|
ayes Deily Appellate Report Monday, July 29x2013'
<br />that recent surveys had documented the presence wasrequiredbecausenewinformadonshowedthat
<br />of Frogs at s bridge crossing the Russian River an endangered species was present at the project
<br />bridgeapproximately three miles southeastofthe site. We acknowledge, as respondents argue, that '
<br />Project site. Accordingly, Midi & Game believed Guidelines section 15088.5; subdivision (a)(2)
<br />that Frogs were "likely to exist along. riparian could possibly apply here. The Draft stated that
<br />areas of Ackerman Creek and the Russian River," the Frog's potential occurrence was "low" rather
<br />and recommended that the special status species than "unlikely,' and could thus be construed to
<br />able be amended to list the potential for Frog disclose a ppossible minor impact on the Frog, and
<br />occurrence at the site an "high," not "low." when the likellhood of the Frog's presence ]vas
<br />The table was a}nended m the. ERL A changed from "low" to "high," the EIl2 disclosed
<br />discussion of potEnflally significimf impacts to a "substantial increase in the severity of [[that] .
<br />the Frog was added; and imdgadon measures Impact" (Guidelines, § 15088,5, subd. -(a)(2)),
<br />were proposed that reduced the impacts to But regardless of Guidelines section 150 5,
<br />Insignificance. . The impacts would . arise from subdivision (a)(2), reclrculatlon was. required.
<br />fl oodplain benching, and'cogatrucUmi and mining under Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision
<br />operations that would impact potentially suitable (a) (1), We disagree with respondents'suggestion
<br />upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and that recirculation can be avoided simply because
<br />Ackerman Creels. Mitigation measures included the Draft disclosed some possible impact on the
<br />retention of current riparian vegetation to the Frog. The Draft did not suggest that the Project
<br />extent possible; biological monitoring of the would have any potentially significant impact oil
<br />effects of construction on the Frog, and halting that species, Such an Impact was disclosed for
<br />of construction if impacts to the Frog became reti rst time in the EBt, and was both "new" and
<br />evident "significant' within the meaning of Guidelines
<br />section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1)„ -- v
<br />(b) Review A contrary conclusion would contravene?
<br />Irineyard, supra, 40 CalAth at page 447 and
<br />Masonite argues that the EIR should . have laurel Heights 1'1, supra;:6 CaUth at page 1129,
<br />been re'hculated for public comment because it by depriving the public of an )opportunity to _
<br />contained significant new information regarding comment on mitigation measures for apotendaity
<br />the Frog. Masonite submits ,the' EIR' disclosed significant effect that were first Identified in the
<br />'(a] new significant environmental "impact' on EIR. (See also Silverado Modlaka Recreatiok &
<br />the Frog (Guld'elines;-:§ 15088.5, subd, (VIA park Dist. a County of Orange (2011),,197 ;Cal..
<br />and that the situation here is the same as that in AppAth 282,808 [new information that mated
<br />ffiIty -
<br />Sierra Club u Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. implicates,the public'srightto parflcipatejustifles
<br />App.3d 30 (Sierra Club), where "the presence prolonging the environmental review process];'
<br />on the prbject site of the potentially endangered Save OurPenlnsula Committee a MontereyCdunty'
<br />California tiger salamander was discovered after U ofSuperuisois (2001) 87 Cal,App.4th 99, 131
<br />the closeofkthhe public commeukperlodforthedmtt (recirculation gives the public an opportuni
<br />E1R, , . , Tho new iiifotma�tlbn U'ic.p�r' sence of to evaluate the new information and the validity the tiger salanum&,,Aemons tad Cilia draft of conclusions drawn, from it],) 'The mitigation -
<br />EIR had not addressed a obtentially substantial measures to beamntovedtnminimimihPimm "&a.
<br />to
<br />Respondents maintain that Guidelines section
<br />15088,5, subdivision (a) (2), not (a) (1), a plies
<br />because under subdivision (a) (2), recirculation
<br />is necessary when a disclosure shows that
<br />"Is] substantial increase in the severitv'of an
<br />a
<br />whereas the Draft m Si rra Club apparently did could have been mitigated by aequaltion7of --
<br />notmention Urn liver's (amander (S(erra Club, agricultural conservation .easements om offsite
<br />supra, 222Ca1'(tpRd atpi8fi) "' '- properties, .or payment of "mlieul fee a_tofund �c
<br />ButMadis4 al t.bs(teYargirc5il.nts..This such acquisitions.
<br />case is indxsiwgui» gqtils from Sierra CduU as r' -
<br />described in laurelC�fghtsl7 where recirculation - - +-
<br />75B-225--
<br />
|