|
9784 Daily Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
<br />Environmental impact report
<br />jor quarry project should not
<br />f qve been approved because it
<br />did not mite ate loss ofprime
<br />farmla ti on property.
<br />Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784
<br />MASONITE CORPORATION,
<br />Petitioner and Appellant,
<br />v.
<br />COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et at.,
<br />Defendants and Respondents;
<br />The County failed to adopt adequate measures
<br />to mitigate significant impacts from truck traffic
<br />along a private road associated with the Project
<br />And finally, that the EIR failed to adequately
<br />evaluate Project alternatives.
<br />We agree with Masonle's contentions
<br />involving: recirculation for comment on possible
<br />mitigation measures that can protect the Frog;
<br />the udeasibility of agricultural conservation
<br />easements and in-lieu fees; discussion of
<br />cumulative Impacts on farmland; end mitigation
<br />measures for truck traffic. Accordingly, wo,
<br />reverse 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 />I. BACKGROUND
<br />Tire Project is a sand and gravel quarry to
<br />GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
<br />be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one
<br />mile north of Ukiah, The site Is bordered on the
<br />y
<br />COMPANY,
<br />north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the
<br />Real Party in Interest and
<br />Russian. River, on the south by property owned
<br />by Ma s0 te, and on the wcat by Kunzlor Ranch
<br />Respondent
<br />Road. Mostat esiteiscultivatedasavineyard,
<br />No. A134896
<br />with an open space portion io tha northeast and a
<br />y,
<br />(Mendocino County Super. Ct
<br />No. SCUK CVPT 1056863)
<br />truck maintenance shop at the northwest comer.
<br />For ty,five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified
<br />California Courts of Appeal
<br />F'nstAppellate District
<br />as' p rune farmland;' but the site has been zoned
<br />for industrial use able e 1982. It is surrounded by
<br />Division Three
<br />Filed July 25, 2013
<br />a lumber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek,
<br />agriculhual 1and to the east of the Russian
<br />,
<br />River, Masonites hidua at . property to the
<br />{
<br />south {described as "vacant" an area maps), and
<br />industrial the West
<br />,
<br />CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION"
<br />.
<br />and commercialPropertiesto
<br />Granite plans to etttrnet3.37 million tons of
<br />..
<br />aggregate from 30,3 acres of the site over a 25-
<br />' Pursuant t6 California Rotes of Court, raise 8.11060)
<br />and 8.1116, Us opinion is certified tar publication with the
<br />year period. The ndr a is designed to operate
<br />yeru romld, six days . a week, 14 hours a day'
<br />'-
<br />1.
<br />exception of parts 11B., If.D „R.E., and n.r
<br />Tito minmg will be done in phases to allow for
<br />,.
<br />noncurrent site reclamation, and five yeas
<br />of reclamation are planned after the mining
<br />;.
<br />Masonite Corporation (Masonite) appeals
<br />from a judgment denying its Petition for writ of
<br />operations are complete. Following reclamation;
<br />the northwestern portion of the property will
<br />be
<br />mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino
<br />availalileforfmture industrial uses, and therestof
<br />County (County) of the IGnrzter Terrace Mine
<br />the site will be "open space (ponds),” �-
<br />Project (Project) to be developed by Granite
<br />Granite .submitted an application to the
<br />Construction Company (Granite; Granite and the
<br />County for approval of a conditional use
<br />County are hereafter referred to collectively as
<br />permit and reclamation plan for the Project in
<br />respondents), and the final enviromnental impact
<br />February 2008. The County determined that
<br />re it (EIR) for its Project, for failure to comply
<br />an onvlronmenWl Impact report was rogviredI
<br />;
<br />with the California Environmental Quality Act
<br />solicited comments from government agencies
<br />. (CEQN (Pub. Resources Cade, § 21000 at seq.).
<br />in.Aplit 2008, and noticed preparation of a draft
<br />impact report 3n October.
<br />{
<br />MasGulte argues the approval process and
<br />environmental (Pratt)
<br />the EIR were deficient in several. ways. The
<br />The Draft was released for public and agency
<br />,
<br />i County was required to recirculate the 'EIR
<br />review in September 2009. on those who
<br />-�
<br />_
<br />because the Project as approved had significantly
<br />conunented critically on the Pratt and din R•oject
<br />t greater impacts than the one originally proposed,
<br />were SCS Engineers on bell of Masonite, -and
<br />�-
<br />Recirculation was also required because the
<br />Russian erkeeper, an organization dedicated
<br />-'
<br />' EIR disclosed a new significant Impact on the
<br />.
<br />toproteationoftheRussianRlverenvieonment
<br />Foothill Yellow-Tailed Frog (Rog) that was not
<br />The rM was released for review on By
<br />-
<br />adequately mitigated, The County erroneously
<br />a, 2010, The EIR Identified two significant and -
<br />i
<br />determined that conservation easements and in-
<br />unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent
<br />,
<br />lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the
<br />loss of prime farmland, and it fle problems that
<br />I loss of prime farmlandxlue to the Project The
<br />would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came
<br />j` EIR did not adequately analyze the Proleces
<br />before the County Planing Commission on May
<br />cumulative impact's, on agricultural resources.
<br />20, 2010. After considering public comments,
<br />75B -221
<br />
|