75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

9794 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013.', mitigation will be effective. Here, as in Madera, the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be unenforceable, but sufficientlyvague as to "impact [the] analysis of their viability and effectiveness." (Madera, supra, 167 CaLApp.4th at p, 1116.) The Madera court `[g]enerally agreed] that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to specific performance standards," but the county there, like Mendocino here, had not made that commitment, and the mitigation measures were found to be inadequate under CEQA (Id, at pp. 1119,. 1120; see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp, 280 -282 [without performance standards or guidelines mitigation was improperly deferred].) The County emphasizes that the mitigation measures were changed only after it discovered that it had no jurisdiction over the road. But while that discovery may have obviated the need for a roadway maintenance agreement between respondents, it did not justify deletion of criteria for the roadway improvements such as those specified in the Draft If "' "practical considerations prohibit devising [mitigation] measures, early in the planning process . , . the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria-,"'" (Oakland Heritage Alliance v City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.) But Us is not such a case. According to the Draft, Granite had completed a study that included a "comprehensive plan to rehabilitate and maintain the roadway over a 30 year period." The Draft discussed Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards, and required improvements to the road pursuant to those standards and the Granite study, In the absence of those criteria or others for the improvements, there is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's fording that the impact of the Project on Kunzler Ranch Road will be mitigated to insignificance. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p, 427 [scope of review of factual determinations), F, Discussion of Alternatives Masonite contends that the EIR did not adequately evaluate offsite or ousite alternatives to the Project. (1) Offsite Alternatives The Drafts analysis of offsite alternatives, incorporated without change in the EIR, considered nine alternative mining sites in the Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an offsite alternative, and rejected the other eight as infeasible. - Masonite says there was no reason for ['uniting consideration of alternative sites to those within the Russian River corridor in the immediate area of Ukiah, and suggests that a county-wide range of alternative sites should have been explored, "CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR Each case must be evaluated on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566, italics omitted,) 'There is no ironclad rule governirtg the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason." (Guidelines, § 15126.6, solid. (a).) In February 2009 correspondence, Granite identified various factors to be considered in selecting and evaluating alternative Project sites, such as "[ilocation (the site must be in the Ukiah market area and close to Granite owned PCC, in an industrial area, like Kunzler, would likely be compatible with its surroundings)," and "[alesthetics .(e.g. not in the direct view shed of the State Highway)." Proximity to Granite's local asphalt and concrete processing plants could reasonably be regarded as important considerations because, as Granite, noted, "distance increases the potential for significant environmental impacts from truck transportation of aggregates." We therefore disagree with Masonite that limiting the discussion of offsite alternatives to those in the Ukiah area was unreasonable and unduly restrictive, (2) Onsite Alternative Masonite argues that the onsite alternative evaluated in the EIR— Alternative. 3-was inadequate because it did not offer substantial . environmental advantages over the project as proposed. (See. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p, 566 [EIR must consider a, reasonable range of feasible alternatives that "offer'substandal environmental advantages' over the project as ' proposed "].) Masonite reasons that Alternative 3 offered no substantial environmental advantage over the weir and fuse plug originally contemplated because its pond -river connection would have the same environmental effect:, reduction of the salmonid pit capture impact to insignificance,. But while both designs could broadly speaking be found to have comparable effects, NMFS believed that the environmental advantage of Alternative 3 was sufficiently substantial to advocate for it, and its enhanced protection for salmonids could reasonably be considered a substantial advantage given that such protection was a central environmental issue for the Project Masonite asserts that "Alternative 3 did not offer any change in operations or the size of the Project, and therefore the EIR'srange of onsite alternatives was impermissibly narrow." (See WatsonvillePilotsAssn, o. CityofWatsonville (2010) _ 183 CaLApp,4th 1059, 108 &1088 [EIR should even it me alternative would not accomplish all of the project's objectives].) However, in response to comments on the EIR from NMFS regarding anaerobic conditions that could develop in the ponds, Granite agreed to mine to a lesser depth than planned in the Project application and the Draft. (See in. 3, ante.) At the Planning Commission meeting, Granite . estimated that this change would reduce the amount of aggregate mined by 10 to 15 percent Thus, Alternative 3 - 75A -73