75B - PH - EIR 1584 SANTA CLARA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9790 Dally Appellate Deport Monday July 29 p� rya lost at the Project site bemuse they would "not habitat"j; Enuiroraasntal Conncl4o}`,$aer ttjeu }tp replace the on•site resources." Ilia County City of Sacrafnonfo (2006) 142 Ca] App �th 10Wj .. Presumed that ACEs were useful only to address 1038 [purchase of a aif acre for ba jf jxaservea,.�" the indirect and cumulative effects of farmland foreveryacreofdevelopment);see t yKostk'telii conversion," and were not needed here because at., Practice Under the CaWr d E wro�t tment}fl ,.� the Project would have no such effects, Thus, Quality Act (Cont:Ed.Bar 2d. to, the flag of infeasibility m the EIR rested on 692 (Kosdca) [acquisition and am an the the legal conclusion that while ACEs ma be used species habitat pir des substAtute ro §ource�. to mitigate a project's . indirect mid cumulative under Guidelines, § 15370, subd.,.(e)�) Onb4,c y` offecte on agricultural resource's, they do not the DOC'a comments on the mitigate its dire effect on those resources. that the rationale for ACEa in this cgpe p �.. the l apondents put it m the trial court "G van that of established mtdgahon forlgse otAw�l(lll the lack of ind'uect or cumulative agricultural habitat, Impacts, the Draft EIR properly conclude[d] that Our conclusion is also 86 pport'edt "6 '' r agricultural conservation easements are legally relatively sparse case law Vol 'mfeaslble." The legal feasibility of a mitigation case most closely on point is Cin¢ensQpeq: �' measure ubstendi Isevidence but rather Is an issue of lavr 96 Government which involved (a01rn hat we review fie move. - ] 95.)ild?Y;ai We disagree with respondents, We conclude inr,�tan�nY hn e.M1rseoYconvertedL46rmro"s;,pf, p rtrf�ry _:Es may appropriately nudgate for the )as of farmland when a. project converts arel land to a nonagricultural use, even an ACE does not replace the onsite ,a. Our conclusion is reinforced by the ACES preserve land for agricultural use In perpetuity. (See Cie Code, §§ 815.1, 815.2 [describing agricultural and other . conservation easements]; Pub, Resources. Code, §10211 [ defining "agrleulturalconservadon easements "],) As die California - Farm. Bureau Federation ON) observes in an amicus curiae brief advocating for die conclusion we reack "The permanent protection of existing resources uff- site is effective mitigation for [a projects direct, cumulative, orgrowth- inducing] impacts.becouse It prevents the consumption of a resource to the Point that it no longer exists. , , , if agricultural land is permanently protected off -site at. for or M on aeA. i 278 (S by or Of 75B -227