1

2
3

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner SAVE THE ARCADIA HIGHLANDS (SAH or Petitioner) alleges as follows:
1.

Petitioner challenges certain discretionary land use decisions made by respondent

4 City Council of the City of Arcadia (Council) as the elected legislative body for respondent
5 City of Arcadia (City). (The Council and the City are hereinafter collectively referred to as

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

6 Respondent.) Specifically, Petitioner challenges Respondents approval of:

7 !

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

10

Orange Grove Avenue, including (without limitation):

(1) Homeowners

11

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

12

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

13

exemption approved for same (the 29 EOGA Project).

14 !

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

2.

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

21 the 29 EOGA Project and 1600 HOD Project (collectively, the Projects), and approval by the
22 Council (including an unelected subordinate body thereto), violate specific provisions of the
23 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code 21000, et seq.: CEQA) and
24 the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs., 15000,
25 et seq.: the Guidelines), a statutory and regulatory framework often referred to as the Holy
26 Grail of Californias environmental laws.
27

3.

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

28 significant impacts on the environment that the City failed to adequately assess or mitigate in
-1VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Respondent ignored fair arguments supported by
2 substantial evidence showing significant unmitigated environmental impacts would result from
3 the Projects cumulative impacts on the environment and unusual circumstances.
4

4.

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

5 formality the specific and substantive requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines.
6

5.

Petitioner also contends that Respondents approval of the Projects violates

7 specific requirements of the California Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code 65000, et seq.:
8 the PZL).
9

6.

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

10 the Projects by issuing a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or
11 1094.5, directing Respondent to vacate and set aside its approval of the Projects. These claims

13
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12 are based on the following allegations:

14

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7.

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

15 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 21168 and/or 21168.5 of the Public Resources
16 Code.
17

8.

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

18 because Respondent, the Projects, and the properties are located in Los Angeles County.
19
20

PARTIES AND BENEFICIAL INTEREST

9.

SAH is an unincorporated association composed of and supported by individuals

21 devoted to the preservation of the environment. SAH is a grassroots community group that
22 (among other things) was organized for the purpose of representing the interests of the public
23 in assuring compliance with the States environmental and land use laws. Members of SAH
24 reside within the City and own or rent real property within the City. On behalf of these and other
25 City residents, SAH challenges Respondents approval of the Projects.
26

10.

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

27 mandate (i) because certain members of SAH including David Arvizu and others complied
28 with Public Resources Code section 21177 by timely commenting on and objecting to the
-2VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 Projects, and (ii) because the environmental impacts of Respondents decision will extend to
2 areas in which citizens represented by SAH own property and/or live. Unless this Court grants
3 the requested writ of mandate, the impacts resulting from Respondents decision to approve the
4 Projects will extend to areas in which numerous citizens represented by SAH live and will
5 directly and adversely affect their health and living environment. Consequently, SAH is directly
6 and beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of mandate.
7

11.

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

8 of the laws of the State of California, and is situated in the County of Los Angeles. The City is
9 responsible for regulating and controlling land use in all areas within the City, including (but not
10 limited to) implementing and complying with the provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and the
11 PZL, and the Government Code.
12.

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

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12

14 in some cases, areas within the Citys sphere of influence), including the preparation and
15 certification of EIRs.
16

13.

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

17 interest Robert Tong is an individual. The Notice of Exemption the City prepared and filed with
18 the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 29 EOGA Project identified Robert
19 Tong as the person undertaking the Projects.
20

14.

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

21 interest 29 East Orange Grove, LLC, is a California limited liability company. The Notice of
22 Exemption the City prepared and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval
23 of the 29 EOGA Project also identified 29 East Orange Grove, LLC, as the person undertaking
24 that project.
25

15.

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

26 interest Robert Tong is an individual. The Notice of Exemption the City prepared and filed with
27 the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 1600 HOD Project identified Robert
28 Tong as the person undertaking that project.
-3VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

16.

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

2 interest Bowden Development, Inc., is a California corporation. The Notice of Exemption the
3 City prepared and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk following its approval of the 1600
4 HOD Project also identified Bowden Development, Inc., as the person undertaking that project.
5

17.

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

6 Development, Inc., as the real parties in interest in this action, Petitioner has fully complied with
7 subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5.
8

18.

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

9 herein as DOES 1 through 10, and the real parties in interest named herein as DOES 11 through
10 25, inclusive, and therefore sues those respondents and real parties in interest by such fictitious
11 names. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege the true names and capacities of those Doe

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14 actions referred to herein.

15

19.

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

16 times the City, the Council, Robert Tong, 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC, and Bowden
17 Development, Inc., and the Doe real parties in interest and respondents were and are the agents
18 of each other, authorized to do the acts herein alleged, each of which was ratified by the others.
19

20.

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

20 1 through 25 are unknown to Petitioner who therefore sues Does 1 through 25 by such fictitious
21 names. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe
22 respondents when the same becomes known to it.

Reference to City, Council, or

23 Respondent herein shall mean the named respondents and Does 1 through 20, and references
24 to RPIs herein shall mean the three above-named real parties in interest and Does 11 through
25 25.
26

21.

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

27 RPIs, and each of the Does proximately caused the acts, omissions to act, and/or injuries herein
28 alleged.
-4VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

22.

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

2 performance of all duties arising under CEQA and the Guidelines, including (but not limited to)
3 the preparation of factually accurate and legally adequate environmental documentation for the
4 Projects.
5

23.

Petitioner has exhausted all legally available administrative remedies against

6 Respondents decision to use Class 3 categorical exemptions to approve the Projects as being
7 in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines. The decision of Respondent to approve the
8 Projects is a final determination. If the Court does not grant the relief prayed for herein,
9 Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law, there will
10 be a waste, and the failure to enjoin further conduct may tend to render the judgment in this
11 action ineffectual.
24.

Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section

13 21167.5 by sending, via United States Postal Service, written notice of this action to Respondent.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12

14 A copy of the written notice Petitioner provided to Respondent is attached hereto as Exhibit A
15 and incorporated herein by this reference.
16

25.

Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section

17 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388 by furnishing a copy of this Verified Petition
18 for Writ of Mandate to the California Attorney General in accordance with Public Resources
19 Code section 21167.7.

A copy of the letter furnishing said copy to the Attorney General is

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

21
22

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

26.

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

23 (There are a scattering of perhaps five homes from the 1920s that pre-date this development.)
24

27.

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

25 1957, he established covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the tracts that included
26 a design review component giving him exclusive design review of each proposed home.
27

28.

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

28 per tract to a single developer because he was creating an affluent enclave and did not want
-5VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 tract homes. He retained exclusive design review until the 1970s, at which time the residents
2 voted by a majority to adopt a design review zone which would allow design review to stay
3 within the purview of the residents. A homeowners association (HOA) was enacted with
4 articles of incorporation and bylaws to oversee the appointment of the HOAs architectural
5 review board (ARB). The bylaws set out annual elections of the HOA board, and the board
6 then elects a president who in turn appoints the ARB chair.
7

29.

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

8 five areas were given a Design Review Zone designation by the City.
9

30.

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

10 granting design review authority to the ARB already in existence under the Arcadia Highlands
11 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

13 the qualification that All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12

14 preexisted this resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the
15 rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference.
16

32.

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

17 development voted to join the Highlands Oaks HOA in response to mansionization. (The City
18 was allowing the mansionization of South Arcadia but the HOAs established in North Arcadia
19 protected the design review zones.) That same year, the Council enacted Ordinance No. 2021,
20 adding approximately 300 more homes to the HOAs design review zone, noting over 60% of
21 the homeowners within this area signed a petition in support of joining the Highlands Oaks
22 Home-owners Association, satisfying the criteria of Arcadia Municipal Code section 9272.2.5.
23

33.

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

24 according to the Citys adopted Resolutions incorporating the HOAs CC&Rs into City law.
25 Appeals to the Council were provided and were evaluated using the language:
26

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

27

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

28

of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof; except to the extent
-6VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

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

6 deference to the ARBs. For example, on June 17, 2003, the Council heard the appeal of the
7 Lower Rancho HOA/ARBs denial of a new front door at 821 San Vincente Road and denied
8 it because it found neither gross negligence nor abuse of discretion in the HOA/ARBs denial.
9

35.

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

10 denial of a roof after the owner installed it without obtaining prior HOA/ARB approval.
11

36.

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

13
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12 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

14 complained that the HOAs had too much power and that the HOAs ARBs should not be able
15 to make decisions based on the square footage of proposed homes.
16

38.

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

17 Ordinance 2285, to replace all five HOA Resolutions with a single resolution. However,
18 language for appeals was unaltered from Resolution 5289.
19

39.

Resolution 6770 delegates design review responsibility in the Arcadia Highlands

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

Pursuant to

21 Resolution 6770, the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB is charged with reviewing building plans
22 for consistency with the principles of harmonious design directed by the Citys General Plan
23 as well as the Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines the Council established in
24 2006 in response to community concerns about increased mansionization that was negatively
25 impacting the City and home values.
26

40.

Resolution 6770 added that:

27

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

28

privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and
-7VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

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

4 an Oaks HOA/ARBs denial of a project at 1101 San Carlos Road, finding no abuse of discretion
5 in a denial based on the projects mass and scale in relationship to other homes on the street.
6

42.

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

7 of the 1101 San Carlos Road project without stating what standard of review it used.
8

43.

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

9 replace or remodel 30 homes in Arcadia Highlands. Nearly all of these applications sought
10 drastic increases in square footage, and many applications more than doubled the size of the
11 existing homes. In contrast to the neighborhoods existing 850 homes, which average closer to

13 bedroom suites, 2-3 additional bedrooms, multiple kitchens, multiple rooms that could be used
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12 2,600 square feet, these new houses often exceeded 6,000 square feet and contained two master

14 as additional bedrooms, and multiple entrances.

15

44.

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

16 submissions for new homes and the City took over design review. Of those nine, one was
17 determined to be outside the boundaries of the Arcdia Highlands HOA, four were accepted for
18 review by the Highlands HOA/ARB later that same year and four were approved by the Citys
19 planning staff. Three of the four that were approved were appealed by residents of the Arcadia
20 Highlands. The planning commission and subsequently the Council on September 2, 2014
21 affirmed those approvals, denying the residents appeals. Of the nine submissions, seven were
22 by designer Robert Tong. Of the three approvals, two were submitted by Robert Tong.
23

45.

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

24 Avenue, LLC, sought entitlements to develop the 29 EOGA Project at 29 East Orange Avenue
25 and real parties in interest developers Robert Tong and Bowden Development, Inc., sought
26 entitlements to develop the 1600 HOD Project at 1600 Highland Oaks Drive.
27

46.

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

28 projects, but RPIs declined. With regard to the 29 EOGA Project, the developers declined
-8VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 multiple meeting requests with the Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB, boasting that if it denied the
2 plans for the 29 EOGA Project, they would simply appeal to the Citys planning commission.
3

47.

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

4 interest Robert Tong and one or more entities based in the City and owned and managed by the
5 Grohs Family Muv-Sol Development, LLC, and/or Mur-Sol Real Estate, LLC have made
6 substantial campaign contributions to certain members of the Council. The Grohs Family
7 Muv-Sol Development, LLC, is owned and managed by the Grohs Family. The Grohs Family
8 also owns and manages 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC, and the Grohs Family presently
9 has more than ten residential development projects under construction in the City.
10

48.

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

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

13 1600 HOD Project.

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14

49.

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

15 EOGA Project, and by a vote of 3-0, it denied the plans for the 1600 HOD Project after
16 determining neither were harmonious and compatible with adjacent structures and that their
17 design was inconsistent with the City General Plans applicable land use designation of Very
18 Low Density Residential. The 29 EOGA Project would replace a 1,855 square foot home with
19 a home more than triple that size (6,522 square feet) and encroach on two protected oak trees,
20 and requested a front yard setback that was half of the average setback of adjacent properties,
21 thereby preventing future planned street widening. The 29 EOGA Project also extended much
22 further to the rear than neighboring properties, resulting in a much smaller backyard than was
23 typical for the neighborhood. In denying the 29 EOGA Project, the Arcadia Highlands
24 HOA/ARB found it to be too massive and bulky for the site, which resulted in incompatibility
25 and a lack of harmony with neighboring homes under Resolution 6770.
26

50.

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

27 replace a 2,624 square foot home with a 6,149 square foot home, an increase of 4,667 square
28 feet, which itself was much larger than the typical Arcadia Highlands home. The proposed
-9VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 project would obstruct views of adjacent properties which is a protected feature under Resolution
2 6770. A petition signed by 443 households within the boundaries of the Arcadia Highlands
3 HOA objected to the proposal. In denying the 1600 HOD Project, the Arcadia Highlands
4 HOA/ARB found it inconsistent with Resolution 6770 and the Citys Single-Family Design
5 Review Guidelines associated with site planning, massing, roofs, faade design, streetscape, and
6 the affect on adjacent properties and neighborhood.
7

51.

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

8 were grounded in the authority delegated to it by the Citys Resolution 6770, General Plan and
9 land use designation, and Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines.
10

52.

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

11 14-05 [29 E. Orange Grove Avenue] and HOA No. 14-7 [1600 Highland Oak Drive]), and on

13 Arcadia Highlands HOA/ARB had improperly based its denials on size, whereupon the
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14 Arcadia Highlands HOA timely filed appeals of the planning commissions decisions to the
15 Council.
16

53.

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

17 HOAs appeals and continued them to the Councils regular meeting of February 3, 2015, at
18 which time it denied the HOAs appeal of the 29 EOGA Project by a vote of 4-1, and denied the
19 HOAs appeal of the 1600 HOD Project by a vote of 3-2. In hearing both appeals, the Council
20 used a de novo standard of review.
21

54.

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

22 filed with the County Clerk of Los Angeles County.

23

55.

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

24 plans.
25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26

(Against Respondent)

27

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

28

56.

Petitioner realleges paragraphs 1 through 55.

-10VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 A.

Violation of CEQA and the Guidelines:

57.

CEQA serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection

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

4 (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) It accomplishes this by requiring full disclosure of a projects
5 significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these
6 consequences before a project is approved to ensure government officials are held accountable
7 for these effects. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco v. Regents of the
8 University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.)
9

58.

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

10 agencies to review the environmental impacts of all projects. Under Public Resources Code
11 section 21065, a project is any discretionary activity which may cause either a direct physical

13 environment.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14

59.

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

15 CEQA Guidelines and to include in them a list of classes of discretionary projects that have
16 been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt
17 from [CEQA].
18

60.

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

19 projects that are categorically exempt from CEQA.

20

61.

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

21 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies exceptions to them. For example, all classes of categorical
22 exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive project of the same type
23 in the same place, over time is significant.
24

62.

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

25 categorical exemptions for new construction of single-family residences. It was the Citys
26 burden to prove the proposed Projects fit within this class of categorical exemption [California
27 Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th
28 173, 186], but the City failed to meet this burden.
-11VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

63.

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

2 several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of
3 the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
4 probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
5 significant projects taking place over a period of time.
6

64.

Cumulative impact analysis is important because One of the most important

7 environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs
8 incrementally from a variety of small sources. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
9 (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) For example, the court in San Franciscans for Reasonable
10 Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, found that, absent
11 meaningful cumulative analysis, there would never be any awareness or control over the speed

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14 Without that control, piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every
15 aspect of the urban environment. (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, at 720.)
16

65.

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

17 Arcadia Highlands, the City will lose control over development in that neighborhood.
18

66.

The City had before it incontrovertible evidence of the Projects cumulative

19 environmental impacts. Despite the Citys approval of plans for nearly 30 homes that will result
20 in the mansionization of the Arcadia Highlands, the City has conducted no cumulative
21 environmental review. The City has not assessed impacts on aesthetics, neighborhood character,
22 traffic generation and congestion, noise, or any other impact area mandated by CEQA. Instead,
23 the City has approached each proposed mansionization project on a piecemeal, case-by-case
24 basis and finding each one categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA.
25

67.

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

26 foreseeable based on the acquisition by known developers of smaller, older homes in Arcadia,
27 and far more mansionization projects are likely as the Citys housing values increase and long28 standing residents sell their properties to developers. Each mansionization project is necessarily
-12VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 associated with up to a doubling of the resident population, the number of vehicles and trip
2 generation, use of City services, water use, and energy use. In addition to environmental impacts
3 caused by increased population density, these mansionization projects will cause significant
4 environmental impacts related to the size of the new homes. For example, these projects have
5 building footprints that are two to three times the surface area of existing home footprints. This
6 greatly increases impervious surfaces which, in turn, will increase runoff from these properties
7 during storm events. Without sufficient mitigation and the implementation of low impact
8 development strategies, these mansions will have significant water quality impacts.
9

68.

Cumulative impacts associated with greenhouse gases and energy use will also

10 increase. While existing homes generally require only one or two air conditioning condensers,
11 these mansions require four to cool the increased square footage sufficiently. Thus, electricity

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14 must be disclosed and analyzed, and the City cannot hide behind its failure to gather information
15 required by CEQA. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.)
16

69.

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

17 reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
18 unusual circumstances.
19

70.

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

20 single-family homes contemplated by the Class 3 categorical exemption, are meant to serve
21 multiple or extended families, and will have several times the environmental impact of a typical
22 single-family home. CEQA requires environmental analysis to address existing conditions on
23 the ground and not paper plans. What with the average size of homes in the Arcadia Highlands
24 being 2,600 square feet and each of the Projects homes being larger than 98% of the homes in
25 the Arcadia Highlands, the two homes are a clearly an unusual circumstance. However, in
26 finding they were not, the City ignored all empirical evidence as to existing conditions on the
27 ground.
28 / / /
-13VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

71.

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

2 violates CEQA because the mansionization projects are having both direct and cumulative
3 impacts on historic resources. According to urban planner John Uniack, the Arcadia Highlands
4 has one of the finest intact collections of mid-century suburban houses in Southern California.
5 The neighborhoods homes are unique, architect-designed homes, some by noted architects. The
6 original homes being targeted by these mansionization projects are over 50 years old, thereby
7 reaching the threshold for a historic resource review. Since mid-2012, 30 of these homes have
8 been slated for demolition.
9

72.

CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require environmental review to evaluate the

10 whole of a project and not simply its constituent parts when determining whether it will have
11 a significant environmental effect.
73.

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

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12

14 properties in the City for which similar proposals are expected.

15

74.

The Citys practice of approving individual mansionization projects each with

16 a categorical exemption to avoid environmental review is causing widespread mansionization

17 in the Arcadia Highlands without any consideration of the aesthetic, traffic, noise, energy, or
18 other impacts of increased population density in the neighborhood. This piecemeal allowance
19 of increased building size and reduced setbacks without any consideration of whether the
20 projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is effectively nullifying the Citys
21 Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines for the Arcadia Highlands without
22 environmental review. The California Supreme Court has cautioned that environmental
23 considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones
24 each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have
25 disastrous consequences. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d
26 263, 284.) Simply put, A public agency is not permitted to subdivide a single project into
27 smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the
28
-14VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 environmental impact of the project as a whole. (Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986)
2 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171.)
3

75.

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

4 additional properties for similar mansionization. Before the City may lawfully approve the
5 Projects, it needed to prepare an environmental impact report that addresses all potentially
6 significant impacts of rampant mansionization in the Arcadia Highlands.
7

76.

The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are information,

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

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

11 B.

Violation of the PZL

12

77.

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

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

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

10 Projects failed on all accounts.

14 All projects approved in a city must be consistent with its general plan. For this reason, the
15 General Plan has been described the constitution for future development. (DeVita v. County
16 of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773, internal citations omitted.)
17

78.

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

18

79.

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

19 plan for the physical development of the City and mandates that all general plans contain and
20 address seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space,
21 noise, and safety.
22

80.

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

23 every general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent
24 and compatible statement of policies.
25

81.

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

26 Projects were inconsistent but ignored that evidence and approved the Projects in violation of
27 the Citys General Plan.
28
-15VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 C.

Violation of City Resolution 6770

82.

Resolution 6770 grants design review authority to the homeowners associations

3 in five different geographical areas within the City.

4

83.

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

5 compatibility and harmony, based on mass, scale, height, length, width and architectural style
6 relative to neighboring structures. This subjective standard is set under Resolution 6770 by the
7 five members of the HOAs ARB.
8

84.

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

9 members of the board of directors. The board of directors then elects board officers, including
10 a president. The president selects an ARB Chair who, in turn, nominates four ARB board
11 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

13 second story elements to protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

12

14

86.

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

15 second floor element was set approximately 100 feet back on the property, thus obstructing the
16 views and invading the privacy of adjacent homes.
17

87.

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

18 proposed projects were designed and articulated to protect the privacy and views of surrounding
19 homes and yards.
20 D.

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

21

88.

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

22 applicable law governing such legislative acts. In particular, Respondent has the legal and
23 nondiscretionary duty to act in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, the
24 PZL, the Government Code, and other applicable laws and regulations.
25

89.

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

26 without any or an adequate evidentiary basis in failing or refusing to comply with the
27 requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, the PZL, the Government Code, and other applicable
28 laws and regulations. At all times material hereto, Respondent had, and continues to have, the
-16VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 ability to comply with its legal duties. Notwithstanding the efforts of Petitioner and others to
2 inform Respondent of its legal duties, and to induce Respondent to comply with its legal duties,
3 Respondent has failed and refused to perform these duties as described herein.
4

90.

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

5 contemplated in Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6

91.

Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies. There is no

7 provision known to Petitioner for any further administrative remedial action from the decision
8 of Respondent to approve the Projects.
9

92.

Respondent has prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Projects

10 permitting the acts and omissions described herein to occur.

11

93.

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

13 Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 et seq.

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN

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

14

94.

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

15 as prayed for hereafter. Petitioner will be seriously harmed if Respondent proceeds with the
16 Projects without first complying with applicable laws and regulations.
17

95.

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

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

19 undertake its obligations. Respondent has failed and refused to require or to perform any of the
20 above, notwithstanding the substantial evidence presented to Petitioner and others that such
21 failures and refusals are contrary to law and will have adverse consequences on Petitioner.
22

96.

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

23 sought in this petition. In acting and failing to act in the manner described above, Respondent
24 has prejudicially abused their discretion in approving the Projects, in violation of Code of Civil
25 Procedures Section 1094.5 et seq.
26 / / /
27
28
-17VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B