March Joint Powers Authority Lawsuit vs. Moreno Valley Over Proposed Parking Lot Near March Air Reserve Base

1 AMY E. HOYT, Bar No.
149789
[email protected]
2 SARAH E. OWSOWITZ, Bar No. 202783
[email protected]
3 TIFFANY M. MICHOU, Bar No. 305766
[email protected]
4 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
3390 University Avenue
5 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1028
6 Riverside, California 92502
Telephone: (951) 686-1450
7 Facsimile: (951) 686-3083
8 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
3390 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
12
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, Case No.
14 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Filed under California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA)
15 v.
16 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, and DOES 1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

through 20, inclusive, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
17 DECLARATORY RELIEF
Respondents and
18 Defendants. (California Environmental Quality Act, Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.; California
19 Planning and Zoning Law, Gov. Code
§ 65000, et seq.; City of Moreno Valley
20 Municipal Code; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085,
1094.5)
21
22
(Deemed Verified Pursuant to Code of Civil
23 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST; Procedure, § 446)
DONALD LAWRENCE, TRUSTEE OF THE
24 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST;
SANDRA LAWRENCE, TRUSTEE OF THE
DAVID SCHIEPE, aka DAVID SHIEPE, aka
26 DOUGLAS SCHIEPE, aka DOUGLAS
SHIEPE, aka DAVID SCHWARTZ, as
27 TRUSTEE OF THE LAWRENCE FAMILY
TRUST; DAVID SCHIEPE, aka DAVID
28 SHIEPE, aka DOUGLAS SCHIEPE, aka
21317.00210\41111113.5 -1-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 DOUGLAS SHIEPE, aka DAVID
SCHWARTZ, as an individual; MARTIN
2 CLOUSER, as an individual; and
ROES 21-100, inclusive,
3
Real Parties in Interest.
4
10
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 -2-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Petitioner and Plaintiff MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY alleges as follows:
2 INTRODUCTION
3 1. This action challenges the City of Moreno Valley’s (“City” or “Respondent”)
4 approval of the Moreno Valley Logistics Parking Lot Plot Plan (PEN21-0102) (“Project”), which
5 proposes construction of a paved parking lot for hundreds of cars to be located in the Clear Zone1
6 off the runway of March Air Reserve Base (“March ARB”). Before the City approved the
7 Project, several local and regional agencies, including Petitioner March Joint Powers Authority
8 (“Petitioner”), March ARB, and the County of Riverside’s Airport Land Use Commission,
9 objected that the Project presents an unacceptable safety hazard and is incompatible with the
10 adjacent March ARB airfield and runway land use. Respondent nonetheless approved the Project
11 and that approval constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion in violation of the California
12 Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., herein “CEQA”), the
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 California State Planning and Zoning Law, Gov. Code § 6500, et seq., and the City’s Municipal
14 Code (“Municipal Code”).
15 2. Petitioner brings this action to comply with its obligations as an airport authority.
16 With Respondent’s participation and input over the years, Petitioner entered into foundational
17 documents with the Federal Government that established civilian use of the March Inland Port
18 Airport, but also placed certain obligations on the March JPA. One of those obligations is to
19 “adequately clear and protect the aerial approach” to the March Inland Port Airport. Because the
20 Project impermissibly interferes with Petitioner’s ability to fulfill this obligation, Petitioner is
21 required to bring this action challenging the City’s approval of the Project.
22 3. The Respondent, as the lead agency under CEQA, prepared and adopted an Initial
23 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) ostensibly to evaluate the potential
24 environmental impacts associated with Project’s construction and operation. However, the
25 Respondent abused its discretion by failing to follow the procedures required by CEQA when it
26
27
1
“At the end of all active Air Force runways is an area known as the Clear Zone. The Clear Zone
is a square area beyond the end of the runway and centered on the runway centerline extending
28 outward for 3,000 feet. A Clear Zone is required for all active runways and should remain
undeveloped.” (March Air Reserve Base, Riverside, CA Final AICUZ Study – 2018, p. 5-1.)
21317.00210\41111113.5 -3-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 adopted the MND for the Project. The failure to follow these procedures was prejudicial because
2 it precluded informed public participation and informed decision-making. Moreover, the record
3 before the Respondent was replete with substantial evidence of a fair argument that
4 implementation of the Project may have substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
5 Accordingly, CEQA requires the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the
6 Project. Petitioner seeks to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the Project are
7 properly disclosed, analyzed, and, to the extent feasible, mitigated as CEQA requires.
8 4. The City’s approval also violated the California Planning and Zoning Law and the
9 City’s own Municipal Code. California law requires the Project to be consistent with various
10 planning documents, including the City’s General Plan, the Riverside County March Air Reserve
11 Base/Inland Port Authority Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan
12 Specific Plan 208 (“Specific Plan 208”), and the City’s Municipal Code. These plans mandate
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 that land uses for sites in the Clear Zone adjacent to March ARB be compatible with the airfield
14 use. The Project, which proposes construction of a non-aeronautical structure and invites the
15 assemblages of people in the Clear Zone, is incompatible with this mandate.
16 5. To reiterate, Petitioner brings this action in furtherance of its obligations as an
17 airport authority, and to ensure that the City complies with all governing Federal, State, and local
18 laws, plans and regulations including the City’s own existing land use regulations.
19 6. Through this lawsuit, Petitioner seeks to enforce the provisions of CEQA, the
20 California Planning and Zoning Law, and the Municipal Code as they apply to this Project. The
21 maintenance and prosecution of this action will confer a substantial benefit on the public by
22 ensuring full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the California Planning and Zoning
23 Law and the Municipal Code, and by protecting the public from both the Project’s un-analyzed
24 potentially significant environmental impacts and the unacceptable safety hazard presented by
25 approving such a plainly inconsistent and incompatible development in the Clear Zone of the
26 March ARB.
27 7. As Petitioner and other governmental entities repeatedly informed the City before
28 the Project’s approval, the Project — located at the end of a March ARB runway — would
21317.00210\41111113.5 -4-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 unquestionably place structures and people in an area with a high potential for aircraft accidents.
2 The City’s failure to heed these warnings left Petitioner with no option but to bring this lawsuit.
3 THE PARTIES
4 8. Petitioner MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (“March JPA”) is presently,
5 and at all times relevant herein has been, a California joint powers authority organized and
6 existing under Government Code Section 6500, et seq. The members of the March JPA are the
7 Cities of Riverside, Perris and Moreno Valley and the County of Riverside. Pursuant to
8 Government Code section 6508, the March JPA sues on its own behalf and on behalf of the
9 taxpayers within its component jurisdictions who stand to be harmed by Respondent’s acts and
10 omissions.
11 9. Petitioner is informed and believes that Respondent CITY OF MORENO

12 VALLEY (“City”) is now, and at all times relevant herein has been, a city in Riverside County
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. The City has designated
14 itself as the “lead agency” for the Project for purposes of Public Resources Code section 21067,
15 with principal responsibility for conducting environmental review and with issuing approval of
16 the Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for the Project. The City has a duty to comply with all state laws,
17 including CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law, and its Municipal Code.
18 10. Real Party in Interest LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST is the Project applicant
19 listed on the Notice of Determination for the Project.
20 11. Real Party in Interest DONALD WILLIAM LAWRENCE, is, on information and
21 belief, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST.
22 12. Real Party in Interest SANDRA JEAN LAWRENCE, is, on information and
23 belief, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST.
24 13. Real Party in Interest DAVID SCHIEPE, also known as DAVID SHIEPE, also
25 known as DOUGLAS SCHIEPE, also known as DOUGLAS SHIEPE, also known as DAVID
26 SCHWARTZ is, on information and belief, an individual, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE
27 FAMILY TRUST, and an owner of the Project site, and a Project applicant.
28 14. Real Party in Interest MARTIN CLOUSER is, on information and belief, a
21317.00210\41111113.5 -5-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 representative of the LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST.
2 15. The true names and capacities of the Respondents and Defendants identified as
3 DOES 1-20 and Real Parties in Interest identified as ROES 21-100 are unknown to Petitioner,
4 and Petitioner will amend this Petition to insert the true names and capacities of those parties
5 when they are ascertained.
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Public Resources Code
8 sections 21167, subdivision (a), 21168, and 21168.5, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085
9 and 1094.5.
10 17. Original venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections
11 392, 393, 394, 395, and 860. The City and the Project site are located in Riverside County. The
12 Project’s significant environmental effects and safety hazards, which are the subject of this
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 lawsuit, would occur in that County, and the Project would affect the interests of County
14 residents, including those of Petitioner’s member agencies.
15 STANDING
16 18. Petitioner and those whom Petitioner serves will be directly and adversely affected
17 by Respondent’s actions in certifying the MND and approving the Project, and Petitioner is thus
18 beneficially interested in the outcome of this action. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate
19 remedy in the ordinary course of law in that Petitioner and those whom Petitioner serves will
20 suffer irreparable harm if the Project is implemented without proper environmental review and
21 despite the Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan 208 , the Riverside
22 County March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUC
23 Plan”), and the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, Petitioner has standing to pursue this action
24 to vindicate the rights of the public under CEQA, as well as the California Planning and Zoning
25 Law.
26 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
27 19. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing the instant
28 action and has exhausted any and all administrative remedies to the extent required by law,
21317.00210\41111113.5 -6-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 including as required by Public Resources Code section 21177. Notably, Petitioner objected to
2 the Project orally and in writing, and the grounds for this action were presented to Respondent,
3 including in writing during the public comment period provided under CEQA by Petitioner and
4 others. Petitioner further incorporates the comments, both oral and written, made during the
5 Project approval process by other entities and members of the public.
6 NOTICE OF PROCEEDING
7 20. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
8 21167.5 in mailing a notice of commencement of this action to Respondent, prior to filing this
9 Petition. A copy of this notice and proof of service is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and
10 incorporated herein by this reference.
12 21167.6 by concurrently notifying Respondent of Petitioner’s request to prepare the record of

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 administrative proceedings relating to this action. A copy of the Petitioner’s Election to Prepare
14 the Administrative Record Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 is attached as
15 Exhibit “B” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
17 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388 by mailing a copy of this Petition to the
18 Attorney General of the State of California. A copy of the Notice transmitting the Petition to the
19 Attorney General is attached as Exhibit “C” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
20 TIMELINESS
21 23. The City approved the Project on February 21, 2023 and filed its Notice of
22 Determination for the Project with the Riverside County Clerk on February 27, 2023. Therefore
23 this lawsuit has been commenced within the time limits imposed for this action under Public
24 Resources Code sections 21167, 21168, and/or 21168.5, as well as by Government Code section
25 65009.
26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 Environmental Setting
28 24. The Project site is approximately 9.14 acres and is located on the east side of
21317.00210\41111113.5 -7-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Heacock Street just north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain, within the southwestern portion of
2 Specific Plan 208. The property consists of one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 316-211-014).
3 Surrounding land uses include March ARB to the northwest.
4 25. The Project site is currently designated as Open Space under the City’s General
5 Plan and Specific Plan 208 designates the Project site as Clear Zone.
6 26. The Project site is located within the Clear Zone of the ALUC Plan adopted by the
7 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, and the 2018 Air Force Air Installation
8 Compatible Use Zones Study (“AICUZ”).
9 27. The Project site is encumbered by a Clear Zone Easement, recorded on September
10 27, 1984 in Riverside County Official Record Document Number 209559. The document
11 identifies the easement as “being acquired for the use of the Air Force in connection with the
12 March Air Force Base AICUZ project.” The document details the rights granted in the easement,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 including, but not limited to, the following which grants:
14 The right to prohibit all land uses other than the following: a.
agriculture; b. grazing (excluding feed lots and dairy herds); c.
15 permanent open space; d. existing water areas; e. rights-of-ways for
fenced two-land highways, without sidewalks or bicycle trails, and
16 single tract railroads; and f. communications and utilities rights-of-
ways.
17
Project Characteristics
18
28. The Project includes a parking lot designed with 12’ x 30’ parking stalls for
19
automobile parking and will operate twenty-four hours a day/seven days a week. Up to twelve
20
shuttles a day will drive and pick-up drivers who have dropped off the automobiles and/or are
21
picking up automobiles at the parking lot. Bollards are proposed throughout the parking lot to
22
provide lighting at night. Landscaping along the Project perimeter will consist of low-profile
23
ground cover with shrubs and bushes.
24
Environmental Review and Project Approval
25
29. On or about September 29, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
26
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, in which it notified public agencies and interested
27
individuals that, as lead agency, it would be preparing a MND to analyze the proposed Project’s
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 -8-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 potentially significant impacts.
2 30. The City circulated its MND for a 20-day public review period, which began on
3 September 29, 2022, and ended on October 18, 2022.
4 31. Petitioner and other public agencies submitted comments during the public review
5 period noting defects in the MND and urging the City to deny the Project or otherwise require the
6 preparation of an EIR. These comments explained, among other things, that the MND failed to
7 comply with CEQA in several respects, including that it failed to properly disclose the significant
8 public health and safety hazards that would result from developing the Project within the March
9 ARB Clear Zone and that the Project was in direct conflict with land use plans, policies and
10 regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.
11 32. The City’s Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) noticed a public

12 hearing for approval of the Project on October 27, 2022. However, the item was continued, at the
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 applicant’s request, to December 22, 2022.
14 33. On December 22, 2022, after a public hearing at which Petitioner gave public
15 comment in opposition to the Project, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 with 1 abstention, to
16 approve Resolution 2022-41 adopting the MND, approving a Mitigation Monitoring and
17 Reporting Program, and approving Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for the Project.
18 34. On December 29, 2022, and January 3, 2023, the Planning Commission’s decision
19 was appealed by the County of Riverside (PAA22- 0005) and by the Department of the Air Force
20 (PAA23-0003).
21 35. On February 21, 2023, after a public hearing at which Petitioner gave public
22 comment in opposition to the Project, the City Council voted 3 –2 to adopt Resolution No. 2023-
23 08 denying the appeals, upholding the Planning Commission’s adoption of the MND and
24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Plot Plan PEN21-0102, and approving the
25 Project.
26 36. A Notice of Determination for the Project was filed and posted with the Riverside
27 County Clerk on February 27, 2023.
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 -9-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 37. As a result of the City’s actions in adopting the MND and approving the Project,
2 Petitioner will suffer significant and irreparable harm. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or
3 adequate remedy at law for this irreparable harm. Unless this Court grants the requested
4 declaratory relief and writ of mandate to require Petitioner to set aside certification of the MND
5 and approval of the Project, the City’s approval will remain in effect in violation of state law.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Writ of Mandate for Violation of CEQA – (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., State
9 CEQA Guidelines 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.)
10 (Against All Respondents, Defendants, Real Parties in Interest and DOES 1-21 and
11 ROES 21-100)
38. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
paragraphs 1 through 37 above.

13
39. “[T]he legislature intended [CEQA] to be interpreted in such manner as to afford
14
the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
15
language.” (City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 61
16
Cal.4th 945, 963.) When complying with CEQA, a lead agency must proceed in the manner
17
required by law, and its factual determinations must be supported by substantial evidence.
18
40. CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant
19
environmental impacts in an EIR. “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials
20
of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR
21
protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.” (Citizens of Goleta
22
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.)
23
41. CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except
24
in certain limited circumstances. CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a
25
lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard.
26
Under that standard, if a lead agency is presented with a “fair argument” based on substantial
27
evidence in the record that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 10 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 the lead agency shall prepare an EIR, even though it may be presented with other substantial
2 evidence that the proposed project will not have a significant effect. (Cal. Code of Regs., Tit. 14
3 (“State CEQA Guidelines,”) § 15064(f)(1).) An EIR is required for any proposed project that
4 may have a significant effect on the environment, and thus the EIR requirement is the “heart of
5 CEQA.” (Public Resources Code, § 21100(a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15003(a).)
6 42. In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after
7 preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on
8 the environment, but: (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the
9 applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review
10 would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
11 environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
12 before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(2).)
14 43. Further, Public Resources Code section 21096(b) and State CEQA Guidelines
15 section 15074(e) state that a lead agency cannot adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a
16 project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan without first considering
17 whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or
18 for persons residing or working in the project area.
19 44. Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but
20 substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in
21 significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities
22 for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310,
23 319-320.) The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review
24 through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration. (Consolidated Irrig. Dist.
25 v City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207) An agency’s decision not to require an EIR
26 can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
27 45. “Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough
28 relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 11 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (State
2 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.) “[I]f a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project
3 may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even
4 though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a
5 significant effect.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086,
6 1111.)
7 46. The City was presented with substantial evidence of a fair argument that the
8 Project may significantly affect the environment with regard to impacts related to, but not limited
9 to, hazards, and land use and planning consistency and was asked to prepare an EIR. Several
10 local and regional agencies, including Petitioner, March ARB, and the County of Riverside’s
11 Airport Land Use Commission, submitted comments and gave testimony to the City advising the
12 City that that Project presents an unacceptable safety hazard in conflict with multiple applicable
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 land use plans, and so may result in significant environmental impacts that were not adequately
14 disclosed, evaluated and/or mitigated in the MND. For example:
15 47. The City was provided with substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project
16 would result in potentially significant hazards to the public due to the location of the Project
17 within the ALUC Plan’s Clear Zone.
18 a. The MND failed to analyze the reasonably foreseeable accident conditions
19 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment created by hazardous materials
20 (fuel) storage in parked vehicles in a Clear Zone, which prohibits all storage of hazardous
21 materials and all hazards to flight. The City’s Specific Plan 208, paragraph III-3, identifies the
22 Project site to be located in an area with high accident potential. With the potential for as many
23 as 400 vehicles to be parked at the Project, an aircraft crash in this area would very likely ignite
24 the fuel in those vehicles — which could total in excess of 6,000 gallons of hazardous material —
25 and the resulting fire would create toxic fumes that could cause health effects to the local
26 community and the environment. The Air Quality Report Health Risk Assessment prepared for
27 the MND contains no analysis as to this issue. But the potential for an aircraft crash this close, to
28 the end of the runway, is a reasonable assumption predicated upon facts and constitutes
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 12 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 substantial evidence of significant effects that were not considered in the MND.
2 b. The MND and supporting documents also omit any analysis of a mass
3 casualty event, which, as noted by March ARB in its comments to the City on the Project, could
4 happen if an aircraft mishap occurs during shift change when the proposed parking lot would be
5 full of people. The City was informed that, based on multi-year studies, the Air Force learned
6 that 91% of all aircraft accidents were related to takeoff and landing operations and as such,
7 designated three safety zones for areas beyond the ends of zones, the Clear Zone, and Accident
8 Potential Zones I and II. The Clear Zone, where the Project is located, is the area immediately
9 beyond the end of a runway. The majority of aircraft incidents (approximately 62%) occur either
10 on or adjacent to the airfield or within the Clear Zone.
11 c. Petitioner and other commenters informed the City that, to preserve safety
12 in the Clear Zone the Project site is encumbered by a Clear Zone Easement, which states, in part
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 that it grants March ARB
14 The right to prohibit all land uses other than the following: a.
agriculture; b. grazing (excluding feed lots and dairy herds); c.
15 permanent open space; d. existing water areas; e. rights-of-ways for
fenced two-land highways, without sidewalks or bicycle trails, and
16 single tract railroads; and f. communications and utilities rights-of-
ways.
17
18 But, faced with this expert substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project could result in
19 significant impact related to hazards, the City adopted an MND that violates CEQA by failing to
20 disclose, analyze, and attempt to mitigate, this potentially significant impact.
21 48. The City was also provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project
22 would result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to its conflict with provisions in
23 multiple plans, including Specific Plan 208, the General Plan, and the ALUC Plan, which were
24 adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Given this, the MND
25 failed to analyze the reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts due to a conflict
26 with land use plans by not studying assemblages of people and vehicles at the Project, or how the
27 Project would significantly increase the exposure to people, property, and the environment from
28 the hazards of flight accidents as required CEQA.

21317.00210\41111113.5 - 13 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 a. Specifically, the City was informed that the MND inaccurately states that
2 the Project is consistent with Specific Plan 208. While Specific Plan 208 identifies “automobile
3 parking” as a compatible land use in the Clear Zone, it also requires the City to determine land
4 uses to be compatible “in accordance with” the “most recent March ARB [AICUZ] Study.”
5 (Specific Plan 208 at III-3.) This is a critical omission because Specific Plan 208 expressly
6 acknowledges that the Clear Zone is an “area required for public safety” which “has high accident
7 potential.” (Specific Plan 208 at II-2, V-02.) The MND then fails to disclose that the most recent
8 March ARB AICUZ Study, from 2018, provides that automobile parking is not compatible with
9 the Clear Zone. (March ARB 2018 AICUZ, at 5-1- 5-7.) As a result of this failure, the MND
10 ignored substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will result in a potentially
11 significant environmental impact due to its conflict with Specific Plan 208 by locating an
12 incompatible use, the Project, within the Clear Zone.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 b. The City was also provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the
14 Project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to its conflict with
15 provisions of the General Plan. For instance, the General Plan’s Safety Element, at page 6-20,
16 requires ongoing coordination with March ARB, the March JPA, and the March Inland Port
17 Airport Authority to help reduce the exposure of people and property to hazards from any flight
18 accidents, as well as reduce the risk of an accident for aircraft in flight over the City. But, the
19 Project’s potential to expose people and property to hazards from flight accidents, in conflict with
20 this General Plan policy, was not disclosed or analyzed in the MND.
21 c. The City was further provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that
22 the Project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to its conflict with
23 provisions of the ALUC Plan. For instance, ALUC Plan S.4-2 requires projects to be reviewed
24 for conformance with the compatibility criteria outlined in the ALUC Plan, and as such are
25 criteria that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
26 These criteria were not disclosed or analyzed in the MND.
27 49. Because the City failed to properly analyze the Project’s potential impacts as set
28 forth herein, the City has also failed to formulated any feasible mitigation measures to reduce or
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 14 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 avoid a variety of the Project’s potential significant impacts, including, but not limited to,
2 impacts relating to Hazards and Land Use. By adopting an MND for the Project where there is
3 substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant
4 environmental effects and where the MND is based on incomplete analysis or investigation, the
5 City committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The Project approvals must be set aside, and
6 any further action by the City to approve the Project must be taken only via the preparation and
7 certification of an EIR. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, 1094.5; Public Resources Code, §
8 21168.)
9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1094.5 for violation of
10 California Planning and Zoning Law, Gov. Code § 65000, et seq.,)
12 ROES 21-100)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
General Plan Inconsistency
15
51. A local agency’s general plan functions as a “constitution for all future
16
developments” within the agency’s boundaries and the agency’s land use decisions must be
17
consistent with the general plan. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.
18
3d 553, 570.) A general plan in turn shall be consistent with the applicable airport land use plan. (Gov.
19
Code § 65302.3.) A project is inconsistent with the general plan if it conflicts with any
20
fundamental, mandatory and specific policy, goal or statement, or if it frustrates or fails to
21
implement or advance the general plan’s goals and policies. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural
22
El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332;
23
Endangered Habitat's League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777; Napa
24
Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
25
342.)
26
52. The City’s General Plan contains fundamental, mandatory and specific polices and
27
goals regarding the Clear Zone that are intended to promote land use compatibility with the
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 15 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 existing March ARB and to protect public safety by restricting development in the Clear Zone.
2 The General Plan also includes fundamental goals, objectives and policies, that among other
3 things, seek to limit hazards from flight operations, require evaluation of relevant compatibility
4 criteria, and ensure proper coordination with relevant entities concerning proposed development
5 projects in the Clear Zone. Because the Project proposes incompatible development in the Clear
6 Zone, the Project is inconsistent with and frustrates the General Plan’s fundamental mandates,
7 including but not limited to the Open Space designation, Policy C.2-13, Policy LCC.1-11, Policy
8 S.4-1, Policy S.4-2, and Policy 4-3, as alleged in further detail below.
9 53. The City's General Plan incorporates the ALUC Plan, the City's special airport
10 compatibility zoning overlay, the March ARB 2018 AICUZ Study, and Air Force and Department
11 of Defense guidance. (General Plan, 4-7, 4-8, 6-21, 6-21.) The General Plan explains that the
12 City's special airport compatibility zoning overlay "limits public exposure to aircraft accidents and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 noise and encourages future development that is compatible with the continued operation of March
14 ARB" and notes that "any future development [in the Clear Zone] may be constrained." (Id., 6-21,
15 4-8.)
16 54. Notably, in finding the City’s General Plan consistent with the ALUC Plan, the
17 County’s Air Port Land Use Commission made a special recommendation for the Project site:
18 "1. Add to the Circulation Element a discussion identifying

Heacock Street's location within Zone A (Clear Zone) and the
19 challenges that it presents with regards to satisfying Clear Zone
criteria set forth in the 2014 March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port
20 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the 2018 Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone study, and the Department of Defense
21 Instruction No. 4165.57. The following policy shall be added to the
Circulation Element to ensure consistency with these plans: ‘C.2-
22 13. The City will coordinate with the March Air Reserve Base and
Airport Land Use Commission staff to ensure that Heacock Street
23 within the Clear Zone is consistent with future land use plans
adopted by the March Air Reserve Base and/or the Airport Land
24 Use Commission.’"
25 55. To that end, the City's General Plan mandates coordination among the City, the
26 County’s Airport Land Use Commission, March JPA and March ARB regarding future land uses
27 that have potential compatibility issues with March ARB. Specifically, the General Plan states
28 that ongoing coordination with March ARB and March JPA will help to reduce the exposure of
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 16 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 people and property to hazards from any flight accidents, as well as reduce the risk of an accident
2 for aircraft in flight over the City. (General Plan, 6-20.) The General Plan explains that as part of
3 its transportation element, the City will coordinate with March ARB and the County’s Airport
4 Land Use Commission to ensure that Heacock Street within the Clear Zone is consistent with
5 future land use plans adopted by March ARB and the ALUC Plan. (Id. at 4-8, 4-9; 6-20, 6-21.)
6 56. The General Plan's safety element also includes Goal S-4, to “minimize airport safety
7 hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations.” (Id at 6-21.) The policies and actions to
8 achieve this goal include policies to limit hazards from flight operations by ensuring consistency
9 with the ALUC Plan and conformity with the ALUC Plan’s compatibility requirements. (Ibid.) The
10 policies also seek to minimize the potential for development adjacent to the March ARB that could
11 adversely impact airport operations. (Ibid.) The non-residential intensity for the Clear Zone is zero
12 people for both average and single acre intensity. (ALUC Plan, Table MA-2.). The ALUC Plan
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 identifies Compatibility Zone Factors Table MA-1 as the primary method of implementing the
14 Plan. Table MA-1 provides a list of prohibited uses which include non-aeronautical structures,
15 hazards to flight and assemblages of persons. Specifically, within the Clear Zone (Zone A),
16 properties are “generally on air base property or controlled by easements.” As noted in the
17 County’s Airport Land Use Commission’s comment letter, the Project is inconsistent with the
18 ALUC Plan because it does not comply with Table MA-1 and because it frustrates
19 implementation of the General Plan’s directive that development in the City comply with the
20 ALUC Plan.
21 57. The Project is also inconsistent with the General Plan’s Open Space designation
22 for the Project site. Under the General Plan and the City’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space
23 Comprehensive Master Plan, land designated as Open Space is to be substantially unimproved
24 and utilized for uses such as outdoor passive recreation, preservation of natural resources,
25 livestock grazing, and cultivating crops. The Project, which proposes a paved parking lot for
26 hundreds of cars, is fundamentally inconsistent with the Open Space designation and frustrates
27 implementation of that designation.
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 17 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Specific Plan 208 Inconsistency
2 58. Specific Plans may be adopted by local governments but they must be consistent with
3 the General Plan. (Gov. Code § 65454.) Specific plans must also be consistent with the relevant
4 airport land use plan. (Gov. Code § 65302.3.) The Project site is located with the City’s Specific Plan
5 208.
6 59. Specific Plan 208 explains that the Clear Zone designation was established to be
7 consistent with the safety regulations implemented by the County Land Use Commission related to
8 flight operations at the airfield. (Specific Plan, III-1.) The Clear Zone is an area ”required for public
9 safety,” due to its high accident potential. (Id., II-2, V-12.) Specific Plan 208 states that the only
10 compatible uses in the Clear Zone are roads, agriculture, and open space; notes that the Clear
11 Zone currently consists of open space; and concludes only contemplated use is for passive, non-
12 structural uses, primarily agriculture. (Id., II-2, IV-3 - IV-4, V-12.)

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 60. Despite these restrictions, the City relied on a portion of the Specific Plan that
14 references an outdated, superseded AICUZ study to state that automobile parking is not
15 prohibited for the Clear Zone. (Specific Plan, at III-3.) The City’s interpretation of this section of
16 Specific Plan 208 is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. The California Attorney General’s
17 opinion #03-0805 (2004) addresses whether an airport land use commission may exempt a city or
18 county's specific plan from complying with the more stringent compatibility standards for land
19 use, development density, and development intensity in the vicinity of a public use airport. The
20 Attorney General answered they could not: “In light of the elaborate procedures set forth in [the
21 Aeronautics Act] for identifying and resolving inconsistencies between a specific plan and an
22 airport land use compatibility plan, it is apparent that the Legislature did not intend to authorize a
23 commission to grant ‘exemptions’ for a specific plan with less stringent standards than a
24 compatibility plan.” If an airport land use commission cannot find a specific plan exempt from an
25 airport land use compatibility plan, a city certainly cannot. The City has no authority to interpret
26 Specific Plan 208 in a way that is inconsistent with the ALUC Plan. The City’s conclusion that
27 Specific Plan section III-3 eliminates the need to coordinate and ensure compatibility of the proposed
28 use in the Clear Zone is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

21317.00210\41111113.5 - 18 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 61. Moreover, this interpretation renders Specific Plan 208, as applied to the Project, to be
2 inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus void. (Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek
3 (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531.) The only reasonable interpretation of the General Plan and Specific Plan 208
4 is that proposed land uses in the Clear Zone that change use from passive to active, such as the Project,
5 require analysis of any proposed new use for safety considerations and compatibility with March ARB.
6 Inadequate findings
7 62. The City’s land use findings are also legally inadequate because they do not make
8 the logical link between the findings and the reasons supporting each of the findings. Findings
9 must “bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order” and be
10 based on substantial evidence. (Topganga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los
11 Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515.) The City’s boiler plate and conclusory findings do not
12 bridge that gap, nor are they supported by substantial evidence.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 63. The Project violates the California Planning and Zoning Law because, among
14 other things: (1) it is inconsistent with the General Plan’s mandatory, specific and fundamental
15 goals and policies regarding the Clear Zone and compatibility with March ARB, the AICIZ, and
16 the ALUC Plan; (2) it frustrates and circumvents these General Plan goals and policies; and (3)
17 substantial evidence does not support the City’s findings. The City’s interpretation of its General
18 Plan and Specific Plan 208 is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. The City thus committed a
19 prejudicial abuse of discretion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and/or
20 section 1085.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1094.5 for violation of the
23 City’s Municipal Code)
25 ROES 21-100)
26
27
65. The City’s approval of the Project also violates several provisions of its Municipal
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 19 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Code, including but not limited to Municipal Code sections 9.02.70, 9.01.050, and 9.07.060.
2 66. Municipal Code section 9.07.060 creates a special use district overlay and states
3 the ALUC Plan shall apply in addition to the general zoning requirements for sites, like the
4 Project site, within the overlay. Section 9.07.060 states that Table MA-1 of the ALUC Plan is to
5 be used to determine whether a use is compatible with March ARB and that any proposed activity
6 should comply with existing Department of Defense and Air Force guidance. According to Table
7 MA-1 and the relevant military guidance, a parking lot is not a compatible use in the Clear Zone.
8 The City’s approval of the Project thus violates Municipal Code section 9.070.060.
9 67. Municipal Code section 9.01.050 states that the Code does not “interfere with or
10 avoid” any existing easements that are more restrictive than the Code’s provisions. Here, the Air
11 Force holds a restrictive easement over the Project site, which gives the Air Force the power to
12 approve or deny any projects than agriculture, grazing, permanent open space, existing water
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 areas, rights-of-way for fenced two-lane highways, without sidewalks or bicycle trails, single tract
14 railroads, and rights of way for communications and utilities. The City failed to properly consider
15 this restrictive easement and instead approved the Project, which is inconsistent with the
16 easement. This constitutes an abuse of discretion and violation of Municipal Code section
17 9.01.050.
18 68. The City also violated Municipal Code section Code 9.02.070(C), which governs
19 approval of plot plans. Section 9.02.070(C) requires the City to find that the plot plan: (1) is
20 consistent with the General Plan’s goals, objectives, policies and programs; (2) complies with all
21 applicable zoning and other regulations; (3) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
22 welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (4) location,
23 design and operation will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.
24 Although the City purported to make these required findings, the findings are legally inadequate
25 under Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at
26 pp. 514-515 because they are conclusory and boilerplate and because they are not supported by
27 substantial evidence.
28 69. Moreover, substantial evidence in the record shows that the findings cannot be
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 20 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 made. The evidence before the City demonstrates that the Project is inconsistent with and
2 violates, inter alia, the General Plan, Specific Plan 208, the ALUC Plan, the AICUZ, guidance
3 from the Department of Defense and Force, and Municipal Code section 9.07.060. The evidence
4 further shows that the Project would be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare
5 because it places non-aeronautical structures and assemblages of people in the Clear Zone.
6 Finally, the evidence shows that the Project is not compatible with the ALUC Plan, which is the
7 existing land use in the vicinity.
8 70. Because the Project approval violates the Municipal Code, the City committed
9 prejudicial abuse of discretion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or
10 1094.5.
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Declaratory Relief)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 ROES 21-100)
15
16
72. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and the City.
17
Petitioner contends that the City is incorrectly interpreting and/or intentionally disregarding the
18
ALUC Plan, the City’s General Plan, Specific Plan 208, and the Moreno Valley Municipal Code
19
in approving the Project and as part of a pattern and practice for its interpretation of these state
20
and local laws. Petitioner believes that such interpretation and application to the Project and all
21
future proposed uses in the Clear Zone and other similarly restricted zones around the March
22
ARB and associated airport will cause the Petitioner and the residents within its component
23
jurisdictions irreparable injury for which Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law and which will
24
result in significant adverse effects on the environment.
25
73. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the City disputes
26
Petitioner’s contentions as described in the preceding paragraph.
27
74. Petitioner seeks a judicial declaration and determination of the respective rights
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 21 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 and duties of the City under the ALUC Plan, the City’s General Plan, Specific Plan 208, and the
2 Moreno Valley Municipal Code, and in applying and complying with these state and local laws.
3 75. A judicial declaration and determination is necessary and appropriate at this time
4 in order that Petitioner may ascertain its rights with respect to the duties and obligations of the
5 City and in order to resolve all controversies between the parties hereto regarding such rights and
6 duties.
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:
9 1. For temporary and permanent injunctive relief restraining Respondent from taking
10 any action to carry out the Project pending full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the
11 California Planning and Zoning Law, and the Respondent’s General Plan and Municipal Code
12 2. For a peremptory writ of mandate commanding that Respondent (1) set aside and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 vacate its adoption of the MND and approvals relating to the Project and (2) refrain from granting
14 any further approvals or permits for the Project unless and until Respondent comply fully with the
15 requirements of CEQA, California Planning and Zoning Law and the City’s General Plan and
16 Municipal Code;
17 3. For declaratory relief that Resolution #22/23-16 is unlawful because Respondent
18 failed to comply with the California Planning and Zoning Law, the ALUC Plan, the City’s
19 General Plan, the City’s Specific Plan 208 and the City’s Municipal Code;
20 4. For costs of suit;
21 5. For attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
22 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 22 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Dated: March 27, 2023 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
3 By:
AMY E. HOYT
4 SARAH E. OWSOWITZ
TIFFANY M. MICHOU
5 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
6
7 [Deemed verified as to March Joint Powers Authority

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 446]
8
10
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 23 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Exhibit “A”
2 Notice of Commencement of CEQA Action
10
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 24 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sarah E. Owsowitz
Of Counsel
(925) 977-3308
[email protected]
File No. 21317.00210
March 24, 2023
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jane Halstead, City Clerk

City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
Re: Notice of Commencement of Action
Dear Ms. Halstead:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under Public Resources Code section 21167.5, the March
Joint Powers Authority (“March JPA”), intends to file a petition for writ of mandate and complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief under, among other laws, the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), against the City of
Moreno Valley (the “City”) and the Lawrence Family Trust, including Martin Clauser and David
Schiepe, as a real parties in interest.
The Petition will, among other claims, challenge the certification of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (State Clearinghouse #2022090621) for the
Moreno Valley Logistics Parking Lot Plot Plan (PEN21-0102) (“Project”) and the approvals
relating to the Project on the grounds that, among other things, the City abused its discretion and
violated CEQA by certifying the MND and approving the Project without complying with CEQA’s
procedural and substantive requirements.
Sincerely,
Sarah E. Owsowitz
for BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
SEO
cc: Dr. Grace Martin, Executive Director, March JPA

Thomas Rice, General Counsel, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Amy Hoyt, Special Counsel, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Best Best & Krieger LLP | 2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390, Walnut Creek, California 94596
Phone: (925) 977-3300 | Fax: (925) 977-1870 | BBKLAW.COM
21317.00210\41110377.2
-25-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Contra Costa County, California. I am
3 over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address
4 is 2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390, Walnut Creek, California 94596. I am readily familiar with
5 this firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
6 States Postal Service. On March 24, 2023, I placed with this firm at the above address for deposit
7 with the United States Postal Service a true and correct copy of the within document(s):
8 MARCH 24, 2023 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF

ACTION
9
in a sealed envelope, postage fully paid, addressed as follows:
10
Jane Halstead, City Clerk
11 City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection
16
and mailing on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the
17
United States Postal Service on this date.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
19
is true and correct.
20
Executed on March 24, 2023, at Walnut Creek, California.
21
22
23 Irene Islas
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41125277.1
MARCH 24, 2023 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
-26-
1
Exhibit “B”
2
Petitioner’s Election to Prepare the Administrative Record Pursuant to Public Resources Code
3 Section 21167.6
4
10
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 - 27 -
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 AMY E. HOYT, Bar No. 149789
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
5 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1028
Telephone: (951) 686-1450
7 Facsimile: (951) 686-3083
9
12

Judge :
14 Petitioner and Plaintiff,
PETITIONER’S ELECTION TO
15 v. PREPARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
16 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, and DOES 1 RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21167.6
through 20, inclusive,
17
Respondents and (California Environmental Quality Act
18 Defendants. (“CEQA”); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1085 &
1094.5)
19

DOUGLAS SHIEPE, aka DAVID
26 SCHWARTZ, as an individual; MARTIN
CLOUSER, as an individual; and
27 ROES 21-100, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
28
PETITIONER’S ELECTION TO PREPARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

21317.00210\41111458.1
-28-
1 TO RESPONDENT AND TO ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6,
3 Petitioner and Plaintiff March Joint Powers Authority (“Petitioner”) hereby notifies Respondent
4 and Defendant City of Moreno Valley (“Respondent’) of the Petitioner’s election to prepare the
5 administrative record of proceedings relating to the above-captioned action.
6 Petitioner therefore requests that Respondent notify Petitioner's attorney of record in
7 writing when the items constituting the administrative record are available for inspection and
8 photocopying. The documents that constitute the administrative record consist of, but are not
9 limited to, all transcripts, minutes of meetings, notices, proofs of publications, mailing lists,
10 correspondence, reports, studies, proposed decisions, final decisions, findings, resolutions, and
11 any other documents or records relating to the certification of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
LAW OFFICES OF
P.O. BOX 1028
12 Declaration (“MND”) (State Clearinghouse #2022090621) for the Moreno Valley Logistics
13 Parking Lot Plot Plan (PEN21-0102) (“Project”) and the appeal and approvals relating to the
14 Project.
15
Dated: March 27, 2023 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
16
17
By:
18 AMY E. HOYT
SARAH E. OWSOWITZ
19 TIFFANY M. MICHOU
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
20 MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
PETITIONER’S ELECTION TO PREPARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
21317.00210\41111458.1
-29-
1
Exhibit “C”
2
Notice to Attorney General
3
10
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21317.00210\41111113.5 -30-
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 AMY E. HOYT, Bar No. 149789
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
5 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1028
Telephone: (951) 686-1450
7 Facsimile: (951) 686-3083
9
12
14 Petitioner and Plaintiff, NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
15 v. OF MANDATE
16 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, and DOES 1 (California Environmental Quality Act

through 20, inclusive, (“CEQA”); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1085 &
17 1094.5)
Respondents and
18 Defendants.

DOUGLAS SHIEPE, aka DAVID
25 SCHWARTZ, as an individual; MARTIN
CLOUSER, as an individual; and
26 ROES 21-100, inclusive,
27 Real Parties in Interest.
28
-1-
NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CEQA ACTION
21317.00210\41111316.1
-31-
1 TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.7 and Code
3 of Civil Procedure Section 388, that on March 27, 2023, Petitioner/Plaintiff March Joint Powers
4 Authority (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for
5 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) against Respondent/Defendant City of Moreno
6 Valley and Real Party in Interest Lawrence Family Trust, in the Superior Court of the State of
7 California, County of Riverside. A copy of the Petition is attached to this Notice as “Exhibit A.”
8 Dated: March 27, 2023 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

9
10 By:
AMY E. HOYT
11
LAW OFFICES OF
SARAH E. OWSOWITZ
P.O. BOX 1028
TIFFANY M. MICHOU
12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
21317.00210\41111316.1
-32-
1
2
EXHIBIT A
3
4 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
9
10
11
LAW OFFICES OF
P.O. BOX 1028
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
21317.00210\41111316.1
-33-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390, Walnut Creek, California 94596. On March
3 27, 2023, served the following document(s):
4 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CEQA ACTION
5
 By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below.
6 No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax
7 transmission, which I printed out, is attached.
8  By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package

addressed to the persons at the addresses listed below (specify one):
9
10
 Deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the
postage fully prepaid.
11

Placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for

12
LAW OFFICES OF
P.O. BOX 1028
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
13 correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
14 envelope with postage fully prepaid.
15 I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope
or package was placed in the mail at Riverside, California.
16
17  By personal service. At ____ a.m./p.m., I personally delivered the documents to

the persons at the addresses listed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney,
18 delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents
in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with
19 a receptionist or an Individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was
made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some
20 person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and
21 six in the evening.
22  By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or

package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed below and providing them
23 to a professional messenger service for service. A Declaration of Messenger is
attached.
24
25  By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package

provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the
26 addresses listed below. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight
delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
21317.00210\41111316.1
-34-
1
 By e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the documents to be sent to the
persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable
2 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
3 transmission was unsuccessful.
4 CEQA Coordinator
Office of the Attorney General
5 Environment Section
1300 "I" Street
6 Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
[email protected]
7
8
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9 above is true and correct.
10 Executed on March 27, 2023, Walnut Creek, California.

11
12
LAW OFFICES OF
P.O. BOX 1028
Irene Islas
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
21317.00210\41111316.1
-35-

March Joint Powers Authority Lawsuit vs. Moreno Valley Over Proposed Parking Lot Near March Air Reserve Base

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March Joint Powers Authority Lawsuit vs. Moreno Valley Over Proposed Parking Lot Near March Air Reserve Base

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

March Joint Powers Authority Lawsuit vs. Moreno Valley Over Proposed Parking Lot Near March Air Reserve Base

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 AMY E. HOYT, Bar No.

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, Case No.

14 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Filed under California Environmental

16 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, and DOES 1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

3 1. This action challenges the City of Moreno Valley’s (“City” or “Respondent”)

14 Code (“Municipal Code”).

23 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) ostensibly to evaluate the potential

15 assemblages of people in the Clear Zone, is incompatible with this mandate.

16 5. To reiterate, Petitioner brings this action in furtherance of its obligations as an

4 8. Petitioner MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (“March JPA”) is presently,

11 9. Petitioner is informed and believes that Respondent CITY OF MORENO

19 listed on the Notice of Determination for the Project.

21 belief, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST.

23 belief, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST.

26 SCHWARTZ is, on information and belief, an individual, a Trustee of the LAWRENCE

5 when they are ascertained.

6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14 residents, including those of Petitioner’s member agencies.

26 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

5 Project approval process by other entities and members of the public.

10 incorporated herein by this reference.

12 21167.6 by concurrently notifying Respondent of Petitioner’s request to prepare the record of

15 Exhibit “B” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

3 Surrounding land uses include March ARB to the northwest.

8 Compatible Use Zones Study (“AICUZ”).

13 including, but not limited to, the following which grants:

3 September 29, 2022, and ended on October 18, 2022.

10 regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

11 32. The City’s Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) noticed a public

13 applicant’s request, to December 22, 2022.

27 County Clerk on February 27, 2023.

7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9 CEQA Guidelines 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.)

paragraphs 1 through 37 above.

5 CEQA.” (Public Resources Code, § 21100(a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15003(a).)

13 environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(2).)

18 for persons residing or working in the project area.

26 can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

27 45. “Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough

14 disclosed, evaluated and/or mitigated in the MND. For example:

17 within the ALUC Plan’s Clear Zone.

18 a. The MND failed to analyze the reasonably foreseeable accident conditions

10 on or adjacent to the airfield or within the Clear Zone.

13 that it grants March ARB

20 disclose, analyze, and attempt to mitigate, this potentially significant impact.

28 the hazards of flight accidents as required CEQA.

12 incompatible use, the Project, within the Clear Zone.

26 These criteria were not disclosed or analyzed in the MND.

9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

18 "1. Add to the Circulation Element a discussion identifying

23 Comprehensive Master Plan, land designated as Open Space is to be substantially unimproved

27 implementation of that designation.

12 structural uses, primarily agriculture. (Id., II-2, IV-3 - IV-4, V-12.)

28 use in the Clear Zone is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

12 bridge that gap, nor are they supported by substantial evidence.

21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

23 City’s Municipal Code)

7 existing land use in the vicinity.