|
Monday, July 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9795
<br />as finally approved did in fact reduce the scale of
<br />the Project. Mas-onite's challenges to Alternative
<br />3 aremithout merit.
<br />III. DISPOSITION
<br />The judgment denying the petition for writ
<br />of mandate is reversed, with directions to issue
<br />a writ requiring the County to set aside its
<br />certification of the,EIR, set aside its approvals
<br />of the conditional use permit and reclamation
<br />plat[ for the Project, and prepare and circulate
<br />a supplemental EIR, which includes the EIR's
<br />provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses
<br />the deficiencies we have identified in the EIR
<br />concerning: the feasibility of ACES and in-lieu
<br />fees as mitigation for the Project's conversion of
<br />farmland to nonagricultural use; the discussion of
<br />the
<br />We concur:
<br />McGujness, P.J.
<br />Pollak, J.
<br />Phase I'§I Option A Prior to completion of reclamation,
<br />Granite shall, in coordination with NMFS and Irish &
<br />Game], evaluate the results of the biological feasibility, and
<br />design and construct an alternative reclamation design
<br />Consistent with the extended hydrologic connection concept
<br />discussed above during the 5-year reclamation phase (see
<br />also Chapter 4, ProjectAlternatives). If, during coordination
<br />with NMFS and [Fish & Game], regulatory agency staff
<br />determine that the potential adverse water quality effects
<br />within the pit would outweigh the expected benefits to
<br />salmordd habitat, Granite shalt not implement this midgathe
<br />measure. 11) OPMOMB,.; Granite shaltmainiain a sahnonid
<br />rescue and relocation program in consultation with NMFS
<br />and Mob & Game] uotll it is determined by those agencies
<br />that such a program Is no longer necessary."
<br />' Mining to a greater depth of 65 feet had been contemplated
<br />in the project application and the Drag
<br />Nees; and 1 Sierra Club was disapproved on another ground in Western
<br />for truck States Petroleum Amn. u Superior Court (1996)9Cal.4th559,
<br />appeal to 576, m. 6.
<br />Siggins, J.
<br />Trial Court
<br />Superior Court of Mendocino Comfy
<br />Trial Judge:
<br />Hon. John A. Behnke
<br />Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant
<br />Masonite Corporation
<br />Christian Lucjer Marsh
<br />DOVMY BRAND
<br />David Nester
<br />BRISCO, NESTER & BAZEL
<br />Counsel for Defendant and Respondent:
<br />Mendocino County et al.
<br />Jeanine B. Nadel
<br />Terry Nan 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 & JOHNSON
<br />'Granite advised at the Cmmty board of supervisors hearing
<br />on the Project that, in reap.... P, comments from the
<br />Regional Water Board, it agreed to suspend mining during
<br />the wet season between November and March.
<br />' The Drat stated: "Measure 3.,t.4 1911 ... (T] Redamafion
<br />' This Guideline provides; "'Mitigation' Includes: IT] (a)
<br />Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain
<br />action or parts of an action. - IT (b) Minimizing impacts
<br />. by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
<br />Implementation. ['§] (e) Rectifying the impact by repairing,
<br />rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment
<br />[9[] (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
<br />Preservation and maintenlace.pemdous during the fife of
<br />theaction. [§j] (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing
<br />or providing substitute resources or eov'uonments,"
<br />"A Williamson Act contract obligates the landowner
<br />to maintain the land as agricultural for 30 or more yams,
<br />with resulting tax benefits. ((Gov. Code,l §§ 51240:51244.)
<br />Absent contrary action, each year the contract renews for
<br />an additional year, so that the use restrictions are always in
<br />Place for the next nine to 10 years. (Id., § 51244.)° (Friends
<br />of East Willits Valley u County OfIlfendocom (2002) 101 Cal,
<br />APR4th 191, 195.)
<br />r The amendments' hmted�ocus and theirfailure to account
<br />for the Projectare shown by the discussion oflmpact4.2.1 in
<br />the 2009 Update Draft, which, as revised in the final EIR for
<br />the 2009 update, states: "Overall, as a result of the approved
<br />land use changes, 82.10 acres of agricultural lands (including
<br />agriculture, farm land and forest land) would be converted
<br />m :mother land use designado l.'Of the total vacant land ta
<br />the county (1,881,946.1 acres), the net loss of 82.10 acres of
<br />agricultural lands would be approximately 0.000044 percent
<br />of land within the county. Out of the 82.10 acres of vacant
<br />agricultural lands associated with the proposed land use
<br />changes, only 1.82 acres are prime agricultural land, which
<br />equals only 0.02 percent of potential prime agricultural
<br />land lost with the proposed land use changes.... Tj ...
<br />191 ... Out of the 736,46 vacant acres proposed for land use
<br />changes in the proposed General Plan Update, there are
<br />approximately 0.94 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.68 acres
<br />of Unique Farmland."
<br />a This pavement report is not included in the Draft or MR.
<br />a This statute requires the owner "of any easement in the
<br />nature of a private right -of -way, or of any land to which any
<br />such easement is attached, [to] maintain it in repair." '(Civ.
<br />Code, § 845, solid, (a).) If there are multiple such owners,
<br />they will share the costs pursuant to any agreement they
<br />reach or, in the absence of an agreement, in proportion to
<br />their use of the easement. (Id at subd; (b).) The statute
<br />provides 'for court enforcement 'of that proportionate
<br />Obligation. (lot . at solid, (c).)
<br />75A -74
<br />t
<br />
|