Farmland Prot. Alliance v. Cnty. of Yolo

71 Cal.App.5th 300

286 Cal.Rptr.3d 227

FARMLAND PROTECTION ALLIANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.COUNTY OF YOLO et al., Defendants and Respondents;

Field & Pond et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

C087688

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed November 3, 2021

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John S. Poulos, Sacramento, and Christopher R. Rodriguez, for Plaintiff and Appellant Farmland Protection Alliance; Christian C. Scheuring, for Plaintiff and Appellant Yolo County Farm Bureau.

Philip J. Pogledich, Yolo County Counsel, Eric May, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents County of Yolo and Yolo County Board of Supervisors.

Stoel Rives, Timothy M. Taylor and Lauren V. Neuhaus, Sacramento; Barth Daly and Thomas W. Barth, for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants Field & Pond, Dahvie James and Philip Watt.

Robie, J. Defendants Yolo County and its board of supervisors (collectively the County) adopted a revised mitigated negative declaration and issued a conditional use permit (decision) to real parties in interest Field & Pond, Dahvie James, and Philip Watt (collectively real parties in interest) to operate a bed and breakfast and commercial event facility supported by onsite crop production intended to provide visitors with an education in agricultural operations (project). In the suit that followed, the trial court found merit in three of several arguments presented to challenge the decision. Specifically, the trial court found substantial evidence supported a fair argument under the California Environmental Quality Act (Act) that the project may have a significant impact on the tricolored blackbird, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle), and the golden eagle (collectively the three species). The trial court ordered the County to prepare an environmental impact report limited to addressing only the project's impacts on the three species . The trial court further ordered that, pending the further environmental review, the project approval and related mitigation measures would remain in effect and the project could continue to operate.

Plaintiffs and appellants Farmland Protection Alliance and Yolo County Farm Bureau (collectively plaintiffs)¹ appeal. Plaintiffs contend the trial court violated the Act by: (1) ordering the preparation of a limited environmental impact report, rather than a full environmental impact report, after finding substantial evidence supported a fair argument the project may have significant effects on the three species; (2) finding the fair argument test was not met as to agricultural resource impacts; and (3) allowing the project to continue to operate during the period of further environmental review. Plaintiffs also argue the trial court erred in upholding the County's determination that the project is consistent with the Yolo County Code (Code) and the Williamson Act (also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq. ). The County and real parties in interest assert the trial court appropriately ordered the preparation of a limited environmental impact report under Public Resources Code ² section 21168.9 and disagree with the remainder of plaintiffs’ arguments.

Real parties in interest cross-appeal, asserting the trial court erred in finding substantial evidence supported a fair argument the project may have significant impacts on the three species. They request an order vacating the judgment requiring the preparation of the limited environmental impact report (even though the limited environmental impact report has already been certified by the County). Plaintiffs believe the trial court appropriately found the fair argument test was met as to each of the three species.

In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude section 21168.9 does not authorize a trial court to split a project's environmental review across two types of environmental review documents (i.e., a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and an environmental impact report). The Act requires an agency to prepare a full environmental impact report when substantial evidence supports a fair argument that any aspect of the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 21168.9 was enacted to provide a trial court with flexibility in fashioning remedies to ensure compliance with the Act; it does not authorize a trial court to circumvent the mandatory provisions thereof. Indeed, to find otherwise would strike a death knell to the heart of the Act, which is the preparation of an environmental impact report for the project , as provided in the third tier of the environmental review process. The trial court thus erred in ordering the County to prepare a limited environmental impact report after finding the fair argument test had been met as to the three species.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we conclude the trial court did not err in: (1) upholding the County's determination that the project is consistent with the Code and the Williamson Act; and (2) finding substantial evidence supports a fair argument the project may have a significant effect on the beetle. In light of our conclusion in the published portion of the opinion and concluding the fair argument test was met as to the beetle, we thus reverse the trial court's judgment requiring the preparation of a limited environmental impact report and remand with directions to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the County to set aside its decision to adopt the revised mitigated negative declaration and to prepare a full environmental impact report for the project. Having concluded a full environmental impact report must be prepared, we do not consider plaintiffs’ and real parties in interest's remaining fair argument challenges as to agricultural resources, the tricolored blackbird, or the golden eagle.

We also do not consider plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred in allowing the project to operate while the limited environmental impact report was being prepared. In accordance with the judgment, the County filed a return to the peremptory writ of mandate stating the limited environmental impact report ordered by the trial court had been certified.³ Given the portion of the judgment allowing the project to operate during the period of further environmental review no longer has any effect, there is no effectual relief we can provide to plaintiffs by reaching the merits of their contention. The issue is thus moot, and we do not consider the argument. ( Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541, 63 Cal.Rptr. 21, 432 P.2d 717.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I

The Project

The project is divided into three elements: an event facility, lodging, and agriculture. "The project is a request for a Use Permit to operate a large bed and breakfast ... and large special events facility, known as Field & Pond, on agriculturally-zoned property that has historically been identified as the ‘William Cannedy Farm.’ The project site is located approximately five or six miles northwest of the City of Winters on the northern portion of an 80-acre parcel, which is currently in use as a home site that includes three dwellings, three barns, a water tower, several grain silos, and a two-acre fishing pond. The home site is currently also being used for special events up to one paid for profit event per month, not to exceed eight per year, as allowed by the County Code. Chickahominy Slough bisects the property separating the home site areas that encompass approximately 11 acres (where the project will be located) from the southern portions that at one time were used as grazing land and contain oak woodlands in hilly terrain." (Underlining omitted.)

"The project proposal includes use of the property grounds and existing structures as a large [bed and breakfast] and large event center that would accommodate lodging for up to nine guest rooms, as well as indoor/outdoor events for up to 300 attendees per event (with most events drawing around 120 people) with up to 35 events for the first year of operation. If the first year of events is successful, the applicant may seek to increase the number of yearly events March through November."

As to the agriculture component, "[t]he project proponents plan to enhance the agricultural value of the land by converting portions of the property that show a potential for supporting food crops, such as herbs, vegetables, nuts, and stone fruit. These crop producing endeavors would be managed by a resident farmer seeking an opportunity to farm a plot of land and provide educational outreach to visitors of Field & Pond through participation in a weekend farming program and urban youth program. Specifically, the project proposes planting tree crops on the northern portion of the property ...."

II

Procedural Background

The project's mitigated negative declaration was issued on March 8, 2016, and thereafter revised and recirculated with a new publication date of June 2016. Pertinent to this appeal, the project's revised mitigated negative declaration identified potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources and four biological resources -- the beetle, swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, and western pond turtle. Accordingly, the revised mitigated negative declaration provided that, as a condition of project approval, the applicant would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified therein to mitigate those impacts.

On August 11, 2016, the County's planning commission denied real parties in interest's application for a use permit and declined to adopt the revised mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project. Real parties in interest appealed the decision to the County's board of supervisors (the board). On September 13, 2016, the board "approved the permit and took certain related actions," and adopted the...