|
ongay, July z9, 2013 Dally Appellate Report
<br />(1) ReFar¢ 9789
<br />easements, The conversion of agricultural land
<br />e s l llr Plalne �i wLy Uus h"Pact could not should be deemed an Impact of at least regional
<br />M7 cos' m iB'i!ked: gationforagricultural land shouldbeconductelre nallyorstatewidet
<br />�' .. m take. the form of avoidance ,
<br />mizahon� restoration, and notlimitedstrict lytolaadwilhinthe,projecPa
<br />compensation '(providing sub sdtutev esources surronding area ,"
<br />oFfsite)
<br />These forms ofmidgadoncorrea correspond a 7'1eContydldnotrespondtrirhesecomme irta
<br />tONto G Pn xcept to note that no Williamson Acts contracts
<br />p- E(ie1 Cuide�lnes Section 15370.5 For the would be affected by the Project; and site. to the
<br />ON � P b thery'alaer a r e is not possible, as discussion of mlogat ey fot lost
<br />C oca o o lhemiireralresourcescorresponds Draft. farmland in the '
<br />Ca tfie Cdrlre #urtnl I as identified in the FMMR ' of such nudgatimi was li}carpdra'ed loto `the E1R
<br />MiniI 'ad iOnisfncorpora led into the roecttaan ThcDra(ls ��cusslpl oi.th,Ipio. eEIR
<br />I as �'kkl16 project is phased, and sgrriculturn wdthoutchange. ' '
<br />aPkivity yy111 conHnne' on a phase until k is mined, When Masirnite� aPBealed. ''the ' Planning
<br />t} msaRt66ndin1agdcullu11activityduringdieUfe ltasad$ there ewas nrioo"Iaglcal basisPefrvisthe
<br />9L , I prct .1;: s However, this will not reduce conclusion that im acts to
<br />t(re im dct. o,iess than signiflcnt Reakoration is not be mikigated, At the hearing on tland could
<br />I�gasj e P agriedlt rat land could
<br />4 r,p. ie, miningw11resultinafinshed a Conty reprosenldve responded,that "Ctjbe
<br />gra e'Uelaw:f�re.groundwaterlevel. Preservation Uasie purpose of an"
<br />m this instance, is similar fo•avoidance, and is easement is to avoid. the secondary impacts that
<br />tnfeast Is for e17e. same reason. Compensation casement is to with avoid the sia secondary impact land diet
<br />ggrfidany takes the form of off-site. acquisition of You know, sometimes considered the so coped
<br />fariland, typically an Agricultural Conservation domino effect As you extinguish D6setnent (ACE): Acquisition of an ACE is a ngukshoperndthe,ne t
<br />conreaq tvi dis usse below Proposed Project farmer and you're causing nuisance issues de
<br />You're putting development pressure an the next
<br />tlln roaQOns UFecussed below.
<br />An`, ACE ,.does p are going to Make lifedifflcultforhimandmakeit
<br />resources not replace Ug on-site more lkelythat thatcperaUon .ls'goingtowantta
<br />and ecine ects educe f addresses farmland conversion sou'renotjdmecin a11yV+hatyou'redojngbecause
<br />enc Ourd effects include the pressure created to easement eomewhertehelso.buk ltC7e.not o
<br />enc6riru TU1aeslales envesadums,esdevolopment recreate those few crea but]tf ,farmlaoing going PresS45o raises the apeculs6ve value of the land are resent on that acre!, m d t to
<br />and o6reases the ecoromie costs of farmin p So.tharohowwe
<br />due to land use incompatibilities (llrnitatione on Upsal approach that a 1 stltep project havenoareat
<br />pesticide van, nuisance canon by domestic due to dust active agricultural operation is across the Russian
<br />ncreaa r vandal, etc) BecHo: a (he pj air River, which acts as a naturai harder o r is terms
<br />increased ded by .eta), Because the project site of what I would call these nwsnce.ow domino
<br />uaQaj}yithat eception of and the wo vacant it is Co my SfaifCSlo V'VOO, th6t jlta ctbajlt�luslon of
<br />391:16elturaluses. Thetwouldaffectnel neighboring was not the' aPproprlatot 'esponse,lntlilscnse."
<br />agrlcultw•al uses. There are Agricultural uses to was rime je agr41 -11at •M easement
<br />th easj Uu# they are as by the natural
<br />UaThn' of the Russian Riven In addition, the (2) Review
<br />qnd rise of the property is open space. ('including !
<br />hob ilt1,Father also nban development. open ( a) Agrmultur,lCotiservahopEasements.
<br />aPacg rs•camPadble with agriculture, and would ,
<br />not'create` indirect development pressure on notaEQioverroeel' ail"' '
<br />agricultural lands. P agencies should.
<br />rip P 1 astir p posed tfUiere are ,
<br />"Therefore, feasible mitigation. measures substankinallglessenthes avazla'bleI tchwould
<br />are not available, and this Impact would be
<br />significant and unavoidable." effect of such projects, "cant so re mend
<br />Qllics and bold 21002; (Prrb. Resources Code,
<br />type deleted.) § see also fd at § 21002.1, subd.. (b) '
<br />Tjre 17OC expressed concerns about the loss projJect etheYappsprovo o tSen�yQ A l at lbeets is
<br />of agrlcProject (ands as m imavoidable impact so" j,) CRQA tlepnes "feasible" to mean "ca of
<br />of the Project in its mm on the Draft,. of being accomppehed'an.'a e'm Mean "capable
<br />Accordmg'to the DOC; Ute .loss should have within a accomplished Manus n !.
<br />bean minlurized through the acquisition ofACEs account. economic en riod of, time, into
<br />on comparable land of at least equal size,. The wf tat jcgal, social,. {k
<br />DOC considered this means Of mitigatlomto be and technoiogleal factors." (Gutdepnes, § 153&1,)- - C
<br />a common'and appropriate means of mitigating, aUn Agony Tbidings regard ng vhetjtor m tgation
<br />Ure loss of 'prime farmland. According o Ute substnUal evidence te -?re eeneerally'revfewedfor '
<br />DOC Mitigation via ement d bl conservation Pass Acres &Neigltbop tt Cityo}Beaulno�t Ville (201)
<br />eaeemon 6 -app be hnpiomenCod by at least two
<br />5altefnahYe approaches;:: the outright purchase 190Cal�pPAth 316, 350351 ($eatt 1no"zi) But.
<br />reltlsemepta or the donation ofmidgadon fees scase ((�}._
<br />to a local'; regional 'or statewide'organizallon or waslfeasrb e.foa the boas df' • d'
<br />agency whose puiposa includes q rtYnn� 4r] ttr� t3 0 mitigation
<br />and stewardshlP of agricultural' conservation easemogty ?AGy ffsite aglj �4'6asecvatlon
<br />( §) cannoG'ztdhgatlfortholand ,
<br />75B -226
<br />
|