Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Appellants; CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION et al., Interveners and Appellants.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Nov 29, 2011
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District
Juez
Levy
Detjen
Número de referencia
F058826
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Agricultura y desarrollo rural, Tierra y suelos
Palabra clave
Manejo de tierras Desarrollo agrícola Agricultura y medio ambiente Productos agrícolas Terrenos agrícolas Emisiones
Resumen
In December 2007, appellants, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors (Board) and the County of Stanislaus (County), adopted an update to the agricultural element of the County's general plan. At issue in this appeal is one component of this update, the Farmland Mitigation Program (FMP). The FMP is designed to aid in mitigating the loss of farmland resulting from residential development by requiring the permanent protection of farmland through agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity. The FMP implementation guidelines provide that farmland mitigation shall be satisfied by the acquisition of an agricultural conservation easement over an equivalent area of comparable farmland. It is the sole responsibility of the developer to obtain the required easement. Respondent, Building Industry Association of Central California (BIA), challenged the facial validity of the FMP's requirement that a developer dedicate permanent easements as a condition of obtaining development approvals or permits from the County. Appellants, California Farm Bureau Federation and Stanislaus County Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau), intervened in support of the County and the Board. The trial court ruled in BIA's favor finding that the FMP was invalid on several grounds. The court concluded that (1) the FMP conflicts with state law that prohibits a local governmental entity from conditioning the issuance of land use approvals on the granting of conservation easements (Civ.Code,1 § 815.3);   (2) the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the mitigation requirement and any adverse public impacts attributable to new residential development;   and (3) the FMP requirements are in excess of the County's police power. The court of appeal reversed on all counts, and upheld the FMP against the facial challenge. First, the court considered trial court’s conclusion that the county failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the mitigation requirement and any adverse public impacts attributable to new residential development. The trial court had reasoned that the loss of developed farmland is permanent, and the preservation of comparable land does not result in new farmland to replace the lost farmland. The court concluded that the trial court improperly placed the burden on the county to demonstrate the validity of the FMP, when in fact the court should have presumed its validity. BIA was charged with demonstrating that it is invalid. The court found that FMP mandates bear a reasonable relationship to the loss of farmland to residential development. Agriculture is the county’s leading industry, valued at in excess of a billion dollars each year. While the agricultural land is a finite and irreplaceable resource, it is also subject to development pressure to provide affordable housing within commuting distance to major employment centers. The FMP was designed to balance those competing demands, to allow some residential development to go forward, but assuring that at least half of the agricultural land in the county was preserved in perpetuity. Although lost farmland is not replaced, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar fate. The court concluded: "To meet the reasonable relationship standard it is not necessary to fully offset the loss. The additional protection of farmland that could otherwise soon be lost to residential development promotes the County’s stated objective to conserve agricultural land for agricultural uses. Further, the requirement of rough proportionality between the mitigation measure and the impact of the development project is met".
Texto completo
COU-157284.pdf