1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP

Douglas P. Carstens, SBN 193439
Amy Minteer, SBN 223832
Michelle N. Black, SBN 261962
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310.798.2400; Fax 310.798.2402
acm@cbcearthlaw.com; mnb cbcearthlaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
Pasadena Civic Center Coalition

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PASADENA CIVIC CENTER COALITION,) CASE NO.: BS164664
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
CITY OF PASADENA
,) AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE
)
Respondent;
)
)
)
(Violation of California Environmental
) Quality Act; Surplus Land Act and Pasadena
Municipal Code)
KHP III PASADENA LLC; KHP III HOTEL )
)
HOLDING LLC; and Does 1 to 10,
)
)
Real Parties in Interest.
)
)
)

24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE

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

INTRODUCTION
1.

This action involves the City of Pasadena's ("City's") approval of entitlements

and certification of an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the YWCA/Kimpton Hotel
Project ("the Project") in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
The Project permits Real Party in Interest, KHP III Pasadena LLC ("Kimpton"), to renovate the
historic YWCA building and incorporate it into a six-story, maximum 185-room hotel with
meeting facilities, ballroom space, and a restaurant.
2.

The 1923 Julia Morgan-designed YWCA building is a significant historic

building as a contributor to the Pasadena Civic Center National Historic Register District
("PCCNRD") and has also been designated a Historic Monument of the City of Pasadena. The
Project's "rehabilitation" of the building would adversely impact several character-defining
features of the historic building.
3.

The City's Civic Center District was listed in the National Register of Historic

Places in 1980 as a unique collection of buildings and sites whose great value derives from the
fact that they relate to each other and the environment as a complete unit. The listing
recognizes the buildings' symmetry and the importance of open spaces and landscaping.
4.

The Project would demolish most of the existing public landscaped open space

along North Garfield Avenue and Holly Street, located across the street from City Hall. This
open space is an important feature of the PCCNRD, designed symmetrically with the open
space located north of Holly Street and providing a public gathering place and preserving views
of historic buildings in the PCCNRD.
5.

Pasadena's City Hall is the ultimate focal point of the PCCNRD and a significant

historic building in its own right. The generous grounds and the dedicated open approaches
across Garfield Avenue are a necessary and critical component towards understanding the
building's classic Beaux-Arts setting.
6.

The EIR does not adequately evaluate the impacts to the historic district as a

whole, does not evaluate the impacts to immediately surrounding contributing buildings,

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

1
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

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

including and City Hall, and fails to address the cumulative environmental impacts over time to
the historic Civic Center.
7.

Approval of the Project, modification of the historic YWCA building, the

Project's many inconsistencies with City planning documents, and removal of the Civic
Center's landscaped open spaces were opposed during the City's administrative review of the
Project by Petitioner and many local residents concerned about the impacts to the aesthetic,
historic nature, and garden-like setting of the PCCNRD.
8.

CEQA requires an EIR to fully disclose a project's potentially significant adverse

impacts on historic resources, including National Register-listed historic districts, and to

evaluate alternatives to a project that will avoid or lessen a project's significant impact on
historic resources.
9.

The EIR fails to discuss the Project's many inconsistencies with the governing

specific plan and other City planning documents resulting from the conversion of public open
space land into a private hotel use.
10.

The Project includes no parking on-site and significantly less parking off-site than

is required by the City's Zoning Code. The EIR fails to analyze the traffic impacts associated
with wedging this large hotel Project on this constricted site.
11.

Although required by both City Code and state law, the City failed to offer the

public lands used by the Project for public purposes before deeming them surplus lands and
turning them over to private control.
12.

Additionally, the proposal and negotiating process for constructing a private for-

profit development on public land, and economic data supporting that proposal, was not
disclosed to the public despite repeated requests from Petitioner and other members of the
community.
13.

Petitioner, Pasadena Civic Center Coalition, brings this action to seek review of

the August 15, 2016 approval of the Project, without compliance with CEQA (Pub. Res. Code
21000 et seq.), the Surplus Lands Act and the City's Municipal Code. Petitioner seeks to

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

2
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2

preserve the historic features and character of the Pasadena Civic Center for the use and
enjoyment of future generations.

JURISDICTION

4
5
6

14.

This Court has jurisdiction over the writ action under section 1085 and 1094.5 of

the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), and sections 21168 and 21168.5 of the Public Resources
Code.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PARTIES
15.

Petitioner Pasadena Civic Center Coalition is an unincorporated association of

individuals, including those who objected verbally and in writing during the City's
administrative review process, who seek to preserve the historic features and character of the
Pasadena Civic Center for future generations. Petitioner brings this action on behalf of itself
and in the public interest.
16.

Respondent The City of Pasadena ("City") is a California municipal corporation

and a political subdivision of the State of California.

17.

Real Party in Interest KHP III Pasadena LLC is the recipient of the approvals at

issue in this action. KHP III Pasadena LLC is the proposed developer of the Project with
ownership to be via a long-term leasehold interest that is the party is negotiating with the City;
18.

Real Party in Interest KHP III Hotel Holding LLC has a more than ten percent

ownership interest in KHP III Pasadena LLC, as identified on the Taxpayer Protection Act
disclosure form for the Project.
19.

Petitioner previously identified Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC, KHP

Capital Partners, L.P. and KHP Fund III, L.P. as Real Parties in Interest, but have stipulated to
dismiss them from this action because they are not recipients of the approval at issue in this
action and are not indispensible parties to the litigation.
20.

Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC acted as the agent for the developer,

KHP III Pasadena LLC, prior to corporate transactions that occurred in January 2015. Kimpton
Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC does not and will not have an ownership interest in the

Printed on Recycled Paper

3
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

project at issue in this Action. It will provide operational services for the project for fees after
the project development is completed, but will have no independent liability for obligations of
the leaseholder, such as implementing mitigation measures for the project.
21.

KHP Capital Partners, L.P. has acted as the agent for the developer, KHP III

Pasadena LLC, since the corporate transactions that occurred in January 2015. KHP Capital
Partners, L.P. does not and will not have an ownership interest in the project at issue in this
Action.
22.

KHP Fund III, L.P. has no involvement with the project at issue in this Action.

KHP Fund III, L.P. was incorrectly named as a party because KHP III Pasadena LLC was
referenced in shorthand as KHP Fund III.
23.
24.

Real Parties in Interest named as DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are given fictitious

names because their names and capacities are presently unknown to Petitioner. Petitioner will
amend this Petition to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

15
16
17
18

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Pasadena Civic Center National Register Historic District
25.

In the early 1920s, the City of Pasadena committed to creating a Civic Center, a

19

collection of governmental and civic buildings and public open spaces of exceptional

20

architectural quality that would enhance civic life and Pasadena's national reputation. The new

21

Civic Center buildings replaced older buildings located in the City's original commercial area.

22

26.

In furtherance of this goal, Chicago firm of Bennett, Parsons and Frost developed

23

the "Bennett Plan" for the City in 1923. This firm was the successor firm to Daniel Burnham

24

Architect, who developed the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the Plan of Chicago in

25

1909, and established the profession of city planning.

26

27.

Pasadena voters overwhelmingly approved funding to implement the Bennett

27

Plan in 1923. The bond issued pursuant to this vote provided for the purchase of land that

28

included grounds, approaches, and appurtenances for the three primary buildings of the Civic

Printed on Recycled Paper

4
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2

Center City Hall, the Library, and the Auditorium. The voters also approved the Bennett Plan
as part of the referendum on the bond issue.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

28.

and was part of the national "City Beautiful" movement popular in the early 1900s. Beaux Arts
city planning focuses on spatial plan and form, relying on symmetrical and axial connections to
provide vistas of a monumental buildings. The City Beautiful Movement was a philosophy of
urban planning seeking to introduce beautification and monumental grandeur in American
cities. One principle of the movement is that a building's setting is as important as the building
itself.

10
11
12
13

29.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pasadena's Civic Center includes a hierarchy of buildings, with City Hall as the

ultimate focal point, flanked by the Library and Auditorium. Other secondary buildings,
including the YWCA and YMCA, which were planned and constructed prior to the Bennett
Plan and Civic Center design, play a lesser role in the overall composition of the design.

14
15

The Bennett Plan for the Civic Center was designed on Beaux Arts principles

30.

The City Hall, the Library and Auditorium all employed approaches, or large

symmetrical swathes of landscaped public open space across the street, which was set forth
specifically in the 1923 bond issue. Although the symmetrical approaches for the Civic
Auditorium were lost with the construction of the Paseo shopping mall, the approaches across
Garfield Avenue from City Hall, on both the north and south sides of Holly Street, remain
today.
31.

The lasting importance of the 1923 Bennett Plan was recognized when the Civic

Center District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places ("National Register") in
1980. The nomination found that except for minor changes, the majority of the buildings in the
Pasadena Civic Center National Historic Register District (PCCNRD) are still intact. Although
there have been intrusions, it was found to be a unique collection of buildings and sites whose
great value derives from the fact that they relate to each other and the environment as a
complete unit.
32.

The National Register nomination of the PCCNRD included the following map of

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

5
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

the District:

2
3

LIIOARY
VAUNT STOUT

5
6

WOU STOUT

MOLL, STRUT
YliCA

9
10
PARXIIK

11

MG

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

.1

COLMAN ODULIVASII

33.

NCI& USES

The National Register nomination found open space to be an important

feature in listing the PCCNRD: "Upon entering the district, one is aware that this is an
important place in the city. Far less commercial and much more park-like, the Civic
Center area is distinct from its surrounding neighborhoods both in architectural style and
feeling. The streets are wider here, and lined with trees, the sidewalks are wider too;
some of them paved in tile and brick set in decorative patterns. Small parks abound,
planted with trees and flowers. Unlike other areas in the city, this section was planned
around the citizen, truly a place for peopleto walk, to picnic and sunbathe, and to sit
with friends among the trees and enjoy the open vistas." The nomination also found, "To
the east of the YMCA and the YWCA are small park areas, attractively landscaped with
paths, lawns, shrubs, flowers and California redwood trees. These unbuilt areas allow the
facades of the Post Office to the south and the balancing Gas Company to the north to
play their parts in the composition."
34.

Importantly, the nomination finds the symmetry of the two areas on either side of

Holly Street to be significant. These areas allow for the visual prominence of the historic

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

6
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6

buildings in the PCCNRD. Such symmetry is an important feature of the Beaux Arts design
relationship of the District.
The Project Site
35.

The Project site is located with the Pasadena Civic Center National Register

District (PCCNRD).
36.

The Project site is currently owned by the City and consists of three parcels:
Parcel 1: 78 N. Marengo Avenue, improved with the historic YWCA building;

8
Parcel 2: Address Unknown, improved with a surface parking lot; and

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Parcel 3: Address unknown, L-Shaped parcel along Garfield Avenue and Holly
Street, improved with a landscaped public park.

37.

The YWCA building was designed by architect Julia Morgan and constructed in

phases between 1921 and 1923, as funds and land became available. Julia Morgan, the architect
of Hearst Castle, was the first woman architect licensed in California and was the first woman to
be admitted and to graduate from the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, then the leading training
center for American architects. The YWCA building is a significant historic building as a
contributor to the PCCNRD and has also been designated a Historic Monument of the City of
Pasadena.
38.

Only minor alterations have been made to the YWCA building since construction.

The building has been vacant and deteriorating since the YWCA stopped using the building in
1997. The City gained control of the building in 2010 and has allowed it to continue to
deteriorate, failing to provide adequate protections from the elements and vandals.
39.

The existing City Hall approach and public open space portion of the Project site,

Parcel 3, includes benches frequently used by the public, landscaping, and 71 trees that help cool
the area. While reports have determined that some of the on-site trees are in poor condition, this
is mainly due to a lack of watering and maintenance in recent years.
40.

The Robinson Memorial, constructed in 1997, is also located on Parcel 3. The

Printed on Recycled Paper

7
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

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

Robinson Memorial is associated with two important Pasadenans, Jackie and Mack Robinson,
who made national and international history. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major
League Baseball in 1947, and Mack Robinson won the silver medal in the 200-meter dash at the
1936 Berlin Olympics.
41.

Parcel 3 also contains five Sister City trees. The Sister City trees were planted in

place of great honor in the open space and intended to create and strengthen partnerships
between Pasadena and international communities.
City Acquisition and Request for Proposals
42.

Due to the deteriorating condition of the YWCA, the City commenced action to

acquire Parcels 1 and 2 with redevelopment funds in April of 2010. Parcels 1 and 2 were fmally
acquired in 2012 through an eminent domain action and subsequent negotiated settlement. The
City has owned Parcel 3 since the 1920s.
43.

On July 30, 2012, the City issued the request for proposal (RFP) for "The YWCA

Adaptive Reuse and New Construction Opportunities," with responses required by September
24, 2012. The RFP provided for development of not only Parcels 1 and 2, but also threw in
Parcel 3, allegedly to "sweeten the deal" and entice more applicants. None of the other five
proposals have been disclosed to the public after numerous requests by the Petitioner.
44.

The City received six responses to the RFP.

45.

On or about February 11, 2013, in a City Council closed session, an advisory

panel recommended selection of the Kimpton Hotels and Restaurant Group, LLC as the
developer for the proposed Project.
46.

On or about May 1, 2013, the City entered into a 120-day Exclusive Negotiation

Agreement (ENA) with Kimpton Hotels and Restaurant Group, LLC, which was then acting as
development agent for the soon to be formed KHP III Pasadena LLC. According to the
responses to comments provided in the Final EIR, the ENA was extended to January 2017.
47.

Certain corporate transactions occurred in January 2015 that altered the

relationship between various KHP and Kimpton entities. After those transactions, Kimpton
Hotels and Restaurant Group, LLC no longer acted as development agent for KHP III Pasadena

Printed on Recycled Paper

8
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

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

LLC. KHP Capital Partners, L.P. become the development agent for and KHP III Pasadena
LLC and KHP III Pasadena LLC remains as the party to the ENA.
48. KHP III Pasadena LLC is the entity that would be the long-term leaseholder for the
Project and responsible for development of the Project. Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group,
LLC would provide operational services for the Project, but will have no ownership interest in
the Project.
49.

Despite numerous requests from Petitioner, neither the ENA document nor the

terms of the ENA have been disclosed to the public.

50.

Subsequent to the International Hotel Group acquisition of Kimpton, staff stated

the proposed Project would be developed by and leased to KHP III Pasadena LLC.
The YWCA/Kimpton Hotel Project
51. The proposed YWCA/Kimpton Hotel Project involves: (1) rehabilitation of the
historic YWCA building for use as 13 guest rooms and meeting, ballroom, and restaurant space;
(2) demolition of surface parking lots and; (3) demolition of most of the public landscaped park
located along Garfield Avenue to accommodate construction of the bulk of the hotel.
52.

In total, the proposed Project consists of a 131,579 square foot, maximum 185-

room hotel with approximately 11,166 square feet of meeting facilities, ballroom space,
restaurant, and hospitality parlors. The proposed Project will be six stories tall, although some
portions of the hotel will rise only two stories.
53.

More than 78 percent of the Parcel 3 public open space along Garfield Avenue

between Holly Street and Union Street would be "physically demolished" by the construction
of the hotel addition to the YWCA. This open space would become the rear portion of the new,
massive six story "room tower", which would face City Hall and the central plaza of the Civic
Center.
54.

In addition, an undefined portion of the public open space currently located along

Holly Street, which is also part of Parcel 3, would be demolished. This public land, purchased
by the City for public use, and used as parkland since its purchase, would be converted to a

Printed on Recycled Paper

9
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

private hotel function area.

2
3
4
5

character-defining features of this historic building. The landscaping along Marengo Avenue
would be removed, as would the swimming pool. The Project would also remove the views in
and out of the historic courtyard by closing off the courtyard.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The Project's "rehabilitation" of the YWCA building would remove and alter

55.

The majority of the YWCA building is only two stories tall, with a small three

56.

story portion at the Marengo Avenue entrance to the building. The Project would surround the
YWCA with new construction reaching up to six stories in height, which would not only
overwhelm the YWCA building, but also compete for visual prominence with the iconic City
Hall.
57. Because the Project site is publicly owned, the City was required to declare each of
the three parcels to be "surplus property" before it could approve private development.
Additionally, the City was required to find the Project to be exempt from competitive sale
requirements.
58.

The Project also requires numerous exceptions from City planning and zoning

requirements to wedge the large Project into this site.

59.

The Project contains no on-site parking. Instead, the Project includes a

conditional use permit (CUP) to allow shared parking at a yet-to-be identified off-site parking
garage. An additional CUP is required because the Project would only provide 136 off-site
shared parking spaces, whereas the City's Zoning Code requires 240 spaces for the Project. At
the time of Project approval, the City confirmed no leases have yet been secured for the
necessary off-site parking.
60.

To preserve the integrity of the City's Central District, the general development

25

standards for this area of the City require that the first floor of all non-residential buildings in

26

this District have a ceiling height of at least 15 feet. The first floor of the Project's new

27

construction would be only nine feet in height. The Project, therefore, requires a variance from

28

this important design requirement.

Printed on Recycled Paper

10
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

61.

The City's Zoning Code requires a minimum of six loading spaces for the Project.

The Project provides only one loading space and thus requires a variance from this City
requirement.
62.

The Project would remove 23 public trees in good condition, which requires

special City approval. The Project would also remove an additional 13 trees that have recently
been found to be in poor condition, although these trees are only in poor condition because they
have not been properly maintained or watered.
City Administrative Approval Process
63.

The draft EIR (DEIR) for the Project was circulated for public comments from

February 5, 2016 through April 4, 2016. The DEIR included several alternative designs for the
proposed Project, including Alternative 2E, which would reduce the size of the new hotel and
eliminate the private use of the public open space along Garfield Avenue.
64.

Petitioner and many other community residents submitted extensive comments

regarding the impacts that would result from developing the Project as proposed. Of
overwhelming importance to Petitioner and many others was the loss of integrity of the
PCCNRD and the City's willingness to give away public open space, particularly from an area
with a dearth of public parks and green space. Petitioner repeatedly requested a Cultural
Landscape Report be prepared to analyze these impacts.
65.

On July 13, 2016, by a five to three vote, which included one abstention, the

Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project. The Planning Commission also

22

recommended the setback on Garfield Avenue be increased to the extent feasible to reduce the

23

loss of public open space.

24

66.

The Planning Commission had also agendized an item for the July 13, 2016

25

meeting to establish a Planning Commission Subcommittee for Civic Center Undeveloped

26

Landscaped Space and Symmetry of Future New Construction on Holly Street. The purpose of

27

this subcommittee was to recognize the lack of symmetry that would result from developing the

28

public open space on the Project site. The subcommittee would consider development of the

Printed on Recycled Paper

11
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

public open space located north of Holly Street in order to maintain symmetry between the two
sites. This item was continued until after the City Council's approval of the Project.
67.

The Urban Forestry Advisory Committee scheduled a hearing for August 3, 2016

to consider the proposed removal of public trees at the Project site. It continued its hearing on
the proposal until after the Project had been reviewed by the Design Commission and
recommended the City Council consider an alternative to the Project that would limit tree
removal and encroachment into the public open space.
68.

The City Council held a hearing to consider the Project on August 15, 2016,

which began at approximately 7 p.m. Many members of the public attended to present their
opposition to the Project as proposed and urge the City Council to instead adopt Alternative 2E,
or to restart the entire process. The City Council engaged in lengthy deliberations regarding the
Project prior to opening public comment on the Project. During these pre-public comment
deliberations, Councilmember John Kennedy stated his intent to approve the Project as
proposed. The public comment portion of the hearing did not commence until nearly 10:30
p.m. At this point, many community members had left due to the lateness of the hour and the
statements made by council members making it clear they would be approving the Project as
proposed.
69.

The City Council voted unanimously to approve the Project. This included

approval of the setbacks, massing and location of the Project. Despite this approval of a
specific and fixed footprint, the Council recommended that when the design of the Project is

22

considered by the Design Commission, all efforts be made to reduce the number of trees being

23

removed and to increase the amount of open space along Garfield Avenue. Based on the City's

24

approvals and conditions of approval limiting changes to the footprint, these recommendations

25

for increased open space and tree preservation are not possible without changes to the public

26

parking along Garfield Avenue, or changes to this public street.

27
28

70.

A notice of determination was issued on August 16, 2016.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Printed on Recycled Paper

12
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4

AND INADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LAW

71.

Petitioner Pasadena Civic Center Coalition and its members objected to the

Project in the administrative process, and fully exhausted their administrative remedies.
72.

Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law

unless this Court grants the requested writs of mandate. In the absence of such remedies, the

City's approval of the Project will form the basis for a development project that will proceed in

violation of state law.

8
9

73.

Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by filing a

copy of this petition with the California Attorney General. A copy of that notice is attached as

10

Exhibit A.

11

74.

Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.5 by

12

providing the City with notice of intention to commence the action. A copy of that notice is

13

attached as Exhibit B.

14
15

75.

Petitioner elects to prepare the administrative record. A copy of that election is

attached as Exhibit C.

16

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF CEQA)

17
18

76.

Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.

19
20
21

The City Relied upon Inadequate Analysis and Mitigation of Impacts as it Approved the
Project.
77.

CEQA requires the City to conduct an adequate environmental review prior to

22

making any formal decision regarding projects subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.

23

Code Regs. 15004). CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental

24

effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the

25

project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these

26

consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n of San Francisco v. Regents of the

27

University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392.)

28

78.

CEQA imposes upon the City a clear, present and mandatory duty to certify an

Printed on Recycled Paper

13
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4

EIR only if the EIR fully discloses to the public the significant environmental effects that may
occur.
79.

The EIR for the YWCA/Kimpton Hotel Project fails to comply with these

requirements including, but not limited to, the following:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

a. Cultural Resources Impacts

80.

The EIR fails to adequately analyze and disclose impacts the Project would have

on the PCCNRD. The Project would adversely impact the setting and integrity of this historic
district.
81.

The EIR's conclusion that the removal of the public open space along Garfield

Avenue and Holly Street does not result in a significant adverse impact is not supported by
substantial evidence. The City failed to prepare a Cultural Landscape Report to address these
concerns, despite requests from the City's Design Commission and the public to do so.
82.

The EIR fails to disclose that the public open space is an important feature of the

PCCNRD.
83.

The EIR also fails to analyze the impacts of constructing a large new building that

backs up to the main focal feature of the PCCNRD: City Hall. The public open space that
would be demolished by the Project is part of the Beaux Arts approaches to City Hall, and their
removal is an adverse impact to this historic buildings setting.
84.

The Project's impacts on views of the historically significant Post Office, a

prominent contributing building to the PCCNRD, were likewise ignored in the EIR.
85. The Project would eliminate several character-defining features of the historic Julia
Morgan-designed YWCA building. The landscaping, street lights, and public street trees along
Marengo Avenue would be removed to make room for a valet parking operation thereby
altering the YWCA faade's relationship to the street and its immediate environment. The
indoor swimming pool would be demolished. Further, the Project would remove the views in
and out of the historic courtyard, which will be closed by the new construction. The EIR fails

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

14
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

to disclose the significant impacts that would result from loss of these features.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

b. Inconsistency with Land Use Plans

86.

CEQA requires an EIR to discuss a project's inconsistencies with existing land

use plans. (CEQA Guidelines 15125(d); CEQA Guidelines Appendix G X.b.)

87.

Petitioner identified numerous policies adopted in the City's Central District

Specific Plan (CDSP) and Green Space, Recreation and Parks Element of the General Plan
("Green Space Element") with which this Project would be inconsistent.
88.

According to both the CDSP and the Green Space Element, there is a critical

shortage of open space in the City's Central District. Both plans include numerous policies that
provide for protection of existing open space and exploring opportunities for new park space.
89. The EIR fails to explain how the Project is generally consistent with the CDSP, a
planning document that includes 84 policies, principles, objectives and recommendations
supporting the retention of parks and the compatibility of new construction and additions with
historic resources.
90.

The EIR also fails to adequately address the Project's failure to comply with

Pasadena Zoning Code section 17.30.040, which sets out the general development standards for
the Central District, including the requirement that the first floor of all non-residential buildings
in this District be at least 15 feet in height.
91.

Zoning Code Section 17.30.050 sets out the limited exceptions to the general

development standards. This section does not provide for any exception to the required 15-foot
first floor height. The EIR fails to disclose that the City is creating an exception that does not
exist. Additionally, since this has never been allowed before, it would set a precedent, whereby
other development would also seek to skirt this specific plan requirement.
92.

The EIR contains no analysis of the Project's precedent-setting effects.

26
27
28

Printed on Recycled Paper

15
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

c. Loss of Public Open Space and Trees

93.

The EIR fails to acknowledge the significant impact that would result from the

Project's removal of public open space along Garfield Avenue and Holly Street. This area is
frequently used by members of the public as park space.
94.

Without acknowledging the significance of the impact, the City made a last-

minute attempt at mitigation by including a provision that the hotel operators keep the courtyard
area of the Project open to the public during daylight hours. There is no disclosure as to what
will be included in this courtyard area, but it will not contain large trees and landscaped areas
that are currently present in the public open space.
95.

By failing to acknowledge the significant impact, the provision intended to

mitigate the impact is not enforceable. This violates CEQA's requirement that mitigation
measures be fully concrete and fully enforceable. (Pub. Res. Code 21081.6(b); Lincoln Place
Tenants Ass 'n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 445.)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

d. Traffic Impacts
96. The EIR fails to adequately analyze the traffic impacts associated with a 185-room
hotel project that includes no on-site parking. The Project solely will rely on valet parking at
one of three parking garages with which the applicant is negotiating.
97.

These parking garages are already heavily used, and the extended use of spaces

within these garages for hotel guests would result in traffic impacts from those circling the area,
looking for available parking.
98.

While the City's Zoning Code requires 240 parking spaces for the Project, which

is already a reduction from what would otherwise be required, based on its location within a
transit-oriented district, the Project only includes 136 off-site parking spaces. The EIR fails to
analyze the traffic impacts associated with this limited parking.
99.

The EIR fails to analyze the impact on traffic resulting from the operation of the

valet parking zone for the Project on Marengo Avenue. Marengo Avenue is one of a few

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

16
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

north/south arterials joining Pasadena north and south of the 210 freeway as well as serving as a
connector to and from the 210.
100.

The EIR also fails to analyze the traffic hazard impacts that could result

from conflicts between the valet parking zone and bicyclists on Marengo Avenue. Marengo
Avenue is a Class 3 bike route that has a narrow 11-foot curb lane shared by cars and bikes.
Cars generally do not park right next to the curb in valet pull-outs. Valets will be opening car
doors into a traffic lane and standing in traffic to help guests out of their cars.
101.

CEQA requires an EIR to analyze the potential impacts associated with

mitigation measure for a project. (CEQA Guidelines, 15126.4(a)(1)(D).) To address traffic

impacts associated with the Project's loading zone not meeting Zoning Code requirements, the
EIR includes a mitigation measure restricting use of the loading zone to between 2:00 a.m. and
5:00 a.m. daily. The EIR lacks any analysis of the noise impacts associated with the
nighttime/early morning usage of this loading zone, which would include the traffic noise,
idling and backup alarms associated with large delivery trucks.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e. Failure to Respond to Comments

102.

CEQA requires the City to respond to comments received on the DEIR. Pursuant

to CEQA Guidelines section 15088, "The lead agency shall evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a
written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed
comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments."
103.

CEQA requires a lead agency to respond to comments received on the DEIR with

good faith, reasoned analysis, to ensure "that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not
swept under the rug." (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of
Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 732.)
104.

Failure to respond to a single comment is sufficient to invalidate approval of a

final EIR. (Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-By-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603.)

Printed on Recycled Paper

17
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5

105.

but not limited to, regarding Petitioner's numerous requests for the relevant terms of the ENA
and Petitioner's very detailed comments regarding the Project's inconsistencies with specific
provisions of City planning documents.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The City's responses to comments failed on numerous accounts, including,

e. Piecemealing and Segmentation of Project Analysis and Approval

CEQA prohibits a public agency from "subdivide[ing] a single project into

106.

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

environmental impact of the project as a whole." (Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors (1986)
182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171.)
107.

The Planning Commission and City Council both admitted that the loss of

open space on Parcel 3 would lead to a loss of symmetry between Parcel 3 and the open space
located north of Holly Street.
108.

The City has already begun discussing allowing development in the open

space north of Holly Street that will be symmetrical with the development in the Project.
109.

The City has also recognized the imbalance that would be created by the

construction of this Project on the majority of the landscaped parcel by proposing consideration
of these impacts at a later time by a Planning Commission Subcommittee for Civic Center
Undeveloped Landscaped Space and Symmetry.
110.

However, CEQA requires the EIR for a project to disclose the full range of its

likely significant impacts, including its reasonably foreseeable consequences. Delaying and
piecemealing the analysis and mitigation of these impacts until after the Project is approved
violates CEQA.
111.

Instead of addressing this issue in the environmental review process for the

Project, the City has improperly segmented consideration of impacts to a later time by a
Planning Commission Subcommittee for Civic Center Undeveloped Landscaped Space and
Symmetry of Future New Construction on Holly Street. As the analysis of undeveloped

Printed on Recycled Paper

18
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2

landscaped space and what to construct upon it directly implicates the project, the City's
environmental review of this item separate from the Project violates CEQA.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

f. Pre-commitment to the Project

112.

CEQA's most fundamental requirement is that an EIR must be prepared and

considered before a lead agency approves a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment. (CEQA Guidelines 15004.) "If post-approval environmental review were
allowed, EIR's would likely become nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support
action already taken." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Californi
(1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 394.)
113.

CEQA prohibits foreclosure of the consideration of alternatives that would lessen

or avoid a Project's significant environmental impacts prior to completion of the environmental

review process. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.App.4th 116.)
114.

The City's failure to carefully consider alternatives beyond those requested by

Kimpton appears to be due to a commitment to a specific project as part of the City's ENA with
Kimpton.
115.

The City has never made the ENA publicly available. Members of Pasadena

Civic Center Coalition have requested a copy of the ENA, but the City has denied those
requests.
116.

However, the ENA appears to have pre-committed the City to a specific project

because the project objectives, financial parameters, the type of use and required features of the
Project have all been established to require the Project precisely as proposed by Kimpton.
117.

Alternatives that would have lessened or avoided the Project's significant and

adverse impacts on historic resources were rejected.

25

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATIONS OF SURPLUS LAND ACT)

26
27

118.

Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.

28

119.

Government Code section 54420 subd. (b) provides, "there is an identifiable

Printed on Recycled Paper

19
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior
to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open-space
purposes."
120. To accomplish this, Government Code section 54220 provides:
(a) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and
moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in
Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose jurisdiction the
surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the
Health and Safety Code, shall be sent, upon written request, a written offer to sell
or lease surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income
housing. All notices shall be sent by first-class mail and shall include the location
and a description of the property. With respect to any offer to purchase or lease
pursuant to this subdivision, priority shall be given to development of the land to
provide affordable housing for lower income elderly or disabled persons or
households, and other lower income households.
(b) A written offer to sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or
open-space purposes shall be sent:(1) To any park or recreation department of any
city within which the land may be situated.(2) To any park or recreation
department of the county within which the land is situated.(3) To any regional
park authority having jurisdiction within the area in which the land is situated.(4)
To the State Resources Agency or any agency that may succeed to its powers.

22
23
24

121. The City failed to offer Parcel 3 for park and open space uses prior to disposal of
the property, and has therefore violated the Surplus Land Act.

25
26

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE)

27
28

122. Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.

Printed on Recycled Paper

20
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

City's Requirements for Disposal of Surplus Property

123.

The Pasadena Municipal Code defines "surplus real property" as "real property of

the city not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose."
(Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 4.02.010 A, emphasis added.) The City's findings originally
addressed only whether Parcel 3 (the public parkland) is needed for the purpose for which it
was acquired, i.e. "part of the development of the Civic Center, specifically City Hall and its
appurtenances, grounds and approaches."
124.

Neither the City nor the final EIR have provided substantial evidence that the

parkland that will be removed for the Project is not needed for "City Hall and its appurtenances,
grounds and approaches."
125.

Additionally, despite an acknowledgement in the August 15, 2016 City Council

Staff Report that other public purposes must be considered before Parcel 3 can be deemed
surplus property, the Staff Report and findings still fail to consider "any other public purpose"
for which Parcel 3 could be used. Instead, the Staff Report states the declaration of surplus
property is required to allow hotel development.
126.

The City therefore failed to consider whether there are any other public purposes

for which this public land could be used, as required by the Pasadena Municipal Code.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Exemption from Competitive Sale Requirement

127.

While the City supports its finding for the exemption for competitive sale of

Parcels 1 and 2 due to the rehabilitation of the YWCA building, it has failed to provide
evidentiary support for the finding to exempt Parcel 3 from competitive sale. The record lacks
evidentiary support that the Project requires development of Parcel 3 to be economically
feasible.

26
27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In each of the respects enumerated above, the City has violated its duties under law,

28

Printed on Recycled Paper

21
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1
2

abused its discretion, failed to proceed in the manner required by law, and decided the matters
complained of without the support of substantial evidence.

3
4

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:

1.

5
6

For an alternative and peremptory writ of mandate, commanding the City:

A.

Hotel Project, its approval of Alternative 2A and its fmdings adopted in support thereof;

B.

8
9
10

12
13

19
20

25
26

Conditional use permit (CUP) for non-residential project over 25,000

iii.

CUP to allow hotel use;

iv.

CUP to allow sale of alcohol;

v.

Minor CUP to allow construction of non-residential project over 15,000

Minor CUP to allow shared parking;

viii. Variance to allow ground floor to be less than 15 feet in height;

18

24

ii.

vii. Minor CUP to allow reduced parking;

17

23

Declaration of surplus property;

vi.

16

22

i.

square feet in the Transit-Oriented Development area;

15

21

To set aside and vacate any approvals for the Project, including but not limited to:

square feet;

11

14

To set aside and vacate its certification of the Final EIR for the YWCA/Kimpton

C.
2.

ix.

Variance to allow reduction in loading zone spaces; and

x.

Public tree removal.

To prepare a legally adequate EIR;

For an order enjoining the City and Real Parties in Interest from taking any action in

furtherance of the Project unless and until a lawful approval is obtained from the City after the
preparation and consideration of an adequate EIR;
3.

For costs of the suit;

4.

For reasonable attorneys' fees; and

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

27
28

Printed on Recycled Paper

22
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

DATE: November 14, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,
CHATTEN-BR WN & ARSTENS LLP

3
By:

my Minteer
Attorneys for Petitioner

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Printed on Recycled Paper

23
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE