4
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) 822-7028 Email: noelweiss@ca.rr.com
5
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
1
2 3
CONFORMED COpy
ORIGINAL FILED
Superior Court of CallfOmla County of Los AnaelEl6
OCT 31 2013 Sherri A. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
By Annette Fajardo, Deputy
6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 10 11 12 13
SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE, a nonprofit ) CASE NO. BS 142388 California corporation; SANDY BROWN, an~ [Assigned to the Honorable individual; HARALD HAHN, an individual; ) James C. Chalfant - Dept. 85J ) Petitioners,
) SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; ~ TAXPAYERS' INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ) DECLARATORY RELIEF CALIFORNIA, a public corporation; and ) DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, ~ [CCP ยง1085; CCP ยง1094.5; CCP ) ยง526a; CCP ยง1060] Respondents. vs.
14 15 16 17 18
!
19 20
Action Filed: April 3, 2013 Trial Date: None Set
-------------------------~ 21
22 23
24
25 26 27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, Injunctive & Declaratory Relief Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California. et al. - Case No. 85142388
1 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. PETITIONERS allege that REGENTS has a non-discretionary, mandatory
3
duty under UCOP-72 ("Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises"); UCOP BFB-A-61
4
("Unrelated Business Income and Expenses"); UCOP A-59 ("Costing and Working
5
Capital for Auxiliary and Service Enterprises"); and UCOP-A-56.H ("Academic Support
6
Unit Costing and Billing Guidelines") (i) to remit Transient Operating Taxes (TOT) and
7
all other local taxes owing to the City of Los Angeles (a Charter City) on account of
8
REGENTS operation of the (1) Tiverton Hotel (100 hotel rooms); (2) UCLA Guest
9
House Hotel (61 hotel rooms); (3) Courtside Collection (100 hotel rooms); and (4)
10
various student dormitories on the UCLA Campus which UCLA operates as hotels open
11
to the public during the summer months; (ii) to register all UCLA Hotels with the City of
12
Los Angeles, (iii) to report and pay all Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) owing to
13
the IRS on account of the provision of hotel, catering, and restaurant services in
14
connection with the REGENTS current hotel operations on the UCLA Campus, (iv) to
15
limit sales and services provided to non-members at all UCLA owned and operated
16
hotels to less than ten percent of gross revenues, and to (v) complete the annual
17
Nonfinancial Questionnaire mandated by UCOP BFB-A-61 reflective of its current hotel
18
operations. PETITIONERS seek a writ of (traditional) mandate under Code of Civil
19
Procedure ยง1085 and an injunction directing respondent REGENTS!o
20
discretionary mandatory duties under the foregoing UC Operating Policies, as more
21
particularly alleged herein in Paragraphs 11 and 16-18.
abide by all non-
22
2. PETITIONERS further allege that in its evaluation of the LUSKIN
23
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT, REGENTS violated the non-
24
discretionary, mandatory duties to which REGENTS are required to adhere under
25
UCOP-BUS 72 ("Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises");
26
("Unrelated Business Income and Expenses'); UCOP-BFB-A-59
27
Capital for Auxiliary and Service Enterprises');
UCOP-BFB-A-61 ("Costing and Working
UCOP-A-56 ("Academic Support Unit
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388 - 1-
1
Costing and Billing Guidelines''); UCOP-55 ("Determination of Financial Feasibility of
2
Projects Requiring Loan Financing"); and "UC Transporiation Systems and Parking
3
Principles" dated April 17, 2002; all as more particularly alleged in Paragraphs 12, and.
4
22-28 below. In so doing, PETITIONERS allege that by approving a hotel, public
5
restaurant, conference center, and commercial catering operation in violation of
6
established policies, procedures, and non-discretionary mandates, REGENTS are
7
wasting public funds, violating its fiduciary obligations under the Public Trust Doctrine,
8
and are not safeguarding the public interest. PETITIONERS also allege that part or all
9
of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT as proposed
10
constitutes an unlawful auxiliary enterprise which is ultra vires in that REGENTS lack
11
the power under the California Constitution, its Articles of Incorporation, and By-Laws to
12
own and operate a commercial hotel, public restaurant, or commercial catering facility
13
on the UCLA campus.
14 15
JURISDICTION 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this writ action pursuant to CCP §1 085 and
16
CCP §526a (as to the First Cause of Action - REGENTS Ministerial Duty to Report To
17
City of LA All Taxable Receipts on Hotel Operations and to Operate UCLA Campus
18
Hotels in a Manner Consistent with Public Trust Doctrine, UC Articles, By-Laws, and
19
Current UC Policies); CCP §526a, CCP §1085 and CCP §1094.5 (asto Second Cause
20
of Action - REGENTS Failure to Abide by its Policies in Approving the LUSKIN
21
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT); and CCP §1060 and CCP §526a
22
(Third Cause of Action - Declaratory Relief).
23
THE PARTIES
24
4. Petitioner SANDY BROWN is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, a
25
taxpayer, and a registered voter who owns real property in the City of Los Angeles. As
26
such, she is aggrieved and possesses a beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondent
27
REGENTS reports all taxes properly due and owing to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES on
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 142388
-2-
---------_
_
_ .
1
account of its commercial hotel operations on and off the UCLA Campus. As a resident
2
of the State of California, Petitioner also possesses a beneficial interest in seeing that
3
REGENTS do not waste or mismanage public funds, and that REGENTS at all times
4
operate lawfully. Petitioner further alleges that she brings this action as a private
5
attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ยง1 021.5 to vindicate her interests
6
and those of the taxpayers and citizens of the City of Los Angeles in the proper
7
implementation and administration of the City's laws and policies as they pertain to the
8
collection of all transit occupancy taxes and related taxes stemming from commercial
9
business operations within the boundaries of the CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
10
5. Petitioner HARALD HAHN, is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, a UCLA
11
graduate, and taxpayer and registered voter who owns real property in the City of Los
12
Angeles. As such, he is aggrieved and possesses a beneficial interest in ensuring that
13
Respondent REGENTS reports all taxes properly due and owing to the CITY OF LOS
14
ANGELES on account of the REGENTS' commercial hotel operations on the UCLA
15
Campus. As a resident of the State of California, Petitioner also possesses a beneficial
16
interest in seeing that REGENTS do not waste or mismanage public funds, and that
17
REGENTS at all times operate lawfully. Petitioner further alleges that he brings this
18
action as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ยง1021.5 to
19
vindicate his interests and those of the taxpayers and citizens of the City of Los Angeles
20
in the proper implementation and administration of the City's laws and policies as they
21
pertain to the collection of all transient occupancy taxes and related taxes stemming
22
from commercial business operations within the boundaries of the CITY OF LOS
23
ANGELES.
24
6. PETITIONER SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE is a California non-profit
25
corporation formed in 1997. PETITIONER is a taxpayer. PETITIONER is a business-
26
community alliance in the Westwood and West Los Angeles area which possesses a
27
beneficial interest in seeing that REGENTS do not waste or mismanage public funds,
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California. et al - BS 142388 - 3-
1
and that REGENTS at all times operate lawfully. PETITIONER further alleges that it
2
brings this action as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
3
ยง1021.5 to vindicate its interests and those of the taxpayers and citizens of the City of
4
Los Angeles in the proper implementation and administration of the City's laws and
5
policies as they pertain to the collection of all transient occupancy taxes and related
6
taxes stemming from commercial business operations within the boundaries of the CITY
7
OF LOS ANGELES. PETITIONER'S
8
Westwood Village and enhance the quality of life of the residents of Westwood in part
9
by encouraging responsible and lawful development of infill properties located in
mission is to promote quality revitalization in
10
Westwood and West Los Angeles, and ensuring that fair competition obtains between
11
commercial projects within Westwood and West Los Angeles. PETITIONER'S attention
12
and resources are also directed to educating and informing the local residents about all
13
issues which impact their neighborhood including, but not limited to, local development
14
and environmental issues. PETITIONER has successfully advocated for historic
15
preservation in Westwood, saved the Westwood municipal garage from sale by the City
16
of Los Angeles, and preserved the rights of Westwood Village property owners against
17
attempts to alter street easement property rights. PETITIONER represents business
18
owners and taxpayers of the City of Los Angeles who will be adversely impacted by the
19
acts, decisions, and omissions of RESPONDENT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
20
CALIFORNIA. As such, PETITIONER is aggrieved and possesses a beneficial interest
21
in insuring that the decisions of RESPONDENT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
22
CALIFORNIA
be reversed and vacated.
23
7. RESPONDENT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNA
is a
24
political subdivision of the State of California, who owns the subject property on which
25
the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER is to be built and operated, and on
26
which four hotels are currently operating; and who, under Article IX, Section 9 of the
27
California Constitution, is given exclusive responsibility, as Trustee, for the operation
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et a!. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - 8S 142388
-4-
1
and administration of the public trust expressly identified as 'the University of California'
2
and its campuses, including UCLA. At present, UCLA possesses 70,000 square feet of
3
conference space, to which REGENTS propose to add another 25,000 square feet with
4
the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER (which is slated to include a 750
5
seat ballroom and a commercial catering kitchen) for a total of 95,000 square feet of
6
conference center space promoted and advertised to the public on paid websites such
7
as www.uniqueVenues.com,
8
website, and www.SmartMeetings.com.
www.UCLAconferenceservices.com.,
the LA City tourism
9
8. The true names and capacities of those parties named as DOES 1 through
10
20 are current unknown to PETITIONERS, who therefore name said Respondents by
11
their fictitious names. When their true names and identities have been ascertained,
12
PETITIONERS will amend this petition to allege the same. Petitioners are informed and
13
believe, and thereon allege, that each of these fictitiously named parties is responsible
14
in some way for the acts and omissions herein alleged; and further that each of the
15
Respondents was and is the agent or employee of each of the remaining Respondents;
16
and in doing the things alleged was, at all times, acting within the scope of that agency,
17
employment, permission, and consent.
18 19
PROPOSED LUSKIN CONFERENCE & GUEST CENTER 9. The proposed project contemplates the construction and op-eration of a hotel
20
on the campus of UCLA consisting of an 8 story 294,000 gross square feet structure
21
containing 250 guest rooms, a 25,000 square foot conference center, a 750 seat
22
banquet hall (slated as one of the largest banquet halls in Los Angeles), an independent
23
commercial catering kitchen, and associated support facilities with regard to the hotel's
24
operation. PETITIONERS allege that REGENTS' outside advisor (PKF) advised
25
REGENTS during the REGENTS deliberations over whether to approve the LUSKIN
26
CONFERENCE & GUEST CENTER that as many as forty percent of all conferees
27
using the LUSKIN CONFERENCE & GUEST CENTER will be non-university groups
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 5-
1
who would otherwise frequent the hotels in Westwood. The funding for the project's
2
construction and proposed operation emanates from five sources: (i) a $40 Million tax-
3
exempt gift from Meyer Luskin and Doreen Luskin, made in writing on December 23,
4
2010, to the UCLA Foundation who, in turn, has pledged the same $40 Million to the
5
project; (ii) $80 Million in tax-exempt bonds (two-thirds of the project's bond funding),
6
(iii) $32 Million in taxable bonds; (iv) $7.225 Million in tax-exempt UCLA Housing
7
Reserves to construct the commercial catering kitchen; and (v) $3.2 Million in campus
8
funds for the construction of Gateway Plaza. The repayment of all indebtedness
9
incurred for the benefit of the project is slated to come from the gross operating income
10
of the operations of the hotel, restaurant, catering kitchen, and conference facility. Any
11
losses stemming from the operation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST
12
CENTER are to be subsidized from tax-exempt Housing Reserve funds. PETITIONERS
13
contend the use of these funds as an indirect subsidy or loss reserve for the project
14
violates the guidance set out in the UCOP Capital Markets Finance Guide dated
15
February, 2011 (page 8) which precludes the use of tax-exempt funding for non-tax-
16
exempt purposes (in this case the tax-exempt purpose being the provision of student
17
housing; and the non-tax-exempt purpose to which the funds are being improperly
18
applied being the operation of a commercial hotel, banquet and catering operation, i.e.
19
the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER).
20
10. While REGENTS has the authority to establish and operate "auxiliary
21
enterprises," such authority must be exercised in conformance with adopted UC and
22
UCLA tax and financial policies which have the force of law. A hotel owned and
23
operated by REGENTS is not a tax-exempt activity when the room rental includes the
24
provision of maid and linen services. Such hotel operations are subject to mandatory
25
reporting and payment of UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax) to the IRS, and local
26
transient occupancy taxes to the City of Los Angeles pursuant to UCOP BFB-A-S1, and
27
UCOP "Accounting
Manual: Taxes: Transient
Occupancy",
T-182-75."
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388 - 6-
1
RELEVANT UC POLICIES RE: UCLA CURRENT HOTEL
2
AND CATERING OPERATIONS
3
11. PETITIONERS seek a writ of mandate under CCP ยง1085 and a mandatory
4
injunction directing REGENTS to comply with the foregoing UC and UCLA Policies
5
which PETITIONERS allege were either not followed or completely ignored in
6
connection with UCLA'S current hotel and conference and catering operations:
7
a. UCOP-72 ("Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises");
8
b. UCOP BFB-A-61 ("Unrelated Business Income and Expenses");
9 10
11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27
c. UCOP A-59 ("Costing and Working Capital for Auxiliary and Service Enterprises") ; d. UCOP-A-56.H ("Academic Support Unit Costing & Billing Guidelines"); RELEVANT UC POLICIES RE: LUSKIN CONFERENCE & GUEST CENTER 12. PETITIONERS also seek a writ of mandate directing the REGENTS to review and reconsider its decision to approve the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT and in connection with that review and reconsideration, follow the ministerial, non-discretionary duties required of REGENTS under the UC Policies noted below, including the duty to evaluate the financial viability of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT in accordance with al/ of the following University of California Office of the President Operating Policies which PETITIONERS allege were either not followed, or completely ignored despite the fact that said policies are the functional equivalent of statutory law, and despite the fact that PETITIONERS had raised these concerns during the approval process and provided expert analysis by HVS Consultants in support of the contention that the project was not economically viable as proposed: I. CORE POLICIES: a. UCOP BUS-72, "Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises;" b. UCOP BFB-A-61, "Unrelated Business Income and Expenses;"
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
-7-
1 2
c. UCOP BFB-A-59, "Costing and Working Capital for Auxiliary and Service Enterprises; "
3
d. UCOP-A-56, "Academic Support Unit Costing and Billing Guidelines;"
4
e. UCOP BUS-55, "Determination of Financial Feasibility of Projects
5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
Requiring Loan Financing;" f. "Transportation
Systems and Parking Program Principles," April 17,
2002; Office of the Senior Vice President, Business and Finance, II. DIRECTIVES IMPLEMENTING g. UC Accounting
CORE POLICIES:
Manual, "Transient Occupancy Taxes, T-182-75;"
h. "Procedures for Identifying
Unrelated Business Activities
the University of California, UC Nonfinancial
Carried on at
Questionnaire;"
November 4, 2011 (UC UBIT Review Guidelines) - Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, University of California; i. UCOP "Capital Finance Guide, February, 2011;" j. UC Accounting
Manual, "Taxes: Local Telecommunication
Taxes, T-182-25;"
17 k UCOP A-56, "Academic Support Unit Costing and Billing Guidelines;" 18 THE CALCULATION
OF THE WASTE OF PUBLIC FUNDS ATTENDANT TO THE
19 UNLAWFUL DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LUSKIN CONFERENCE & GUEST CENTER
20 21
22
13. The LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER which the REGENTS approved on July 17, 2012 (Budget Approval), and September 11, 2012 (Certification of EIR), involves the construction and operation of a hotel on the UCLA campus, at a cost
23 of $162 Million in combined public and private funding. The hotel and hotel amenities 24 constitute unlawful auxiliary enterprises because hotel, restaurant, and catering services
25 are to be provided to non-members (the general public) at a level far beyond that which 26 can reasonably be deemed to be 'incidental' as described in the CAPITAL MARKETS 27 FINANCE GUIDE dated February, 2011. PETITIONERS allege that the mandatory,
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 8-
1
non-discretionary duties imposed upon REGENTS under the UCOP operating policies
2
noted above were completely ignored by REGENTS; and that this failure contravenes
3
the REGENTS' ministerial duty to follow all UCOP policies at all times, most especially
4
UCOP Policy A-56, since UCLA's hotels directly compete with local hotels. As alleged
5
in greater detail herein, had the UCOP policies been followed by the REGENTS in its
6
evaluation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER the obligation to pay
7
all transient occupancy taxes (hotel and parking), utility taxes, business license taxes,
8
property taxes, telecommunications
9
(UBIT) would have been taken into account. In addition, the analysis would have
taxes, and federal unrelated business income taxes
10
included a complete evaluation of the amount of compensation owing to the UCLA
11
Parking Services Division for the loss of 754 parking spaces, which PETITIONERS
12
allege is a minimum of $23,000,000.
13
'Finding' that UCOP-A-56 was followed, which 'Finding' would also have set forth the
14
precise reasons why the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER does not
15
compete with the local hotels in the Westwood area. As a result of the REGENTS
16
unlawful conduct in failing to undertake its ministerial duty to follow the foregoing UCOP
17
and UCLA policies, there has and will continue to be a waste of public funds in excess
18
of $51 Million as noted on Exhibit "AI! attached hereto and incorporated by reference,
19
and summarized as follows:
20
Moreover, REGENTS would have made a specific
(i) $23 Million owing to UCLA Parking Services Department to compensate the
21
University for destruction of Lot 6 (a University asset) and the loss of the 754
22
parking spaces it contains (which sum REGENTS have failed to include in
23
the project's financial projections in contravention of REGENTS' having a
24
mandatory, non-discretionary duty to have done so as noted in paragraph 25
25
below);
26
(ii) $19.2 Million reflective of interest payable on the construction loan for three
27
years which was not shown on the expense estimates for the project;
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 9-
1
(iii) $1.9 Million in interest owing on back-up financing in the amount of $35
2
Million to be utilized in the event the full Luskin Pledge is not paid;
3 4 5 6 7
(iv) $394,000 in Traffic Mitigation Fees owing to the City of Los Angeles, but not shown on the expense pro-forma; (v) $2.8 Million in UBIT Taxes reportable for the first year of the Hotel's operation of a public hotel and restaurant; (vi) UBIT Taxes owing for revenues anticipated to be received by the UCLA
8
Catering Kitchen operating out of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST
9
CENTER (currently unknown);
10
(vii) $1.85 Million owing to the State Board of Equalization on account of property
11
taxes owing for property which is not used exclusively for educational
12
purposes, such as a public restaurant;
13 14
(viii) $1.6 Million reportable and owing to the City of Los Angeles for transient and hotel occupancy taxes;
15
(ix) $100,000 for the LA City Phone Tax and Utility Tax;
16
(x) $86,000 in parking taxes owed to the City of Los Angeles (on account of
17
revenue earned from the operation of the hotel's parking garage sales to
18
non-members);
19
(xi) $481,254 in Gross Receipts tax (1.27 percent) due and payable to the City
20
of Los Angeles based on the income received from the operation of the
21
public restaurant and hotel (to the extent the hotel's clientele includes non-
22
members of the University whose use of the hotel is neither substantially,
23
nor directly related to teaching or research); and
24 25
(xii) Gross Receipts tax (amount unknown) owing to the City of Los Angeles on account of the operation of the commercial catering kitchen.
26 27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California. et al - BS 142388
- 10-
1
14. PETITIONERS further contend that proper adherence by the REGENTS to
2
the foregoing ministerial duties, UC policies, and protocol for evaluating the financial
3
viability of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would have required
4
REGENTS to acknowledge that $6.8 Million of public funds will be wasted on
5
constructing the hotel garage due to an excessively high construction cost of
6
$84,800/space ($10.6 Million), when the indexed parking replacement cost is closer to
7
the UCLA Campus indexed replacement cost of $30,237/space ($3.8 Million for 125
8
spaces).
9
15. PETITIONERS contend that the unlawful diversion of tax exempt funds into a
10
non-exempt auxiliary-enterprise
11
possessed by either the REGENTS or the UCLA FOUNDATION under the public trust
12
doctrine enumerated in Article IX, ยง9 of the California Constitution. Accordingly, such
13
conduct (i) violates the terms of the tax-exempt bond indentures; (ii) jeopardizes the tax-
14
exempt status of REGENTS and therefore (ii) undermines the ability of all current or
15
past donors to REGENTS or the UCLA FOUNDATION (including Meyer Luskin and
16
Doreen Luskin) to lawfully deduct their contributions on their income tax, and the ability
17
of REGENTS and UCLA FOUNDATION to raise funds.
18
19 20
is ultra vires and outside the scope of the lawful powers
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Taxpayers' Action for Injunctive Relief under Code of Civil Procedure ยง526a & Code of Civil Procedure ยง1085 Relating to UCLA'S Current Hotel Operations) 16. PETITIONERS hereby refer to the allegations set out in Paragraphs 1
21
through 15 of the within Petition and incorporates the same herein by reference as
22
though plead in full.
23
17. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ยง526a, this Court has jurisdiction to
24
restrain or prevent any illegal expenditure, waste of funds of a governmental entity, or
25
destruction of public property. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ยง1 085, this Court
26
has jurisdiction to compel REGENTS, as Trustee, to perform the mandatory duties
27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a
Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388 - 11 -
1
attendant to its operation of the public trust identified in Article IX, ยง9 of the California
2
Constitution as the 'University of California'.
3
UC POLICIES RE: REGENTS CURRENT OPERATION OF HOTELS
4
ON THE UCLA CAMPUS
5
18. PETITIONERS allege that under By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation of the
6
University of California and the following policies, REGENTS have a non-discretionary,
7
mandatory duty to refrain from owning or operating commercial hotels on the UCLA
8
Campus:
9
a. UCOP BUS-72, "Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises;"
10
b. UCOP BFB-A-61, "Unrelated Business Income and Expenses;"
11
c. UCOP BFB-A-59, "Costing and Working Capital for Auxiliary and Service
12
Enterprises;"
13
d. UCOP-A-56.H ("Academic Support Unit Costing & Billing Guidelines");
14
19. PETITIONERS allege that to the extent the operation of one or more hotels
15
on the UCLA campus is an authorized auxiliary enterprise, REGENTS have a
16
mandatory duty under UCOP BUS-61 to identify and report all income received from
17
said operations on a "Nonfinancial Questionnaire".
18
20. PETITIONERS further allege that REGENTS have a mandatory duty under
19
local law (LAMC ยง21. 7.1, et seq.) to register all hotels it operates and complete and file
20
with the City of Los Angeles a "Monthly Transient Occupancy Tax Reporting Form"
21
(TOT Reporting Form - a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
22
"B") and then to pay to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES any and all transient occupancy
23
taxes owing to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES occasioned from REGENTS commercial
24
operation of the Tiverton House Hotel, UCLA Guest House Hotel, Courtside Col/ection,
25
and the renting out of student dormitory rooms during the summer as commercial hotel
26
facilities on the UCLA campus. PETITIONERS allege further that REGENTS are
27
obligated to remit all transient occupancy and other taxes which are owing to the local
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California. et al - BS 142388
- 12 -
1
jurisdiction in which the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center is located. In addition,
2
REGENTS are obligated to remit all income taxes owing to the Federal Government
3
and personal property taxes owing to the County on account of the REGENTS
4
operation of said commercial hotel facilities, to the extent REGENTS operation of said
5
facilities does
6
of the University, which is teaching and research. PETITIONERS further allege that
7
REGENTS is required to limit sales and services provided at its hotels to non-members
8
to less than 10 percent of all gross revenue.
not relate
to the core purposes of the public trust and tax-exempt purpose
9
21. PETITIONERS allege that REGENTS have completely failed and continue to
10
fail to follow the UC policies noted above as concerns REGENTS operation of the hotels
11
and commercial catering facilities currently operating on the UCLA campus.
12
PETITIONERS have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. PETITIONERS
13
allege that unless and until enjoined as prayed for herein, RESPONDENT REGENTS
14
will continue to conduct the foregoing taxpayer funded activities in an unlawful and
15
wasteful manner.
17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Mandamus Relief under CCP §1085 and CCP §1094.5 & Injunctive Relief Under CCP §526a - Luskin Conference, Hotel & Public Restaurant Project)
18
22. PETITIONERS hereby refer to the allegations set out in Paragraphs 1
19
through 21 of the within Petition and incorporates the same herein by. reference as
20
though plead in full.
16
21
23. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §526a, this Court has jurisdiction to
22
restrain or prevent any illegal expenditure, waste of funds of a governmental entity, or
23
destruction of public property. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1085, this.Court
24
has jurisdiction to compel REGENTS to perform the mandatory duties attendant to its
25
operation of the public trust known as the 'University of California'. This public trust is
26
expressly established as such in the California Constitution in Article IX, §9. Pursuant to
27
Code of Civil Procedure §1 094.5, this Court also possesses the jurisdiction to inquire
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 142388
- 13-
1
into the finality of REGENTS decision to approve the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND
2
GUEST CENTER which decision was made following two separate formal hearings the
3
REGENTS held for the express purpose of determining whether to approve the project.
4
24. PETITIONERS allege that the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST
5
CENTER PROJECT will violate REGENTS policies and waste public funds; and that
6
REGENTS have a mandatory duty to refrain from committing acts which jeopardize or
7
cause the loss of the tax exempt status of the REGENTS and the UCLA Foundation as
8
a result of the Foundation's use of the funds under its control to finance activities which
9
are outside the scope of the public trust and to the extent allowed by REGENTS,
10
exceed REGENTS' fiduciary duties as Trustee of the public trust known as the
11
University of California to ensure that the University's tax-exempt purpose of research
12
and education is sustained and maintained and not violated in any way.
13
25. PETITIONERS allege that a waste and unlawful gift or transfer of public
14
funds will occur unless RESPONDENT REGENTS is directed to fulfill its duties and
15
responsibilities (i) to ensure that no gift of public funds is made to subsidize an ultra
16
vires auxiliary commercial enterprise, (ii) to follow all of the non-discretionary, ministerial
17
and mandatory procedures and protocol which control and circumscribe the evaluation
18
of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER and (iii) to ensure that the
19
operation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would not jeopardize
20
REGENTS' tax exempt status. No amount of monetary damages or other legal remedy
21
can adequately compensate PETITIONERS for the misapplication and misappropriation
22
of funds which would occur in such a circumstance. Accordingly, it is appropriate for this
23
Court to issue a prohibitory injunction to restrain REGENTS from causing any monies to
24
be expended on the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER unless and until it
25
can be ascertained that the commercial project (if otherwise lawful) will be profitable,
26
after payment of all transient occupancy taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, and all other
27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 14-
1
operational taxes attendant to the management and operation of the LUSKIN
2
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER.
3
26. PETITIONERS allege that REGENTS possess the ability to prevent UCLA
4
from engaging in the operation of a commercial hotel on the UCLA Campus by, among
5
other things, directing that there be a conference center with only incidental use by non-
6
members and the elimination of a hotel given that the application of the relevant UCOP
7
Policies would demonstrate that the operation of a hotel on the UCLA campus of the
8
type contemplated by the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER is ultra vires
9
because it violates the By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation of REGENTS, both of
10
which incorporate the principles of the public trust doctrine reflected in Article IX, ยง9 of
11
the California Constitution which declares the University of California to be a public
12
trust, and REGENTS to be the trustee of that public trust for the benefit of the people of
13
the State of California. To the extent that REGENTS ownership and operation of the
14
LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER can be made to conform to REGENTS
15
fiduciary responsibilities as Trustee to operate the University in a manner consistent
16
with the public trust and consonant with the University's core mission of teaching and
17
research, PETITIONERS contend that in such a circumstance the LUSKIN
18
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER cannot objectively be considered to be an
19
economically viable undertaking, particularly when REGENTS apply the UC Policies
20
noted herein which require REGENTS to take into account the transient occupancy
21
taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, county taxes, and related operational taxes which
22
would be due and payable to the city, state, county, and federal government as a result
23
of the operation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER. Added to these
24
factual contentions is the further objective fact that the operation of the LUSKIN
25
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT would result in (i) a waste and
26
unlawful disbursement of public funds in the form of allowing said funds to be used to
27
improperly subsidize any losses stemming from the hotel's operation; and (ii) the
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 15-
1
destruction of property as a result of the demolition of Parking Lot 6 without fair and
2
adequate compensation to the UCLA Parking Services Department (which is a self-
3
supporting auxiliary enterprise which does report UBIT income for its parking sales to
4
non-members), both of which also contravene the public trust doctrine which embraces
5
REGENTS operation and administration of the University of California in general, and
6
the activities which occur on the UCLA Campus in particular.
7
27. Under UCOP BUS 55, as part of its evaluation of the LUSKIN
8
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT, Respondent REGENTS had a
9
ministerial, non-discretionary duty to include the matters identified below in the project's
10
financial feasibility analysis and proposed budget. PETITIONERS allege that REGENTS
11
has completely failed to have done so, as follows:
12
a. REGENTS failed to include $23 million for the loss of 754 parking spaces
13
in Lot 6 as required by UC Transportation Systems and Parking Program
14
Principles, April 17, 2002, and UCLA Parking Replacement Policy
15
("Capital Project Funding and Tracking");
16
b. REGENTS failed to include $1.9 million interest on standby financing;
17
c. REGENTS failed to include $19.2 million interest during construction (also
18 19 20 21
required by UCOP BFB-A-61); d. REGENTS failed to include approximately $2.8 million/year in UBIT taxes (also required by UCOP BFB-A-61); e. REGENTS improperly included $80 million in tax-exempt debt as part of
22
the financing for the project when not all of the contemplated use (a hotel
23
and restaurant and commercial catering operation open to the public (non-
24
members)) is a non-exempt use; and otherwise failed to make a specific
25
allocation as to which portion of the project, if any, is a proper 'incidental'
26
and auxiliary use, and which portion is not. This also contravenes the
27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 16-
1
policy set out in the UCOP Capital Finance Markets Guide dated
2
February, 2011);
3
f.
REGENTS improperly included the entire $40 million of UCLA Foundation
4
gift funds in the project's financing when part, if not all of the contemplated
5
use is a non-exempt private use. This also contravenes the policy set out
6
in UCOP Capital Finance Markets Guide, dated February, 2011, page 8;
7
g. REGENTS improperly included in the project's budget $7.255 million in
8
tax-exempt Housing Reserve monies to finance the commercial catering
9
kitchen business (an unrelated business activity). This also contravenes
10
the policy set out in UCOP Capital Finance Markets Guide dated
11
February,2011, page 8;
12
h. REGENTS failed to disclose in the financial feasibility analysis a recitation
13
of prior instances where net revenue projections on past projects were not
14
met, as required by UCOP-BUS-55,IV.A.8.g
15
Bluffs Housing Project which lost $7 Million; or (ii) the $38 Million cost
16
overrun of the UCLA Replacement Hospital);
17
I.
(e.g. (i) the Westchester
REGENTS failed to disclose or identify the nature and extent of the 'non-
18
university'(non-exempt)
19
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT as mandated by
20
UCOP-BUS-55.1V .A.8.h;
21
j.
use contemplated to occur as part of the LUSKIN
REGENTS failed to review or require the submission of a Nonfinancial
22
Questionnaire on the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER
23
PROJECT which, if completed, would have reflected all Unrelated
24
Business Income expected to be generated by the hotel, the 750 seat
25
banquet hall, conference center, public restaurant and commercial
26
catering kitchen, as required by UCOP BUS-61 and UC UBIT Review
27
Guidelines
and UCOP 55.1V.A.8.k;
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 17 -
------------------------------------------------
1
k. REGENTS failed to include the amount of potential federal UBIT tax
2
liability in the economic feasibility or financial analysis for the LUSKIN
3
project's operations as required by UCOP BUS-72.D;
4
I.
REGENTS failed to include the amount of all city and county taxes owing
5
in the project's economic feasibility or financial analysis, or to give
6
consideration to the 'incidental' limit on sales to non-members as required
7
by UCOP BUS-55.IV.A.2 and UCOP BUS-55.A.8.b;
8 9 10 11
m. REGENTS failed to provide the project's final economic and financial analysis to the public two months prior to REGENTS hearing as required by UCOP BUS-55.1V.B; n. REGENTS failed to provide an analysis of the LUSKIN project's impacts
12
on the local community, the project's potential for competing with local
13
Westwood hotels, and the project's impact on the City's infrastructure as
14
required by UCOP BUS-55.IV.A.6 and UCOP BUS-55.IV.8.c-d,k;
15
o. REGENTS failed to provide cash flow data beyond the first three years to
16
adequately demonstrate the financial feasibility of the proposed project as
17
required by UCOP BUS-55.1V.A.6 and UCOP BUS 55.1V.A.8.j;
18
28. REGENTS have a clear, present, and non-discretionary,
ministerial duty to
19
refrain from violating state statutes, including its own regulations, or otherwise use or
20
expend public funds to effectuate unlawful objectives, and thereby cause a waste or
21
loss of public funds. REGENTS also have a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation to
22
follow UCOP BUS-72, UCOP BFB-A-61, and UCOP BUS-55 to first analyze the
23
competitive impact the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would have on
24
adjacent hotels in the Westwood area, and then to prepare and present to the public
25
and to themselves, the details of the real project profit and loss from the project's
26
commercial hotel, public restaurant, and catering operations after taking Federal UBIT
27
(Unrelated Business Income Tax) into account and after evaluating the amount of
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 142388
- 18 "
1
(incidental) sales to non-members. REGENTS breached this mandatory duty by failing
2
to follow its own internal administrative processes and directives, as noted, by not
3
undertaking the analysis and reporting mandated by UCOP BUS-72, UCOP BFB-A-61,
4
UCOP BUS-55, and "University of California Transportation Systems and Parking
5
Program Principles", dated April 17, 2002; and "Procedures for Identifying Unrelated
6
Business Activities Carried on at the University of California, Nonfinancial
7
Questionnaire", dated November 4,2011 (prepared by the UC Executive Vice-President
8
and Chief Financial Officer).
9
29. To the extent REGENTS did undertake a study and determination of the
10
impact the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would have on the local
11
hotels operating in Westwood, PETITIONERS contend that REGENTS abused its
12
discretion in that substantial evidence is lacking to support the REGENTS Findings and
13
conclusion that the commercial hotel, public restaurant, and catering component of the
14
LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would not adversely impact or impair
15
the operations of the local hotels in Westwood.
16
30. PETITIONERS have a beneficial right to the REGENTS performance of its
17
fiduciary duties to the public as Trustee of the public trust established in Article IX, ยง9 of
18
the California Constitution as the University of California. PETITIONERS lack any plain,
19
speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
20
31. REGENTS have refused to rescind its decision to approve the LUSKIN
21
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER, and its failure to do so amounts to an abuse of
22
discretion which merits the issuance of a mandatory injunction to compel REGENTS to
23
perform their duty to evaluate the true financial bona fides of the LUSKIN CON-
24
FERENCE AND GUEST CENTER in accordance with the mandatory business
25
procedures incorporated into the UCOP policies set out above, which policies for
26
purpose of this lawsuit, are the functional equivalent of state statutes.
27
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et a!. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 19-
1 2 3 4 5 6
32. Unless the relief prayed for is granted, REGENTS will continue to conduct the taxpayer funded activities in an unlawful and wasteful manner. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief - Code of Civil Procedure ยง1060) 33. PETITIONERS hereby refer to the allegations set out in this Petition in Paragraphs 1 through 32, and incorporates the same herein as though plead in full. 34. A dispute has arisen between PETITIONERS and RESPONDENT
7
REGENTS in that PETITIONERS believe and contend, for the reasons set forth above,
8
that the actions of the RESPONDENT, as alleged above, were unlawful. PETITIONERS
9
are informed and believe, and thereon allege that RESPONDENT REGENTS contends
10
in all respects to the contrary. A judicial declaration is necessary as to the validity of
11
RESPONDENTS'
12
determine the rights and duties of the parties.
13 14 15
actions as set forth above is therefore necessary and appropriate to
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS respectfully pray for judgment as follows: 1. On the First Cause of Action, for the issuance of a mandatory injunction and
16
writ of mandate ordering RESPONDENT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
17
CALIFORNIA to complete and to submit to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES all TOT
18
Reporting Forms required by the CITY OF LOS ANGELES for the reporting of all
19
transient occupancy taxes, utility taxes, telecommunications
20
business license tax, and parking occupancy taxes owing to the CITY OF LOS
21
ANGELES on account of the REGENTS operation of the Tiverton House Hotel, UCLA
22
Guest House Hotel, Courtside Collection, and rental of student dormitories on the UCL
23
Campus during the summer as commercial hotels; and to remit all transient occupancy
24
taxes owing to the local jurisdiction on account of the REGENTS operation of the UCLA
25
Lake Arrowhead Conference Center and Mountain Resort commercial hotel; and
26
further, (i) that REGENTS conform the management of its current hotel operations on
27
the UCLA Campus to the mandatory, non-discretionary
taxes, property tax,
requirements of UCOP-72,
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 142388
- 20-
1
UCOP BFB-A-61, UCOP-59, and UCOP-A-56.H, (ii) complete a Nonfinancial
2
Questionnaire annually reflective of its current hotel and catering operations, (iii) limit
3
sales and services provided to non-members to less than ten percent of annual gross
4
revenues, and (iv) at all times refrain from operating said hotels in a commercial manner
5
which is ultra vires and beyond the rights powers and privileges accorded REGENTS
6
under the public trust doctrine;
7
2. On the Second Cause of Action, for a writ of mandate directing that
8
REGENTS rescind and reconsider their decision approving the LUSKIN CONFER-
9
ENCE AND GUEST CENTER until such time as REGENTS consider, follow and then
10
apply all of the relevant UCOP Business policies which REGENTS completely ignored
11
in its initial review of the economic viability of the lawful operation of the LUSKIN
12
COONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER, including, but not limited to UCOP BUS-72,
13
UCOP BFB-A-61, UCOP A-59, UCOP BUS-55, the directive entitled "Transportation
14
Systems and Parking Program Principles dated April 17, 2002" prepared by the Senior
15
Vice-President,
16
Identifying Unrelated Business Activities Carried on at the University of California, UC
17
Nonfinancial Questionnaire" dated November 4,2011; and to incorporate into said
18
financial projections REGENTS responsibility to pay Federal Unrelated Business
19
Income Tax (UBIT), local transient operating taxes, and all other taxes owing on
20
account of the operation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER, and to
21
further require that a Nonfinancial Questionnaire be prepared in connection with the
22
evaluation of the LUSKIN project, and thereafter consider whether the project would be
23
economically viable once all items required to be included in the economic feasibility
24
analysis have been included and considered; and to further consider, as mandated by
25
UCOP-A-56, whether the Project would create an undue adverse impact on any of the
26
hotels in Westwood with whom the commercial component of the LUSKIN
27
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER would otherwise compete; and then make a
Business and Finance; and the directive entitled "Procedures for
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 142388
- 21 -
1
specific 'Finding' that the project's operation would not violate UCOP-A-56 and not
2
create an undue adverse impact on the surrounding local community; and further that
3
the REGENTS be directed to make a specific 'Finding' that the project's operation as a
4
commercial hotel, public restaurant, conference center, and commercial catering facility
5
would be lawful, and otherwise not result in, or otherwise cause a waste and
6
misappropriation of public funds;
7
3. On the Third Cause of Action, that this Court issue its judgment declaring (i)
8
that the LUSKIN COON FERENCE AND GUEST CENTER as proposed is an unlawful
9
auxiliary enterprise which is ultra vires in that REGENTS lack the power to own and
10
operate a commercial hotel or public restaurant; (ii) that REGENTS have a ministerial,
11
non-discretionary duty under its policies to consider and decide issues such as (a) the
12
impact the payment of UBIT taxes has on the prospective economic viability of the
13
LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER project, (b) the economic impact of
14
having to pay for the parking spaces under UCLA'S parking buy-out policy once Lot 6 is
15
demolished; and (c) whether the operation of the LUSKIN CONFERENCE AND GUEST
16
CENTER, as proposed, would require the submittal of the TOT Reporting Forms to the
17
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and the payment of all such transient occupancy and all
18
other related taxes properly due and owing to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES on account
19
of REGENTS operation of commercial hotels on the UCLA Campus; and further that
20
REGENTS has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to remit all taxes owing to the
21
jurisdiction in which the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center is located. PETITIONERS
22
also ask the Court to declare that in its economic evaluation of the proposed LUSKIN
23
CONFERENCE AND GUEST CENTER PROJECT, REGENTS has completely failed to
24
abide by its mandatory, non-discretionary and ministerial duties reflected in UC Policies
25
to consider (i) the project's impact on the surrounding community, and (ii) whether the
26
project is economically viable once all of the costs attendant to the project's construction
27
and operation have been considered, including the payment of all taxes flowing from its
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village. et al. vs. Regents of the State of California. et al - BS 142388
- 22-
1
operation, and the other cost components of the project to which Paragraph 13 and
2
Exhibit "A" make reference;
3 4
4. On All Causes of Action, that this Court grant PETITIONERS their costs of suit;
5
5. For attorney's fees as authorized by law; and
6
6. For such ot~d
7
DATED: October1=!. 2013
further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. LAW OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS
8 9
10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22
23 24
25 26 27
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- as 142388
- 23-
•
,; ;
2
1,LAURA LAKE hereby declare as follows:
3
1. I am an officer of one of the Petitioners V!LLAGE,
and make this Verification 2, I have read theroreqoinq
named herein, SPNE
on its behalf. VER~F!ED SECOND AMENDED
6 7
and know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowledge,
8
matters that are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, ! believe
9
them to be true,
10
1declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true ano correct Executed this
12
13
except as to those
_2:[;day of October, 2013 at i.os Ange!es,:::;a!iforni8. /:/
1'1
/ ,j/ ~ ~pff~,,-~Rt\ lAK~or SAVE lNES! wooo VILLAGE
16 17
18 19
20 21 22
_?fJr
/II;
._v
26 27
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 5268 Save Westwood Village, et at ';IS. Regent;; of the State of California, e'i:aJ- BS 'l4238~. - 2~!-
1
VERIFICATION
2
I, HARALD HAHN, hereby declare as follows:
3
1. I am one of the Petitioners named herein.
4
2. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR
5
TAXPAYERS' INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATORY RELIEF
6
and know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowledge, except as to those
7
matters that are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
8
them to be true.
9
10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
11
Executed this .3l)day
of October, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
12 13 14
[i
_
HARALD HAHN
15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27
28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 142388
- 22 -
•
VER!F!C,~ T!ON
2
I, SANDY BROWN hereby declare as follows: -1. I am one of the Petitioners named herein.
4 5
2. I have read tile foregoing VER1F!ED SECOND AMENDED WRIT OF MANDATE;
TAXPAYERS'
!NJlH\!CTPJE REUEF;
DECLARA10RV'
o
Q
and know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowledge, except as to '(hose
7
matters that are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters,
8
them to be true.
9
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
oeneve
correct
I;
10
Executed this ~ ~ day of October, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
12 13
14 15
16 17 '/8
19 20 21
22 23
24 25 26
27 28 Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 5262 Save Westwood Viliaae. et <II. vs. Regents o{ the State of California. 8t ai - BS 142388 - 23 -
EXHIBIT A Compilation
of Mandatory
Taxes and Fees Not Included in Luskin Conference and Guest
Center Financial Analysis GB-2, Attachment
Omitted from GB-2 Compensation
for loss of parking
Estimated
5.
UC/UCLA Mandatory Policy
$23 M
754 spaces in Lot 6
UCLA CaQital Projects Funding & Tracking, UCOP TransQortation
S~stems
and Parking Program PrinciQles, April 17, 2002 3 years interest
on debt during
$19.2 M
UCOP BUS-55
$1.9M
UCOP BUS-55
construction 5 years interest financing
on standby
($35 Million
Traffic mitigation
gift)
fee
$394,000
LA Transportation
Mitigation
Impact Fee
Specific Plan Los Angeles Building Permit Fee
? ?
Los Angeles Planning and Zoning
LA Dept. of Building and Safety fee for construction
of a commercial
hotel
LA Municipal
Code, Planning and Zoning
Fee for General Plan Amendment UBIT on hotel, conference
center
and garage
$2.8M
UCOP BFB-A-61
Annually
UBIT on commercial
catering
?
UCOP BFB-A-61
kitchen 1% property
tax
$1.85 M
Based on non-exclusive
Annually
for educational
use of property
activities
(e.g., public
restaurant); 15.5% TOT
$1.6M
LA TOT Ordinance;
UCOP T-182-75
Annually 10% LA City Phone Tax
$100,000
LA TOT Telecommunications
Annually 10% LA City Parking Occupancy Tax 1.27%/$1000
Ordinance,
UCOP T-182-25
$86,000
LA Parking Occupancy Ordinance
Annually gross receipts
business license tax on hotel, public restaurant
$481,000
LA Gross Receipts Business License Tax
Annually
Ordinance
and conference
center 1.27%/$1000
?
gross receipts
business license tax on commercial
catering
LA Gross Receipts Business license Tax Ordinance
kitchen
TOTAL MISSING FROM BUDGET
$Sl+M
,EXHiDi i A
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
inance.lacity.org
.~ .• "•...' , .,
."
C!TY Of LOS ANGELES
;..11
,...'
"
?/1,Y '"HiS ..\MOUNT ,':
\--
~ J, - ..
'.'" :
.....•-..:..-
-,r.
. £ •..• avm-re s of ~oD,fJOOor morp reqwre A_H 'set;' ahovrll '~- ..• ~;..,":,::: •. ..-t;::;..;:" ••...• t.•.. J111cr.~tfn:aj"\ci'_~·:J·1
.;<"
•..".l!:!li;t~"
-'
, t /<Or"
.<.\,-
:: • .:::1' ,,'~_
~ _
•
.'·n!
S:~~--;f9N- ;;'d~E_~E:.J:!.l2 ~";";I. manc!.;z} in!.!:l"o'aticl1 ,';,,;,:.'''1 es •..• ~!'1C' b •..sin $':; 3de! ".5. etc. c crxaine t r- yo ';,t'y -:OS ,-. ac'!! ax a:"l:.1 perm.t . C~·~ .~ 110.•.;.;0 ~C:: H: tJ_..:1 c JI"',,",OS.JrC!Uf,GC· prC\,<;;>.lon:. O~ :he ';.:ifo: ..3 P..:bh: Recoros .l,c~ GO\l~.-~tT'6r.t C:::t~ Sect-or- 62:;[.. ~ 1 'l~l;. arc e ..!~,;ed 3: n:)fT".t'l·~t!'C o S.1".~'10~ -.0 •.• r~::>~:::fe~t~a tnfof~'-i" ct- .•.'I. '0 f. .•••}jD•. t tc ,>••;:;!:_ u·"t.c ,'f" t that -;:•.. ;.0..... IJ' :1!().O .0 ;::I.i'ii:,.·,;:.i; p'...Ir~c$.t:'
,;..'
•...
(
~, :::_;-:.~:~~ i:~~~ ~~~T·~~·'
B
MAJT-.J OF~ CE
.. ....
,~
.::; ';;";.:: 1"":
.:
'/
'
.. ,':
;
7
"
."
.. '.
li '-...
:-.:'
Y. , .•••. '~ ''"' •• ;.
.. - _r'-
j',
";
'~'.
:" ::.
':'."
.
: .. ,
:::..\:"r,:,' • .,.:.:;
2~"
.•.; '~"
-:.'~
~',.'
1
-u:
.' C,::
"
,
INTEREST· I
.i-;
-
""
-,
..•e•...
...•
~
-
---------------------~
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
-~----------------.------
I, NOEL WEISS, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice law before the bar of the State of California, and am counsel of record for Petitioners SAVE WESTWOOD VILLAGE, SANDY BROWN and HARALD HAHN. I make this Declaration in support of the within Proof of Service. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under this practice, it is customary for all correspondence and postage to be deposited in the US Mails on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date is more than one date after the date of mailing. 2. On October 31, 2013, I served the within Document on the parties who have appeared in this action as follows: VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR TAXPAYERS' INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATORY RELIEF
xx
By Mail: By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with Postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed a set forth on the attached service list, to each of the persons named thereon (as to Real Party in Interest). _ By Email: By transmitting the document(s) listed above via email to the person(s) names on the attached Service List, to each of the persons named, at the email addresses noted thereon, and receiving confirmed transmission reports indicating that the documents were successfully transmitted. _ By Fax: By transmitting the document(s) listed above via facsimile to the person(s) names on the attached Service List, to each of the persons named, at the fax number noted thereon, and receiving confirmed transmission reports. indicating that the documents were successfully transmitted. _ By Personal Service: By causing to be personally served the parties noted on the attached Service List at their respective addresses.
22 23 24
25 26
27
28 Proof of Service of Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et a!. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al- BS 124388
-1-
1
SERVICE LIST
2 3 4 5 6 7
AMRIT S. KULKARNI, ESQ. Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108 Email: akulkarni@meyersnave.com Counsel for Respondent Regents of the University of California
8
9 10
11 12
13 14
CHARLES F. ROBINSON, ESQ. KELLY L. DRUMM, ESQ. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Office of the General Counsel 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 987-9765 Facsimile: (510) 987-9757 Email: Kelly.drumm@ucop.edu Counsel for Respondent Regents of the University of California
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof of Service of Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - Taxpayer Action - CCP 526a Save Westwood Village, et al. vs. Regents of the State of California, et al - BS 124388
-2-