cumulative impacts analysis in California

2021(San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 740 [cumulative impacts discussion was inadequate where other development projects were not listed and adequately discussed]; Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 723 [finding EIR inadequate where the agency could not determine whether air pollution from all projects in the San Joaquin Valley air basin would have revealed a more severe impact because the EIR did not provide that data].) Because we conclude the program EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate, we do not decide the EWG petitioners’ contention that the progr

2008This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment." ( Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App.3d 300, 306 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 18 .) For this reason, appellate courts have established that "`the relevant question'" in a cumulative impacts analysis "is not how the effect of the project at issue compares to the preexisting cumulative effect, but whether `any additional amount' of effect should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect." ( Communities for a Better

2012(Long Beach, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 902 [when “reviewing] the agency’s decision to include information in the cumulative impacts analysis [,] . . . [w]e determine whether inclusion was reasonable and practical”].) Because Maywood has failed to provide any evidence showing that a Slauson Avenue off-ramp is a probable future project, we must presume that the LAUSD did not err in concluding that the project was too speculative to warrant cumulative impacts analysis.

2012“Cumulative impacts analysis evaluates the incremental impact of the project in conjunction with, or collectively with, other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 912 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 ] (Long Beach).) “ ' “Cumulative impact analysis ‘assesses cumulative damage as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 905.) “ ‘[T]he discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.’ ” (Id. at p. 912.) “

2022On this record, whether the Recycled Water Project will proceed is speculative, and CEQA does not require a cumulative impacts analysis. ( Gray, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1127–1128.) 22 C.

2022On this record, whether the Recycled Water Project will proceed is speculative, and CEQA does not require a cumulative impacts analysis. ( Gray, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1127–1128.) 22 C.

2018"We review an agency's decision regarding the inclusion of information in the cumulative impacts analysis under an abuse of discretion standard. 'The primary determination is whether it was reasonable and practical to include the projects and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected adequately.' " ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 525, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) The cumulative impacts section of the RFEIR (section 5.4) and specifically s

2018"We review an agency's decision regarding the inclusion of information in the cumulative impacts analysis under an abuse of discretion standard. 'The primary determination is whether it was reasonable and practical to include the projects and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected adequately.' " ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 525, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) The cumulative impacts section of the RFEIR (section 5.4) and specifically s

2019In that case, the city simultaneously pursued four downtown high-rise projects and produced EIR's for each project that unlawfully ignored the likely impacts of the other three. ( Id. at pp. 67-68, 74-75, 80-81, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) The court concluded that by leaving out "closely related projects that were currently under environmental review, the Commission applied an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Guidelines, and in so doing, abused its discretion." ( Id. at p. 74, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634 , fn.omitted.) Here, as discussed above, plaintiffs do not identify closely related, foreseeable p

2019In that case, the city simultaneously pursued four downtown high-rise projects and produced EIR's for each project that unlawfully ignored the likely impacts of the other three. ( Id. at pp. 67-68, 74-75, 80-81, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) The court concluded that by leaving out "closely related projects that were currently under environmental review, the Commission applied an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Guidelines, and in so doing, abused its discretion." ( Id. at p. 74, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634 , fn.omitted.) Here, as discussed above, plaintiffs do not identify closely related, foreseeable p

2008This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment." ( Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App.3d 300, 306 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 18 .) For this reason, appellate courts have established that "`the relevant question'" in a cumulative impacts analysis "is not how the effect of the project at issue compares to the preexisting cumulative effect, but whether `any additional amount' of effect should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect." ( Communities for a Better

2008This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment." ( Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App.3d 300, 306 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 18 .) For this reason, appellate courts have established that "`the relevant question'" in a cumulative impacts analysis "is not how the effect of the project at issue compares to the preexisting cumulative effect, but whether `any additional amount' of effect should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect." ( Communities for a Better

2022Piecemealing The Alliance also argues that the District conducted an improper piecemealing of the Project. “‘CEQA broadly defines a “project” as “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.” [Citation.] [¶] The statutory definition is augmented by the [CEQA] Guidelines . . . , which define a “project” as “the whole of

2022Piecemealing The Alliance also argues that the District conducted an improper piecemealing of the Project. “‘CEQA broadly defines a “project” as “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.” [Citation.] [¶] The statutory definition is augmented by the [CEQA] Guidelines . . . , which define a “project” as “the whole of

2009(Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b), italics added; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1024-1025 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 367 ] (Los Angeles Unified School Dist.); see also Guide to CEQA, supra, p. 466.) Accordingly, Long Beach’s criticism of LAUSD’s analysis for failure to consider the cumulative effects of air quality “on staff and student health” is not the aim of the cumulative impacts analysis.

2009(Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b), italics added; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1024-1025 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 367 ] (Los Angeles Unified School Dist.); see also Guide to CEQA, supra, p. 466.) Accordingly, Long Beach’s criticism of LAUSD’s analysis for failure to consider the cumulative effects of air quality “on staff and student health” is not the aim of the cumulative impacts analysis.

2025(Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b); see Paulek v. Department of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, 51 [rejecting a challenge to a 57 cumulative impacts analysis for failing to address specific species and noting that CEQA does not demand an “exhaustive analysis of cumulative impacts”].) “ ‘[A] good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient.’ ” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1403 .) The Guidelines provide that a cumulative impacts analysis should include one of two kinds of compilations of data: either (1) “[a] list

2009The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” . . . [A] good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient.’ [Citation.]” (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403 .) “We review an agency’s decision regarding the inclusion of information in the cumulative impacts analysis under an abuse of discretion standard. ‘The primary determination is whether it was reasonable and practical to include the projects and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected adequately.’ [C

2022Legal background Cumulative impacts under CEQA are two or more individual environmental effects “which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (Guidelines, § 15355.) “The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.” (Id., subd. (a).) “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (Guide

2019Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.] Thus, reversal of the City’s action here is appropriate only if (a) the City, in finding the proposed project categorically exempt, did not proceed in the manner required by law, or (b) substantial evidence fails to support that finding.” (Berkeley Hillside I, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1110 .) 5 The general exceptions are the unusual circumstances exception, the location exception, and the cumulative impacts exce

2019(See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 , 328, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 [agency has discretion to determine existing conditions baseline, subject to review for substantial evidence]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 , 1128, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 [county had discretion to set date of application for current project as cutoff date for deciding which projects to include in cumulative impacts analysis].) Further, though the list of projects was first obtained in 2012, the City reviewed the list pri

2019(See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 , 328, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 [agency has discretion to determine existing conditions baseline, subject to review for substantial evidence]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 , 1128, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 [county had discretion to set date of application for current project as cutoff date for deciding which projects to include in cumulative impacts analysis].) Further, though the list of projects was first obtained in 2012, the City reviewed the list pri

2025(See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 929-930 [instead of providing a list of projects, agency properly included a summary of projections of traffic conditions contained in an environmental document previously adopted by the county].) The SIP EA had “analyzed the collective impacts from a suite of proposed statewide air quality and greenhouse gas-reducing regulations.” The Regulation EA then incorporated the analysis in the SIP EA by reference, and included a link to CARB’s website where the SIP EA was posted.

2025(Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b); see Paulek v. Department of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, 51 [rejecting a challenge to a 57 cumulative impacts analysis for failing to address specific species and noting that CEQA does not demand an “exhaustive analysis of cumulative impacts”].) “ ‘[A] good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient.’ ” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1403 .) The Guidelines provide that a cumulative impacts analysis should include one of two kinds of compilations of data: either (1) “[a] list

2021(San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 740 [cumulative impacts discussion was inadequate where other development projects were not listed and adequately discussed]; Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 723 [finding EIR inadequate where the agency could not determine whether air pollution from all projects in the San Joaquin Valley air basin would have revealed a more severe impact because the EIR did not provide that data].) Because we conclude the program EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate, we do not decide the EWG petitioners’ contention that the progr

2015If the Department upon using the evaluation protocol discovers an impact that was not sufficiently addressed in the EIR, it will then be obligated to begin a CEQA process, but only if the Department intends to approve the activity." ( Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 239, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 736 .) We conclude appellants fail to show reversible error in the EIR's impacts analysis. *585 VII Cumulative Impacts NCRA argues the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis violated CEQA by failing to address (1) the synergistic effects of the project, and (2) individually minor but co

2015If the Department upon using the evaluation protocol discovers an impact that was not sufficiently addressed in the EIR, it will then be obligated to begin a CEQA process, but only if the Department intends to approve the activity." ( Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 239, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 736 .) We conclude appellants fail to show reversible error in the EIR's impacts analysis. *585 VII Cumulative Impacts NCRA argues the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis violated CEQA by failing to address (1) the synergistic effects of the project, and (2) individually minor but co

2012(State of California v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1416, 1420 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 472 ] [“Under CEQA, an EER is presumed adequate [citation], and the plaintiff in a CEQA action has the burden of proving otherwise.”].) Maywood contends that any future project that is undergoing “environmental review” qualifies as a “probable future project.” The case law makes clear, however, that this is true only to the extent that the particular “environmental review” at issue provides evidence that the proposed project is both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful cumulative impact

2012(State of California v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1416, 1420 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 472 ] [“Under CEQA, an EER is presumed adequate [citation], and the plaintiff in a CEQA action has the burden of proving otherwise.”].) Maywood contends that any future project that is undergoing “environmental review” qualifies as a “probable future project.” The case law makes clear, however, that this is true only to the extent that the particular “environmental review” at issue provides evidence that the proposed project is both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful cumulative impact