Complaint,Petition: 24CV01633

On March 21, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between and in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
1 A. Barry Cappello (SBN 037835)
abc@cappellonoel.com
2 Richard Lloyd (SBN 332101)
rlloyd@cappellonoel.com
3 CAPPELLO & NOËL LLP
831 State Street
4 Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 564-2444
5 Facsimile: (805) 965-5950

6 Attorneys for Petitioner
Leila J. Noël, Trustee of The Noël Living Trust
7 Originally Dated April 6, 2010, As Amended
And Restated March 18, 2019.
8

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION
11

13 LEILA J. NOËL, Trustee of The Noël Living Case No.:
Trust Originally Dated April 6, 2010, As
14 Amended And Restated March 18, 2019.
___________________________, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
15
Petitioner,
16
vs.
17 Assigned to:
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, Dept:
18
Respondent.
19
KOOTSTRA SBA L.P., a California limited
20 partnership; HOWARD KOOTSTRA, an
individual; ELAINE KOOTSTRA, an individual;
21 CHRISTIAN MENARD, an individual; and
JENNA KOOTSTRA MENARD, an individual,
22
Real Parties in Interest.
23

28
CAPPELLO
&NOEL LLP
TRIAL L AWY ERS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 Petitioner Leila J. Noël, Trustee of The Noël Living Trust Originally Dated April 6, 2010, As

2 Amended And Restated March 18, 2019, hereby petitions this court for a writ of mandate pursuant to

3 Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, or in the alternative §1085, and declaratory and injunctive relief,

4 and alleges as follows:

5 INTRODUCTION

6 1. This petition seeks a writ to: (1) immediately halt construction work on the property

7 known as 155 Cedar Lane, Santa Barbara, California (the “Subject Property”); (2) vacate the

8 Respondent City of Santa Barbara’s (“City’s”) Single Family Design Board (“SFDB”) approval of

9 Planning Application PLN2020-00293 for the Subject Property; (3) require resubmission of the

10 planning application to the City and require notice of a public hearing on the resubmission to

11 neighbors of the Subject Property, including Petitioner; and (4) vacate and/or stay the related

12 Building Permit, BLD2021-02281, pending the outcome of the SFDB’s reconsideration of the

13 project.

14 2. This relief is necessary because Petitioner will be irreparably harmed if construction

15 continues on the Subject Property. Petitioner’s property is directly adjacent to the east of the Subject

16 Property. Without providing any notice to Petitioner, the City’s SFDB approved outdoor living

17 space significantly above the natural grade and a roof structure that will hover high in the air,

18 significantly above the natural grade and into the setback, which would destroy Petitioner’s privacy

19 and seriously impair her view. The proposed plans required a noticed hearing, as explained below.

20 However, no notice was given to the Petitioner or other neighbors who would be impacted. The

21 approval therefore should be vacated.

22 3. Additionally, SFDB was misled at the initial Concept Review on August 17, 2020, on

23 the actual impacts the proposed plans would have on Petitioner’s property. Following that unnoticed

24 hearing, the owner of the Subject Property then completely failed to comply with the SFDB’s

25 explicit condition for approval: i.e., that the owner provide the proposed plans to the Subject

26 Property’s neighbors to ensure they were in agreement with the proposed plans. In fact, the plans

27 never were shown to the neighbors and neighbor input therefore was never obtained. For this

28 additional reason, the approval should be vacated.

2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 4. Petitioner would have objected strenuously to the massive and unreasonable plans,

2 which would eviscerate her privacy and impair her views, had she been given notice of the planning

3 application. In 2005, Petitioner had to file suit against the City regarding this same property when

4 the City also failed to provide notice to her or any neighbor of the original application for

5 construction of the house on the Subject Property. That litigation resulted in a settlement, the result

6 of which was the City Architectural Board of Review required a significant reduction in the footprint

7 of the house near Petitioner’s home and a very specific landscape plan that protected Petitioner’s

8 privacy and views. The newly-proposed plans are entirely inconsistent with that reduction in the

9 footprint of the house and the previously-negotiated and City-approved landscape plan.

10 5. Petitioner only became aware of the extreme scope of the construction on the Subject

11 Property on March 14, 2024, when she first noticed that construction workers were bringing pallets

12 of concrete blocks near her property line with the Subject Property, with the apparent intent to raise

13 the grade of the hillside slope adjacent to Petitioner’s property by nearly five feet. Petitioner’s

14 attempts to resolve the matter with the owner and the tenants of the Subject Property have failed.

15 The owner is not responding to Petitioner’s communications, and it now appears that the owner is

16 attempting to build the retaining walls and elevated patios – which will allow individuals to look

17 directly into Petitioner’s windows and outdoor living spaces – as quickly as possible.

18 6. Petitioner asks that this be halted immediately, before she is irrevocably harmed.

19 Petitioner contends that the failure to give her notice of impending construction impacting her

20 property violated her constitutional rights of due process, as well as the City’s Municipal Code.

21 PARTIES

22 7. Petitioner Leila J. Noël, Trustee of The Noël Living Trust Originally Dated April 6,

23 2010, As Amended And Restated March 18, 2019 (“Petitioner”), is the owner of the real property

24 commonly known as 84 La Vista Grande, Santa Barbara, California, in which Petitioner resides.

25 8. Respondent City of Santa Barbara (“Respondent” or “City”) is an incorporated public

26 entity located in Santa Barbara County, California.

27 9. Petitioner is informed and believes that Kootstra SBA L.P. (“Kootstra LP”) is a

28 California limited partnership, whose general partners are Howard Kootstra and Elain Kootstra, (the

3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 “Kootstras”), husband and wife, residing in Bakersfield, California. Petitioner is further informed

2 and believe that Kootstra LP presently owns the real property commonly known as 155 Cedar Lane,

3 Santa Barbara, California (the “Subject Property”). Kootstra LP and the Kootstras are named herein

4 as real parties in interest.

5 10. Petitioner is informed and believes that Christian Menard and Jenna Kootstra Menard

6 (the “Menards”) are husband and wife, residing as tenants in the Subject Property. Petitioner is

7 further informed and believes that the Menards may have misled the SFDB to believe that they are

8 the legal owners of the Subject Property since the plans submitted so state. The Menards are named

9 herein as real parties in interest.

10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11 11. Planning Application PLN2020-00293, and related Building Permit BLD2021-02281

12 for the Subject Property (the “Applications”) are subject to the jurisdiction of the City during

13 proposals for construction and/or development of the Subject Property.

14 12. The City’s Planning Division initially processed the planning application, which was

15 presented to the City’s Single Family Design Board (“SFDB”) for approval. The SFDB was created

16 and established to promote the general public welfare, protect and preserve the City's natural and

17 historical charm, and enhance the City's aesthetic appeal and beauty. The goal of the SFDB is to

18 ensure that single-unit residential projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in size

19 and design. (Santa Barbara Municipal Code (“SBMC”) § 22.69.010(A).) The SFDB processed the

20 Planning Application at bar. The Building Permit was subsequently processed and issued by the

21 City’s Building and Safety Division.

22 13. The SFDB at all times acted with the approval and knowledge of Respondent and at

23 the direction of Respondent. Respondent thus has authority to determine whether the SFDB has

24 fulfilled its obligations under the SBMC, related guidelines, and the Constitution(s), including but

25 not limited to whether and when a public hearing is required, how to provide impacted individuals

26 with timely and sufficient notice as required by law.

27 //

28 //

4
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2 14. Petitioner and the City previously were involved in litigation over earlier

3 development of the Subject Property. In 2005, the City’s Architectural Board of Review (“ABR”)

4 approved the development proposed for the Subject Property, but failed to give notice to affected

5 neighbors as required under the SBMC. Petitioner was forced to a file a writ petition and complaint

6 in the matter of Leila J. Noël et al. v. City of Santa Barbara, Case No. 1168779, seeking an

7 immediate halt to the project. Following an evidentiary hearing, Hon. Thomas P. Anderle issued a

8 preliminary injunction on September 6, 2005, staying the operation of the permit and restraining the

9 then-owner from commencing or continuing any grading, drilling, site-preparation, or construction

10 pending resolution of the matter.

11 15. Following the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, settlement discussions

12 took place between the parties, during which the City agreed to vacate its prior approval and re-

13 notice the Subject Property development to the ABR. Ultimately, the ABR granted approval of the

14 project, but that approval was subject to a redesign of the house (including removal of over 400

15 square feet of living space directly adjacent to Petitioner’s home and outdoor living space) and a

16 carefully negotiated and crafted landscape plan that accommodated the interests of the affected

17 neighbors, particularly Ms. Noël (the “Approved Plan”).

18 16. The Approved Plan specifically preserved Ms. Noël’s views and privacy. The City

19 also required the natural grade to be maintained in the corner abutting Ms. Noël’s property, and

20 down the hillside, to maintain Ms. Noël’s existing views and privacy. A copy of the final negotiated

21 landscape plan is attached as Exhibit A. The Approved Plan, as a public record, is available for any

22 subsequent City/SFDB review of any newly proposed plans, the current ones of which are wholly

23 inconsistent of the previous plan.

24 17. During the prior litigation with the City regarding the Subject Property, Petitioner and

25 her now deceased husband also signed and submitted a form to be designated an “Interested Party,”

26 which City staff advised would entitle them to notice of any future development plans on the Subject

27 Property. Petitioner was never given notice by the City that the notice program was being

28 discontinued, or otherwise informed that she no longer would receive notice of future development

5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 submissions for the Subject Property.

2 18. Petitioner is informed and believes that the Subject Property was sold in 2014, with

3 title taken through a partnership entity of the Kootstra’s, Kootstra Limited Partnership; and that the

4 property was subsequently transferred in 2019 to Kootstra LP, whose general partners are the

5 Kootstras.

6 19. Over the years, Petitioner would see Mr. Kootstra only on occasion, since the

7 Kootstras live in Bakersfield, not in Santa Barbara. Shortly after Mr. Kootstra purchased the Subject

8 Property, Petitioner informed Mr. Kootstra of the prior litigation, including the existence of the

9 landscape plan. In 2016, Petitioner again informed Mr. Kootstra of the prior agreement with the

10 City, including that it was obtained at great expense to Plaintiff, and sent him a copy of the mandated

11 landscape plan. He responded that he agreed to the balance between visibility and privacy, and fully

12 intended to keep everyone happy. Petitioner relied on such comments and believed that the

13 Kootstras intended to maintain good neighborly relationships which acknowledged all parties’

14 interests in privacy and view corridors.

15 20. In one or two instances, Mr. Kootstra stated that they were thinking about installing a

16 pool, but he never disclosed any intent or plans to severely re-grade the bulk of the hillside; to build

17 retaining walls and patios significantly above natural grade that would impact Ms. Noël’s privacy; or

18 to install a tall structure with a roof that would overhang into the setback immediately next to Ms.

19 Noël’s outdoor living spaces, including her pre-existing outdoor kitchen and patio, to the detriment

20 of her views, privacy and quiet enjoyment of her property.

21 21. It appears, however, that the Kootstras had been planning to do exactly that for many

22 years.

23 22. On or about June 11, 2020, the Planning Application was submitted for the Subject

24 Property and was allocated the reference number PLN2020-00293. The Menards, who had been

25 living in the Subject Property for several years, were listed on the Application as “owner.” The

26 applicant was listed as Margie Grace, the owner’s landscape architect. Margie Grace was the only

27 individual present on August 17, 2020, during the Concept Review hearing by the SFDB.

28 //

6
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 23. On or about August 3, 2020, the Planning Application was submitted to the Single

2 Family Design Board for Concept Review by the Full Board. Notice of the August 17, 2020 hearing

3 should have been given to Petitioner and the other adjacent neighbors. One reason notice was

4 required was that the available proposed plans disclosed a need for a Minor Zoning Exception – i.e.,

5 the retaining walls and patio were designed to protrude far more than ten inches above grade in the

6 setbacks. (SBMC § 30.140.090.) The patios were planned to be approximately two feet above

7 natural grade; the retaining walls, up to seven feet above natural grade. In addition, the pergola

8 proposed is an accessory building. (SBMC § 30.140.020.) Any Planning Application requiring a

9 Minor Zoning Exception must be heard at a a noticed public hearing. (SBMC § 22.69.040.A.5; §

10 30.245.050.)

11 24. During that noticed Minor Zoning Exception hearing, the reviewing board would only

12 have been able to approve the application if the board made all necessary findings, including:

13 minimization of impacts on abutting properties; compliance with applicable privacy, landscaping,

14 noise and lighting standards; and compatibility with existing development and character of the

15 neighborhood. (SBMC § 30.245.060.) Here, by contrast, the applicant had not included any privacy

16 screening and important existing screening was to be removed; the lighting from the pool area and at

17 multiple levels was not addressed; and the project was generally incompatible with the character of

18 the neighborhood.

19 25. An application for a Minor Zoning Exception also requires the submission of plans

20 and elevations which include accurate and complete depictions of adjacent parcels and private

21 outdoor areas to be affected by noise and lack of privacy. The building footprint, alone, is not

22 sufficient to demonstrate the potential effect; typically photos of the project from above or in front

23 showing proximity and likely impact are required. (See, SBMC § 30.245.040.) Here, not only did

24 the owner fail to provide the Board with the footprint of Petitioner’s home, there were no indications

25 showing minimization of proposed noises from the outdoor kitchen, pool or the outdoor raised fire

26 pit.

27 //

28 //

7
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 26. Other provisions also would have required specific findings that the modification (the

2 large landscape, pool and shade structure) was necessary to secure an appropriate improvement; to

3 prevent unreasonable hardship due to slope or unusual circumstances, and was consistent with

4 existing patterns in the neighborhood. (SBMC § 30.245.040.F.)

5 27. Additionally, the scale of the plan was massive. The anticipated grading was to

6 exceed more than 150 cubic yards, in a Hillside District, which required higher scrutiny. The

7 retaining wall was anticipated to rise over seven feet over natural grade in the rear setback. And

8 there was no substantive indication that the applicant had complied in any way with the City’s Good

9 Neighbor Guidelines.

10 28. Petitioner is further informed and believes that the owner’s representative

11 substantially misled the SFDB on August 17, 2020 both through omissions and by making numerous

12 inaccurate statements. For example, no reference was made to the prior litigation or the reasons for

13 the approved landscape plans, even though Plaintiff had given Mr. Kootstra that information

14 previously. In addition, the video of the meeting reveals Ms. Grace incorrectly stated that Ms.

15 Noël’s property enjoyed only a “peek view” over the corner of the Subject Property, when in fact

16 Ms. Noël’s property enjoys an expansive view over virtually the entirety of the Subject Property’s

17 rear yard, including a full western sunset view. She also inaccurately represented that there was a

18 wood fence between Ms. Noël’s property and the Subject Property, while failing to disclose that the

19 fence ends in the area where the house was not allowed to be built in 2005, and thereafter is only a 3-

20 foot-tall railing all the way to the Southern corner of both properties. And she misrepresented that

21 the pergola directly adjacent to Ms. Noël’s property would be only about 8 or 9 feet tall, when the

22 plans show the pergola to be 10.5 feet tall (and when added to the planned patio which is 2 feet

23 above natural grade, would result in the pergola roof being approximately 12.5 feet tall and

24 protruding into the setback).

25 29. Unsurprisingly, the August 17, 2020 minutes note that no public comment was

26 made—because there was no possible way Plaintiff, any other impacted neighbor or any member of

27 the public, could reasonably have known the matter was being heard. At that meeting, for which

28 Petitioner had no notice, the SFDB continued the review to Consent, but specifically conditioned

8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 approval on the following, among other things: “Inform neighbors regarding heights of walls and

2 hedges, and discuss measures to maintain the hedges at the property lines.” A true and correct copy

3 of the August 17, 2020 hearing notes and comments is attached hereto as Exhibit B. One of the

4 Board members also stated, that before the next hearing: “I want some evidence, somehow, that your

5 owners have talked to the southerly owners and the easterly owners, that they’ve seen these drawings

6 and are comfortable.”

7 30. The owners then completely failed to comply with the conditions that neighbors be

8 shown the plans, be advised of the heights of the walls, etc. The owners never disclosed to

9 neighbors that they intended to so drastically change the natural grade of the Subject Property, build

10 tall walls within the setbacks, or erect tall pergolas that would encroach on open space and views.

11 They certainly never disclosed that they were planning a massive and wholescale change to the

12 Subject Property which would eviscerate Petitioner’s privacy and impair her views, and adversely

13 impact other neighbors as well.

14 31. Project Design Approval was granted by SFDB on October 12, 2020, on the Consent

15 calendar where only two members of the SFDB were present. Again, the Menards were listed as

16 owners, and they were present and apparently spoke at the Consent Hearing. The project design

17 approval included comments that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria had been met

18 (when they had not); and that the Hillside Design and Sloped Lot criteria were met (and they had

19 not, given, among other things, the amount of grading required). No further specific findings were

20 made, only these global references. The matter then was heard later in the day by the Full Board,

21 whereby the Consent calendar was adopted en masse without further discussion. No notice was

22 provided to Petitioner in advance of either of the October 12, 2020 hearings. The Minutes of the

23 October 12, 2020 Consent Calendar are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

24 32. On September 13, 2021, the Planning Application was presented to the SFDB for

25 final approval. The owner was listed as Jenna Kootstra Menard. The matter was heard on the

26 Consent calendar, with only two members present, and the plans were found to be in substantial

27 conformance with the previously-received and approved project design of October 12, 2020. Later

28 that day, the full Board adopted the full Consent calendar without further discussion. No notice was

9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 provided to Petitioner in advance of either of the September 13, 2021 hearings. The approved

2 Minutes of the September 13, 2021 Consent Calendar are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

3 33. Petitioner is informed and believes that after obtaining planning approval, on or about

4 September 30, 2021, an application for a Building Permit was submitted to the City’s Building and

5 Safety Division and assigned the reference BLD2021-02281. On information and belief, the

6 Building & Safety Division issued a Building Permit on or about October 10, 2023.

7 34. Petitioner had no notice of any of the above-cited submittals, hearings, or approvals.

8 She only became aware of the massive scope of the project when the construction workers started

9 building up the natural grade along her property line. Beginning that day, Petitioner made repeated

10 attempts to obtain a neighborly resolution of the matter. Her requests for a meeting were met with

11 delays from the Menards and virtual silence from the owner. It now appears that the owner’s

12 construction crews are working to complete all construction abutting Petitioner’s property as soon as

13 possible.

14 35. The City failed to proceed with the approval of PLN2020-00293 as required under the

15 law. The City’s failure to provide notice to Petitioner of the Planning Application for the Subject

16 Property violated relevant SBMC requirements, in that, inter alia, the planning Application required

17 a Minor Zoning Exception based on the plan’s setback and grading violations. Such a Minor Zoning

18 Exception would itself have required a noticed hearing, and Petitioner should have been given notice

19 accordingly.

20 36. The City also failed properly to process the approval, since the SFDB failed to ensure

21 that the applicant for the Subject Property development complied with SFDB’s explicit requirement

22 that the owner show plans to neighbors and advise them of wall heights, among other things; failed

23 to make all the required specific findings for approval; failed to address the massive scale proposed

24 in the changes to grading, view corridor, privacy, noise and other issues as necessary, which were

25 incompatible with the environment. The SFDB’s process was thus arbitrary and capricious, and a

26 prejudicial abuse of discretion in that its decision is not supported by its findings and the findings are

27 not supported by law.

28 //

10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 37. The SFDB’s processes were also infected by the owner representative’s

2 misrepresentations of the expected impacts, misrepresentations of the actual ownership of the

3 property, and provision of wholly inadequate data to support any need for the scale of project which

4 was approved. Such misrepresentations should have comprised grounds for the City’s revocation of

5 the planning approval and building permit.

6 38. The City’s failure to provide notice to Petitioner after she had filled out an Interested

7 Party slip further violated her right to due process, since the City never provided notice to her that

8 the program assuring her of further notice would not be followed or enforced.

9 39. Moreover, even if the City contends that no notice is required under the SBMC, the

10 lack of notice to Petitioner here is a violation of Petitioner’s constitutional due process rights,

11 including the right to sufficient notice and a meaningful right to be heard on matters impacting her

12 property rights. When real property rights are at issue, notice and opportunity for hearing are

13 constitutionally required. (See, Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 615-616; Scott v.

14 City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549.) Where, as here, land use decisions affect the

15 property rights of owners of adjacent parcels, the affected persons are entitled to reasonable notice

16 and an opportunity to be heard. (Horn, supra.) The City here was presented with a planning

17 application that patently and adversely impacted Petitioner’s property: the plans sought wholesale

18 alterations to the previously-City-approved landscape plan; the plan destroys Petitioner’s privacy

19 and seriously impairs her views; the plan did not attempt to minimize noise impacts from the pool or

20 from the upraised fire pit and outdoor kitchen sited immediately next to Petitioner’s property; the

21 plan called for re-grading of at least 150 cubic yards, in a Hillside Design area where grading

22 involving only 50 cubic yards is subject to SFDB review; the plan provided for a pergola effectively

23 exceeding 12 feet; the plan proposed setback encroachments of over seven feet over natural grade;

24 and the plan failed to suggest that the owner had met any Good Neighbor requirements or guidelines.

25 Notice was constitutionally due to Petitioner here. Accordingly, any SBMC provision which

26 suggests notice was not necessary is constitutionally invalid as applied to the facts and circumstances

27 of this case.

28 //

11
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 40. Petitioner has appealed to the City, via two separate letters in which she asked for an

2 immediate halt to the construction on the Subject Property. Attached hereto as Exhibits E and F are

3 true and correct copies of letters sent to the City on this issue. The City has informed Petitioner that

4 it cannot respond until next week, which Petitioner fears will be too late. Petitioner’s attempts to

5 invoke City action to halt the adjacent construction, as to which she had had no notice or opportunity

6 to object, have exhausted her administrative remedies before bringing this Petition.

7 41. Petitioner does not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course

8 of law.

9 42. The actions of the City are arbitrary and capricious, and constitute violations of

10 Petitioner’s fundamental right to due process, and Petitioner is thereby irreparably harmed.

11 43. To the extent that an administrative record may be requested in addition to the

12 materials attached as Exhibits hereto, Petitioner hereby demands that such record be prepared by the

13 City.

14 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 and/or §

15 1094.5, as follows:

16 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate, directing Respondent to halt and/or restrain the

17 construction presently proceeding by Real Parties under City of Santa Barbara

18 Planning Application No. PLN2020-00293 and Building Permit No. BLD2021-

19 02281, for the property otherwise known as 155 Cedar Lane, Santa Barbara

20 California, until this matter can be heard;

21 2. For an order vacating the City’s approval of Planning Application No. PLN2020-

22 00293 for failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to Petitioner and

23 other interested parties, including vacating the related Building Permit No. BLD2021-

24 02281;

25 3. For an order directing a noticed public hearing be set by the City’s SFDB for

26 Planning Application No. PLN2020-00293, including directing notice to be given to

27 neighbors of the Subject Property sufficiently in advance of said hearing, pursuant to

28 the SBMC and the fundamental constitutional right of due process afforded to

12
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 Petitioner and affected parties;

2 4. For an order that access to all plans shall be provided to affected parties prior to the

3 noticed public hearing on PLN2020-00293;

4 5. For an order that objections and comments by interested parties be given

5 consideration prior to issuance of planning approval or building permit allowing

6 construction to continue on the Subject Property, and for removal of construction that

7 has occurred that is inconsistent with any revised approved plans, as appropriate;

8 6. For interim injunctive relief as appropriate, to restrain and prevent continued

9 construction on the Subject Property;

10 7. For declaratory relief as appropriate, finding that any SBMC provisions which do not

11 ensure public notice to affected parties in planning hearings are constitutionally

12 invalid;

13 8. For all costs of suit incurred in this proceeding;

14 9. For attorney’s fees as appropriate;

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

17 Dated: March 20, 2024 CAPPELLO & NOËL LLP

18
By: /s/ A. Barry Cappello ___
19 A. Barry Cappello
Richard Lloyd
20 Attorneys for Petitioner
21

13
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 VERIFICATION

2 I, Leila J. Noël, as Trustee of The Noël Living Trust Originally Dated April 6, 2010, As

3 Amended And Restated March 18, 2019, declare as follows:

4 I am the Petitioner in the above-captioned matter. I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR

5 WRIT OF MANDATE and know the contents thereof. The facts contained therein are based upon

6 my own knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and to those matters,

7 I believe them to be true.

8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

9 is true and correct.

10 Executed this 20th day of March, 2024 at Santa Barbara, California

15 By:____Isl Leila J Noel_________

16 Leila J. Noël

14
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
EXHIBIT A
EXISTING QU£R,C;UE, AC.Rlf' OLIA
''r ANl'l:eE'. POiNT '
f"KOT~CT OLR1Nc;. CONST"UCTION.
f"E NCI!'. AT ORIF'LINE
~~!...""1.1
;l!~... :>!1.,J: ..... of~....i .. , .... ,.,r.,.... "'.ll«1:nr.01'Tl r.i"'llllr\o1ll ~•·..r11,11 ,..u,;, .1 - . m l ~
L"'4'<:fti•·\11,,\11!_, __,C:,. .,;.p,.J~i.:.:11J,LJta,',,c, t;"n
(.-..:,:.:,,..; 11,i N\t« t,~"ljJl~-~•~:..,.-,uq,llnv,• l~-g ~LO_ctlNEAPPLE C.lJAVA
~.,.,,4,,,,,_:,_.,.;N!l,"""u!

)l li~IOP[ MUSCA1'l
1/~_-C, rlG eLUt:: LLT T!.A'I"

11 GA!t15$A G, _ 'TUTTLE"
!5 CAL WAFff NATAL rLU,"1
~·-o· O.C.

CA::-lf'LLIA J. ·ct::eUT.A.NTC"
1, C. 6.L. JAl"'ONJC.A CAM~UA

WOOD Ctilr&
~Xi &TlNC QUf.:11:C-US ACRll"OLIA
f'JW Tf'CT OURINC CON'5TRUCTION.
r ENU AT DRIPLINE
L

!5 CAL W~STRINGIA
4'-0' O.C..

t::Xl5TINC. OllYf'
ro 1'f.:MA1N
t::Xl5TINC. auncu& AC.~l"Ol.lA
f O R( MAJN
WOOO CHIP'!:,

l, l"l'IE-l"l.LNffiC !,Ol. r•a"U ,TTON• (';l,,Lf1V,1,Tt ro • 7 ~1,o:,;, 1"-!tS At.!i Tit ve.,~ TO .en;a:ov ~D ~owtolc
DCrlH ~ n· 111111 • Y u.rnt or H-rOlll:rtltD '!>Tlll,IC,'!Ule' ,ltCQWNC, TO f!Ol/5T~'J' '!>fil.NO~!l5
OtC otll' OSffl ,m,wooo, Cf aAA. CO,: ~ co11ros,1 AIW 11a::11tw \liTlf U..'Q'iit-Arc t.l!Ct"1'f CT moll TO WOM .
~ t.M GROW .-ow~ l'lU!i l'.!J. 1000 !!.OllARE nu.
&. C.o.'11,-:AC.TOll ro ~t!U"r QUIINil'l'T or l'I.IINf!, U!I Tltl
! X1$TINC, QUf:RCU& AC.~ll" OlJA
ro 1'.l!MAIN
l'UNT HU~lL!I ANl'.l IK5TA...LATlOl'I 10
11!:CT 111 cttr!iT ou,u,r ~l'>TltT liTANO.tJlD, l Akll!jC.r~ MCl11HC.l '°"
O'I T11~ 1'1.,1,..,., II' C115Cktl'~HC/tS. tl.!S.T. C.Ol"I..U..1
Cl. i. RIP"i/;ATIOI>,
~- lQG•rt l'\,A NT !, ~7"'-'i rwo ¥il:'CIIS. Of J.WAACI CT' (I ru,1 l lt!?S. ...,.D -!,l-:llUl!b , ~~ on.1.1u,.
WOOD CHIF' !:, - - - - - - - - - - CCNT'll:ACT .., ~ &HOW ""oor 01" !i-U1t TO lA~l:l!i{..I.· ~
M.Cnr,t-T I~ ll'~llNC.. Henry L4/ICIS,CJ.rc u c.ton rccr 10. ,.~.._.,, (;rtOWK TO 11£' 1· ll&CV!: •OJ.I.C CIIT
11,-i~DJ,1:;i.r or S(lllllc:«C c:ir rrc.u.n. CllA.~ ! OJI. TI•:u!i ,1, ~a &r!IM!,,;,_
4. vm!"r r'!.IINTl'I C m rt '#ll'H U.'ilt ~C:.Pt u ot r t c r • IL ,,_ ....., IIACPl"fll• MlTUtf or two , ,rtr~ !tOL Fllot1
H ~ ,.,, r wo w,~s. l'fl:Of! to a~ r t. na.: ,0,:'10 ON! :"A~T · l:10!. .o.nt~t~ T <.rllrtCC.tN
l' ~T]!",t:£l k?~WOOO ~J.WtG~ ,L'IO 10 L1!5.
~- W!l§C,l!'C A.'lcnrr('Cf /ICS,C'll~C§ Tl'!! ll: cPtt TO 1urU § £ 'C/1:0W MWtl' l"LIJ!I' n ir c;..e;c, a~ 0, l!ACKrLLJ,
~o,ljl$ or:u-v~~o r o '&lit n,,r Allt S,WS,TIINO.U:D.
l!tl"l..l.Ca-lrNT l'l->J,I T!, All t TO et ~.-u!:0 ~r
r;.oNTll~CTOK .1.1 KO ,or:i'l'lON ~L CO!IT TO 01't?lrl! 12 . l"ltol'lm: ' " :, 1M!or .ll.L 2 1;i · m , acn,, ~,iioco
l! /IM MLLC/1 L.,. l'\.li/!1.,J: ..... of~....i .. , .... ,.,r.,.... "'.ll«1:nr.01'Tl r.i"'llllr\o1ll ~•·..r11,11 ,..u,;, .1 - . m l ~
L"'4'<:fti•·\11,,\11!_, __,C:,. .,;.p,.J~i.:.:11J,LJta,',,c, t;"n
(.-..:,:.:,,..; 11,i N\t« t,~"ljJl~-~•~:..,.-,uq,llnv,• l~-g ~LO_ctlNEAPPLE C.lJAVA
~.,.,,4,,,,,_:,_.,.;N!l,"""u!

)l li~IOP[ MUSCA1'l
1/~_-C, rlG eLUt:: LLT T!.A'I"

11 GA!t15$A G, _ 'TUTTLE"
!5 CAL WAFff NATAL rLU,"1
~·-o· O.C.

CA::-lf'LLIA J. ·ct::eUT.A.NTC"

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 21, 2024

Case Filing Date

March 21, 2024

County

Parties

A Cappello Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Lloyd Attorney
Christopher Haskell Attorneys for Defendants
Melissa Fassett Attorneys for Defendants
Tava Ostrenger Attorney
Sarah Knecht Attorneys for Defendants
Robin Lewis Attorney
Brelje Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Blakeboro Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jana Beck Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Martha Prempeh Attorney
Gary Myers Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: 24CV01633

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties