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 />
|