SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Matthew D. Vespa (State Bar No. Jonathan Evans (State Bar No. 1 California St., Suite 00 San Francisco, California Telephone: (1 - Facsimile: (1 - mvespa@biologicaldiversity.org jevans@biologicaldiversity.org Attorneys for Petitioner CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Petitioner, vs. TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY, TOWN COUNCIL OF YUCCA VALLEY, and DOES 1-0, Respondents, WAL-MART STORES, INC.; NASLAND ENGINEERING; GDC & H PARTNERSHIP; and DOES -0, Real Parties in Interest. Case No. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP. ( ; Public Resources Code 000 et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act; Government Code 00 et seq. (State Planning and Zoning Law]

2 INTRODUCTION 1. This action challenges the June, 00 decision of the Town of Yucca Valley ( Town and the Town Council of the Town of Yucca Valley (collectively Respondents to approve the Yucca Valley Retail Specific Plan ( Project and certify the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR for the Project. The Project would allow the development of a,1 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter with 0 parking spaces,,00 square feet of additional retail use, and a,000 square foot fast food restaurant on an undeveloped parcel of land peppered with Joshua trees located at the outskirts of the Town of Yucca Valley. Respondents approval was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA, Public Resources Code 000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, title 1 California Code of Regulations, 00 et seq., and the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code 00 et seq.. Respondents prepared and relied on an EIR that falls well below CEQA s minimum standards. Senate Bill (00 confirmed that the analysis of impacts to global warming from a project s generation of greenhouse gas emissions is required under CEQA. Construction and operation of the Project would generate significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Ignoring analysis and methodologies set forth by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA for determining the significance of a project s global warming impacts, Respondents arbitrarily concluded that the Project s global warming impacts were less than significant. Respondents determination that the Project s global warming impacts were less than significant foreclosed the obligation to consider the many feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce Project emissions. For example, although Wal-Mart is the largest private purchaser of electricity in the United States and has repeatedly stated publicly that its goal is to be supplied by 0% renewable energy, Respondents refused to consider reducing Project emissions by incorporating on-site renewable energy generation, such as a solar paneled rooftop, into the Project design.

3 The EIR also failed to adequately analyze the significant impacts to a range of environmental resources including water supply, hydrology and water quality, urban decay, transportation and traffic, air quality, public services, and biological resources. In particular, although the Wal-Mart Supercenter could potentially result in closures of existing businesses and lead to urban blight, the EIR dismissed the Project s impacts on urban blight in a cursory fashion based upon flawed and outdated information that was not supported by substantial evidence.. Petitioners request that this Court vacate and set aside the Project and related approvals and the certification of the EIR because Respondents failed to comply with CEQA and applicable State Planning and Zoning Laws. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections,.,, and of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and Public Resources Code sections and.. This Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandate directing the Town to vacate and set aside its approval of the Project and certification of the EIR for the Project under the Code of Civil Procedure sections and... Venue for this action properly lies in the San Bernardino Superior Court because Respondents and the Project are located in San Bernardino County. THE PARTIES. Petitioner CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ( Center is a nonprofit, public interest corporation with over 0,000 members and offices in Joshua Tree, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, California; as well as offices in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. The Center and its members are dedicated to protecting diverse native species and habitats through science, policy, education, and environmental law. Recognizing that global warming from society s emission of greenhouse gases is one of the foremost threats to the Center s members and their recreational, spiritual,

4 vocational, educational, aesthetic and other interests in the earth s environment, biodiversity, and public health, the Center s Climate, Air, and Energy Program works to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions and promote sound conservation strategies in order to protect these interests. Center members and staff reside and own property in San Bernardino County, and use publicly accessible portions of the Project area and surrounding areas for recreational, wildlife viewing, scientific, and educational purposes.. The Center and its members would be directly, adversely and irreparably affected by the Project and its components, as described herein, until and unless this Court provides the relief prayed for in this petition.. Respondent TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY is a local governmental agency and political subdivision of the State of California charged with the authority to regulate and administer land use activities within its boundaries, subject at all times to the obligations and limitations of all applicable state, federal, and other laws, including CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and Planning and Zoning Laws. The Respondent also has the authority to legislate changes to land use and policy within its jurisdiction. The Respondent is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the EIR and for the approval of the Project.. Respondent TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY ( Town Council is the legislative body for the Town.. Real Party in Interest NASLAND ENGINEERING ( Applicant is the applicant for the entitlements that constitute the Project. Based on the Applicant s status as the sole identified applicant and developer for the Project, and on Petitioner s information and belief, Applicant adequately represents the interests of any and all other non-joined parties in the Project. 1. Real Party in Interest GDC & H PARTNERSHIP has been listed as the property owner of the Project site in filings before the Town of Yucca Valley.. Real Party in Interest WAL-MART STORES, INC. ( Wal-Mart is slated to occupy the retail space with a Wal-Mart Supercenter and was represented as a Project

5 proponent and landowner representative before the Town of Yucca Valley during public hearings. 1. The Petitioner is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 0, inclusive, and therefore sues those parties by such fictitious names. Does 1 through 0, inclusive, are agents of the Town, state, or federal government who are responsible in some manner for the conduct described in this petition, or other persons or entities presently unknown to the Petitioner who claim some legal or equitable interest in the Project that is the subject of this action. The Petitioner will amend this petition to show the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 0 when such names and capacities become known. 1. The Petitioner is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Real Parties in Interest, Does through 0, inclusive. Does through 0, inclusive, are persons or entities presently unknown to the Petitioner who claim some legal or equitable interest in the Project that is the subject of this action. The Petitioner will amend this petition to show the true names and capacities of Does through 0 when such names and capacities become known. STATEMENT OF FACTS Background: The Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA 1. An analysis of impacts from a Project s generation of greenhouse gases is required under CEQA. In passing Senate Bill (00, the State of California explicitly recognized that greenhouse gas emissions are an important environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by [CEQA], including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (SB, codified as Pub. Res. Code 0.0 (emphasis added. SB confirm[s] that GHG emissions are a significant adverse effect under CEQA. (Senate Bill Analysis for SB. As recognized in the Senate Bill Analysis

6 for SB, [t]he analysis of GHG impacts under laws like CEQA, and its federal counterpart NEPA, is not new, nor did it commence with the passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 00. (Id. 1. California is not only extremely vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, but is also responsible for a significant portion of the U.S. and global emissions of greenhouse gases. Because most global warming emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, the quality of life our children and grandchildren experience depends on if and how rapidly California and the rest of the world reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although research indicates that some climactic changes are now unavoidable, aggressive reductions in emissions can avoid drastic global warming impacts predicted for the end of the century, including temperature rises between and. F, 0% loss of the Sierra snowpack, -0 inches of sea level rise, and - times as many heat-related deaths in major urban centers.. California has set emission reduction targets in order to combat global warming. Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 00 ( AB, State emissions levels must be reduced to levels by 00. Under Executive Order S--0, emission levels must be reduced to 0% below levels by 00. At the time they were passed, the emission reduction targets set by AB and Executive Order S--0 roughly corresponded to the level of reduction scientists deemed necessary to stabilize the climate. However, based on the alarming and unpredicted rate of loss of Arctic sea ice and other recent climate change observations, leading scientists have now concluded that deeper reductions are necessary to stabilize the climate at a level that would avoid truly devastating impacts. 1. In January 00, CAPCOA released a white paper titled Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. CAPCOA is an association of air pollution control officers representing all thirty-five local air quality agencies and air districts throughout California.

7 In its white paper, CAPCOA described and analyzed a range of approaches to determining the significance of the impacts from a project s greenhouse gas emissions. Under CAPCOA s analysis, the only two thresholds that were both highly effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and highly compliant with AB and Executive Order S--0 emission reduction targets were a threshold of zero or a 00-ton CO eq. threshold. 0. On June 1, 00, the Office of Planning and Research ( OPR issued a technical advisory titled CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Review. The technical advisory noted that [l]ead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities. The technical advisory also stated that [l]ead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful consideration, supported by substantial evidence. Project Background, Environmental Review, and Approval. The subject of this action is the Yucca Valley Specific Plan, a 11, square foot commercial and retail project located southeast of the intersection of Avalon Avenue and State Highway in the Town of Yucca Valley. The Project contemplates the development of a,1 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter with 0 parking spaces,,00 square feet of additional retail use, and a,000 square foot fast food restaurant. The Project site is located on the eastern edge of the town limits. The Project site is undeveloped and is home to numerous Joshua trees and other native plants and animals.. The Notice of Preparation ( NOP for the Project was issued on July, 00.. The Draft EIR was released on July, 00 with the corresponding public comment period ending August, 00. The Draft EIR contemplated a Project involving the construction and operation of a,000-square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, a twelve

8 position gas station, a,000-square foot fast food restaurant, a 1.-acre retention basin, and,000 gallon on-site wastewater treatment plant. The EIR concluded Project impacts to air quality and noise would remain significant after all feasible mitigation was adopted.. The EIR also determined that the impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, public services, and traffic were potentially significant but could be mitigated below a level of significance. Despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the EIR found no other impacts potentially significant, including impacts resulting from the Project s greenhouse gas emissions.. Petitioner submitted extensive written comments on the Draft EIR identifying the legal inadequacies of the document. These comments included, but were not limited to, the following: a. The Draft EIR failed to identify and adequately analyze and mitigate impacts resulting from the Project s generation of greenhouse gas emissions. b. The Draft EIR failed to adequately analyze and mitigate Project impacts to biological resources. c. The Draft EIR failed to adequately analyze Project impacts to water supply and water quality. d. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally flawed as to preclude meaningful public review, and thus should have been revised and recirculated.. Respondents did not recirculate a revised Draft EIR. Instead, Respondents prepared responses to comments and published a Final EIR on or around April 1, 00.. The Final EIR determined that the Project would generate approximately,00 tons of CO Eq. per year. The EIR concluded that this impact was less than significant based on purported compliance with prospective and general strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set forth in a March 00 report by the Climate Action Team ( CAT Report. The Climate Action Team is an entity established by California EPA to identify measures the state could pursue to reduce climate change emissions. The CAT

9 Report does not assess the significance of project-level greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA or even address how specific strategies might be implemented at the project level. Unsurprisingly, compliance with CAT Report emission reduction strategies was not among the methods for determining significance under CEQA identified by CAPCOA or the California OPR. The EIR s reliance on the CAT Report to determine that Project s greenhouse gas emissions were less than significant was arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence.. Petitioner submitted comments on the FEIR which again pointed to the EIR s inadequate analysis of the Project s greenhouse gas impacts and the failure to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce Project impacts.. On April 1, 00 the Town of Yucca Valley Planning Commission held a hearing regarding the Project and recommended approval of the Project to the Town Council. On May, 00 the Town Council held a public hearing to consider the Project and continued the hearing until June, Prior to the June, 00, Petitioner alerted Respondents to the June 1, 00 technical guidance on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA issued by OPR and again asked that Respondents properly evaluate the Project s greenhouse gas emissions. At the June, 00 Town Council meeting the Project was approved. The approved Project was smaller than that contemplated under the EIR and included an additional retail component not addressed in the EIR. The Notice of Determination for the Project was filed on June 0, 00 with the San Bernardino County Clerk. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 1. The Center has exhausted all administrative remedies by submitting written comments on the Project to Respondents to request compliance with CEQA including the completion of full and adequate environmental review, and compliance with Planning and Zoning Law. All issues raised in this petition were raised before Respondents by the Center, other members of the public, or public agencies prior to approval of the Project.

10 The Petitioners have complied with Public Resources Code section. by prior service of a notice upon the Town indicating their intent to file this Petition. Proof of Service of this notification, with the notification, is attached as Exhibit A.. The Petitioners have elected to prepare the record of proceedings in the above-captioned proceeding or to pursue an alternative method of record preparation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section.(b(. Notification of the Election to Prepare the Administrative Record is attached as Exhibit B.. This petition is timely filed in accordance with Public Resources Code section and CEQA Guidelines section 1.. Respondents have abused their discretion and failed to act as required by law in the following ways: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF CEQA; EIR Does Not Comply With CEQA. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above.. CEQA requires a lead agency for a project to prepare an EIR that complies with the requirements of the statute. The lead agency must also provide for public review and comment on the project and associated environmental documentation. An EIR must provide sufficient environmental analysis such that decision-makers can intelligently consider environmental consequences when acting on proposed projects.. Respondents violated CEQA by certifying an EIR for the Project that is inadequate and fails to comply with CEQA. Among other things, Respondents: a. Failed to adequately disclose or analyze the Project s significant impacts on the environment, including but not limited to, the Project s impacts on global warming, urban decay, water supply, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, traffic, air quality, aesthetics and public services and utilities; b. Failed to provide a stable and consistent description of the

11 Project; c. Failed to adopt a consistent and appropriate environmental baseline for analysis of the Project s environmental impacts; d. Failed to adequately analyze the significant cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of the Project; e. Improperly deferred impact analysis and mitigation measures; f. Failed to adequately mitigate Project impacts; g. Failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project s energy consumption; and h. Failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by certifying an EIR that does not comply with CEQA and by approving the Project in reliance thereon. Accordingly, Resondents certification of the EIR and approval of the Project must be set aside. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATIONS OF CEQA; Inadequate Findings 0. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above. 1. CEQA requires that a lead agency s findings for the approval of a project be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. CEQA further requires that a lead agency provide an explanation of how evidence in the record supports the conclusions it has reached.. Respondents violated CEQA by adopting findings that are inadequate as a matter of law in that they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the following. a. The determination that certain impacts would be less than significant and/or that adopted mitigation measures would avoid or lessen the Project s

12 significant effects on the environment; b. The determination that alternatives to the Project and proposed mitigation measures that would have avoided or lessened the significant impacts of the Project were infeasible; c. The determination that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweighed its significant impacts on the environment.. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by adopting findings that do not comply with the requirements of CEQA and approving the Project in reliance thereon. Accordingly, Respondents certification of the EIR and approval of the Project must be set aside. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF CEQA; Failure to Recirculate EIR. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above.. CEQA requires that if significant new information is added to an EIR after a draft EIR is prepared, but before certification of the final EIR, the EIR must be recirculated for public review and comment.. Comments submitted to Respondents after the Draft EIR was circulated provided significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 0.1 and CEQA Guidelines section. including, but not limited to, information about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, biological resources, urban decay, economic impacts, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and water supply.. Despite the availability of this significant new information, including a changed project, Respondents failed to recirculate the EIR, or any portion of the EIR. As a result of Respondents failure to recirculate the EIR, the public and other public agencies were deprived of any meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Project, its 1

13 substantial adverse environmental consequences, and the new information regarding other unanalyzed environmental effects of the Project.. Respondents failure to recirculate the EIR is not supported by substantial evidence and represents a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF CEQA; Inadequate Response to Comments. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above. 0. Respondents failed to respond adequately to comments submitted by the Petitioners, other members of the public, and other agencies. Instead, the responses given to numerous comments regarding the Project s impacts to biological resources, urban decay, air quality, global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetics, traffic, water supply, hydrology and water quality, cumulative and growth inducing impacts, public services, transportation and traffic, population and housing, and regarding the adequacy of the EIR s treatment of mitigation measures and alternatives are conclusory, evasive, confusing, or otherwise non-responsive, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. 1. By failing to provide adequate responses to public comments and proposed alternatives, Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by law. Moreover, Respondents finding that adequate responses to comments were provided is not supported by substantial evidence. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of State Planning and Zoning Law. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above.. Government Code section 00 requires the legislative body of a city to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city. The general plan is often called a constitution for future development to which all other land use decisions must conform.

14 Accordingly, any decision of the County affecting land use and development, including issuance of a conditional use permit, must be consistent with the general plan. See Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1 1 Cal.App.d, -.. The Project is inconsistent with the Town of Yucca Valley General Plan because the proposed commercial component will conflict with General Plan policies including, but not limited to, programs and policies that address the following: requiring the mitigation of significant impacts to air quality, especially those related to vehicle and diesel emissions; provision of adequate water supply and availability; controlled and regulating low growth and rural setting as a priority; provision of an adequate housing base; and provision of fair share mitigation for impacts to public services.. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents did not proceed in the manner required by law, and their decision to approve the Project was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, approval of the Project must be set aside. above. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Native Plant Protection and Management Ordinance and Outdoor Lighting and Night Sky Protection Ordinance. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth. The Project is subject to the Town Native Plant Protection and Management Ordinance (Ordinance 0, Town of Yucca Valley Dev. Code.01 et seq. and Ordinance relating to Regulations for Outdoor Lighting and Night Sky Protection (Ordinance, Town of Yucca Valley Dev. Code.0.0 et seq... The Native Plant Protection and Management ordinance authorizes the removal of native plants only when findings can be made that the removal of the native trees or plants does not have a significant adverse impact on any proposed mitigation measures, soil retention, soil erosion and sediment control measures, scenic routes, flood and surface runoff and wildlife habitats. Dev. Code.0(a. The approval of the Project by the Town Council constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the Town Council s 1

15 findings that native tree or plant removal will not have significant impacts on mitigation measures related to flood and surface runoff, scenic routes, and wildlife habitat cannot be supported by substantial evidence. Respondents also failed to require documentation of the applicant s best efforts to retain and preserve all Joshua Trees within the limits of the development in its native location. Dev. Code.0(b. Adequate documentation of alternative lot configuration, building envelopes, circulation and physical constraints has not been provided. Dev. Code.0(b. Respondents findings related to the Native Plant Protection and Management ordinance, Dev. Code.01 et seq., constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion.. The Town of Yucca Valley Regulations for Outdoor Lighting and Night Sky Protection (Ordinance, Town of Yucca Valley Dev. Code.0.0 et seq. were established to assist in substantially reducing light pollution which can be generated from commercial lighting fixtures and devices in order to minimize light pollution, and unnecessary illumination of adjacent properties. Dev. Code.0.0. Any new construction located in any commercial or industrial land use district intended for commercial and industrial purposes shall be fully shielded or recessed in such a manner as to preclude adverse impacts to adjacent property as a result of light trespass, or to any member of the public who may be traveling on adjacent roadways or right-of-ways. Dev. Code..0.00(b(. The approval of the Project by Respondents constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the Respondents findings regarding fully shielded or recessed lighting that precludes adverse impacts cannot be supported by substantial evidence. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioners pray for relief as follows: 1. For alternative and peremptory writs of mandate, commanding Respondents: (A to vacate and set aside approval of the Project, including the Conditional Use Permit, Specific Plan, and associated approvals; (B to vacate and set aside certification of the Final EIR for the Project; (C to prepare and certify a legally adequate EIR for the Project; 1

16 I (D to suspend any and all activity pursuant to Respondents' approval of the Project 1 J I I that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment until Respondents have cornplied with all requirements of CEQA and all other applicable state and local laws, policies. ordinances" and regulations as are directed by this Court pursuant to Public Resources Code section... F'or a stay, temporary restraining order. preliminary iniunction, and permanent iniunction prohibiting any actions by Respondents purslranto Respondents' approval of the Project and certification of the EIR for the Project until Respondents have f'ully complied with all requirements of CEQA. Planning and -.oning Laws. and all other applicable state and local 1{ larvs, policies, ordinances, and regulations; 1 l l... For costs of the suit; For attorney's tbes pursuanto the Code of Civil Procedure section.; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 1DA'fliD: Julv " 00.Tonathan l:valts 1 1 t 0 By: Jqhathall Hvans,TMattherv Vespa / Attorne,vs for Petitioner CENTER FOR BIOI,OGICAI- DIVERSITY Verified Petition fbr Writ of Mandate t

17

18 EXHIBIT A

19 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Jonathan Evans, SBN PMB, 0 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 00 ( -1; Fax: ( - jevans@biologicaldiversity.org Attorney for the Petitioner SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1 1 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Petitioner, vs. TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY, TOWN COUNCIL OF YUCCA VALLEY, Respondents. Case No.: NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CEQA ACTION [California Environmental Quality Act Pub. Res. Code.] TO RESPONDENTS TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY, and TOWN COUNCIL OF YUCCA VALLEY: Please take notice, pursuant to Pub. Res. Code., that on July, 00, Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity intends to commence an action for writ of mandate to review, overturn, set aside, void, and annul the Town of Yucca Valley and Town Council of Yucca Valley s decisions approving the Yucca Valley Specific Plan to authorize development of a commercial retail center that includes an approximately,1 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, a,00 square foot retail building, and a,000 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through on a acre site (the Project and certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Project (SCH #000. This action is based on Respondents failure to comply with the Notice of Commencement of CEQA Action - 1

20 California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 00 et seq., in approving the Project and adopting the Environmental Impact Report. DATED: July, 00 Jonathan Evans CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY By: JONATHAN EVANS Attorney for Petitioner CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Notice of Commencement of CEQA Action -

21 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of and not a party to the foregoing action. My business address is PMB, 0 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA. 00. On July, 00 I served a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CEQA ACTION on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelop, addressed as shown below: Town of Yucca Valley 00 Twentynine Palms Highway Yucca Valley, CA Attn: Janet M. "Jamie" Anderson, MMC, Town Clerk [X] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE via Express Mail to the offices of the addressee(s. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure (c as follows: I am readily familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with Express Mail. Under that practice the correspondence will be deposited with Express Mail on that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California. Such envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices addressed to: Executed on July, 00 in Los Angeles, California. [X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 1 0 Jonathan Evans Notice of Commencement of CEQA Action -

22 EXHIBIT B

23 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Jonathan Evans, SBN PMB, 0 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 00 ( -1; Fax: ( - jevans@biologicaldiversity.org Attorney for the Petitioner SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Petitioner, vs. TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY, TOWN COUNCIL OF YUCCA VALLEY, Respondents. Case No.: NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA [Pub. Res. Code.] Petitioner, Center for Biological Diversity, elects to prepare the record of proceedings in the above-captioned proceeding, or alternatively, to pursue an alternative method of record preparation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section.(b(. 0 1 DATED: July, 00 By: Jonathan Evans Attorney for Petitioner CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Notice of Election to Prepare Administrative Record - 1