Laserfiche WebLink
9794 Dally Appellate Report Mannay, July 29, 201; 1' <br />nddgadon will be effective, ]sere, as In Mader, <br />the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be <br />unenforceable, but sufftcden fly Mile as to'vnpict <br />[the] analysis of (heir viability and effectiveness," <br />(Madera, stepra, 187 Cal,App.4th at p, 1116.) <br />The Mader court "[g]enerally agreafell that <br />CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically <br />detailing mitigation. measures as long as the lead <br />agency commits itself to specific nerformance, <br />here, had not made that commitment, and the <br />midgadou measures were found to be inadequate <br />trader CEQA. '(Id at pp, 1119,.1120; see also <br />Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 280.282 <br />[without performance standards or guidelines <br />mitgadon was Improperly deferredL) <br />The County emphasizes that the mitgation <br />measures were changed only after it discovered <br />that it had no jurisdiction over the road. But <br />while that discovery main obviated the <br />need for a. roadway in .agreement <br />between respondents, it did not justify deletion <br />of criteria for the roadway improvements such <br />as those specified in the Draft. If " "'practical <br />considerations pprohlbit devising [mitigation] <br />measures, early W the planning process ... the <br />agency can commit itself to eventually devising <br />measures that will satisfy specific performance <br />criteria, .. ;" ". (Oakland flerltageAtlianre it City <br />of Oakland (2011) 195 CAAppdth 884, 906.) But <br />this Is not such a case. According to the Draft, <br />Granite had .completed a. study that included a. <br />for die improvements there is no'substandal <br />evidence to support the EIR's finding that the <br />impact of the Project on Kunzler Ranch Road will <br />be mitigated to insignificance. (Vineyard, supra, <br />40 Ca1.4th at p. 427 (scope of review of factual <br />determinationol.) <br />R Discussion ofAlterna4ves . <br />Masonite contends that the EIR did not <br />adequately evaluate offaite or onslte alternatives <br />to the Project. <br />(1) OffsiteAlternatioes <br />The Draft's analysis of ofaske alternatives, <br />incorporated without change in the EIR, <br />considered nine alternative mining sites in the <br />Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an offaite <br />alternative, and rejected the ,other eight as <br />infeasible. Masontte says there was no reason <br />for linritinps consideration of alternative sites to <br />those within die Russian River corridor In the <br />immediate area of Ukiah, and suggests that a <br />county-wide range of alternative sites should have <br />been explored. <br />"CEQA establishes no categorical legal <br />Imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be <br />analyzed in an EIR Each case must be evaluated <br />on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a <br />range of reasonable alternatives to tiie project" <br />(Citizens of Goleta Valley a Board of Supervisors <br />(1990) 52 Ca13d 553, 566, italics omitted.) "Ibere <br />Is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope <br />of the alternatives to be discussed other than the <br />rule of reason," (Guidelines, 915126.6, subd.. <br />(a) ) <br />In February 2009 correspondence, Granite <br />Identified various factors to be considered in <br />selecfinn and <br />as <br />an industrial sees; like Kunzle; would blcely <br />compatible with its surroundings)," and <br />leathetics (e.g. not in the direct view shed <br />the AMM TA,b r A " _ <br />Hie botendnf for sivnAcnnk . <br />to those in the Utdaharea was <br />and unduly restrictive. <br />(2) OnsltaAlternadve <br />Maannite argues that theonsite. alternative <br />evaluated in . the EIR— Alternatve. 3 -was <br />inadequate because it did not offer stibstandal: <br />environmental advantages over the project as <br />proposed.. (See. Citizens of Goleta _Valley a Board <br />of <br />pro " Supra; 52 Cal.3d at p. 5661131R. <br />must consider a, reasons bIs range. of feasible <br />alternatives that "offer'substantlal anvli 'o nmantal <br />advantages' over is project as'propo,S d "]) <br />Masomte reasons that Alternative 3 offered <br />no substanti al anvironmental advanis e,,over <br />the weir and fuse plug o l}y contemplated <br />because its pond -river eonnneA a wnuldh.". <br />3 was <br />and its <br />183 <br />have <br />even <br />the 1 <br />to ca <br />than <br />the <br />that such protection was a i <br />mmental Issue for the Project <br />asOulte asserts that "Alternative -3 d <br />any change In operations or the size <br />a <br />would reduce the mount of aggregate <br />y 10 to 15 perceaL - Thus, Alternative 3 <br />t <br />75A -75 <br />h <br />i <br />