Attorneys for Petitioner PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN. Case No CU-WM-STK

Transcription

1 1 William W. Abbott (State Bar No ) Katherine J. Hart (State Bar No ) Leslie Z. Walker (State Bar No ) ABBOTT & KINDERMANN, LLP st Street Sacramento, California Telephone: (916) Facsimile. (916) _ F E - Attorneys for Petitioner PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC WI; 9-9- C940 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC a Delaware limited liability company, VS. Petitioner/Plaintiff, Case No CU-WM-STK VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE D COMPLAINT FOR DECL TORY D INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, BY AND (Code Civ. Proc , 1085 and Pub. Res. THROUGH THE BOARD OF Code 21000, et seq. (CEQA) SUPERVISORS, and DOES 1-20, Respondents/Defendants, _ o, HIGHWAY 12 INVESTORS, LLC, LILVAL PROPERTIES, LTD and DOES 21-40, Real Parties In Interest. g - Petitioner and Plaintiff Pilot Travel Centers LLC ("Petitioner") alleges through this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Petition") as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioner challenges the approval by Respondents and Defendants, County of San Joaquin ("County") and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors (collectively, "Respondents") of a Use Permit (Application No. PA ) and the related approval of a 1

2 mitigated negative declaration (" D") (together, the "Project Approvals") for the Love's Travel Stop and Country Store/Arby's project (the "Project"). As noted below, implementation of the Project will have numerous and substantial impacts on the environment. 2. Petitioner requests that this Court vacate, set aside, rescind and void all of the Project Approvals, actions, resolutions, and findings related to the Project, as well as the MIND adopted by Respondents, including rescinding any authorizations to proceed with construction. The Project was approved by the San Joaquin County Planning Commission on May 19, 2011, and Petitioner's timely appeal of the Project approvals was denied by the Respondent Board of Supervisors on July 12, Petitioner requests that the Court vacate the Project Approvals because Respondents failed to comply with the provisions set forth under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the California Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65000, et seq., and therefore, failed to proceed in a manner required by law. 3. Petitioner seeks a Peremptory Writ of Mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and , directing Respondents to vacate, rescind and set aside all Project Approvals. PARTIES 4. Petitioner Pilot Travel Centers LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Petitioner owns and operates a facility in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, which is operated and/or owned by Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner has an interest in protecting the region's air quality, minimizing and ameliorating traffic, ensuring informed and responsible growth, and promoting other environment-related quality-of-life issues. Unmitigated environmental effects associated with the Project will adversely affect Petitioner as well as the travelling public generally. 5. Respondents are charged with complying with applicable provisions of state law, including the CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law. The Board of Supervisors is the duly constituted legislative body and highest administrative body in the County and is charged with the duty of ensuring, among other things, that all applicable, federal, state and county laws are fully 2

3 and faithfully obeyed and implemented. Respondents, through its Planning Commission, adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the Project Approvals which falls well below CEQA's minimum standards and violates Planning and Zoning Laws. 6. Real Parties in Interest Highway 12 Investors, LLC and Lilval Properties, Ltd. collectively, "Rear Parties") are the proponents and developers of the Project. 7. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and Real Parties in Interest sued herein as DOES 11 through 20, inclusive and, therefore, sues these Respondents and Real Parties in Interest by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave to amend the Petition, if necessary, to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. 8. Petitioner is infoillied and believes and thereon alleges that at all times material hereto, each DOE Respondent named in this Petition was the agent and employee of each of the other Respondent herein, and was at all times material thereto, acting within the course and scope of the agencies and the employment and with the permission and consent of Respondents. JURISDICTION, VENUE D EX USTION OF ADMINIST TIVE REMEDIES 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to sections 1085, , and 187 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and sections and of the California Public Resources Code. 10. Venue is proper in San Joaquin County under sections 394 and 305 of the California Code of Civil Procedure as the County in which the real property in dispute is located and as a county in which some or all of the Respondents reside. 11. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of California Public Resources Code section by sending a Notice of Commencement ("Notice") of this action to Respondents prior to filing this Petition. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 12. Respondents' conduct in approving the Project constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion because, as alleged in this Petition, Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to make mandatory findings, made findings not supported by substantial 3

4 evidence, and failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, adequate remedy at law and, along with members of the public, will suffer irreparable harm as a result of Respondents' violations of CEQA and other laws as set forth herein. 13. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of California Public Resources Code section , and California Code of Civil Procedure section 388, by mailing a copy of the Petition/Complaint to the State Attorney General. A true and correct copy of the Service of Pleadings on the Attorney General is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. 14. Petitioner has satisfied each and every exhaustion-of-remedies requirement that must be satisfied in order to maintain this action. In particular: A. The violations of law challenged in this action were identified for Respondents orally or in writing by Petitioner, as well as public agencies and private citizens prior to the close of the public hearing on the Project, as required by California Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a). B. Petitioner objected to the Project's approval prior to the close of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' public hearings on the Project, as required by Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (b). C. Any and all available appeals of the Project Approvals were pursued, and Respondents' Project Approvals are now final. 15. This petition is timely filed in accordance with Public Resources Code section and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section ST DING 16. Petitioner has standing as a party beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of mandate because the Project, as alleged more specifically herein, will have significant adverse environmental impacts on the individuals named herein as well as the general public. Petitioner has a beneficial interest in Respondents' fulfillment of all their legal duties, as alleged in this pleading. 4

5 CEQA'S SUBST D PROCEDU REQUIREMENTS 17. In 1970, the California Legislature enacted CEQA, as a means of forcing public agency decision makers, such as Respondents, to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. CEQA's fundamental goal is to fully inform the public and the decision makers as to the environmental consequences of proposed projects and to assure members of the public that their elected officials are making infoinied decisions. CEQA requires governmental authorities, such as Respondents, to fully evaluate potential environmental effects of projects, and to seek feasible means to reduce or avoid significant environmental damage that otherwise could result from their actions. CEQA limits agencies from approving projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives can substantially lessen such impacts. 18. If a project will not result in potentially significant effects on the environment, the government agency may prepare a negative declaration. Mitigated negative declarations are prepared when a project applicant revises a project to eliminate or avoid all significant impacts by incorporating mitigation measures into the project. A proposed mitigated negative declaration circulated for review and comment must describe the project as modified to incorporate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures cannot be deferred and must eliminate or avoid all significant environmental impacts of the project. An agency adopting a mitigated negative declaration must also adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program for the mitigation measures incorporated into the negative declaration. 19. Where substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the lead agency supports a "fair argument" that one or more significant environmental effects could occur as a result of approval and implementation of a project, CEQA requires preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). The primary function of the EIR is to discuss the important environmental consequences of the project, including cumulative effects, and to provide the agency and the general public with mitigation measures and alternatives to the project that would have less serious environmental consequences. A lead agency is required to consult with responsible agencies in determining whether an EIR shall be prepared. Responsible 5

6 agencies are public agencies which propose to carry out or approve a project, for which the lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or negative declaration. 20. Under CEQA, lead agencies, such as Respondents, are required to prepare a complete and legally adequate EIR prior to approving any discretionary project that may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR must fully disclose and adequately analyze the project's potentially significant environmental effects. CEQA also requires lead agencies, such as Respondents, to consider mitigation measures and alternatives to the project, adopt all feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives, determine whether proposed mitigation measures will be effective in avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant environmental impacts, and to make adequate findings, including an adequate statement of overriding consideration for those significant environmental impacts deemed unavoidable. Lead agencies, such as Respondents, may not avoid the duty to prepare an EIR by segmenting a project into several smaller projects. 21. When a government agency adopts a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or an EIR, it must exercise its independent judgment and analysis. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 22. The Project includes a Use Permit for a truck travel plaza known as "Love's Country Store/Arby's," generally located on the east side of Thornton Road, one thousand feet north of State Route 12 in the unincorporated area of northern San Joaquin County known as Flag City. The Project truck stop will include a 7,700-square-foot convenience store and an attached 3,000-square-foot fast food store, a 3,500-square-foot mechanic building, and a 1,200-square-foot storage building. The Project site is 12 acres comprised of multiple parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers , , 19, 20, 27, and 29). Prior to the approval of the Use Permit, a general plan amendment and rezone were processed for the site. General Plan Amendment/Rezone 23. On November 3, 2010, the County prepared an initial study for a general plan amendment to change a five-acre portion of Assessor's Parcel Number from General Agriculture to Commercial Freeway Service and rezone the same five acres from General 6

7 Agriculture, 40-acre minimum to Commercial Freeway Service ("GP ezone"). The initial study for the GPA/Rezone concluded the GPA/Rezone would have no environmental impact. On November 3, 2010, the County adopted a negative declaration for the GPA/Rezone. On March 1, 2011, the County passed a Resolution No. R approving the general plan amendment and Ordinance No amending the zoning map. The County filed a Notice of Deteimination for the GPA/Rezone on April 22, Use Permit 24. Respondents processed the Use Permit (Application No. PA , "Use Permit") after the GPA/Rezone was adopted. Real Parties retained a consultant to prepare a traffic study ("Kimley-Horn Traffic Study") for the Use Permit on January 31, The traffic study identified eleven recommended mitigation measures including, but not limited to, removing eight parking stalls along the south project access, more thoroughly delineating Flying J's two truck driveways, constructing all driveways to accommodate the intended vehicles, and providing pavement striping and signing to contain drive-thru destined vehicles. 25. The County prepared an initial study for the Use Permit ("Initial Study") on April 14, The Initial Study identified traffic impacts as significant and stated that the Department of Public Works requested payment of an unspecified traffic mitigation fee, unspecified Regional Transportation Impact Fee, and improvements to Thornton Road as mitigation measures. The Initial Study concluded the Use Permit would have no environmental impacts. The Initial Study identified the need for the Real Parties in Interest to obtain a pennit from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District ("SJVAPCD") and that the pennit will ensure that the Project's impact on air quality will be less than significant. 26. On June 30, 2010, the SJVAPCD submitted a letter to Respondents in response to Real Parties' Pre-application requesting infonnation on project emissions, nuisance odors, toxic air contaminants, mitigation measures, a discussion of cumulative increases in criteria pollutant or precursor for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in non-attainment. The SJVAPCD letter clearly indicated a need for an air emissions inventory as part of the environmental review of the Use Permit, and required the preparation of an EIR if certain "criteria pollutants," including 7

8 nitrogen oxide ("NOx") emissions, exceeded specified thresholds. The Project requires a permit from the SJVAPCD; therefore, the SJVAPCD is a Responsible Agency. Respondents provided no response to the letter from the SJVAPCD, and never prepared an inventory of air emissions resulting from the Project. 27. On May 19, 2011 the County Planning Commission approved the Use Permit and the MND, without imposing all identified mitigation measures. Petitioner timely appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. 28. On July 6, 2011 Petitioner submitted a memorandum prepared by a qualified air quality expert and based on an air quality study demonstrating the air quality impact analysis in the Initial Study was inadequate and the Project's emissions would clearly exceed the SJVAPCD's thresholds for NOx. Petitioner submitted evidence that mitigation measures were available to mitigate the significant air quality impacts such as "Idle Air", which allows trucks to shut off their engines overnight by providing air and electricity to parked trucks. Respondents declined to adopt the mitigation measure or make findings as to why it was infeasible. 29. On July 6, 2011 Petitioner submitted a technical memorandum prepared by a qualified expert traffic engineer ("Wood Rodgers Traffic Study") which concluded that the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study underestimated the traffic impacts of the Project due to a clearly erroneous trip generation methodology, inaccurate trip distribution, and failure to analyze impacted intersections. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study showed that the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study relied on a trip generation publication which does not contain a trip generation rate for a truck stop, the proposed use for the Project site. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study further showed that more accurate "point of sale" trip generation data was available and the use of that accurate trip generation data results in impacts which are significantly greater than the estimates in the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study, the study used to prepare the MND. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study also showed that the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study had significantly understated the number and impact of truck trips generated by the proposed Project. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study showed the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study failed to consider trips between the Project and existing highway commercial and truck stop uses located south of the Project and failed to evaluate the 8

9 intersection between State Route 12 and North Flag City Boulevard, through which up to eight percent of the Project trips are assigned. The Kimley-Horn Traffic Study did not evaluate intersection operations at Project access intersection with Thornton Road. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study showed the Project would have at least two undisclosed significant impacts on the State Route 12/North Thornton Road/Star Street intersection and the Interstate 5/ramp junctions. The Wood Rodgers Traffic Study also demonstrated a flaw in the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study's cumulative impact analysis for traffic. 30. On July 7, 2011 the Real Parties submitted a peer review of the Kimley-Hom Traffic Study. The peer review contained no independent analysis; rather, in a purely conclusory fashion, it confirmed the conclusions of Kimley Horn Traffic Study. 31. On July 8, 2011, the Real Parties submitted a response memorandum to the Wood Rodgers Traffic Study confiiming the conclusions of the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study. Neither the July 7 peer review nor the July 8 response memorandum provided by Respondents and/or Real Parties addressed the fundamental flaws identified in the Wood Rodgers Traffic Study. 32. On July 11, 2011, Petitioner submitted an additional technical memorandum confiiming the conclusions of the Wood Rodgers Traffic Study - that project trip generation would be much greater, and that traffic impacts would be substantially more significant than Kimley-Horn predicted. 33. On July 12, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Use Peimit and adopted Resolution R denying the appeal. No findings or mitigation monitoring or reporting program were prepared and/or submitted to the Board of Supervisors, and none were adopted in conjunction with this action. Moreover, the MND was never discussed or acted upon. 34. On July 14, 2011, the County filed a Notice of Determination for the Use Permit. PUBLIC BENEFIT 35. This action involves enforcement of an important right affecting public interest. By ensuring that Project impacts are properly evaluated and mitigated, this action will ensure that the roadway network in the Flag City area can continue to function at an acceptable level, and

10 that significant air quality impacts are mitigated. In so doing, Petitioner will confer a substantial benefit on the citizens of San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin County region, and the State of California generally, and therefore, will be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to section of the Code of Civil Procedure. I PARABLE HA 36. Respondents' failure to comply with CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law as set forth in this Petition, constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure and CEQA. (See Code of Civ. Proc., 1085, ; Pub. Resources Code, 21168, ) 37. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. If Real Parties begin construction under the Use Permit, Petitioner will be irreparably harmed because the unexamined and unmitigated environmental impacts would occur before Respondents study them. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Prepare an EIR) 38. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 37, above. 39. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to prepare an EIR for the Project because the record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have significant traffic impacts that were not identified and mitigated to a less than significant level in the MND. 40. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to prepare an EIR for the Project because the record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have significant impacts to air quality that were not evaluated at all, much less mitigated to a less than significant level in the MND. 41. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by adopting the MND when there was substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that one or more significant environmental effects could occur. As such, the Court should issue a 10

11 writ of mandate commanding Respondents to set aside the adoption of the MIND and approval of the Use Permit. 42. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section if it prevails in this action and the Court finds a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Procedural Violations of CEQA) 43. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 42, above. 44. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to conduct any analysis of air quality, and failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures for air quality impacts or explain why the mitigation proposed by Petitioner was not feasible. 45. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to consult with the SJVAPCD, a Responsible Agency, during the environmental review period. CEQA requires the lead agency to send the proposed initial study and negative declaration to all Responsible Agencies. Respondents admitted at the Board of Supervisors' public hearing that they did not send the Initial Study and MIND to the SJVAPCD for review, and that they did not consult with the SJVAPCD. 46. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to respond to comments of the SJVAPCD. 47. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to exercise their independent judgment in adopting the MIND because they failed to make any findings before denying Petitioner's appeal. 48. Respondents unlawfully segmented the Project's environmental review process by considering and adopting the general plan amendments and rezone for the Project separately from the Use Permit. 49. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law. As such, the Court should issue a 11

12 writ of mandate commanding Respondents to set aside the adoption of the MND and approval of the Use Pelinit, 50. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section if it prevails in this action and the Court finds a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate. THI 11 CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Mitigate the Significant Impacts of the Project) 51. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 50, above. 52. Respondents violated CEQA by proposed mitigation measures in the MND which are legally insufficient to ensure that the significant traffic impacts which will result from the Project will be reduced to a less than significant level. 53. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to include the air permit as a condition of approval to the Project, and have, therefore, failed to ensure that all air impacts of the Project will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 54. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program. 55. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law. As such, the Court should issue a writ of mandate commanding Respondents to set aside the adoption of the MND and approval of the Use Permit. 56. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section if it prevails in this action and the Court finds a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate. /// /// 12

13 FO TH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Adopt Adequate Findings) 57. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 56, above. 58. The California Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, 65000) requires the County to adopt findings whenever it acts in acts in a non-legislative capacity. The adoption of a use permit is a non-legislative act. 59. The County violated the California Planning and Zoning Law because it failed to adopt adequate findings when it approved the Use Pennit, 60. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion by adopting the Use Pe unit without adequate findings. 61. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section if it prevails in this action and the Court finds a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays: P YER FOR RELIEF 1. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate: approving the Use Permit; A. Commanding Respondents to immediately set aside their decision B. Commanding Respondents and Real Parties in Interest to immediately suspend all activities in furtherance of the Use Permit, including, but not limited to, issuing grading permits, building permits, certificates of occupancy and/or engaging in any construction in furtherance of the Project Approvals; C. Commanding Respondents and Real Parties in Interest to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and otherwise to comply with CEQA in any subsequent action taken to approve the Project. 13

14 2. For a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining Respondents and Real Parties in Interest from taking any action to carry out the Project Approvals pending the outcome of the trial. 3. That Petitioner be awarded its costs incurred in bringing this action, including reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section , the "common benefit" theory, Government Code section 800, or as otherwise provided by law or in equity. 4. That the Court grants such other and further relief as may be equitable and just. Dated: August 10, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, ABBOTT & KINDE N, LLP Katherine J. Ha Attorneys for Pe i oner PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC 14

15 YE 0 ICATION I, Patrick Deptula, declare as follows: I am the Director of Construction and Design for Pilot Travel Centers LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and arn authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Declaratory Relief and know the contents thereof. I certify that the allegations contained in the Petition and Complaint are true and are of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 10 th day of August, 2011, Knoxville, Tennessee. Patrick Deptula Pilot Travel Centers 'LLC VERIFICATION

16 ABBOTT& KNDERMAN \1,LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JI. August 9, 2011 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County c/o Kenneth W. Blakemore, County Clerk 44 N. San Joaquin Si, Ste. 260 Stockton, CA Re: Notice of intent to File CEQA Petition Love's Travel Stop and Country Store &.Arby's Project Highway 12 Investors - Use Permit No. PA To San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: Please take notice that on or before August 12, 2011, petitioner Pilot Travel Centers LLC will file a petition for writ of mandate in San Joaquin County Superior Court challenging actions of San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Community Development Department related to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PA for the Love's Travel Stop and Country Store & Arby's Project. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC challenges the actions on the ground that, among other things, the County failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code et seq. This notice is given pursuant to Public Resources Code section Very truly yours, KJ1-1/111 herine J. Hart 2100 TWENTY FIRST STREET la SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA T 916, F , blog.aklandlaw.com

17 Case Name: Pilot Travel Centers LLC v. County of San Joaquin, et al San Joaquin County Superior Court CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa Haddix, declare as follows:. I am employed in the County of Sacramento, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is st Street, Sacramento, California 95818,. On this date, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION On the parties stated below, by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed as shown below by the following means of service: Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County c/o Kenneth W. Blakemore, County Clerk 44 N. San Joaquin St., Ste. 260 Stockton, CA BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above on the above-mentioned date. I am familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day. in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person[s] named at the address[es] shown and giving same to a messenger for personal delivery before 5:00 p.m. on the above-mentioned date. X BY FEDEX NEXT DAY AIR: On the above-mentioned date, I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed on the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery following our ordinary business practices. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 9, 2011, at Sacramento, California. Lisa Haddix PROOF OF SERVICE

18 William W. Abbott (State Bar No ) Katherine J. Hart (State Bar No ) Leslie Z. Walker (State Bar No ) ABBOTT & KINDERMANN, LLP st Street Sacramento, California Telephone: (916) Facsimile: (916) wabbott@aklandlaw.com khart@aklandlaw.com lwalker@aklandlaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC a Delaware limited liability company, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Petitioner/Plaintiff, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN Case No. VS. NOTICE TO ATTO ' EY GENE I L OF FILING ACTION PURSU T TO THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, BY AND CALIFO ' IA E RONMENTAL THROUGH THE BOARD OF QUALITY ACT SUPERVISORS, and DOES 1-20, [Public Resources Code Respondents/Defendants, HIGHWAY 12 INVESTORS, LLC, LILVAL PROPERTIES, LTD and DOES 21-40, Real Parties In Interest. TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Petitioner/Plaintiff PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC has filed the above-captioned action raising claims under the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate is attached hereto as Exhibit A. /1/ /1/ 1 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FILING ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

19 1 Dated: August 10, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, 2 ABBOTT & 4 DE LLP JAP AYLA atherine J. Hart Attorneys for Peti loner PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FILING ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT