The case filed in resistance against the city of Santa Monica’s failure to proceed according to law by improperly noticing meetings held regarding Village Trailer Park
Case No. BC 485472
1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/PROHIBITION AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, FOR FAILURE TO PROCEED AS REQUIRED BY LAW BY: (1) GIVING UNLAWFUL NOTICE OF A MEETING WHERE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;(2) NOT ACKNOWLEDGING IN THE NOTICE, STAFF REPORT, OR ADVICE OF COUNSEL GIVEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT A PERMIT TO REMOVE CURRENT RENT-CONTROLLED HOUSING UNITS AT THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COULD BE APPROVED INVOLVING CLOSURE OF THE PARK;(3) NOT USING THE PROPER STATE STATUTE ON TENANT IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION REQUIRED IN THE SUBJECT CIRCUMSTANCES,WHERE A DEVELOPER, NOT THE CITY, IS ASKING FOR CHANGE OF USE OF A MOBILEHOME PARK; (4) REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY’S CONSPIRING WITH DEVELOPERS TO HAVE CITY EMPLOYEES OFFER RELOCATION FEES TO CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE PARK ON THE DEVELOPERS’ BEHALF, KNOWING IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DO SO UNDER THE CITY’S OWN RELOCATION FEE LAW, TO PETITIONERS’ IRREPARABLE HARM IN BEING LEFT WITH LESS SUPPORT IN FIGHTING THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY OF CITY AND DEVELOPERS; (5) ENCOURAGING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE A SERIES OF EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO PETITIONERS AND THE REST OF THE PUBLIC THAT SUCH EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS WERE BEING HELD, WITHOUT A RECORD SO MISREPRESENTATIONS COULD BE ANSWERED AND/OR FURTHER UNLAWFUL BEHAVIORS SUCH AS BRIBERY COULD BE PROSECUTED, AND WITHOUT NOTICE THAT PETITIONERS AND THE PUBLIC HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EQUALLY PARTICIPATE IN SUCH DISCUSSIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE LAWFUL, IF THEY WERE AT ALL; AND (6) ADVISING THE PLANNING COMMIS-SION TO ADVISE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOP-MENT AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN.
(C.C.P. §§ 525 et seq. and 1060, 1021.5, and 1085 et seq.; Civ. C. § 798.56(g); Gov’t C. §§ 800 and 66427.4, Santa Monica Charter, §§ 1800 et seq. and §§ 2300 et seq., Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.36.020(a)(3) and 4.56.010; California Constitution, Article 1, section 3.).
Defendants are: RICHARD BLOOM, as Mayor of the City of Santa Monica; ROBERT HOLBROOK,as a City Council Member of the City of Santa Monica; GLEAM DAVIS, as a City Council Member of the City of Santa Monica; PAM O’CONNOR, as a City Council Member of the City of Santa Monica; TERRY O’DAY, as a City Council Member of the City of Santa Monica; BOBBY SHRIVER, as a City Council Member of the City of Santa Monica;MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE,as the City Attorney For the City of Santa Monica; THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a Charter City of the State of California; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners are: BRENDA BARNES, an Individual; PETER R.NAUGHTON, an Individual;
Read document