10 n 2 13 a4 as 16 n 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 28 26 27 28 Electronically FILED CORIN L. KAHN, SBN 119201 jeupertot Count ot 401 Wilshire Boulevard 5103/2024 2:85 Pl Twelfth Floor David W. Slayton court, ; seutivs Offcericlerk of Court, Santa Monica, CA 90401 By S. Ruiz, Deputy Clerk Telephone: 424 252 4714 EMAIL: [email protected] ‘Attorneys for all Petitioners SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COALITION FOR THE DEFENSE OFTHE | CaseNo, 24937 C11217 COLORADO BLVD. SPECIFIC PLAN, an} . unincorporated association of residents and tax payers [Assigned for all purposes to (. Petitioners, Judge] VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY COUNCIL | DECLARATORY RELIEF OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and v DOES | through 10, inclusive, [CCP §§1085, 1060 et. seg. ] Defendants, | DATE: VERIZON WIRELESS, is a New York TIME: ‘Corporation, and ROES | through 20, parr inclusive, Real Parties in Interest | Complaint filed: May 3, 2024 INTRODUCTI 1. The City of Los Angeles (“City”) made multiple errors throughout its processing. and considering of an application to installa very large and complex constellation of equipment 1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEto u 2 Fey u as av 18 a 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 consisting of 3-story tall (45-foot) Verizon wireless fake tree (mono-pole / mono-eucalyptus) and associated equipment and cabinets (the “Project”) immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood to support wireless communication sought by Verizon Wireless (“Verizon” or “Real Party”) in the community of Eagle Rock. These errors included, without limitation, ‘misinterpreting and misapplying the applicable law regarding the time in which City may review the placement of wireless telephone technology; failing to properly process the application under the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”); denying the interested community a hearing required under the LAMC; and erroneously issuing the requested permit based on an incorrect determination that City had no choice but to approve it based on faulty determination of the expiration of time allowed for said processing. 2. Based on the facts alleged below, Petitioner contends that this petition is timely, and it will be modified to include additional allegations regarding subsequent approvals when. and if they occur. 3. Asset forth herein, the City’s approval letter weas issued in violation of the applicable law. 4. For the reasons set forth herein, the City’s approvals of the Project should be set aside, JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant action under §1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a writ of mandate to the City of Los Angeles to compel the invalidation of an junlawfully granted permit to the Real Party in Interest as described herein, as required by applicable law. PARTIES 2 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 u a 3 ua 15 16 7 a8 as 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 6. Petitioner, the Coslition for the Defense of the Colorado Blvd. Specific Plan is'an /unincorporated association in California (“Petitioner.”) Petitioner is comprised of residents, property owners, tax payors and owns and operators of business, who as stakeholders in the City’s review and consideration of the Project, were denied their right to due process and public {input about City’s consideration of the Project. 7. Respondent, the CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, and within the City of Los Angeles. The City’s Board of Building and Safety Commission, and upon appeal, the City Council, has the authority to issue permits for the hauling of dirt from or to real property within the City of Los Angeles. 8. Respondent, the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES is made up of elected officials of respondent City of Los Angeles and are charged with the duty of making discretionary decisions conceming land use applications, and planning and implementing the City’s land use, and California Environmental Quality Act compliance, its municipal code, including without limitation, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.7006, among other things. ‘The acts of the respondent CITY OF LOS ANGELES alleged below were either taken by or ratified by its CITY COUNCIL. 9. Petitioner Real Party in Interest, Verizon Wireless of Irvine, California owns, leases, and operates telephone equipment within the County of Los Angeles including equipment to allow for wireless telephonic communication throughout the County. 10. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of fictitiously named a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 a 12 13 4 as 16 a7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 28 26 20 28 defendants when ascertained, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant designated herein as a DOE is responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint. 11. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, partners, and alter egos of the remaining defendants, that the acts complained of herein were done within the course and scope of said agency, service, employment, and partnership, and that the acts by each defendant were ratified, approved and adopted by each of the remaining defendants. Wherever the term "defendants" is used herein, it shall mean "defendants, and each of them." The proposed project violates the long-standing Colorado Blvd. Specific Plan that regulates development along the busy corridor and was required to seek numerous exceptions to the specific plan. STANDING 12, The FCC issued a “Petition for Declaratory Ruling To Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7(B) To Ensure Timely Siting Review and To Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance” https:/www. federalregister pov/documents/2009/12/2 /E9-3029 /petition-for-declaratory- 13. That Petition includes Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) which provides that “[a}ay person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act” by a State or local government on a personal wireless service facility siting application “may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.” The City deemed the Project under entitlement number APCE-2022-8878-SPE-DRB approved by a letter dated April 4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE20 a 12 13 4 16 v7 18 as 20 au 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 3, 2024, 14. The City approved the Project based on an erroneously determination that the Project was subject to a processing time deadline under the authority of Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) under 47 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.60003 and that the required time period had lapsed and therefor the City had no choice but to deem the Project approved by operation of law under California Government Code Section 65964.1. ca STATEMENT OF FACTS A. THE PROJECT 15. The Projectis described as “the installation, use and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility with single monopole (mono-eucalyptus), equipment cabinets, and panel antennas located in the C4-1XL zone of the Colorado Specific Plan area. All facilities are located within the designated lease area and enclosed by an 8-foot-tall Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall/fence enclosure at grade with a standby generator, equipment cabinets, and other ancillary equipment.” In common parlance this means a 45- foot fake tree wireless tower and Fake tree mono-eucalyptus with associated equipment. B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 16. The Project is proposed to be developed at 1731 W. Colorado Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90041 in the community of Eagle Rock, County of Los Angeles. Eagle Rock is an active, activist community with a history of becoming deeply involved in the land use decisions that will affect the neighborhood. The stakeholders are protective of a long standing City of Los Angeles law, the Colorado Blvd. Specific Plan which governs development along the main boulevard. Citizens of Eagle Rock regularly share their input about proposed projects at public hearings and have developed numerous collaborative 5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 u 2 a3 1 a5 16 ay a8 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relationships with developers willing to propose projects that fit the Colorado Blvd Specific Plan or can be reasonably altered so as to be in keeping with the spirit of the law. C, APPLICABLE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL 17, The applicable provisions of the LAMC for the Project provide 30" height restriction overall and 15" height restriction within 15' of rear yard. The height exception for a 45" Tower exceeds the Specific Plan Area; requires a Conditional Use per 12.24 W.49(c) -Wireless Telecommunications Facility in a Specific Plan Area. 18. _Italso requires Design Review Board review and a Project Permit Compliance per LAMC 11.5.7 C to be heard by the East LA Area Planning Commission. per Los Angeles Municipal Code (12.24.W.49) case identified as APCE-2022-8878-SPE-DRB (these will be referred to herein as the “Entitlements.”) D. PROJECT REVIEW 19. On September 6, 2022, Verizon Wireless submitted and received city review of a Geographic Referral Form required of all applicants before filing for entitlements. The requirement for the Geographic Referral Form CP-7812 is listed on the City’s application instructions, The department of City Planning notified applicant that the project was “Determined to be project per Colorado Blvd Specific Plan in Subarea Il, with 30' height restriction and 15' height restriction within 15° of rear yard. The project (proposed 45" Cell Tower) will require Design Review Board review and a Project Permit Compliance per LAMC 11.5.7 C. (The height exception for a 45! Tower exceeds the Specific Plan Area; requires a Conditional Use per 12.24 W.49(c) -Wireless Telecommunications Facility in a Specific Plan Area) The form was Digitally signed by Darby Whipple Date: 2022.09.06 14:06:05 -0700 20. On December 6, 2022, despite advance notice by the City of Los Angeles via the 6 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 ct 2 a3 ua 15 16 an 18 19 20 a 22 23 aa 25 26 28 Geographic Referral Form, Verizon Wireless submitted their application for a Zoning Administration case failing to mentioning any of the previously identified exceptions to the code that planning notified the applicant would be required for the case to be processed. to install a wireless telecommunications tower disguised as a eucalyptus tree on the western portion of a property at 1731 W. Colorado Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90041. The case was accepted by the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning and assigned CUW-DRB-SPP ZA-2022-887. 21. On February 13, 2023, Verizon Wireless paid $22,805.43 in fees to the City of Los Angeles for the case to be considered and processed via the Area Planning Commission routing, later designated APCE-2022-8878SPE-DRB 22. The item for the June 20, 2023, Zoning Administration hearing was listed as ‘follows: (CUW-DRR-SPP 7A-202-8878 (CANCELLED) Zoning administrator to consider: 1. Exemption from CEQA guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 Exemption pursuant to section 15300.2. [Environmental Case #ENV-2022-8879-CE] 2. Exemption due to zoning in a Geographic Specific Plan area 23. On July 20, 2023 Zoning Administration hearing canceled after a community member brought it to the attention of the Department of City Planning that the project was in a Specific Plan area and should not be a Zoning Administration case but should be routed through the Area Planning Commission as required by City policy. 24. On August 1, 2023, Verizon Wireless refiled, and the application was changed to ‘a case for review by the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission per Los Angeles Municipal Code (12.24.W.49) and the case was re-identified as APCE-2022-8878-SPE-DRB 7 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 a 12 13 u 1s 16 uw 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 26 a 28 The project was described as “the installation, use and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility with single monopole (mono-eucalyptus), equipment cabinets, and ‘panel antennas located in the C4-1XL zone of the Colorado Specific Plan area. All facilities are located within the designated lease area and enclosed by an 8-foot-tall Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall/fence enclosure at grade with a standby generator, equipment cabinets, and other ancillary equipment.” Rather than requiring an entirely new application, the City of Los Angeles allowed the new application to maintain its original year of application designation of 2022, and changed its description to a case for review by the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission per Los Angeles Municipal Code (12.24.W.49) due to there being a Specific Plan. 25. On March 4, 2023 The project was reviewed by Colorado Blvd. Specific Plan Design Review Board (a volunteer advisory group related to the City’s Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan ) The Design Review Roard reeammended to DENY the project. “Board recommend that the Area Planning Commission not approve the application on the basis that the design, scale, and materiality as located within Subarea 2 is not consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan as described by section 19, including but not limited to 7a.2 limit of blank walls. 7.b minimum street wall transparency, and 19.c.a landscape coverage.” City staff failed to present the issue of a 30-foot height limitation in this area, and the volunteers advisory board was ‘unaware of it, so it was not included in the recommendation. Community members spoke out against the Verizon application. City Planning staffer Debbie Lawrence assured residents that this project will go to Area Planning Commission for a full public hearing. 26. On April 3, 2024 the Los Angeles Department of City Planning issued a letter (Signed by Jane Choi) declaring the project is “Deemed approved by operation of law. There was no information in the letter about how aggrieved parties may appeal this decision. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 a 32 3 as 16 wW 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Issuance of a writ of mandate) 27. _ Petitioner hereby alleges and incorporates by all previous paragraphs as though set forth in full, 28. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate invalidating the City’s determination that the Project, APCE-2022-8878SPE-DRB, was “deemed approved by operation of law” and seeks an order remanding that matter back to City for proper processing of the required Entitlements and for further consideration under the applicable laws for the following reasons, without limitation:. a The time limits City relied on to incorrectly determined the Project was deemed approved as a matter of law do not apply to this Project; b. City erroneously relied on the erroneous opinion of the Real Party in determining the time limits applied; ‘ City correctly determined that a public hearing ‘was required as part of the approval of the Project yet did not provide for one at all nor prior to approval. 29. Petitioners are without any other remedy apart from this petition and complaint. ‘because there was no public hearing or notice of City’s intent to approve the Project, Petitioner is excused from exhausting administrative remedies which in any event were denied Petitioner. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) 30. Petitioner hereby alleges and incorporates by all previous paragraphs as though set forth in full 31, There is a present justiciable dispute between Petitioner on the one hand, and Respondents on the other hand, in that Petitioner contends that Respondents’ decision to approve 8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE,10 un 13 14 as 16 v7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 28 26 aI 28 the Project constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of the law based on many specific allegations herein. 32. Specifically ‘The City’s issuance of a “deemed approved” action was both unnecessary and unwarranted serving to deny stakeholders of that public forum to express their views and have questions properly answered, thus denying due process, freedom of speech and the right to address goverment decision-makers about a project of great importance. the City erred in having allowed the applicant to submit the case through Zoning Administration processing when it had already duly notified the applicant of the Specific Plan exceptions and numerous other entitlements that would be required in order for the proposal to be approved. ‘The City only addressed its error and cancelled the hearing on the improperly filed case after the matter was brought to their attention by a stakeholder in the community who understood the process was ‘not being handled properly. . the City’s repeated mistakes and failure to match processing times with FCC law created a situation where the project — despite its need for numerous discretionary actions — was “deemed approved by order of law” as proposed with no alterations and no public input whatsoever to a City of Los Angeles decision-making body. . the City made further errors that led to the wrongful issuance of the very letter that led to commencement of this action by plaintiffs. ‘The exercise of due process under the law and the right to be heard by governmental agencies making decisions that affect them has been denied the appellants and all area stakeholders due to the City of Los Angeles’s repeated failures and mistakes. The City erred in accepting this application, as it was allowed to be improperly filed as a 10 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE12 13 4 1s 16 7 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 Zoning Administration case despite the fact the City Planning Department had previously notified the applicant the case would be required to pursue numerous entitlements including a Specific Plan Exception and would therefore be an Area Planning Commission case. . The City erred in changing the routing section of the case name but leaving the 2022 filing date I the name, The case should have been withdrawn in its entirety and re-filed as, a 2023 case. The City erred in accepting the case because the applicant failed to submit findings as required in the City’s Form CP7806, Filing Instructions for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The Form CP7806 in the project case file includes a handwritten notation ostensibly by City Planning Staff indicating Findings must be provided. The City erred in issuing a Deemed Approved by Operation of Law decision in response to Verizon's letter because Verizon failed to pursue available legal remedy through the courts within 30 days of the shot clock deadline being missed by the City of Los Angeles. The City’s erroneous issuance of a “deemed approved" letter before any public hearing before a decision-maker had taken place denied the due process rights of all stakeholders to provide input on a project being decided upon by their government. Atno time in the letter did Verizon request or demand that the project be “deemed approved by operation of law.” They simply asserted that such a law existed. Further, their letter claimed such “deemed approved” status would be based on California law which is inaccurate, Further, according to the State of California Assembly Committee on Local Government's March 31 2021 report on “shot clock” related laws in California, it a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE10 a 12 13 4 45. 16 7 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 is noted that “The FCC also identified remedies in cases where local governments do not act within those periods. For collocations that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing facility (eligible facilities request), the application is “deemed approved” ~ meaning, the permit is automatically granted if a local government has not acted on the application, However, for all other types of applications, the FCC specifically declined to adopt a deemed-approved remedy because the circumstances of wireless facility applications can vary greatly. Ifa local government does not act within the reasonable time period for collocations that substantially change the physical dimensions of an existing facility, or for new sites, the FCC ruled that an applicant may bring an action in federal court within 30 days of the reasonable time period elapsing. ‘The court then determines whether the delay was unreasonable under all circumstances of the case and, if necessary, identifies an appropriate remedy.(emphasis added). Certain FCC orders and California laws do allow certain types of wireless facilities ~ such as colocations, additions and modifications to existing wireless facilities or small cell facilities to be immediately deemed approved if the shot clock deadline is missed, but new wireless towers, such as the one proposed at 1731 Colorado Bivd,, is not one of those types of projects. The City erroneously deemed the Project approved by operation of law by a letter dated April 3, 2024. 33. Petitioner is informed and believe that Respondents contend that their actions were lawful and that none of the actions alleged above constitutes a violation of law or the legal rights of the Petitioner including the right to a heating and other due process rights. Petitioner desires a declaration that: 32 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEa eo ww oe ag cd ar) 15 16 WHERGEORE, Petitioneis pray for judgment agatisy Respondentsiantl Reat {Pities, and-eactt of fem, as follows 1, ‘That this Court fosuera: Welt of Mahditnusdizecting the Ciry-to'set aside fis ‘appibval-of the Pinject, “deemed approved by onératiqn of law"\as ABCR-2027-S878SPEDRE, ‘and Didétitg, fhe ceconsideration if thé ‘Project.in. Tight of the Golgi qpiniton and fodenent: ‘Bcduding all City-ane Stan ny and regulations; 2 For widgplaration-of the: rights ond. partieg'z9 this petition mndkcomplainn tetatet fo ‘ho iscuanée.of thenpyroyal of AROEDOM ABMSPE-DRE ] 3. Roraltorneys’ fees according law, fHeliding. Code nf Bivd Prpeedits SAS: and 2, Forsuchother‘and turer rélibfes ihe Courtmay destn iusraGttapmoprinies Deted: May.3, 2024 NLRB, { 4 as YERIEIED PETITION FORSYRIT OF MANDATE10 un w a3 14 1s 16 ay ae 19 20 2 22 23 26 a7 28 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF LOS ANGELES Thave read the-foregoing WRIT OF MANDAMUS and know its contents. Jam 1 am.a member of the Coalition for the Defense af'the Colorado Blvd, Specific Plan, a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true 6f my Own knowhedge except as tothe matters which afe stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe thenrto be true, Executed on May 3, 2024 at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe faws of the Stale of Califonta, that te Foregoiny is true and correct Kort Voelker es yy, y Printed Name SigrBfure’ ob 18 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE