(Exempt from Filing Fees

Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103)

1 MINH C. TRAN, County Counsel (SBN 179932)

KELLY A. MORAN (SBN 267147)
2 MELISSA R. CUSHMAN (SBN 246398)
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
3 3960 Orange Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501-3674
4 Telephone: (951) 955-6300
Facsimile: (951) 955-6363
5 Email: [email protected]

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

10

11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political ) Case No.

subdivision of the State of California, )
12 ) (California Environmental Quality Act)
Plaintiff and Petitioner, )
13 )
v. ) PLAINTIFF AND PETITIONER COUNTY OF
14 ) RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR
) WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
15 ) FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, a municipal )
16 corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, )
) [Code Civ., Proc., §§ 1085, 1094.5; CEQA (Pub.
17 Defendant and Respondent. ) Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)]
)
18 )
)
19 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST; DONALD )
LAWRENCE, TRUSTEE OF THE )
20 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST; SANDRA )
LAWRENCE, TRUSTEE OF THE )
21 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST; DAVID )
SCHIEPE, aka DAVID SHIEPE, aka )
22 DOUGLAS SCHIEPE, aka DOUGLAS )
SHIEPE, aka DAVID SCHWARTZ, )
23 TRUSTEE OF THE LAWRENCE FAMILY )
TRUST; DAVID SCHIEPE, aka DAVID )
24 SHIEPE, aka DOUGLAS SCHIEPE, aka )
DOUGLAS SHIEPE, aka DAVID )
25 SCHWARTZ, as an individual; MARTIN )
CLOUSER, as an individual; and ROES 21-40, )
26 inclusive, )
)
27 Real Parties in Interest. ) [Deemed verified pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc.,
) § 446]
28

1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

2 Petitioner COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (“Petitioner” or “County”) alleges as follows:

3 INTRODUCTION

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

5 decision to approve the Moreno Valley Logistics Parking Lot Plot Plan PEN21-0102 (“the Project”) and

6 adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) without legally adequate compliance with,

7 and in violation of, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et

8 seq.), the State Aeronautics Act (“SAA,” Pub. Util. Code, § 21001 et seq.), State Planning and Zoning Law

9 (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.), and Moreno Valley’s own local laws. The MND did not adequately review

10 the Project’s impacts on multiple environmental issues, including, but not limited to, impacts to aviation,

11 land use and planning consistency, noise, and safety/hazards. The Project approvals expressly and

12 improperly relied on a Specific Plan that has never undergone review by the Riverside County Airport Land

13 Use Commission (“ALUC”), and disregarded comments by ALUC, the expert agency on the topic, without

14 proper findings. In addition, the Project approvals violated Moreno Valley’s own local laws, including the

15 General Plan and Municipal Code, including portions relating to Open Space and analysis of potential

16 development in the Clear Zone. The City is geographically within the County, and the Project’s lot may be

17 used by County residents. Accordingly, the County is concerned that the Project’s potentially significant

18 environmental impacts and other legally non-compliant aspects threaten the environment and the safety of

19 County residents and others. In order to protect the environment and those residents, the County has filed

20 the instant litigation.

21 2. The Project as approved by Moreno Valley consists of a parking lot with 194 parking stalls

22 on 9.14 acres located at the northeast corner of Heacock Street and the Perris Valley Storm Drain in Moreno

23 Valley. It is within the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan and Moreno Valley Specific Plan (“SP”) 208,

24 a specific plan from 1989. Surrounding land uses include the March Air Reserve Base (“March ARB”) to

25 the northwest; vacant land to the north and east; and the Perris Valley Storm Drain to the south.

26 3. The primary reason for all of the problems with the Project is that the Project site is located

27 within Zone A (Clear Zone) of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility

28 Plan (“March ALUCP”) adopted by ALUC. According to the March ALUCP, the Clear Zone is essentially

2
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 equivalent to the runway protection zone at purely civilian airports. (March ALUCP 1 p. 10. ) In that area,

2 Safety and Airspace Protection Factors are determined to have a risk level of “Very High,” and noise

3 impacts are determined to have an impact level of “Very High.” (Id. at p. 3.) For these reasons, all property

4 within this area is generally on Air Base property or controlled by restrictive easements. (Ibid.)

5 Specifically, since 1984, the United States Air Force has owned a perpetual Clear Zone easement over the

6 Project site, which was acquired for consideration for the use of the Air Force in connection with the March

7 Air Force Base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (“AICUZ”). 2 This perpetual easement grants to the

8 U.S. government “[t]he right to prohibit all land uses other than the following: a. agriculture; b. grazing

9 (excluding feed lots and dairy herds); c. permanent open space; d. existing water areas; e. rights-of-way for

10 fenced two-land highways, without sidewalks or bicycle trails, and single tract railroads; and f.

11 communications and utilities rights-of-way.” Moreno Valley wholly disregarded these easement

12 restrictions and the environmental consequences of the same, in violation of CEQA.

13 4. Due to the multiple potentially significant environmental impacts and the concerns

14 connected to detrimental impacts to March ARB, many federal, regional, and local agencies, entities, and

15 individuals strenuously objected to the Project. In addition to the County, these included such diverse

16 entities and individuals as the U.S. Department of the Air Force and Air Force Reserve Command,

17 Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Ken Calvert, the March Joint Powers Authority, March Air

18 Museum, the City of Norco, ALUC, and the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce. The March Joint

19 Powers Authority, which the County is informed and believes has filed or intends to file its own legal

20 challenge against the Project, also submitted comments opposing the Project based on similar concerns.

21 5. Despite the outcry of concern against the Project, and despite the many legal restrictions that

22 cover the Project site, on December 22, 2022, the Planning Commission of Moreno Valley (“Planning

23 Commission”) chose to approve the Project in violation of the many applicable legal restrictions, including

24 the Clear Zone easement, without analysis of violating those restrictions, without sufficient environmental

25 analysis, without an Environmental Impact Report that could allow project approval despite remaining

26

27
1
The March ALUCP is available at: https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/2014/17%20-
28 %20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf.
2
The March AICUZ is available at: https://www.marchjpa.com/documents/docs_forms/AICUZ_2018.pdf.
3
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 significant impacts, without sufficient mitigation measures that could potentially lessen or prevent

2 significant impacts resulting from those violations, and without compliance with Moreno Valley’s own

3 local laws.

4 6. The County and March ARB, United States Air Force, separately appealed the Planning

5 Commission’s approval. More public objection to and comments against the Project took place. However,

6 on February 22, 2023, the Moreno Valley City Council disregarded all of the significant concerns raised

7 against the Project, denied both the County’s and March ARB’s appeals, and approved the Planning

8 Commission’s approval of the Project.

9 7. As detailed below, Moreno Valley failed to properly exercise its duties as lead agency under

10 CEQA and its implementing guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.

11 (“State CEQA Guidelines”), resulting in Moreno Valley’s improper approval of the Project without

12 adequate environmental review under CEQA and without the required compliance with the SAA, Moreno

13 Valley’s General Plan, SP 208, or Moreno Valley’s Municipal Code. Because of the potentially significant

14 impacts and the other concerns related to the Project and Moreno Valley’s lack of analysis, disregard of the

15 Air Force’s and ALUC’s expert determinations as to the use and safety of areas around an airport, or

16 consideration of those concerns, the County feels obligated to represent and protect its constituency and

17 neighbors by filing this Petition for Writ of Mandate. Through this lawsuit, the County seeks to enforce the

18 provisions of CEQA as they apply to the Project, as well as the provisions of the SAA, the Moreno Valley

19 General Plan, SP 208, and the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. The maintenance and prosecution of this

20 action will confer a substantial benefit to the public by ensuring full compliance with the requirements of

21 CEQA, a public-disclosure statute, and by protecting the public from the unanalyzed potential

22 environmental harms, unmitigated environmental impacts, and lack of adoption of all feasible mitigation

23 measures as alleged in this Petition. It will also confer a substantial benefit to the public by ensuring full

24 compliance with the SAA and with Moreno Valley’s own laws in its General Plan and Municipal Code.

25 THE PARTIES

26 8. Petitioner County is, and at all relevant times was, a political subdivision of the State of

27 California. Among other responsibilities, the County is responsible for planning and governing land use in

28 Riverside County in a manner that protects the public health, safety, welfare, and environment of its

4
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 residents. Through one of the County’s departments, the Transportation and Land Management Agency,

2 the County provides planning, environmental, building, and other services.

3 9. Respondent Moreno Valley is a general law city organized and existing under and by virtue

4 of the laws of the State of California, and is geographically situated in the County of Riverside. Moreno

5 Valley is authorized and required by law to hold public hearings, to determine whether CEQA applies to

6 development within its jurisdiction, to determine the adequacy of and adopt or approve appropriate

7 environmental documents pursuant to CEQA, to comply with State laws including the SAA, to comply with

8 its own local laws, including the General Plan, SP 208, and the Municipal Code, and to properly determine

9 whether a project is compatible with the objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the

10 Moreno Valley General Plan and Municipal Code. Moreno Valley, its staff, and the contractors and

11 consultants working under its control and direction, prepared the MND for the Project, and the City Council

12 approved the MND and issued final approvals for the Project.

13 10. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants and Respondents sued

14 herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants and Respondents by such fictitious

15 names. Petitioner will amend this Petition to allege the true names and capacities of fictitiously named

16 Defendants and Respondents. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that base alleges, that each

17 Defendant and Respondent designated herein as a DOE has some responsibility for the events and

18 happenings alleged in this Petition.

19 11. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Lawrence Family Trust

20 is a Real Party in Interest insofar as the Notice of Determination that Moreno Valley prepared and filed

21 with the Riverside County Clerk on February 27, 2023, following approval of the MND and the Project,

22 identified the Lawrence Family Trust as the applicant for the Project that is the subject of this proceeding,

23 and the Lawrence Family Trust is identified as the owner of the subject property that is the location of the

24 Project.

25 12. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Real Party in Interest

26 Donald Lawrence, aka Donald W. Lawrence, aka Donald William Lawrence, is a Trustee of the Lawrence

27 Family Trust, and on that basis is a recipient of Project approvals.

28

5
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 13. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Real Party in Interest

2 Sandra Lawrence, aka Sandra J. Lawrence, aka Sandra Jean Lawrence, is a Trustee of the Lawrence Family

3 Trust, and on that basis is a recipient of Project approvals.

4 14. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Real Party in Interest

5 David Schiepe, aka David Shiepe aka Douglas Schiepe aka Douglas Shiepe aka David Schwartz, an

6 individual, worked with Moreno Valley in securing approvals of the Project and is a recipient of approval

7 of the Project and/or is a representative of the Lawrence Family Trust.

8 15. Petition is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Real Party in Interest Martin

9 Clouser, an individual, worked with Moreno Valley in securing approvals of the Project and is a recipient

10 of approval of the Project and/or is a representative of the Lawrence Family Trust.

11 16. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Real Parties in Interest sued herein

12 as ROES 21-40, inclusive, and therefore sues these Real Parties in Interest by such fictitious names.

13 Petitioner will amend this Petition to allege the true names and capacities of fictitiously named Real Parties

14 in Interest. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that base alleges, that each Real Party in Interest

15 designated herein as a ROE has some responsibility for the events and happenings alleged in this Petition.

16 JURISDICTION

17 17. This Court has jurisdiction to review Moreno Valley’s findings, approvals, and actions and

18 issue a writ of mandate and grant declaratory and/or injunctive relief, as well as all other relief sought

19 herein, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5 and Public Resources Code sections

20 21168 and 21168.5, among other provisions of law.

21 VENUE

22 18. The Superior Court of the County of Riverside is the proper venue for this action. The

23 Project at issue and the property it concerns are geographically wholly located within the County of

24 Riverside. The County and Moreno Valley are wholly located within the County of Riverside.

25 STANDING

26 19. The County and its residents will be directly and adversely affected by Moreno Valley’s

27 actions in approving the MND and approving the Project. The County has no plain, speedy, and adequate

28

6
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 remedy in the ordinary course of law in that the County, its residents, and the public will suffer irreparable

2 harm if the Project is implemented.

3 20. The Project will have potentially significant impacts on aviation, land use compatibility,

4 noise, safety, and other areas of environmental concern. Accordingly, any action which permits the Project

5 to go forward without disclosing and properly analyzing all Project impacts on the environment, and

6 imposing all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts, is one in which the County, a political subdivision

7 of the State of California and the entity responsible for land use planning in the unincorporated area of

8 Riverside County and for protecting its residents, has a beneficial interest. The County objected to Moreno

9 Valley’s approval of the Project, raised environmental concerns, requested that Moreno Valley comply with

10 CEQA, and exhausted its administrative remedies, including appealing the Planning Commission’s

11 approval of the Project to the Moreno Valley City Council. The County, other agencies, organizations,

12 and/or individuals raised or affirmed each of the legal deficiencies asserted in this Petition orally or in

13 writing prior to Moreno Valley’s approval of the Project and related MND.

14 21. The County seeks to promote and enforce the informational purposes of CEQA in this action,

15 which purposes are defeated by Moreno Valley’s approval of the Project without sufficient or accurate

16 information, analysis, or mitigation. Ascertaining the facts about the environmental impacts of projects and

17 disclosing those facts to decisionmakers and the public are purposes that are within the zone of interests

18 CEQA was intended to protect.

19 22. Moreno Valley has a mandatory and public duty to comply with CEQA, the SAA, and its

20 own General Plan and Municipal Code, as well as all other applicable laws, when approving a project. The

21 issues in this action are issues of public right, and the object of the action is to enforce public duties in the

22 public interest. The County has to employ attorneys to bring this litigation. Furthermore, the County has

23 incurred and will incur substantial attorneys’ fees and litigation costs because of Respondent’s unlawful

24 acts. The litigation, if successful, will result in enforcement of important rights affecting the public interest.

25 Such enforcement will confer a significant benefit on a large class of persons. The County is entitled to be

26 reimbursed for attorneys’ fees and costs because it is functioning as a private attorney general pursuant to

27 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

28

7
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 23. Respondent and Real Parties in Interest are threatening to proceed with the Project in the

2 near future. Implementation of the Project will irreparably harm the environment in that the Project will

3 create significant environmental impacts related to aviation, land use compatibility, noise, and safety,

4 among others. The County has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and, unless a stay, preliminary

5 injunction, temporary restraining order and injunction, or permanent injunction is issued that restrains

6 Respondent and Real Parties in Interest from proceeding with the Project, the County will be unable to

7 enforce its rights under CEQA or other applicable laws, which prohibit Moreno Valley’s approval of the

8 Project.

9 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

10 24. This action is brought consistent with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections

11 1085 and 1094.5, Public Resources Code section 21177. The County has exhausted all available

12 administrative remedies by objecting to Moreno Valley’s approval of the Project prior to Moreno Valley’s

13 approval of the MND and requesting that Moreno Valley comply with CEQA and other applicable laws.

14 The County and/or other agencies, organizations, or individuals raised or affirmed each of the legal

15 deficiencies in this Petition orally or in writing prior to Moreno Valley’s approval of the MND and the

16 Project.

17 25. The County has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.5 by prior provision

18 of notice to Moreno Valley indicating its intent to commence this action. The notice and proof of service

19 are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

20 26. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.7, the County has concurrently provided

21 a copy of this Petition to the California Attorney General. The notice and proof of service are attached

22 hereto as Exhibit B.

23 27. This lawsuit has been commenced within the time limits imposed for this action under the

24 Code of Civil Procedure and the Public Resources Code.

25 28. The County seeks issuance of a writ of mandate ordering Moreno Valley to vacate and set

26 aside its approvals of the Project.

27 29. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that an application was

28 submitted for the Project in 2021. An MND was prepared for the Project. The County is informed and

8
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 believes, and on that basis alleges, that the MND was circulated to the public between September 29, 2022

2 and October 18, 2022.

3 30. The Project was scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on October 27,

4 2022. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at the applicant’s request, the

5 item was continued, and the Project was brought to hearing before the Planning Commission on December

6 22, 2022. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that, despite the many comment

7 letters and oral objections received, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 with 1 abstention to adopt the

8 MND and approve the Project. The Planning Commission did not require any changes to the Project that

9 could reduce or eliminate any of the potential environmental impacts from the Project.

10 31. The Planning Commission’s December 22, 2022, decision to approve the Project and MND

11 was timely and separately appealed by the County and the Department of the Air Force within Moreno

12 Valley Municipal Code’s 10-day appeal period. The bases for appeal included that, as proposed and as

13 approved by the Planning Commission, the Project: (1) does not meet the requirements of City Code; (2)

14 would be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare risks, and would present mission statement

15 concerns for the U.S. Air Force; (3) is not consistent with the Moreno Valley General Plan; (4) is not

16 consistent with Specific Plan 208; (5) is not consistent with the use of Open Spaces; (5) is not consistent

17 with the March ALUCP; (6) violates the SAA because it requires overrule by two-thirds with specific

18 findings prior to approval, which had not occurred; (7) conflicted with the Moreno Valley Municipal Code,

19 which does not allow ignoring land use covenants such as the Air Force’s 1984 restrictive easement; (8)

20 interfered with operational military missions; (9) endangered public health and safety; (10) was inconsistent

21 with Department of Defense requirements; (11) was inconsistent with recorded easement restrictions; (12)

22 was inconsistent with CEQA; and (13) would be detrimental to the national defense operations at March

23 ARB.

24 32. The Moreno Valley City Council considered the Project in a public hearing on February 21,

25 2023. While a number of people stood up and spoke in opposition to the Project and had submitted letters

26 in opposition, the City Council denied both appeals and approved the Project with a 3-2 vote. On February

27 27, 2023, Moreno Valley filed a Notice of Determination. On March 27, 2023, the County sent a Notice of

28 Commencement of Action, attached hereto as Exhibit A, notifying Moreno Valley that the County was

9
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 going to commence this legal challenge against the Project. The County subsequently sent a Notification

2 to the Attorney General notifying that office of the commencement of this action as well, attached hereto

3 as Exhibit B, and is filing, as part of the filing of this lawsuit, a Notice of Election to Prepare the

4 Administrative Record, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Finally, the County requests that a hearing be set in

5 order to meet CEQA’s requirements that its cases be given priority in the courts and brought to hearing

6 quickly, and has attached hereto as Exhibit D such Request for Hearing.

7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

8 (Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1085 and 1094.5 – Violation of

9 CEQA)

10 (Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest)

11 33. The County incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs 1 through 32, above, as

12 though set forth in full.

13 34. “[T]he legislature intended [CEQA] to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest

14 possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (City of San

15 Diego v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University (2015) 61 Cal.4th 945, 963 [internal punctuation and

16 citation omitted].) When complying with CEQA, a lead agency must proceed in the manner required by

17 law, and its determinations must be supported by substantial evidence. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.)

18 “CEQA requires a public agency to mitigate or avoid its projects’ significant effects not just on the agency’s

19 own property but on the environment.” (City of San Diego, supra, at 957.) “CEQA defines the environment

20 as the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project and

21 mandates that each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of

22 projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” (Id. at 960 [italics in original,

23 internal quotes and citations omitted].)

24 35. In approving the Project and adopting the associated MND, Moreno Valley violated CEQA

25 in numerous ways. Moreno Valley’s failure to comply with CEQA includes, but is not limited to, the

26 following:

27 a. Failure to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”): CEQA has a

28 strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR, requiring that an EIR must be prepared for

10
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151,

2 emphasis added.) Here, the Project’s many potentially significant environmental impacts required the

3 preparation of an EIR before the Project could be approved. The failure to prepare and EIR and to include

4 all required portions of an EIR, including an alternatives analysis, and undertake the actions required

5 associated with the preparation of an EIR, including the preparation of a legally adequate statement of

6 overriding considerations, is a violation of CEQA.

7 b. Failure to Identify and Adequately Analyze Project Impacts, Including Impacts

8 Relating to Aviation, Hazards/Safety, Urban Decay, and Noise: Prior to approving a project under an

9 MND, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency must consider the MND together with all comments

10 received during the administrative process and may adopt a negative declaration or MND only if that agency

11 finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the initial study and all comments, “that there is

12 no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” (State CEQA

13 Guidelines, § 15074(b).) An MND is only appropriate if there is no substantial evidence in the record

14 sufficient to support a fair argument that the project even may have a significant effect on the environment

15 and that all potentially significant effects are mitigated “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the

16 environment would occur.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5, emphases added; State CEQA Guidelines

17 §§ 15063(c)(2), 15070(b).) Multiple commenters, including experts from ALUC, the March ARB, the U.S.

18 Air Force, the County, March JPA, and others, noted, giving supporting reasoning, that the Project will

19 likely result in significant impacts to aviation, hazards, safety, noise, and urban decay, among others. Each

20 individual one of these supported comments, often by experts in the field, qualifies as a fair argument that

21 the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. The MND, and Moreno Valley in adopting

22 it, ignored or discounted these impacts with little or even no analysis. These violations of CEQA mandate

23 the setting aside of Project approvals.

24 c. Failure to Identify and Adequately Analyze Project Impacts, Including Impacts

25 Relating to Land Use Compatibility and Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and

26 Regulations: The very purpose of the SAA and associated ALUCP “is to protect public health, safety, and

27 welfare by ensuring . . . the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive

28 noise and safety hazards within areas around the public airports to the extent that these areas are not already

11
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 devoted to incompatible uses.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 21670(a).) In enacting the SAA, the Legislature further

2 emphasized that “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing

3 airports . . . It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise,

4 safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations,” as those criteria are established by

5 the SAA and the applicable ALUCP and Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“ALUP Handbook”). (Pub.

6 Util. Code, § 21674.7(b).) These documents establish such mandatory criteria for airports and development

7 around airports as relates to noise, public safety, and airspace protection in the vicinity of the airport. The

8 California Supreme Court has described land use compatibility plans such as the ALUCP operate “like a

9 multijurisdictional general plan to trump the land use planning authority that affected jurisdictions might

10 otherwise exercise through general and specific plans or zoning.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County

11 Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 384-385, emphasis added.) Under these plans, all remaining

12 undeveloped property in the Clear Zone is required to remain open land, and it is forbidden to: (1) store

13 hazardous materials, (2) construct non-aeronautical structures, (3) allow assemblages of people, or (4)

14 create hazards to flight. Accordingly, the March ALUCP establishes the maximum population density for

15 site usage for development in the airport area, which, because of the danger and safety concerns, is zero

16 people for both the average and single-acre density. This would be violated the moment occupied cars and

17 buses entered the parking lot. ALUC further noted that SP 208 has never been reviewed by ALUC as

18 required under the SAA, so Moreno Valley’s reliance on SP 208 for a Project within the ALUCP was

19 impermissible, even more so because this omission was never disclosed, discussed, or analyzed in the MND.

20 Experts on land use and land use plans also submitted comments noting the Project’s incompatibility with

21 the Moreno Valley General Plan, SP 208, and surrounding land uses, in addition to other significant

22 environmental impacts. In addition, it has been recognized that environmental impacts can even lead to

23 national security concerns (see Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn. of Govs. (2017) 3 Cal.5th

24 497, 504-505), concerns that were also raised. This expert testimony, as well as the incompatibility with

25 land use plans, demonstrates the existence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts

26 on the environment. These violations of CEQA also mandate the setting aside of Project approvals.

27 d. Improper Adoption of an MND for a Project Within an Airport Land Use Plan

28 Without Evaluating Whether the Project Will Result in a Safety Hazard or Noise Problem for Persons

12
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 Using the Airport or for Persons Residing or Working in the Project Area: CEQA has special

2 requirements for projects within an Airport Land Use Plan, requirements that specifically discourage MNDs

3 for such projects. (Cal. Building Industry Assn. v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 391.) Specifically for

4 a project such as the one here within an airport land use plan such as the March ALUCP, CEQA mandates

5 that: “[a] lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration [or MND] for a project [within an airport land

6 use plan] unless the lead agency considers whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem

7 for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.” (Pub. Resources Code,

8 § 21096(b).) The State CEQA Guidelines reiterate this, mandating that no MND may be adopted for a

9 project within an area covered by an airport land use plan without first considering whether the project will

10 result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working

11 in the project area. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(e).) Rather than undertake this analysis, the MND

12 Initial Study merely says that, because Specific Plan 208 allows automobile parking, there will be a less

13 than significant impact. This entirely leaves out portions of Specific Plan 208’s limitations on projects in

14 the Clear Zone. In addition, the MND’s non-analysis fails to even mention persons using the airport or

15 persons residing or working in the Project area at all, much less analyze the impacts related to noise and

16 safety on them. This is a per se violation of CEQA that mandates the setting aside of Project approvals.

17 e. Failure to Adopt Adequate Mitigation Measures: Even if a project may result in

18 significant impacts, an MND may be appropriate if all of those impacts can clearly be reduced below a level

19 of significance through the adoption of mandatory mitigation measures and there is no substantial evidence

20 in light of the whole record that that he project, with that mitigation, may have a significant effect on the

21 environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15369.5.) Despite the potential for significant environmental

22 impacts associated with the Project, Moreno Valley failed to adopt mitigation measures that would clearly

23 reduce all of those impacts below a level of significance. For example, the Project allows the congregation

24 of over a hundred cars containing occupants to enter the parking lot and wait for buses. This creates a daily

25 assemblage of people, even though any “assemblages of people” ever are strictly forbidden in the Clear

26 Zone. If Moreno Valley were going to approve the Project despite the significant environmental impacts

27 of violating strict land use limitations and the significant safety and hazards impacts that follow from those

28 violations, it was at the very least required to adopt mitigation measures that would prevent such

13
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 assemblages and other land use limitation violations, as well as impacts relating to aviation, noise, and

2 safety/hazards. Moreno Valley did not. The lack of mitigation measures that would clearly reduce these

3 impacts to below a level of significance is a violation of CEQA.

4 f. Failure to Conduct or Appropriately Circulate Sufficient Environmental

5 Review: Moreno Valley failed to conduct sufficient environmental review for the Project despite the fact

6 that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Project has the potential to cause a number of foreseeable

7 direct, indirect, and cumulative potentially significant impacts. The MND and its process also violated

8 CEQA in that the time for circulation was too short due to the Project’s potential to have area-wide, region-

9 wide, and statewide impacts due to its impacts on March ARB military, national security, aviation safety,

10 and other issues of wide-spread concern. The inadequacies in the environmental review are prejudicial and

11 require Project approvals to be revoked and, if any development project is permissible for this site, full

12 environmental review in compliance with CEQA, the SAA, and all other applicable laws before such a

13 revised, fully mitigated project can proceed.

14 g. Failure to Adopt Legally Adequate Findings: The findings made on the Project

15 are legally inadequate. When Moreno Valley rejects ALUC’s comments on a project, it is required to make

16 specific findings. Moreno Valley made no findings (or analysis) regarding noise, height, or density onsite

17 and their compatibility with the ALUCP or AICUZ. In addition, where there are significant environmental

18 impacts that may result from a project, the lead agency must prepare an EIR, perform an alternatives

19 analysis to determine whether changes to the project, including the project location, could significantly

20 reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts, and make specific findings for those

21 impacts. None of these findings were made, and the findings that were made are legally inadequate.

22 36. For all of the above reasons, Moreno Valley’s adoption of the MND and approval of the

23 Project violate CEQA. As a result, the County requests that the Court set aside Moreno Valley’s approval

24 of the Project and the MND on these grounds.

25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

26 (Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1085 and 1094.5 – Violation of

27 State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65000 et seq.), the City of Moreno Valley

28 General Plan, Specific Plan 208, Municipal Code, and Related Laws and Policy Requirements)

14
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 (Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest)

2 37. The County incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs 1 through 36, above, as

3 though set forth in full.

4 38. The Project violates and is inconsistent with Moreno Valley’s own General Plan. The

5 General Plan’s purpose, among other things, is to limit hazards from flight operations, to require evaluation

6 of relevant compatibility criteria, and to ensure proper coordination with relevant entities concerning

7 proposed development in the Clear Zone. The General Plan, including but not limited to City Policy C.2-

8 13, Policy LCC.1-11, Policy S.4-1, Policy S.4-2, Policy S.4-3, among other portions of the General Plan,

9 contains a number of goals, objectives, and policies relating to compatibility analysis of potential

10 development in the Clear Zone, but the Project is inconsistent with those goals, objectives, and policies.

11 The Project invites, rather than limits, hazards from flight operations. The MND and other Project analysis

12 do not evaluate compatibility criteria at all or do it insufficiently. While the Moreno Valley General Plan

13 requires the “[r]eview [of] all projects within the March [ARB]/Inland Port Airport Influence Area for

14 conformance with the compatibility criteria outlined in the March ALUC Plan,” no such review was

15 properly done. The Project improperly and illegally increases development adjacent to March ARB in the

16 most dangerous area near the runway and increases the potential for electromagnetic and visual interference,

17 in contravention of Policy S.4-3. The Project is also inconsistent with the General Plan’s definition of and

18 policies relating to Open Space, as well as the requirement that “the City will coordinate with March Air

19 Reserve Base and Airport Land Use Commission staff to ensure that Heacock Street within the Clear Zone

20 is consistent with future land use plans adopted by the March Air Reserve Base and/or the Airport Land

21 Use Commission.” (General Plan at 4-8.) Rather than coordinating with ALUC, March ARB, and the Air

22 Force, Moreno Valley instead ignored them and disregarded and belittled their expertise, warnings, and

23 advice in approving the Project, since, as pointed out by these entities, the Project is patently inconsistent

24 with the Clear Zone requirements and applicable land use plans.

25 39. The Project also violates and is inconsistent with Specific Plan 208. The Specific Plan

26 explicitly identifies the Clear Zone as an “area of high accident potential from March ARB as may be

27 designated through the most recent March ARB Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study” and

28 “high hazard potential.” (SP 208 at III-3, IV-4.) While the SP lists potentially compatible uses, it further

15
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 explains that compatible uses are only those land uses “in accordance with” the “most recent March ARB

2 [AICUZ] Study.” (SP 208 at III-3.) The most recent March ARB AICUZ Study identifies that the Clear

3 Zone should remain “undeveloped” and that the reason for the Clear Zone Easement is to “ensure

4 incompatible development does not occur.” (March ARB 2018 AICUZ at 5-1 to 5-7.) Accordingly,

5 Moreno Valley’s approval of the Project also violated SP 208.

6 40. The Project violates and is inconsistent with Moreno Valley’s Ordinances and Municipal

7 Code. Some of the relevant sections include, but are not limited to, Municipal Code Section 9.02.70(C),

8 which sets forth the requirements for approving a Plot Plan, and Municipal Code Section 9.07.060, which

9 sets forth requirements of the Riverside County ALUCP and other requirements that Moreno Valley must

10 comply with when reviewing an action near an airport. Moreno Valley did not comply with the

11 requirements of these sections. For example, Municipal Code Section 9.02.70’s requirements include the

12 adoption of findings and conditions that are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and

13 ensure that the project will be developed in accordance with the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.

14 Municipal Code Section 9.02.70(C)(1) requires that all plot plans be consists with the goals, objectives,

15 policies, and programs of the General Plan, but, as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the Project is

16 not. Moreover, Municipal Code Section 9.07.060 specifically notes that “[t]he clear zone begins at the end

17 of the runway and is the area of highest accident potential; it has few uses that are compatible.” (M.V.M.C.

18 § 9.07.060.I.4.a.) Municipal Code Section 9.07.060.I.5. further requires that for all:

19 [D]iscretionary actions proposed within March ARB/IPA . . . clear zone,

the proposed use and/or development shall, in addition to meeting the
20 compatibility criteria of the March ALUCP, be consistent with the
current Air Force Guidance including:
21 a. Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57 for Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones, March 12, 2015, or as amended, and
22 b. Air Force Instruction AFI 32-7063 for Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones Program, December 18, 2015, or as amended. Specifically AFI 32-
23 7063, Table A.2.1 of Attachment 2 - Land Use Compatibility
Recommendations for APZS, generally identifies land uses acceptable or
24 not acceptable within the Clear Zone, APZ I, and APZ II, and establishes
maximum residential density, or nonresidential floor area ratio
25 requirements applicable to each use and APZ.
c. Where a discretionary action is proposed within an APZ, or Clear Zone,
26 the Department of the Air Force, 452d Air Mobility Wing (AFRC) March
Air Reserve Base shall be consulted to determine whether the proposed
27 discretionary action is consistent with the Air Force guidance referenced
above. Such consultation would be in addition to, and shall not be in lieu
28 of, requirements of the March ALUCP, or any review for airport land use
compatibility that may be required by the Riverside County ALUC.
16
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 (Emphases added.) As pointed out by the Air Force and other March ARB entities, the Project is

2 inconsistent with these instructions and requirements, in violation of Section 9.07.060.I.5.

3 41. In addition to not complying with its own Municipal Code’s requirement that it comply with

4 the Air Force Guidance listed above, Moreno Valley similarly did not comply with its own Municipal Code

5 in its actions toward ALUC and ALUC’s comments and expertise. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section

6 9.07.060.E., F. G., H., and J. requires that, prior to taking certain actions, including approving or amending

7 the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinances, building regulations, and others, Moreno Valley is

8 required to send them to ALUC. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

9 Moreno Valley did attempt to send the Project’s General Plan consistency to ALUC, but ALUC declined

10 such review because it had found Moreno Valley’s General Plan consistent with the ALUCP. The County

11 is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Moreno Valley never sent SP 208 to ALUC for

12 review and, therefore, Moreno Valley’s reliance on that plan for the Project, particularly in allowing the

13 Project to violate Air Force Guidance, the AICUZ, the ALUCP, and to allow a use not permitted under the

14 General Plan, is in violation of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.070.060.

15 42. For all of the above reasons, the Project violates Moreno Valley’s General Plan, SP 208,

16 Municipal Code, and the ALUCP. As a result, the County requests that the Court set aside Moreno Valley’s

17 approval of the Project on this ground as well.

18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Declaratory Relief)

20 (Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest)

21 43. The County hereby incorporates by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 42

22 as though fully set forth herein.

23 44. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the County and Moreno Valley. The

24 County contends that Moreno Valley is incorrectly interpreting and/or intentionally disregarding the SAA,

25 the ALUCP, the Moreno Valley General Plan, SP 208, and the Moreno Valley Municipal Code in approving

26 the Project and as part of a pattern and practice for its interpretation of these state and local laws. The County

27 believes that such interpretation and application to the Project and all future proposed uses in the Clean Zone

28 and other similarly restricted zones around the March ARB and associated airport will cause the County and

17
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 its residents irreparable injury for which the County has no adequate remedy at law and which will result in

2 significant adverse effects on the environment.

3 45. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Moreno Valley disputes

4 the contentions of the County as described in the preceding paragraph.

5 46. The County seeks a judicial declaration and determination of the respective rights and duties

6 of Moreno Valley under the SAA, the ALUCP, the Moreno Valley General Plan, SP 208, and the Moreno

7 Valley Municipal Code, and in applying and complying with these state and local laws, both for the Project

8 and in the future for proposed projects in the Clear Zone and similarly restricted zones.

9 47. A judicial declaration and determination is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that

10 the County may ascertain its rights with respect to the duties and obligations of Moreno Valley and in order

11 to resolve all controversies between the parties hereto regarding such rights and duties.

12 PRAYER

13 WHEREFORE, the County prays for entry of judgment as follows:

14 ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

15 (Against Respondent and Real Parties in Interest)

16 1. For a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5 directing Moreno

17 Valley to set aside approvals of the Project and adoption of the MND, including Resolution Nos.

18 2023-08 and 2023-09;

19 2. For a stay, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or permanent injunction

20 prohibiting any actions by Moreno Valley or the Real Parties in Interest pursuant to Moreno Valley’s

21 approval of the Project until this Court determines the validity of the approvals underlying this

22 petition and Moreno Valley fully complies with all state and local laws, policies, ordinances, and

23 regulations;

24 3. For a declaration that Project approvals are unlawful due to Moreno Valley’s failure to comply with

25 CEQA;

26 4. For an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter as permitted or required by law (Code Civ.

27 Proc., § 1021.5);

28 5. For the County’s costs of suit incurred herein; and

18
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Superior Court Case No. TBD

3 I, the undersigned, say that I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the county of
Riverside, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business
4 address is: 3960 Orange Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501-3611.

5 That on March 27, 2023, I served a copy of the following listed documents:

6
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION,
7 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

8
by delivering a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
9

10 Jane Halstead, City Clerk

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
11
14177 Frederick Street
12 Moreno Valley, CA 92552

13

14 FIRST CLASS MAIL. I am “readily familiar” with this office’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U. S. Postal Service on that
15 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Riverside, California, in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
16 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
18 and correct.
19 Executed on March 27, 2023, at Riverside, California.
20

21 /s/Bianca Ruiz
BIANCA RUIZ
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT IS INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS FILING,
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT