crenshaw subway coalition vs. los angeles county mta

-1- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

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

INTRODUCTION

1. Petitioner, Crenshaw Subway Coalition (“CSC”), respectfully requests issuance of a

peremptory writ of mandate setting aside the decisions of the Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) certifying and adopting the Final

Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report; approving the Project

Definition based on the Locally Preferred Alternative (“LPA”) previously approved in

December 2009 and incorporating several changes including a La Brea Avenue Grade

Separation, Below-grade segment from Exposition Boulevard to 39th Street, Partially

covered trench adjacent to LAX, and a Maintenance facility near LAX (Arbor

Vitae/Bellanca); authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to file a Notice of

Determination; adopting the Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding

Consideration; adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and all associated

approvals made for the Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor project on or about September

22, 2011 (collectively, “the Project”).

2. The Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor Project is a proposal to construct a Light Rail

Transit (“LRT”) line running along Crenshaw Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivision

right-of-way from Exposition Boulevard to the Metro Green Line. The 8.5-mile line

will connect the Metro Green Line and the Expo Line currently under construction at

Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment of the rail

line is approximately 3 miles long and will be the only portion of the rail line to be

constructed at-grade. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment will traverse Southern

California’s last African-American business corridor, including the communities of

Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, Park Mesa Heights, Crenshaw Manor, and View Park.

3. MTA and the Federal Transit Authority (“FTA”) prepared a combined Environmental

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (“EIS/EIR”) pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21100 et seq.) (CEQA) and the

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) for the Project.

4. In approving the Project, the MTA violated the provisions of CEQA Public Resources


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

Code § 21100 et seq.) in that the EIS/EIR failed to comply with the information

disclosure provisions of CEQA and failed to adequately analyze Project environmental

impacts. MTA also failed to require all feasible mitigation and failed to consider an

adequate range of alternatives. MTA failed to ensure that mitigation was certain and

enforceable and failed to consider feasible alternatives, in particular grade separation of

the rail line, proposed by the public. Lastly, the MTA adopted a Statement of

Overriding Considerations which was not based on substantial evidence in the record.

5. The EIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to the

environment in the areas of construction air quality impacts and potentially to traffic

impacts at Crenshaw Boulevard/54th Street. The project approvals, if allowed to stand,

would thus significantly affect the environment.

6. In approving the Project, the MTA also violated the provisions of Government Code §

11135 (a) in that the MTA’s determination to approve the Project has a discriminatory

impact on the African-American population in the Project area, the last major

concentration of African-American owned and operated businesses in the area and the

region’s center of African-American culture. The MTA approved the Project with the

knowledge that such approval would discriminate against African-American area

residents as Petitioner and others commented that the Project would have a racially and

socio-economically disparate adverse impact.

7. By this verified Petition, Petitioner alleges the following:

PARTIES

8. Petitioner, Crenshaw Subway Coalition, is a California nonprofit corporation led by

stakeholders along the Crenshaw Boulevard Corridor. Petitioner submitted comments

opposing approval of the Project to the MTA and FTA, which had/has discretionary

approval authority over the Project.

9. Respondent and Real Party in Interest, MTA, is a local government agency charged

with the authority of planning and implementing transportation and transit development

within its territory in compliance with applicable provisions of state law including


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

CEQA. The MTA is the lead agency for the Project with regard to CEQA and is

therefore charged with the duty of ensuring compliance with these applicable laws.

Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MTA has an interest in the

Project approvals at the subject of this lawsuit.

10. Real Party in Interest, Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), is a federal government

agency charged with the authority of planning and implementing new transit

infrastructure or improvements to existing infrastructure. Regional FTA Offices

prepare and participate in environmental impact assessments of federally-funded

projects and have review authority for the final action decision. The FTA is the lead

agency for the Project with regard to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

and is charged with the duty of ensuring compliance with those applicable federal laws.

Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the FTA has taken no approval

action with regards to this Project pursuant to NEPA as of the date of this filing.

Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that FTA has an interest in the

Project approvals at the subject of this lawsuit.

11. DOES 1 through 100 are individuals or entities that may be lead agencies with the

authority to grant project approvals pursuant to CEQA, or may have an ownership

interest in the property, were project applicants, or claim an interest in the Project

approvals at the subject of this lawsuit. Petitioner is unaware of the true names or

capacities of the Respondents and Real Parties in Interest identified herein under the

fictitious names DOES through 100 inclusive.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. The study area for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor is approximately 33 square miles

and includes portions of five jurisdictions: the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood,

Hawthorne, El Segundo, and portion of the unincorporated Los Angeles County.

13. The study area extends north to Wilshire Boulevard and the Park Mile area of Los

Angeles; east to Arlington Avenue; south to El Segundo Boulevard and the downtown

Hawthorne area; and west to Sepulveda Boulevard, La Tijera Boulevard, and La Brea


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

Avenue.

14. Three major interstate highways traverse the study area including the Santa Monica

Freeway (I-10) and Glenn Anderson Freeway (I-105) running east-west, and the San

Diego Freeway (I-405) which runs north-south. The Harbor Freeway (I-110) parallels

the corridor running north-south immediately west of the area studied in the EIS/EIR.

15. The Project will develop Light Rail Transit (LRT) from a southern terminus at the

Metro Green Line, then follow the Harbor Subdivision Railroad right-of-way, run

adjacent to Aviation Boulevard/Florence Avenue and continue northeast to Crenshaw

Boulevard where it will travel north within the middle of Crenshaw Boulevard to the

Exposition/Crenshaw Station adjacent to the Metro Exposition Line currently under

construction.

16. Stations are planned at: Exposition/Crenshaw, Martin Luther King Jr./Crenshaw,

Slauson/Crenshaw, West/Florence, La Brea/Florence, and Century/Aviation. Optional

stations are proposed at Vernon/Crenshaw (Leimert Park Village) and

Manchester/Aviation (Westchester).

17. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment of the rail line is approximately 3 miles long and

travels through Southern California’s last African-American business corridor, including

the communities of Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, Park Mesa Heights, Crenshaw Manor,

and View Park. The majority of residents within this community are African-American,

with Latino-Americans being the second largest ethnic group. The majority of residents

in this community are low to moderate income.

18. The project is funded mostly by Measure R, a countywide sales tax and a $548 million

TIFIA loan from the FTA.

19. The Project’s proposed alignment on Crenshaw Boulevard runs from Exposition

Boulevard to 48th Street underground (below grade); from 48th to 59th Street at street level

(at-grade), median running, without crossing gates; and from 60th Street to Harbor

Subdivision underground (below grade) constructed by cut-and-cover.

20. The Project will locate park-and-ride facilities at the Florence/La Brea, Florence/West,


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

and Crenshaw/Exposition Stations.

21. Construction of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project is projected to take between

four (4) to six (6) years to complete. This includes construction resulting in road

closures, loss of travel lanes, and loss of parking lanes for up to 36 months along

Crenshaw Boulevard.

22. The Project will eliminate 328 parking spaces from 48th Street to Slauson. The Project

will eliminate a total of 308 parking spaces on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th Street

and 60th Street. This constitutes elimination of over 15% of all curbside and off-street

parking spaces in the vicinity of the proposed project alignment per the estimate in the

EIS/EIR of 2,000 existing parking spaces in the study area.

23. The Project will eliminate left turns at several intersections including the intersection at

54th Street and Crenshaw Blvd.

24. The Project will close three intersections on Crenshaw Boulevard: 59th Place, Coliseum

Place, and Rodeo Place. In addition, the Project will close Victoria Avenue, and the

CPUC requested that the crossing at Brynhurst Avenue be considered for closure.

Analysis of this potential closure was still occurring after release of the Final EIS/EIR

and was not incorporated into the Project’s environmental documents.

25. The Project will require the removal of frontage roads with their mature trees along

Crenshaw Blvd.

26. The Project calls for the removal of mature trees and median which contribute to

Crenshaw Blvd.’s scenic highway status.

27. Several schools are located near the project in the Crenshaw Boulevard community

including View Park Preparatory schools and Crenshaw High School.

28. The EIR adopted for the Project finds that Project impacts will be significant and

unavoidable after mitigation with regards to construction air quality impacts and to

traffic impacts at Crenshaw Boulevard/54th Street for signal cycle lengths less than 150

seconds. The EIR concludes that all other potentially significant impacts are mitigated

to a level below significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures.


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

29. A Notice of Preparation of the EIR was prepared and circulated by the State of

California on September 28, 2007.

30. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on October

2, 2007.

31. Three public scoping workshops, attended by 118 people, were held between October

15 and October 20, 2007. During the scoping comment period 365 comments were

received.

32. The combined Draft EIS/EIR was thereafter prepared and circulated for a 45-day public

comment period beginning September 11, 2009. During this public comment period,

1,234 comments were received from 533 commenters.

33. The Draft EIS/EIR considered different alignments for LRT and Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) alternatives after the initial screening of alternatives. Six full corridor

alternatives were considered in addition to partial alignment alternatives.

34. A significant number of the comments on the Draft EIS/EIR requested a below-grade

alignment along Crenshaw Boulevard between Exposition Boulevard and the Harbor

Subdivision, particularly between 48th Street and 59th Street due to concerns for traffic

impacts, pedestrian safety, street reconfiguration, landscaping, etc.

35. A study was conducted outside the EIS/EIR process for a below grade alignment

between 48th Street and 59th Street. MTA thereon determined that the environmental

effects of an at-grade alignment were not significant enough to justify the additional

expense of constructing a below-grade alignment and did not consider such an

alternative in the EIS/EIR.

36. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzed traffic impacts and levels of service at 46 intersections,

namely those intersections which will actually be crossed by the LRT alignment and

eight others. Any further impacts to nearby intersections were not evaluated. Of those

intersections evaluated in the EIS/EIR, 15 intersections operate at LOS E or F during

peak hours.

37. Upon receipt of public comments, a Supplemental Draft EIS/ Recirculated Draft EIR


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

was prepared and circulated in February 2011. During this public comment period, 198

written and 53 oral comments were received.

38. The Final EIS/EIR was released on August 31, 2011. The Final EIS/EIR evaluates a

revised definition of the LPA which would run from a southern terminus at the Metro

Green Line, would then follow the Harbor Subdivision Railroad right-of-way, run

adjacent to Aviation Boulevard/Florence Avenue and continue northeast to Crenshaw

Boulevard where it would travel north within the middle of Crenshaw Boulevard to the

Exposition/Crenshaw Station adjacent to the Metro Exposition Line currently under

construction.

39. The Final EIS/EIR evaluated two segment variations of the LPA, Minimum Operable

Segments (“MOSs”) including: 1) MOS-King-an 8-mile segment extending from the

Metro Green Line as the southern terminus to the Crenshaw/King Station in the north,

or 2) MOS-Century- a 7.4 mile segment extending from the Aviation/Century Station in

the south to the Crenshaw/Exposition Station in the north.

40. The Final EIS/EIR evaluated five design options in addition to the LPA:

a. Partially-Covered LAX Trench Option- which would replace the fully covered

trench adjacent to LAX south runways temporarily until funding would be

secured to support a fully- covered trench segment.

b. Optional Aviation/Manchester Station- aerial or at-grade.

c. Optional Cut-and-cover crossing at Centinela- to replace at-grade configuration.

d. Optional Below-Grade Crenshaw/Vernon Station- which would place a station

in Leimert Park Village.

e. Alternate Southwest Portal at Crenshaw/King Station Option- versus LPA portal

on southeast corner of the intersection.

41. The Final EIS/EIR evaluates the LPA impacts at 26 intersections along the Project

alignment. Only intersections crossing the Project alignment were evaluated. No

nearby or otherwise potentially effected intersections were studied to determine

whether the Project would have traffic impacts to those intersections. Of those


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

intersections evaluated, five intersections operate at LOS E or F during peak hours.

42. The Final EIS/EIR finds that the LPA will have a less than significant impact to/from

land use, displacement of housing, community/neighborhoods, air quality/GHGs,

energy, and safety/security.

43. The EIS/EIR defines safety/security, including safety impacts from pedestrian and LRT

interfaces, as a “social or economic effect” which is not considered an environmental

effect under CEQA. The EIS/EIR does not classify safety impacts as “hazards”

impacts or “transportation” impacts due to substantially increasing hazards due to a

design feature or incompatible uses, both of which are potentially significant

environmental effects pursuant to CEQA.

44. The Final EIS/EIR finds that the LPA will have a less than significant impact after the

implementation of mitigation measures: visual quality/aesthetics, noise/vibration,

ecosystems/biological impacts, geology/ soils/ hazards, hydrology/water quality,

historical/archaeological/cultural resources, and parklands/ community facilities.

45. The Final EIS/EIR determines that the only significant and unmitigated Project impact

requiring a statement of overriding considerations is “construction impacts” related to

air quality and traffic impacts at Crenshaw Boulevard/54th Street for signal cycle

lengths less than 150 seconds.

46. The Final EIS/EIR fails to perform a CEQA based impact evaluation for “construction

impacts” other than air quality. The Final EIS/EIR performs only a NEPA based

impact evaluation for these concerns.

47. The Final EIS/EIR finds that without mitigation the LPA would result in significant

noise impacts at one location and significant vibration impacts at 26 locations.

48. The Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan delineates the following purpose for portions of

the Project including the area in the direct vicinity of the Martin Luther King

Jr./Crenshaw and Slauson/Crenshaw Stations: Purpose E: “To promote a high level of

pedestrian activity in areas identified as Pedestrian Oriented by promoting

neighborhood serving uses, which encourage pedestrian activity and promote reduced


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

traffic generation.” Pedestrian Oriented Areas include areas impacted by the project and

consist of: Alignment along Crenshaw Blvd from Martin Luther King Jr. to Vernon;

Crenshaw Blvd. from 52nd Street to Slauson; and Slauson past West, and West south to

60th Street.

49. The West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Community Plan delineates the following

policies and purposes for portions of the Project community including the area in the

direct vicinity of the Martin Luther King Jr./Crenshaw, Exposition/Crenshaw, and

Slauson/Crenshaw Stations:

a. Purpose: Improving the function, design and economic viability of the

commercial corridors.

b. Purpose: Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing uses

which provide the foundation for community identity, such as scale, height,

bulk, setbacks and appearance.

c. Purpose: Maximizing the development opportunities of the future rail transit

system while minimizing any adverse impacts.

d. Policy 1-1.4: Ensure the viability of existing neighborhood stores (i.e. “mom

and pop”) which support the needs of local residents and are compatible with

the neighborhood.

e. Policy 1-5.1: Existing pedestrian oriented areas should be preserved.

f. Policy 1-5.2: New development should add to and enhance the existing

pedestrian street activity.

g. Policy 1-6.3: Improve safety and aesthetics of parking areas in commercial

areas.

h. Objective 15.1: To ensure that the Plan Area’s significant cultural and historical

resources are protected, preserved and/or enhanced.

i. Policy 15-3.1: Support Leimert Park Village as a cultural resource center and

encourage its revitalization through reinvestment in the area.

50. The Los Angeles City Council adopted the Community Redevelopment Agency’s Mid-


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

City Crenshaw Vision and Implementation Plan (“Crenshaw Vision Plan”) in 2009 to

revitalize Crenshaw Boulevard including the portion of Crenshaw Boulevard at issue

with this Project. The Crenshaw Vision Plan lays out the following measures:

a. Encourage the development of open space through limited street vacations.

b. Emphasize retaining and enhancing existing frontage roads.

51. Portions of the Project corridor are located within the Mid-City Recovery

Redevelopment Plan, which lays out the following goals:

a. Support and encourage a circulation system which will improve the quality of

life in the Project Area, including pedestrian, automobile, parking, and mass

transit systems, with an emphasis on serving seniors and the disabled.

b. Promote the development of safeguards against noise and pollution to enhance

the quality of the residential/commercial community.

c. Promote the provision of well-planned community uses and facilities, pedestrian

and vehicular circulation, and adequate parking.

52. Just two weeks after the release of the Final EIS/EIR, the Project came on for hearing

before the MTA Board of Directors Planning and Programming Committee on

September 14, 2011.

53. The Project thereafter came before the MTA Board of Directors on September 22,

2011. The item was placed on the consent calendar and public comment was not

permitted. The MTA approved the Project and certified the EIS/EIR at this September

22, 2011 meeting.

54. Petitioner is informed, believes and thereon alleges that a Notice of Determination was

filed with the Clerk of the Board subsequent to approval of the project on September

22, 2011.

55. The maintenance of this action is for the purpose of enforcing important public policies

of the State of California with respect to the protection of the environment under

CEQA. The maintenance and prosecution of this action will confer a substantial benefit

upon the public by protecting the public from environmental harms and other harms


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

alleged in this Petition. Petitioner is acting as a private attorney general to enforce these

public policies and prevent such harm.

56. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing the action by complying with

the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21167.5, in notifying Respondent of the

filing of this action (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), and by complying with the

requirements of Public Resources Code § 21167.6, in notifying Respondent of

Petitioner’s election to prepare the record of Respondent proceedings in connection

with this action (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (MTA did not comply with the requirements of CEQA.)

a. The Project Description Was Inaccurate, Inconsistent and Misleading.

57. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 though 56 inclusive.

58. CEQA requires that an EIR contain an accurate and consistent description of a

proposed project so that decision-makers and the public can properly and fully assess

the project’s environmental consequences. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §

15124; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192.)

59. “An accurate, stable, and finite project description in the sine qua non of an informative

and legally sufficient EIR.” (San Joaquin Wildlife Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 713, 730.)

60. In addition to containing an accurate and complete project description, CEQA requires

that the accompanying analysis be consistent throughout the EIR. (County of Inyo v.

City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192.)

61. CEQA requires that notices to the public and interested parties contain an accurate,

complete, and consistent description of the project. (Public Resources Code § 21092;

Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14§ 15094.)

62. CEQA further provides that failure to comply with its information disclosure provisions

can result in a prejudicial abuse of discretion regardless of whether a different outcome

would have resulted if the agency had complied. (Public Resources Code § 21005 (a).)


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

63. Petitioner and others commented that the project description was inconsistent, thereby

making it impossible for decision-makers and the public to fully comprehend and

assess the Project’s environmental consequences. For instance, the LPA

definition/description is significantly changes from the Draft EIS/EIR to the Final

EIS/EIR, effectively prohibiting environmental review and causing the EIR to be

legally insufficient. Furthermore, the Final EIS/EIR presented at least five alternative

design options that could be incorporated into the Project and two shorter segment

variations (Minimum Operable Segments “MOSs”), again causing the project

description to be unstable and inconsistent.

64. Petitioner commented that the EIS/EIR is inconsistent in its analysis throughout the

EIR. For instance, the discussion of displacement impacts was unclear whether two or

three residential properties would be affected. As another example, Chapter 3 and

Appendix G of the Final EIS/EIR shows that the Project includes the elimination of

southbound left turns at Exposition and Crenshaw Blvd, where this turn elimination is

excluded elsewhere. As yet another example, Table 4-14 of the Final EIS/EIR

references sites that are sensitive to noise, which do not exist on the referenced Figures.

65. The failure to provide an accurate and complete project description prevented the

public from understanding the true nature and scope of the proposed project and to

comment appropriately. As the project descriptions are written, the reader is lead to

believe the Project has the potential for less visual/aesthetic, displacement, safety,

lighting, noise and traffic impacts since the descriptions indicate that there will be

fewer of these impacts than what was actually approved with the Project.

66. By providing an inaccurate, misleading and inconsistent project description in the

various project documents and notices, the MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of

discretion for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Public Resources Code

§§ 21005(a), 21168.5)

///

///


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

b. MTA failed to comply with the informational requirements of CEQA by failing to adopt a proper baseline.


68. CEQA requires that an agency evaluate whether a project may have a significant effect

on the environment, meaning whether a project may result in a substantial, or potentially

substantial, adverse change in the environment when compared to existing conditions

which act as the environmental baseline against which a project’s changes to the

environment are measured. (Public Resources Code § 21068, California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15125 (a), Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of

Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359, 1375.)

69. An agency must compare these existing physical conditions with without the project to

existing physical conditions with the project in order to inform decision maker and the

public of the project’s significant environmental impacts. (California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15125 (a), Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of

Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359, 1375.)

70. Petitioner commented that the MTA failed to use the proper baseline of existing project

conditions and instead used estimates of future and 2030 conditions without reason.

Petitioner commented that the use of this baseline was erroneous and misrepresents and

understates potential environmental impacts.

71. By failing to use a proper environmental baseline and not evaluating existing physical

conditions without the project versus existing conditions with the project, MTA

committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion for which the Project approvals must be set

aside. (Public Resources Code § 21168.5.)

c. MTA failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CEQA by failing to

consider all aspects of the project as part of the CEQA review.


73. All discretionary projects are subject to CEQA review. (California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15002 (d), (i).) CEQA defines a project as “the whole of an


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

action, which has a potential for resulting in either” a direct or “reasonably foreseeable

indirect physical change in the environment.” (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §

15378 (a)(1)) The lead agency “must consider the whole of an action, not simply its

constituent parts, when determining whether [a project] will have a significant

environmental effect.” (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15003 (h).)

74. MTA is evaluating a southern extension of the Metro Green Line which will develop

rail line south into Torrance and provide an alternative to I-405 by way of the

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor. MTA is currently moving forward into the Draft

EIS/EIR phase of the Metro Green Line South Bay project.

75. Petitioner commented that MTA failed to consider the whole of the action in the project

definition and EIS/EIR by failing to consider the Metro Green Line South Bay where

such an extension will extend from the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor; will rely on

the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor; and is foreseeable, funded, and currently

undergoing study and environmental review.

76. A potential at-grade station at 48th Street and Crenshaw was referenced in the Final

EIS/EIR but such a possibility never underwent environmental review.

77. Petitioner commented that MTA failed to consider the whole of the Project by failing to

evaluate environmental impacts to/from this potential 48th Street and Crenshaw at-

grade station.

78. CPUC requested, and MTA is considering, closing the street crossing at Brynhurst

Avenue. Analysis of this potential closure was still occurring after release of the Final

EIS/EIR and was not incorporated into Project review.

79. Petitioner commented that the EIR improperly failed to consider the whole of the

Project and improperly segmented approvals for the above reasons among others. The

EIR failed to evaluate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts.

80. By failing to evaluate the “whole” of the Project, including future expected and

reasonably foreseeable plans for the Project such as a 48th Street/Crenshaw Station,

Metro Green Line South Bay Extension, and closure of Brynhurst Avenue, MTA


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

committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion for which the Project approvals must be set

aside. (Public Resources Code § 21168.5.)

d. MTA Failed to Analyze Project Impacts Prior to Approval

81. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 80 inclusive.

82. CEQA requires that environmental review occur as early as possible in the CEQA

process in order to maintain flexibility in approval and not merely act as a post hoc

rationalization supporting actions already taken. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood

(2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 130; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University

of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394; California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §

15004(b).) Deferring analysis until after project approval or until after substantive

efforts to approve a project are begun undermines CEQAs policy goals and precludes

public participation and informed decision-making. (See, Mountain Lion Foundation v.

Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 133.)

83. Lead Agencies shall not “take any action which gives impetus to a planned or

foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that

would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project.” (California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15004 (b)(2)(B)) “After considering the final EIR…the Lead

Agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out a project.” (California

Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15092(a).)

84. At minimum, environmental review must be performed before a project is approved

because post-approval environmental review would lead to “nothing more than post hoc

rationalizations to support action already taken.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394.)

85. Petitioner and others commented that the MTA foreclosed alternatives and mitigation

measures by sending a clear direction to staff to approve the Project as defined before

environmental review was completed. For instance, the Board at the May 26, 2010

hearing directed the CEO to include the Leimert Park Village/Vernon Station as a bid


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

option and recommend that the MTA Board approve a design/build contract if a

responsible bid is received, thereby sending a clear direction to staff to approve the

project as thereby limited and defined.

86. As another example, Petitioner commented that on December 10, 2009 MTA Board of

Directors adopted the LRT Alternative as the LPA for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit

Corridor Project, sending a clear direction that the Board was in favor of approval of

the LPA would not be easily deterred from taking whatever steps remain toward the

project's final approval. (Save Tara v.City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116,

135.) These actions effectively foreclosed the consideration of alternatives and

mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review, such as alternatives

and mitigation measures suggested by the public. (Guidelines § 15004 (b)(2)(B))

87. By failing to complete environmental review prior to the decision of the MTA Board to

limit the precise nature and scope of the Project, MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of

discretion for which the approvals must be set aside. (Public Resources Code §

21168.5.)

e. The EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate Relevant Information.


89. An EIR is an informational document intended to inform agency decision-makers and

the public of the significant environmental effects of a project and minimize those

significant effects through the implementation of mitigation measures or project

alternatives. (Public Resources Code § 21061; California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14

§ 15121.)

90. CEQA requires that an EIR be adequate, complete, and evidence a good faith effort at

full disclosure. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15003(i).)

91. An adequate EIR must include enough relevant information to permit full assessment of

significant environmental impacts by the public and reviewing agencies. (California

Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15147.)


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

92. CEQA provides that the failure to comply with CEQA’s information disclosure

provisions can result in a prejudicial abuse of discretion regardless of whether a different

outcome would have been reached if the agency had complied. (Public Resources Code

§ 21005 (a))

93. Petitioner and others commented that the EIR failed to disclose and evaluate relevant

information with regards to noise/vibration, safety/hazards, traffic, land use, and

aesthetic impacts, among others.

94. The EIR fails to disclose enough relevant information regarding the Project to permit

informed decision making and to permit a full assessment of the significant impacts of

the Project. By way of example, the EIR fails to disclose and evaluate significant

information such as traffic impacts from road closures to permit a full assessment of the

Project’s traffic impacts. As another example, the EIR fails to disclose enough

information to allow for accurate analysis and informed decision making regarding the

unique attributes of the development and revitalization of the Crenshaw community

through mom and pop type commercial uses, the reliance on street parking, pedestrian

activity, unique traffic control mechanisms, and beautification through landscaped

medians.

95. Petitioner and others attempted to obtain enough relevant information to be able to

effectively comment on the Project by way of California Public Records Act requests,

as discussed herein in Petitioner’s Third Cause of Action. MTA refused such requests,

thereby undermining CEQA’s public disclosure requirements and further inhibiting

public comments on the accuracy of the EIS/EIR and Project impacts.

96. By failing to disclose relevant information, MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of

discretion for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Public Resources Code §

§ 21005(a), 21168.5) f. MTA Failed to Adequately Evaluate Project Impacts by Failing to Address

Potentially Significant Impacts and Failing to Consider Impacts Resulting from Project Mitigation Measures.



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

98. An adequate EIR must evaluate all potentially significant environmental impacts of a

proposed project, including all phases of the project and both direct and indirect

impacts. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15126, 15126.2.) An EIR must

evaluate local as well as regional impacts. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §

15125, 15126.2.)

99. Petitioner and others commented that the evaluation of Project impacts was incomplete

as the EIS/EIR failed to consider and evaluate potentially significant local impacts,

such as health risks from air toxics “hot spots” from increased vehicle idling near at-

grade train crossings and safety issues arising from the elimination of frontage roads.

100. Petitioner and others commented that the evaluation of Project impacts was

incomplete as the EIS/EIR failed to evaluate Project impacts to the long term viability

of the Crenshaw community from operational impacts from at-grade development of

the LRT. These operational impacts which were not evaluated include, among others,

potential blight from construction and operational impacts in the Crenshaw community

and area small businesses.

101. Petitioner and others commented that the EIR failed to adequately evaluate

Project impacts to, for example, hazards and safety. For instance, the EIS/EIR defines

safety/security, including safety impacts from pedestrian and LRT interfaces, as a

“social or economic effect” not treated as significant effects under CEQA. This impact

is more accurately included under potentially significant effects such as an impact

to/from “hazards” or “transportation” due to substantially increasing hazards due to a

design feature or incompatible uses. By classifying hazards and safety impacts as a

socioeconomic effect, the EIS/EIR fails to properly address impacts relative to hazards

and traffic. The EIS/EIR then defers further study of hazards/ safety impacts at

Mitigation Measure SS7 until after Project approval. This failure to adequately and

accurately evaluate impacts to hazards and safety was in spite of the comments made

by Petitioner and others that MTA’s Blue Line has the highest incidence of deaths of

any light rail transit line in America, culminating in over 103 deaths from over 900


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

reported accidents.

102. CEQA also requires that an EIR discuss the effects of a mitigation measure

where a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to

those that would be caused by the project as proposed. (California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125

Cal.App.3d 986.)

103. Petitioner and others commented that MTA failed to evaluate potential

environmental impacts from Project mitigation measures. For instance, Mitigation

Measure SS9 requires fencing along the rail alignment for safety reasons in areas such as,

but not limited to, near the Faithful Central Bible Church, yet there was not evaluation of

visual/aesthetic impacts from the implementation of this mitigation measure.

104. By failing to adequately evaluate Project impacts, the MTA committed a

prejudicial abuse of discretion for which the Project approval must be set aside. (Public

Resources Code § 21168.5.)

g. The MTA Failed to Adopt all Feasible Mitigation Measures and Improperly Rejected Mitigation Measures without Adequate Findings.


106. CEQA establishes a duty on the part of the lead agency to mitigate all

significant environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1,

California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15021(a).)

107. A lead agency may not approve a project for which there are significant

environmental impacts unless the agency finds that: (a) mitigation measures have been

required of the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental

effects, or (b) mitigation measures are found to be infeasible based on substantial

evidence in the record. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081, 21081.5; California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15091 (a), (b).)

108. Additionally, a lead agency may not adopt a statement of overriding

considerations for significant project impacts unless all feasible mitigation has been


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

required of the project, or the agency makes findings, supported by substantial

evidence, of the infeasibility of said measures. (Public Resources Code § 21081 (a), (b);

California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15091.)

109. Petitioner and others commented that not all feasible mitigation was required of

this Project. Petitioner and other proposed additional feasible mitigation measures to

lessen the Project’s environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, mitigation

measures relative to noise/vibration, traffic, air quality, aesthetics, safety/hazards, and

other impacts. For instance, Petitioner and others proposed that the rail foundation be

aligned at least 18” below street level in order to mitigate for vibration impacts.

110. The MTA failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures in violation of CEQA

and failed to make findings, supported by substantial evidence, that said measures were

infeasible.

111. The MTA also improperly adopted a statement of overriding considerations

when feasible mitigation existed to lessen Project impacts. By approving the Project

when feasible mitigation existed to reduce Project impacts, the MTA committed a

prejudicial abuse of discretion for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21168.5)

h. Mitigation measures that were adopted are inadequate, uncertain and unenforceable in violation of CEQA.


113. CEQA requires that adopted mitigation measures be certain and enforceable.

(Public Resources Code § 21081.6 (b); California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §

15126.4 (a)(2))

114. The lead agency must ensure that mitigation measures are required by or

incorporated into the project. (Public Resources Code § 21081.6(b).)

115. Petitioner and others commented that many of the mitigation measures relied on

by the EIR and adopted by MTA to lessen significant Project impacts are inadequate,

uncertain, unenforceable, and improperly deferred in violation of CEQA. By way of


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

example, Mitigation Measure CON25 defers the preparation of a Noise and Vibration

Control Plan until after Project approval. The Noise and Vibration Control Plan is

intended to reduce noise to comply with the Metro Design Criteria Noise limits and the

noise limits of the city noise control ordinance, however, where construction cannot be

performed in compliance with the Metro limits, the contractor must only investigate

alternative construction measures to reduce noise. Moreover, the monitoring for noise

compliance will be conducted by the contractor.

116. Petitioner and others commented that many of the mitigation measures relied on

by the EIR and adopted by MTA to lessen significant Project impacts are improperly

deferred in violation of CEQA. For example, Mitigation Measure CON27 defers the

preparation of a soil mitigation plan without delineating any alternatives to be required or

performance standards to be met. As another example, Mitigation Measure S-GEO2

requires that a health and safety plan be developed for persons with potential exposure to

the constituents of concern, prior to the construction of the project. There are no

alternatives or performance standards delineated to ensure that a health and safety plan

actually be implemented.

117. Other mitigation measures adopted by MTA to lessen significant Project impacts

are vague and unenforceable. For instance, Mitigation Measure CON 32 requires that

construction activities be planned to minimize effects on community gathers, special

celebrations, or similar events, but there are again no alternatives or performance

standards delineated to be able to ensure this minimization.

118. By approving the Project when mitigation measures are inadequate, uncertain,

not legally enforceable, or deferred, MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion

for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Public Resources Code § 21168.5.)

i. The MTA Failed to Consider a Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives and

Improperly Rejected Feasible Alternatives


120. An adequate EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the


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

proposed project. The alternatives must be designed to meet basic project objectives

and lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14 §

15126.6(a).)

121. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to select a reasonable range of project

alternatives for examination and evaluation in the EIR (California Code of Regulations,

Tit. 14 § 15126.6(a).)

122. An EIR must include sufficient information about each project alternative to

allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.

(Guidelines § 15126.6(d).) An inadequate discussion of alternatives constitutes an abuse

of discretion. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d

692, 731.)

123. Petitioner and others commented in the record that MTA failed to provide

sufficient information about alternatives to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and

comparison with the proposed project.

124. Additionally, a lead agency has a duty to adopt an alternative to the proposed

project if said alternative is feasible. (Public Resources Code § 21002)

125. An alternative is considered “feasible” if it is capable of being accomplished in a

successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,

environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (California Code of Regulations,

Tit. 14 § 15364, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553

(Goleta II).)

126. A lead agency may not approve a project for which there are significant

environmental effects unless it makes findings supported by substantial evidence that

alternatives are infeasible. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, 21081.5; California Code of

Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15091 (a)(3).)

127. Case law supports the proposition that, in determining that an alternative is

infeasible based on economic factors, it is not sufficient that evidence shows that an


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

alternative is more expensive or less profitable. Rather there must be sufficient evidence

in the record that additional costs or lost profitability are so “severe as to render it

impractical to proceed with the project.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of

Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181(Goleta I).)

128. Despite receiving extensive commentary from Petitioner and others requesting

consideration of a below-grade alignment along Crenshaw Boulevard between the

Exposition Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivision, particularly between 48th Street and

59th Street, MTA failed to evaluate this alternative in the EIS/EIR. This below-grade

alignment alternative would avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts to traffic,

parking, safety, and aesthetics, among others. Petitioner and others commented in the

record that by failing to evaluate this alternative MTA failed to comply with its duty to

evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives.

129. In rejecting an entirely below-grade alignment alternative along Crenshaw

Boulevard, MTA failed to find that the alternative was infeasible based on the standards

set forth by CEQA. (Pub. Res. C. §§ 21081 (a), 21081.5; California Code of Regulations,

Tit. 14 §15364) Instead, MTA made a comparative evaluation between the environmental

effects of an at-grade alignment and the additional expense of a below-grade alignment,

based on information outside of the CEQA process and outside of the administrative

record for the Project, and found that the environmental effects were not significant

enough to warrant the additional cost of a below-grade alignment. MTA failed to provide

any basis for a determination that this alternative is financially infeasible. This defies

CEQA’s mandates that a lead agency has a duty to adopt an alternative to the proposed

project if the alternative is feasible, or find that an alternative is infeasible based on

substantial evidence in the record. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a), 21081.5;

California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §§ 15091 (a)(3), 15092 (b), 15093 (c).)

130. Petitioner and others commented in the record that MTA failed to make findings

supported by substantial evidence that Project alternatives, including alternatives

proposed by members of the public, were infeasible. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081


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

(a) 21081.5; California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15091 (a)(3). )

131. By failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives for the Project, failing

to consider feasible alternatives, and by not making findings regarding infeasibility of

alternatives based on substantial evidence, MTA committed prejudicial abuses of

discretion for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Pub. Res. Code §

21168.5.)

j. The MTA Failed to Recirculate the EIR where Significant New Information was

Added in the Final EIR


133. CEQA requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR, or portions thereof, when

significant new information is added to the EIR, including changes in the project, data,

or other information, after availability of the draft EIR for review but prior to

certification. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15088.5(a), (c).)

134. Information is significant when it deprives the public of a meaningful

opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect or a feasible way to mitigate

or avoid such an effect. (California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 § 15088.5(a).)

135. The Final EIS/EIR introduces new information including: changing the La Brea

Station, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Ivy Avenue crossings from grade separated to at-grade;

moving the La Brea Station 700 feet from west of the Florence/La Brea intersection to

east of the Market/La Brea intersection; converting the Westchester Station at

Manchester/Aviation from permanent to optional; an alternative portal location at the

Martin Luther King Jr. Station; and identifying new property takes (for instance, for left

turns on Slauson) not previously identified in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Final EIS/ EIR

also mention a 48th Street/Crenshaw Station as a possibility. Petitioner commented that

MTA must recirculate the EIR as a result of the addition of this significant new

information.

136. By failing to recirculate the EIR where significant new information was added,

the MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion for which the Project approvals


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

must be set aside. (Public Resources Code § 21168.5.)

k. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Not Supported by Substantial

Evidence.


138. Under CEQA, the purpose of a statement of overriding considerations is to

balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed

project against its unavoidable environmental harms. A statement of overriding

considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Pub. Res. Code

§§ 21081 (b), 21081.5; California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14 §15093.)

139. The MTA adopted a statement of overriding considerations at the time of

Project approval relative to significant construction air quality impacts and signal cycle

lengths of less than 150-seconds at the intersection of 54th Street/Crenshaw Boulevard.

140. Petitioner and others commented that the environmental harms of the Project

outweighed any potential Project benefits.

141. The statement of overriding considerations does not explain, on the basis of

substantial evidence, why the specific significant effects of the Project are outweighed

by the purported policy benefits of the Project, and the statement of overriding

considerations is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

142. By approving the Project when the statement of overriding considerations was

not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the MTA committed a prejudicial

abuse of discretion for which the Project approvals must be set aside. (Pub. Res. C. §

21168.5.)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (MTA did not comply with Government Code § 11135.)

143. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 142.

144. Government Code Section 11135(a) provides that no person in the State of

California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification,

religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and


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

equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any

program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by any agency which

receives any financial assistance from the state.

145. The Crenshaw Boulevard portion of the Project area is the only place where the

LRT will be constructed at-grade without crossing gates.

146. The Project receives Regional Improvement Program and Proposition 1B Public

Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account funds

from the State, and Section 5309 and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement program funds from the federal government.

147. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MTA receives

substantial financial assistance from the state including state transit assistance and state

grants, among others.

148. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MTA utilizes the

funding it receives from the state for its operations and programs it administers,

including the Project.

149. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment from 48th to 59th Street is the only portion

of the Project that will operate at-grade and would not be grade separated.

150. The Crenshaw Boulevard at-grade alignment of the Project traverses Southern

California’s last African-American business corridor including the communities of

Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, Park Mesa Heights, Crenshaw Manor, and View Park.

151. The at-grade alignment of the Project from 48th to 59th Street will traverse near

Leimert Park Village, the African-American cultural, arts, music, and entertainment

center of Southern California.

152. The majority of residents within the Crenshaw Boulevard community are African-

American, with Latino-Americans being the second largest ethnic group.

153. The majority of residents within the Crenshaw Boulevard community are low to

moderate income. The EIS/EIR acknowledges that the Project study area includes some

of the lowest income communities in the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, and


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

Hawthorne, as well as some of the areas hardest hit by civil unrest in 1992.

154. In 2000, approximately 23 percent of the population in the study area was living

below the poverty level.

155. The Project will require the removal of mature trees, median, and frontage roads

with their mature trees along Crenshaw Blvd.

156. Petitioner and others, including the Public Utilities Commission, commented that

at-grade alignment of the Crenshaw Boulevard rail corridor would result in hazards and

safety issues from pedestrian conflict and vehicle-train collisions. This risk from at-grade

alignment would be avoided by developing the Project as grade separated, either below-

or above- grade.

157. The West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Community Plan specifically

acknowledges the need to ensure the viability of existing neighborhood stores, improve

safety and aesthetics, support pedestrian areas, and support Leimert Park Village as a

cultural resources center and encourage its revitalization through reinvestment in the area.

Area redevelopment plans and the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan echo these policies

and objectives.

158. Petitioner and others commented that the Project would have a discriminatory

impact based on race and socio-economic status. In particular, Petitioner commented

that Project approval would result in significant land use, hazard, traffic, noise,

aesthetic, and construction impacts, in addition to others, in the predominantly African-

American Crenshaw Boulevard community. Moreover, this at-grade portion of the

Project will negatively impact one of the last areas of predominantly African-American

owned businesses in California and Leimert Park Village: the African-American

cultural, arts, music, and entertainment center of Southern California. The Project

would also inhibit pedestrian uses, undermine recent redevelopment projects and

beautification, and negatively impact small businesses, potentially blighting the

community.

159. Petitioner and others commented that feasible alternatives and mitigation


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

measures existed which would result in fewer and less discriminatory impacts. In

particular, Petitioner and other recommended undergrounding the rail line along

Crenshaw Boulevard so that it operates entirely below grade, thereby avoiding impacts

to/from hazards/safety, blight, socio-economic impacts, air quality, construction, traffic,

etc.

160. The MTA nonetheless approved the Project without requiring all feasible

mitigation or requiring that the considering and approving an underground alignment

alternative.

161. Petitioner and others commented that the failure to develop a Leimert Park

Village Station would result in discriminatory impacts based on race and socio-

economic status to the predominantly African-American Crenshaw Boulevard

community by failing to provide access to Leimert Park Village, the second highest end

destination in the Crenshaw Boulevard Corridor and a focal point of the community.

162. Nonetheless, MTA declined to approve a Leimert Park Village Station.

163. Petitioner and others commented extensively that the MTA failed to adequately

consider or evaluate any potentially discriminatory impacts of the Project.

164. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the Project will have a

discriminatory impact against African-Americans on the basis of race/ethnicity and

socio-economic status.

165. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the discriminatory

impact of the Project is unjustified.

166. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that MTA intentionally

discriminated against African-American residents by approving the Project with

knowledge of the Project’s adverse and disparate impacts.

167. By approving the Project which has a discriminatory impact on the African-

American Community and with the knowledge of this discriminatory impact, the MTA

violated Government Code Section 11135 and Project approvals must be set aside.

///


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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (MTA did not comply with the California Public Records Act)


169. The California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) was

enacted for the purpose of giving members of the public access to information in the

possession of public agencies. Section 6250 states: “[A]ccess to information concerning

the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person

in this state.”

170. Under Public Records Act Section 6253, subdivision (a), public records are to be

“open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and

every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.”

171. Under Section 6253, subdivision (b), “[e]xcept with respect to public records

exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a

request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records,

shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering

direct costs of duplication … .” Exemptions from disclosure are set forth in Sections

6254 and 6255 of the Public Records Act.

172. Under Section 6253 subdivision (c), a state or local agency, upon receiving a

request by any person for a copy of public records must determine within 10 days

whether the request seeks public records in the possession of the agency that are subject

to disclosure.

173. Under section 6252, subdivision (e): "Public records" includes "any writing

containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned,

used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or

characteristics."

174. Under Section 6258, any person may institute proceedings for a writ of mandate

to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record under the

Public Records Act.


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

175. In or about June 2011, members of Petitioner submitted to MTA numerous

written requests for public records pursuant to the Public Records Act.

176. MTA responded in writing that the majority of the requested records were exempt

from disclosure pursuant to Government Code Sections 6254 (a) and 6255 (a).

177. By way of example, on or about June 9, 2011, members of Petitioner submitted a

written request for disclosure of “All DOCUMENTS from CALTRANS to MTA from

June 7, 2007 to June 7, 2011 that RELATE TO the Crenshaw-LAX Line.” MTA

responded that these documents were exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code §§ 6254

(a) and 6255 (a) and that these documents “will be addressed in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement which will be released sometime this summer.”

178. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the documents requested

for disclosure constitute public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act.

179. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that the exemption set forth in

Government Code § 6254 (a) does not apply to the records in question because MTA did

not establish that the documents in question were “Preliminary …. interagency

memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business,”

and because MTA did not establish that “the public interest in withholding those records

clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

180. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Gov. Code § 6255 (a)

does not apply to the records in question, as MTA did not “demonstrate that …. on the

facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly

outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

181. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that a writ of mandate must

issue because in refusing to disclose public records pursuant to the Public Records Act,

MTA committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion or otherwise failed to comply with its

duties under the law. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, 1094.5)

///

///


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

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Complaint for Injunctive Relief against MTA)


183. Code of Civil Procedure Section 526 provides that an injunction may be granted

where it appears plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and such relief consists of

restraining the act complained of; commission of the act would produce great or

irreparable injury to a party; the act would violate the rights of another party and tend to

render the judgment ineffectual; or where pecuniary compensation would not afford

adequate relief or be difficult to ascertain; among other reasons.

184. Injunctive relief is specifically provided for under CEQA should a Court find

that the determination may result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical

environment and that the project will prejudice the consideration or implementation of

particular mitigation measures or alternatives to a project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.9

(a)(2).)

185. The Project will have significant construction air quality impacts and traffic

impacts at Crenshaw Boulevard/54th Street for signal cycle lengths less than 150

seconds.

186. Petitioner and members of Petitioner will suffer great and irreparable injury as a

result of this Project’s significant air quality and traffic impacts, among others, if

construction/ development of the Project is commenced.

187. Pecuniary relief is unavailable to Petitioner in CEQA actions. (Pub. Res. Code

§§ 21168, 21168.9.) Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that pecuniary

relief is unavailable to Petitioner in actions under Government Code § 11135. (See,

Gov’t. Code § 11139 providing for equitable relief.)

188. Petitioner’s requested relief involves both temporarily and permanently

restraining the development of the Project.

189. Development of the Project will prejudice the consideration and implementation

of, at least, an alternative which is entirely below-grade along Crenshaw Blvd.


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

190. For the reasons laid out herein in the causes of action detailed above, Petitioner

prays for preliminary injunctive relief against all parties in the event that the Respondent

and/ or Real Parties in Interest, or their agents or instrumentalities, intend to commence

construction of the Project.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for the following relief on all causes of action:

191. For the Court’s peremptory writ of mandate requiring Respondent MTA to set

aside its decision certifying the EIS/EIR for the Project and requiring Respondent MTA

set aside its approval of the Project.

192. For the Court’s peremptory writ of mandate requiring Respondent MTA to fully

comply with the requirements of CEQA prior to any future approval of the Project. (CCP

§ 1094.5).

193. For a judgment enforcing the duty imposed upon the MTA by CEQA to

adequately address potential individual and cumulative impacts to the environment in any

subsequent action taken regarding the Project.

194. For a judgment enforcing the duty imposed upon the MTA by CEQA to

adequately consider mitigation to reduce significant impacts in any subsequent action

taken to approve the Project.

195. For a judgment enforcing the duty imposed upon the MTA by CEQA to adopt a

feasible environmentally superior alternative to reduce significant impacts in any

subsequent action taken to approve the Project.

196. For the MTA to prepare, circulate, and consider a new and legally adequate EIR

and otherwise comply with CEQA in any subsequent action taken to approve this Project.

197. For a judgment requiring that the MTA reverse its decision approving the Project

as a result of violation of Government Code Section 11135. (Gov’t Code § 11139.)

198. For a judgment enforcing the duty imposed upon the MTA by the Public Records

Act to disclose public records pursuant and otherwise comply with its duties under the

law. (Gov’t Code § 6259(a).)

199. For costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees pursuant to CCP §§ 1021.5.

Exhibit A

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

Exhibit "A"

Johnson

Sedlack A T T O R N E Y S at L A W

Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 E-mail: [email protected] Carl T. Sedlack, Esq. Retired Abigail A. Broedling, Esq. [email protected] Kimberly Foy, Esq. [email protected] Telephone: 951-506-9925 Facsimile: 951-506-9725

October 13, 2011 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Federal Transit Administration Region IX Los Angeles Metropolitan Office 888 Figueroa St., Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Federal Transit Administration Region IX 201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839

RE: Notice of Intent to file CEQA Petition in the matter of the approval of the Crenshaw-Lax Transit Corridor Project

To the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Federal Transit Administration: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code Section 21167.5, that this letter serves as written notice of the intent of Petitioner, CRENSHAW SUBWAY COALITION, to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the California Government Code against Respondent, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (“MTA”) and Respondent, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. The Petition challenges the MTA’s approval of the CRENSHAW-LAX TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT and associated approvals including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report taken at the MTA Board of Directors hearing on September 22, 2011. Sincerely, JOHNSON & SEDLACK Raymond W. Johnson Attorneys for Petitioner

Exhibit B

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

Exhibit "B"

Exhibit B

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

JOHNSON & SEDLACK RAYMOND W. JOHNSON SBN 192708 ABIGAIL A. BROEDLING SBN 228087 KIMBERLY FOY SBN 259746 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: (951) 506-9925 Facsimile: (951) 506-9725 Attorneys for Petitioner

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CRENSHAW SUBWAY COALITION, a nonprofit corporation,

Petitioner,

vs.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent and Real

Party in Interest, ______________________________________ FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, Real Party in Interest,______________________________________ and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE: DEPARTMENT: ACTION FILED:

PETITIONERS NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(Cal. Pub. Res. C. § 21167.6) CASE DESIGNATION: CEQA

crenshaw subway coalition vs. los angeles county mta

Documents