Laserfiche WebLink
9790 Daily Appellate Report Monday,.JUly, 2g, Qa1yS,.rr1 <br />lost at the Project . site because they would ,not <br />replace the on-site resources." Tlie County <br />Presumed that ACEs were useful only to address <br />"the Indirect and cumulative effects of farmland <br />conversion, "" and were not needed here because <br />the Pro ecG would. have no such effects, Thus, <br />the tinting of infeasibility In Use EIR rested on <br />the legal conclusion that while ACES can be used <br />to mitigate .a pro�99eces.Indirect and cumulative <br />effects on agricultural resource's, they do not <br />mitigate its .direct effect on those resources. <br />As respondents put it in the trial court: "Given <br />the lack of indirect or cumulative agricultural <br />Impacts, the Draft EIR properly conclude[d] that <br />agricultural conservation easements are legally <br />infeasible," The legal feasibllity of a mitigation <br />measure is not a question of fact reviewed for <br />substantial evidence but rather is an Issue of law- <br />that we review de novo. <br />We disagree with respondents. We conclude <br />that ACES may appropriately mitigate for the <br />direct loss of farmland when a project converts <br />aggcultural land to a nonagricultural use, even <br />III ugh an ACE does not replace the onsite <br />resources. Our conclusion is reinforced by the <br />CEQA Guidelines, case law on offsite midgation <br />fortoss of biological. resources,. case law onins, <br />prevailing practice, and die public policy of this <br />state. <br />ACES preserve land: for agricultural use <br />'n perpetuity. (See Civ Code, §§ 815,1, s15,2 <br />iserves in an amicus <br />for the conclusion we <br />t it no longer exists. , , , if <br />lernsaneatly protected off. <br />a 1:1 reolarement shin. than <br />_-__. <br />(Guidelines §153 0, subd. (e) (mitiga°tion <br />includes 'Tclompensating for the impact by <br />replacing or providing substitute resources or <br />environments' l) <br />Tbere is no good reason to distingu sh the use <br />of offsite AMP to miHo.fp rhd 1— „£ <br />on <br />of s <br />by <br />V. C <br />794 <br />1:1 <br />, <br />I <br />75A -71 - - -- <br />