Save the Arcadia Highlands petition

LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner SAVE THE ARCADIA HIGHLANDS (SAH or Petitioner) alleges as follows:

1. Petitioner challenges certain discretionary land use decisions made by respondent

City Council of the City of Arcadia (Council) as the elected legislative body for respondent

City of Arcadia (City). (The Council and the City are hereinafter collectively referred to as

Respondent.) Specifically, Petitioner challenges Respondents approval of:

! The application submitted by Robert Tong and 29 East Orange Grove Avenue,

LLC, to demolish an existing 1,855 square-foot, one story residence built in 1941,

and the construction of a new 6,192 square-foot single-family residence at 29 East

Orange Grove Avenue, including (without limitation): (1) Homeowners

Association Appeal No. HOA 14-05; (2) Modification No. MP 14-21; (3) Oak

Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-65; and (4) the Class 3 categorical

exemption approved for same (the 29 EOGA Project).

! The application submitted by Robert Tong and Bowden Development, Inc., to

demolish an existing 2,624 square-foot, one story residence built in 1956, and the

construction of a new 6,149 square-foot single-family residence at 1600 Highland

Oaks Drive, including (without limitation): (1) Homeowners Association Appeal

No. HOA 14-07; Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-77; and (3) the

Class 3 categorical exemption approved for same (the 1600 HOD Project).

2. Petitioner contends the Citys use of Class 3 categorical exemptions to approve

the 29 EOGA Project and 1600 HOD Project (collectively, the Projects), and approval by the

Council (including an unelected subordinate body thereto), violate specific provisions of the

California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code 21000, et seq.: CEQA) and

the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs., 15000,

et seq.: the Guidelines), a statutory and regulatory framework often referred to as the Holy

Grail of Californias environmental laws.

3. Petitioner is challenging the Projects because (among other things) they result in

significant impacts on the environment that the City failed to adequately assess or mitigate in

-1-VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Respondent ignored fair arguments supported by

substantial evidence showing significant unmitigated environmental impacts would result from

the Projects cumulative impacts on the environment and unusual circumstances.

4. In approving the Projects, Respondent has disregarded or treated as a mere

formality the specific and substantive requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines.

5. Petitioner also contends that Respondents approval of the Projects violates

specific requirements of the California Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code 65000, et seq.:

the PZL).

6. Petitioner requests that this Court vacate and set aside Respondents approval of

the Projects by issuing a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or

1094.5, directing Respondent to vacate and set aside its approval of the Projects. These claims

are based on the following allegations:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to sections 1085, 1094.5, and

187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 21168 and/or 21168.5 of the Public Resources

Code.

8. Venue for this action properly lies in the Los Angeles County Superior Court

because Respondent, the Projects, and the properties are located in Los Angeles County.

PARTIES AND BENEFICIAL INTEREST

9. SAH is an unincorporated association composed of and supported by individuals

devoted to the preservation of the environment. SAH is a grassroots community group that

(among other things) was organized for the purpose of representing the interests of the public

in assuring compliance with the States environmental and land use laws. Members of SAH

reside within the City and own or rent real property within the City. On behalf of these and other

City residents, SAH challenges Respondents approval of the Projects.

10. SAH is a party beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of

mandate (i) because certain members of SAH including David Arvizu and others complied

with Public Resources Code section 21177 by timely commenting on and objecting to the


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Projects, and (ii) because the environmental impacts of Respondents decision will extend to

areas in which citizens represented by SAH own property and/or live. Unless this Court grants

the requested writ of mandate, the impacts resulting from Respondents decision to approve the

Projects will extend to areas in which numerous citizens represented by SAH live and will

directly and adversely affect their health and living environment. Consequently, SAH is directly

and beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of mandate.

11. Respondent City is a general law city organized and existing under and by virtue

of the laws of the State of California, and is situated in the County of Los Angeles. The City is

responsible for regulating and controlling land use in all areas within the City, including (but not

limited to) implementing and complying with the provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and the

PZL, and the Government Code.

12. Respondent Council is the duly constituted legislative body of the City. The

Council is responsible for the formulation and implementation of land use plans in the City (and,

in some cases, areas within the Citys sphere of influence), including the preparation and

certification of EIRs.

13. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that real party in

interest Robert Tong is an individual. The Notice of Exemption the City prepared and filed with

the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 29 EOGA Project identified Robert

Tong as the person undertaking the Projects.


interest 29 East Orange Grove, LLC, is a California limited liability company. The Notice of

Exemption the City prepared and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval

of the 29 EOGA Project also identified 29 East Orange Grove, LLC, as the person undertaking

that project.


interest Robert Tong is an individual. The Notice of Exemption the City prepared and filed with

the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 1600 HOD Project identified Robert

Tong as the person undertaking that project.


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


interest Bowden Development, Inc., is a California corporation. The Notice of Exemption the

City prepared and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 1600

HOD Project also identified Bowden Development, Inc., as the person undertaking that project.

17. By naming Robert Tong, 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC, and Bowden

Development, Inc., as the real parties in interest in this action, Petitioner has fully complied with

subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5.

18. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the respondents named

herein as DOES 1 through 10, and the real parties in interest named herein as DOES 11 through

25, inclusive, and therefore sues those respondents and real parties in interest by such fictitious

names. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege the true names and capacities of those Doe

parties when ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each

of the parties designated herein as a Doe is responsible in some manner for the events and

actions referred to herein.

19. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant

times the City, the Council, Robert Tong, 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC, and Bowden

Development, Inc., and the Doe real parties in interest and respondents were and are the agents

of each other, authorized to do the acts herein alleged, each of which was ratified by the others.

20. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise of Does

1 through 25 are unknown to Petitioner who therefore sues Does 1 through 25 by such fictitious

names. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe

respondents when the same becomes known to it. Reference to City, Council, or

Respondent herein shall mean the named respondents and Does 1 through 20, and references

to RPIs herein shall mean the three above-named real parties in interest and Does 11 through

25.

21. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Respondent,

RPIs, and each of the Does proximately caused the acts, omissions to act, and/or injuries herein

alleged.


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Respondent is, and at all times relevant herein has been, charged by law with the

performance of all duties arising under CEQA and the Guidelines, including (but not limited to)

the preparation of factually accurate and legally adequate environmental documentation for the

Projects.

23. Petitioner has exhausted all legally available administrative remedies against

Respondents decision to use Class 3 categorical exemptions to approve the Projects as being

in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines. The decision of Respondent to approve the

Projects is a final determination. If the Court does not grant the relief prayed for herein,

Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law, there will

be a waste, and the failure to enjoin further conduct may tend to render the judgment in this

action ineffectual.

24. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section

21167.5 by sending, via United States Postal Service, written notice of this action to Respondent.

A copy of the written notice Petitioner provided to Respondent is attached hereto as Exhibit A

and incorporated herein by this reference.

25. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section

21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388 by furnishing a copy of this Verified Petition

for Writ of Mandate to the California Attorney General in accordance with Public Resources

Code section 21167.7. A copy of the letter furnishing said copy to the Attorney General is

attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

26. In the 1950s, the area now known as the Arcadia Highlands was developed.

(There are a scattering of perhaps five homes from the 1920s that pre-date this development.)

27. The major developer was George Elkins, who bought 14 tracts. Between 1948 and

1957, he established covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the tracts that included

a design review component giving him exclusive design review of each proposed home.

28. George Elkins sold each lot to a homeowner and did not sell more than two lots

per tract to a single developer because he was creating an affluent enclave and did not want


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

tract homes. He retained exclusive design review until the 1970s, at which time the residents

voted by a majority to adopt a design review zone which would allow design review to stay

within the purview of the residents. A homeowners association (HOA) was enacted with

articles of incorporation and bylaws to oversee the appointment of the HOAs architectural

review board (ARB). The bylaws set out annual elections of the HOA board, and the board

then elects a president who in turn appoints the ARB chair.

29. Four other areas within the City adopted similar design review ordinances. All

five areas were given a Design Review Zone designation by the City.

30. In 1973, the Council adopted Resolution 4335 pursuant to City Ordinance 1479,

granting design review authority to the ARB already in existence under the Arcadia Highlands

HOAs CC&Rs which apply to the approximately 550 homes within the HOAs boundaries.

31. In 1986, the Council adopted Resolution 5289, superseding Resolution 4335, with

the qualification that All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which

preexisted this resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the

rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference.

32. In 1994, the residents of an area adjacent to the 14 tracts of the George Elkins

development voted to join the Highlands Oaks HOA in response to mansionization. (The City

was allowing the mansionization of South Arcadia but the HOAs established in North Arcadia

protected the design review zones.) That same year, the Council enacted Ordinance No. 2021,

adding approximately 300 more homes to the HOAs design review zone, noting over 60% of

the homeowners within this area signed a petition in support of joining the Highlands Oaks

Home-owners Association, satisfying the criteria of Arcadia Municipal Code section 9272.2.5.

33. For years the HOAs enjoyed design review authority and exercised their power

according to the Citys adopted Resolutions incorporating the HOAs CC&Rs into City law.

Appeals to the Council were provided and were evaluated using the language:

control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised

that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features

of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof; except to the extent


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and

compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to

avoid that which is excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to the

neighborhood.

34. The Council decided appeals of ARB denials under a standard of review according

deference to the ARBs. For example, on June 17, 2003, the Council heard the appeal of the

Lower Rancho HOA/ARBs denial of a new front door at 821 San Vincente Road and denied

it because it found neither gross negligence nor abuse of discretion in the HOA/ARBs denial.

35. Similarly, on July 20, 2004, the Council upheld the Highlands Oaks HOA/ARBs

denial of a roof after the owner installed it without obtaining prior HOA/ARB approval.

36. From 2002 through 2011, on average, only one new home per year was built in the

Arcadia Highlands, and none of them were over 5,000 square feet.

37. In a 2011 study session regarding updates to the HOA Resolutions, developers

complained that the HOAs had too much power and that the HOAs ARBs should not be able

to make decisions based on the square footage of proposed homes.

38. On or about January 3, 2012, the Council adopted Resolution 6770 pursuant to

Ordinance 2285, to replace all five HOA Resolutions with a single resolution. However,

language for appeals was unaltered from Resolution 5289.

39. Resolution 6770 delegates design review responsibility in the Arcadia Highlands

to the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB, consisting of five elected residents. Pursuant to

Resolution 6770, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB is charged with reviewing building plans

for consistency with the principles of harmonious design directed by the Citys General Plan

as well as the Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines the Council established in

2006 in response to community concerns about increased mansionization that was negatively

impacting the City and home values.

40. Resolution 6770 added that:

The impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on

privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be

located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.

41. A few months later, on May 22, 2012, the Citys planning commission confirmed

an Oaks HOA/ARBs denial of a project at 1101 San Carlos Road, finding no abuse of discretion

in a denial based on the projects mass and scale in relationship to other homes on the street.

42. However, on July 3, 2012, the Council overturned the Oaks HOA/ARBs denial

of the 1101 San Carlos Road project without stating what standard of review it used.

43. Since July 2012, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB has reviewed applications to

replace or remodel 30 homes in Arcadia Highlands. Nearly all of these applications sought

drastic increases in square footage, and many applications more than doubled the size of the

existing homes. In contrast to the neighborhoods existing 850 homes, which average closer to

2,600 square feet, these new houses often exceeded 6,000 square feet and contained two master

bedroom suites, 2-3 additional bedrooms, multiple kitchens, multiple rooms that could be used

as additional bedrooms, and multiple entrances.

44. In January 2014, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB declined to review nine

submissions for new homes and the City took over design review. Of those nine, one was

determined to be outside the boundaries of the Arcdia Highlands HOA, four were accepted for

review by the Highlands HOA/ARB later that same year and four were approved by the Citys

planning staff. Three of the four that were approved were appealed by residents of the Arcadia

Highlands. The planning commission and subsequently the Council on September 2, 2014

affirmed those approvals, denying the residents appeals. Of the nine submissions, seven were

by designer Robert Tong. Of the three approvals, two were submitted by Robert Tong.

45. In 2014, real parties in interest developers Robert Tong and 29 East Orange Grove

Avenue, LLC, sought entitlements to develop the 29 EOGA Project at 29 East Orange Avenue

and real parties in interest developers Robert Tong and Bowden Development, Inc., sought

entitlements to develop the 1600 HOD Project at 1600 Highland Oaks Drive.

46. The Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB requested meetings with RPIs to discuss their

projects, but RPIs declined. With regard to the 29 EOGA Project, the developers declined


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

multiple meeting requests with the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB, boasting that if it denied the

plans for the 29 EOGA Project, they would simply appeal to the Citys planning commission.

47. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that real party in

interest Robert Tong and one or more entities based in the City and owned and managed by the

Grohs Family Muv-Sol Development, LLC, and/or Mur-Sol Real Estate, LLC have made

substantial campaign contributions to certain members of the Council. The Grohs Family

Muv-Sol Development, LLC, is owned and managed by the Grohs Family. The Grohs Family

also owns and manages 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC, and the Grohs Family presently

has more than ten residential development projects under construction in the City.

48. On November 12, 2014, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB held a duly noticed

architectural review hearing regarding the 29 EOGA Project, and on November 19, 2014, the

Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB held a duly noticed architectural review hearing regarding the

1600 HOD Project.

49. By a vote of 4-1, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB denied the plans for the 29

EOGA Project, and by a vote of 3-0, it denied the plans for the 1600 HOD Project after

determining neither were harmonious and compatible with adjacent structures and that their

design was inconsistent with the City General Plans applicable land use designation of Very

Low Density Residential. The 29 EOGA Project would replace a 1,855 square foot home with

a home more than triple that size (6,522 square feet) and encroach on two protected oak trees,

and requested a front yard setback that was half of the average setback of adjacent properties,

thereby preventing future planned street widening. The 29 EOGA Project also extended much

further to the rear than neighboring properties, resulting in a much smaller backyard than was

typical for the neighborhood. In denying the 29 EOGA Project, the Arcadia Highlands

HOA/ARB found it to be too massive and bulky for the site, which resulted in incompatibility

and a lack of harmony with neighboring homes under Resolution 6770.

50. With regard to 1600 Highlands Oak Drive, the 1600 HOD Project proposed to

replace a 2,624 square foot home with a 6,149 square foot home, an increase of 4,667 square

feet, which itself was much larger than the typical Arcadia Highlands home. The proposed


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

project would obstruct views of adjacent properties which is a protected feature under Resolution

6770. A petition signed by 443 households within the boundaries of the Arcadia Highlands

HOA objected to the proposal. In denying the 1600 HOD Project, the Arcadia Highlands

HOA/ARB found it inconsistent with Resolution 6770 and the Citys Single-Family Design

Review Guidelines associated with site planning, massing, roofs, faade design, streetscape, and

the affect on adjacent properties and neighborhood.

51. The Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARBs findings in support of denials of the Projects

were grounded in the authority delegated to it by the Citys Resolution 6770, General Plan and

land use designation, and Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines.

52. RPIs appealed the denials to the Citys planning commission (Appeal No. HOA

14-05 [29 E. Orange Grove Avenue] and HOA No. 14-7 [1600 Highland Oak Drive]), and on

December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission granted both appeals on the grounds that the

Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB had improperly based its denials on size, whereupon the

Arcadia Highlands HOA timely filed appeals of the planning commissions decisions to the

Council.

53. On January 20, 2015, the Council opened the hearing on the Arcadia Highlands

HOAs appeals and continued them to the Councils regular meeting of February 3, 2015, at

which time it denied the HOAs appeal of the 29 EOGA Project by a vote of 4-1, and denied the

HOAs appeal of the 1600 HOD Project by a vote of 3-2. In hearing both appeals, the Council

used a de novo standard of review.

54. On February 5, 2015, the City caused Notices of Exemption for the Projects to be

filed with the County Clerk of Los Angeles County.

55. On February 24, 2015, the 29 EOGA Project was listed for sale with approved

plans.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against Respondent)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

56. Petitioner realleges paragraphs 1 through 55.


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. Violation of CEQA and the Guidelines:

57. CEQA serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection

and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) It accomplishes this by requiring full disclosure of a projects

significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these

consequences before a project is approved to ensure government officials are held accountable

for these effects. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco v. Regents of the

University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.)

58. CEQA applies to all governmental agencies at all levels and requires lead

agencies to review the environmental impacts of all projects. Under Public Resources Code

section 21065, a project is any discretionary activity which may cause either a direct physical

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

environment.

59. CEQA directs the Governors Office of Planning and Research to prepare the

CEQA Guidelines and to include in them a list of classes of discretionary projects that have

been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt

from [CEQA].

60. Section 15301 through 15033 of the CEQA Guidelines list the 33 classes of

projects that are categorically exempt from CEQA.

61. However, these 33 categorical exemptions are not absolute, and section 15300.2

of the CEQA Guidelines specifies exceptions to them. For example, all classes of categorical

exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive project of the same type

in the same place, over time is significant.

62. In approving the Projects, the City exempted both mansions under Class 3

categorical exemptions for new construction of single-family residences. It was the Citys

burden to prove the proposed Projects fit within this class of categorical exemption [California

Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th

173, 186], but the City failed to meet this burden.


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

63. As defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15355(b), [t]he cumulative impact from

several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of

the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant projects taking place over a period of time.

64. Cumulative impact analysis is important because One of the most important

environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs

incrementally from a variety of small sources. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford

(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) For example, the court in San Franciscans for Reasonable

Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, found that, absent

meaningful cumulative analysis, there would never be any awareness or control over the speed

and manner of development in downtown San Francisco and concluded that San Franciscos

refusal to take into account other similar development projects violated CEQA. (Id. at 634.)

Without that control, piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every

aspect of the urban environment. (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, at 720.)

65. Similarly, without an adequate cumulative analysis of the mansionization of the

Arcadia Highlands, the City will lose control over development in that neighborhood.

66. The City had before it incontrovertible evidence of the Projects cumulative

environmental impacts. Despite the Citys approval of plans for nearly 30 homes that will result

in the mansionization of the Arcadia Highlands, the City has conducted no cumulative

environmental review. The City has not assessed impacts on aesthetics, neighborhood character,

traffic generation and congestion, noise, or any other impact area mandated by CEQA. Instead,

the City has approached each proposed mansionization project on a piecemeal, case-by-case

basis and finding each one categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA.

67. To make matters worse, an additional 39 mansionization projects are reasonably

foreseeable based on the acquisition by known developers of smaller, older homes in Arcadia,

and far more mansionization projects are likely as the Citys housing values increase and long-

standing residents sell their properties to developers. Each mansionization project is necessarily


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

associated with up to a doubling of the resident population, the number of vehicles and trip

generation, use of City services, water use, and energy use. In addition to environmental impacts

caused by increased population density, these mansionization projects will cause significant

environmental impacts related to the size of the new homes. For example, these projects have

building footprints that are two to three times the surface area of existing home footprints. This

greatly increases impervious surfaces which, in turn, will increase runoff from these properties

during storm events. Without sufficient mitigation and the implementation of low impact

development strategies, these mansions will have significant water quality impacts.

68. Cumulative impacts associated with greenhouse gases and energy use will also

increase. While existing homes generally require only one or two air conditioning condensers,

these mansions require four to cool the increased square footage sufficiently. Thus, electricity

use of these mansions on hot summer days may be up to four times that of the existing housing

stock. This is a significant cumulative impact on greenhouse gas generation and energy use that

must be disclosed and analyzed, and the City cannot hide behind its failure to gather information

required by CEQA. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.)

69. Categorical exemptions also shall not be used for an activity where there is a

reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to

unusual circumstances.

70. The two mansions constituting the Projects are several times larger than the typical

single-family homes contemplated by the Class 3 categorical exemption, are meant to serve

multiple or extended families, and will have several times the environmental impact of a typical

single-family home. CEQA requires environmental analysis to address existing conditions on

the ground and not paper plans. What with the average size of homes in the Arcadia Highlands

being 2,600 square feet and each of the Projects homes being larger than 98% of the homes in

the Arcadia Highlands, the two homes are a clearly an unusual circumstance. However, in

finding they were not, the City ignored all empirical evidence as to existing conditions on the

ground.

/ / /


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

71. The Citys reliance on Class 3 categorical exemptions for the Projects further

violates CEQA because the mansionization projects are having both direct and cumulative

impacts on historic resources. According to urban planner John Uniack, the Arcadia Highlands

has one of the finest intact collections of mid-century suburban houses in Southern California.

The neighborhoods homes are unique, architect-designed homes, some by noted architects. The

original homes being targeted by these mansionization projects are over 50 years old, thereby

reaching the threshold for a historic resource review. Since mid-2012, 30 of these homes have

been slated for demolition.

72. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require environmental review to evaluate the

whole of a project and not simply its constituent parts when determining whether it will have

a significant environmental effect.

73. As noted above, in addition to the 30 sets of plans that have already been submitted

to the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB, there are at least 190 other developer-owned residential

properties in the City for which similar proposals are expected.

74. The Citys practice of approving individual mansionization projects each with

a categorical exemption to avoid environmental review is causing widespread mansionization

in the Arcadia Highlands without any consideration of the aesthetic, traffic, noise, energy, or

other impacts of increased population density in the neighborhood. This piecemeal allowance

of increased building size and reduced setbacks without any consideration of whether the

projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is effectively nullifying the Citys

Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines for the Arcadia Highlands without

environmental review. The California Supreme Court has cautioned that environmental

considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones

each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have

disastrous consequences. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d

263, 284.) Simply put, A public agency is not permitted to subdivide a single project into

smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

environmental impact of the project as a whole. (Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986)

182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171.)

75. Given the recent rise in City home prices, developers are certainly acquiring

additional properties for similar mansionization. Before the City may lawfully approve the

Projects, it needed to prepare an environmental impact report that addresses all potentially

significant impacts of rampant mansionization in the Arcadia Highlands.

76. The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are information,

participation, mitigation, and accountability. (Lincoln Place Tenants Association. v. City of

Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 443-444.) The Citys process in reviewing the

Projects failed on all accounts.

B. Violation of the PZL

77. The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land

use. (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.)

All projects approved in a city must be consistent with its general plan. For this reason, the

General Plan has been described the constitution for future development. (DeVita v. County

of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773, internal citations omitted.)

78. The Citys General Plan is its basic land use planning document.

79. State law requires the Citys general plan to include a comprehensive long-term

plan for the physical development of the City and mandates that all general plans contain and

address seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space,

noise, and safety.

80. By its enactment of Government Code section 65300.5, the Legislature intends that

every general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent

and compatible statement of policies.

81. The Council was presented with a list of General Plan policies with which the

Projects were inconsistent but ignored that evidence and approved the Projects in violation of

the Citys General Plan.


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Violation of City Resolution 6770

82. Resolution 6770 grants design review authority to the homeowners associations

in five different geographical areas within the City.

83. The design review authority granted to the HOAs is a subjective standard of

compatibility and harmony, based on mass, scale, height, length, width and architectural style

relative to neighboring structures. This subjective standard is set under Resolution 6770 by the

five members of the HOAs ARB.

84. The residents within the HOA pay dues in order to be eligible to vote for eleven

members of the board of directors. The board of directors then elects board officers, including

a president. The president selects an ARB Chair who, in turn, nominates four ARB board

members who are then confirmed by a vote of the HOAs board.

85. Also within Resolution 6770 is a provision [Section 4(L)] limiting first story and

second story elements to protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.

86. Petitioner raised the issue specifically in regards to the 1600 HOD Project that its

second floor element was set approximately 100 feet back on the property, thus obstructing the

views and invading the privacy of adjacent homes.

87. The Council did not address, discuss, or otherwise comment on whether or not the

proposed projects were designed and articulated to protect the privacy and views of surrounding

homes and yards.

D. Propriety of Relief Under C.C.P. 1085 et seq., and/or 1094.5 et seq.

88. Respondent has the legal duty in making their determinations to comply with the

applicable law governing such legislative acts. In particular, Respondent has the legal and

nondiscretionary duty to act in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, the

PZL, the Government Code, and other applicable laws and regulations.

89. Respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, irrationally, and unreasonably, and

without any or an adequate evidentiary basis in failing or refusing to comply with the

requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, the PZL, the Government Code, and other applicable

laws and regulations. At all times material hereto, Respondent had, and continues to have, the


LEIB

OLD

McC

LEN

DO

N &

MA

NN

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

COR

POR

ATI

ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ability to comply with its legal duties. Notwithstanding the efforts of Petitioner and others to

inform Respondent of its legal duties, and to induce Respondent to comply with its legal duties,

Respondent has failed and refused to perform these duties as described herein.

90. The decision of Respondent to approve the Projects constitutes a final decision as

contemplated in Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

91. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies. There is no

provision known to Petitioner for any further administrative remedial action from the decision

of Respondent to approve the Projects.

92. Respondent has prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Projects

permitting the acts and omissions described herein to occur.

93. In acting and failing to act in the manner described above, Respondent has acted

in an arbitrary, capricious, and irrational manner lacking any reasonable basis, in violation of

Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 et seq.

94. Petitioner is beneficially interested in issuance of the peremptory writ of mandate

as prayed for hereafter. Petitioner will be seriously harmed if Respondent proceeds with the

Projects without first complying with applicable laws and regulations.

95. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been able to perform its duties and

obligations as demanded by Petitioner. Respondent has, however, failed and refused to

undertake its obligations. Respondent has failed and refused to require or to perform any of the

above, notwithstanding the substantial evidence presented to Petitioner and others that such

failures and refusals are contrary to law and will have adverse consequences on Petitioner.

96. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the relief

sought in this petition. In acting and failing to act in the manner described above, Respondent

has prejudicially abused their discretion in approving the Projects, in violation of Code of Civil

Procedures Section 1094.5 et seq.

/ / /


EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

Save the Arcadia Highlands petition

Documents

petitioner requests

city of arcadia council

ceqa andthe guidelines

respondentcity of arcadia

story residence

eoga project

hod project

resources code