|
9782 Daily Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013„
<br />insufficient to support the determination that the
<br />Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be
<br />ius[grdficant For reasons we shall discuss, we
<br />agree with Masonite on both points.
<br />Respondents asserttbat "[c]umuladve impacts
<br />In the agricultural context are more properly
<br />defined as the Project's potential to result in
<br />indirect Impacts to surrounding agricultural
<br />resources and as such, cause subsequent
<br />conversions inIsfuture, Based on this premise,
<br />respondents reason that because the Draft shows
<br />that the Project !'wili not cause the conversion
<br />of other prime farmland," it also shows that the
<br />Project "will not result in a cumulative impact"
<br />But indirect and cumulative impacts are not
<br />the same and they entail separate analysis.
<br />(Compare Guidelines, § §'15094, subd. (d)(2) &
<br />15358, subd. (a) (2) [defining indirect effects]
<br />with Guidelines, §§ 15065, an d. (a) (3) & 15355
<br />(describing cumulative effects], see also Santee,
<br />supra, 210 Cal.AppAth'at p. 278.Edistinguisbing
<br />along -term indirect 'impact from a cumulative
<br />hnpactj,) The Draft's analysis of cumulative, as
<br />opposed to ;indirect impacts consists of a single
<br />sentence that states: "Cumulative conversion of
<br />important farmland was determined to be less
<br />then significant in the General Plan RIR,"
<br />"A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts
<br />contained in one or more previously certified
<br />EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant
<br />to the previsions for deiingg and. program EIRs."
<br />(Guidelines,.. § 15130, subd. (d)) However, an
<br />EIR that uses incorporation by reference or
<br />tiering must do so expressly; (Vineyard supra,
<br />40 CaI4th at p, 440.) It must Indicate where
<br />the earller document is available for Inspection,
<br />briefly summarize or describe the pertinentparts
<br />of earlier document, and describe how they relate
<br />to the currentiproject, (Guidelines, §15150,
<br />subds (b) &(c),§ 16152, subd,jg),Xostha; supra;
<br />§ 10.11 p. 501, •Thep information is requires to
<br />give the reader a , .. road neap to the Information
<br />[the EIR1 intends to convey," (Vineyard, supra,
<br />40 Cal4th at p. 443,). The EIR here was deficient
<br />because 3t provides no such road map,
<br />Respondents'.brlef Indicates that the :EIR was
<br />relying on the following discussion of cumulative
<br />impacts of.the draft EIR46r the 2009 update of
<br />the County's general'plan. (2009 - Update Draft),
<br />Although implementation of the General' -Plan
<br />would change land use designations, the result
<br />would be a minor loss of designated agricultural
<br />lands. , .thatwouldnotbe.considered asubstan0al
<br />loss ofagriculturallandin the county. Additionally,
<br />policies in the proposed General Plan Update
<br />support the preservation of agricultural lands and
<br />farming oporadous in the county — Therefore, the
<br />proposed General Plan Update would not result in
<br />a cumulative loss of agricultural lands."
<br />Respondents argguue that neither tiering
<br />nor incorporation by,re*ence was required
<br />here because the County was merely relying
<br />on the general plan EIR as evidence to support
<br />the determination in the EIR that the Project
<br />would not substantially contribute to the loss of
<br />farmland. Surelyi respondents cannot be saying
<br />that because tho, general plan EIR{ determned
<br />that changing land use designations mould not
<br />cause a substandallass -of agricultural land within
<br />the county, no particular project consistent with
<br />the general plan could cause such a loss. There
<br />is avast dit£erencebetween land use designations
<br />thatpertnitseveral alternative uses of property; in
<br />a geographic area, and the approval of a specific
<br />Project that chargges the characterof a particular
<br />property. Nor do we understand the general
<br />plan EIR to mean tint no substantial loss to the
<br />County's agricultural resources would occur if
<br />all the agricultural land in the county, rleatgnated
<br />for other possible uses were to-be so converted,
<br />or that no such other conversion v1puld be.
<br />approved. The general plan EIR acknowledges
<br />the Importance of preserving prime agricultural
<br />land and while there may be no projects in the
<br />plpejine that will similarly convert agricultural
<br />land, the EIR does not attempt to quantify the
<br />future of the County's agricultural repources,.in,
<br />onymeaningfidway .
<br />We recognize that "standards of pmcflealat`
<br />and reasonableness" govern cumulative Impacts
<br />analysis, and that such impacts need not be
<br />discussed in as much detail as the direct impacts
<br />of a project (Guidelines, § 15180, subd, (b).) But,,
<br />wearenotpersuadedthediscussionofcumuladie; "
<br />LUpacts m the EIR is. suftioient Under the,
<br />Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of sigriiflcant
<br />cumulative impacts' requires 'either .[a] at
<br />of past; present, .and probable fuhire,trojects
<br />producing relatedare a ve impacts, or' 3] ,
<br />summary of projections (ln,.pnilong other things,
<br />a certified EIR for an adopfed local plaij' that
<br />describes or evaluates con lion contributing
<br />to the cumulative effect° ' (Gulrlelloes § 15 0,
<br />subds. (b) (1) (A) & (b) (1) (B).7 The �rscua , on ..
<br />In the 2009 Up to Draft includes neither of, `
<br />these "necessary. olements. (Rialto Gitr`zetu fqr
<br />Res"powiWe Growth v. City offttta_ (201"0 208 Gal.
<br />APP.4tlr 899, 928.)
<br />Because. the general plan. amendnnents
<br />were concerned only with zoning,.chaages,
<br />the amendments did not conpider,projeets like,
<br />the one under review that 'convert farnijanii
<br />to another use without any such
<br />Since the 2009 Update Draft does not address,'._
<br />such conversions, die 2008 Update.cannot be ,
<br />retied upon as a comprehensive, "summary ,of
<br />projections" of cumulatve impacts on agrkul(u .aj
<br />lands, Despite ,the ,Coup ty pdlicks that favor;
<br />preservation of agriculuual Land, the 2009 Update
<br />Draft acknowledges: that "thepropossd General
<br />Plan Uppdate would not explicitly preclude the i --
<br />co iversicn of farmlands of concern under CEQA '
<br />[Prime Farmland of Statewide Imppoortance, and, - `r-
<br />Unique Farmlaadl to otheruses [ngeolyuore ";sad .
<br />that "[slubsequent land use activities associated, ...
<br />with implementation of the "proposed General.
<br />Plan Update, in. combination - with existing, _
<br />approved, proposed, and reasduably Foreseeable
<br />development in the region, would contribufe;to,
<br />the additional conversion of important farm lands,
<br />toother .uses and may increase agriculture /urban, e
<br />interface conflicts. ". The County's more general. [
<br />agricultural preservation policies do not salvage,
<br />the cumulative Impacts analysis. _
<br />Thus, the discussion of cumulative impsptS- g,.
<br />on "agricultural, resources 'suffers froig,]ioth;
<br />procedural and factual flaws." a wle2loyard...ff4ra4,
<br />40 CalAth at p, 447.)
<br />75A -73
<br />
|