75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

9784 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW I " The Comity failed to adopt adequate measures to mitigate significant impacts from truck traffic along a private road associated with the Project Environmental impact report And &Wally that the EIR failed to adequately for quarry project should not evaluate Project alternatives. have been approved because it We agree with Masonite's contentions did not mitigate loss of prime involving: recirculation for comment on possible" farmland on property, mitigation measures that can protect the Frog; the infeasibility of agricultural conservation easements and in -lieu fees; discussion of cumulative impacts on farmland; and mitigation Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784 measures for truck traffic. Accordingly, we, reverse the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, with directions that the County set aside its certification of the EIR, and prepare ' and circulate a supplemental EIR that addresses MASONITE CORPORATION, the errors we identify. Petitioner and Appellant, I. BACKGROUND V. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et al., Defendants and Respondents; The Project is a sand and gravel quarry to be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one GRANITE CONSTRUCTION mile north of Ukiah. The site is bordered on the COMPANY, north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the Real Party in Interest and Russian River, on the south by property owned by Masonite, and on the west by Kunzler Ranch Respondent. Road. Most of the site is cultivated as a vineyard, i No. A134896 with an open space portion in the northeast and a (Mendocino County Super. Ct. truck maintenance shop at the northwest corner. Forty-five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified No. SCUK CVPT 1056883) California Courts of Appeal as "prime farmland' but the site has been zoned First Appellate District for industrial use since 1982. It is surrounded by lumber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek, Division Three Filed July 25, 2013 a agricultural land to the east of the Russian River, Masonites industrial property to the south (described as "vacant" on area maps), and CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* industrial and commercial properties to the west ' Granite plans to extract 3.37 trillion tons of aggregate from 30.3 acres of the site over a 25. ' Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 @) and 8.1110, this opinlm is cerntted for publication with the year period. The mine is designed to operate year- round, six days a week, 14 hours a day.' exception of parts H.B., Q.D., BE,, and IIB The mining will be done in phases to allow for concurrent site reclamation, and five years i of reclamation are planned after the mining Masonite Corporation ( Masonite) appeals operations are complete. Following reclamation, from a judgment denying its petition for writ of the northwestern portion of the property will be mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino available for future industrial uses, and the rest of County (County) of the Ktwler Terrace Mine the site will be "open space (ponds)." '- Project (Project) to be developed by Granite Granite submitted an application to the Construction Company (Granite•, Granite and the County for approval of a conditional use County are hereafter referred to collectively as permit and reclamation plan for the Project in . respondents), and the final environmental impact February 2008. The County determined that report (EIR) for its Project, for failure to comply an environmental impact report was required, with the California Environmental Quality Act solicited comments from government agencies (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). in April 2008, and noticed preparation of a draft Masonite argues the approval process and environmental impact report (Draft) in October. the EIR were deficient in several ways. The The Draft was released for public and agency County was required to recirculate the EIR review in September 2009. Among those who because the Project as approved had significantly commented critically on the Draft and the Project greater impacts than the one originally proposed. were SCS Engineers on behalf of Masonite, and Recirculation was also required because the Russian Riverkeeper, an organization dedicated ' EIR disclosed a new significant impact on the to protection of the Russian River environment ' Foothill Yellow - Tailed Frog (Frog) that was not The EIR was released for review on May adequately mitigated. The County erroneously 3, 2010, . The EIR identified two significant and - determined that conservation easements and in- unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent 4 lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the loss of prime farmland, and traffic problems that + i; loss of prime farmland "due to the Project. The would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came ' EIR did not adequately analyze the Project's before the County Planning Commission on May i. cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. 20, 2010. After considering public comments, i �1 4�'uv1Y 75A -63