Introduction

1
1. This action seeks to correct the ultra vires actions the City of Los Angeles (City) took
2
in settling Sunset Ranch Hollywood Stables, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (LASC Case No.
3
BC576506). That settlement did the following:
4
Permanently closed pedestrian access to a public trailhead (the Hollyridge Trail) at a
5 public park (Griffith Park);
6 Channeled massive amounts of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to another neighborhood
7 and another section of the park;
8 Transferred the use of a new gate and secured-entry system, a public resource paid for

9 with taxpayer funds, to Sunset Ranch, a private party.

10 Purported to transfer the public's rights of way to a private party, Sunset Ranch.
Effectively gave Sunset Ranch a Conditional Use Permit, a variance, or a concession
11
license, to operate exclusively on publicly owned land, to the detriment of public access.
12
2. Municipal officials cannot by settlement take actions in excess of their authority or ones
13
that violate state law or municipal ordinances. Thus, this settlement was ultra vires or outright
14
unlawful, for the following reasons:
15 It purported to make a legislative, administrative, or regulatory decision about Griffith
16 Park access points. Such decisions can only be made by a majority vote by the Los
17 Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission and/or the Los Angeles City Council, in a
18 noticed, public hearing.

19 The settlement abrogated the Hollywoodland Specific Plan and a Historic-Cultural

designation and contravened other municipal zoning provisions and designations, which
20
cannot be done without noticed, public hearings.
21
It heavily burdened an adjoining neighborhood, with added traffic, dust, noise, detriment
22
to wildlife, etc. the very things that the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
23
Resources Code 21100, et seq (CEQA) exists to protect against. By not following
24 the requirements of CEQA, i.e., making a public determination at a noticed meeting
25 (along with other rules), this settlement violated state law.
26 It gifted public funds and public resources to a private party.
27 It violated several Los Angeles Municipal Code zoning provisions for the issuance of
28 variances, conditional-use permits, and concession licenses.
The City Attorney acted in excess of his authority.

-1-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 The stipulation, by taking legislative actions that require public meetings but then
1
making such decisions in private violated open-meeting laws.
2
3. Petitioners bring this public-interest suit, to preserve public access to Griffith Park, to
3
represent the interests of taxpayers, to protect the environment, and to vindicate the public's open-
4
meeting rights.
5 Parties
6 4. Petitioner and Plaintiff Friends of Griffith Park (Friends) is a California non-profit
7 corporation dedicated to preserving and protecting Griffith Parks natural habitat, biodiversity, and
8 historic features, for current and future generations. Friends is committed to ensuring that Griffith Park

9 remains open, natural, and free to all citizens of Los Angeles. In addition to conducting graffiti
removals and cleanups of the Park, Friends has funded surveys of the Parks unique biological
10
resources, spearheaded efforts to restore Fern Dell, and is currently planning an enhancement of a
11
segment of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail that runs through the Griffith Park. The
12
decision to end pedestrian access to Griffith Park from Beachwood Canyon strikes at the heart of
13 Friends principles for open access. In addition to its longstanding mission of protecting Griffith Park,
14 many of Friends members reside in and pay property taxes within Los Angeles, and have an interest in
15 ensuring open, accountable, responsive government and in protecting the regions environment and the
16 publics environmental and other quality-of-life amenities. Additionally, Friends' members regularly

17 used the now-closed Beachwood Canyon entrance to Griffith Park to hike to the Hollywood Sign and to
hike in Griffith Park, and now cannot do so. Friends is suing on its own behalf and for the benefit of
18
itself and its members, all persons similarly situated, and taxpayers within the jurisdiction of Los
19
Angeles.
20
5. Petitioner and Plaintiff Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust (Griffith Trust) is a private
21
family trust established to administer the estate and the heirs interests in the estate of Colonel Griffith
22 J. Griffith, who donated the land for and is the namesake of Griffith Park. Griffith Trust has
23 reversionary rights to Griffith Park if the City violates the terms of the original grant, which requires
24 that Griffith Park be used as a public park. Public access to the park is a part of its core mission. When
25 the park expanded to the west, the trustees fought to ensure public access from Western Avenue. The

26 Griffith Trust famously objected when the City attempted to institute a fee for driving automobiles into
the park. Today, it is supporting a much more basic issue: the right of pedestrians to access one of the
27
parks trailheads, which gives hikers access to the parks entire network of trails. Griffith Trust is suing
28
on its own behalf and for the benefit of itself and its members, all persons similarly situated, and

-2-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 taxpayers within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.
1
6. Petitioner and Plaintiff Los Feliz Oaks Homeowners Association (Oaks or collectively
2
with Friends and Griffith Park Trust as Petitioners) is a California non-profit corporation which
3
represents homeowners adjacent to Griffith Park. Oaks members reside in and pay real-property taxes
4 within Los Angeles and have an interest in ensuring open, accountable, responsive government and in
5 protecting the regions environment and the publics environmental and other quality-of-life amenities.
6 As a result of the closure of the Beachwood Canyon entrance to Griffith Park, the City has redirected
7 traffic through Oaks jurisdiction, severely affecting the environmental quality in the area. Oaks is

8 suing on its own behalf and for the benefit of itself and its members, all persons similarly situated, and
taxpayers within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.
9
7. Respondent and Defendant City of Los Angeles is a charter city organized under
10
California law and located within Los Angeles County. The City owns Griffith Park, located at 4730
11
Crystal Springs Drive in Los Angeles.
12
8. The true names of and capacities of Respondents and Defendants Does 1-10 inclusive
13 are unknown to plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs sue these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs
14 will seek leave to amend this complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named
15 defendants when plaintiffs ascertain that information. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
16 allege that each of defendants designated as Doe herein is responsible in some manner for the acts,

17 occurrences, omissions, and liabilities herein charged.

9. Real Party in Interest Sunset Ranch Hollywood Stables, Inc. (Sunset Ranch) is a
18
Nevada corporation doing business in the city of Los Angeles.
19
10. The true names of and capacities of Real Parties in Interest Roes 1-10 inclusive are
20
unknown to plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs sue these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will
21 seek leave to amend this complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named
22 defendants when plaintiffs ascertain that information. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
23 allege that each of defendants designated as Roe herein is responsible in some manner for the acts,
24 occurrences, omissions, and liabilities herein charged.

25 Jurisdiction, Venue, and Exhaustion of Remedies

11. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and section 1085, Public
26
Resources Code sections 21168, 21168.5 and 21168.9, and Government Code sections 549560 and
27
549560.1, this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate to set aside Respondents actions.
28
12. Venue is proper in this Court because Griffith Park lies entirely within Los Angeles

-3-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 County and the environmental impacts of the closure of pedestrian access through Beachwood Canyon
1
will be acutely felt in this county. The causes of action in this Petition, or some part of those causes,
2
arise in this county. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 394
3
(actions against a city, county or local agency), and 395 (actions generally), since the City of Los
4 Angeles is in the County of Los Angeles.
5 13. Petitioners were not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this
6 action. Alternatively, petitioners have exhausted all applicable administrative remedies prior to filing
7 this action. Alternatively, exhausting administrative remedies would be futile.

8 14. Petitioners have provided written notice of their intention to file this Petition, as required
by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. A true and correct copy of the notice is attached to this
9
pleading as Exhibit A.
10
15. Petitioners have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney General not
11
more than ten days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public Resources Code
12
Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388. A true and correct copy of the notice is
13 attached to this pleading as Exhibit B.
14 16. There is no adequate remedy other than the relief requested, for righting the wrongs
15 detailed in this complaint.
16 Factual Background

17 17. Griffith Park was created in 1896, when Colonel Griffith J. Griffith and his wife Mary
Agnes Christine donated 3,000 acres to the City of Los Angeles, to be used as a public park for
18
purposes of recreation, health, and pleasure, for the use and benefit of inhabitants of the said City of
19
Los Angeles, forever. In his original gift of 3,015 acres to the City on 16 December 1896, Griffith J.
20
Griffith showed concern that his park should remain freely accessible to everyone. Over time,
21 additional grants of land became part of Griffith Park, and all of those grants were accepted by the City
22 as part of Griffith Park and tied together with Griffith Park by law, deed, or prescription.
23 18. Griffith Park is the largest municipal park with urban wilderness in the United States and
24 includes a number of notable landmarks, including the world famous Hollywood Sign, the Los Angeles

25 Zoo, and the Greek Theatre.

19. In 2009, the City designated Griffith Park as Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument
26
No. 942, protecting the Park under state and local historic-protection laws. The designation specifically
27
includes the Beachwood Canyon entrance to Griffith Park as a historically significant feature,
28
describing it as the beginning of the iconic Hollyridge Trail.

-4-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 20. The Beachwood Canyon gate, formerly a single-swing style gate, has for most of the
1
Parks history served as an access point for pedestrians and vehicles into the Park.
2
21. Sunset Ranch, a business offering horse rides and lodging holds an access easement for
3
its customers, boarders, and employees on the paved road accessed through the Beachwood Canyon
4 Gate.
5 22. Until the City closed the Beachwood Canyon Gate on April 18, 2017 (except during the
6 construction period), pedestrians have always been able to enter Griffith Park and the Sunset Ranch
7 Stables via the paved road at the end of Beachwood Canyon. It is furthermore undisputed that the

8 public used this route and the various paths thereon before 1972, so an implied dedication may have
occurred, with the public further acquiring prescriptive rights over relevant stretches.
9
23. In 2001, the City improved pedestrian access from the Beachwood Canyon Gate,
10
building an access trail connecting the Hollyridge Trail directly to the paved road leading into Griffith
11
Park and Sunset Ranch.
12
24. On March 5, 2014, the Citys Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners voted to
13 improve the Beachwood Canyon Gate by removing the existing single-swing gate and installing new
14 fencing, gates, and sidewalks. This action included installation of a brand-new, 4-feet-wide by 8-feet-
15 high, tubular-steel single pedestrian gate, and an 8-feet-high by 23-feet-wide, tubular-steel vehicular
16 gate, and a secured-access system, all paid for using taxpayer funds.

17 25. The new Beachwood Canyon Gate was reopened for hikers and pedestrians in January
of 2015 and allowed public access, as well as vehicular access for customers, vendors, boarders, and
18
employees of Sunset Ranch.
19
26. The City is enmeshed in litigation with Sunset Ranch over its easement through the
20
Beachwood Canyon Gate. See Sunset Ranch Hollywood Stables, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
21 (LASC Case No. BC576506). In that case, Sunset Ranch sought injunctive relief and seeks monetary
22 damages against the city for pedestrians burdening parts of its easement.
23 27. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the right-of-way agreement did not give Sunset
24 Ranch exclusive use of the easement, but the court found that the City had unreasonably and unduly

25 interfered with it. The court granted in part Sunset Ranchs request for an injunction, ruling that [t]he
City of Los Angeles is preliminarily enjoined and ordered to provide public pedestrian access to the
26
Hollyridge Trail, at a location as closest [sic] to the start of the subject easement (i.e., the location
27
of the Beachwood gate, . . .) or at the pre-2001 access point (from Hollyridge Drive), as is
28
practicable. (emphasis added).

-5-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 28. After failing to prevail at this phase of the trial, the City rushed to settle the case. It and
1
Sunset Ranch filed a document entitled, Joint Stipulation for Order Re Request and Compliance with
2
Court Ruling (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, instead of providing the public access to the Hollyridge
3
Trail as close as possible to the easement (which the court had ordered, and which could have easily
4 been done), the parties agreed to close all pedestrian access through the Beachwood Canyon gate
5 permanently, and to channel traffic through another neighborhood. A true and correct copy of the
6 Stipulation is attached as Exhibit E.
7 29. The Stipulation contained a long list of demonstrable falsehoods and omissions,

8 including false statements about the closest access point and its distance from the Beachwood Gate,
misstatements and mischaracterizations about previous municipal actions regarding the gate,
9
misleading statements about the capacity and impacts at the next available access point, and a variety of
10
other troubling errors and omissions.
11
30. After becoming aware of this collusive and misleading stipulation, the Petitioners here
12
sought to intervene in the existing proceeding. At oral argument, the Honorable Elizabeth Feffer
13 several times expressed dismay at the above seriousness of the facts and allegations. However, she
14 suggested the Petitioners file this mandamus action instead of being granted the right to intervene, since
15 their presence could delay the upcoming damages phase in the existing case, and because her
16 courtroom was not allowed to hear Petitioners CEQA claims nor grant Petitioners request for a writ of

17 mandate against the City, which forms the major parts of this suit.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
(Violation of the City Charter)
19
(California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
20
31. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
21 herein.
22 32. Los Angeles City Charter section 591(a) exclusively grants the Citys Board of
23 Recreation and Parks Commissioners the power to control all recreation and park sites.
24 33. Charter section 594(c) states that All lands heretofore or hereafter set apart or dedicated

25 as a public park shall forever remain for the use of the public inviolate.
34. Griffith Park and the Beachwood Canyon Gate are recreation and park sites.
26
35. The Citys closure of pedestrian access to Griffith Park through the Beachwood Canyon
27
Gate is inconsistent with the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners March 5, 2014, decision to
28

-6-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 improve the Beachwood Canyon Gate with a 4-feet-wide by 8-feet-high, tubular steel single pedestrian
1
gate, and is inconsistent with prior actions of the Board.
2
36. Any action to determine access points to Griffith Park is legislative in character and
3
requires action by the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners in a noticed, public meeting
4 which did not occur here.
5 37. Moreover, the park land on which the Beachwood entrance is located was previously set
6 apart and dedicated to the public, for public use. The Citys action violates section 594(c) of the
7 Charter, likely per se, and certainly in spirit.

8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violations of the City General Plan, Hollywoodland Specific Plan, etc.)
9
(California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
10
38. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
11
herein.
12
39. The Citys General Plans Framework Element, Health & Wellness Element, Open
13 Space Element, Conservation Element, Hollywood Community Plan, Hollywoodland Specific Plan and
14 other portions apply to Griffith Park.
15 40. The Hollywoodland Specific Plan, Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 168,121, is a
16 governing land-use document adopted by the City to regulate land use and development decisions in

17 and around the Hollywoodland area in the City.

41. The Hollywoodland Specific Plan specifically depicts Beachwood Canyon and the
18
Hollyridge Trail as access points to Griffith Park, open to the public.
19
42. The Citys decision to close pedestrian access through the Beachwood Canyon Gate is
20
inconsistent with the Hollywoodland Specific Plans designation of Hollywoodland as an access to
21 Griffith Park and is inconsistent with the city's General Plan.
22 43. Amending a plan requires the City to follow the process set forth in the Los Angeles
23 Municipal Code. It was not followed here.
24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (Violation of City's Historic Preservation Ordinances)

(California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
26
44. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
27
herein.
28
45. Section 22.171.14 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code requires that no Los Angeles

-7-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 Historic-Cultural Monument will be substantially altered without approval and findings of fact from the
1
Citys Cultural Heritage Commission.
2
46. Griffith Park is designated by the City as Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument No.
3
942 (Historic Designation).
4 47. The Historic Designation specifically delineates pedestrian access through the
5 Beachwood Canyon Gate as an historic feature of Griffith Park.
6 48. Pedestrian access through the Beachwood Canyon Gate was closed without approval
7 from the Citys Cultural Heritage Commission, in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Environmental Quality Act -- California Public Resources Code 21100, et seq)
9
(California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
10
49. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
11
herein.
12
50. CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the potentially significant
13 environmental impacts of their actions, and then to avoid or mitigate those impacts if feasible.
14 51. CEQA applies to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by
15 public agencies. Public Resources Code (PRC) 21080; 14 Cal. Code of Regulations (CCR)
16 15002. A discretionary project is an agency action involving an agency directly undertaking, financing

17 or approving an action that requires judgment or deliberation rather than merely determining whether
or not an action conforms with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. 14 CCR 15357.
18
52. The City took a discretionary action to close pedestrian access to Griffith Park through
19
the Beachwood Canyon Gate, one that the City itself in its legal filings describes as a discretionary
20
decision, without any environmental review whatsoever under CEQA.
21 53. The Citys decision to halt pedestrian access from Beachwood Canyon has had adverse
22 environmental impacts, channeling massive traffic to the Canyon Drive entrance to Griffith Park, past
23 schools, playgrounds, and onto a small, dusty parking lot, in an area of substantial wildlife, including
24 endangered species. The environmental effects of the Citys closure of the Beachwood Canyon Gate

25 should have been disclosed to the public and minimized through environmental mitigation in the CEQA
process.
26
54. At a minimum, the decision should have been debated in a noticed, public meeting,
27
providing the public its opportunity to be heard, which is a basic tenet and purpose of CEQA.
28
55. The Citys decision is plainly in violation of California law.

-8-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
(Gift of Public Funds; Violation of the California Constitution and Municipal Provisions
2
Prohibiting the Same)
3
(Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 526(a), 1085, or 1094.5)
4 56. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
5 herein.
6 57. Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution, and other provisions in state and
7 local law prohibit the giving or lending of public funds.

8 58. Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a) allows any taxpayer to enforce these principles
in a representative capacity. Petitioners are doing so.
9
59. In permanently halting pedestrian access from Beachwood Canyon, the City has made a
10
gift of public funds to Sunset Ranch. The gate and the right of way now do not serve a public purpose
11
and provide no public benefit. Moreover, Sunset Ranch is actually operating the gate city property,
12
paid for by taxpayer funds for its exclusive use and its exclusive benefit.
13 60. This was also an improper gift of Quimby Act funds under California Government Code
14 66477 et seq. Such funds must be expended to serve the recreational needs of the residents within a
15 two-mile radius. The closure of a popular trailhead is the opposite of serving these recreational needs.
16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17 (Improper Transfer of Municipal Land, in Violation of the Los Angeles City Charter and
Administrative Code)
18
(Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
19
61. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
20
herein.
21 62. The Los Angeles City Charter prohibits the use of parkland for any purpose other than
22 public use. Los Angeles City Charter 594(d) states that No sites under the management and control
23 of the department shall be devoted or transferred to any other purpose in whole or in part, except in
24 compliance with all of the following: and then details a long list of criteria and procedures that were

25 not followed or even attempted here.

63. Los Angeles City Charter section 385 governs transfers of real property. Generally, such
26
transfers must be approved by the City Council.
27
64. The Los Angeles Administrative Code sections 7.21 7.27, among others, list the
28
requirements that must be followed by the city when ceding control over even small pieces of

-9-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 municipal property, also known as remnant properties. This includes obtaining an appraisal and
1
offering the property first to other city departments.
2
65. The City has ceded public rights of way and pieces of a public park, however small, to a
3
private entity. But the City did not follow any of the applicable legal requirements to do so.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Provisions on Land Use)
6 (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
7 66. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth

8 herein.
67. Zoning provisions exist to delineate the zones and uses permissible in and at designated
9
areas and sites within a city. Changing those zones and uses requires a process. Sections 12.24 and
10
12.27 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and various other code provisions set forth the requirements
11
for the city granting conditional-use permits and variances.
12
68. Other municipal code provisions specify the procedures for allowing concessionaires
13 and licensees to operate on city land or to expand said operations.
14 69. The Citys actions changed the use and effectively re-zoned the land in and around the
15 Beachwood Canyon Gate and Hollyridge trailhead from parkland to commercial.
16 70. Furthermore, allowing a private party to act as a de facto gatekeeper, or to operate city

17 equipment (including a gate and security features) on city property is akin to a conditional use, a
variance, or a concession agreement.
18
71. Authorizing Sunset Ranch to change its business model and to exclude the public,
19
despite the publics long-established explicit and prescriptive rights, is also akin to a change in use or
20
variance, or a change to Sunset Ranch's license.
21 72. The City did not follow any of the procedures set forth in the code that governs the
22 above actions.
23 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Violation of City Charter, Ultra Vires Acts by the City Attorney)

25 (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)

73. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
26
herein.
27
74. Section 271 of the City Charter outlines the powers and duties of the City Attorney. It
28
does not grant him the powers exercised by the Stipulation.

-10-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 75. Sections 272 and 273 of the City Charter set forth the principles governing settlements
1
of matters being litigated. Section 272(a) requires the approval of the full council as a client in matters,
2
like here, involving land use. Section 273(c) states that the Council shall have the authority to settle
3
litigated matters only by a public vote, after the people of the city of Los Angeles have an opportunity
4 to make their voices heard.
5 76. The Citys closure of pedestrian access to Griffith Park through Beachwood Canyon
6 exceeded the authority of the City Attorney and did not receive approval from the City Council.
7 77. In any event, the City Attorney has no authority to exempt the City or a private party

8 from state law or the municipal code, has no authority to make legislative determinations, and has no
authority to bypass CEQA and other public-meeting requirements.
9
78. Therefore, the Citys actions were ultra vires, outside of the authority of the City
10
Attorney, inconsistent with the City Charter and state law.
11
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
(Violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government 54950, et seq, and local open-
13 meeting rules)
14 (California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 or 1094.5)
15 79. Petitioners reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
16 herein.

17 80. The Ralph M. Brown Act, Cal. Government Code 54950, et seq, requires noticed,
open meetings for most major legislative or quasi-legislative actions.
18
81. The Citys closure of pedestrian access to Griffith Park from Beachwood Canyon, its
19
decisions to channel traffic to other access points, and its actions that affect land use, zoning, and
20
planning, were all legislative in character.
21 82. Such decisions must be made in noticed meetings, where the public has the opportunity
22 to be heard. By making these decisions privately, the city violated the Brown Act.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment as set forth below:
25 A. For a writ of mandate commanding Respondent to return to the status quo ante -- re-
26 opening the Beachwood Canyon access point to Griffith Park -- until Respondents comply with the
27 California Constitution, Los Angeles City Charter, Los Angeles Municipal Code, Los Angeles
28 Administrative Code, California Environmental Quality Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act;

-11-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
 1 B. For a temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent
2 injunctions enjoining Respondent and Real Parties in Interest, and their agents, employees, officers, or
3 representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with Real Parties in Interest, from
4 taking any action closing pedestrian access from Beachwood Canyon into Griffith Park; and to require
5 Respondents to comply with the California Constitution, City of Los Angeles City Charter, City of Los
6 Angeles Municipal Code, City of Los Angeles Administrative Code, California Environmental Quality
7 Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act;

8 C. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties hereto, including, but not limited to, a

9 declaratory judgment that Respondent violated its duties under California Constitution, Los Angeles

10 City Charter, Los Angeles Municipal Code, Los Angeles Administrative Code, California

11 Environmental Quality Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act;

12 D. For petitioners fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs, as authorized

13 by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and any other applicable provisions of law; and

14 E. For such other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

15
Dated: July 17, 2017 MITCHELL M. TSAI, ATTORNEY AT LAW
16
17 By: ____________________________
MITCHELL M. TSAI
18
19 Dated: July 17, 2017 ACTIUM LLP

20
By: ____________________________
21 MICHAEL A. GATTO

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-12-
VERIFIED PET. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL. AND INJUNC. RELIEF
EXHIBIT A
 P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
e
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
350 West Colorado Boulevard
Suite 225
Pasadena, California 91106

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

July 14, 2017

Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk

200 North Spring Street
City Hall Room 360
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Em: CityClerk@lacity.org

RE: Notice of Intent to File Suit Under the California Environmental Quality Act
Regarding The Closure Of The Beachwood Canyon Entrance To Griffith Park.

Dear Ms. Wolcott:

This Office is writing on behalf of the Friends of Griffith Park, Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust
and the Los Feliz Oaks Homeowners Association (collectively Petitioners), regarding the City of
Los Angeles March 13, 2017 Joint Stipulation for Order Re Request and Compliance with Court
Ruling in Sunset Ranch Hollywood Stables Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (LASC Case No. BC576506) which
agreed to close pedestrian access through the Beachwood Canyon entrance to Griffith Park and the
Citys subsequent closure of the Beachwood Canyon entrance to Griffith Park on or about April 18,
2017 (Project).

Please take notice, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) 21167.5, that Petitioners intend to
file a Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief (Petition) under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., against Defendant City of Los Angeles ( City)
challenging the unlawful actions taken by the City on March 13, 2017 and April 18, 2017 in (1)
approving the Project and (2) failing to prepare a CEQA document for the Project.

The petition being filed will seek the following relief:

A. A judgment determining or declaring that the City failed to comply fully with
CEQA and that its approval without public comment and an environmental
assessment is illegal, at least in some respect, thereby rending the approval void.

B. A judgment determining or declaring that the City must comply fully with CEQA
with respect to the Project before the Project may lawfully be approved.

C. For a temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent
injunctions enjoining the City, and their agents, employees, officers or
representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with from taking
Griffith Park Beachwood Canyon Notice of Intent
July 14, 2017
Page 2 of 3

any action to implement the approval, unless and until Respondent fully complies
with CEQA.

D. A writ of mandate ordering the City to restore pedestrian access to the Beachwood
Canyon entrance to Griffith Park and to comply fully with CEQA with respect to
the approval before any action on any aspect of, in furtherance of, or otherwise
based on the approval may commence or continue.

E. Any and all other relief that may be authorized by CEQA but is not explicitly or
specifically requested elsewhere in this Prayer.

F. All attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by Plaintiff in connection with
this proceeding.

G. Any and all other relief that may be authorized by law or equity

H. Any further relief that this Court may deem appropriate.

Petitioners urges the City to rescind the approval for the Project and prepare the appropriate CEQA
document for this Project as required by law.

Very Truly Yours,

__________________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Friends of Griffith Park,
Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust and the
Los Feliz Oaks Homeowners Association
Griffith Park Beachwood Canyon Notice of Intent
July 14, 2017
Page 3 of 3

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Leon Ramsey, Jr., declare as follows:

I am a resident of the State of California, and employed in Pasadena, California. I am over the age of
18 years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is: 350 West Colorado
Boulevard, Suite 225, Pasadena, California 91105

On July 14, 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing document(s) entitled:

Notice of Intent to File Suit Under the California Environmental Quality Act Regarding The
Closure Of The Beachwood Canyon Entrance To Griffith Park.

on the following parties:

Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk

200 North Spring Street
City Hall Room 360
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Em: CityClerk@lacity.org

__ By depositing a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope with the United States Postal
Service with postage fully prepaid as well as by electronic service, via either electronic
transmission or notification.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct, and that this declaration was executed July 14, 2017 at Pasadena, California.

________________________
Leon Ramsey, Jr.
EXHIBIT B
 MITCHELL M. TSAI (Cal. Bar No. 277156)
1
MITCHELL M. TSAI, ATTORNEY AT LAW
2 350 West Colorado Boulevard, Suite 225
Pasadena, California 91105
3 Ph: (626) 381 9248
Fx: (626) 389 5414
4 Em: info@mitchtsailaw.com
5
MICHAEL A. GATTO (Cal. Bar No. 232674)
6 ACTIUM LLP
5419 Hollywood Boulevard
7 Suite C-356
8 Los Angeles, CA 90027
Ph: (323) 819 0300
9 Em: mike@actiumllp.com
10 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
11 FRIENDS OF GRIFFITH PARK, GRIFFITH J. GRIFFITH CHARITABLE TRUST & LOS FELIZ
OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14
FRIENDS OF GRIFFITH PARK; GRIFFITH J. CASE NO.:
15 GRIFFITH CHARITABLE TRUST, and LOS
FELIZ OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
16
17 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, Dept:
v.
18 California State Constitution, City of Los Angeles
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-10, City Charter; City of Los Angeles Municipal Code;
19 City of Los Angeles Administrative Code;
20 Respondents and Defendants. California Environmental Quality Act. California
________________________________________ Public Resources Code 21100, et seq; Ralph M.
21 Brown Act, California Government 54950, et
SUNSET RANCH HOLLYWOOD STABLES seq.
22 INC; and ROES 1-10,
23
Real Parties in Interest.
24
25
26
27
28

NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

 1 To the Attorney General of the State of California:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure 388,
3 that on May 23, 2017, Petitioner and Plaintiff FRIENDS OF GRIFFITH PARK; GRIFFITH J.
4 GRIFFITH CHARITABLE TRUST, and LOS FELIZ OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, filed
5 a Verified Petition For Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against
6
Respondents and Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; and DOES 1-
7
10; and Real Parties in Interest SUNSET RANCH HOLLYWOOD STABLES INC.; and ROES 1 10.
8
The Petition alleges, inter alia, violations of the California State Constitution, City of Los Angeles City
9
Charter, City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, City of Los Angeles Administrative Code, California
10
Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code 21100, et seq; and the Ralph M.
11
Brown Act, California Government 54950, et seq. in connection with the Citys closure of
12
pedestrian access to the Beachwood Canyon Gate in Griffith Park (Beachwood Canyon) following a
13
private settlement in Sunset Ranch Hollywood Stables Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (LASC Case
14
15 No. BC576506) In violation of CEQA, the State Public Resources Code, the Los Angeles Municipal

16 Code, and the Los Angeles City Charter.

17 A copy of the Petition is attached as Exhibit A.

18 DATED: July 17, 2017, MITCHELL M. TSAI, ATTORNEY AT LAW

19
20 By: ____________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1-
NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
 PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 I, Leon Ramsey, Jr., being duly sworn, deposes and says:

3 I am a citizen of the United States and work in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the
age of eighteen years and am not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 350 West
4 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 225, Pasadena, California 91105. I served this list of persons with the
5 following document(s) on July 17, 2017:

6 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

7 The document(s) was served on:
8
By having a process server hand deliver a true copy thereof to the following persons:
9
Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk Michael S. Kaplan, Los Angeles City Attorney
10 200 North Spring Street James K. Hahn City Hall East, Suite 800
11 City Hall Room 360 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Em: Michael.Kaplan@lacity.org
12 Em: CityClerk@lacity.org
13
14 And by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in
the United States mail at Pasadena, California addressed as set forth below.
15
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General
16 Office of Attorney General
17 ATTN: CEQA Filing
300 S. Spring Street
18 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230

19 I declare under penalty of perjury, according to the laws of the State of California, that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.

21 Executed this July 17, 2017, at Pasadena, California.

22
_______________________
23
Leon Ramsey Jr.
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 I, Marian Dodge, am President of Friends of Griffith Park, a Petitioner and Plaintiff in this
2 action. I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED
3 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
4 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know its contents. The facts alleged therein are within my own knowledge
5 and I know these facts to be true, except as stated, on information and belief.
6
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
7
true and correct.
8
17
Executed on July _____, Los Angeles California.
2017 at __________,
9
10 ___________________________
11 Marian Dodge, President
FRIENDS OF GRIFFITH PARK
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT