|
9784 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 28, 2013 .
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
<br />The County failed to adopt adequate measures
<br />to mitigate sigaificant impacts from truck traffic -
<br />along a private road associated with the Project.
<br />Environmental impact report
<br />And finally, that the EIR failed to adequately
<br />:fr quarry project should plot
<br />evaluate Project alternatives.
<br />hgve been appproved because it
<br />did not mitigate loss ofprime
<br />We agree with Masomte's contentions
<br />involvng: recrculation for comment on possible .
<br />farmland§
<br />on proferN
<br />mitigation measures that can protect the Frog;
<br />the hafeasiblity of agricultural conservation
<br />-
<br />easements and in -lieu fees; discussion - of
<br />cumulative Impacts on f tanland; and mitigation
<br />Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784
<br />measures for truck traffic, Accordingly, we:
<br />reversa the judgment denying the petition for
<br />writ of mandate, with directions that the County
<br />set aside its certification of the EIR, and prepare
<br />and circulate a supplemental EIR that addresses
<br />MASONITECORPORATION,
<br />the errors weldentity.
<br />Petitioner and Appellant,
<br />I. BACKGROUND
<br />V.
<br />COUNTY OF MENDOCINO at al.,
<br />Defendants and Respondents;
<br />The Project is a sand and gravel quarry to
<br />,
<br />GRANITE CONSPRUCT'ION
<br />be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one
<br />mile north of Ukiah, The site is bordered on the
<br />i
<br />COMPANY,
<br />north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the
<br />Real Party in Interest and
<br />Respondent,
<br />Russian River, on the south by property owned
<br />by Masonite, end on the west by Knnzler Ranell
<br />Road. Most of the site is' culdvated as a vineyard,
<br />No, A134896
<br />with an opeas ace poMan in the northeast and a
<br />,
<br />(Mendocino County Super. Ct.
<br />No. SCUK CVPT 1056883)
<br />truck maintenance shop at the northwest corner.
<br />Forty-five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified
<br />',
<br />California courts of Appeal
<br />as' prime farmland," but fire site has been zoned
<br />for use 1982, it is surrounded by
<br />First Appellate District
<br />Division Three
<br />industrial since
<br />aglnamber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek,
<br />,
<br />i
<br />Fded July25, 2tl13
<br />to
<br />tproperty
<br />Riverul Masomante's industrial to the
<br />south. {described as "vacant" on area maps), and
<br />i
<br />CERTIFIEDFORPARTiALPUBLICATION*
<br />Industrial and commercial properties to the west
<br />Granite plans to extract 3,37 million tons Of
<br />-
<br />aggregate from 30.3 acres of the site over 25-
<br />' Pursuant to California Rues of Court, :rules 8.1105(b)
<br />and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publiczfion witli the
<br />year perlod, The mine Is designed to operate
<br />yea raund, six days a week, 14 hours a days
<br />'
<br />1
<br />exception of parts Q.B., ir.rl , tt.E., and 11Y
<br />The mining will be done in phases to allow for
<br />,
<br />concurrent site reclamation, and five years
<br />j
<br />of reclamation are planned after the mining
<br />Masomte Corporation (Masonite) appeals
<br />operations are complete; Following reclamation;
<br />r?
<br />from a judgment denying its petition for writ of
<br />the northwestern portion of the property will be
<br />mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino
<br />try ailabl eforfuturemdustrial uses, aadtherestof
<br />County (County) of die Kunzler Terrace Mine
<br />tha.site wdl be "open apace (ponds).." -,
<br />Projeat (Project) to be developed by Granite
<br />Construction Company (Granite; Granite and the
<br />Gran'to .submitted an appli cation
<br />County for approval of a conditional
<br />to the
<br />use
<br />County are hereafter referred to colleedvely as
<br />permit and red atlon plan for the Project in
<br />re spaadents),andthefm ale nvI onmantalimPact
<br />February 2008. The County determined that
<br />report (EIR) for Its Project, far failure to comply
<br />an anvkanmennll impact report was required,
<br />with the Cabfornia EnvkoomellW duality Act
<br />solicited comments from government eguncles
<br />(CE 4A) (Pub. Rasourcas Code, § 21000 at seq.),
<br />in..Aprit 2008, and noticed preparation of a dratt
<br />Masonfte argues the approval process and
<br />the EIIi were deficient in several wava. 7lie
<br />environl imp act Yep art (Draft) in October,
<br />menta
<br />'Inhe. Draft was released for public and agency
<br />t
<br />..
<br />t County was required to recirculate the EIR
<br />because the Project as approved had significantly
<br />review in September 2000. Among those who
<br />commented critically on the Draft and the Project
<br />greater impacts §Ian the fine originally proposed.
<br />were SCS Engineers on behalf of Masorete, and
<br />Recircula'on was also required because the
<br />Russian Riverkeeper, an organization dedicated
<br />' EIR disclosed a new significant impact. on the
<br />Tailed Frog (Frog) that was not
<br />to protection of the Russian RwAr environment
<br />The EIR was released for review on May
<br />Foothill YaRow
<br />adequately mitigated, The County erroneously
<br />3, 2010, The EIR identified two significant and
<br />deterramed that conservation easements and in-
<br />unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent
<br />'l
<br />lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the
<br />loss of prune farmland, and traffic problems that
<br />loss of prime farmland.due to the Project. The
<br />would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came
<br />�`. EIR did not adequately analyze the Project's
<br />before the County Planning Commission on May
<br />cumulative impacts or, agricultural resources.
<br />20, 2010, After considering public comments,
<br />i
<br />75A -65
<br />
|