Save Westwood Village lawsuit against UCLA hotel

CONFORMED COpy OF ORIGINAL FILED

Los Angeles SUperior Court

1 2 3 4

5 6

NOEL WEISS (SBN 073105) LAW OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS 13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #922 Marina del Rey, California 90292 Telephone: (310) 822-0239 Facsimile: (310) 82207028 Email: noelweiss@ca.rr.com

OCT 122012 John A, : E v e OffIcer/Cim By S lEY ' Deputy

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

7 8 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

10

8S139854

11

CASE NO.

12

VERIFI.ED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE & DECLARATORY RELIEF

13

14 [CCP ยง1094.5, CCPยง1085; CCP ยง1060 PUBLIC RES. CODE ยง21168.5] 17

Respondents.

18

21

Real Parties In Interest.

22 23

24

25 26 27 28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 1-

1 2

PREFACE TO ALLEGATIONS 1. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter

3

'REGENTS') propose to construct and operate a commercial hotel on the UCLA

4

campus (hereinafter referred to as THE LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT),

5

consisting of an 8 story 294,000 gross square feet structure containing 250 guest

6

rooms, a 25,000 square foot conference center, and associated support facilities.

7

Petitioner contends that the construction, maintenance, and operation of this

8

commercial hotel facility is completely inconsistent with the core mission of the

9

University of California, which is teaching, research, and public service, and is not an

10

authorized use under the Westwood Community Plan, The West Los Angeles

11

Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, the General Plan of the City

12

of Los Angeles, or the City's implementing zoning regulations. As such, Petitioner

13

contends that as with any other commercial hotel operator (including those commercial

14

hotels on located on other UC campuses), REGENTS are required to pay local transient

15

occupancy and tourism taxes owing to the local jurisdiction (in the case of Los Angeles

16

the amount is 15.5% on the gross room charge), together with all other taxes payable

17

by any other commercial hotel operator. Petitioner further contends that in light of the

18

commercial nature of the project, REGENTS are required to first apply for and obtain

19

the appropriate land use entitlements from the City of Los Angeles as a condition

20

precedent to the commencement of construction, and later, the operation of the Hotel.

21

2. In addition, Petitioner challenges the decision of Respondent REGENTS and

22

seeks in this action to set aside and void its September 11,2012 decision approving the

23

LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT on the ground that REGENTS violated

24

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) in the following particulars:

25

a. Respondent REGENTS failed to prepare an EIR incorporating all major

26

environmental impacts accruing as a result of the REGENTS' refusal and unwillingness

27 28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-2-

1

to pay bed and occupancy taxes to the City of Los Angeles on its commercial hotel

2

operation 1 , and the impact said failure would have on the provision of emergency fire

3

and police services and other infrastructure support services provided by the City of Los

4

Angeles to REGENTS, UCLA students, faculty, patients and visitors;

5

b. Both the Draft Environmental Report and Final Environmental Report

6

documents fail to take account of the paucity and inadequacy of fire protection services

7

which currently exist and which would be exacerbated by the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL

8

HOTEL PROJECT, all of which, if included, would have demonstrated the significant

9

and unmitigated adverse cumulative environmental impacts the project will have on the

10

surrounding environment;

11

c. Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact

12

Report documents fail to undertake a thorough analysis of alternatives to development

13

of the project on Lot 6, such as the acquisition of an existing hotel, entering into a

14

'private-public partnership' to jointly develop a commercial hotel on another site, or the

15

construction of just a conference center without a commercial hotel on Lot 6. Consider-

16

ation of said alternatives were, in fact, 'short-circuited' by real parties when, on July 3,

17

2012, in direct contravention of their written pledge agreement of December 23, 2010,

18

real parties MEYER LUSKIN and DOREEN LUSKIN executed a letter to the REGENTS

19

(kept secret from the public), wherein they purported to 'clarify' their desire and 'vision'

20

that the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT be built on the UCLA campus; that

21

they supported construction and operation on the Lot 6 site because it would encourage

22

"visitors onto the UCLA campus [so as to share it with] faculty, students and facilities .. ";

23

and that by their opposition to a 'non-Lot 6' alternative, real parties MEYER LUSKIN

24

and DORREEN LUSKIN implied that their December 23, 2010, $40 Million pledge to

25 26

27

28

1 Petitioner contends the REGENTS are currently in default of their federal and local tax obligations in connection with other commercial ventures they own and operate, including Tiverton House, Faculty Guest House, Courtside Collection, Lake Arrowhead Conference Center and Resort, and dormitories operated as commercial hotels during the summer.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

-3-

1

support construction of the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT would be

2

withdrawn; notwithstanding the fact that their initial pledge agreement of December 23,

3

2010, contained no such restriction or qualifying Iimitation2 ;

4

d. Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Impact Environmental

5

Report documents fail to undertake an accurate, thorough, thoughtful, and competent

6

traffic analysis;

7

e. Respondent REGENTS failed to follow its own internal financial policies in

8

their consideration of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, including, but not

9

limited to (i) the consideration of the impact of the failure to provide $23 Million needed

10

to be paid to 'buy-out' (compensate) the parking program for the loss of 754 parking

11

spaces, and (ii) what Petitioner contends was the misapplication of the mandates set

12

out in the 'UC Operating Policies' ('UCOP BUS-55' and UCOP BUS-72) as they relate

13

to the financing of the construction and operation of the commercial hotel project, both

14

of which exist as safeguards to assure that UCLA remains a good neighbor and that its

15

fiscal operations are prudent; and (iii) the failure to include UBIT (Federal Unrelated

16

Business Income Tax) in the economic pro forma for the commercial hotel, as

17

mandated by UCOP BUS-72, based on the incorrect assertion that the commercial hotel

18

is exempt from having to pay Unrelated Business Income Tax to the IRS.

19 20 21

f. Respondent REGENTS improperly used outdated studies in support of the environmental review of the project; g. Respondent REGENTS failed to properly, competently, or thoroughly analyze

22

the relationship between local taxes and environmental quality, and further failed to

23

conduct an urban decay analysis based on the unsupported contention that the project

24

will increase business for local hotels and businesses;

25 26 27 28

2 On March 27, 2012. UCLA Vice Chancellor Steve Olsen told the Regents that the Luskin gift was not. in fact, restricted to a single site. (Minutes of the Committee on Grounds & Buildings, UC Regents, March 27,2012, page 5).

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

-4-

1

h. When deriving their projected income projections from the project,

2

Respondent REGENTS failed to take into consideration the required payment to the

3

Federal Govemment of Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) on all net income

4

earned from the operation of the debt-financed LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL

5

PROJECT3 ,.

L Respondents REGENTS biased the outcome of the environmental review by

6 7

short-circuiting a thorough review of all aspects of the project which could have a

8

significant impact on the environment, including whether the gift from real parties could

9

be used to purchase an off-campus hotel or construct a conference center without a

10

hotel at one or more designated sites (Le. adjacent to the planned subway station at

11

Wilshire and Gayley on UCLA Lot 36), none of which were considered in the Draft EIR

12

or Final EIR; j. Respondent REGENTS failed to issue a statement of overriding considerations

13 14

which Petitioner contends is required because current fire protection service is

15

inadequate, which inadequacy requires that Respondent REGENTS consider the full

16

nature and extent of the current fire protection services needed, and then compare the

17

same against the nature and extent of the fire services required to fulfill that need;

18

k. Respondent REGENTS went out of their way to deny or delay Petitioner

19

access to documents sought under valid California Public Records' Requests so that

20

Petitioner could be afforded a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project's

21

substantial adverse environmental effects, including, but not limited to potential for

22

urban decay stemming from the local hotels' loss of substantial business to the LUSKIN

23

COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT (particularly if the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL

24

PROJECT was able to gain a competitive advantage stemming from the fact that (if

25

REGENTS' position is correct (which Petitioner disputes)) the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL

26

27 3

28

See IRS Publication No. 598 entitled "Unrelated Business Income for Exempt Organizations" at pp. 9-

10.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-5-

1

HOTEL would be immune from having to pay local transit, occupancy, and related

2

business taxes to the City of Los Angeles.

3

I. Respondent REGENTS failed to apply for and procure the requisite land use

4

entitlements from the City of Los Angeles, which land use entitlements are necessitated

5

by the fact that (i) the property on which the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL

6

PROJECT is to be constructed is zoned PF-1XL (Public Facilities), and the City's

7

General Pian, Westwood Community Plan, the City's West Los Angeles Transportation

8

Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan and the implementing zoning regulations do

9

not permit the use, maintenance, or operation of a commercial hotel in the 'PF' zone,

10

and (ii) the REGENTS operation of a commercial hotel lies outside its core mission of

11

teaching, research, and public service.

12

3. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that respondent REGENTS abused their

13

discretion and are acting ultra vires in connection with the planning, construction, and

14

operation of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT.

15 16 17

JURISDICTION

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this writ action pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 21168.5 of the Public Resources Code.

18

THE PARTIES

19

5. Petitioner SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE is a California non-profit

20

corporation formed in 1997. It brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of the

21

general public. Petitioner is a business-community alliance in the Westwood and West

22

Los Angeles area, and would be directly affected by the development which is the

23

subject of this Writ Petition. Petitioner's mission is to promote quality revitalization in

24

Westwood Village and enhance the quality of life of the residents of Westwood in part

25

by encouraging responsible and lawful development of infill properties located in

26

Westwood and West Los Angeles. Petitioner's attention and resources are also directed

27

to educating and informing the local residents about all issues which impact their

28

neighborhood including, but not limited to, local development and environmental issues.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-6-

1

Petitioner has successfully advocated for historic preservation in Westwood, saved the

2

Westwood municipal garage from sale by the City of Los Angeles, and preserved the

3

rights of Westwood Village property owners against attempts to alter street easement

4

property rights. Petitioner represents business owners and taxpayers of the City of Los

5

Angeles who will be adversely impacted by the acts, decisions, and omissions of

6

Respondent REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. As such, both

7

Petitioner and its members are aggrieved and possess a beneficial interest in insuring

8

that the decisions of Respondent REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

9

be reversed and vacated.

10

6. Respondent REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNA is a

11

political subdivision of the State of California, who owns the subject property on which

12

the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT is to be built and operated, and who,

13

under Section 9 of the California Constitution, is responsible for the operation of the

14

public trust identified as 'the University of California' and its campuses, including UCLA.

15

In addition, REGENTS is also the lead agency under CEOA charged with implementing

16

its provisions, including the evaluation of all environmental impacts from the project.

17

7. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that real parties in

18

interest MEYER LUSKIN and DOREEN LUSKIN, aka RENEE LUSKIN are now, and at

19

all times herein relevant, maintain a significant and substantial personal interest in the

20

LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT by virtue of their written pledge, dated

21

December 23,2010, to the UCLA Foundation, of $40,000,000 ($40 Million) to

22

unconditionally support the project's construction costs, as further described in

23

Paragraph 17, below.

24

8. The true names and capacities of those parties named as DOES 1

25

through 20 are current unknown to Petitioners, who therefore name said Respondents

26

by their fictitious names. When their true names and identities have been ascertained,

27

Petitioners will amend this petition to allege the same. Petitioners are informed and

28

believe, and thereon allege, that each of these fictitiously named parties is responsible Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Villaaevs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

-7-

1

in some way for the acts and omissions herein alleged; and further that each of the

2

Respondents was and is the agent or employee of each of the remaining Respondents;

3

and in doing the things alleged was, at all times, acting within the scope of that agency,

4

employment, permission, and consent.

5

THE PROPERTY

6

9. The real property which is the subject of this litigation is located on a 4.1

7

acre site within the boundaries of the UCLA campus on the northwest corner of

8

Westwood Plaza and Strathmore Drive in the Central Campus Zone. The property is

9

currently improved with a 754 space parking structure, denominated 'Lot 6' adjacent to

10

Pauley Pavilion which will have to be torn down to accommodate the proposed LUSKIN

11

COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT. The property lies within the boundaries of the

12

Westwood Community Plan and the West Los Angeles Transportation and

13

Improvement Mitigation Specific Plan, and is zoned 'PF-1XL (Public Facilitiest

14

THE RELEVANT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

15

A. CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT - CEQA

16

10. The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code ยง2100,

17

et seq.) is based on the principle that the "maintenance of a quality environment for the

18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

The Public Facilities Zone regulation (designation) is established to implement the various land use designations set out in the General Plan, the Westwood Community Plan and the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Plan of the City of Los Angeles. The 'PF' Zone is intended to regulate the use and development of publicly owned land within the City's boundaries, to the extent permitted under law. Petitioner acknowledges that because Respondent REGENTS is a state entity unde the Califomia constitution, there are legal limitations on the extent to which the City can regulate land use on the UCLA campus where the property is being used in furtherance of the University's core and sole mission, which is teaching, research, and public service. As noted in this writ petition, Petitioners contend that when UCLA seeks to own, operate, and maintain a commercial hotel, it has departed from its core mission; that the REGENTS' conduct in constructing and operating the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT is therefore ultra vires and undermines rather than supports the University's core mission; and accordingly, the University is precluded from making use of its shield to defeat or deflect against LA City's right to review and entitle the project. The same is true with regard to the Petitioner's contention that the operation of this commercial hotel facility will and should trigger the legal requirement that REGENTS pay to the City of Los Angeles the bed and occupancy taxes, telecommunications taxes, property taxes, gross receipts business and all other taxes associated with the operation of a commercial hotel within the City's boundaries, consistent with the duty of other commercial hotel operators in Westwood and throughout the City with whom the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT will be competing.

4

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et a!.

-8-

1

people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern." (Public

2

Resources Code §21 00 (a)), and that it is the policy of this state to "take all action

3

necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of this state"

4

(id., §2100{a)). CEQA requires the assessment and public disclosure of potentially

5

adverse impacts that a project requiring a discretionary public agency approval might

6

have on the environment. (Id., §§ 21002,21002.1.)

7

11. The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are

8

information, participation, mitigation, and accountability. (Cal. Code Reg., Title 14,

9

§15002 (Lincoln Place Tenants Association vs. City ofLos Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.

10

App. 4th 425, 443-444). CEQA requires an EIR whenever there is substantial evidence

11

supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may produce significant

12

environmental impacts. (ld., §21080{d)). An EIR must describe the proposed project

13

and its environmental setting, state the objectives sought to be achieved, identify and

14

analyze the significant effects on the environment, state how those impacts can be

15

mitigated or avoided, and identify alternatives to the project, among the requirements.

16

(Id., §§ 21100{b), 21151). The Advisory Agency (in this case THE REGENTS) must

17

"provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are

18

fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures that are

19

feasible and enforceable. (Id., § 21 081.6(b)), and subject to a monitoring and reporting

20

program designed to ensure compliance. When "significant new information" comes to

21

light during the environmental review process, it must be added to the EIR, where such

22

new information can reasonably be said to have a significant impact on the environment

23

and the public is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment. CEQA Guidelines

24

15088.5; Public Resources Code §21 092.1

25

12. A discretionary project under CEQA is "an activity which may cause direct

26

physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical

27

change in the environment." (Id., §21065.) These activities include those that are

28

directly undertaken by a public agency as well as activities that are undertaken by a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-9-

1

"person which is supported, in whole or in part," through financial or other assistance by

2

one or more public agencies. (Ibid.). At the heart of CEQA is the requirement that public

3

agencies may not approve projects "if there are feasible alternatives or feasible

4

mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant

5

environmental effects of such projects. (Public Resources Code §21002).

6

13. Placing its trust in the judgment of public agencies, the Legislature has

7

made public agencies responsible for assessing the environmental effects of a project.

8

(See Id., §21080.1(a): "The lead agency shall be responsible for determining whether

9

an environmental impact report ["EIR"], a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative

10

declaration shall be required for any project which is" subject to CEQA. With this, the

11

Legislature has established a variety of method to accomplish its goals concerning

12

California's environment, but the principal method is the drafting and completion of an

13

EIR. This report must be prepared if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole

14

record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the

15

environment." (Id.,§21080(d».

16

14. In addition to those provisions found in the Public Resources Code, the

17

California Legislature has authorized and directed the Office of Planning and Research

18

to adopt guidelines for the implementation of CEQA (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14,

19

§§15000 et seq. (See Public Resources Code §21083). These guidelines are binding on

20

all state and local agencies, including THE REGENTS. (State Guidelines, §§15000,

21

15020.)

22

15. In order to effectuate 'meaningful' public review and comment of the

23

proposed project, the public agency must provide the public fair access to all

24

information and documentation relevant to the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5,

25

subd. a(4) (Mountain Lion Coalition

26

App. 3d 1043). Petitioner contends this was not done in this case and that it was denied

27

the timely and fair production of relevant documentation needed for them to make

28

meaningful public comment on the Draft EIR, including, but not limited to all

VS.

Fish and Game Commission (1989) 214 Cal.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 10 -

1

documentation attendant to the serious public controversy concerning the project's

2

potential to contribute to urban decay of the Westwood areas

3

THE PROPOSED PROJECT & PROCEEDINGS

4

16. The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a

5

commercial hotel on the campus of UCLA consisting of an 8 story 294,000 gross

6

square feet structure containing 250 guest rooms, a 25,000 square foot conference

7

center, and associated support facilities with regard to the hotel's operation. The funding

8

for the project's construction and operation comes from three sources: (i) a $40 Million

9

gift from real parties MEYER LUSKIN and DOREEN LUSKIN, made in writing on

10

December 23, 2010; (ii) the issuance of tax-exempt bonds (premised on the incorrect

11

notion that the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT will not be a commercial

12

business venture or utilize a hotel management operator), and (iii) operating income net

13

of all taxes and expenses (including the cost of having to repay the campus parking

14

operation for the replacement of Lot 6)

15

proposed project was an amendment to the 2002 UCLA Long Range Development

6.

Also included within the parameters of the

16

17 18 19

Petitioner contends that not only were important and relevant Public Records' requests denied. improperly deferred or delayed, there may have been serial meetings of Regent Board Members to discuss important matters related to the Luskin Commercial Hotel Project which violated the Brown Act (Govemment Code ยง54950, et seq.). Petitioner will undertake further discovery as part of this lawsuit in order to ferret out the specifics of this contention. Regardless, it is unlawful and an abuse of discretion for a lead agency to deprive the public of relevant information needed to fulfill its proper role in the CEQA process. In addition, the potential for urban decay was not analyzed by a historical demand for hotel rooms (FEIR p. 2-145). Rather, there was a study by PKF in 2009 which documented the fact that a number of guests would abandon local hotels in favor of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT. 5

20 21 22 23 24

The assumption that the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT can be operated at a profit is problematic, and certainly one upon which greater openness, transparency, and discussion was and is required. The clear risk is that the failure of this commercial business venture will be subsidized by other University operations, which will result in needless increases to student fees and costs. So instead of enabling and enhancing the University's core miSSion, the REGENTS undertaking of this ultra vires proprietary venture would detract and undermine the University's ability to effectuate its core mission of teaching, research, and related public service.

6

25

26

27 28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 11 -

1

Plan, as amended in 2009, to transfer 255,000 gross square footage to the Central

2

Campus Zone?

3

17. On December 23,2010, real parties MEYER LUSKIN and DOREEN

4

LUSKIN made a written grant of $40 Million to the UCLA Foundation to be used to

5

support "the construction costs associated with the UCLA Residential Conference

6

Center [which would carry their name]", together with an added $10 Million to establish

7

the 'Luskin Endowment for Thought Leadership' to create an endowment to support

8

academic conferences, symposia, colloquia and other academic events in the College

9

of Letters and Sciences [together with] an annual lecture to be known as The Luskin

10

Lecture for Thought Leadership [to be given by a distinguished individual in any field to

11

be chosen by the Chancellor]". 8

12

18. Thereafter, the project to which the real parties' December, 2010, Grant

13

referred then gradually 'morphed' into the development of a commercial hotel, first on

14

the site of the UCLA Faculty Center in 2011, and subsequently, on Lot 6, such that by

15

July, 2012, real parties were induced to write a letter 'clarifying' their initial 'vision' for th

16

project, as noted above. The foregoing letter came in response to a demand from the

17

REGENTS on March 27, 2012, to investigate less costly and risky alternatives and its

18 19 20

The Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) is the master plan for the UCLA Campus. It incorporates both building density and student density allocations for different geographical zones within the UCLA campus. In order to generate consistency between the proposed Luskin Commercial Hotel Project and the LRDP, it was necessary to amend the LRDP to 'transfer' both building density as well as daytime student density to the Central UCLA Campus Zone. While 255,000 square feet of building density was transferred to the Central Campus Zone as part of the CEQA analysis, an increased population density of 5,000 daytime students to the Central Campus Zone was not transferred. Petitioner contends that this omission was reflective of the Regents' desire to avoid a meaningful analysis of CEQA-required cumulative impacts, and thus generate the kind of CEQA outcome needed so the Luskin Commercial Hotel Project could proceed. So by failing to amend the LRDP to reflect an increase of 5000 additional students at or near the site of the proposed project, Petitioner contends the Regents 'gamed' its own UCLA Master Plan and unlawfully prejudiced the outcome of the CEQA analysiS. 7

21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

• This $50 Million grant was part of a total $100 Million grant by real parties, with the other $50 Million being directed to support the School of Public Affairs, as broken down in the Luskins' December 23, 2010, letter to the UCLA Chancellor.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

- 12 -

1

refusal to vote to approve the financing for the project until such information and

2

analysis was provided.

3

19. The DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) was released on May 14,

4

2012, following which a public hearing was held on the DEIR on June 5, 2012. In

5

between, there were REGENTS' Board Meetings as follows: (i) on March 27, 2012

6

('Grounds and Buildings Committee to discuss the project and its financing - no vote

7

was taken), (ii) July 17, 2012 (to discuss the project financing (first in closed session,

8

then in open session - Financing Approved), and (iii) September 11, 2012 (to approve

9

the Final EIR, the amendment to the LRDP (Long Range Development Program) to

10

transfer building density to the Central UCLA Campus area, and approve the design).

11

20. Thereafter, on September 14, 2012, a Notice of Determination (dated

12

September 13, 2012) was filed with the State Clearing House in accordance with Public

13

Resources Code ยง211 08 and ยง21152.

14 15

16 17 18

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS BOARD OF REGENTS & DOES 1 THROUGH 20 (CEQA VIOLATION) 21. Petitioners hereby refer to the allegations set out in Paragraphs 1 through 20 and incorporate the same herein by reference as though plead in full.

22. Petitioners bring this action to attack, set aside, void, and annul

19 Respondents' approval of the project described herein.

20 23. In approving the subject project solely on the strength of the faulty and 21 22 23 24 25

26

deficient Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Respondent REGENTS failed to make decisions supported by substantial evidence and to comply with CEQA and its implementing regulations.

24. In deciding to undertake the actions set for in the preceding paragraphs, Respondents have acted in excess of their jurisdiction and committed a prejudicial

27

abuse of discretion by rendering an approval for the project which is not supported by

28

substantial evidence.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

- 13 -

1

25. Petitioner has a direct financial and beneficial interest in the action herein

2

and brings this action as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

3

§1021.5 to vindicate their own interests and those of the taxpayers and citizens of the

4

City of Los Angeles in the implementation of the State's environmental and land use

5

laws.

6 7

8

26. Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and damages if the decision of Respondent REGENTS is allowed to stand.

27. Petitioner has no administrative remedy, or are excused from exhausting its

9

remedies as a result of the futility of pursing such remedies, among other things, and as

10

such, has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to compel

11

Respondents to comply with CEQA, and to otherwise act in accordance with the law.

12

The only remedy provided by law for Petitioners to obtain relief is this Petition for Writ of

13

Mandate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5

14 15

16 17

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS REGENTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA & DOES 1 THROUGH 20 (Writ of Mandate - Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5 and 1085) [MANDATED REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS ATIENDANT TO CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION OF LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT ON UCLA CAMPUS]

18 19 20 21

28. Petitioner hereby refers to the allegations set out in Paragraphs 1 through 27 and incorporate the same herein by reference as though plead in full.

29. Petitioner brings this action to attack, set aside, void, and annul

22

Respondents' approval of the foregoing LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL project

23

planned on the UCLA campus as described herein until all appropriate land use

24

entitlements have been issued by the City of Los Angeles.

25

26 27

30. Petitioner contends that in deciding to undertake the action set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Respondent REGENTS acted in excess of their jurisdiction and

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et al.

- 14 -

1

committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by not proceeding in the manner required by

2

law as follows:

3

a. Respondent REGENTS failed to apply for and procure the requisite land use

4

entitlements from the City of Los Angeles, which land use entitlements are necessitated

5

by the fact that (i) the property on which the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL

6

PROJECT is to be constructed is zoned PF-1XL (Public Facilities), and the City's

7

General Plan, Westwood Community Plan, The West Los Angeles Transportation

8

Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, and the implementing zoning regulations do

9

not permit the use, maintenance, or operation of a commercial hotel in the 'PF' zone,

10

and (ii) the REGENTS operation of a commercial hotel lies outside its core mission of

11

teaching, research, and public service.

12

b. Respondent REGENTS failed to prepare an EIR incorporating all major

13

environmental impacts which would accrue as a result of the REGENTS refusal and

14

unwillingness to pay bed and occupancy taxes to the City of Los Angeles on its

15

commercial hotel operation in combination with other commercial hotels operated by

16

UCLA on and off the campus, and the impact said failure would have on the provision of

17

emergency fire and police services and other infrastructure support services provided

18

by the City of Los Angeles to REGENTS, UCLA students, faculty, patients and visitors;

19

c. Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact

20

Report documents fail to take account of the paucity and inadequacy of fire protection

21

services which currently exist and which would be exacerbated by the LUSKIN

22

COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, all of which, if included, would have demonstrated

23

the adverse environmental impacts the project would have on the surrounding

24

environment;

25

d. Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact

26

Report documents fail to undertake a thorough analysis of alternatives to development,

27

such as the acquisition of an existing hotel such as the Palomar Hotel (currently for sale

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 15 -

1

at the asking price of $59 Million). Consideration of said alternatives were, in fact, 'short

2

circuited' by real parties when, in direct contravention of their written pledge agreement

3

of December 23, 2010, real parties executed a letter kept secret from the public directed

4

to REGENTS wherein they mandated that the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL

5

PROJECT be built on the site currently occupied by Lot 6 insisted that unless the

6

LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT was built on the site currently occupied by

7

Lot 6, and on no other site; and unless this requirement was met, their pledge to the

8

REGENTS was to be withdrawn; notwithstanding the fact that their initial pledge

9

agreement did not contain such a restriction;

10

e. Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Impact Environmental

11

Report documents fail to undertake an accurate, thorough, thoughtful, and competent

12

traffic analysis;

13

f. Respondent REGENTS failed to follow its own internal financial policies in

14

their consideration of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, and specifically

15

'UCOP BUS-55' and UCOP BUS-72', both of which are safeguards to assure that UCLA

16

remains a good neighbor and that its fiscal operations are prudent;

17 18 19

g. Respondent REGENTS improperly used outdated studies in support of the environmental review of the project; h. Respondent REGENTS failed to properly, competently, or thoroughly analyze

20

the relationship between local taxes and environmental quality, and further failed to

21

conduct an urban decay analysis based on the unsupported contention that the project

22

will increase business for local hotels;

23

i. Respondents REGENTS biased the outcome of the environmental review by

24

short-circuiting a thorough review of all aspects of the project which could have a

25

significant impact on the environment, including whether the gift from real parties could

26

be used to purchase an off-campus hotel or construct a conference center without a

27

hotel at one or more designated sites (for example a site adjacent to the planned

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 16 -

1

subway station at Wilshire and Gayley on Lot 36), none of which were considered in the

2

Draft EIR or Final EIR;

3

j. Respondent REGENTS failed to issue a statement of overriding considerations

4

which Petitioner contends is required because current fire protection service is

5

inadequate, which inadequacy requires that Respondent REGENTS consider the full

6

nature and extent of the current fire protection services needed, and then compare the

7

same against the nature and extent of the fire services required;

8 9

31. Based on the foregoing, Respondents acted in direct violation of their own internal procedures, CEQA, the reporting requirements mandated for the declaration

10

and payment of all federal taxes owing on income earned from Unrelated Business

11

Income, and the Los Angeles Municipal Code

12

32. Petitioner has a direct and beneficial interest in the action herein and brings

13

this action as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section

14

1021.5 to vindicate its own interests and those of its members who are taxpayers and

15

citizens of the City of Los Angeles in the proper implementation of the environmental

16

and land use laws; and this litigation, if successful, will result in the enforcement of

17

important rights affecting the public interest, including the public's right to compel the

18

REGENTS to comply with State and local laws providing for the fair, proper, and

19

thorough implementation of the environmental and land use laws.

20

33. In deciding to undertake the action set out in the preceding paragraphs,

21

Respondents both erred and acted in excess of their jurisdiction and committed a

22

prejudicial abuse of discretion by not proceeding in the manner required by law in that

23

REGENTS were and are required to apply for and procure all requisite land use

24

entitlement approvals from the City of Los Angeles for the operation of the proposed

25

LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT on the UCLA Campus, and should be

26

made to do so.

27 28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et a!.

- 17 -

1 2 3

4

5

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA & DOES 1 THROUGH 20 (Declaratory Relief - Code of Civil Procedure ยง 1060) 34. Petitioner hereby refers to the allegations set out in Paragraphs 1 through 33 and incorporate the same herein by reference as though plead inful!.

35. An actual and present controversy has arisen between Petitioner, on the

6

one hand, and Respondents on the other, in that Petitioner contends and believes, for

7

the reasons states herein, that Respondents' actions in approving the project violated

8

CEQA and the laws of the State of California, and the land use and zoning laws of the

9

City of Los Angeles in that a construction and operation of a commercial hotel on the

10

UCLA campus is not an activity in which REGENTS are permitted to engage, and that

11

as a consequence, the REGENTS are required to procure the requisite land use

12

entitlements form the City of Los Angeles as a condition precedent to constructing and

13

operating the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, and that the City's grant and

14

approval of said entitlements is a legal prerequisite to the development and use of the

15

subject property as a commercial hotel; and that REGENTS actions in developing and

16

using the subject property as a commercial hotel without paying the requisite bed and

17

occupancy taxes to the City of Los Angeles were and are unlawful, and that the

18

REGENTS decision to approve the project must take into consideration the need to pay

19

said taxes, and the failure of the decision approving the project to do so constituted an

20

abuse of discretion. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that

21

Respondents contend in all respects to the contrary. A judicial declaration is therefore

22

necessary and appropriate to determine the validity of Respondents' actions as set forth

23

above and the respective rights and duties of the parties in light of the parties' disparate

24

contentions.

25

26 27

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et a!.

- 18 -

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays for judgment as follows:

3

1. On the First through Second Causes of Action, issuance of a Writ of

4

Mandate ordering Respondents THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

5

CALIFORNIA to vacate, set aside, and rescind its decision dated September 11,2012,

6

approving of the LUSKIN HOTEL PROJECT and, going forward, to otherwise comply in

7

all respects with CEQA, and to thereafter procure all requisite land use entitlement

8

approvals from the City of Los Angeles prior to commencing any construction activities

9

in connection with the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, or its subsequent

10

operation; that Respondent REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA be

11

required to amend its CEQA analysis in connection with the project in order to take

12

proper account of the need for a statement of overriding considerations for fire

13

protection service, revise the traffic analysis, incorporate an analysis of the business

14

considerations attendant to the operation of a commercial hotel on the UCLA Campus,

15

including the requirement and the need to pay occupancy and bed taxes to the CITY 0

16

LOS ANGELES, and Unrelated Business Income Taxes (UBIT) Taxes to the federal

17

government; confirm full compliance with relevant UC Business policies in their CEQA

18

evaluation of the project, so as to give due and proper consideration to all conditions

19

and factors which were never reviewed or analyzed by the initial decision-maker in the

20

first instance as regards the mitigation conditions necessitated by the construction and

21

operation of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, and to otherwise comply

22

with the California Environmental Quality Act;

23

2. On the Third Cause of Action for a Declaration and Judgment stating that

24

Respondents have failed to comply with their mandatory and ministerial duties under

25

the California Environmental Quality Act and the relevant Los Angeles City ordinances;

26

3. On All Causes of Action, that this Court grant Petitioner its costs. including its

27

reasonable attorney's fees; and allow for such other costs and relief as this Court may

28

deem just and proper.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 19-

1

DATED:

Octobe/~012

vlI--'-""'-CICES OF NOEL WEISS

2 3 4

5

Counsel etitioner SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE

6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15

16 17

18

19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27

28 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 20-

1

VERIFICATION

2

I, LAURA LAKE hereby declare as follows:

3

1. I am an officer of the Petitioner herein, SAVE WESTWOOD V~

4

5

VIU

and make this Verification on its behalf.

2. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR PREEMPTORY WRIT

6

OF MANDATE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF and know the contents thereof to be

7

true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are alleged on information

8

and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

9 10

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this

J...2. day of October, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.

11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24

25 26

27 28

.-

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Save Westwood Viii ate vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-

- ..2.\-

CONFORMED copy OF ORIGINAL fiLED

1

5

NOEL WEISS (SBN 073105) LAW OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS 13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #922 Marina del Rey, California 90292 Telephone: (310) 822-0239 Facsimile: (310) 82207028 Email: noelweiss@ca.rr.com

6

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

2 3 4

LOS Angeles Supenor Court

OCT 122012 John A. CIark~OfflcerlClerk By ~ ,Deputy

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 10

SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE, a California) non-profit corporation; )

11 12

Petitioner,

}

vs.

13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

CASE NO.

8S139854

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION PUBLIC RES. CODE ยง21167.5 [Filed Concurrently With Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate]

Respondents.

MEYER LUSKIN, an Individual; DOREEN LUSKIN, aka RENEE LUSKIN, an Individual;

Real Parties In Interest.

21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

----------------------~) Notice of Commencement of Action Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California, et a!.

- 1-

1

TO: REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Petitioner SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE intends to

2

3

file a verified Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ยง1094.5

4

and ยง1085, and Public Resources Code ยง21000 et seq. against the REGENTS OF THE

5

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

6

The Petition will allege, inter alia, that the REGENTS acted unlawfully and

7

abused its discretion and violated CEQA for the following reasons to be noted in the

8

Writ Petition:

9

a. Respondent REGENTS failed to prepare an EIR incorporating all major

10

environmental impacts accruing as a result af the REGENTS' refusal and unwillingness

11

to pay .bed and occupancy taxes to the City of Los Angeles on its commercial hotel

12

operation 1, and the impact said failure would have on the provision of emergency fire

13

and pOlice services and other infrastructure support services provided by the City of Los

14

Angeles to REGENTS, UCLA students, faculty, and visitors; b. Both the Draft Environmental Report and Final Environmental Report

15

16

documents fail to take account of the paucity and inadequacy of fire protection services

17

which currently exist and which would be exacerbated by the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL

18

HOTEL PROJECT, all of which, if included, would have demonstrated the significant

19

and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts the project will have on the surrounding

20

environment;

21

c. Both the Draft Environmental Report and Final Environmental Report

22

documents fail to undertake a thorough analysis of alternatives 10 development of the

23

project on Lot 6, such as the acquisition of an existing hotel, entering into a 'private-

24

public partnership' 10 jointly develop a commercial holel on another sile, or the

25

26

Petitioner contends the REGENTS are currently in default of their federal and local tax obligations in connection with ather commercial ventures they own and operate, including Tiverton House, Faculty Guest House, Courtside Collection, Lake Arrowhead Conference Center and Resort, and dormitories operated as commercial hotels during the summer.

1

27

28

Notice of Commencement of Action

Save Westwood Village 'l/S. Regents of the State of California, lit al.

- 2-

1

construction of just a conference center without a commercial hotel on Lot 6. Consider-

2

ation of said alternatives were, in fact, 'short-circuited' by real parties when, on July 3,

3

2012, in direct contravention of their written pledge agreement of December 23, 2010,

4

real parties MEYER LUSKIN and DOREEN LUSKIN executed a letter to the REGENTS

5

(kept secret from the public), wherein they purported to 'clarify' their desire and 'vision'

6

that the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT be built on the UCLA campus; that

7

they supported construction and operation on the Lot 6 site because it would encourage

8

"visitors onto the UCLA campus [so as to share it with] faculty, students and facilities ...

9

"; and that by their opposition to a 'non-Lot 6' alternative, real parties MEYER LUSKIN

10

and DORREEN LUSKIN implied that their December 23,2010, $40 Million pledge to

11

support construction of the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL PROJECT would be

12

withdrawn; notwithstanding the fact that their initial pledge agreement of December 23,

13

2010, contained no such restriction or qualifying Iimitation

14

2

;

d. Both the Draft Environmental Report and Final Environmental Report

15

documents fail to undertake an accurate, thorough, thoughtful, and competent traffic

16

analysis;

17

e. Respondent REGENTS failed to follow its own internal financial policies in

18

their consideration of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT, including, but not

19

limited to (i) the consideration of the impact of the failure to provide $23 Million needed

20

to be paid to 'buy-out' (compensate) the parking program for the loss of 754 parking

21

spaces, and (ii) what Petitioner contends was the misapplication of the mandates set

22

out in the 'UC Operating Policies' ('UCOP BUS-55' and UCOP BUS-72) as they relate

23

to the financing of the construction and operation of the commercial hotel project, both

24

of which exist as safeguards to assure that UCLA remains a good neighbor and that its

25

fiscal operations are prudent; and (iii) the failure to include UBIT (Federal Unrelated

26 27 28

2 On March 27, 2012, UCLA Vice Chancellor Steve Olsen told the Regents that the Luskin gift was not, in fact, restricted to a single site.

Notice of Commencement of Action Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-3-

1

Business Income Tax) in the economic pro forma for the commercial hotel, as

2

mandated by UCOP BUS-72. based on the incorrect assertion that the commercial hote

3

is exempt from having to pay Unrelated Business Income Tax to the IRS.

4 5

f. Respondent REGENTS improperly used outdated studies in support of the environmental review of the project;

6

g. Respondent REGENTS failed to properly, competently, or thoroughly analyze

7

the relationship between local taxes and environmental quality, and further failed to

8

conduct an urban decay analysis based on the unsupported contention that the project

9

will increase business for local hotels;

10

h. When deriving their projected income projections from the project,

11

Respondent REGENTS failed to take into consideration the required payment to the

12

Federal Government of Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) on all net income

13

earned from the operation of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT; i. Respondents REGENTS biased the outcome of the environmental review by

14 15

short-circuiting a thorough review of all aspects of the project which could have a

16

Significant impact on the environment, including whether the gift from real parties could

17

be used to purchase an off-campus hotel or construct a conference center without a

18

hotel at one or more designated sites (i.e. adjacent to the planned subway station at

19

Wilshire and Gayley on Lot 36), none of which were considered in the Draft EIR or Final

20

EIR;

21

j. Respondent REGENTS failed to issue a statement of overriding considerations

22

which Petitioner contends is required because current fire protection service is

23

inadequate, which inadequacy requires that Respondent REGENTS consider the full

24

nature and extent of the current fire protection services needed, and then compare the

25

same against the nature and extent of the fire services required to fulfill that need;

26

k. Respondent REGENTS went out of their way to deny or delay Petitioner

27

access to documents sought under valid Public Records' Requests so that Petitioner

28 Notice of Commencement of Action Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

- 4-

1

could be afforded a 'meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project's substantial

2

adverse environmental effects.

3

In addition, Petitioner contends that respondent REGENTS abused its discretion

4

and acted unlawfully when it failed to apply for and procure the requisite land use

5

entitlements from the City of Los Angeles, which land use entitlements are necessitated

6

by the fact that (i) the property on which the LUSKIN COMMERICAL HOTEL

7

PROJECT is to be constructed is zoned PF-1 (Public Facilities), and the City's General

8

Plan, Westwood Community Plan, the City's West Los Angeles Transportation

9

Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan and the implementing zoning regulations do

10

not permit the use, maintenance, or operation of a commercial hotel in the 'PF' zone,

11

and (ii) the REGENTS operation of a commercial hotel lies outside its core mission of

12

teaching, research, and public service. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that respondent

13

REGENTS abused their discretion and are acting ultra vires in connection with the

14

planning, construction, and operation of the LUSKIN COMMERCIAL HOTEL

15

PROJECT.

16

DATED:

October/~ 2012

LAW OF

ES OF NOEL WEISS

17

18 19 20

Counsel for Petitioner SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE

21 22 23 24

25 26

27 28 Notice of Commencement of Action Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the State of California. et al.

-5-

CM-010 ~~TORNEY

OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stare Bar number, and address)

FOR COURT USE ONL Y

NOEL WEISS (SBN 073105) LA W OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS 13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #922 Marina del Rey, California 90292 TELEPHONE NO

ATTORNEY FOR (N,me)

CONFORMED COpy OF ORIGINAL FILED

VetitlOner 10) 822-0239 CJIOL822-7028 SAVE WEST\VOOD IL AGE

Los Angeles Superior Court

FAX NO.

OCT 12 2012

LOS ANGELES III North Hill Street III North Hill Street Los Angeles, 90012 Central - Stanley Mosk Courthouse

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF STREET ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS

CITY AND liP CODE: BRANCH NAME:

J( hn A. Clar~utlve OfficerlClerk

B _

SHA

,;.:, . " ESLEY

Deputy

,

CASE NAME:

Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the University of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Complex Case Designalion CASEN,&,'S Limited Counler Joinder (Amount JUDGE Flied with first appearance by defendant demanded is DEPT $25.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructIOns on page 2) 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case

0

Unlimited (Amount demanded exceeds $25,000)

0

Auto Tort

o

Uninsured motorist (46)

Other PI/PDIWD (PersonallnjuryJProperty DamagelWrongful Death) Tort

00

o o

Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) Other PI/PDIWD (23)

Non·PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort

oD

D D D

Breach of contracVwarranty (06)

Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other collections (09)

0 Insurance coverage (18) 0 Other contract (37) Real Property 0 Eminent domainIlnverse D D

condemnation (14)

D

o

D

Fraud (16)

o D o o

Intellectual property (19) Professional negligence (25)

Other non·PIIPDIWD tort (35) Employment Wrongful termination (36)

D

Other employment (15)

o o D o

Residential (32)

o

o o

D

o

o

AntitrustfTrade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities litigation (28) EnvironmentalfToxic tort (30) Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

o o

Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

D

Drugs (38)

Judicial Review

D

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

Wrongful eviction (33)

Other real property (26) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Unlawful Detainer Civil rights (08) Commercial (31) Defamation (13)

D

2.

o

Contract

Auto (22)

o

o

1 39 854

RICO(27)

Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Asset forfeiture (05) Petition re: arbitration award (11) Writ of mandate (02)

o

D

Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (not specified above) (43)

Other judicial review (39)

LJ

This case is lLJ is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a.

0

Large number of separately represented parties b O Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c.O Substantial amount of documentary evidence

d. e.

0 D

f.

0

Large number of witnesses Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court Substantial postjudgment judicial superviSion

3. Remedies sought (check al/ that apply): a.O monetary b.0 nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c.

4 Number of causes of action (speCify): Two (Writ of Mandate - CEQA; Writ of Mandate - Land Use) 5. This case is [{] is not a class action suit 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related ca

0

punitive

D

Date

October 12, 2012 NOEL WEISS (TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.

• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 el seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding.

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

fla e1of2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use JudiCial Council of Califomia

CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Cal Rules of Court, n;les 2.30.3220,3.400-3.403,3740: CaL Standards of Judicial Administration, std 3 10 \\IWW courtmfo.ca gov

SHORT TITLE:

Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the University of Calif.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: JURY TRIAL? DYES

CLASS ACTION? DYES LIMITED CASE?

DYES

TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRJAL 2 0 HOURSID DAYS "'---"'''-'-''''''''''''''-'''''-''''''"'''

Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.

Step 2: Check ~ Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.

Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0.

Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mask Courthouse, central district.

May be filed in central (other county, or no bodily injury/property damage).

Location where cause of action arose.

Location where bodily injury, death or dama~e occurred.

Location where perfurmance required or defendant resides.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.

Location where petitioner resides.

Location wherein defendant/respondent functions wholly.

Location where one or more of the parties reside.

Location of Labor Commissioner Office

Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration . .

".

A

ÂŤI-

.

C

Civil Case Cqver'Sheet

TYP,e oJ Action

Applicable Reas.ons -

Category No;

(Check only one)

See Step 3 Above

Auto (22)

0

A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property DamageIWrongful Death

1.,2.,4.

Uninsured Motorist (46)

0

A7110 Personallnjury/Property DamageJWrongful Death - Uninsured MotOrist

1.,2.,4.

0

A6070 Asbestos Property Damage

2.

0

A7221 Asbestos - Personal InjurylWrongful Death

2.

0

A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)

1., 2., 3., 4., 8.

0

A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons

1.,4.

0

A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice

1.,4.

0

A7250 Premises LiabHity (e.g., slip and fall)

0

A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamagelWrongful Death (e.g.,

21:: "

B

0

Asbestos (04)

Product Liability (24)

Medical Malpractice (45)

Other Personal Injury Property Damage Wrongful Death

(23)

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) LASC Approved 03-04

assault, vandalism, etc.)

0

A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

0

A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property DamageJWrongful Death

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

1.,4.

1.,4.

1., 3.

1., 4.

Local Rule 2.0

Page 1 of 4

I

SHORT TITLE'

Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the University of Calif.

I

I

CASE NUMBER

.

A

B

C

Civil Case, Cover Sheet Category No.

Type-of Aptian

Applicable Reasons -

(Check only one)

See Step 3 Above

.

Business Tort (07)

0

A6029 Other CommerciallBusiness Tort (not fraudlbreach of contract)

1.,3.

Civil Rights (08)

0

A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination

1.,2.,3.

Defamation (13)

0

A6010 Defamation (slanderllibel)

1.. 2., 3.

Fraud (16)

0

A6013 Fraud (no contract)

1.,2.,3.

0

A6017 Legal Malpractice

1.,2.,3.

0

A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)

1.,2.,3.

Other (35)

0

A6025 Other Non-Personallnjury/Property Damage tort

2.,3.

. ,.

Wrongful Termination (36)

0

A6037 Wrongful Termination

1.,2.,3.

i5.

Other Employment (15)

0

A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case

1.,2.. 3.

0

A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals

10.

0

A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful

~t: ..

0

0.1-

4:: ~~ 0-'"

""

.~-

-e '" e

'iiE

15;;:

. ..'" fCii

a- .. l: E

Professional Negligence (2S)

0

%0

C

E

0

E

w

eviction)

Breach of Contract! Warranty (06)

0

A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach .Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)

(not insurance)

0

A6019 Negligent Breach of ContracUWarranty (no fraud)

tl

!le

Collections (09)

0

u Insurance Coverage (18)

..e ...

a.

1.,2.,5.

1.,2.,5.

0

A6028 Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence)

0

A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff

2.,5.,6.

0

A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case

2.. 5.

0

A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)

1.,2.,5.,8.

0

A6009 Contractual Fraud

1.,2.,3.,5.

0

A6031 Tortious Interference

1., 2., 3., 5.

A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breachlinsurancelfraud/negligence)

1.,2.. 3., 8.

Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14)

0

A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation

Wrongful Eviction (33)

0

A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case

2.,6 .

D

A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure

2.,6.

0

A6032 Quiet Title

2.,6.

0

A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)

2.,6.

0

A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)

2.,6.

0

A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction)

2.,6.

a-

a::

2.,5.

0

Other Contract (37)

~

2.,5.

Other Real Property (26)

Number of parcels_ _ _

2.

. :e.

Unlawful Detainer-Gommercial

3:

Unlawful DetainerPost-Foreclosure (34)

0

A6020FUnlawfui Detainer-Past-Foreclosure

2.,6.

Unlawful Detainer路Drugs (38)

0

A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs

2.,6.

(31)

~

e

0 :i

-E =>

Unlawful Detainer-Residential

(32)

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03111) LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET' ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page 2 014

I

SHORT TITLE,

Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the University of Calif.

..

3:

OS

A

B

C

Type of Action (Check only one)

Applicable Reasons -

See Step 3 Above

Asset Forfeiture (05)

0

A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case

2.,6.

Petition re Arbitration (11)

0

A6115 Petition to CompelfConfirmNacate Arbitration

2.,5.

0

A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus

2.,8.

Writ of Mandate (02)

0

A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter

0

A6153 Writ - Other Umited Court Case Review

b

Other Judicial Review (39)

0

A6150 Other Writ /Judicial Review

2.,8.

AntitrustfTrade Regulation (03)

0

A6003 AntitrustITrade Regulation

1.,2.,8.

Construction Defect (10)

0

A6007 Construction Defed:.

1.,2.,3.

Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)

0

A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort

1.,2.,8.

Securities Litigation (28)

0

A6035 Securities Litigation Case

1.,2.,8.

Toxic Tort Environmental (30)

0

A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental

1.,2.,3.,8.

Insurance Coverage Claims from Complex Case (41)

0

A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)

1., 2., 5., 8.

0

A6141 Sister State Judgment

2.,9.

0

A6160 Abstract of Judgment

2.,6.

.," c

CASE NUMBER

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Category No.

.;; a:= ;:; 路u

I

0

~

:s.'" '" a.

E 0

(,J

~

;:; c 0

:f!> 0

~

a..

.. ..

C C

E E 0>

l:!

., ""'"

02 c w '0

. ". .

0

RICO (27)

J!l c

'iij

c a. .!l! E 0 0; (,J u

:i

Enforcement of Judgment (20)

:~

Other Complaints (Not Specified Above) (42)

(,J

Partnership Corporation Governance (21)

.." ..

.. ~ 0

c 0

c

a.. 'ii u

,!!!

==

:3: (,J

Other Petitions (Not Specified Above) (43)

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03111) LASC Approved 03-04

0

A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)

2.,9.

0

A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)

2.,8.

0

A6114 Petltlon/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax

2.,8.

0

A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case

2.,8.,9.

0

A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case

1.,2.,8.

0

A6030 Dedaratory Relief Only

1.,2.,8.

0

A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)

2.,8.

0

A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex)

1.,2.,8.

0

A6oo0 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortfnon-complex)

1.,2.,8.

0

A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case

2.,8.

0

A6121 Civil Harassment

2.,3.,9.

0

A6123 Workplace Harassment

2.,3.,9.

0

A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case

2.,3.,9.

0

A6190 Election Contest

2.

0

A6110 Petition for Change of Name

2.,7.

0

A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law

2.,3.,4.,8.

0

A6100 Other Civil Petition

2.,9.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page 30f4

SHORT TITLE:

CASE NUMBER

Save Westwood Village vs. Regents of the University of Calif.

Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.

ADDRESS:

REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for this case.

Central Campus - University of California at Los Angeles- Proposed Luskin Commercial Hotel Project

01. [2]2. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09.010.

CITY:

STATE:

Los Angeles

calif.

ZIP CODE:

90095

Item IV. Declaration of Assignment I deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregOing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk Central

courthouse in the

District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Code Civ. Proc.. ยง 392 et seq., and Local

Rule 2.0, subds. (b), (c) and (d)].

Dated: October 12, 2012

PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1.

Original Complaint or Petition.

2.

If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.

3.

Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.

4.

Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/11 ).

5.

Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

6.

A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-01 0, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.

7.

Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03111) LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page 4 of4