Building Industry Ass'n v. County of Stanislaus
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- In 2007 Stanislaus County adopted an update to the agricultural element including the Farmland Mitigation Program (FMP) requiring permanent agricultural conservation easements for farmland converted to residential use.
- FMP guidelines provide mitigation by acquiring an agricultural conservation easement over an area of comparable farmland, with the developer bearing sole responsibility to obtain the easement.
- The Building Industry Association of Central California (BIA) challenged the facial validity of the FMP, arguing it impermissibly conditions land use approvals on the granting of a conservation easement.
- The trial court found the FMP invalid, holding it conflicted with Civ. Code § 815.3, lacked a reasonable relationship to impacts of development, and exceeded the County’s police power.
- The Board and Farm Bureau intervened in support of the County, while BIA proceeded on a facial challenge to the FMP’s authority and structure.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, concluding the FMP is facially valid, its conservation easements fall within § 815.1–815.2, and § 815.3(b) does not prohibit the FMP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FMP violate Civ. Code § 815.3(b) by conditioning approvals on conservation easements? | BIA argues the FMP imposes involuntary easements and is not a voluntary conservation mechanism. | County/Farm Bureau contend the easements are voluntary and the FMP aligns with § 815’s goals. | No facial violation; FMP easements are voluntary and within § 815.3(b) as applied. |
| Are the FMP conservation easements within the definition of conservation easements under § 815 et seq.? | BIA argues the FMP easements are not conservation easements under § 815. | County/Farm Bureau argue FMP easements meet §§ 815.1–815.2 definitions and may be held by an authorized holder. | Yes; FMP easements satisfy the statutory definition and are subject to § 815.3. |
| Is Government Code § 65009 exhaustion applicable to a facial challenge to a planning law? | BIA asserts exhaustion requirements apply to adjudicative acts and not to legislative ones. | Court recognizes § 65009(b) applies to challenges of public agency findings regardless of act type. | Applicable; BIA adequately raised the issue, and § 65009(b) does not bar the challenge. |
| Does the FMP bear a reasonable relationship to the impact of farmland loss from residential development? | BIA contends the mitigation exactions are arbitrary and misaligned with actual impacts. | County argues the one-for-one preservation and overall conservation of farmland reasonably mitigates losses. | Yes; the FMP has a reasonable relationship and is a valid exercise of police power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 38 Cal.4th 1139 (2006) (land use regulation is within police power; broad discretion for local governments)
- DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (1995) (local government authority to regulate land use under police power)
- San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 (2002) (reasonable relationship standard for land use exactions)
- County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 322 (2009) (facial validity, application to general/typical cases)
- California Teachers Assn. v. State of California, 20 Cal.4th 327 (1999) (statutory interpretation and balancing context and text)
- Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento, 142 Cal.App.4th 1018 (2006) (evidence of substantial relationship and proportionality in municipal regulations)
- Hoffman Street, LLC v. City of West Hollywood, 179 Cal.App.4th 754 (2009) (exhaustion of administrative remedies in planning challenges)
- City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com., 210 Cal.App.3d 1277 (1989) (exemption of certain acts from exhaustion rules under § 65009)