|
Monday, Jury 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9795
<br />as finally approved did in fact reduce the scale o
<br />die Project. Masonite's challenges to Alternat(vs
<br />3 are.without metiL
<br />M. DISPOSITION
<br />The judgment denying the petition for wri
<br />of mandate Is reversed, With directions to issust
<br />a writ requiring die County to set aside its
<br />certiflcattoli of the,ElR, set aside its. approvals
<br />of the cWiditional use permit an d reclamatior
<br />plan for flip Project, and prepare and chreulmt
<br />a supplemental EIR, which includes the EIR's
<br />Provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses
<br />the deficiencies we have Identiiled In the EIR
<br />concerning:' the feasibility of ACES and in -lieu
<br />fees as mitigation for the Projects conversion of
<br />farmland to nonagricultural use; the discussion of
<br />Biggins, J,
<br />We concur:
<br />McGuiness, RJ,
<br />Pollak, J.
<br />Trial Court:
<br />Superior Court of Mendocino County
<br />Trial Judge:
<br />Hon, John A. Behnke
<br />Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant:.
<br />Masombe Corporation
<br />'Christian. Lucier Marsh
<br />DOWNEY BRAND
<br />David Ivester
<br />BRISCO, NES'T'ER & BAZEL
<br />Counsel fur Defendant and Respondent:
<br />Mendocino County et el.
<br />Jeanine B. Nadel
<br />Terry Nan Gross
<br />OFFICE OFTT-LE COUNTTCOUNSEL
<br />Counsel for Real Party in Interest and
<br />Respondent
<br />.Granite Construction Company -
<br />Mark David Harrison
<br />HARRISONTEMBLADOR
<br />HUNGERFORD &JOHNSON
<br />r Granite advised at the County board at supervisors hearing
<br />on the Project tat, in reap.... to romman[s from the
<br />Regional Water Board, it agreed to suspend. mfnhng during
<br />the wet season between November and March.
<br />° the Draft stated: 'Measure 3.4.4: pp1... [11 Reclona0on
<br />Phase (1) Option A. Prior to completion of reclamation,
<br />Granite shall, In coordination with NMFS and (Fish &
<br />Game] , evaluate the results of the biological feasibility, and
<br />design and construct an alternative reclamation design
<br />consistent with the. extended hydrologicconnecnon concept
<br />discussed above during the 5ycar reclamation phase (see
<br />also Chapter 4, PrafeotAltenm9ves). If, daing,cordlnanoa
<br />With NNIn and (Fish & Game), regtdamry, agency staff
<br />determine that the potential adverse water quality effects
<br />within the pit would outweigh due expected benefits to
<br />salmonid ha blta4 Granite shall no t implemen t this mitigation
<br />measure, (1) Opdmn S,,;•Gmabaa yhall,maintain asahnodid
<br />rescue sad relocation program in. consultation with N1,1M
<br />and Mail & Gamel until it is determined by Bose mention, that such a program le nolaneer necessary"
<br />'Mining to agreaterdepth of 65 feet had been contemplated
<br />in the projectapplieanon tad tile noun.
<br />' Sloan Chu, Was disapproved on another ground In RSstarn
<br />States Petwlea nAmn. a Superior Court (1095) 9 Cd,4th 559,
<br />576, fa, 6. ,.. ,,
<br />' TI s Guideline provides: '^M(tlgatlon' Includes: i'J] (a)
<br />Avoiding the Impact altogether by not taking a certain
<br />action or parts of an notion. III (b) Minimising impacts
<br />by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
<br />° "A Williamson Act contract obligates tlie' landowner
<br />I. maintain the land as agricultural for 10 or morn years,
<br />with resuidng tax benefits, (IGov, Code,l §§ 5124451244:)
<br />Absent conhnry action, each year the eonhnct renewe for
<br />on additionalyenr, no that the use restrictions as always in
<br />place for the next nine to loyears. (ld., §51244,)° (Friends
<br />of East Wlllm Palley it Cmmty afAfen fedna (2002) 101 Cal, .
<br />App.4th 191,195.)
<br />r Tice amentlmenfs' omited�fncup and hichtidl'urgto account
<br />tarthe Rojemare shownbv lhedidcusafbn of brinAnf d.J.a u"
<br />lend use clu
<br />agriculture,
<br />to another I
<br />the county
<br />vacant hand in
<br />92.10 acres of
<br />of land within the county, Out of the 82.10 acres otvacant
<br />agricultural lands associated with the proposed land use
<br />changes, only 1,82 acres are prime agricultural land, which
<br />equals Only 0.02 percent of potential .prime agricnhuml
<br />Ind lost with the proposed land use changes..., III,
<br />I'll ... pat of the''1446 Vacant acres proposed for land use
<br />changes in the proposed Central plan. Update, there era
<br />approximately 0.94 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.68 acres
<br />of Unique Farmland." '
<br />° ltiispave dent reportis not hncluded in (he`. Draft or LrIPw
<br />u This statute
<br />such easement is attached
<br />Corte, If 845, solid, (a),) If
<br />hey wig share the costs
<br />'each on in die absence e.
<br />heir use of dvy easement.
<br />srovidee 'for cou4 tedul
<br />ibilgatiart. (Gf atsu,l(d. (c)
<br />of say casement tit the
<br />f any land to which any
<br />italn It in repair." '(Ciu,
<br />muddple . such owners,
<br />to any agreement they
<br />imem,,`in proportion to
<br />eng; of flint proportionate
<br />75A -76
<br />
|