Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 1 Second, because of this failure, it found that the FMP requirements were in excess of the county's police powers. Third, the trial court also found the FMP conflicted with state law prohibiting a local government entity from conditioning the issuance of land use approval on the granting of conservation easements (Civ. Code § 815.3). The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California, held that: (1) the FMP bore a reasonable relationship to the loss of farmland; and (2) therefore was within the county's police powers; and (3) the FMP did not violate § 815.3. The court explained that in order to be valid on its face, the FMP's mitigation requirement —which was legislation that applied generally — had to be reasonably related to the negative public impact of the develop- ment project (i.e., the loss of farmland). The court found that the FMP's mitigation requirements bore a reasonable relationship to the loss of farmland. Agriculture was the county's leading industry. Thus, real estate development converting agricultural land to residential use had a "delete- rious impact on this valuable resource." Although, under the FMP's miti- gation requirements, the developed farmland was not replaced; an equiv- alent area of comparable farmland was "permanently protected from a similar fate." This additional protection of farmland that could otherwise have soon been lost to development promoted the county's objective to conserve agricultural land for agricultural uses. Furthermore, the court found that "the requirement of rough proportionality between the mitiga- tion measure and the impact of the development project [was] met." The mitigation measure was roughly proportionate to the impact of develop- ment as the FMP required a one -acre: one -acre ratio of replacement. Since a reasonable relationship existed between the FMP requirements and the impact of converting farmland, the FMP was within the county's police power, concluded the court. BIA had also argued that the FMP violated § 815.3. That statute.pro- hibited local governments from conditioning land use approval on the applicant's granting of a conservation easement. The court found that the FMP did not violate § 815.3 because the FMP did not require the "applicant" (i.e., the developer) to grant the easement. Rather, the FMP allowed the applicant to arrange for a third party to grant a conservation easement as an alternative to the applicant itself granting the easement. See also: San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City And County of San Francisco, 27 Cal. 4th 643, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 269, 41 P.3d 87, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20533 (2002). See also: Pennisi v. Department of Fish & Game, 97 Cal. App. 3d 268, 158 Cal. Rptr. 683 (1st Dist. 1979). © 2011 Thomson Reuters 7