|
9792 Daly Appellate Report _ _ Monday, July 29, 2013,
<br />insufficient to support the determination that the
<br />Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be
<br />hrsignificant For reasons we ahall discuss, we
<br />agree with Masonite on both points.
<br />Respondents asser tthat "[c]unulative 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 in 6 future. " ,Based on this premise,
<br />respondents reason thatbecausethe Draft shows
<br />that the Project :'wilt 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, g §15064, subd. (d)(2) &
<br />15358, subd. (a)(2) [defining indirect effects]
<br />with Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd. (a) (3) & 15355
<br />IdeacdUing cumullative effects]; see also Santee,
<br />supra, 210 CaLApp.4th at p, 278.['distinguiabing
<br />a long-term indirect impact from cumulative
<br />impact],) The Dints 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 />than significant in the General Plan BW
<br />"A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts
<br />contained in one or more previously certified
<br />EIRs maybe Incorporated by reference pursuant
<br />to the pprevisions for tiering and program EIRs,"
<br />(Gulde Kyles,. § 15130, subd. (d).) However, an
<br />EB2 that uses incorporation by reference or
<br />daring must do so expressly, (Vineyard, supra,
<br />40 CalAth at. p, 448.) It must indicate where
<br />the earlier document is available for inspection,
<br />briefly surmnarize or describe the pertinent parts
<br />of earlier document, and describe how they relate
<br />to the current; roject, (Guidelines, §151
<br />Y5152,su5d,- (g);Xoatka,sapm;
<br />§ 10.11 p 501,) This information is required to
<br />"give the reader a,.. road map to the iuforrnadon
<br />[the EIR] intends to convey," (Viiteyord,supra,
<br />40 Cal.4th at p. 443,), The EIR here was deficient
<br />because 3t provides no such road map.
<br />Respondents'.brief indicates that the EIR was
<br />relying on the following discussion of cumulative
<br />Impacts of the draft EIR-for. ,the 2009 update of
<br />the County's general plan, (2009'Update Draft)i
<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 asubstanhal
<br />loss of agricultural land In the county Additionally,
<br />policies in the proposed Genera Update
<br />support the preservation of agricultural lands and
<br />farming operations hi the county—Therefore, the
<br />proposed General Plan Update would Dot resultin
<br />a cumulative loss of agricultural lands,"
<br />Respondents argue that neither Gering
<br />nor incorporation by reference was required
<br />here because the County was mecelvv relying
<br />on the general plan EIR as evidence to support
<br />the determination in the FIR that the Project
<br />would not substantially contribute to the joss of
<br />farmland. Surely,, respondents cannot be saying
<br />that because the, general plan EIR determined
<br />that changing In nse de signations: would not
<br />causes substantial loss of agricultural landwitlun
<br />the county, no particular project consistent with
<br />the general plan could cause such a loss, There
<br />Is avast difference between land use designations
<br />that permit several alternative uses of property, hi
<br />a geographic area, and the approval of a specific
<br />project that changes the character, of a particular
<br />property. Nor do we understand the general
<br />plan EIR. to mean drat no substantial loss to the
<br />County's agricultural resources would occur if.
<br />all the agricultural land in the county, designated
<br />for other possible uses were to be 8o converted, ,
<br />or that no such other conversion would be
<br />approved. The general. plan EIR acknowledges
<br />the Importance of preserving prime agiicultural
<br />land, and while there may be no projects in the
<br />pipeline that wlll aimilarly convert agrlcullurat
<br />Lind, the EIR does not attempt to quantity the
<br />fi tare of the County a agticultumd resources „in:
<br />any meaningful way..
<br />. We recogilae at 'aNandards of practicali4y ,
<br />and reasonableness” govern cumislalive impacts
<br />analysis, and at so impacts -need not be '
<br />discussed ]n as much detail as the ,duect imparts„
<br />ofaproject. (Guidelin es, §§15130, subd, (b).) But.,
<br />we arenpIporsuadcdthe discassion'of cumulative ,
<br />impacts in the EIR is. sufficient Under the
<br />Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of significant
<br />cumulative impacts" requires either "[al list
<br />of past; present; and probable future,projects
<br />producing related br cumulatve impacts," or "La],
<br />smmnary of projections [in, among other things.
<br />a certified EIR for an adopted local plan] "that
<br />describes or evaluates conditions contributing
<br />to the cumulative effect" ' (Guidelines, a 15130,
<br />subds. (b)(1)(A) & (b)(1)(B).) The discussion
<br />in the 2009 Jfpdate Draft includes neither of.
<br />these "necessary elements." (Rialto Citizetts fir
<br />Se*nsibfa Growih v..Cify q(Riatto (2012),208 Cal.
<br />APli 4 899, 928.),
<br />Because Lila general pl an. amandme '
<br />ID
<br />were concerns d only w th wn[ng .changes,
<br />the amendments did not coast der.proj act s . like,
<br />the one under review that'comert fmmb d
<br />to another use out any such ,changes;_
<br />Since the 2009 Update Draft does poE address`.
<br />such conversions, the 2009 Update cannot be
<br />relied upon as a com pre hendive , "summary-of
<br />,,
<br />projections" of clunula ' e Unpagts do agricultur'al;;
<br />lands, Despite, the ;CDun ty policies that favor;
<br />preservation of agricultural land the 2009 Update
<br />Draft scknowIedgesi that "the proposed General
<br />Plan date would not explicitly' preclude -$is q
<br />converslonof farmlands of concern underEQA. ".
<br />[Prime Farmland of Statewide .Import- ce, mud
<br />Unique Farmland) tootherusesln the fut' a' -,and
<br />that "[a]ubsequent land use activities associated.;
<br />with implementation of the proposed'General
<br />Pfau Update, 'in. combbratidn; w<lr eaciating,
<br />approved, proposed, and reasonably fgreseeable
<br />deyclopment In the region, would contribute: (o,
<br />the additional conversion of important farmlands:
<br />tooflieruses and mayincrease agriculture lnrbai,
<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 umpaets:
<br />on "agriculture(, resources "suffers front' both.
<br />procedural and factual flaws:' (Vineyard., sUfira{„
<br />40Cal.4thatp.:447.)
<br />75B- 229 - - --
<br />
|