75A - PH - EIR -1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

9788 Dally Appall that recent surveys had documented the presence of Frogs at abridge crossing the Russian River bridge approximately three miles southeastof the Project site, Accordingly, Fliih &, Game believed that F1Iogs were "likely to exist along. riparian areas of Ackerman Creels and the Russian Rivet," and recommended that the special status species table be amended to list the potential for Frog occurrence at the site as "high ' not "low." The table was amended- 'u}.the EIR.. A discussion of table, significant impacts to the Frog was added; and mitigation measures were proposed that reduced the .'Impacts to insignificance.. The impacts would arise from Qoodplain benching, and'conatrucurm and mining operations that would Impact potentially suitable upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and Ache n an Creels; Mitigation measures Included retention of current riparian vegetation to the extent possible; biological monitoring of the effecIs of construction on the Frog, and halting of construction if impacts to the Frog became evident. (b) Review Masonits argues that the EIR. should have been recirculated for public continent because it contained significant new informatt regarding die Frog. Masonite submit$ the';rTk disclosed "[aj new significant environri ental'bnpact on the Frog (Guidelines, r § 16088.5, in that the situatiou here is the samo as thirst Sn Sierra CIuA u Cilroy Cfly Council (1990) 222 cal. ate Report Monday, July 294013' was required because newinfo emotion ahowed that an endangered species was present at the project site. We acknowledge, as respondents argue, that Guidelines section 15088.5; subdivision (a)(2) could possibly apply here. The Draft stated that the Frogs potential occurrence was' low" rather than `unlikely;" could thus be construed to discl oseappo�ssible minor impact on the .Frog, and s when the rkelihood of the Frogg+s presence )vas changed from "low" to "high," Kle, EIR ci sclosed a "substantial increase In the .severity of [that) Impact' (Guidelines, § 15088.5, solid. '(a) (2)). .. But regardless of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2), recirculation was. required. under Guidelines section 16088.5, =. subdivision (a) (1). We disagree with respondents 'suggestion that recirculation can be avoided simply because the Draft disclosed some possible impact on the . Frog: The Draft did not suggest that the' Project would have any potentially significant impact on ` that species. Such an impact was disclosed for theftrst time in the EIR, mid was both "new" and "significant" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1) `. r '? A contrary conclusion, would contravene J Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at page 447 and Laurel Heights A,, supra, .:6 CaUth at page 1129, by depriving the public of an opportunity to.. - comment on mitigation measures for apotentially, significant effect that were first Identified In the EIR (See also Silaerado Mo4faka.Recreation & .. Park Dist. it County of Orange (2011):197 ;Cal. AppAth 282, 308 [new information that materially, - impficates, the public's rightto parlicipatelustiQes Forty -five acres of the Project site are prime - Larmland, meaning they are "designated by the - Department of Conservation FMMP.[Farmland _ Mapping and Monitoring Pre j`as prime '. farmland; farmland of state de'Importance,.=-.- or,unique farmland." One of the significant unavoidable effects of the project identified -in - - 145 the Draft is the loss of those acres of prime agricultural.. land. Masonite` Contends that.. ? ' - i'tIP. r'PIIM1iV 4YYUti Wt"an il'tta(nvani�n.�'41a1n... . .. Ion .easements an•offsite it of "in -lleu" fees to fund - - 75A -69