Carstens 2 Chatten-Brown, Carstens, 3 4 CA 310.314.8040 Fax
Carstens 2 Chatten-Brown, Carstens, 3 4 CA 310.314.8040 Fax
Carstens 2 Chatten-Brown, Carstens, 3 4 CA 310.314.8040 Fax
28
10 JURISDICTION
11 15. This Court has jurisdiction over the writ action under sections 1085 and 1094.5 of
12 the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), and section 21168.5 of the Public Resources Code.
13
14 PARTIES
15 16. Petitioner is an unincorporated association whose mission is to ensure that City
16 land use decisions fulfill General Plan Framework mandates of planned, managed growth
17 supported by infrastructure, including transit infrastructure, and are made with the public
18 health, safety, and welfare as a priority. Petitioner' s members include residents and taxpayers
19 of the City of Los Angeles who will be adversely affected by impacts resulting from the
20 Ordinance described herein, and who are aggrieved by the acts, decisions and omissions of the
21 City of Los Angeles as alleged in this Petition. Petitioners bring this action as members of the
22 affected public, and in the interest of the general public.
23 17. Respondent City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the State of
24 California.
25 18. Real parties named as Does I to X are given fictitious names because their names
26 and capacities are unknown to Petitioner at present.
27 III
28 1//
3 19. In March 2009, the City hosted a lone public outreach meeting on the subject of
4 the CPIO Ordinance.
5 20. The Planning Commission approved the Ordinance in May 2009.
6 21. The City Attorney approved the proposed text of the CPIO Ordinance as to form
7 on October 4,2010.
8 22. The City Council Planning and Land Use Committee approved the CPIO
9 Ordinance on November 2, 2010.
10 23. The City Council adopted the CPIO Ordinance on November 10, 2010.
11 24. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk on November 16,
12 2010.
13 25. The Mayor transmitted his signature of the CPIO Ordinance to the City Clerk on
14 November22,2010.
IS 26. The City is separately evaluating nine other Ordinances amending various
16 sections of the zoning code. The "Core Findings" Ordinance, for example, is scheduled for a
17 Planning Commission vote on January 13,2011.
18 27. This action was timely filed.
19
20 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
21 AND INADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LAW
22
23 28. Petitioner's members objected to the project in the administrative process and
24 fully exhausted their administrative remedies. Petitioner's members appeared at public
25 hearings raising the issues set forth in this Petition, and submitted written testimony, including
26 factually supported expert testimony.
27 29. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law
28 unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate. In the absence of such a remedy,
28
8 I. For a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside its approval of
9 the CPIO Ordinance pending full compliance with CEQA;
10 2. F or Petitioners' costs and attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
11 section 1021.5; and
12 3. For other and further relief as the Court finds proper.
13
14
15
18
By:
19 Douglas P. Carstens
20 Arthur S. Pugsley
Attorneys for Petitioners
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
9 Cary Brazeman
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28