lli 11orr1l'1 l.eii; ani:;vlas 6 2018 · 1 fredric d. woocher (sbn 96689) beverly grossman...

1 FREDRIC D. WOOCHER (SBN 96689) BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER (SBN 234004)

2 DALE K. LARSON (SBN 266165) STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP

3 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024

4 Telephone: (310) 576-1233 Facsimile: (3 I 0) 319-0156

5 Email: [email protected]

6 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff United Homeowners' Association II

CONft�RMI� IOPV fl�i IN:t\t:" -Supgrior ourt r1 lli 11orr1l'1

County of l.eii; Ani:;vlas

APR - 6 2018

Sherri A. Carter, Executive Officer/Cle

By Nancy Alvarez, Deputy 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

UNITED HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION II, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation,

Petitioner and Plaintiff, V.

15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; and DOES 1

16 through 100, inclusive,

CASE NO. BS172990

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE TO SET ASIDE ACTIONS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE,§ 21000, et seq.) AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17

18

Respondents and Defendants. [Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1094.5, 1085; Pub. ------------------ Res. Code,§ 21000, et seq.; 14 Cal. Code PEAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California

19 limited liability company; THE BEDFORD GROUP, a

20 California corporation,

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Real Parties in Interest.

Regs., § 15000, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 526(a), 1060)

Printed on Recycled Paper

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

l COMES NOW Petitioner and Plaintiff United Homeowners' Association II, and alleges as

2 follows:

3 INTRODUCTION

4 1. This action is brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")

5 to challenge certain actions taken by the Respondents and Defendants County of Los Angeles, and the

6 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, "Respondents") in approving "The View"

7 Project ("the Project,,), an 88-unit luxury condominium development. Respondents did not properly

8 consider substantial evidence presented by members of the public and Petitioner and Plaintiff United

9 Homeowners' Association II ("Petitioner" or "UHA") that the Project, as approved, will have

10 significant, unmitigated impacts on the environment and the community adjacent to the Project. For

11 years, this parcel has been zoned for low intensity development precisely in recognition of the

12 environmental constraints surrounding the development of this parcel for more intensive uses. In spite

13 of this consistent approach to this property in the past, Respondents turned a blind eye to that history

14 and the evidence before them in their haste to approve this oversized luxury development.

15 2. The Project is an 88-unit, five-story luxury condominium development to be situated

16 across the street from the Inglewood Oil Field, Kenneth Hahn State Reservation Area, Norman 0.

17 Houston Park, and Windsor Hills Magnet School at 510 l South Overhill Drive in the unincorporated

18 Ladera HeightsNiew Park-Windsor Hills community in Los Angeles County. The Project abuts six

19 single-family residences on Onacrest Drive.

20 3. The Project will be built on a site that was zoned to allow a 35-foot high commercial

21 development, and will now house a 65-foot high, large luxury condominium project with three levels

22 of subterranean parking that is inconsistent with anything in the surrounding area and will

23 substantially decrease the quality of life of nearby residents.

24 4. Real Party in Interest The Bedford Group had sought entitlements to develop a large

25 condo project at the Site since 2003 despite constant opposition from residents of the surrounding

26 community based on the massive scale and harmful impact that this developer's proposed projects

27 would have on the region. In the past, those efforts were unsuccessful when County officials

28 rightfully noted the incompatibility between the proposed development and the neighboring

2 VERIFI ED PETITION FOR WRITOF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REI.IF.F

I community, for a variety of reasons.

2 5. Respondents have now approved an 88-unit condominium project, despite the fact that

3 the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), on which Respondents relied, is legally insufficient

4 under CEQA.

5 6. The MND is insufficient in its analysis of traffic, air quality, hazards and hazardous

6 waste, aesthetics, and greenhouse emissions. For each of these issues, there is substantial evidence of

7 a fair argument that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. The MND does not

8 consider any project alternatives that could mitigate the substantial impacts the Project will have.

9 7. As such, an EIR is required, and Respondents must consider the EIR before approving

10 the entitlements sought.

11 PARTIES

12 8. Petitioner and Plaintiff UHA is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation duly

13 incorporated under the laws of the State of California UHA is comprised of approximately 11,000

14 general members. The organization and its members participated in the approval process for the

15 Project, submitting written and oral comments to the Regional Planning Commission ("Commission")

16 and the County Board of Supervisors. Petitioner's members are residents and taxpayers of the County

17 of Los Angeles and are filing this action as private attorneys general.

18 9. Respondent and Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (the "County") is the public

19 governmental entity serving the people of the County of Los Angeles.

20 10. Respondent and Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

21 (the "Board") is the elected governing body of the County of Los Angeles, a charter county in the

22 State of California. The Board has an office in Los Angeles County.

23 11. Real Party in Interest PEAK CAP IT AL INVESTMENTS, LLC is a California limited

24 liability company. PEAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC is listed as an applicant for the Project's

25 entitlement and is the owner of the property at issue.

26 12. Real Party in Interest THE BEDFORD GROUP is a California corporation and is listed

· 27 along with PEAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC as an applicant for the various entitlements for

28 the Project that were approved by Respondents.

3 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Petitioner and Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondent

DOES 1 through I 00, inclusive, and they are therefore sued by fictitious names pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure section 474. Petitioner alleges on information and belief that each such fictitiously

named Respondent is responsible or liable in some manner· for the events and happenings referred to

herein, and Petitioner will seek leave to amend this Petition to allege their true names and capacities

after the same have been ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to article VI, section 10 of

the California Constitution and sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

15. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

section 394 in that Respondents are government entities or agents of the County of Los Angeles.

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

16. Petitioner or other parties raised comments during the multi-year approval process for

the Project notifying Respondents that the approval of the Project violated CEQA on all grounds

raised herein.

17. Petitioner provided the County with notice that it intended to commence this action on

April 6, 2018. A copy of Petitioner's letter notifying the County and its proof of service is attached as

Exhibit A.

18. Petitioner notified the Attorney General that it was commencing this litigation. Proof

of service of the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory

Relief on the Attorney General is attached as Exhibit B.

STATUTORY SCHEME

California Environmental Quality Act

19. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), found at Public Resources Code

section 21000 et seq., is based on the principle that "the maintenance of a quality environment for the

people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern." (Pub. Resources Code,§

21000, subd. (a).)

20. In CEQA, the Legislature has established procedures designed to achieve these goals,


principally the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). These procedures provide both for

2 determination and for full public disclosure of the potential adverse effects on the environment of

3 discretionary projects that governmental agencies propose to approve, and require a description of

4 feasible alternatives to such proposed projects and feasible mitigation measures to lessen their

5 environmental harm. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.)

6 21. CEQA is not merely a procedural statute; it imposes clear and substantive

7 responsibilities on agencies that propose to approve projects, requiring that public agencies not

8 approve projects that harm the environment unless and until all feasible mitigation measures are

9 employed to minimize that harm. (Pub. Resources Code,§§ 21002; 21002.1, subd. (b).)

10 22. Failure either to comply with the substantive requirements of CEQA or to carry out the

11 full CEQA procedures so that complete information as to a project's impacts is developed and

12 publically disclosed constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion that requires invalidation of the public

13 agency action regardless of whether full compliance would have produced a different result. (Pub.

14 Resources Code, § 21005.)

15 23. CEQA authorizes and directs the State Office of Planning and Research to adopt

16 guidelines for the implementation ofCEQA by public agencies. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21083.)

17 These guidelines, which are found at title 14, California Code of Regulations section 1500 et seq.

18 ("Guidelines"), are binding on all state and local agencies, including Respondents.

19 24. The Guidelines establish procedures for calculating the baseline environmental

20 conditions at a proposed project site, providing that "[ a ]n EIR must include a description of the

21 physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of

22 preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental

23 analysis is commenced . . . . " (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15125 (a).)

24 25. Agencies may not undertake actions that could have a significant adverse effect on the

25 environment, or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before complying with CEQA.

26 (14 Cal. Code Regs.,§ 15004(b)(2).) The "lead agency," which is the public agency that has the

27 principal responsibility for carrying out the project, is responsible for conducting an initial study to

28 determine, in consultation with other relevant state agencies, whether an environmental impact report,


1 a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared for a project. (Pub.

2 Resources Code, §§ 21067; 21080.1, subd. (a); 21080.3, subd. (a).)

3 26. The Guidelines require ''all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation"

4 to be considered in the Initial Study for a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15063(a)(l).) CEQA

5 defines a project as "the whole· of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct

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

7 environment." (14 Cal. Code Regs.,§ 15378(a).)

8 27. An EIR must be prepared "[i]f there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record

9 before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. . . . " (Pub.

10 Resources Code, § 21080, subd. ( d).) That is, an EIR must be prepared "if a lead agency is presented

11 with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment . . . even though it

12 may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant

13 effect." (14 Cal. Code Regs.;§ 15064, subd. (f)(l).)

14 28. Under specific and limited circumstances, the public agency evaluating a proposed

15 project may find that an EIR is not required. In such cases, the agency may adopt a negative

16 declaration or a mitigated negative declaration ("MND"). A negative declaration may be prepared and

17 adopted for a proposed project that "will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not

18 require the preparation of an environmental impact report." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.) An

19 MND may be prepared or adopted when "revisions in the project plans . . . would avoid the effects or

20 mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur" and

21 "there is not substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project,

22 as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment/' (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21064.5.) If

23 either of these conditions does not apply to the project in question, the agency must prepare an EIR.

24 29. A negative declaration must contain: ( 1) a description of the project; (2) the location of

25 the project; (3) a proposed finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact;

26 (4) a copy of the initial study documenting the reasons to support the finding; and (5) mitigation

2 7 measures, if any, incorporated into the project. ( 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15 071.)

28 30. Because informing the public about the environmental impacts of a proposed project is


1 a critical function of CEQA, any proposed mitigation measures in the MND must be made available

2 for public review and comment prior to adoption of the declaration. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081 .6,

3 subd. (c).)

4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5 Description of the Project

6 3 1 . The project site is located at 5101 S. Overhill Drive in the unincorporated community

7 • of Ladera HeightsNiew Park-Windsor Hills ("Project Site" or "Site").

8 32. The currently undeveloped Project Site is approximately 1 .8 acres, trapezoidal in

9 shape, and gently sloping. Real Party in Interest The Bedford Group requested a project permit to

1 0 create one multi-family residence lot developed with 88 attached single-family residential

1 1 condominium units to be used as single-family residences within one building.

1 2 33 . The proposed Project includes 1 39,281 square feet of living space and 206

1 3 subterranean spaces used for vehicle parking within a five-story structure 65 feet in height and three

1 4 levels o f subterranean parking. The Project also anticipates a pool and spa area with landscaping. The

1 5 current height limit on th e Site i s 35 feet per Los Angeles County Code section 22.28.070, subdivision

1 6 (d).

1 7 34. The Project immediately abuts and obscures views of six single-family homes on

18 Onacrest Drive.

1 9 History of the Site and Project

20 35. Zoning for the Project Site was established as unclassified in 1 927 with Ordinance

21 1 494. District No. 1 6, Section 3-W was named View Park and the Site's zoning was changed to R-3

22 (Limited Multiple Residence Zone), effective October 16, 1 94 7, with the adoption of Ordinance

23 Number 4988, amending Section 254 to Ordinance 1 494.

24 36. From 1 948 to 1 99 1 , the Site was zoned C-3, and in 1 99 1 the zone was changed from

25 C-3 to Commercial Planned Development, with a 35-foot height limit, after the community

26 successfully defeated several prior development proposals by other developers, including a 40-unit

27 condominium project and two motel projects with over 100 rooms each.

28 37. A November 1 999 Stocker Street Zoning Study (the "1 999 Study") was done at the

7

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 request of the Board of Supervisors to ensure that any future development along Stocker Street near

2 Stocker and Overhill (including the Site) would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,

3 and the 1 999 Study was also influenced by the community's ongoing struggle against out-of-scale

4 development proposals for the Site. In discussing the General Plan designations of the affected

5 properties, the 1 999 Study noted that "[t]he commercial properties at the intersection of Stocker,

6 Overhill, and La Brea are designated Category 1 , Low Density Residential . . . Scale of development

7 should be limited . . . and should be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Building heights

8 should not exceed that of the existing residential development . . . Projects should respect local

9 architectural themes and enhance community character."

10 38. The 1999 Study went on to observe that traffic conditions at the intersection of Stocker,

1 1 Overhill and L a Brea make it difficult to access the commercial properties south of Stocker (including

12 the Site) because "[t]his intersection was designed to limit all turning movements and with the priority

1 3 of serving free-flow, high-speed regional traffic. Access to and from the comer properties must be

14 made by right turns only."

15 39. Finally, the 1 999 Study observed the community's long-term interest in development

16 along the Stocker corridor and the fact that the community "is interested in a permanent solution that

1 7 will eliminate what, in their view, is a constant onslaught of development proposals for the subject

18 properties that are incompatible with the neighborhood character of the View Park community."

1 9 40. When The Bedford Group filed its original application for entitlements on June 24,

20 2003 (Project No. 03-1 89-(2)), it requested a general plan amendment from Low Density Residential

21 to Commercial and a zone change from CPD to C-3-DP in connection with its plan to build 72 condos

22 and office space (the "Original Project"). The original United Homeowners' Association (now

23 dissolved) successfully opposed the Original Project in 2004 on behalf of the Windsor Hills / View

24 Park community with the full support of former Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, and the

25 entitlement application was ultimately allowed to lapse by the developer in April of 20 12.

26 Approval of the Proiect Before the Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors

27 4 1 . In 201 5, the Department of Regional Planning ("DRP") included a zone change for the

28 Site from CPO to C- 1 (Restricted Business) and a General Plan amendment from Low Density


Residential to Commercial in the 2035 General Plan update, without specifically notifying residents of

2 the Windsor Hills / View Park community or conducting a hearing on this specific zone change and

3 General Plan amendment before a Hearing Examiner or the Commission.

4 42. The General Plan update was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in October 20 1 5.

5 The developer submitted its second application for entitlements in April 2015, initially including

6 requests for a General Plan amendment and zone change that were subsequently removed from the

7 application after the General Plan update became final. As indicated by DRP staff in a September

8 2016 email to Ms. Toni McDonald, "[i]fthe zone had not been changed by the General Plan update,

9 the only way to submit a project with condominiums would be to change the zone."

10 43 . The Bedford Group requested a vesting tentative map to create one multi-family

1 1 residence lot pursuant to Los Angeles County Code ("County Code") section 2 1.38.010. According to

12 the map, the 1.8-acre lot would be developed with 88 attached single-family residential condominium

13 units.

14 44. The Bedford Group also requested Conditional Use Permit No. 201500052 in a related

1 5 request to ensure compliance with hillside management development criteria, for a structure to exceed

1 6 the maximum height of 3 5 feet above grade by 3 0 feet for a total height of 65-feet maximum, for a

17 reduced front yard setback from the standard 20 feet to 15 feet along Overhill Drive and to authorize

18 single-family residence development within a commercial zone pursuant to County Code Section

19 22.28. 1 10. Because the Project would be built on a hill, the total height of the project along its

20 western boundary at South La Brea A venue would actually be approximately 90 feet.

2 1 45. The project site is located within the CG - General Commercial (up to 50 du/net ac)

22 land use category of the 2035 General Plan ("General �Ian") Land Use Policy Map.

23 46. The County Regional Planning Commission ("RPC") held public hearings on May 3 1,

24 20 1 7 and August 2, 20 17, at the conclusion of which it certified the MND, adopted a Mitigation

25 Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approved the Vesting Map and Conditional Use Permit

26 ("CUP").

27 47. UHA filed an appeal of the Commission's decision on August 1 4, 201 7, requesting that

28 the Board consider the Project, reconsider the certification of the MND, and deny the CUP and

9 VERIF IED PET IT ION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLA INT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCT IVE RELIEF

2

Vesting Map.

48. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on October 24, 201 7 on the appeal of

3 the Project. There was no discussion among the Board. The Board then closed the public hearing and

4 continued the matter to November 2 1 , 20 1 7.

5 49. At the November 2 1 , 20 1 7 hearing, the Board denied the appeal, certified the MND,

6 adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, upheld the findings of the Commission to

7 approve the Vesting Map and CUP, and instructed County Counsel to prepare for the Board's

8 consideration of the necessary findings and conditions to approve the Project.

9 50. On March 6, 20 1 8, the Board adopted the Findings of the Board of Supervisors and

1 0 Order drafted by County Counsel.

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 1 . On March 9, 20 1 8, a Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk

Recorder's Office for the Project's approval. The Notice was not posted in any public place, either

online or physically. When Petitioner's representatives called the County Clerk Recorder's Office on

multiple occasions between approximately March 7 and March 26, they were told that the Notice had

not yet been posted. In an abundance of caution, a represe_ntative for Petitioner appeared in person at

the County Clerk Recorder's Office on March 30 to confirm that the Notice had not been posted. On

that day, a supervisor at the County Clerk Recorder's office located a copy of the Notice of

Determination in an "employees' only" area of the office and provided a copy to Petitioner's

representative. The Notice indicated that it had been filed on March 9, 201 8 .

52.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Environmental Quality Act) (Public Resources Code §§ 21 168, 21168.5)

Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

preceding paragraphs.

53 . The adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration violated CEQA for a number of

reasons.

The MND's Traffic Study Is Deficient and Significantly Understates the Project's Traffic Impact

54. The MND's traffic study is deficient and significantly understates the traffic impact of

1 0 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

the Project on nearby intersections that already operate at conditions substantially below an acceptable

2 level of service.

3 55. An independent traffic expert's analysis demonstrates that the MND's traffic study is

4 inadequate, based on outdated and faulty data that is inconsistent with. traffic studies of other nearby

5 projects, and fails to identify a likely significant impact at the intersection of Slauson and La Brea.

6 56. The MND's cumulative impact analysis of traffic is markedly deficient when compared

7 to the cumula!ive project list for a traffic study done for t�e nearby Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza

8 development. The project list here includes only eight projects, while the mall project's traffic study

9 includes 32 projects. Because the cumulative analysis of traffic included onl� the traffic generated by

1 0 eight projects, rather than the full list of 32 nearby projects, and because the analysis assumed only a

1 1 0. 1 4% increase in traffic each year rather than the standard 1 % used by projects in Los Angeles, the

12 traffic study significantly understated the impact of the project and other projects nearby on traffic,

1 3 and failed to identify intersections that will be significantly impacted by the project and the

1 4 cumulative effect of other nearby development.

15 57. The developer has not met its burden under Los Angeles County Code section

1 6 22.56.040 that "the proposed site i s adequately served [b ]y highways or streets of sufficient width and

17 improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate" or "by other

1 8 public or private service facilities as are required." Addi�ionally, the Project will likely cause

1 9 cumulative traffic impacts at the nearby intersection of Slauson an d La Brea, contributing to future

20 operating conditions below an acceptable level of service.

21 58. The Project will include stairs to access nearby bus stops, but such stairs are not ADA

22 accessible to persons with disabilities. Additionally, the driveway access configurations will not

23 provide adequate stacking space for vehicles and sufficient opportunity for left tum access onto or

24 from a high-speed street like Overhill, which raises obvious public safety concerns that have not been

25 analyzed.

26 An EIR Is Required to Assess the Potential for Significant Air Quality Impacts

27 59. An EIR is required to assess the potenti�l for significant air quality impacts on nearby

28 residents and schoolchildren from the Project. This is a large development that is adjacent to an active

1 1 V ER IF IED PET IT ION FOR WR IT OF M ANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCT IV E R EL I EF

oil field and methane zone, is very close to abandoned oil wells, and located in an Alquist-Priolo

2 Earthquake Fault Zone and a Very High Fire Hazard Serverity Zone, and no Phase I Environmental

3 Site Assessment was prepared.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

60. The MND fails to evaluate the proposed Project's air quality impact: Despite this lack

of an actual assessment, the MND still concludes that the criteria air pollutant emissions released

during Project construction and operation "will not exceed the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance

Thresholds" (p. 1 1 ). Furthermore, the MND states,

Projects such as the proposed "The View" residential project do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment an4 land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The change to regional air quality from the proposed action is immeasurably small due to the size of the project relative to the air quality basin and because the project does not exceed air quality standards.

This assertion is unsupported as the MND contained no evaluation of the Project's criteria air

pollutant emissions, and the only air quality study that was conducted didn' t estimate construction or

operational emissions. Simply because the MND asserts that the Project's impact on regional air

quality would be "immeasurably small due to the size of the project" does not mean that the Project

would automatically have a less than significant air quality impact, and does not justify the omission

of a proper analysis.

61 . Without modeling emissions, the amount of criteria air pollutant emissions produced

by the Project is unknown. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District

("SCAQMD"), the Project's construction and operational emissions must be quantified and compared

to thresholds in order to properly evaluate the Project's potential air quality impacts. According to the

SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook,

A project generates emissions both during the period of its construction and through ongoing daily operations. Emissions from both of these sources should be quantified in the EIR. In addition, the EIR should analyze the impact of emissions during each identified phase of project development and build-out year. As part of the impact analysis, emissions need to be compared to thresholds of significance.

Additionally, the handbook states,

In the case of an MND, the analysis need not be as extensive as that prepared for an EIR. If the Initial Study identified emissions from construction and/or operation as a potentially significant effect, then the MND should quantify those sources of emissions


and perform an analysis similar to an EIR.

2 Although the MND identifies several construction-related emission sources, it fails to quantify or

3 evaluate the emissions resulting from these sources, and fails to even mention any operational

4 emission sources.

5 62. As a result of the MND's failure to quantify potential criteria air pollutant emissions

6 generated during construction or operation, the Project's emissions cannot be compared to any

7 numerical significance thresholds, including the applicable CEQA significance thresholds set forth by

8 SCAQMD, which would support the MND's conclusion that the Project will have a less than

9 significant air quality impact. An actual analysis needs to be conducted prior to making such a

10 significance determination.

1 1 63. Until an adequate analysis is conducted that quantifies these impacts, a significance

·12 determination cannot be made, as there is no evidentiary basis on which to conclude that air quality

13 impacts are less than significant.

1 4 64. An independent analysis demonstrates that the Project would have significant air

15 quality impacts, contrary to what is stated in the MND. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to

16 adequately assess the Project's air quality impacts, and additional mitigation should be identified and

17 implemented in order to effectively reduce the Project's emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

18 65. Using independent modeling, the Project's construction emissions would exceed the

I 9 significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Specifically, the Project's maximum daily

20 construction volatile organic compound ("VOC") emissions exceed the 75 pounds per day (lbs/day)

2 1 threshold and the Project's maximum daily construction nitrogen oxide ("NOx") emissions greatly

22 exceed the 100 lbs/day threshold.

23 66. When the Project's emissions are properly quantified and compared �o thresholds,

24 Project construction will have a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously

25 identified in the MND.

26 67. Specifically, as a result of exposure to the emissions from construction and operation,

27 the cancer risk to an individual residing at the residence nearest the project site significantly exceed

28 the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.


68. An EIR must be prepared to adequately analyze the air quality impacts the proposed

2 Project may have on regional and local air quality and should identify and implement additional

3 mitigation measures to reduce these emissions to the fullest extent feasible.

4 69. Because the Project's construction-related VOC, NOx, and diesel particulate matter

5 ("DPM") emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, presenting a potentially

6 significant air quality impact, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in an

7 EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level.

8 70. Numerous feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce VOC emissions,

9 including the following, which are routinely identified in other CEQA matters as feasible mitigation

10 measures:

1 1 a. use of zero-VOC emissions paint;

12 b. use of materials that do not require paint;

13 c. use of spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies;

14 d. require implementation of diesel control measures;

15 e. repower or replace older construction equipment engines;

16 f. install retrofit devices on existing construction equipment;

17 g. use electric and hybrid construction equipment;

1 8 h. institute a heavy-duty off-road vehicle plan; and

19 i . implement a construction vehicle inventory tracking system.

20 71. An EIR must be prepared to include these and other additional mitigation measures, as

21 wel l as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are

22 implemented to reduce construction emissions.

23 Hazards and Hazardous Waste Inadequately Evaluated

24 72. The MND did not include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("ESA"), a

25 standard tool for use in CEQA matters to identify potentially hazardous conditions. Instead the MND

26 simply references an Envirostor search as the sole source of information to conclude "no impact" that

27 the Project site would be located on a hazardous materials site. Phase l ESA is necessary to ensure

28 that hazardous soi l or vapor conditions do not exist that would pose a risk to construction workers or

1 4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR W RIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I neighboring residents when the parcels are developed. Until an EIR is prepared to properly assess the

2 hazardous waste impacts, the conclusions reached in the MND are unsubstantiated and unreliable for

3 ensuring the protection of the health of on-site workers and nearby residents during Project

4 construction and operation.

5 73. A Phase I ESA should be prepared for the Project site by a certified professional and

6 included in an EIR. Phase I ESAs are commonly included in CEQA documentation to identify

7 hazardous waste issues that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment and which may

8 require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Any conditions

9 identified as hazardous in the Phase I should be addressed through mitigation in the DEIR.

10 74. Abandoned oil wells are located on parcels directly north and south of the Project site.

11 These wells, Stocker 8 and Stocker 10, were abandoned in 1932 and 1961, respectively. Hazards to

12 construction personnel may be posed by any well cuttings that may have been disposed on the Project

13 site. Hazards may also be posed to future residents by emissions of vapors that may emanate from the

14 wells, which were abandoned when practices were not as protective as well abandonment practices

15 currently regulated by the Department of Conservation and Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal

16 Resources. A Phase I ESA should be conducted for any project on this Site, and particularly for one

17 such as this that plans to add three levels of subterranean parking.

18 75. The Project is located directly adjacent t� a Methane Zone as demarcated by the City of

19 Los Angeles and is also noted by the County to be in a location that may require a methane mitigation

20 system. Because of its proximity to the Methane Zone, a study of the subsurface gas conditions at the

21 Project site may be warranted to ensure that methane has not accumulated beneath the Project site at

22 potentially explosive levels. The potential for accumulations of methane, and the need for a

23 subsurface gas investigation, should be evaluated in the Phase I ESA, as recommended, for inclusion

24 in an EIR.

25 76. The Phase 1 ESA should be conducted to conform to standards for performing a Phase I

26 ESA, established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards

27 (ASTM) to include a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on

28 regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities; an inspection; interviews


with people knowledgeable about the property; and recommendations for further actions to address

2 potential hazards.

3 MND Does Not Evaluate Impact on Aesthetics

4 77. The MND evaluates whether the project will "substantially degrade the existing visual

5 character of quality of the site and its surroundings because of height, bulk, pattern, scale, character or

6 other features." The MND concludes that planting vegetation around this 5-story structure will

7 mitigate the impacts of the significant addition of bulk and height to a parcel that was zoned for a

8 maximum 35-foot high structure. The MND also evaluates and rejects as insignificant impacts on

9 scenic vistas.

10 78. Petitioner, its members, and the public presented significant evidence that the 5-story

11 project would have a significant aesthetic impact. The large structure will block views of the Santa

12 Monica mountains from Onacrest Drive residents and block views from public locations. such as the

13 nearby elementary school and parks to the mountains and ocean.

14 79. Impacts on aesthetics are particularly important in this case because of the Project's

15 close proximity to View Park, which as of July 2016 is listed as a Historic District in the National

16 Park Service's National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service's profile of View Park

1 7 highlights the area's views of the city and mountains, which this Project would partially obstruct.

18 80. This evidence amounts to a fair argument of a significant and unmitigated impact on

19 the environment based upon the looming, overly high structure in the backyards of Onacrest Drive

20 residents and on the neighborhood in general.

21 Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impact

22 81. The MND determines the Project's greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact would be less than

23 significant, yet fails to provide proper justification to support this claim. As a result, the Project's

24 GHG impacts are inadequately addressed.

25 82. The MND identifies several sources that will contribute to the Project's GHG

26 emissions, but the MND determines that these emissions will not result in a significant impact based

27 on "assumptions for projects similar in size." Furthermore, the MND determines that the Project's

28 emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon


dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e/ yr). Without first quantifying the proposed Project's GHG

2 emissions, however, there is no way of knowing if the Project's GHG emissions will be above or

3 below thresholds.

4 83 . According to Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, "[t]he d�termination of the

5 significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent

6 with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based on

7 available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions

8 resulting from a project."

9 84. Therefore, by simply stating that the Project's GHG impact would not be significant

10 and by making no attempt to quantify or evaluate the Project's GHG emissions, the MND violates

11 requirements set forth by CEQA.

12 85. The Real Parties in Interest should have quantified the proposed Project's emissions

13 and compared the emissions to applicable thresholds to determine if implementation of the Project

14 would result in a significant GHG impact. Until an updated analysis is conducted that correctly and

15 thoroughly assesses the Project's GHG impacts, the conclusions made within the MND should not be

16 relied upon to determine the impact the Project will have on the surrounding environment.

17 86. An Environmental Impact Report was required because the record contained

18 substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the project could have impacts to the

19 environment that have not been adequately studied or mitigated.

20 87. As a result of Respondents' reliance upon the MND, no analysis was performed of

21 alternatives to the Project that might have less impacts on the environment and surrounding

22 community than the Project.

23 88. Petitioner and others raised all of the concerns about the MND to the various bodies

24 which oversaw the hearings to approve the Project, including the RPC and the Board of Supervisors,

25 before the close of public hearings on the Project.

26 89. Petitioner has a direct and beneficial interest in the action herein and has exhausted all

27 other available remedies.

28 90. Petitioner has a beneficial right to Respondents' performance of their respective duties

17 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND ]NJUNCTIVE RELIEF

based on Petitioner's interest in maintaining and improving the quality of the environment in the

2 County of Los Angeles as well as the integrity of the County's local land use laws. Petitioner's

3 members have an interest in improving the quality of life in their own unincorporated community.

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

14

1 5

1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 1 . Petitioner has timely filed this action within 30 days of the alleged posting of the NOD

by the Los Angeles County Clerk/Recorder on March 9, 201 8.

92.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief)

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 526, 526a)

Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the


93. Respondent's failure to comply with CEQA's requirements has caused and threatens to

cause Petitioner irreparable and substantial hann by pennitting the construction of the Project when its

approvals do not conform to or satisfy the legal requirements. The laws that are violated by the

approval of the Project are intended to protect the environment and the County's infrastructure, and to

ensure the orderly functioning of the County's l�d use planning pro�ess. So long as the approvals

remain in effect, Petitioner and the public at large are injured by the flouting of these laws.

94. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, in that unless Respondents

are enjoined by this Court to rescind the approval of the Project, construction of the Project will go

forward and permit development with unmitigated environmental impacts and serious conflicts with

the County's land use laws to be constructed. No amount of monetary damages or other legal remedy

can adequately compensate Petitioner and all residents of the County of Los Angeles for the

irreparable harm that they will suffer from the violations of law described herein.

TIDRD CAUSE Of ACTION (Declaratory Relief)

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1060)

95. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the


96. A dispute has arisen between Petitioner and Respondents, in that Petitioner believes

and contends, for the reasons set forth above, that Respondents' actions as set forth above were

unlawful and invalid. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis contends, that


1 Respondents contend in all respects to the contrary.

2 97. A judicial declaration as to the legality of Respondents' actions, as set forth above, is

3 therefore necessary and appropriate to determine the respective rights and duties of the parties.

4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner and Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows:

6 1 . That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding Respondents (a) to

7 rescind, revoke, and invalidate all approvals issued in support of the Project, including but not limited

8 to their certifying of the MND, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and

9 approval of the Vesting Map and CUP; and (b) if Respondents again consider approval of the Project,

10 to do so only in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA;

1 1 2. That this Court enjoin Respondents from taking any action to further the construction

12 of the Project, and to enjoin Real Parties from any activity in furtherance of the construction of the

1 3 Project; and that this Court enjoin Respondents to rescind, revoke, and invalidate all approvals issued

14 in support of the Project, including but not limited to the Board's certification of the MND, adoption

15 of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Vesting Map and CUP;

1 6 3 . That this Court award Petitioner and Plaintiff costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to

1 7 Code of Civil Procedure section I 02 1 .5 or other applicable law; and

1 8 4. That this Court grant Petitioner such other, different, or further relief as the Court may

1 9 deem just and proper.

20

21 DATED: April 06, 201 8

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respectfully submitted,

STRUMW ASSER & WOOCHER LLP Fredric D. Woocher Beverly Grossman Palmer :::e K��

Dale K. Larson

Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff United Homeowners Association 11


2 I , John W. Heath, dec1are:

VERIFICATION

3 I am a Board Member and the President of United Homeowners ' Association I I , and a resident

4 of the County of Los Angeles . I am authorized to make this veri fication for Petitioner and Plaintiff. I

5 have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

6 FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. I am informed and believe that the contents

7 thereof are true, and on that ground I al lege that the matters stated therein are true.

8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cal ifornia that the foregoing is

9 true and con·ect.

l O Executed this 5th day of Apri l , 20 1 8, at Los Angeles, California.

l I

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

ohn W. Heath, President United Homeowners' Association I I

\

ExhibitA

FREDRIC 0. WOOCI-IER

MICHAEL J. STIUJMWASSER. GREGORY G. LUKE f BRYCE A. GEE BEYERL V GROSSMAN PALMER DALE K. LARSON

t Also admitted to practice in New York and Mossochusalls

f Also admitted lo pradice In llfinois

Via U.S. Mail and Facsimile

STRUMW ASSER & WOOCHER ttr ATTORNJlVS AT I.AW

I 0940 WILSIIIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2000 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

April 6, 201 8

Dean C . Logan, Registrar-Recorder/Co�ty Clerk County of Los Angeles 1 2400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Phone: (800) 20 I -8999 Facsimile: (562) 929-4 790

Re: Notice of Intent to Commence CEQA Action

United Homeowners ' Association II v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Dear·Mr. Logan:

TELF.PHONF.: (3 J 0) 576-1233 l�ACSIMILE: (31 0)319-0J S6

WWW flUMWQQCH CQM

ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN SENIOR COUNSEi.

This is to inform you, as an agent for the County of Los Angeles (the "County'') and the

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the "Board"), that United Homeowners' Association

II ("UHA") will be filing suit against the County and the Board to challenge the March 6, 2018

action of the County adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approving a

Vesting Map and Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), and certifying a mitigated negative

declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the construction

of a 139,281 square-foot luxury condominium building with 206 subterranean spaces used for

vehicle parking within a five-story structure that is 65 feet in height, at 5 1 0 1 S . Overhill Drive in

the unincorporated community of Ladera Heights/View Park-Windsor Hills.

Please take notice under section 2 1 1 67.5 of the Public Resources Code that UHA intends

to include a cause of action under the provisions of CEQA against the County and the Board.

The lawsuit will challenge, among other things, the County's decision to approve the project

without preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, despite substantial evidence in the

record that the project may have unmitigated impacts to the environment.

Sincerely,

(jJq'f� Dale K. Larson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I O 1 1 1 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE

Re: United Homeowners ' Association II v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

I am employed in the County of Los An�eles, State of California. I am over the age of 1 8 and not a party to the within action. My busmess address is 1 0940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2000, Los Angeles, California 90024. On April 6, 2018, I served the documents described as LETTER DATED APRIL 6, 2018 RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMECE CEQA ACTION on all appropriate parties in this action, as listed below, by the method stated.

Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk County of Los Angeles 1 2400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Facsimile: (562) 929-4790 1 3 l&I I f fax service is indicated, by facsimile transmission this date to the fax numbe stated, to the attention of the person named, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1 0 1 3(f) 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

l&I If U.S. Mail service is indicated, by placing this date for collection for mailing true copies in sealed envelopes, first-class postage llrepaid, addressed to each person as indicated, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 10 l 3a(3). I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 6, 2018, at Los Angele�

... Mindy Lu

PROOF OF SERVICE

. . . .

. - Exhibit B

STRUMW ASSER & WOOCHER LLP A TTOR.'-EYS AT I.AW

FREDRIC D. WOOCHER

MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER

GREOORY G. UJKE t BRYCE A. GEE

I 0940 WU.SHIRE BOUI.EVARD, SUITE 2000 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER

PATRICIA T. PEI

DALE K. I.ARSON

t Also admitted to prac:1ice in New York and Massachusetts

Via U.S. Mail

Xavier Becerra Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1 300 I Street Sacramento, California 9581 4-291 9

April 6, 201 8

Re: Notice of Intent to Commence CEQA Action United Homeowners ' Association II v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Dear Attorney General Becerra:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2 1 1 67 .5 and Code of Civil Procedure

TELEPHONE: (3 10) 576-1233 FACSIMILE: (3 10) 3 19-0 156

\VWW SJBVMWQQCH CQM

section 388, Plaintiff and Petitioner United Homeowners' Association II ("UHA") hereby gives notice that on April 6, 20 1 8, a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint will be filed against Defendants and Respondents the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City County Board of Supervisors (collectively, "Respondents") in Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The action challenges Respondents' failure to adhere to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") when approving a 1 39,281 square-foot luxury condominium building with 206 subterranean spaces used for vehicle parking within a five-story structure that is 65 feet in height, at 5 101 S. Overhill Drive in the unincorporated community of Ladera HeightsNiew Park-Windsor Hills in Los Angeles County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

A copy of the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief is attached to this notice. In addition, I include a copy of the notice of intent to commence action served upon Respondents, and the proof of service of that notice.

Sincerely,

(jJqf ___ Dale K. Larson

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

ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PROOF OF SERVICE

Re: United Homeowners ' Association II v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 1 8 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1 0940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2000, Los Angeles, California 90024.

On April 6, 2018, I served the documents described as LETTER DATED APRIL 6, 2018 RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMECE CEQA ACTION on all appropriate parties in this action, as listed below, by the method stated.

Xavier Becerra Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street

Sacramento, California 958 14

181 If U.S . Mail service i s indicated, by placing this date for collection for mailing true copies in sealed envelopes, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to each person as indicated, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1 0 1 3a(3). I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on April 6, 2018 at Los Angeles, California.

1&& Mmdy Lu

PROOF OF SERVICE

lli 11orr1l'1 l.eii; ani:;vlas 6 2018 · 1 fredric d. woocher (sbn 96689) beverly grossman...

Documents