Residents Sue Arcadia Council in Attempt to Block Construction Projects

This classic home at 1600 Highlands Ave is in jeopardy-Photos by Terry Miller

BY JOE TAGLIERI

Residents of the Arcadia Highlands neighborhood recently filed a lawsuit against the City Council in an attempt to block the demolition of two vintage homes set to be replaced by larger, more elaborate residences.

In February the council upheld the Planning Commission’s reversal of a decision by the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners Association to reject the proposed projects at 29 E. Orange Grove Ave. and 1600 Highland Oaks Drive. The existing structures each are one story and approximately 2,000 square feet, while the approved developments call for homes that total more than 6,000 square feet including a two-story home for the Highland Oaks Drive project.

“It’s unfortunate that the city council didn’t listen to the citizens and their concerns about the mansionization that’s going on throughout the Highlands and the impact that it’s having on the neighborhood,” said David Arvizu, who heads the group Save the Arcadia Highlands. “That’s why we filed a lawsuit against the city.”

Arvizu added that his group, which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is “basically looking for a judge to declare that these houses are not exempt from an environmental impact report, and that an environmental impact report needs to be done to find out the effect of what all these houses are doing cumulatively to our neighborhood environment.”

John McClendon, attorney for the Highlands plaintiffs, said: “The immediate goal of this lawsuit is to have the court set aside the city’s approval of these two projects. The broader goal is to get the city to stop taking an ad hoc approach and look at this in a broader context … and to show some respect and deference for the competency and concerns of the [homeowner association’s] Architectural Review Board.”

On Tuesday Arcadia City Attorney Stephen Deitsch, City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto and council members declined to comment on the lawsuit. Several officials cited the city’s policy that they not speak publicly about pending litigation.

Echoing a key point in the homeowner association’s appeal to the council, the lawsuit hinges on enforcing compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, which requires a study of a development’s long-term and short-term impacts on the local environment.

“Despite the City’s approval of plans for nearly 30 homes that will result in the mansionization of the Arcadia Highlands, the City has conducted no cumulative environmental review,” according to a document filed March 12 in the state’s Superior Court in Los Angeles County. “The City has not assessed impacts on aesthetics, neighborhood character, traffic generation and congestion, noise, or any other impact area mandated by CEQA. Instead, the City has approached each proposed mansionization project on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis and finding each one categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA.”

The document also notes “190 other developer-owned residential properties in the City for which similar proposals are expected.”

Arcadia City Attorney Stephen Deitsch explained the local government’s opposition to applying a CEQA environmental impact review to the Orange Grove Avenue project in a Jan. 28 letter to City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto.

The city attorney observed that project opponents have “submitted no evidence that the Project will result in a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic, water or energy usage, instead offering only speculation. Argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated narrative do not constitute ‘substantial evidence’ under CEQA and cannot be relied upon by the City.”

“Things that are very close to the experience of neighbors such as traffic, aesthetics, noise impacts, things of that sort — the testimony of eyewitnesses there can constitute substantial evidence under CEQA,” said McClendon.

“You’re not talking about for example, air quality impacts where you have to have measurements … that require a scientist,” he added. “What the neighbors experience, what the neighbors know can constitute substantial evidence.”

Deitsch also contended that the “Project … is consistent with the City’s planning and zoning laws for the Project site and overall area and thus would not contribute (cumulatively or otherwise) to a level of development beyond that which has already been evaluated under CEQA as part of the City’s General Plan and, in particular, its 2013 Housing Element Update process.”

Referring to what he deemed as precedent set by a prior court case, McClendon focused on actual “conditions on the ground” rather than a city’s hypothetical development plan as the main indicator of whether or not CEQA regulations should apply.

McClendon centered his argument on what the court document describes as the “39 mansionization projects [that] are reasonably foreseeable based on the acquisition by known developers of smaller, older homes in Arcadia” such as 29 E. Orange Grove Ave. and 1600 Highland Oaks Drive.

“That’s cumulative,” McClendon said. “The exception to the [CEQA] exemption is for exactly this kind of case. … You need to take a look at what would be the consequences of doing this plus what else is reasonably foreseeable.”

However, Deitsch further concluded: “Simply listing other new single family homes in the Arcadia Highlands area … that [opponents think] might cause significant cumulative impacts is not evidence that the Project will have adverse impacts or that the impacts are cumulatively considerable. Ultimately, [opponents’] assertion that significant cumulative impacts will occur simply because other new homes have been approved within Arcadia Highlands does not trigger the cumulative impacts exception in State CEQA Guidelines.”

The lawsuit also claims the council’s approval of the Highlands projects violates an Arcadia law, “Resolution 6770,” that grants design review authority to the city’s five homeowner associations. The law specifically references privacy concerns as an important factor toward determining the fate of a proposed construction project.

“The design review authority granted to the [homeowner associations] is a subjective standard of compatibility and harmony, based on mass, scale, height, length, width and architectural style relative to neighboring structures,” the court document explains.

It goes on to note that “the Council did not address, discuss, or otherwise comment on whether or not the proposed projects were designed and articulated to protect the privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.”

At the Highland Homeowners Association’s Feb. 3 appeal hearing, Council Member Roger Chandler said the association’s opposition to the projects was “unreasonable” and thus unworthy of council support.

“The home that’s proposed there is a well-done, nice home.” Chandler said.

“I hear a lot about property rights, ‘defend our property rights,'” the council member added, referring to the previous homeowners who he said sold to Bowden Development Inc. for a higher price than private individual homebuyers were offering.

“What about the people that own the property that have some skin in the game?” Chandler continued. “This is where the rub is, that there’s a problem. For most people this is the most valuable thing that they own, is their real estate. They’re either going to use it to retire or they’re going to pass it on to their children.”

Attorneys for the city and Save the Arcadia Highlands will meet June 12 for a “trial setting conference” at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, McClendon said.

More from Arcadia Weekly