Laserfiche WebLink
9792 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013, <br />insufficient to support the determination that the <br />Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be <br />insignificant For reasons we shall discuss, we <br />agree with Masonke on both points. <br />Respondents assert that" [clumulative 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 the future." Based on this premise, <br />respondents reason that because the Draft shows <br />that the Project ','will not cause the conversion <br />of other prime farmlami'q 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, §§ 15064, subd. (d) (2) & <br />15358, subd. (a)(2) [defining indirect effects] <br />with Guidelines, §g 15065, subd. (a)(3) & 15355 <br />[describing cumulative effects]; see also Santee, <br />supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 278 [distinguishing <br />a long -term indirect impact from a cumulative <br />impact],) 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 />than significant in the General Plan EIR" <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 provisions for tiering 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 CalAth at p, 443,) It must indicate where <br />the earlier document is available for inspection, <br />briefly summarize or describe the pertinent parts <br />of earlier document, and describe how they relate <br />to the current - :project, (Guidelines, § 15150, <br />subds. (b) &. (c), § 16152; subd. -(g); Xostka, supra, <br />§ 1011, p. 501,) This information is required to <br />"give the reader a :.. road map to the information <br />[the EIRI intends to convey." (Vineyard, supra, <br />40 CalAth at p. 443.). The EIR here was deficient <br />because it 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 generalplart. (2009 Update Draft), <br />"Although implementation of the General Plan <br />would change ]and use designations, the result <br />would be a minor loss of designated agricultural <br />lands... thatwould notbe.considered a substantial <br />loss of agricultural land in the county. Additionally, <br />policies in the proposed General Plan Update <br />support the preservation of agricultural lands and <br />farming operations in the county ,Therefore, the <br />proposed General. Plan Update would not result in <br />a cumulative loss of agricultural lands." <br />Respondents argue that neither tiering <br />nor incorporation by reference 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. Surely; respondents cannot be saying <br />that because the, general. plan EIR determined <br />that changing land use designations would not <br />cause a. substantial loss of agricultural land within <br />the county, no particular project consistent with <br />the general plan could cause such a loss. There <br />is a vast difference between land use designations <br />that permit several alternative uses of property in <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 that 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 so converted, <br />or that no such other conversion Would 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 />pipeline that will similarly . convert agricultural <br />land, the EIR does not attempt to quantify the <br />future of the County's agricultural resources, in, <br />any meaningful way. <br />. We recognize that "standards of pracdcalit9,. <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, § 15130, subd. (b).) But <br />we are not persuaded the discussion of cumulative <br />impacts in the EIR is sufficient. Under. the- <br />Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of significant <br />cumulative impacts" requires either "[a]- list . <br />of past, present, and probable future, projects <br />producing related or cumulative impacts," or "[a] . <br />summary 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, § 15130, <br />subds. (b) (1) (A) & (b) (1) (B).) The discussion . <br />in the 2009 Update Draft includes neither of <br />these "necessary elements. (Rialto Citizens for <br />Responsible Growth a. City of Rialto. (2012),208 Cal. <br />APpAth 899, 928) <br />Because the general plan amendments <br />were concerned only with zoning ':.changes, <br />the amendments did not consder.projects like, <br />the one under review 'that 'convert farmland <br />to another use without any such change,'';. <br />Since the 2009 Update Draft does not address'. <br />such conversions, the 2009 Update. cannot be <br />rolled upon as a comprehensive, "sunnnary,of.,, <br />lands, uespite the Gounty policies that, favor <br />preservation of agricultural land, the 2009 Update <br />Draft acknowledges: that "the proposed General <br />Plan Update would not explicitly preclude the <br />conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA. <br />[Prime Farmland of Statewide importance, and. - <br />Unique Farmland] to other uses in the future "; and <br />that "[s]ubsequent land use activities assoeiated:; <br />with implementation of the'proposed General <br />Plan Update. in combination with existing: <br />the additional conversion of important farmlands, <br />to other uses and may increase agriculture /urban <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 impacts,; <br />on agricultural, resources "suffers &orn both <br />procedural and factual flaws;" (Vineyard, Supra,,.. <br />40 CalAth at p.. 447.) <br />75A -71 <br />