sufficient degree analysis in California

2022The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (Guidelines, § 15151; Sierra Club, 15 supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 514 ; San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594 .) Thus, the legal standard that applies to whether an EIR meaningfully addresses an issue is the general standard for adequacy.

2021The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (Guidelines, § 15151; Sierra Club, 15 supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 514 ; San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594 .) Thus, the legal standard that applies to whether an EIR meaningfully addresses an issue is the general standard for adequacy.

2023(Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1186 (Anderson) [substantial evidence supported agency’s factual conclusion that asserted environmental impact of urban decay was speculative and not reasonably foreseeable].) Review here is thus not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support such factual conclusions.

2023(Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1186 (Anderson) [substantial evidence supported agency’s factual conclusion that asserted environmental impact of urban decay was speculative and not reasonably foreseeable].) Review here is thus not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support such factual conclusions.

2013An adequate EIR must be „prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.‟ [Citation.] It „must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.‟ [Citation.] [¶] CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive. [Citation.] . . . .

2011The fact that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required.” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 718 ].) “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors.” (Guidelines, § 15204, subd. (a).) Rather, CEQA requires an EIR to “be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmen

2026(Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Conservation, etc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 210, 233 ; see Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 234 .) In this regard, the Guidelines provide that, in general, “[a]n EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.

2016(Guidelines, §§ 15168(c); Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 233 .) A program EIR should contain a sufficient degree of analysis, in the light of what is reasonably feasible, to provide decisionmakers with information that enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.

2012Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.’ [Citation.]” (Ojai, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 428 .) The “discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. . . .” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b).) “[T]he discussion . . . should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Information Center v.

2012The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” (Ojai, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 429 ).

1999The court does not pass on the correctness of an EIR’s environmental conclusions, but determines whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (§ 21168.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, 407 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights I).) An adequate EIR must be “prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” (Guidelines, § 15151.) It “must include detail suffi

1999The court does not pass on the correctness of an EIR’s environmental conclusions, but determines whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (§ 21168.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, 407 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights I).) An adequate EIR must be “prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” (Guidelines, § 15151.) It “must include detail suffi

2016(See, e.g., Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 378 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 ] [‘‘[o]ur role ... is not to decide whether the City acted wisely or unwisely, but simply to determine whether the EIR contained sufficient information about a proposed project . . . and the projected environmental impacts ... to allow for an informed decision”].) Given that the EIRs provided the Agencies and the public with sufficient information on the greenhouse gas emissions impacts from Plan Bay Area, the wisdom of the Agencies’ choice in adopting this Plan cannot

2016(See, e.g., Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 378 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 ] [‘‘[o]ur role ... is not to decide whether the City acted wisely or unwisely, but simply to determine whether the EIR contained sufficient information about a proposed project . . . and the projected environmental impacts ... to allow for an informed decision”].) Given that the EIRs provided the Agencies and the public with sufficient information on the greenhouse gas emissions impacts from Plan Bay Area, the wisdom of the Agencies’ choice in adopting this Plan cannot

2014(See Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 373 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [CEQA does not require lead agencies “to engage in speculation in order to analyze a ‘worst case scenario’ ”].) H.

2014(See Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 373 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [CEQA does not require lead agencies “to engage in speculation in order to analyze a ‘worst case scenario’ ”].) H.

2014DISCUSSION A. General CEQA Principles and Standard of Review “ ‘The EIR is the heart of CEQA’ and the integrity of the process is dependent on the adequacy of the EIR. [Citations.]” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117-118 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ].) “The purpose of an [EIR] is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alt

2014DISCUSSION A. General CEQA Principles and Standard of Review “ ‘The EIR is the heart of CEQA’ and the integrity of the process is dependent on the adequacy of the EIR. [Citations.]” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117-118 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ].) “The purpose of an [EIR] is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alt

2013An adequate EIR must be „prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.‟ [Citation.] It „must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.‟ [Citation.] [¶] CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive. [Citation.] . . . .

2013(Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A., supra, at p. 836.) B.

2012Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.’ [Citation.]” (Ojai, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 428 .) The “discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. . . .” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b).) “[T]he discussion . . . should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Information Center v.

2012Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.’ [Citation.]” (Ojai, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 428 .) The “discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. . . .” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b).) “[T]he discussion . . . should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Information Center v.

2011(See CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ... § 15150, subd. (c) [when an EIR incorporates an earlier environmental document by reference, ‘the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible’ and ‘[t]he relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described’] . . . .)” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 443 .) “When an EIR omits information, ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether there has been “a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” [Citation.] The absence of information in an EIR “does not per se constitute

2011(See CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ... § 15150, subd. (c) [when an EIR incorporates an earlier environmental document by reference, ‘the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible’ and ‘[t]he relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described’] . . . .)” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 443 .) “When an EIR omits information, ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether there has been “a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” [Citation.] The absence of information in an EIR “does not per se constitute

2011F. Analysis “The fundamental purpose of an EIR is ‘to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.’ (§ 21061.) To that end, the EIR ‘shall include a detailed statement setting forth ... [][].. . [a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project.’ (§ 21100, subd. (b)(1).)” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 428 .) The Vineyard court held that “CEQA’s demand for meaningful information ‘is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.’ [Ci

2011F. Analysis “The fundamental purpose of an EIR is ‘to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.’ (§ 21061.) To that end, the EIR ‘shall include a detailed statement setting forth ... [][].. . [a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project.’ (§ 21100, subd. (b)(1).)” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 428 .) The Vineyard court held that “CEQA’s demand for meaningful information ‘is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.’ [Ci

2011The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.’ (See also San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 100 ].)” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 954 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ].) “If the description of the environmental setting of the project site and surrounding area is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the EIR does not comply with CEQA.

2011The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.’ (See also San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 100 ].)” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 954 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ].) “If the description of the environmental setting of the project site and surrounding area is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the EIR does not comply with CEQA.

2007(Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 289 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 ].) “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.” (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) The degree of detailed analysis necessary in an EIR is summarized in the Guidelines as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decis

2007(Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 289 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 ].) “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.” (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) The degree of detailed analysis necessary in an EIR is summarized in the Guidelines as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decis

2003The court does not pass on the correctness of an EIR’s environmental conclusions, but determines whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. [Citations.] An adequate EIR must be ‘prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.’ [Citation.] It ‘must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’ [Citation.] The cou

2003The court does not pass on the correctness of an EIR’s environmental conclusions, but determines whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. [Citations.] An adequate EIR must be ‘prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.’ [Citation.] It ‘must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’ [Citation.] The cou

1996The Court of Appeal reversed and pointed out that an EIR “ ‘should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account *197 of environmental consequences.’ ” ( 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 831 ; see also Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15151.) The EIR in Santiago failed to include “facts from which to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the mine will need.” ( 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 829 .) In San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus

1996The Court of Appeal reversed and pointed out that an EIR “ ‘should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account *197 of environmental consequences.’ ” ( 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 831 ; see also Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15151.) The EIR in Santiago failed to include “facts from which to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the mine will need.” ( 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 829 .) In San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus