CSPA
Russian River Watershed
Gauer Ranch Project Closing Statement to SWRCB
July 1995
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
In the Matter of Water Right Applications for the Gauer Ranch Project of the Huntington Beach Company, in the Russian River Watershed, in Sonoma County.
Water Right Applications 29703, 29704, 29705, 29706, 29707, 29708, and 29811.
Sausal Creek, Miller Creek, and unnamed tributaries, tributaries to Russian River thence Pacific Ocean.
Hearing of May 23, 1995 and May 24, 1995
CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE,
MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, AND TROUT UNLIMITED CONCERNING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE STATE WATER BOARD FOR GAUER RANCH APPROPRIATE WATER RIGHTS
The following is the closing statement for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Mendocino Environmental Center and Trout Unlimited regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the State Water Board for the Gauer Ranch appropriate water rights:
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for the following reasons:
On June 23, 1995, Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. (Kendall-Jackson) acquired title to Gauer Ranch. Kendall-Jackson has the legal right and ability to develop 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or for other development purposes on the property. The development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes was not disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR. No evidence and testimony was submitted and presented by the Huntington Beach Company (HBC) or by Kendall-Jackson (new applicant) at the hearing of May 23 and May 24, 1995 regarding the cumulative impacts to the environment from the development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the State Water Board did not disclose and evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environment from the development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to the Change of Character of Undeveloped or Underutilized Lands From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
1. Under Land Use Impact the Draft EIR stated the following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will have a minor contribution to the cumulative change in character of undeveloped and underutilized lands. The project proposes to utilize undeveloped lands for agricultural purposes. The project's contribution to this cumulative impact is less than significant; however, a net loss of undeveloped and underutilized lands will occur." No mitigation was required by the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-6.
The Draft EIR failed to disclose that Kendall-Jackson was in the process of purchasing the Gauer Ranch. The Draft EIR failed to disclose that Kendall-Jackson has the ability and legal right to develop 57 parcels on the ranch for home sites and/or other development purposes. The Draft EIR stated that the project proposes to utilize undeveloped lands only for agricultural purposes.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts in the change in character of the undeveloped and underutilized lands resulting from the development of home sites and/or other development purposes on the ranch.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Soils From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
2. Under Geology and Soils the Draft EIR stated as following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project would result in only a slight change in ground surface relief as a result of minimal grading related to project construction. This is a less-than-significant impact." No mitigation was required by the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-3.
The proposed project was described in the Draft EIR as being for the development of agricultural vineyard purposes with a less than significant impact, but the Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the development of 57 home sites and/or other development purposes, and the potential cumulative impacts to soils from all proposed activities.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impact to soils from the development of the 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
3. Under Geology and Soils the Draft EIR stated as following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will not contribute to the cumulative conversion of productive soils to nonresource uses because of the agriculture-related activities that would take place on the property. Therefore, this impact is less-than-significant and would not result in a net loss of productive soils." No mitigation was required in the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-4.
Most certainly productive soils conversion to nonresource uses will occur from the development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to productive soils conversion to nonresource uses as a result of the development of home sites on 57 parcels of land and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
4. Under Vegetation and Wildlife the Draft EIR stated the following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will have a minor contribution to cumulative change in natural vegetation cover. The project's contribution to this cumulative impact is less than significant." No mitigation was required in the Draft EIR.
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will have a minor contribution to the reduction, disruption, or destruction of vegetation and wildlife habitat. The project's contribution to this cumulative impact is less than significant." No mitigation was required in the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at pages 12-4 and 12-5.
The Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat from the development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat from the development of 57 parcels of land for home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts from Increased Traffic Congestion From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
5. Under Transportation the Draft EIR stated the following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will add only slightly to the cumulative traffic impacts in the area. This impact is less than significant." No mitigation was required in the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-7.
With respect to increased traffic congestion the Draft EIR only evaluated the impacts resulting from the development of the vineyard, but did not disclose and evaluate the cumulative impact resulting from the development of 57 home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts from increased traffic congestion resulting from the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Growth Inducing Impacts From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
6. The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative growth inducing impacts from the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at pages 12-1 to 12-8.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Water Quality and Anadromous Fishery Habitat From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
7. The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to water quality and fishery habitat in Sausal Creek and its tributaries as a result of the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at pages 12-1 to 12-8.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
8. Under Air Quality the Draft EIR stated the following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project will contribute to only a slight increase in the cumulative impact on air quality. However, additional temporary emissions may result from construction of the proposed facilities." No mitigation was required by the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-7.
The development of 57 parcels of land has the potential to cause cumulative impacts to air quality.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to air quality from the development of the 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Noise Levels From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
9. Under Increased Noise Levels the Draft EIR stated the following:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed project would contribute to only a slight increase in noise-related impacts. These increases in noise levels would be temporary and would result from construction-related activities." No mitigation was required in the Draft EIR.
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-8.
The development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes has the potential to increase noise levels. The Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the increases to noise levels from the development of the 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts and increases to noise levels from the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Disclose and Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Water Resources From the Development of 57 Parcels of Land to Home Sites and/or Other Development Purposes
10. The Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the water resources which will be used for domestic and other purposes in the development of the 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes. None of the water right applications filed by the applicant describe the use of water for the development of the 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR is deficient for failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to water resources from the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
The Draft EIR Failed to Evaluate the Cumulative Impacts to Steelhead Trout, Coho Salmon and Their Habitat in Sausal Creek From the Proposed Project, Existing Projects, and Future Projects
11. We refer the State Water Board and its staff to: Cumulative Impacts; Surface Water, Groundwater, and Fisheries Resources at page 12-2. This section of the Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the present condition of steelhead trout and coho salmon in the Russian River watershed. In fact steelhead trout and coho salmon are not even mentioned in this section of the Draft EIR, nor were they evaluated in Draft EIR for potential cumulative impacts from this project, existing projects and future projects.
CEQA and its Guidelines requires that cumulative impacts from the proposed project, existing projects and future projects are evaluated when significant.
What is the proposed project? The proposed project is the project described in the Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Right Application Nos. 29703, 29704, 29705, 29706, 29707, 29708, and 29811 as shown in the hearing notice.
What are the existing projects? There are about 1,404 permitted water rights on the Russian River watershed. This does not include riparian rights, pre-1914 rights or illegal diversions.
What are the future projects? There are about 86 water right applications pending before the State Water Board. Another future project is the development of 57 parcels of land on Gauer Ranch for home sites and/or other development purposes.
Steelhead trout and coho salmon populations and habitat have declined significantly in the Russian River watershed. Petitions have been filed to list coho salmon and steelhead under the protection of the federal ESA. The Cumulative Impact Section of the Draft EIR discusses flows in the main stem of the Russian River, but did not discuss and evaluate flows in tributaries of the Russian River and the relationship to cumulative impacts from water projects to steelhead trout and coho salmon habitat on tributaries. There is significant evidence that steelhead trout and coho salmon have declined significantly in tributaries to the Russian River. Consequently, evaluating cumulative impacts to steelhead and coho salmon in Sausal Creek is significant because Sausal Creek may be one of the few remaining tributaries in the Russian River watershed which sustains historic runs of steelhead not affected by water development.
HBC and Kendall Jackson have recommended that 15 cfs is bypassed to protect steelhead and coho salmon in Sausal Creek. HBC and Kendall-Jackson did not make any recommendations to bypass water from Miller Creek even though steelhead trout and coho salmon have the potential to migrate into the stream when there is water flowing down the stream. The Department of Fish and Game has recommended a bypass flow of 20 cfs in Sausal Creek to keep fish in good condition at all times as a result of the proposed project. Consequently, based on the recommendation of a 15 cfs bypass by HBC, and evaluating the condition of steelhead and coho salmon in other tributaries in the Russian River Watershed, including the recommendation of a bypass flow of 20 cfs by the Department of Fish and Game, there is a potential for a significant cumulative impact to these fish species in Sausal Creek as a result of project as proposed by HBC & K-J.
The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for:
Consequently, the Draft EIR was grossly deficient for failing to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to steelhead and coho salmon from the proposed project, existing projects, and future projects.
The Draft EIR is Grossly Deficient for Failing to Disclose and Evaluate Cumulative Impacts to the Environment as Required by the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines
12. As shown above (pages 2 to 8) we have provided the State Water Board with numerous deficiencies in the Draft EIR. Those deficiencies is the failure of the Draft EIR to disclose and evaluate cumulative impacts from: (1) change of character of undeveloped or under utilized lands; (2) soils; (3) vegetation and wildlife; (4) increased traffic congestion; (5) growth inducing impacts; (6) water quality; (7) air quality; (8) noise levels; (9) water; and (10) steelhead trout and coho salmon.
The duty to evaluate adverse environmental impacts does not depend upon a showing by the public [CSPA-MEC-TU], or even other public agencies, that there will be impacts. The project proponent [HBC-KJ] must present substantial evidence from which a reasoned conclusion may be reached that there will not be significant adverse impacts. We reference Laurel Heights, supra 47 Cal 3d. at 405-406. The duty to provide evidence rests with the applicant [HBC-KJ] and the agency [SWRCB], and not with the public [CSPA-MEC-TU]. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 304-305 Section 21002, Section 21080.5(d)(2)(l).
The burden is not shifted at the administrative level to those [CSPA-MEC-TU] challenging a project to present evidence of adverse impacts before the agency [SWRCB] can be required to assess whether such impacts exists. The failure to assemble adequate information for a meaningfully environmental review cannot be used to justify a finding of no significant impact. We reference Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311-312; Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 CalApp.ed. 180, 197 and Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.ed at 405. Otherwise, the agency [SWRCB] would be allowed to avoid an attack on the adequacy of the information simply by not requiring the submission of such information. We reference Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.ed at 723.
As stated beforehand, there are significant cumulative impacts which were not disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR resulting from the proposed project, existing projects, and future projects. The legal reasons why the Draft EIR is grossly deficient are as follows:
A draft EIR must discuss "cumulative impacts" when they are significant. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15130, subd. (a).) These are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15355; see also section 21083, subd. (b).) "Individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15355, subd. (a).) "The cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to the closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15355, subd. (b).)
A legally adequate "cumulative impacts analysis" thus is an analysis of a particular project viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. Such an analysis "assess cumulative damage as a whole greater than the sum of its parts." (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1st Dist. 1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604,625 [216 Cal,Rptr. 502].) Such an analysis is necessary because [t]he full environmental impact of a proposed.... action cannot be gauged in a vacuum." (Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (2d Dist. 1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408 [15] Cal.Rptr. 866), quoting Akers v. Resor (W.D. Tenn. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1355, 1360.) " [A]n agency may not....[treat] a project as an isolated "single shot' venture in the face of persuasive evidence that it is but one of several substantially similar operations....To ignore the prospective cumulative harm under such circumstances could be to risk ecological disaster." (Whitman, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at 408 [151] Cal.Rptr. 866], quoting Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway (2d Cir. 1975) 524 F.2d 79,88.)
Unless cumulative impacts are analyzed, which they were not in the Draft EIR for Gauer Ranch Project, agencies tend to commit resources to a course of action before understanding its long-term impacts. Thus, a proper cumulative impact analysis must be prepared "before a project gains irreversible momentum." (City of Antioch v. City Council (1st Dist. 1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1333 [232 Cal. Rptr. 507], citing Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 [118 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
One court has described as follows the danger of approving projects without first preparing adequate cumulative impact analyses:
"The purpose of this requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no other existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the project upon the environment." (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2d Dist. 1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306 [223 Cal.Rptr. 18].)
Like every aspect of CEQA, "[t]he requirement for a cumulative impact analysis must be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory and regulatory language." (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Board of Supervisors (2d Dist. 1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431-432 [222 Cal.Rptr. 247], citing Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [104 Cal.Rptr. 761].) In Citizens to Preserve the Ojai, the Court explained:
"[I]t is vitally important that an EIR avoid minimizing the cumulative impacts. Rather, it must reflect a conscientious effort to provide public agencies and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed information about them. A cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. An inadequate cumulative impact analysis does not demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the governmental decisionmaker has in fact fully analyzed and considered the environmental consequences of its action." (176 Cal.App.3d at 431 [222 Cal.rptr.247]. quoting San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco ("SFRG 1") (1st Dist. 1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61,79[198 Cal.Rptr. 634].)
"Past, present, and reasonably future projects" include not only projects under construction, but also related "unapproved project currently under environmental review". Some project may be "reasonably foreseeable" even though they may never be built and approved by the State Water Board. As we have shown the Draft EIR did not disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts to the environment from the proposed project, existing projects (1404 permitted water right permits/licenses) and future projects such as the 86 pending water right applications, including the development of the 57 parcels of land on the Gauer Ranch. What matters is whether they [projects] appear foreseeable at the time of EIR preparation. We reference CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. (City of Antioch v. City Council (1st Dist. 1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1333 [232 Cal. Rptr. 507].); see also Mountain Lion Coalition v. California Fish and Game Commission (1st Dist. 1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1048, 1050 [263 Cal.Rptr. 104].)
By far the most important recent case on cumulative impacts is Kings County Farm Bureau et al. v. City of Hanford (5th Dist. 1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692; 222 Cal. App. 3d 516a [270 Cal. Rptr. 650] The Court of Appeal held inadequate the cumulative impact analysis prepared for an EIR for a proposed coal-fired cogeneration power plant. The EIR's approach to assessing the significance of cumulative air quality impacts was based on a misunderstanding of the applicable legal requirements.
Jones and Stokes, who prepared the Draft EIR for the State Water Board, the lead agency under CEQA, did not follow the law and avoided disclosing and evaluating the cumulative impacts to the environment resulting from: (1) change of character of undeveloped or under utilized lands; (2) soils; (3) vegetation and wildlife; (4) increased traffic congestion; (5) growth inducing impacts; (6) water quality; (7) air quality; (8) noise levels; (9) water; and (10) steelhead trout and coho salmon.
Consequently a "new Draft EIR" should be prepared and recirculated to the public.
If citizens believe that an EIR should be recirculated, they must inform the agency of their opinion in this regard. If they wait until litigation has commenced to raise the issue, the court will likely refuse to consider it, on the grounds that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedy. (Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1st Dist. 1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886-896 [236 Cal.Rptr. 794].)
This closing statement regarding the inadequacy of the Draft EIR exhaust the administrative remedy by CSPA, MEC and TU.
In Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (6th Dist. 1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30 [271 Cal.Rptr. 393].), the Court did not deal with recirculation per se; but the case is nevertheless relevant to the subject matter, because the petitioners sought the preparation of a new EIR before the first had been certified.
In conclusion, The Draft EIR is grossly deficient for failing to disclose and evaluate cumulative impacts to the environment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines
Another Glaring Deficiency in the Draft EIR
13. Under Surface Water, Groundwater, and Fisheries Resources in the Cumulative Impact Section of the Draft EIR there is a glaring deficiency. The Draft EIR stated as follows:
"Incremental Project Contribution. The proposed Gauer Ranch project will divert up to 3,033 acre-feet of water annually at a maximum direct diversion rate of 6.8 cfs from the Sausal Creek watershed, which is tributary to the Russian River."
We reference Draft Gauer Ranch Appropriative Water Rights Environmental Impact Report; September 22, 1993; Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts; at page 12-2.
The Draft EIR evaluated a different project. HBC at the hearing, requested a winter diversion of 20 cfs and a year round diversion of 1.8 cfs from springs, for a total of 1,500 acre-feet annually as opposed to what was evaluated in the Draft EIR under cumulative impacts. That coupled with the failure of the Draft EIR to disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts from the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other proposed purposes, renders the Draft EIR grossly deficient.
Kendall-Jackson, The New Applicant, Concludes That New Studies Are Necessary and That The Draft EIR Should Be Recirculated
14. On July 10, 1995, David R.E. Aladjem and Janet K. Goldsmith, attorneys, on behalf of Kendall-Jackson submitted to the State Water Board the closing brief regarding the hearing and applicant's water right applications for the Gauer Ranch Project. The deadline date for submitting closing statements was July 10, 1995.
At the hearing, the hearing officer announced that the closing statement deadline date was July 10, 1995, and that closing statements for the Draft EIR was July 24, 1995. In their closing brief of July 10, 1995, the attorneys for the new applicant, Kendall-Jackson, provided the State Water Board and its staff with their conclusions concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The attorneys disclosed the following:
" On June 23, 1995, Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. ("Kendall-Jackson") acquired title to Gauer Ranch. As the new owner of the property, Kendall-Jackson concluded that it would appreciate the opportunity to consider how best to address the issues raised during the hearing. Accordingly, by letter dated June 27, 1995 ( a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), Kendall-Jackson proposed suspending the current proceedings so as to allow further study of Sausal Creek.Kendall-Jackson also proposed that the Draft EIR be recirculated so as to incorporate the results of such studies. By letter dated July 6, 1995 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B), the State Water Board encouraged the additional studies, but denied Kendall-Jackson's request that the briefing deadlines be deferred. Consequently, Kendall-Jackson submits this Brief for the State Board's consideration based on the existing record."
"Kendall-Jackson continues to believe that further studies of Sausal Creek would be helpful to the State Board and the parties. Working with Dr. Charles Hanson, Kendall-Jackson is beginning such studies and will submit the results to the State Water Board as they become available. Kendall-Jackson looks forward to working with the State Board and the other parties to these proceedings to resolve the concerns raised during the hearing."
We reference Applicant's Closing Brief; In re Water Right Applications for the Gauer Ranch Project of the Huntington Beach Company, in Sonoma County, Specifically Considering Applications 29703, 29704, 29705, 29706, 29707, 29708 and 29811; at page 1.
The attorneys for Kendall-Jackson, the new applicant, have admitted that new studies are necessary, and that the Draft EIR should be recirculated. Consequently, these statements support a finding that the Draft EIR is deficient, and that new studies are necessary. However, the attorneys for Kendall-Jackson did not disclose the development of 57 parcels of land to home sites and/or other development purposes.
That concludes the closing statement of CSPA, MEC, and TU regarding the Draft EIR.
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Mendocino Environmental Center, and Trout Unlimited
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Dated: July 21, 1995
cc: All Parties on Service List, including the following:
Kevin M. O'Brien, Esq.
David R.E. Aladjem, Esq.
Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer
555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-4686
Janet K. Goldsmith, Esq.
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard
400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95815
William D. Cunningham, Deputy Attorney General
Attorney General Office
State of California
1300 I Street, Suite 1101
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or
at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com