1 KEVIN P. BUNDY (State Bar No.

231686)
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
2 396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, California 94102
3 Telephone: (415) 552-7272
Facsimile: (415) 552-5816
4 bundy@smwlaw.com
5 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE FOR
6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10
11 PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE FOR Case No.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
12 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
Petitioner and Plaintiff, OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
13 FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v.
14 California Environmental Quality Act
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT (CEQA), California Public Resources
15 AGENCY; INLAND VALLEY Code §§ 21000, et seq.
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD; and
16 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
17 Respondents and Defendants.
18
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO; CITY OF
19 HIGHLAND; COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO; EAST VALLEY WATER
20 DISTRICT; and DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
21 Real Parties in Interest.
22
23 INTRODUCTION
24 1. This action challenges the decision of the Inland Valley Development Agency and
25 the Inland Valley Development Agency Board (collectively “IVDA” or “Respondents”) to
26 approve the Inland Valley Infrastructure Corridor Project (“Project” or “IVIC Project”) and to
27 certify the environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project. IVDA’s approval of the Project
28 violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section
1
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines codified at title 14, section 15000 et seq., of the
2 California Code of Regulations.
3 2. The Project grew directly out of IVDA’s abandoned “Airport Gateway Specific
4 Plan” proposal, which would have designated a large area north of San Bernardino International
5 Airport—including entire neighborhoods of existing homes—for warehouse, industrial, and
6 commercial development. The Airport Gateway Specific Plan also proposed for immediate
7 construction a package of infrastructure improvements related to water, sewer, roadways, and
8 drainage, all necessary to facilitate the development contemplated in the specific plan and the
9 general plans of the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino.
10 3. The Airport Gateway Specific Plan openly acknowledged that its implementation
11 would destroy hundreds of homes and require “relocation” of thousands of residents. Following
12 community outcry and extensive criticism, including from the California Attorney General’s
13 office, IVDA dropped the Airport Gateway proposal.
14 4. But IVDA did not give up on its vision of industrial and warehouse development
15 north of the airport. Immediately after tabling the Airport Gateway proposal, IVDA proposed
16 the IVIC Project, which advances essentially the same slate of development-enabling
17 infrastructure projects.
18 5. Unlike the Airport Gateway plan, however, IVDA’s EIR for the IVIC Project
19 obscured the ultimate effects of the proposed infrastructure. It did not acknowledge any of the
20 impacts of the development the Project is designed to kick-start. Instead, the IVIC Project EIR
21 focused narrowly on the infrastructure projects themselves, as if they existed in a vacuum. They
22 do not. If those infrastructure projects lead to industrial and warehouse expansion contemplated
23 in the Highland and San Bernardino general plans—as IVDA admits they are designed to do—
24 homes could be demolished, residents could be forced out, and remaining community members
25 could be left dealing with the noise, truck traffic, air pollution, and hazards caused by the new
26 developments for many years to come. IVDA’s EIR undermined CEQA’s core principles by
27 hiding this information from the community, the public, and its own decision-makers.
28 6. In addition to completely omitting information about the impacts of future
2
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 development, the EIR also failed to disclose, analyze, and lessen the impacts of the Project’s
2 specific infrastructure proposals. For example, the EIR analyzed air pollution using outdated
3 standards and inconsistent methods. Its air quality “health risk assessment” examined cancer and
4 non-cancer risks at an arbitrary distance from construction, despite readily available data
5 showing homes much closer to proposed road and drainage activities. The EIR also failed to
6 consider or provide legally adequate mitigation for increases in noise and vehicle miles traveled,
7 failed to adequately address safety impacts near schools, failed to evaluate potential conflicts
8 between the Project and a “community emissions reduction plan” prepared pursuant to state law,
9 and failed to acknowledge potential housing impacts.
10 7. Just as they had objected to the Airport Gateway project’s damaging impacts, the
11 People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and other members of the community pointed out
12 the flaws in the IVIC Project EIR in multiple comment letters and in testimony to IVDA . Yet
13 even after delaying its hearing on the Project for a month to consider these comments, IVDA did
14 nothing to fix the glaring problems with its EIR. Instead, the IVDA Board simply approved the
15 Project, on the basis of an EIR that left the community and even IVDA’s own decision-makers
16 in the dark about its real impacts.
17 8. As detailed below, the Project EIR fails to meet CEQA’s informational standards
18 and its conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence. IVDA’s findings and statement of
19 overriding considerations also fail as a matter of law and lack substantial evidentiary support.
20 IVDA has prejudicially abused its discretion and violated CEQA in connection with its
21 consideration and approval of this Project. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this
22 Court enter judgment granting this Petition and issue a writ of mandate directing IVDA to set
23 aside its certification of the EIR, its approval of the IVIC Project, and its findings and statement
24 of overriding considerations.
25 PARTIES
26 9. Petitioner People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ” or “Petitioner”)
27 is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and community-based organization fighting
28 for a just transition towards zero emissions and environmental justice in the Inland Empire.
3
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 PCEJ was founded in 2021 to advance the collective resistance and power of its community
2 members, who face overwhelming and deadly environmental impacts from the expansion of
3 warehouses and the logistics industry in their communities.
4 10. The interests that PCEJ seeks to further in this action are within the purposes and
5 goals of the organization. PCEJ and the local residents it represents have a direct and beneficial
6 interest in the future development of the Project area and in IVDA’s compliance with CEQA
7 and the CEQA Guidelines. These interests will be directly and adversely affected by the Project,
8 approval of which violates the law as set forth in this Petition. The Project would cause
9 substantial harm to PCEJ, the community members and residents it represents, the natural
10 environment, and the quality of life in the surrounding community. The maintenance and
11 prosecution of this action will confer a substantial benefit on the public by protecting the public
12 and the natural environment from the environmental and other harms alleged herein. PCEJ
13 submitted comments to IVDA objecting to approval of the Project and the EIR as proposed.
14 11. Respondent Inland Valley Development Agency (“IVDA”) is a joint powers
15 agency created pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33492.40 (formerly section 33320.5)
16 for the purpose of facilitating redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base and
17 surrounding area. IVDA’s member agencies are the County of San Bernardino, the City of Loma
18 Linda, the City of San Bernardino, and the City of Colton. IVDA operates pursuant to an
19 Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. IVDA has stated that it is the “lead agency” for
20 the Project for purposes of Public Resources Code section 21067, with principal responsibility
21 for conducting environmental review and approving the Project.
22 12. Respondent Inland Valley Development Agency Board is the governing body of
23 the Inland Valley Development Agency. As the governing body, the Board is charged with
24 responsibility for ensuring that IVDA complies with CEQA in relation to the Project.
25 13. Petitioner does not know the true names and capacities, whether individual,
26 corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Respondents Doe 1 through Doe 20, inclusive, and
27 therefore sues said Respondents under fictional names. Petitioner alleges, upon information and
28 belief, that each fictionally named Respondent is responsible in some manner for committing the
4
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 acts upon which this action is based. Petitioner will amend this Petition to show their true names
2 and capacities if and when the same have been ascertained.
3 14. Real Party in Interest City of San Bernardino is a charter city located in the
4 County of San Bernardino. The IVIC Project EIR describes the City of San Bernardino as a
5 potential “participating” or “partner” agency in connection with the Project.
6 15. Real Party in Interest City of Highland is a general law city located in the County
7 of San Bernardino. The IVIC Project EIR describes the City of Highland as a potential
8 “participating” or “partner” agency in connection with the Project.
9 16. Real Party in Interest East Valley Water District is a county district that provides
10 water service to customers in San Bernardino County, including in the Cities of San Bernardino
11 and Highland. The IVIC Project EIR describes the East Valley Water District as a potential
12 “participating” or “partner” agency in connection with the Project.
13 17. Real Party in Interest County of San Bernardino is a charter county established
14 under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. The IVIC Project EIR describes the
15 County of San Bernardino as a potential “participating” or “partner” agency in connection with
16 the Project.
17 18. Petitioner does not know the true names and capacities, whether individual,
18 corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Real Parties in Interest Doe 21 through Doe 40, inclusive,
19 and therefore sues said Real Parties in Interest under fictional names. Petitioner alleges, upon
20 information and belief, that each fictionally named Real Party in Interest is responsible in some
21 manner for committing the acts upon which this action is based. Petitioner will amend this
22 Petition to show their true names and capacities if and when the same have been ascertained.
23 JURISDICTION
24 19. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526, 527, 1094.5
25 (alternatively section 1085), and 1087; and Public Resources Code sections 21168 (alternatively
26 section 21168.5) and 21168.9, this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate to set aside
27 Respondents’ decision to certify the EIR and approve the Project.
28 20. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394
5
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 because Respondent IVDA is a local agency situated in San Bernardino County. Venue is also
2 proper in this court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393(b) because the cause of
3 action alleged in this Petition arose in San Bernardino County, where the proposed Project
4 would take place and where its effects would be felt.
5 21. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
6 21167.5 by serving a written notice of Petitioner’s intention to commence this action on IVDA
7 on April 8, 2025. A copy of the written notice and proof of service is attached hereto as Exhibit
8 A.
9 22. Petitioner will comply with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
10 21167.6 by concurrently filing a notice of its election to prepare the record of administrative
11 proceedings relating to this action.
12 23. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
13 21167.7 by sending a copy of this Petition to the California Attorney General on April 10, 2025.
14 A copy of the letter transmitting this Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
15 24. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing this instant
16 action and has exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by
17 law.
18 25. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law
19 unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require Respondents to set aside their
20 certification of the EIR and approval of the Project. In the absence of such remedies,
21 Respondents’ approval will remain in effect in violation of state law.
22 STATEMENT OF FACTS
23 The San Bernardino Airport Community
24 26. The Project area covers approximately 670 acres north of San Bernardino
25 International Airport (formerly Norton Air Force Base) in the Cities of Highland and San
26 Bernardino and the County of San Bernardino.
27 27. The Project area includes hundreds of homes and thousands of residents, as well as
28 existing industrial and commercial uses and vacant parcels. Indian Springs High School is
6
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 located adjacent to the Project area to the north. Portions of the Project area are roughly bisected
2 by the City Creek drainage channel, which conveys stormwater runoff south and west through
3 the neighborhood.
4 28. Land uses in the Project area are primarily governed by General Plans adopted by
5 the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino. These General Plans envision a “buildout” scenario
6 under which certain existing residential areas would be replaced by industrial and commercial
7 development.
8 29. According to a July 5, 2023 letter to IVDA from the California Attorney General
9 regarding IVDA’s recently abandoned “Airport Gateway Specific Plan” project—discussed in
10 further detail below—the Project area “includes portions of five census tracts that are already
11 highly polluted and suffer from socioeconomic disadvantages. According to CalEnviroScreen
12 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and
13 demographic vulnerability to pollution, the Project’s census tracts rank worse than 81-87 percent
14 of the rest of the state for combined pollution and vulnerability. All five census tracts are in the
15 100th percentile for ozone pollution, meaning they already have some of highest ozone pollution
16 statewide. These communities also suffer from impaired drinking water and proximity to
17 contaminated sites.” (Letter from Robert Swanson, Deputy Attorney General, Re: Airport
18 Gateway Specific Plan at 4 (July 5, 2023) (“AG Letter”).)
19 30. Petitioner is informed and on that basis believes that residents in the Project area
20 are also suffering from inadequate infrastructure and municipal services. Many community
21 members’ streets lack safe and accessible sidewalks. Residents have reported drainage problems
22 they believe have been caused by previous IVDA roadway projects. There is a widespread
23 perception in the community that IVDA, and the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino, are
24 inordinately focused on facilitating industrial and warehouse development in the Project area at
25 the expense of those who already live there. Residents are concerned that prioritization of
26 commercial and industrial developments, along with disinvestment in community and residential
27 properties, are negatively affecting both their home values and their quality of life.
28 / / /
7
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 The Airport Gateway Specific Plan
2 31. Before proposing the IVIC Project, IVDA proposed the “Airport Gateway Specific
3 Plan,” a long-range plan intended to facilitate development of up to 9.2 million square feet of
4 new warehouse and industrial uses in the area just north of the San Bernardino International
5 Airport.
6 32. The Airport Gateway project proposed that a new land use designation, “Mixed-
7 Use Business Park,” be applied to much of the Project area. (Draft Airport Gateway Specific
8 Plan (June 2022) at 50.) This land use designation would allow “light industrial, warehousing,
9 distribution, logistics, light manufacturing, and research and development functions,” as well as
10 “[s]econdary uses, such as commercial, retail and service businesses.” (Id.) Because IVDA itself
11 does not have direct authority to regulate land use, the proposed specific plan envisioned that the
12 Cities of San Bernardino and Highland would adopt and implement the land use designations.
13 (See id. at 143.)
14 33. In addition to proposing new land use designations, the Airport Gateway project
15 proposed numerous infrastructure projects to support and facilitate industrial and commercial
16 development under the specific plan. (See id. at 125-139; see also Tom Dodson & Associates,
17 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Gateway Specific Plan at 3-7 to 3-
18 19 (Dec. 2022) (“Airport Gateway DEIR”).) Specifically, the Airport Gateway project proposed:
19 a. Water supply projects consisting of a 3.5 million gallon storage reservoir
20 and a new water supply well (Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-8);
21 b. A drainage system project consisting of a proposed “City Creek Bypass
22 Channel” to convey flood flows between Victoria Avenue and the Warm Creek Channel
23 (Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-12 to 3-13 & Fig. 3-8); and
24 c. Numerous roadway expansion projects, including construction of additional
25 lanes on Tippecanoe Avenue, Del Rosa Drive, 6th Street, 5th Street, and 3rd Street
26 (Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-15 to 3-17, 3-19 [Table 3-5]).
27 34. The Airport Gateway Specific Plan also explicitly proposed that an estimated 760
28 homes in the neighborhoods north of the airport “would eventually be removed and replaced
8
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 with [a] mix of industrial/business park uses . . . result[ing] in the relocation of 2,471 persons.”
2 (Draft Airport Gateway Specific Plan at 50.)
3 35. The Airport Gateway project prompted widespread public and community
4 opposition. Petitioner helped form, and participated in, a coalition called San Bernardino Airport
5 Communities (“SBAC”) representing local residents and workers in their opposition to the
6 Airport Gateway project. SBAC raised alarm at the thousands of residents the Gateway project
7 would displace, its acceleration of poverty-wage employment rather than the economic benefits
8 the project claimed, and the exacerbation of already severely high levels of air pollution in the
9 area.
10 36. The California Attorney General’s office filed a comment letter identifying serious
11 legal deficiencies in the Airport Gateway DEIR. The Attorney General noted that the Airport
12 Gateway project “would initiate displacement of approximately 2,600 residents of a
13 socioeconomically disadvantaged and environmentally overburdened majority-Hispanic
14 community by streamlining development of up to 9.2 million square feet of new industrial
15 uses.” (AG Letter at 1.) The Attorney General also pointed out that “the Project, which borders
16 sensitive land uses along nearly its entire 3.5-mile northern boundary, would also generate 3,171
17 heavy-duty diesel truck trips per day.” (Id.) The Attorney General’s letter went on to identify
18 serious legal issues with the Airport Gateway project, including likely violations of the federal
19 Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Housing Crisis Act of
20 2019 (SB 330), and CEQA.
21 37. At the October 11, 2023 meeting of the IVDA Board, IVDA staff announced that
22 the Airport Gateway project would not be moving forward as proposed.
23 IVDA’s Proposal of the IVIC Project
24 38. At the very next meeting of the IVDA Board, on November 8, 2023, the Board
25 received a report and presentation from its Chief Executive Officer regarding a newly proposed
26 “Inland Valley Infrastructure Corridor” project. According to the minutes of that meeting, “[t]he
27 introduction of this proposed project is the result of cancellation of the Airport Gateway Specific
28 Plan (AGSP) which was announced at the October 11, 2023 IVDA Board meeting.” (IVDA,
9
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 Regular Meeting Board Actions at 4 (Nov. 8, 2023).)
2 39. On or around November 30, 2023, IVDA filed a Notice of Preparation of an EIR
3 for the IVIC Project.
4 40. On or around August 20, 2024, IVDA released a Draft EIR for the IVIC Project
5 (“IVIC DEIR”) for public review and comment.
6 41. According to the IVIC DEIR, the IVIC Project is intended to facilitate
7 development contemplated the General Plans adopted by the Cities of Highland and San
8 Bernardino. Those General Plans designate portions of the Project area, including existing
9 residential areas, for industrial and commercial development.
10 42. The Project description in the IVIC DEIR is very similar to the project description
11 in the Airport Gateway DEIR. The two EIRs were written by the same consultant, Tom Dodson
12 & Associates. Based on review of the two EIRs, Petitioner is informed and believes that the
13 IVIC DEIR was adapted and in many instances copied word for word from the Airport Gateway
14 DEIR. One key difference, however, is that the IVIC DEIR does not discuss the residential
15 displacement and other adverse environmental effects that could result from the Project’s
16 encouragement of industrial and commercial development. The possible destruction of homes to
17 make way for warehouses motivated a great deal of the public opposition to the Airport
18 Gateway project.
19 43. The new Project description replaces references to the Airport Gateway Specific
20 Plan with references to the IVIC Project and existing General Plan land use designations. But
21 the description of the Project location is very similar to that in the Airport Gateway DEIR.
22 (Compare IVIC DEIR at 3-1 with Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-1.)
23 44. The project objectives relevant to infrastructure in the Airport Gateway DEIR and
24 the IVIC DEIR are also very similar. The first objective in the IVIC DEIR copied the Airport
25 Gateway DEIR’s “Infrastructure” objective word for word, but added more detail, and the
26 second objective reused a sentence from the Airport Gateway DEIR’s “Mobility” objective with
27 two phrases changed.
28 ///
10
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 Airport Gateway DEIR Objectives IVIC DEIR Objectives
2 “Infrastructure: Provide comprehensive “Provide comprehensive infrastructure
infrastructure improvements for water, improvements for water, sewer, circulation
3 sewer, circulation system, and stormwater system, and stormwater drainage that
drainage that resolve longstanding flooding resolve longstanding flooding and hydrology
4 and hydrology issues and that are adequately issues and that are adequately financed to
financed to meet future system needs.” meet future system needs.
5
(Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-2.) “Infrastructure improvements provide
6 solutions to current issues in the area
experienced by residents and businesses and
7 plans for future needs related to: [water,
sewer, roadways, stormwater drainage, and
8 other utility integration].”
9 (IVIC DEIR at 3-2 to 3-3.)
10 “Mobility: Efficiently connect new “Efficiently connect future and existing
industrial, office and existing distribution development to the interstate system while
11 uses to freeway access while providing safe providing safe spaces for pedestrians,
spaces for pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and cyclists, transit, and motor vehicles along
12 motor vehicles along 3rd, 5th and 6th Streets 3rd, 5th and 6th Streets and gateway nodes.”
and gateway nodes.
13 (IVIC DEIR at 3-3.)
“Local businesses support and incentivize
14 bike, car ride-share programs, and other
alternative modes of transportation, to
15 further support efforts to reduce vehicle
miles travelled and greenhouse gas
16 emissions in the region.”
17 (Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-2.)
18
19 45. In substance, the IVIC Project proposes the same or expanded infrastructure
20 developments as the Airport Gateway project did. The Project description in the IVIC DEIR
21 excised the Airport Gateway project’s section on existing and proposed land uses, but largely
22 retained the remaining sections. For example, the water infrastructure section (3.5.1.1) made
23 nominal changes and proposed the same projects: a storage reservoir and an extraction well. The
24 wastewater section (3.5.1.2) similarly made nominal changes, but added a “contingency
25 measure” that up to 5,000 feet of sewer “may be installed to support the infrastructure needs” of
26 the Project area. (IVIC DEIR at 3-6.) The drainage section (3.5.3) made nominal changes
27 referring to development under existing General Plans rather than the Airport Gateway project’s
28 proposed specific plan. The circulation system section (3.5.4) copied the original assessment,
11
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 even retaining multiple references to the Airport Gateway project’s “Specific Plan boundary,”
2 but expanded the anticipated roadway additions from 6.5 miles to 20 miles over the same 20-
3 year period.
4 Airport Gateway DEIR Proposed IVIC DEIR Proposed Infrastructure
Infrastructure Projects Projects
5
Water: Water:
6
“Project 1 - 3.5 MG storage reservoir “Project 1 - 3.5 MG storage reservoir
7 located in the Lower Zone. located in the Lower Zone.
8 Project 2 - New Well 01 in the Intermediate Project 2 - New Well 01 in the Intermediate
Zone.” Zone.”
9
(Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-8.) (IVIC DEIR at 3-5.)
10
Wastewater: Wastewater:
11
Projects recommended in East Valley Water Projects recommended in East Valley Water
12 District plan “are not anticipated to be District plan “are not anticipated to be
necessary.” necessary, and are not being considered as
13 part of the IVIC Project. However, as a
(Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-9 & Fig. 3-7). contingency measure, it is forecast that up to
14 5,000 Feet of sewer may be installed to
support the infrastructure needs of the IVIC
15 area.”
16 (IVIC DEIR at 3-6.)
17 Drainage: Drainage:
18 Conceptual design for City Creek Bypass Conceptual design for City Creek Bypass
Channel: Channel:
19
“6-C1-01 which is a storm drain system that “6-C1-01 which is a storm drain system that
20 varies in diameter from 36-inches to 48- varies in diameter from 36-inches to 48-
inches in diameter. The system extends inches in diameter. The system extends
21 along Tippecanoe Avenue to 5th Street. along Tippecanoe Avenue to 5th Street.
22 “6-C1-03 which is a storm drain that varies “6-C1-03 which is a storm drain that varies
in diameter from 42-inches to 81-inches in in diameter from 42-inches to 81-inches in
23 diameter. The storm drain extends Sterling diameter. The storm drain extends along
Avenue and 6th Street.” Sterling Avenue and 6th Street.”
24
(Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-12 to 3-13 & (IVIC DEIR at 3-9 & Fig. 3-10.)
25 Fig. 3-8.)
26
27
28
12
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 Circulation: Circulation:
2 Numerous roadway expansion projects, Numerous roadway expansion projects,
including construction of additional lanes to including construction of additional lanes to
3 Tippecanoe Avenue, Del Rosa Drive, 6th Tippecanoe Avenue, Del Rosa Drive, 6th
Street, 5th Street, and 3rd Street, resulting in Street, 5th Street, 3rd Street, Sterling
4 up to 6.5 miles of new road. Avenue, Lankershim Avenue, Victoria
Avenue, Cunningham Street, Central
5 (Airport Gateway DEIR at 3-15 to 3-17, 3- Avenue, Palm Avenue, and Church Avenue,
19 [Table 3-5].) resulting in up to 20 miles of new road.
6
(IVIC DEIR at 3-11 to 3-14.)
7
8 46. On or around October 3, 2024, IVDA hosted a meeting it initially described as an
9 “Open House.” As SBAC later commented, the title of the meeting was misleading to the
10 community, as it was, in fact, an opportunity for the community to provide public comments
11 regarding the IVIC Project. After the fact, the meeting name was changed on the IVDA website
12 to a “Public Meeting.”
13 47. Various community members, residents and organizations, including Petitioner as
14 a member of SBAC, timely objected to approval of the Project and the DEIR’s analysis.
15 48. On October 9, 2024, SBAC submitted a comment letter requesting a 45-day
16 extension to review and submit comments on the DEIR, as many residents were unable to attend
17 the October 3 public hearing with only one week’s notice, and many were also impacted by the
18 Line Fire in San Bernardino a few weeks prior.
19 49. On or around October 18, 2024, IVDA rejected SBAC’s request for extension of
20 the comment period but stated that comments would be accepted until the public hearing
21 considering certification of the FEIR for the Project.
22 50. On or around November 14, 2024, SBAC submitted a second comment letter that
23 raised several objections to the Project, reflecting the input of hundreds of residents living in and
24 around the Project area. SBAC raised the following objections, among others:
25 a. IVDA’s public engagement was inaccessible and impeded meaningful
26 stakeholder understanding and engagement. Examples included the misleading title of
27 “Open House” for the October 3, 2024 public meeting, and the lack of multi-lingual
28 notices understandable by the significant portions of the community that speak Spanish or
13
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 another language other than English.
2 b. The Project proposed infrastructure improvements only on the perimeters
3 of residential tracts and did not include improvements on internal residential streets
4 within those tracts, which are critical to ensure the Project’s intended “safe spaces.”
5 Further, the DEIR implied knowledge of future developments, and should therefore have
6 disclosed information on those projects.
7 c. The DEIR vaguely mentioned that the Project might encroach onto adjacent
8 residential property. SBAC asked clarifying questions about this encroachment and
9 asserted that any housing displacement is significant and should be addressed in detail
10 prior to approval.
11 d. Roadway installation will burden the community over the anticipated 20-
12 year construction period; sensitive uses like residences and schools will be particularly
13 impacted.
14 e. The DEIR failed to identify the agencies responsible for various Project
15 components.
16 f. The DEIR used an outdated National Ambient Air Quality Standard
17 (“NAAQS”) of 12.0 µ/m3 rather than the current standard of 9.0 µ/m3 to evaluate air
18 quality impacts for PM2.5.
19 g. Investing solely in the warehouse and logistics industries has left the
20 community burdened with high pollution levels that continue to impact their lives.
21 51. Another comment letter from the Center for Community Action and
22 Environmental Justice (“CCAEJ”) raised the concern that there was “considerable overlap”
23 between the IVIC Project and the previous Airport Gateway project. CCAEJ reiterated concerns
24 originally raised with the Airport Gateway project regarding the “continued encroachment of
25 warehousing into the airport communities and resulting ill effects, including displacement as
26 well as a loss of the community.”
27 52. On or around January 10, 2025, IVDA released the Final EIR (“FEIR”) and
28 IVDA’s responses to comments. The FEIR largely reiterated the DEIR’s description of the
14
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 Project and discussion of its impacts.
2 53. On or around January 10, 2025, IVDA issued a notice for a public hearing to occur
3 on February 12, 2025 for the Project.
4 54. On February 7, 2025, PCEJ submitted comments criticizing the FEIR’s
5 environmental analysis and IVDA’s failure to comply with CEQA on numerous grounds.
6 55. Among other things, PCEJ requested that the IVDA Board continue the hearing to
7 consider certification of the FEIR, and that IVDA first revise the FEIR to comply with CEQA,
8 recirculate it for further public review, solicit additional community input, and respond to all
9 comments.
10 56. PCEJ also criticized the FEIR’s description of the Project as insufficient under
11 CEQA. It explained that the Project description is confusing, inconsistent, and contradictory,
12 and makes it difficult if not impossible to discern which infrastructure projects have already
13 been completed, which are identified in other agencies’ planning documents, and which will
14 actually be undertaken as part of the Project.
15 57. PCEJ further objected to the FEIR’s failure to disclose, analyze, and identify
16 mitigation for the Project’s reasonably foreseeable future environmental impacts. PCEJ’s
17 comments pointed out that the core purpose of the Project is to facilitate future development, as
18 the FEIR itself acknowledges. For example, the FEIR explicitly states that its objectives are to
19 “[p]rovide comprehensive infrastructure improvements…to meet future system needs” and to
20 connect “future and existing development” to the circulation system. (FEIR at 3-2 to 3-3.)
21 Descriptions of various Project components also reflect this intent; for example, the FEIR
22 identifies the City Creek Bypass Channel as infrastructure “required to provide flood protection
23 for future development” consistent with General Plan land use designations. (Id. at 3-9.) Yet the
24 FEIR wholly omits any discussion of the impacts of this future development, much less
25 mitigation measures to address it. PCEJ noted that this omission renders the FEIR’s project
26 description, analysis of impacts, discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives, and findings
27 and conclusions all fatally deficient.
28 58. Additionally, PCEJ objected to the FEIR’s disclosure, analysis, and mitigation of
15
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 the environmental impacts of Project infrastructure components.
2 59. For example, PCEJ pointed out that the FEIR’s air quality and health risk analyses
3 are both deficient under CEQA for several reasons, including, without limitation:
4 a. The significance criteria used in the air quality analysis fail to reflect
5 current, more stringent national air quality standards for PM2.5.
6 b. The FEIR’s analysis of regional and local air quality impacts is internally
7 inconsistent and obscures potentially significant impacts. In evaluating whether
8 construction emissions exceed the regional PM2.5 threshold of 55 lbs/day, the FEIR adds
9 together the emissions from all five types of projects evaluated in the EIR (i.e., roadway,
10 channel installation, storage reservoir, extraction well, sewage installation). (FEIR at 4-60
11 to 4-61.) In contrast, in the EIR’s evaluation of whether construction emissions exceed
12 the local significance thresholds (“LSTs”) (7 lbs/day for PM10 and 4 lbs/day for PM2.5),
13 the FEIR considers each Project component separately, without adding the emissions
14 from different types of projects together or acknowledging that simultaneous construction
15 could occur. (Id. at 4-65 to 4-66.) Even after mitigation, emissions from all types of
16 projects would total 13.54 lbs/day for PM10 and 5.02 lbs/day for PM2.5, exceeding the
17 LSTs for both pollutants. And if the LSTs were reduced in order to reflect the more
18 stringent PM2.5 NAAQS, the total exceedance for both pollutants would be even greater.
19 Neither the FEIR nor its air quality impact analysis (Appendix 1) explains the FEIR’s
20 inconsistent analysis.
21 c. The Health Risk Assessment fails to address the Project’s actual, known
22 characteristics, instead using generic modeling assumptions that do not accurately reflect
23 or evaluate the nature of the Project or its impacts. The Health Risk Assessment asserts
24 that the “precise locations” of construction activities are unknown, and it assumes a
25 “worst-case scenario” of sensitive receptors 40 feet away from construction. (FEIR,
26 Appendix 2 at 14.) In fact, the FEIR describes the “precise locations” of most Project
27 components, and many receptors appear to be less than 40 feet from these locations, as
28 the FEIR’s own noise analysis assumes. (FEIR at 4-354 [assuming construction within 30
16
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 feet of noise-sensitive residential receivers].) Some residences even appear to be within
2 the City Creek project alignment. (Id., Fig 3-11b [showing channel project “R/W”
3 encroaching on residential buildings near Marilyn Ave. and east of Del Rosa Ave.].)
4 d. The FEIR also fails to provide any meaningful analysis of the Project’s
5 cumulative air quality impacts in conjunction with those of existing and reasonably
6 foreseeable future projects affecting the same community.
7 60. PCEJ’s comments also criticized the FEIR’s noise mitigation measures for failing
8 to comply with CEQA’s requirements. The FEIR concludes that at least some of the Project’s
9 noise impacts are potentially significant, but it improperly defers both analysis and mitigation of
10 noise impacts. Among other defects, all three noise mitigation measures are based on future
11 study after Project approval and fail to comply with CEQA’s requirements for deferred
12 mitigation. The FEIR’s proposed noise mitigation measures are also vague and unenforceable.
13 Because the FEIR relies on these inadequate mitigation measures to conclude that noise impacts
14 will be reduced to less-than-significant levels, it fails to fulfill CEQA’s informational purpose
15 and its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.
16 61. PCEJ’s comments further objected to the FEIR’s failure to evaluate potentially
17 feasible mitigation for the Project’s increase in vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). The FEIR
18 concludes that the Project will create a significant impact by increasing VMT. However, it
19 makes a conclusory assertion, with no analysis, that no feasible mitigation exists because
20 “IVDA does not have land use authority to enforce transportation reduction strategies.” (FEIR at
21 4-437.) This claim does not excuse IVDA from evaluating other forms of VMT mitigation, nor
22 does it establish that it is legally infeasible for IVDA to incorporate VMT reduction strategies
23 into the Project. PCEJ also explained that IVDA cannot abdicate its mitigation responsibilities
24 absent a clear showing that another agency has exclusive authority over mitigation, which it did
25 not make. IVDA has an obligation to evaluate all feasible mitigation even if impacts cannot be
26 mitigated to a less-than-significant level. PCEJ identified a fair share contribution to regional
27 VMT mitigation efforts, such as a VMT mitigation bank, as one potentially feasible mitigation
28 measure that the FEIR failed to consider.
17
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 62. PCEJ further objected that the FEIR failed to evaluate pedestrian and bicycle
2 safety impacts related to nearby schools, as the Project will expand several roadways in the
3 vicinity of schools such as Indian Springs High School. The FEIR does not adequately address
4 whether widening roads and increasing traffic capacity, including for heavy-duty trucks, could
5 pose a safety hazard for students walking or biking to school.
6 63. Further, PCEJ criticized the FEIR for its failure to evaluate potential
7 inconsistencies with Assembly Bill 617 (“AB 617”) programs and community emissions
8 reductions plans in violation of CEQA. Under AB 617, the community of San
9 Bernardino/Muscoy adopted a Community Emissions Reduction Plan (“CERP”) in 2019 to
10 reduce air pollution exposure. The FEIR does not discuss either AB 617 or the CERP. The FEIR
11 thus violates CEQA’s mandate to discuss inconsistencies between the proposed project and
12 applicable regional plans, including plans for the reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas
13 emissions. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).)
14 64. Finally, PCEJ objected to the FEIR’s consistent failure to identify the specific
15 agency responsible for implementing, monitoring, reporting on, and enforcing mitigation.
16 Instead, the FEIR merely says the “implementing agency” will be responsible. This is not only
17 insufficient to satisfy CEQA’s specific requirements for mitigation monitoring and reporting
18 plans (see generally CEQA Guidelines § 15097), but also impermissibly abdicates IVDA’s
19 responsibilities under the law, as IVDA retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring
20 implementation of mitigation measures under CEQA. (Id. § 15097(a).)
21 65. On February 7, 2025, IVDA posted an agenda and agenda packet for the February
22 12, 2025 meeting of the IVDA Board. The agenda packet included a staff report for Item 18,
23 which linked to proposed CEQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations
24 for the Project (the “Findings”).
25 66. On February 12, 2025, PCEJ submitted additional comments objecting to the
26 Findings as inadequate as a matter of law and unsupported by substantial evidence. It
27 incorporated its February 7 comments by reference and explained that IVDA must remedy the
28 FEIR’s deficiencies before it may make the findings required to approve the Project. In
18
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 particular, the Findings claim that mitigation measures were incorporated to address significant
2 and unavoidable impacts, but both the FEIR and the Findings lack measures addressing the
3 VMT impact the FEIR identified as significant and unavoidable. Again, PCEJ requested the
4 IVDA Board continue the hearing on the Project until it revised the EIR to comply with CEQA,
5 recirculated the EIR for further public review, solicited additional community input, responded
6 to all comments, and prepared legally adequate findings for the Project.
7 Approval of the Project
8 67. On February 12, 2025, the IVDA Board voted to continue the hearing to consider
9 the Project until the next Board meeting on March 12, 2025. On or around March 7, 2025,
10 IVDA issued its agenda for the hearing, as well as a staff report (“3/12/25 Agenda Packet”). The
11 staff report attached memoranda from IVDA’s consultants purporting to respond to PCEJ’s
12 comments (“Consultant Memos”).
13 68. On March 12, 2025, before the IVDA Board opened the public hearing on the
14 Project and the FEIR, PCEJ submitted further comments responding to IVDA’s consultants and
15 explaining why the IVDA Board may not lawfully approve the Project. PCEJ noted that IVDA
16 had failed to remedy the legal and evidentiary deficiencies previously identified. The Consultant
17 Memos offered no new evidence or analysis to support the FEIR’s conclusions or the Findings.
18 In many cases, the memos failed to respond to PCEJ’s comments at all. Though the consultants
19 asserted that they have relevant expertise, such assertions are not evidence and add no support to
20 the FEIR’s conclusions or the Findings. As PCEJ commented, since IVDA did not make any
21 changes to the FEIR or the Findings, they remain deficient as a matter of law under CEQA, and
22 their conclusions lack substantial evidentiary support.
23 69. PCEJ reasserted the deficiencies in the FEIR that IVDA and its consultants had
24 failed to remedy. Among other flaws, the FEIR: (a) contains an inadequate Project description;
25 (b) fails to disclose the reasonably foreseeable impacts of development that the Project is
26 intended to, and will, facilitate; (c) fails to address school-related pedestrian and bicycle safety
27 impacts; (d) fails to identify which agencies are responsible for implementing mitigation; (e)
28 contains an air quality analysis that is inconsistent and unsupported; (f) fails to incorporate
19
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 current, more stringent national air quality standards for PM2.5 and to explain this failure; (g)
2 treats regional and local air quality impacts inconsistently and fails to explain why it does so; (h)
3 contains a Health Risk Assessment that fails to evaluate realistic emissions scenarios based on
4 readily available information; (i) fails to adequately disclose existing conditions or cumulative
5 air quality impacts; (j) fails to provide sufficient mitigation for noise impacts; (k) fails to
6 consider feasible mitigation for significant VMT impacts, including the mitigation measure
7 PCEJ suggested in its prior comments; (l) fails to evaluate inconsistencies with the San
8 Bernardino/Muscoy Community Emissions Reduction Plan; and (m) fails to disclose potential
9 impacts on housing.
10 70. In response to PCEJ’s criticism that the FEIR failed to disclose, analyze, or
11 mitigate the reasonably foreseeable impacts of future development the Project will facilitate,
12 IVDA’s consultants claimed these impacts have “already been analyzed” in the EIRs prepared
13 for the City of Highland’s and the City of San Bernardino’s General Plans. (Consultant Memos,
14 3/12/25 Agenda Packet at 170.) PCEJ explained that this assertion is not substantiated, that
15 IVDA failed to follow any of CEQA’s procedural requirements for relying on analysis in a prior
16 EIR, and that in any case a conclusory statement in a last-minute memo not included in the EIR
17 is insufficient to satisfy CEQA.
18 a. First, the FEIR’s bibliography does not support the consultants’ claim that
19 IVDA relied on prior general plan EIRs. The bibliography contains no mention of the
20 City of Highland’s General Plan EIR. It cites a 2005 Draft EIR for the City of San
21 Bernardino’s General Plan EIR for the sections on “Agriculture and Forestry Resources”
22 and “Recreation and Parks,” with no indication of which portion of the EIR was
23 referenced or where to find it. (FEIR at 7-2, 7-6.) The “Cultural Resources” and “Tribal
24 Cultural Resources” sections cite a 2020 EIR for the San Bernardino County General
25 Plan, but the link to the document is broken. (Id. at 7-3.) According to the bibliography,
26 the FEIR does not appear to have relied on any prior General Plan EIR in connection with
27 any other issue area or environmental impact.
28 b. Second, merely referring to analysis in prior EIRs is insufficient to comply
20
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 with CEQA. The FEIR complied with none of the procedural mechanisms in CEQA
2 governing reliance on environmental analysis in a prior EIR, such as tiering or
3 incorporation by reference. It did not disclose that it was relying on any prior EIRs as a
4 substitute for disclosure and analysis of the Project’s impacts. It did not incorporate or
5 summarize the environmental analysis from prior EIRs, or indicate how the FEIR may
6 have relied on that analysis. It did not evaluate whether the prior environmental analyses
7 sufficiently disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated the impacts of the particular developments
8 that this Project is intended to and could foreseeably facilitate. Further, the FEIR failed to
9 incorporate mitigation measures from the General Plan EIRs adopted to address
10 significant impacts of development under the General Plans. The FEIR also failed to
11 evaluate whether changes in the General Plans, surrounding circumstances, or other
12 factors may require substantial revisions of the General Plan EIRs, as CEQA requires
13 before an agency may rely on a prior EIR.
14 c. Third, in treating the effects of development under the General Plans as a
15 fait accompli regardless of whether development has actually occurred, the FEIR
16 effectively compares the impacts of this Project to the General Plans rather than to
17 existing physical conditions. CEQA does not permit such comparisons. (See, e.g.,
18 Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683.)
19 71. PCEJ also objected to the FEIR’s failure to disclose potential housing impacts.
20 The FEIR concluded that the Project would not have any impacts on housing because most of
21 the Project’s infrastructure components would be located in existing rights-of-way; the FEIR
22 acknowledged that expanding roadways could result in “some encroachment” onto private
23 property, but stated that the improvements “would not encroach onto residential housing units”
24 in the Project area. (FEIR at 4-374 to 4-375.) Contrary to these assertions, PCEJ again pointed
25 out that some residences appear to be located within the City Creek project alignment. Further,
26 PCEJ reported that community members had been approached with requests to sell their
27 property to accommodate the Project. The facts PCEJ presented to IVDA squarely contradict the
28 unsupported assertions and conclusions in the FEIR regarding housing impacts.
21
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 72. Finally, PCEJ questioned IVDA’s authority to carry out the Project at all. Through
2 Assembly Bill No. 419 (formerly codified at Health & Safety Code section 33320.5, currently
3 Health & Safety Code section 33492.40), the Legislature authorized the creation of IVDA to
4 serve as a redevelopment agency to redevelop the area around the former Norton Air Force
5 Base. Consistent with its authorizing statute, IVDA’s governing documents contemplate
6 redevelopment as its sole purpose. Starting in 2011, the Legislature enacted laws requiring the
7 dissolution and winding down of redevelopment agencies (codified at Health & Safety Code
8 sections 34161-91.6, collectively the “Dissolution Law”). IVDA is subject to the Dissolution
9 Law and has been stripped of redevelopment authority, except to the extent it acts as its own
10 successor agency to wind down its affairs and ensure compliance with enforceable obligations
11 existing before June 2011. PCEJ’s comments pointed out that in the wake of the Dissolution
12 Law, IVDA lacks the redevelopment power necessary to implement or lead this Project, which
13 does not appear to be a preexisting, enforceable obligation. Thus, PCEJ cautioned that IVDA’s
14 actions regarding this Project may constitute unauthorized redevelopment activity contrary to
15 the Dissolution Law.
16 73. On March 12, 2025, the IVDA Board held a public hearing on the Project. Many
17 concerned residents attended and around twenty members of the public spoke, including
18 individual members of PCEJ. The majority of speakers expressed that the Project did not
19 address the needs of their community. Many pointed out that the Project proposed
20 improvements only on major roads to the benefit of the logistics industry, and that no
21 improvements were planned to the streets, sidewalks, and other facilities where they lived.
22 Several also spoke on the adverse health and safety impacts they experienced from expanding
23 warehouses and trucking in their communities, and noted the lack of notice and communication
24 to residents about these projects.
25 74. At its hearing on March 12, 2025, the IVDA Board voted to approve the Project
26 and to certify the EIR for the Project. The Board also adopted findings and a statement of
27 overriding considerations.
28 75. On March 13, 2025, IVDA filed a Notice of Determination for the Project’s EIR.
22
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Violation of CEQA
3 (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; State CEQA Guidelines)
4 76. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in
5 paragraphs 1 to 75, inclusive.
6 77. CEQA is designed to ensure that the long-term protection of the environment is
7 the guiding criterion in public decisions. CEQA requires the lead agency for a project with the
8 potential to cause environmental harm to prepare an EIR that fully analyzes the project’s
9 potentially significant impacts on the environment and public services. (Pub. Res. Code §§
10 21002.1(a), 21080(d).) The EIR must provide sufficient facts and analysis to ensure that the
11 decision-makers can intelligently consider environmental consequences when acting on the
12 proposed project. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47
13 Cal.3d 376, 405.)
14 78. CEQA also mandates that the lead agency identify feasible mitigation measures
15 that will reduce or avoid a project’s environmental impacts. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002,
16 21002.1(b).) Even where a public agency cannot entirely eliminate an impact, CEQA requires
17 that it nonetheless reduce the impact to the extent feasible. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
18 (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 524-25.) An EIR must respond to comments making specific suggestions
19 for mitigating a significant impact unless the suggested mitigation is “facially infeasible.” (Los
20 Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029.) If an
21 agency rejects a suggested measure as infeasible, the rejection must be supported by substantial
22 evidence and free of legal error. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.)
23 79. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the
24 environmental impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future development the Project will
25 facilitate. Further, the FEIR’s failure to disclose, analyze, and mitigate such impacts cannot be
26 justified by purported reliance on any prior EIR, including any general plan EIR. The FEIR
27 failed to follow CEQA’s requirements for relying on environmental analysis from prior EIRs.
28 These procedural requirements include, without limitation:
23
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 a. An initial study or other determination evaluating whether the prior EIR
2 sufficiently describes and examines the Project, its significant impacts, and mitigation for
3 those impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(c) [for projects consistent with a General Plan];
4 id. § 21094(c) [for tiering]; id. § 21158(a) [for a focused EIR]; CEQA Guidelines §
5 15153(b)(1) [for use of an EIR from an earlier project]; id. § 15162(a) [for a subsequent
6 EIR]; id. § 15163(a) [for a supplement to an EIR]; id. § 15168(c)(1) [for use of a Program
7 EIR]; id. § 15177(b), 15179(b) [for use of a Master EIR]);
8 b. Notice or evidence that the FEIR is relying on a prior EIR (CEQA
9 Guidelines § 15152(g) [for tiering]; id. § 15153(b)(2) [for use of an EIR from an earlier
10 project]; see Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1407 [to rely on
11 Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3 exemption from further CEQA review, record of agency
12 proceeding should indicate that it is relying on analysis in prior EIR]);
13 c. A statement of where to find the prior EIR (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(e) [for
14 tiering]; CEQA Guidelines § 15153(b)(2) [for use of an EIR from an earlier project]);
15 d. Incorporation by reference, which requires a summary or description of the
16 incorporated portion and its relationship to the later EIR (Pub. Res. Code § 21068.5; id. §
17 21158(a) [for a focused EIR]; CEQA Guidelines § 15150(c) [for tiering]); and
18 e. Incorporation of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the
19 prior EIR (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(c) [for projects consistent with a General Plan];
20 CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(3) [for use of a Program EIR]).
21 80. IVDA violated CEQA by analyzing regional and local air pollution impacts in an
22 inconsistent manner (and by failing to explain the inconsistency), by failing to evaluate PM2.5
23 impacts in light of current air quality standards (and by failing to explain this failure), by
24 preparing a health risk assessment that failed to evaluate the actual, known characteristics of the
25 Project, and by failing to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s contribution to cumulative air
26 quality impacts in light of existing pollution from the airport and nearby facilities.
27 81. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to provide mitigation for noise impacts consistent
28 with CEQA, including by improperly deferring analysis and mitigation of noise impacts and by
24
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 adopting mitigation measures that are vague and unenforceable.
2 82. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to evaluate potentially feasible mitigation for the
3 Project’s significant VMT impacts.
4 83. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to disclose, analyze, and provide mitigation for
5 the Project’s impacts on pedestrian and bicycle safety, particularly as related to nearby schools.
6 84. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to evaluate inconsistencies between the Project
7 and the applicable community emissions reduction plan adopted pursuant to AB 617.
8 85. IVDA violated CEQA by failing to disclose, analyze, and provide mitigation for
9 potential impacts on housing.
10 86. As a result of these actions, IVDA prejudicially abused its discretion by failing to
11 proceed in the manner required by law, failing to support its determinations with substantial
12 evidence, and depriving the public and decision-makers of the information mandated by CEQA.
13 (See, e.g., People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 [an “inadequate
14 or conclusory discussion of a potentially substantial adverse change in the environment deprives
15 the public of information necessary for informed self-government and constitutes a prejudicial
16 abuse of discretion”].)
17 87. IVDA also prejudicially violated CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by adopting
18 Findings and a statement of overriding considerations that are invalid. The Findings and
19 statement of overriding considerations are legally inadequate because they are based on
20 insufficient analysis of Project impacts and mitigation; fail to consider or adopt all feasible
21 mitigation to reduce significant Project impacts; and are unsupported by substantial evidence.
22 IVDA cannot simply “override” significant environmental impacts where, as here, (a) the EIR
23 failed to disclose and/or understated the true scope of Project impacts; and (b) IVDA failed to
24 describe, consider, or adopt legally adequate and feasible mitigation measures to reduce the
25 Project’s significant impacts.
26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
28 1. For alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directing IVDA to vacate and set
25
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 1 aside its certification of the EIR, approval of the Project, and adoption of findings of fact and a
2 statement of overriding considerations in connection with its approval of the Project;
3 2. For alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directing IVDA to comply with
4 CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and to take any other action as required by Public Resources
5 Code section 21168.9 or otherwise required by law;
6 3. For a temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent
7 injunctions restraining IVDA and its agents, servants, and employees, and all others acting in
8 concert with IVDA or on its behalf, from taking any action to implement the Project, pending
9 full compliance with the requirements of the writ of mandate, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;
10 4. For a stay, preliminary and/or permanent injunction, or other appropriate order
11 restraining Real Parties in Interest and their agents, employees, officers, and representatives
12 from undertaking any activity that would cause a physical change in the environment or
13 implementing the Project in any way until this Court determines that IVDA has complied fully
14 with the requirements of the writ of mandate, CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines;
15 5. For attorney’s fees as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and/or
16 other provisions of law; and
17 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
18 DATED: April 10, 2025 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
19
20
By:
21 KEVIN P. BUNDY
22
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
23 PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE FOR
24 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

25
26
27
28
26
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
   


 *&%0<$);%&#$8"'#'*<%13$&%$/4'33'>/7
 $9$;#6'&2M%<#'%K%1;#%#62/A%&2421$#2'0'0:%6$34'4#6%%'53%@/'33%1#2A%4'&
 0A2&'09%0#$3;/#21%6$A%&%$<#6%4'&%C'20C %&242%<%#2#2'04'&&2#'4$0<$#%$0<
 '953$20#4'&0I;01#2A% %32%4!G%#2#2'0H($0<L0'>2#/1'0#%0#/334$1#/$33%C%<20#6%$:'A%
 %#2#2'0*$0<0'#'#6%&>2/%/;55'&#%<:.%K62:2#/'&'#6%&<'1;9%0#/*$&%#&;%'49.'>0
 L0'>3%<C%*%K1%5##'9$##%&//#$#%<'0204'&9$#2'0$0<:%32%4*$0<$/#'#6'/%9$##%&/*:%32%A%
 #6%9#':%#&;%
<%13$&%;0<%&5%0$3#.'45%&I;&.;0<%&#6%3$>/'4#6%"#$#%'4$324'&02$#6$##6%

4'&%C'20C2/#&;%$0<1'&&%1#


9th
K%1;#%<'05&23SS* <20'*$324'&02$
*$#"$0%&0$&<20'*$324'&02$




&%0<$);%&#$8"'#'
























27
         
EXHIBIT
A
SHUTE. MIHALY
WEINBERGERup
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 KEVIN P. BUNDY
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 Attorney
www.smwlaw.com bundy@smwlaw.com

April 8, 2025

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail

Inland Valley Development Agency

Inland Valley Development Agency Board
c/o Clerk of the Board
1601 East Third Street, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
clerkoftheboard@sbdairport.com
mbeltran@sbdairport.com

Re: Notice of Intent to Sue Re Inland Valley Infrastructure Corridor

Approval

Dear Chair Dupper and Honorable Members of the Board:

This letter is to notify you that the People’s Collective for Environmental
Justice will file suit against the Inland Valley Development Agency and its Board
(collectively, “IVDA”) for failure to observe the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., in the
administrative process that culminated in IVDA’s decision to approve the Inland Valley
Infrastructure Corridor Project, certify the Environmental Impact Report, and adopt all
related findings and approvals on March 12, 2025. This notice is given pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21167.5.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

Kevin P. Bundy
1902819.3
April 8, 2025
Page 2

PROOF OF SERVICE

People’s Collective for Environmental Justice v. Inland Valley Development Agency, et al.
San Bernardino County Superior Court

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 396 Hayes
Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

On April 8, 2025, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE

on the parties in this action as follows:

Inland Valley Development Agency Inland Valley Development Agency Board

c/o Clerk of the Board c/o Clerk of the Board
1601 East Third Street, Suite 100 1601 East Third Street, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408 San Bernardino, CA 92408
clerkoftheboard@sbdairport.com clerkoftheboard@sbdairport.com
mbeltran@sbdairport.com mbeltran@sbdairport.com

BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the

persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Shute, Mihaly &
Weinberger LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that the 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 envelope with
postage fully prepaid.

BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the

document(s) to be sent from e-mail address Weibel@smwlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail
addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 8, 2025, at San Francisco, California.

David Weibel

SHUTE MIHALY
L;7----WEINBERGERHP
EXHIBIT
B
SHUTE. MIHALY
WEINBERGERup
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 KEVIN P. BUNDY
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 Attorney
www.smwlaw.com bundy@smwlaw.com

April 10, 2025

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail

CEQA Coordinator
Office of the Attorney General
Environment Section
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
E-mail: CEQA@doj.ca.gov

Re: Notice of Filing CEQA Litigation (People’s Collective for

Environmental Justice v. Inland Valley Development Agency et al.)

Dear CEQA Coordinator:

Enclosed please find a copy of the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) in the above-titled action. The Petition is
provided to you in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 and Code of
Civil Procedure section 388. Please acknowledge receipt in the enclosed prepaid, self-
addressed envelope.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

Kevin P. Bundy

1902822.2