Staff recommends approval of the project because it is a part of, and consistent with, the larger 3,795-acre Lower Yolo Restoration Project proposed by the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency (SFCWA) on behalf of the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, whose goal is to enhance and create habitat for special-status fish. The proposed habitat restoration must comply with multiple layers of federal, State, and local plans and laws. The project is also consistent with the County General Plan, the open space provisions of the Williamson Act, and the applicable County development regulations, including the County ordinance regulating habitat mitigation projects and the Flood Hazard Development ordinance.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project on March 10, 2016. Following no public testimony, the Commission discussed the project and voted unanimously (6-0-0, with 1 absent) to recommend the Board approve the project.
BACKGROUND
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) was prepared for the Flyway Farms Restoration Project. The Draft SEIR began a 45-day public circulation and comment period on December 14, 2015 and ended on January 29, 2016. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2016 to hear a brief presentation of the project description from staff and the applicant, and to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report from any members of the public (no comments were received).
During the 45-day comment period on the Draft SEIR a total of six letters were received, five of which were submitted by State agencies. Staff has prepared responses to all of the written comments and compiled the Final SEIR. A copy of the Final SEIR has been mailed to each of the commenters in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Context of the Project
The Yolo Flyway Farms Restoration Project is a part of the larger 3,795-acre Lower Yolo Restoration Project proposed by the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency (SFCWA) on behalf of the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (see map in Attachment A). The primary purpose of the Lower Yolo Restoration Project is to restore tidal interaction and associated wetland habitats to enhance and create habitat for special-status fish. A Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared and adopted by the water contractors (SFCWA) in 2013. The Final EIR for the Lower Yolo Restoration Project is available for public review on the County website at http://www.yolocounty.org/community-services/planning-public-works/planning-division/current-projects, along with the Supplemental EIR for Flyway Farms.
The Final EIR for the Lower Yolo Restoration Project studied environmental issues of the entire 3,795-acre site, including Flyway Farms, and considered Flyway Farms to be a future Phase 2 of the project. The portion of the Lower Yolo Restoration Project that is under the ownership of the SFCWA has not yet begun construction. Yolo Flyway Farms, owned by the Reynier Fund, LLC of Davis, consists of approximately 440 acres in the northeastern portion of the Lower Yolo Restoration Project. Because of the interest on the part of the landowner in undertaking restoration activities on the 362 acre Yolo Flyway Farms and the uncertainty of future implementation of Phase 2 of the Lower Yolo Restoration Project, the landowner is pursuing an independent course with Yolo County to proceed with this portion of the larger project.
The major change to the Flyway Farms Restoration Project since the certification of the original Lower Yolo Restoration Project EIR in 2013 involves a soil deposit site. While the 362-acre restoration portion of the Yolo Flyway Farms was included in the Final EIR, the adjacent 80-acre parcel which is now being proposed as a soil deposit site was not included. Therefore, this report is intended to supplement the Final EIR for the Yolo Flyway Farms Restoration Project by assessing the effects of implementing proposed project activities on the adjacent 80-acre soil deposit site on biological resources, as well as reassessing overall impacts to agricultural resources on the Yolo Flyway Farms restoration site.
As a result, Yolo County has prepared a separate Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that addresses the impacts of the Yolo Flyway Farms Restoration Project. In doing so, Yolo County has relied on and modified as needed the Final EIR prepared for the Lower Yolo Restoration Project. The Yolo County Planning, Public Works and Environmental Services Department is the lead agency overseeing the preparation of the Supplemental EIR. The project will need the approval of several other State and federal agencies.
Details of the Proposed Project
The Yolo Flyway Farms Restoration Project is proposing, as its primary goal, to restore tidal interaction to the property to enhance and create habitat for special status fish. The project is designed to support delta smelt recovery; provide rearing habitats for out-migrating salmonids; and support other aquatic and wetland-dependent species, including Sacramento splittail. In meeting these objectives, a preferred design alternative followed the same approach as was adopted for the Lower Yolo Restoration Project, which was developed collaboratively between the State Federal Contractors Water Agency and its scientific advisory committee. The project design promotes enhanced connectivity to tidal fluctuations through swale and wetland terrace excavation and selective agricultural berm leveling to enhance tidal marsh habitat via conversion from managed grasslands.
The Flyway Farms project site consists of two separate parcels that are zoned for agricultural uses, located approximately 9.4 miles southeast of the City of Davis (see Attachment A). The 362-acre property (APN: 033-390-002) has historically been managed as a duck hunting club and, recently, is used for seasonal pasture. The 80-acre parcel (APN: 033-220-049), proposed for stockpiling excess soils, is in idle agricultural use. The properties are under separate Williamson Act contracts and contain flood easements for the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
Current land uses on the 362 acre unit are dominated by summertime flood irrigation of reclaimed rice fields used as pasture for cattle grazing. The 362 acre unit contains many historically wet areas (including approximately 27.5 acres of the Toe Drain) and has been managed in winter for waterfowl and duck hunting. The 80 acre unit has historically been used for rice production and is currently fallow.
The project design plan would restore tidal flows to the portions of the site that are already within the intertidal range (+2.0 to +6.5 feet), but which are currently managed as winter waterfowl hunting through the use of water control structures (not with excavation). It would maintain existing topography, except that areas excavated to form channel networks would be graded to subtidal elevations. The intent of the design is to mimic the natural tidal flooding of the land without resorting to major excavation to lower the elevation by a few feet.
The soil would be removed from the 362-acre parcel to create a tidal channel network in the interior of the site, and to connect the site to adjacent natural tidal channels. The project would increase tidal inundation of the 362 acre unit by creating two breaches on the eastern property berm along the Toe Drain (see grading plans in Attachment A). One berm is located at the northern end of the property, the other at the southern end. The northern breach would connect to a short swale that will allow higher high tides and elevated Toe Drain flows to enter the site from the north and gradually drain out to the south. The southern breach would connect to a longer, branching swale that extends to the west and to the north to promote tidal inundation of the 362 acre unit interior.
The westerly branch of the southern swale may potentially be extended to connect to the Lower Yolo Restoration Project should the two projects ultimately be integrated. The bottom elevation of both swales would be 0 feet NAVD88 to allow for continual tidal action on the property and to limit tule colonization. The southern swales include a 100 foot wide terrace at elevation 5.0 feet NAVD88 to enhance tidal inundation and create marsh habitat at a lower elevation that would otherwise not be provided by the limited site grading because a majority of the 362 acre unit is above 6.0 feet NAVD88.
The excavated soils will be placed on the upland areas of the adjacent 80-acre parcel. This excess soil will be trucked to the 80-acre site on existing farm roads and deposited and spread in the idle field, adding approximately 0.5 feet of elevation to the field. It is anticipated that the project site will continue to be dedicated to agriculture upon completion of restoration activities.
Environmental Analysis
As noted above, a Draft Supplemental EIR (Attachment C) was prepared for the project and circulated for a 45-day review period which ended on January 29, 2016. The DSEIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse to relevant federal and State wildlife agencies that have permitting authority over the project. The availability of the DSEIR was sent a wide range of local agencies and individuals, including all of the County's citizens advisory committees, adjacent landowners, the Farm Bureau, and local environmental organizations.
Comments on the DSEIR were received from: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Cultural Resources; the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; the Delta Stewardship Council; the State & Federal Contractors Water Agency; and the Delta Protection Commission. Staff has prepared responses to all of the written comments and compiled the Final SEIR.
The project will require the approval of several federal and State agencies including the following permits that may be required:
- California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Well Review Program opinion;
- An encroachment permit from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. Additionally, consultation on related matters associated with project implementation and within CVRWQCB jurisdiction;
- California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, California Endangered Species Act consultation and, if required, Incidental Take Permit and consultation/coordination with project elements associated with the post-construction phase, as applicable;
- Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification; Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Waste Discharge Requirement; and CWA Section 402 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm-water Discharge associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), as well as possibly a General NPDES Permit under CWA Section 402 for discharging biological and residual pesticides to the waters of the United States for vector control in association with post-construction activities, as needed. Coordination of pilot studies related to methylmercury (MeHg) issues as required by the Delta Mercury Program.
- California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Potential funding mechanism and purchasing of tidal wetlands habitat credits as partial fulfillment of the two federal Biological Opinions relating to the continued operation of the State Water Project.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (“Section 408”) over a project that has potential to alter a Project Levee;
- Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation and authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service;
- National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 compliance and letter of concurrence with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via the National Historic Preservation Act;
- Reclamation Districts 2068 and 2093. Agreements, endorsements, or other legal instruments associated with property interest, as applicable. Y
- Yolo County, Major Use Permit under the Yolo County Habitat Mitigation Ordinance, a Flood Hazard Development Permit under the County's Flood Protection Ordinance, and a Williamson Act Open Space Agreement.
Other public agencies with a non-permitting interest in the proposed project may include but not be limited to: U.S. Coast Guard; California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection; California Air Resources Board; West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency; Delta Stewardship Council; California Department of Transportation, District 3; California Department of Boating and Waterways; Delta Protection Commission; California State Lands Commission; and Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District.
The following environmental issues and mitigation measures are summarized from the Final SEIR.
Biological Impacts
According to the analysis contained in the Final SEIR, the project could have potentially significant impacts on wetlands, sensitive plants, and several bird species of concern. All potentially significant biological impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of additional mitigation measures required by the Final SEIR.
Regarding wetlands, the most recent wetland delineation for the Flyway Farms properties indicates that implementation of the project would result in the conversion of 35 acres of perennial emergent marsh (non-tidal) and 316 acres of seasonal marsh to 291 acres of perennial emergent marsh (tidal). The project would convert 12 acres of uplands and would affect only a very small portion of land identified as farmed wetlands (about 0.4 acre).
The conversion of waters and wetlands would result from restoration activities including excavation within the tidal marsh plain; dredging of tidal channels; removal of irrigation within existing marsh plain elevations; elimination of irrigation and/or grazing from seasonal marsh enhancement areas; removal of grazing from riparian areas; enhancement of hydrology of fallow areas, roads, and berms; and fill and relocation of waters.
Overall, the permanent conversion of wetland habitats would result in a substantial improvement to the wetland functions and values on the project site for the delta smelt and salmonids. The conversion would also increase the amount of habitat available to these sensitive fish species. Restored areas would result in the increased availability and quality of rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, and other delta native fish by providing more shelter, hiding, resting, and feeding areas for the fishes that would then be tidally connected to the greater Bay-Delta system.
Indeed, this conversion would be a beneficial effect that supports the project goals and objectives. The resultant mosaic of tidal marsh, seasonal marsh, other wetlands and open water would be of higher ecological function and value, with more frequent tidal inundation to adjacent natural communities. Hence, the gain of higher value wetlands and other waters of the United States would more than offset the loss of seasonal and perennial wetlands.
However, short-term impacts could result from ground-disturbing activities to wetland communities. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 requires various best management practices to reduce those impacts, including location of construction staging areas outside of sensitive wetland habitats; no construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials permitted outside of established limits away from sensitive areas; limit construction and post-construction actions involving ground-disturbing activities to the dry weather season (generally between April and November).
The Final SEIR identifies potential impacts and mitigation measures for three plant species that may occur on the site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires that prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified botanist shall conduct appropriately timed, focused botanical surveys of the project site targeting known and potentially occurring special-status plant species, including Mason’s lilaeopsis, Suisun Marsh aster, and Delta tule pea. The project design shall be adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts to special-status plants to the extent feasible; and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be notified at least ten days in advance of any ground-disturbing activity that could impact special status plants to allow CDFW the opportunity to salvage affected individual plants for transplanting to a suitable location outside of the disturbed area.
The project could affect habitat and/or individual giant garter snakes (GGS) and western pond turtles. Mitigation Measures 4.3-3 and 4.3-10 requires areas designated as GGS and/or other sensitive-species habitat within or adjacent to the project site shall be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas and shall be avoided by all construction personnel. The site shall be surved at least 24 hours prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities in suitable GGS habitat. Construction activity within GGS habitat shall be implemented between May 1 and October 1, and any dewatered GGS habitat shall remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15, and prior to excavating or filling of the dewatered GGS habitat.
The measure also requires that when working near flooded canals during the summer months, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (MPH) in areas where the line-of-site is obstructed and 25 MPH in other areas to avoid hitting the GGS and other special-status wildlife. Through the federal and state permitting processes, further minimization and avoidance measures shall be developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with CDFW. To prevent injury or mortality of individual western pond turtles, Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 requires surveys prior to implementing restoration activities; removal of western pond turtles found by a qualified biologist to a safe location outside of the work area in a manner consistent with applicable CDFW regulations; and periodic monitoring.
The project could affect habitat for several migratory and other birds, including Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing and short-eared owl, and others. Mitigation Measures 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 require preconstruction surveys, buffers, and monitoring. Outside of nesting season (i.e., August 16th to February 14th), tree removal, pruning, grubbing, grading, excavation or other construction activities to discourage pre-nesting activities would have no impact to nesting bird pairs or nesting habitat, and would not require mitigation.
Occurrences of sensitive bird species, including nesting by Swainson’s hawk, have been observed almost exclusively outside of the project site, with major occurrences several miles away, either northwest or southeast of the site. The minor vegetation removal that would happen outside of the nesting season would not substantially change the opportunities later on for migratory birds to nest, as they currently do, outside of the project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-7 requires mitigation for loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat, which is found only in the 0.4-acre portion of the Flyway Farms site that has been planted as farmed wetland.
Regarding aquatic species, the Final SEIR found that the project's overall net increase in shallow-water and tidal marsh habitats would provide substantial benefits to native fish, including juvenile anadromous Chinook salmon and Sacramento splittail, by having additional rearing habitat as well as incrementally increasing the available invertebrate food base. The Final SEIR determined that there would be no significant impacts related to increased predation on native fish by striped bass and others; colonizing invasive plant species; drainage improvements;noise; and water quality issues such as suspended solids; methylmercury, pesticides, temperature changes, and dissolved oxygen.
Agricultural Impacts
The property has historically been used as a duck hunting club, with minimal amount of land devoted to farming and grazing. The most recent wetland delineation prepared for the Flyway Farms project concludes that almost all of the 362-acre main site consists of perennial emergent marsh, seasonal wetlands and riparian woodland. This preliminary jurisdictional delineation has been accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Based on the accepted wetland delineation, implementation of the project would affect only a very small portion of land identified as farmed wetlands (about 0.4 acre), the loss of which could be mitigated by requiring the applicant to purchase an agricultural easement on land of at least equal quality and size, or to pay an in-lieu fee, as compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land. The remainder of the main 362-acre parcel consists of wetlands of some type and would not require mitigation.
Soils on the adjacent 80-acre proposed stockpile site are primarily Capay soils, flooded, with approximately one-quarter of the site in Sacramento soils, flooded. The 80-acre soil deposit site is designated as Unique Farmland. Although the 80-acre site also has a decades-long history of being used for enhancing duck hunting on the Yolo Flyway Farms, it has also been farmed in rice. It currently sits idle, but is expected to resume agricultural uses once the excess soils have been spread over the balance of the property, increasing the soil elevation by 0.5 to 1.0 feet. Temporary stockpiling and eventual agricultural activity at the 80-acre site will not result in the conversion of any Unique Farmland due to implementation of the project, but may enhance the overall agricultural resource. Thus, the use of the 80-acre would not result in the loss of any agricultural soils or productivity because it will be reclaimed to agriculture and would not require mitigation.
The project site is currently enrolled in two separate Williamson Act contracts. The contracts by and large restrict use of the properties for any purpose other than agricultural use and those uses determined to be compatible with the agricultural use of the lands within the preserve and subject to the contract(s). The County's Habitat Mitigation Ordinance requires that the project must seek approval of an amended Williamson Act contract or other appropriate action to authorize open space use. Any project that is an “open space” use under Williamson Act statutes (Government Code Section 51201(o)) shall also require approval of an amended Williamson Act contract or other appropriate action to authorize the open space use, as required by Section 51223. Thus, the applicant will be required to rescind the existing two Williamson Act contracts and to enter into an open space contract that is at least as restrictive as the current contracts.
Regarding economic impacts, the applicant has not provided a detailed discussion of the economic effects of the proposed project, but has provided an estimate of the gross income derived from the existing duck club ($33,800 in 2008) and grazing income ($9,500 in 2008). Based upon the rather modest income derived from the property as a duck club or used for grazing, versus construction and operation of a habitat restoration project, the project Is not anticipated to have a significant adverse economic effect—either by itself or cumulatively—within the County or region.
Flooding Impacts
The project requires the issuance of a flood permit by Yolo County. According to Section 8-4.401 of the Yolo County Code, the Floodplain Administrator shall review all Flood Hazard Development Permits to determine that the proposed development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point and the flood carrying capacity of an altered watercourse is maintained.
The project is located within the Yolo Bypass, a major flood conveyance corridor along the Sacramento River. According to FEMA, this corridor is critical to discharge the 100-year-flood flow it receives from upstream without increasing the 100-year elevation more than one foot. The project must be consistent with the CVFPB flood flowage easements and not substantially interfere with the role of the Yolo Bypass’ role to convey major flood flows.
A hydrology analysis has been prepared for the Flyway Farms project only and is summarized below. A third party review was also conducted by an engineer under contract with the County.
The analysis showed that the project has insignificant impacts to water surface elevation and velocity locally and adjacent to flood infrastructure. The changes in water surface elevation were projected to be less than the level of significance threshold of 0.05 feet.
Similarly, the regional scale effects were found to be insignificant when the Flyway Farms project was considered in combination with local SFCWA and Wildlands projects. A minor increase in water surface elevation downstream was offset by an equally minor decrease in water surface elevation upstream. The third party review conducted by an engineer under contract with Yolo County concluded that the change in land use is not expected to increase runoff from the project site and that information provided in the technical memorandum is sufficient to verify that, to a resolution of 0.05-foot (resolution of reported study results), construction of the proposed project will not increase risks associated with flows emanating off site. The technical memorandum submitted is sufficient to verify that the project maintains the flood carrying capacity of the subject watercourse (the Yolo Bypass). No mitigation would be required.
The Final SEIR also examined project impacts to agricultural irrigation water and drainage to farms in the area and found no significant impacts.
Consistency with Plans and Ordinances
The proposed project is consistent with numerous policies of the Yolo County General Plan, including the following:
Policy CO-1.28 Balance the needs of agriculture with recreation, flood management, and habitat, within the Yolo Bypass.
Policy LU-7.2 Support and participate in countywide, regional and other multiagency planning efforts related to housing, tourism, air quality, open space, green infrastructure, recreation, agriculture, habitat conservation, energy, emergency preparedness and flood protection.
Policy AG-1.14 Preserve agricultural lands using a variety of programs, including the Williamson Act, Farmland Preservation Zones (implemented through the Williamson Act), conservation easements, an Agricultural Lands Conversion Ordinance and the Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
Goal CO-2 Biological Resources. Protect and enhance biological resources through the conservation, maintenance, and restoration of key habitat areas and corresponding connections that represent the diverse geography, topography, biological communities, and ecological integrity of the landscape.
Policy CO-2.2 Focus conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas (core reserves) that consider and promote the protection and enhancement of species diversity and habitat values, and that contribute to sustainable landscapes connected to each other and to regional resources.
Action CO-A25 Develop a conservation strategy that considers the preservation and protection of intact functioning landscapes, watersheds, and landscape corridors. The approach should be based on the initial identification of high value habitat areas (core areas) and how these areas could be physically linked across the landscape. Coordinate to ensure that the basic landscape-level conservation concepts are incorporated into the HCP/NCCP.
Action CO-A26 Adopt and implement the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan developed through the Yolo Natural Heritage Program. Integrate the HCP/NCCP (Natural Heritage Program) into the General Plan as appropriate. Direct habitat mitigation to strategic areas that implement the Yolo Natural Heritage Program and are consistent with the County’s conservation strategy. Avoid the conversion of agricultural areas and focus on lands where wildlife values and farming practices are complementary.
Policy AG-2.9 Support the use of effective mechanisms to protect farmers potentially impacted by adjoining habitat enhancement programs, such as “safe harbor” programs and providing buffers within the habitat area.
Policy AG-2.10 Encourage habitat protection and management that does not preclude or unreasonably restrict on-site agricultural production.
Policy CO-1.15 Support efforts to acquire either fee title or easements on additional open space areas adjoining existing protected natural resource areas to increase the size, connectivity, and buffering of existing habitat.
Policy CO-1.16 Coordinate open space acquisition with habitat acquisition that occurs pursuant to the Yolo Natural Heritage Program.
Policy CO-2.3 Preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to the county’s rich biodiversity including blue oak and mixed oak woodlands, native grassland prairies, wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, agricultural lands, heritage valley oak trees, remnant valley oak groves, and roadside tree rows.
Policy CO-2.10 Encourage the restoration of native habitat.
Findings
In order to proceed, the project must receive approval of a Use Permit issued pursuant to the Habitat Mitigation Ordinance of Yolo County. For habitat projects that are 160 or more acres in size, the Planning Commission shall act on the Use Permit in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors, which shall make the final decision.
The ordinance requires the deciding body to make all of the following determinations based on substantial evidence in the record:
(a) That the project applicant has substantially complied with the requirements of this Chapter, including but not limited to provisions addressing the submission and contents of a management plan;
(b) That the project would not significantly conflict with surrounding land uses;
(c) That the project would not have a significant adverse effect on biological resources and, in addition, is not reasonably expected to significantly conflict with the Yolo Natural Heritage Program (HCP/NCCP);
(d) That the project would not significantly compromise flood safety and the protection of life and property;
(e) That the project would not have a significant adverse economic effect—either by itself or cumulatively—within the County or region. This factor shall only be considered for projects that convert 40 or more acres of farmland;
(f) That the project, if undertaken in furtherance of the "co-equal goals" and the habitat restoration objectives of the Delta Reform Act, will proceed in a manner that is faithful to the Act in its entirety, including its basic policy direction that the coequal goals of “providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem” are to be achieved in a manner “that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place”;
(g) If the project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract, that the project is an “open space use” under Government Code Section 51201(o) or that it would not otherwise cause a material breach of the contract. Any project that is an “open space” use under Section 51201(o) shall also require approval of an amended Williamson Act contract or other appropriate action to authorize the open space use;
(h) That any conversion of farmland to habitat or other non-agricultural uses will be mitigated in accordance with Yolo County Code Section 8-2.2416 (notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth therein regarding its application to habitat projects) or, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors, that the applicant will implement an alternative approach to addressing the conversion of farmland that provides an equal or greater level of mitigation; and
(i) That the project would not significantly conflict with other relevant considerations of public health, safety, or welfare, sufficient to require preparation of a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff has prepared Findings that addresses each of these points, as set forth in Attachment C.
|