|
Monday, JUly 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report , 9795
<br />Us finally approved did in fact reduce file scale o
<br />the Project. Masonite's challenges to Afternativl
<br />3 are,without merit,
<br />III. DISPOSITION
<br />Tile judgment denying the petition for wri
<br />of mandate is reversed, with directions to issue
<br />a writ requiring Ste County to set aside its
<br />certfdcadon of the,EIR, set aside its approvals
<br />of the conditional use permit and reclamatior
<br />plan for the Project, and prepare and ch-culate
<br />a supplemental FAR, which includes the EiR's
<br />provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses
<br />die deficiencies we have Identified in the EIR
<br />concerning:' the feasibility of ACES and )n -lieu
<br />fees as mitigation for the Project's conversion of
<br />farmland to nonagrfeultui'aluse; the discussion of
<br />Siggins,J,
<br />We conclin
<br />McGuiness, P.J.
<br />Pollak, J.
<br />Trial Court:
<br />Superior Court of Mendocino County
<br />Trial Judge:
<br />Hon, John A. Behalte
<br />Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant:
<br />Masoulte Corporation
<br />'ChristlanLuc)erMarsh
<br />DOWNEY BRAND
<br />David Ivester
<br />BRISCO, IVESTER & BAZEL
<br />Counsel. for Defendant and Respondent:
<br />Mendocino County et al.
<br />Jeanine B. Nadel
<br />TerryNan Gross
<br />OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
<br />Counsel for Real Party in Interest and
<br />Respondent:
<br />Granite Construction Company -
<br />Mark David Harrison
<br />HARRISON TEMBLADOR
<br />HUNGERFORD &JOI3NSON
<br />Grmilte advised at the Cmmty board at supervisors hearing
<br />on the Project that, in response to comments from the
<br />Regional water Board, it agreed to suspend mining during
<br />the wet season between November and March,
<br />rYhe Draft stated: "Measure 3AA: Pld ... (IV ftedanmtiun
<br />Phase Pfd Option A. Prior to completion of recin
<br />Granite shall, in (3- dinaton with NMFS and i
<br />Gavial. evaluate the results of the biological feasibi:
<br />design and construct an alternative reclamation
<br />consi dentwith Ole extended hydrologicconnection
<br />discussed above during the tiycar reclama0on phe
<br />also Chopter4,ProjectAlternatives), Adudngcoorr
<br />with NMFS and (Fish & Game),: regulatory agen,
<br />daPffethic that the potential adverse Water quality
<br />within the pit would outweigh the expected bell
<br />salmonidhabitat, Granitnahal(noChnpiesnent ttilamii
<br />measure, (ui Optima, ;Gtanitgshalhmainlain a so
<br />rescue and retaliation program in.consuhadon with
<br />and Ifed, & Gnme) until It is determined by those s1
<br />that such a uranium iann
<br />'Mining to agreaterdopth of 65feet had been contemplated
<br />In the projectapplicatnn and the Drat.
<br />' Sierra Chlh was disapproved m another ground in Wvstam
<br />SfufasPebalsunhAnn. a Superior Courf(1995) 9'CW.4tr 559,
<br />676, fn. 6. , I.. . -
<br />s This Guideline provides: — Miagation' includes: flfl (a)
<br />Avoiding the Impact altogether by not oddog n cermin
<br />Action or parts of an action, - fill (It). Minhntzing impacts
<br />by Fmitng the degree ar magnitude of the aetan and its
<br />hnplemenw6an. IT] (c) Rectifyahg the Impact by repahing,
<br />rehabilitates, or restoring the impacted envjronmenb
<br />fill (d) Reducing or effethutng the Impact over time by
<br />preservation and maintenance operations during tic life of
<br />theactimil9ll (e) Compensating for the byreulacina
<br />° "A Williamson Act contract obligates (Ile .'lmdowner
<br />to maintain the land as agricultural for 10 or more years,
<br />with resulting tax ben ida, (!Govt Code,l 99 6124651244;)
<br />Absent contrary action; each year Ole contract renews for
<br />UP additional your, so that the use restrictions "a:aiways in
<br />piacefor the next nine to loyears. (1d, §51244.) " - (Friends
<br />Of East Willifs Falley a Comity of Mendocino (2002) Sol Cat,
<br />AppAt h.191, 195.)
<br />r The amendments 6isdtedtceq andt eirfnturg,to noeount
<br />forth e Pralemareatiawnbytbd disgjdan offmpacf4,2,1in
<br />Hie 2(109 Update Daft, which, as revised in the final Ellitor
<br />the 2O09 update, states: "Overall, as a reshdf of the aaoroved
<br />to another
<br />the county
<br />of land within the county. Out of the 8230 acres of vacant
<br />agricultural lands associated with Ole proposed land use
<br />changes, only 1,82 Peres are prime agricultural land, which
<br />equals only 0,02 percent of potential prime agricultural
<br />land lost with the proposed. land. Pon changes.... ('§1...
<br />fill . • . Out at the'736,40 vacant oeres.Protesed for land use
<br />changes in the proposed General Plan Update, there are
<br />approximately 0.944 acres ofFrimeFvrndand and 10,68 acres
<br />of UNqueFmiidand," „
<br />a 1111a pavement reportls not included In the Drafter LIE
<br />1 This statute requires Om owner "of any easement in the
<br />nature of a private tight or or of any land to which any
<br />such easement Is attached Rol maintain It In repair." '(Civ.
<br />Code, § 846, subd. (a),) d there a'ro multiple such owners,
<br />they will share the casts tiumuant to any agreement they
<br />'each o5 in die absence of an agreement, In proportion to
<br />jmir use of Ore'egsalmmt, ((tst at Brad: (b)J Tne statute
<br />Provides for caurtepforcmiwnj of that proportonate
<br />Wigatim, 01 atxuirl (c).). . ,
<br />75B -232
<br />
|