75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

obtain ACES on farmland of equal quality in the county at 8' 1:1 ratio, or pay "an m -lieu mitigation fee," '(Id. at p, 588) The court concluded that these mitigation requirements were reasonably related to the adverse public impact of such Projects and thus an authorized use of the county's police power. The court observed that a residential project would not be approved "until the developer provides permanent protection of on'e'acre bf farmland for every acre of farmland converted' to residential use Agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity are the primary means of accomplishing this Permanent protection requirement... [g]]... III1. , Although the developed farmland is not replaced, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar As an alternative to the outright purchase of fate." (Id. alp. 592) SfaxWaus teaches thatACEs ACES, the DOC comment letter recommended area reasonable means m mitigate the impact ofa "the donation of mitigation fees to alocal, regional or statewide organization or agency whose 'purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of [ACE,]." Masonite argues that the EIR was deficient because it did not address this suggestion. The County responds, saying it was legally precluded from accepting in -lieu fees because it does not have a comprehensive farmland mitigation program We agree with Masonite that the EIR should have addressed the DOC comment and given reasons for rejecting the DOC's" proposal. (Guidelines, § 15088; subd,. (a) & (c) [responses With reasoned analysis are required,) Again, we are not persuaded by respondents' argument for legal infeasibility. The DOC was not advocating Payment of in -lieu fees to a county program, but rather to third parties involved in acquiring and overseeing ACES, Whether the County lacks a comprehensive farmland mitigation program is immaterial, and does not explainwhyin -lieu fees are not feasible mitigation, This issue requires further analysis in the EIR D. Cumuladvelmpacts on Farmland Environmental Quality Act plays an important role in the preservation of agricultural lands. "],) To categorically exclude ACES as a means to mitigate the conversion of farmland would be contrary to one of CEQA's important purposes. We agree with the CFBF that ACES should not 'be removed from agencies' toolboxes as available mitigation" for this environmental impact. For these reasons, the EIR's determination that ACES are legally infeasible camnot be sustained. The economic feasibility of offsite ACES to mitigate the Project's imph on the loss of 45 acres of prime farmland us tb xplored. (b) In -Lieu Fees moreover, It appears thatACEs are commonly used for that purpose, The DOC described ACES in its comments as "accept[ed] and used] by lead agencies as an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA," and the administrative record includes evidence that ACE, are so employed by a number of cities and counties. The EIR at issue in Lodi stated that acquisition of ACES over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is "'standard for California communities.'" (Lodi, supra, 205 CaLAppAth at p: 322.) "'In addition to the City of Lodi, the following agencies in the surrounding area apply the 1:1 mitigation ratio: cities of Stockton and Elk Grove, counties of San Joaquin and Shudslausm , TrWalley Conservancy (Livermore /Alaeda County).'" (Nd.) This authority suggests that the County is an outlier in believing that ACES cannotfeasibly be used to mitigate the conversion Of prime farndand to other uses We note finally that our Legislature has repeatedly stated the preservation of agricultural . land is an important public policy, (Gov. Code, § 51220,. said, (a) [ "the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation ofthestate's economic resources, and is necessary not only . to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation "]; Pub. Resources Code, § 10201, subd. (c) [ "Agri cultural lands' near urban areas that are maintained in productive agricultural use are a significant Part of California's agricultural heritage.... Conserving these lands is necessary due to increasing developmernpressures and the effects of urbanization on farmland close to cities. "j; Civ.' Code; § 815 [ "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California "].) The Legislature has also declared that CEQA is intended to effectuate this public policy. (Slats. 1993, ch. 812, § 1, P. 4428 [ "(a) Agriculture is the state's' leading industry,. ., [91] ... [91] (c) The conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses threatens the long -term health of the state's agricultural industry. 1%) (d) The California The discussion of the Project's- cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, set forth in section 5.2.3 of the Draft and incorporated without change in the EM reads in full; "Some of the land in the vicinity of the proposed project is considered highly productive farmland, although a majority of it is located on the eastern side of the Russian River, A large portion of the project site is ,Iassified as Prime FarmlmdbytheDepartment of r•viRL ",Lc woma oe reclaimed to open space, 1911 Cumulative conversion of iniportantfarmhmd was determined to he less than significant in the General Plan EIR The project site is zoned for industrial use, and no adjacent larids'currendy in agriculture are planned for a conversion to urban use. The project would therefore not contribute to a $ignificant cumulative effect Masonite contends that this discussion improperly retied on the prior general plan EIR Without tiering from it:'or incorporating it by reference in the EIR fgr'the' Project, and that the discussion was factually inadequate because the information` in the general plan EIR was 75A =70 t.