|
2013
<br />plained why dus impact could not
<br />sated: " Mitigation for agricultural
<br />take the form of avoidance,
<br />prestoration, preservation, or
<br />roviding substitute resources
<br />forms of mitigation correspond
<br />11-oes Section 15370.5 For the
<br />t avoidance is not possible, as
<br />•mineral resources corresponds
<br />Band as identified in the FMMP
<br />=u.., as Lou project is phased, and agricultural
<br />activity will continue on a phase until it is mined
<br />flits extending agricultural activity during the if
<br />of the project._ However, this will not reduce
<br />t{ie,impactto,lessthan significant. Restoration is
<br />v)foasible;,'A's the mining will result in a finished
<br />grade below the groundwater level. Preservation
<br />in this instance, is similar to avoidance, and is
<br />infeasible for the same reason, Compensation
<br />generally takes the form of off-site acquisition of
<br />faziYdand, typically an Of
<br />Conservation
<br />r'.asement (ACE): Acquisition of an ACE is
<br />considered infeasible for the proposed project for
<br />the reasons discussed below.
<br />"'An`; ACE, does not replace the on -site
<br />resources, but rather, it addresses the indirect
<br />and cuin dative effects of farmland conversion,
<br />im&ect. effects include the pressure created to
<br />e¢ courageadditional conversions ,asdevelopment
<br />piessute raises the speculative value of the land
<br />and'imcreases the economic costs of farming
<br />due to land use incompatibilities (limitations on
<br />Pesticide use, nuisance complaints duo to dust
<br />and odor, vandalism, predation by domestic pets,
<br />increased traffic etcJ. Because the project site
<br />ia, surrounded by existing and vacant f¢dustiia]
<br />use 1 tfi'the exception of the west side, it is anlikelbth,r r6; e.
<br />We
<br />uses, there are agricultural uses to
<br />but they are separated by the natural
<br />of the Russian River, In addition, the
<br />Of t?,�,..,..,�.F.._ __ _
<br />nents. Open
<br />e, and would
<br />pressure on
<br />auciciore, feasible mitigation measures
<br />are not available, and this impact would be
<br />significant and unavoidable." (Italics and bold
<br />type deleted,)
<br />The DOC expressed concerns about the loss
<br />of agricultural lands as an unavoidable impact
<br />of the Project in its comments on the Draft
<br />Accordfng'to the DOC, the loss should have
<br />been minimized through. die acquisition of ACES
<br />on comparable land of at least equal size,. The
<br />DOC considered this means of midgation,:to be
<br />a common and appropriate means of mitigating
<br />fie loss of prime farmland. According to the
<br />DOC:' "Mitigation via agricultural conservation
<br />:asemems cari be implemented by at least two
<br />dtc {native approaches:.: the outright purchase
<br />6$,eas," I or the donation of mitigation fees
<br />o'a local; regional or statewide organization or
<br />geney whose purpose includes the acquisition
<br />nd stewardship of agricultural, conservation
<br />9789
<br />easements, The conversion of agricultural land
<br />should be deemed an impact of at least regional
<br />sigmfficance, Hence; the search for replacement
<br />lands ahould beconducted regionanyorstatewide,
<br />and not limited strictly to land within die project's
<br />surrounding area,"
<br />The County did notrespond to these comments
<br />except to note that no Williamson Acts contracts
<br />would be affected by die Project, and cite contracts
<br />the
<br />discussion of mitjgation for lost farmland in the
<br />Draft. The Draft's ;'djiscussion ofithg infeasibility
<br />of such rmtfeatidn':vaa _
<br />When Masonit, Commission eci ionstoUPeBoardof8upervisors
<br />e it said there was no "logical basis" for the
<br />conclusion that impacts to agricultural land could
<br />not be mitigated, At the hearing oil the appeal,
<br />a County representative respoded.thak "[tlhe
<br />basic purpose of an 'agricultural conservation
<br />easement is to avoid the secondary impacts that
<br />areassociated with conversion of agricultural land.
<br />You know, sometimes considered the so called
<br />domino effect. As you extinguish operations, now
<br />You're putting development pressure on the next .
<br />farmer and you're causing nuisance issues that
<br />are going to make life difficultfor, him and make it
<br />more likely that that operation is going to want to
<br />sell. , , , So that's really tvhatyou're doing because
<br />You're not replacing the resources, can putan
<br />easement somewhere else but it[']s.not going to
<br />recreate those few acres, of prime.farmland. that
<br />are present on that site 'now. So that's how we
<br />approach that analysis and you that's how
<br />look at
<br />the circumstances of the project, . , The nearest
<br />active agricultural operation is across the Russian
<br />River, which w acts as a natural barrier in terms
<br />of what I would call these nuisance. or domino
<br />effects....', [S]o giyyn that, the.' conclusion of
<br />County Staff was that. a'ri,agricultgal` easement
<br />was not the appropriate Tesponse3n this case,"
<br />(2) Review' .
<br />(a)ASnculbU.alConservahon Easements
<br />CEQA provides that "public
<br />not approve, projects 6, ro agencies should
<br />feasiblemitigadonmeasUrresava lab ewhicl would
<br />substantially lessen the significant environmental
<br />effects of such projects," (Pub. Resources Code,
<br />§ 21002; see also id. at §21002,1, subd.
<br />[agencies (b
<br />must mitigate significant effects of projects they approve. "wheneveritisfeasible to do
<br />so"]) CEQA defines "feasible "'to mean "capable
<br />n a successful of being accomplished. iccessful manner
<br />within a reasonable period of time, ;taking into
<br />account, economic, environmental, legal, social,
<br />and technologicalfacmrs." (Guidelines, §1
<br />5364)
<br />Agency; findines 'raowr.i;.,,.:..v.:.v._.. ..5364.)
<br />rassAcres &Neighbors u City afBeaumo t (2010)
<br />190 Cal.App.4th 316, 350 -351 (Beaumont).) But
<br />not in this race. . -
<br />mere, me determmc on thatpho midgadon
<br />was feasible for the Joss of: farthijifid rested on a i.
<br />conclusion that. offsite agtic4ltur;d 'conservation .
<br />easements, (ACES). cannot'.imhgate for the land
<br />75A -68
<br />
|