-1-
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
INTRODUCTION
1.
Petitioner, Crenshaw Subway Coalition (“CSC”), respectfully requests issuance of aperemptory writ of mandate setting aside the decisions of the Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) certifying and adopting the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report; approving the ProjectDefinition based on the Locally Preferred Alternative (“LPA”) previously approved inDecember 2009 and incorporating several changes including a La Brea Avenue GradeSeparation, Below-grade segment from Exposition Boulevard to 39
th
Street, Partiallycovered trench adjacent to LAX, and a Maintenance facility near LAX (ArborVitae/Bellanca); authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to file a Notice of Determination; adopting the Finding of Fact and Statement of OverridingConsideration; adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and all associatedapprovals made for the Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor project on or about September22, 2011 (collectively, “the Project”).2.
The Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor Project is a proposal to construct a Light RailTransit (“LRT”) line running along Crenshaw Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivisionright-of-way from Exposition Boulevard to the Metro Green Line. The 8.5-mile linewill connect the Metro Green Line and the Expo Line currently under construction atCrenshaw and Exposition Boulevards. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment of the railline is approximately 3 miles long and will be the only portion of the rail line to beconstructed at-grade. The Crenshaw Boulevard alignment will traverse SouthernCalifornia’s last African-American business corridor, including the communities of Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, Park Mesa Heights, Crenshaw Manor, and View Park.3.
MTA and the Federal Transit Authority (“FTA”) prepared a combined EnvironmentalImpact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (“EIS/EIR”) pursuant to the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21100 et seq.) (CEQA) and theNational Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) for the Project.4.
In approving the Project, the MTA violated the provisions of CEQA Public Resources
-2-
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Code § 21100
et seq
.) in that the EIS/EIR failed to comply with the informationdisclosure provisions of CEQA and failed to adequately analyze Project environmentalimpacts. MTA also failed to require all feasible mitigation and failed to consider anadequate range of alternatives. MTA failed to ensure that mitigation was certain andenforceable and failed to consider feasible alternatives, in particular grade separation of the rail line, proposed by the public. Lastly, the MTA adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which was not based on substantial evidence in the record.5.
The EIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to theenvironment in the areas of construction air quality impacts and potentially to trafficimpacts at Crenshaw Boulevard/54
th
Street. The project approvals, if allowed to stand,would thus significantly affect the environment.6.
In approving the Project, the MTA also violated the provisions of Government Code §11135 (a) in that the MTA’s determination to approve the Project has a discriminatoryimpact on the African-American population in the Project area, the last majorconcentration of African-American owned and operated businesses in the area and theregion’s center of African-American culture. The MTA approved the Project with theknowledge that such approval would discriminate against African-American arearesidents as Petitioner and others commented that the Project would have a racially andsocio-economically disparate adverse impact.7.
By this verified Petition, Petitioner alleges the following:
PARTIES
8.
Petitioner, Crenshaw Subway Coalition, is a California nonprofit corporation led bystakeholders along the Crenshaw Boulevard Corridor. Petitioner submitted commentsopposing approval of the Project to the MTA and FTA, which had/has discretionaryapproval authority over the Project.9.
Respondent and Real Party in Interest, MTA, is a local government agency chargedwith the authority of planning and implementing transportation and transit developmentwithin its territory in compliance with applicable provisions of state law including
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
