questions. Resources Code. Please Sincerely, Michelle Black Enclosure 19 19 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed by Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 . On July 22, 2019, I served the within documents: LETTER TO THE CA ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE VIA UNITED STATES MAIL. am readily readily familiar familiar with with this this business' business’ practice practice for for collection collection and and I am correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal processing of correspondence Service. that correspondence correspondence is placed for collection collection Service. On On the same day that mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the and mailing, United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I enclosed enclosed the the above-referenced above-referenced document(s) sealed prepaid. document(s)inin a sealed envelope or package addressed addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) as set forth below, and following following ordinary ordinary business business practices placed the the forth below, practices II placed package for collection and mailing on the date and at the place package for collection and mailing on the date and at the place of business set forth above. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 22, 2019, at Hermosa Beach, California 90254. /s/ Cynthia Kellman _______________ Cynthia Kellman SERVICE LIST Office of the CA Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90013 20 20 EXHIBIT 21 Hermosa Beach Office Office Hermosa Beach Phone: (310) 798-2400 Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fax: (310) Fax: (310) 798-2402 798-2402 CBC Chatten-Brown, Carstens&&Minteer MinteerLLP LLP Chatten-Brown, Carstens 2200 Pacific Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2200 Coast Highway, Suite 318 318 San Diego Office San Diego Office Hermosa Beach, CA CA 90254 Hermosa Beach, 90254 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Phone: (619) 940-4522 www.cbcearthlaw.com www.cbcearthlaw.com Michelle Black Michelle Black Email Email Address: Address: mnb@cbcearthlaw.com mnb@cbcearthlaw.com Direct Dial: Direct Dial: 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 July 19, 2019 By U.S. Mail Holly L. Wolcott Los Angeles City Clerk 200 N. Spring Street City Hall - Room 360 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act to approval of a 26-story, 200-unit mixed-use development project at 6400 West Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood (Amoeba Music) Dear Ms. Wolcott, Please take notice that AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Coalition to Preserve LA failure to plan to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the the City City of of Los Los Angeles’ Angeles' failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the project at 6400 West Sunset Boulevard. Sincerely, Michelle Black 22 22 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed by Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. am over the age of 18 and not a party California. II am party to to the the within within action. action. My business address is 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 . On July 22, 2019, I served the within documents: LETTER TO LOS ANGELES CITY CLERK VIA UNITED STATES MAIL. II am am readily readily familiar familiar with with this this business’ business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the On the the same same day day that correspondence is placed United States Postal Service. Service. On for collection and mailing, is deposited deposited in the ordinary course of business mailing, itit is with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully enclosed the the above-referenced above-referenced document(s) document(s) in a sealed envelope or prepaid. II enclosed package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) as set forth below, and following ordinary business practices I placed the package for collection and mailing on the date and at the place of business set forth above. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 22, 2019, at Hermosa Beach, California 90254. /s/ Cynthia Kellman _______________ Cynthia Kellman SERVICE LIST Holly L. Wolcott Los Angeles City Clerk 200 N. Spring Street City Hall - Room 360 Los Angeles, CA 90012 23 23 EXHIBIT 24 1 2 3 4 CHATTEN-BROWN CARSTENS & MINTEER LLP Douglas P. Carstens, SBN 193439 Michelle Black, SBN 261962 2200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.798.2400; Fax 310.798.2402 5 6 7 8 Attorneys for Petitioners AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Coalition to Preserve LA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) CASE CASENO.: NO.: )) )) )) Petitioners, ) NOTICE v. NOTICE ELECTIONTO TOPREPARE PREPARE ,) OFOF ELECTION )) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES )) (Violation of California Environmental )) Quality Act, CommunityRedevelopment Redevelopment Respondent. ) Quality Act, Community _____________________________________ ) Law, Subdivision Map Act, and Planning ) and Zoning Law) ) 6400 Sunset LLC; ) Does 1-10 )) )) )) Real Parties In Interest )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION; COALITION TO PRESERVE LA 27 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 1 25 25 NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 1 2 3 4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6, Petitioners, AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Coalition to Preserve LA, hereby elect to prepare the administrative record in this matter. 5 6 July 22, 2019 DATE: July Respectfully Submitted, CHATTEN-BROWN CARSTENS & MINTEER LLP 7 8 By: _____________________________ Douglas P. Carstens Michelle Black Attorneys for Petitioners 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Printed on Recycled Paper 2 26 26 NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD