Laserfiche WebLink
§ <br />kY <br />I al <br />or <br />are th <br />MPermian <br />�,Es on farmland of equal quality in the <br />' 4, 1:1 ratio or pay "an inlleu mitigation <br />Environmental. Quality Act plays an important <br />at p.588.5 The court concluded that <br />ligation requirements were <br />role is the preservation of agricultural lands,"],) <br />To categorically exclude ACES as a. means to <br />reasonably <br />3 the adverse public Impact of such <br />and floe an authorized use the <br />mitigate the conversion of farmland would be <br />contrary to one of CGQA's important purposes. <br />of <br />wllceletw would tbeapprved"uhaY <br />ial not be approved <br />We agree with the CFBF that ACEs should not <br />"be removed from ageneies'toolboxes as available <br />r provides p <br />aper provides permanent protection of <br />on of <br />mitigation" for this environmental Impact <br />For these <br />of farmland for every acre. of farmland <br />�'to residential use. Agricultural <br />reasons, the EIE's determinaNOn <br />that ACES are legally infeasible cannot be <br />ion . easements granted in Perpetuity <br />rimary means of accomplishing this <br />sustained, The eeouomio feasibility of affairs <br />ACES to mitigate the Project's hupact on the loss <br />t protection requirement <br />of 45 acres of prime farndand must be explored, <br />Ithough the developed farmland is <br />ed, an equivalent area of comparable <br />(b) In•Llcurees <br />;Permaneatlyprotectedfrom a shnilar <br />np.592) Stanisfaas reaches thatACEs <br />As an alternative to the outright purchase of <br />ACES; the <br />tnable means to mitigate the impactofa <br />repl <br />DOC comment letter recommended <br />"the donation of mitigation fees to a'local, <br />acesagriculturalland, <br />ppearsdiatACEsareaanmonly <br />regional or statewide organization or agency <br />whose 'purpose Includes the acquisition and <br />� P [ d] and a e[djbylead <br />s an appropriate nadgation <br />as of i t argues esenta"ace <br />the EIR w defc ntbecause it did not <br />measure <br />)A.' and the administrative record <br />ddence that ACES are so employed <br />this suggestion. The County responds, saying <br />it was legally precluded frmn accepting nrlieu <br />w of cities and counftes. The EIR at <br />stated that acquisition of ACES <br />fees because it does not have a comprehensive <br />farmland mitigation program, - <br />Is <br />to equal to the agricultural acreage <br />"'standard <br />We agree with Masointe, -hat the EIE should <br />have addressed the DOC <br />a project is for California <br />s.'" saps, Cit <br />addition to the City Lodi, <br />comment and given <br />reasons for rejecting the DCC`s' proposal. <br />(Guidelines, § 15088, subds, (a) & (c) [responses <br />of <br />of Lodi, the <br />is the <br />;elleieS Ira rile surroua*g area apply <br />with reasoned analysis are required:) Again, we <br />are not n rrc..nrla:l I.., w.:...:,._:..._.._, _ <br />our <br />thtul and nuttii <br />`this state and <br />10201, subd, (c) <br />areas that are <br />total use are <br />stature has also declared th <br />to effectuate this public poi <br />812, § 1, p. 4428 ["(a) Agrict <br />ding Industry..,: [Tj,,, [ <br />n ofogriculturaUanda to non. <br />Ytens (he long-term health o <br />ad'industim [I] (d) The <br />D. Cumulative fmpac(s on Tara drard' <br />a �.. <br />Of <br />ke to <br />Elects <br />in Its <br />a <br />is <br />le, <br />75A -72 <br />