|
9794 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013,';
<br />mitigation will be effective. Here,. as In Madera, (Citizens of Goleta Valley a Board of Supervisors
<br />the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be I ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.566. italics omitted )
<br />µveauera, supra,. tat tai,AppAm at. P. 1116'
<br />The Madera court "[g]enerally agreed] 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 performance
<br />standards," but the county there, like Mendocino
<br />here, had not made that commitment, and the
<br />mitigation measures were found to be inadequate
<br />tinder CEQA '(rd, at pp. 1119'. 1120; see also
<br />Santee, supra, 210 Ca1.App,4th at pp. 280.282
<br />[without performance standards or guidelines
<br />mitigation was Improperly deferred].)
<br />The County emphasizes that the mitigation
<br />measures were changed only after it discovered .
<br />that it had no Jurisdiction over the road, But
<br />while drat discovery may have obviated the
<br />need for a roadway maintenance agreement
<br />between respondents, it did not justify deletion
<br />of criteria for the roadway improvements such
<br />as those specified In die. Draft If "' "practical
<br />considerations pprohlbit devising [mitigation]
<br />measures, early i die planning process ... the
<br />agency can commit Itself to eventually . devising
<br />measures that will satisfy specific performance
<br />criteria.,.,"'" (OaklandHeritareAllianea ft ON
<br />a
<br />for
<br />a 30
<br />a
<br />cvaumce w support me LiKa unnmg that the
<br />impact. of the Project on Kunzler lunch Road will
<br />be mitigated to insignificance. (Ruoyard, supra,
<br />40 Ca1,4th at p, 427 [scope of review of factual
<br />determ inational )
<br />R Discussion of Alternatives
<br />Masairte contends that the EIR did not
<br />adequately evaluate offske or onsite alternatives
<br />to the Project.
<br />(1) OffsiteAlternatiyes
<br />The Dra'Ws analysis of offsite alternatives,
<br />incorporated without change in the EIR,
<br />considered nine alternative mining sites io the
<br />Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an affairs
<br />alternative, and rejected the ,other eight . as
<br />Infeasible. Masonits says there was no reason
<br />for Hunting consideration of alternative sites to
<br />those within the Russian Mver;coiridor in the
<br />immediate area of Ukiah, end suggests that a
<br />wunty-- de 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 inan EIR Each case mustbe. evaluated
<br />.
<br />on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a
<br />range of reasonable alternatives to the project"
<br />the alternatives to be discussed other than the
<br />Is of reason," (Guidelines, §15126.6, solid.
<br />i.7
<br />In February 2009 correspondence, Granite
<br />,ndfied various factors to be considered in
<br />!eating and evaluating alternative Project sites,
<br />ch as 11Rjocation he site must be ln,the Udah
<br />vket area and close to Granite owned PCC'
<br />mcretej & HMA [asphalt] agggtCegateiacilities),"
<br />Jompadbility with surroundiugs (e,k. mining
<br />an industrial area, like Kunzler,'would likely
<br />compatible with its surroundings), and
<br />lesthetics .(e.g. not In the direct view shed
<br />the State Highway)." Proximity to Granite's
<br />as
<br />the
<br />to those in the Uk ah area was
<br />(2) OnsiteAlferna5ve
<br />Masanite argues that the
<br />lusted in , the EIR —Alt
<br />dequatebecause It did not
<br />I over
<br />reasons
<br />Xiay a Board
<br />P. 568 [EIR
<br />Of feasible
<br />vironmental
<br />iropowd,].) -
<br />no substantial environmental advantagge':6v6r
<br />the weir and fuse plug originally contemplated
<br />because its pond -river connection would have
<br />the same environmental effect-„reduction of the
<br />salmonid pit capture impact to insignificance. , But
<br />while both designs could broadly speaking. be -
<br />found to have comparable effects, NMFSbelieved.
<br />that the environmental advantage of Alternative
<br />3 was sufficiently substantial to advocate foc 14
<br />and Its enhanced protection for salmonids caul
<br />reasonably be considered a substantial advantage .
<br />given that such protection was a cenhal
<br />environmental issue for the Project
<br />Masonite asserts that "Alternative -3 did not
<br />offer any change in operations or the size of the
<br />Project, and therefore the .Elles -range of:onsite
<br />alternatives was impermissibly narrow." (( (Sea
<br />83kCaltApp.4th OS9u 1O8G1 88h [EIRashould
<br />have discussed redured development alternative -
<br />even if the alternative would not accomplish all of
<br />the project's objectives].) However, in response
<br />to comments on the EIR from NMFS regarding
<br />anaerobic conditions that could - develop in the -
<br />ponds, Granite agreed to mine to a lesser depth
<br />than planned in the Project application and the Draft (See 'fn. 3, ante.) At the Planning
<br />Corrunission meeting, Granite estimated that this `
<br />change would reduce the amount of aggregate,
<br />mined by 10 to 15 percent Thus, Alternative 3
<br />75B -231 - -
<br />
|