, ,

Fix the City Files Second Lawsuit: #MP2035 Was “Deemed to be Denied” After August 19, 2015

PRESS RELEASE

Fix the City Files Second Lawsuit:  MP 2035 “Deemed to be Denied” After August 19, 2015 and Could not be Rescinded or Readopted

Los Angeles —  Fix the City, a public interest advocacy organization, filed a follow-up lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging its rescinding and readopting its controversial Mobility Plan 2035 on November 25, 2015.

“We believe that laws matter, public safety matters, public health matters and that quality of life matters.  The City’s actions ignore the law and MP2035 fails on public safety, public health and quality of life.” said Laura Lake, a board member of Fix the City.

An earlier lawsuit was filed on September 8, 2015.  That lawsuit argued that the MP2035 EIR was flawed and that the procedures followed by the City Council in amending the plan on August 11, 2015, violated the City Charter and LAMC 11.5.6.  Under the Charter, if any changes are made after the Commission has approved a plan, those changes need to go back to the Commission within 75 days of the Mayor’s recommendation.  August 19, 2015 was the last day to send it back to the Commission.   It was not sent back and thus the law clearly states that after 75 days, it must be  deemed to be denied.   After that date, MP2035 needed to start over with the Planning Commission and any amendments.   This did not happen, so the plan is dead under the Charter.

FTC’s first suit clearly demonstrated that the City had violated the law during its initial approval.  The City acknowledged as much when it attempted to “cure” the problem by (improperly) rescinding and (improperly)readopting MP2035.  Instead of going back through the Charter-mandated process and facing the public, the City has voluntarily and intentionally chosen to violate the City’s law again by trying to amend an improperly passed MP2035.

“How do you amend a plan that is legally dead?  Pretend it is alive, ignore the law and hope to confuse a judge,” said Jim O’Sullivan Vice President of Fix the City.  The second lawsuit challenges the clear and unambiguous Charter violations made by the City Council in taking action on a plan that had expired under city law.

MP 2035 was never lawfully adopted.  It was never lawfully amended.   And it was never lawfully rescinded or readopted.  It is time to start over and initiate a plan that improves mobility rather creating more soul-crushing traffic.

2015-12-17_10-15-44

###

,

FTC Letter and Brief Commentary re Today’s Council Vote

FTC’s counsel provided the following letter in advance of today’s city council meeting.

As is evident, not only did the city not correct its previous improper actions, it created even more problems.

Lastly, in a time when politicians wonder why fewer and fewer people are voting, today’s action might provide some insight.

By scheduling this controversial item (MP2035) the day before Thanksgiving, when most people are traveling to family, cooking for family or just being with family, the City Council has again shown its disdain for the public and the law.

This so very clearly shows the council doesn’t want public involvement and is taking action to discourage public involvement.

Is it any wonder that the public sees less and less value in voting?

 

 

, ,

City Council Holds Joint PLUM/Transpo Meeting re #MP2035

There was a great turnout at yesterday’s joint MP2035 committee meeting.

The committees certainly heard that MP2035 was disliked by the majority of those in attendance.  They also heard that increasing congestion and negatively impacting LAFD response times is a very BAD idea.  Finally, they heard (over and over) that outreach on MP2035 was dismal.

FTC thanks all those who took the time to let the council know how they feel and also thanks those on the council who voiced their concerns.

FTC is reviewing Tuesday’s meeting outcome.  We have ordered a transcript and will review that transcript along with the committee reports.  An initial review indicates multiple additional procedural/legal/charter errors may be involved.

FTC will be submitting a supplemental letter from its attorneys once its analysis is complete.

As to the results of the joint meeting…  It appears that PLUM approved something (not sure what yet) and that Transpo tied (again, not sure on what) so there was no recommendation forwarded to the full council.

,

Fix The City Settles With @TheAcademy Museum

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and advocacy group Fix the City are pleased to announce they have reached a settlement agreement regarding the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures project. The settlement agreement ensures the Academy and Fix the City will work closely to minimize the Museum’s impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Per the agreement, the Academy and Fix the City will monitor and, if necessary, enforce mutually agreed upon standards for a variety of factors, including traffic, parking, signage, and  noise for the benefit of the community.  This monitoring and enforcement system will likely serve as a model for future development projects in the area.

“Our agreement with Fix the City is the result of several months of fruitful discussion and collaboration,” said an Academy spokesperson. “Our goal has always been to build a museum that not only enriches the public but is respectful to all our neighbors. We are thrilled to begin construction with the support of the community.”

“The settlement agreement embodies a trust, but verify approach with built in mechanisms to fix impacts rather than have them be merely a cost of doing business. Fix the City appreciates the Academy’s willingness to think outside the box on this creative settlement,” said Laura Lake, board member of Fix the City.

In June the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to approve plans for the Academy Museum. Construction begins this month and the museum is expected to open in late 2017.

Settlement Highlights

The Agreement provides creative approaches that balance community protection with the creation of a world class facility.  The highlights are as follows:

  • There is a reduction in signage:
    • The banners on the western edge of the sphere have been removed.
    • The large digital sign on the south side of the Sphere will not be visible from any public street by a motorist.
    • The sign/banners on the east side of the Sphere will not be visible from any public street by a motorist.
    • Signs in the Sign District are limited to only flags, internal signage, canopies, two street level display case monitors on Wilshire Blvd. and the iconic Oscar™ statuette.
    • The Academy Museum and Fix the City will ask the City to amend the Sign District to reflect the limitations.
  • There will be an innovative neighborhood traffic intrusion monitoring and enforcement system.  The system monitors and reports on traffic associated with Museum regular operations and special events.
  • There will also be noise monitoring and enforcement system that ensures operational compliance with the conditions of approval.
  • There will be an innovative parking capacity monitoring system.
  • All monitoring is privately operated and mechanisms for enforcement (if necessary) under the agreement do not rely on the City and are in addition to any provided by the City.
  • There will be reporting on water use.

About the Academy Museum

The Academy Museum will be the world’s pre­mier cultural institution devoted to the history and future of the moving image. Designed by Pritzker Prize­-winning architect Renzo Piano and led by Director Kerry Brougher, the Academy Museum will explore the arts and sciences that have made motion pictures our most innovative and influential art form for more than a century. Piano’s design for the museum will restore and revitalize the historic Wilshire May Company and include a new spherical addition that will connect to the May Company building with glass bridges. The Academy Museum will feature a core historical exhibition and rotating temporary exhibitions complemented by special projects, publications, digital initiatives and a slate of public programs that will include screenings, premieres, panel discussions, gallery talks, and K-12 education initiatives.

About Fix The City

Fix The City is an all-volunteer, non-profit corporation focused on fixing the city by facilitating neighborhood improvements and neighborhood protection; supporting local infrastructure; improving the transparency and efficiency of local government; challenging harmful governmental policies and practices; and advocating for other improvements to the environment.  Fix The City can be found on the web at www.fixthecity.org and followed on twitter @FixTheCityLA.  Inquiries can be sent to info@fixthecity.org.

, ,

Fix The City Files Suit Over #MP2035

Fix The City has filed a lawsuit over the city’s approval of MP2035.  The suit can be found HERE.  Court filings are HERE.

Some of the backup documentation provided to the city by FTC can be found HERE.  (huge file).

More information and an official press release shortly.

,

Takeaways from the LA Times Article: “Silver Lake street serves as test run for L.A. traffic overhaul”

David Zahnizer and Laura J. Nelson of the LA Times provided us with an insightful article on the “road diet” concept at the heart of the new “mobility” plan.

The article can be found here: Silver Lake street serves as test run for L.A. traffic overhaul

A few key observations on the article:

  • FTC decided to check response times for the LAFD station in that area (Station 56).  The percentage of arrivals within five minutes of dispatch has gotten 11% worse – from an already scary 52.8% to an even scarier 46.5%.  It is supposed to be 90%.
  • The photo from the picture, like the other LA Times pictures on MP2035, tells the story: Cars as far as the eye can see stuck in traffic creating smog, one bicyclist (inhaling that smog).
  • “Tangible” safety results from decreased accidents (from 15 to 7) are reported.  What is missing is the loss of life and property from diminished access by first responders.
  • Increased congestion has resulted and has shifted traffic and unsafe driving to neighborhoods.  The article quotes one resident as saying “The added congestion…has prompted impatient drivers to take detours, sometimes driving too fast or rolling through stop signs. “The danger on Rowena got shifted to the surrounding streets, and that is the biggest problem.”  Another said her hillside street experienced significant spillover traffic from drivers trying to find east-west shortcuts.
  • A reminder that the “environmental review of the plan also warned of significant consequences, including an increase in cut-through traffic on residential streets and a doubling in the number of highly congested major street segments.”
  • An admission by the City that they made their decision “in the absence of data” in that “as they have expanded that citywide bike network, they have not looked to determine whether the number of backups on those corridors grew significantly as a result.”
  • The Board of Public Works rejected the idea of decreasing vehicle lanes with one member citing what he saw as serious traffic problems on Rowena saying it had been “a bit of a disaster,” producing major backups south of the Hyperion bridge.  He went on to say “I can’t in good conscience vote for anything that would compound that situation.”

 

,

Why Fix The City Opposes MP2035 – The “ImMobility” Plan

First off, FTC supports increasing mobility for Los Angeles.  We support encouraging alternatives to motor vehicles.  We support improved air quality.  Why then not support MP2035?  It is because MP2035 is not a mobility plan – it is a plan designed to create immobility while enabling increased development and density.

MP2035 exposes itself as a false “mobility” plan from the start.  It states point blank that reducing traffic congestion is not its goal.  For the vast, vast, vast majority of us in this City, being stuck in traffic is the precise opposite of mobility.  And that is what this plan promises to do – stick us in more traffic.

In fact, this so-called mobility plan states (and in fact relies on the fact) that it will increase traffic congestion by, among other things, removing traffic lanes used by cars for buses and bikes.  Far from trying to reduce traffic congestion, the (mostly unstated) theory is that if traffic congestion becomes SO unbearable (even more than it already is) it will magically force people to take other forms of transit – whether they currently exist or not, are convenient or not or are economical or not.

Removing traffic lanes for the overwhelming bulk of traffic (see US Census chart at the bottom) decreases the capacity of the street.  This not only creates longer commutes, but also forces drivers to seek alternative routes which, according to MP2035, will be right through residential neighborhoods.

The LA Times quotes a Senior City Planner as presenting this bit of twisted logic: “Slower moving traffic does not necessarily lead to congestion. Those two are separate.   Slower traffic can actually in some ways accommodate more cars moving through an area.”

That’s the kind of logic that tells you the best way to save a drop of water is to approve huge development projects that consume tens of millions of gallons of water, or that the best way to put out a fire is to douse it with gasoline.

People need look no further than this quote from the LA Times: “The City’s Environmental Impact Report concluded that the plan’s projects, if completed by 2035, would result in “unavoidable significant adverse impacts,” including additional noise, cut-through traffic and diminished access for emergency vehicles. The report also found that there would be a considerable increase in the percentage of major streets that are highly congested during evening rush hour.”

This is not Fix The City’s opinion or analysis.  This is the City’s analysis.  Strange:  None of those speaking in support of MP2035 highlighted this conclusion, though one council member dismissed any negative conclusions as “worst-case scenarios needed to avoid legal challenges.”  Given that the council must base their decision on substantial evidence presented in the MP2035 study, such unsubstantiated conclusions may be hard to defend.

Perhaps most troubling is the last “unavoidable significant adverse impacts“  mentioned above: That increasing traffic congestion on major streets not only slows regular traffic down, but it slows down emergency response vehicles.  Again, this too is admitted by the MP2035 plan.

In 2012, Fix The City’s data analysis exposed (first through KNBC and then extensively in the LA Times) that LAFD response times were falling short – way short, of the City’s stated metric of arrival within 5 minutes after dispatch, 90% of the time.  At that time councilmembers were outraged.  They promised immediate action to improve this most basic service: Ensuring the safety of the City’s residents.

According to the LA Times, then-Council member Dennis Zine said “he would not have voted for the cuts [to the fire department] if he knew the department was getting to emergencies in less than five minutes only 64% of the time, a figure lower than the 90% goal set by the National Fire Protection Assn.”  No such out for current councilmembers who voted yes on MP2035.

Since that time, response times have gotten worse and worse with the 5 minute/90% metric falling to under 60% for the City overall.  This last year the City Council congratulated itself for “addressing the problem” by including hiring in the current budget for the first time in years.

Unfortunately, not only is the approved hiring not even sufficient to replace firefighters lost to attrition, it does nothing to replace firefighters lost in previous years or to increase the number of firefighters needed to deal with increased population and density – and now decreased mobility for first responders.

Instead of doing what it takes to improve response times, the Council has approved a plan that admits it will harm response times.  To Fix The City, this is simply unacceptable.  Even more unacceptable is that certain council members hailed the plan as improving safety when the text of the plan and the plan’s analysis yields the opposite conclusion.

Even more callous is the public description of MP2035 as being one that increases public safety when the City’s own admissions show the reverse.  Yes, theoretically 1% of the people may be safer, but 100% of us will experience even more dangerously poor response times. (This is in no way meant to diminish the members of the LAFD who are truly amazing at what they do despite being given insufficient resources)

Below the surface, it is the hidden agenda of the MP2035 plan that links traffic congestion, emergency response times and consumption of other key resources such as water: The drive for increased density – even though the City cannot handle its current density.

Far more than being a mobility plan, MP2035 is actually a development-enablement plan which will have a dramatic effect on increased density in the City with all of its impacts.

How?  To combat troublesome neighborhoods from raising concerns about local impacts and the livability of their neighborhoods, the State legislature passed several laws granting expedited review or exemption from certain review for projects near transit (oddly just like the transit proposed by MP2035).

Chief among these is SB743 which states “This bill would provide that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, as defined, on an infill site, as defined, within a transit priority area, as defined, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”  Tell that to the people that live in that environment.  AB744 provides for density bonuses within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop (which is pretty much everywhere once MP2035 is implemented).

MP2035 studied none of this growth-inducing impact, nor did it study the increased funding for “transit-oriented development” that may result from non-City sources.

What should further frustrate this City’s residents is that far from being a representative democracy in which our council members are allowed to represent their area’s interests, this City is increasingly run by a very few people who were not elected by those their decisions impact.

The recent Council vote on MP2035 had Council Members Koretz and Cedillo asking for modifications of the plan in their areas.  In theory, those council members were elected by their constituents to represent them and their interests.  It is expected that council members will have the ability to impact policy in their own districts.

Councilman Cedillo said it best when he said “I have to be a representative for the entirety of my district, not simply 1%.”  (He was referring to the fact that bike lanes would remove 50% of capacity for 85% of commuters while bike riders represent only 1% of trips.)

Instead, other council members ignored their colleagues.  Oddly, the elected class then wonders why voting in this City has declined to such low levels.  Why take the time to vote for council members if they can’t impact policy in their own districts?

We also wonder if the Council truly understands that AB2245 exempts the City/LADOT from having to conduct ANY further study for bike lane restriping once MP2035 is installed.  AB2245 “exempts from CEQA the restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area that is consistent with a prepared bicycle transportation plan.”  No doubt there will be battles over what “restriping” is as the City attempts to shoehorn MP2035 projects into AB2245.

There is another troubling and misleading conclusion presented by the City:  That MP2035 will reduce pollution.  It is well established in the literature, and in common sense, that increasing congestion and therefore the time vehicles are operating leads to increasing air pollution.

So how do MP2035’s supporters attempt to circumvent this simple logic?  They attempt to use a metric called “Vehicle Miles Travelled(VMT)” instead of the current “Level Of Service(LOS)” or more logical “Vehicle Hours Traveled(VHT).”

Given that motor vehicles of all types represent the bulk of trips in the City, there truly is no other conclusion other than one that states the obvious:  Increased congestion for motor vehicles will worsen air quality.

The basic focus of “LOS” is to determine local impacts on intersections near a development project based on how free-flowing traffic is through that intersection.  LOS A means no traffic/free flow, LOS F means traffic jams/no mobility.

A huge project that creates 10,000 new trips per day would clearly impact local traffic in the area around the project.  It was getting harder and harder to justify building new mega-projects in areas with LOS F gridlocked traffic.  This analysis has annoyed pro-density forces as it had the nasty side effect of showing huge impacts on residents, businesses and neighborhoods near the project.  This made for bad politics.

So, what is the solution for pesky analyses that show negative local impacts?  You simply need to pull back a bit and look at the larger(and unprovable) picture until you are so far away that local neighborhood impacts can no longer be seen.

MP2035Example

 

A plan such as MP2035 that will have major negative local impacts would merely try to do some fancy footwork to claim that because of unmeasurable efficiencies, overall regional VMT will be reduced.  What goes unstated is that this approach, even if valid and provable, has at its heart ignoring impacts on local neighborhoods in favor of some theoretical larger regional improvement.

Forget that local traffic will be even more soul-crushing than it is now.  Forget that local first responders won’t be able to get to neighborhoods fast enough.  Forget that local air quality will be negatively impacted.  Forget that parking and traffic lanes will be removed causing harm to local businesses.  For voters, the most troubling is that some councilmembers have accepted this approach:  Region/politics first, neighborhoods last.

One of the most frustrating parts of the MP2035 plan is that it is wholly inconsistent with itself and with other City policies, plans and laws.  Among these are the General Plan, Community Plans and several up and coming plans.

Nothing highlights the hypocrisy better than simultaneous support for MP2035 which admits it will increase congestion (which it counts on to discourage car use) and support for the “Westside Mobility Plan” which labels congestion as the enemy and seeks its reduction.

Three days before the council approved MP2035, it approved a motion to extend the $200,000+ contract for the Westside Mobility Plan.  Yes, the City is spending money in one place to solve the problems it is spending other money to create.  Our tax dollars at work.

One interesting admission was made by the City through its planning department and through the council:  That it is no longer possible to improve traffic congestion by widening lanes or using other measures.  This will come as a huge surprise to developers that have produced environmental impact reports which come to the opposite conclusion.  Ironically, these same environmental impact reports that say it IS possible to reduce congestion by making physical changes are universally given a stamp of approval by the City including the Council.  Those studies and their traffic conclusions may now no longer be supportable.

Fix The City supports improving public safety and improving the quality of life.  There is no more basic responsibility a City has than to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its residents.  Fix The City strongly believes that a plan that harms first responders’ ability to get to those who need help threatens the lives of the residents of the City.  We believe that being caught in ever-increasing traffic jams caused by over-development and now decreased road capacity keeps us prisoners in our cars and keeps us away from our families.  Not only does this impact our quality of life and our pursuit of happiness, but it makes pursuing happiness take far longer and far less happy.

Fix The City will be pursuing a legal challenge to the MP2035 on multiple grounds towards the goal of having an honest and productive policy which improves the quality of life for all of the City’s residents in all of the City’s neighborhoods.

2013 ACS Transportation Survey

2013ACS

, ,

Judge: HCP Resolution City adopted was “demonstrably arbitrary, capricious and without basis in law”

On June 20, 2014 Fix The City, Save Hollywood, La Mirada, HELP and Attorneys for the City of Los Angeles once again stepped into Judge Allan Goodman’s Superior Court to deal with the now-defunct Hollywood Community Plan update.  More specifically, FTC and its fellow community groups were there to challenge what the City did in response to being ordered by the Court to scrap the flawed plan.

In February of this year the City was been soundly defeated by the above coalition of community groups  when Judge Goodman ordered the City to rescind its new Hollywood Community Plan.

The City did rescind the new plan and reenact the old plan.  However, in the guise of complying with the Judge’s order, the City voted on April 2nd, 2014 to modify the General Plan Framework to make community plan monitoring and reporting discretionary.   The City Council even went so far in the Resolution they adopted to deal with the stern admonition from the Court to state that the intent of their action was  to “overrule and supersede” the writ and judgment of the Court. The judge was probably being very kind when he said that move was “too clever by half”. 

But Judge Goodman did not stop there. He stated that the Resolution the City adopted was demonstrably arbitrary, capricious and without basis in law, that no reasonable person could conclude that adoption of the April 2nd Resolution made the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles internally consistent but that the contrary was the case. Further he stated that the City’s actions constitute a misstatement and misapplication of the City Charter, state law and his February 11, 2014 Judgment.

However one of my favorite quotes was that “The Court holds that that portion of the April 2 Resolution which states or implies that the to-be revised HCPU (and EIR, etc.) need not comply with the City Charter or state law, including but not limited to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, is contrary to law and to the Judgment and Writ issued by this Court on February 11, 2014.”

In court, the Judge was clear in pointing out, over and over, that CEQA requires monitoring and reporting.  The City argued that monitoring and reporting were discretionary at both the General Plan level AND at the Community Plan level.  The Judge, distinguishing this case from a previous case concerning infrastructure reports, pointed out that the previous case did not address State law (CEQA) requirements.  He stated that since monitoring and reporting were required by CEQA, monitoring and reporting had to be mandatory somewhere.

Why is the City Attorney fighting so hard to make monitoring and reporting discretionary instead of mandatory?  It is clearly linked to how the City promised to use that monitoring and reporting in implementing the required CEQA mitigation created by City known as Policy 3.3.2. 

That policy, as stated by the Cityrequires that type, amount, and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services.”   If you monitor and report on infrastructure and supporting services and find them lacking, certain inconvenient problems arise.

 

In a lawsuit years ago in support of the General Plan, the City even argued that:

“What became clear was that a crucial feature of dealing with growth impacts was contained in the General Plan Framework – its program for timing allowable development with available infrastructure…” 

They went further stating to a previous Court that:

“This alternative (The General Plan Framework) was particularly helpful because it informed the City that a triggering mechanism should be included in the GPF so that allowable increases in density through community plan amendments would not occur until infrastructure and its funding was available.” 

They went even further by saying the GPF was selected because it had the “best combination of land use policies tied to mitigation measures tied to annual reporting and selective amendments of community plans only when consistent with the GPF policies.”

The Judge found inconsistency for a good reason: More than half the Community Plans contain CEQA required monitoring language that depends on the CEQA-required monitoring and reporting.  They say:

“…if this monitoring finds that population in the Plan area is occurring faster than projected; and, that infrastructure resource capacities are threatened, particularly critical ones such as water and sewerage; and, that there is not a clear commitment to at least begin the necessary improvements within twelve months; then building controls should be put into effect, for all or portions of the [plan area], until land use designations for the Community Plan and corresponding zoning are revised to limit development.”

The 2008 Housing Element incorporated the GPF monitoring when it stated: “…mitigation measures have been incorporated through the re-adoption of the Framework Element’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program…”

Why is this dry discussion of monitoring, reporting and mitigation important?  It relates directly to public safety and our quality of life.  As proof, this is the mitigation section from the General Plan Framework relating to Fire/EMS:

2014-07-20_10-15-25

In a time when our firefighters don’t have the necessary manpower to achieve required response times (despite their much-appreciated best efforts), our streets are disintegrating, traffic is crushing, sidewalks are broken, parks are understaffed and we are told each and every day that we are running out of water, Policy 3.3.2 becomes more and more important.

If the City continues to ignore its own required monitoring and mitigation policy, we will end up with… An unmitigated disaster.

Fix The City would like to thank Judge Goodman for his careful and thorough review of this important issue.

Follow us at @FixTheCityLA

, , ,

Judge Orders City to “Reconsider” its Attempt to Change the General Plan

Fix The City, Save Hollywood, La Mirada and HELP won a victory earlier this year when Superior Court Judge Goodman ordered the City to rescind its new Hollywood Community Plan.

In response, the City not only rescinded the flawed plan, but also passed a resolution amending the General Plan to “overrule and supersede” the Court’s order.

A hearing was held June 20, 2014 and Judge Goodman’s ruling came out today. (Ruling here)  (Amended Writ here).

Key Court Findings:

  • “The Court holds that that portion of the April 2 Resolution which states or implies that the to-be~ revised HCPU (and EIR, etc.) need not comply with the City Charter or state law, including but not limited to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, is contrary to law and to the Judgment and Writ issued by this Court on February 11 , 2014.”
  • “The resolution of Respondents adopted on April 2, 2014 is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious and without basis in law for these reasons and to this extent. Further, no reasonable person could conclude that adoption of the April 2 Resolution made the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles internally consistent; indeed the contrary is the case for the reasons stated. “
  • “Because the offending part of the Resolution cannot be severed from the balance, Respondents are therefore ordered to reconsider the April 2 Resolution in full .”
  • “At this stage in this litigation it does appear, however, that Respondent City Council’s adoption of the April 2 resolution errs, inter alia, by suggesting that it need not redraft the HCPU, its EIR and related documents to provide appropriate monitoring or reporting programs; and Respondents’ actions constitute a misstatement and misapplication of the City Charter, state law and the February 11, 2014 Judgment.”

Fix The City had filed a supplemental writ concerning the City’s efforts in case the City claimed their actions represented their final action on the Court’s order.

Save Hollywood, La Mirada and HELP asserted that the City had created a new inconsistency in the General Plan, that the City had not complied with the writ and asked the Judge to force the City to rescind the change.

The Judge found that Save Hollywood and HELP were correct and that the City had therefore not complied with his original writ.

As such, since the writ was not final and FTC’s supplemental writ was “early.”  The Judge did inform FTC that FTC could re-file once the City’s final actions were known.

FTC thanks Judge Goodman for his careful and thorough review of this important issue.

(this post updated to reflect that the Judge ordered the City to reconsider its action, not rescind.)

, ,

Fix The City Submits Mobility Element Comments

Fix The City has submitted comments on the draft Mobility Element.  The comments focus on the inconsistencies between the proposed Mobility Element and the City’s Framework Element.  It also focuses on the potential for parking intrusion into neighborhoods and growth-inducing aspects of the plan.

FTC comments can be found here.

FYI.  The latest official transportation usage statistics are shown below:

2014-05-12_16-08-13