December 23, 2015
A. Framework for Determining Baseline
1. CEQA: Public Resources Code §§ 21060, 21068
2. CEQA Guidelines: 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15125
3. Key CEQA Cases:
a. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th, 439 (In limited circumstances, future
conditions may be used an exception to establish baseline conditions when (1) substantial evidence supports unusual circumstances of the project or surrounding conditions and (2) using existing conditions as the baseline would detract from EIR effectiveness)
b. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 (Baseline of actual air
emissions rather than permitted level of emission must be used)
c. Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683 (Existing use rather than prospective use allowed under zoning ordinance must be used)
d. Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Existing conditions correctly analyzed even though such activities were illegal)
B. Specific Approach to Determining Baseline
1. Describe the physical conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time of the Notice of Preparation is published, or, if no Notice of Preparation is published, then at the time the environmental analysis is commenced.
2. The environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
3. Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts.
4. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by that project.
5. The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plan, specific plans and regional plan.
6. Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or, if no Notice of Preparation is published, then at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan.
C. Framework for Determining Cumulative Impacts
1. CEQA: Public Resources Code § 21083, subd. (b)(2)
2. CEQA Guidelines: 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15130, 15065, 15355
3. Key CEQA Cases:
a. Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 44 Cal.4th 459 (2008) (Past projects must be considered to signify lead agency’s obligation to consider present project in the context of a realistic historical account of relevant prior activities that have had significant impacts)
b. Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260 (EIR must include facts and analysis finding that project contribution will be cumulatively considerable, and regional or area-wide habitat conservation plans can provide basis that significant biological impacts will not occur)
c. Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (202) 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (Regional traffic models are commonly used to analyze cumulative impacts, and as such, such uniform data can be used as a Summary of Projections Method)
d. Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.app.4th 1099 (Mere awareness of a proposed project is insufficient to demonstrate that a project is a probable future project; also, planning document must be publicly viewed to qualify for Summary of Projections Method)
e. Sierra Club v. Westside Irrigation District (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 690 (If project does not make some contribution to a cumulative effect, then such purported effect need not be considered)
f. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Two projects were closely related for similar retail projects and location, a few miles away; no explanation supporting geographic scope of analysis; and Summary of Projections document outdated and inaccurate)
g. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713 (Rejected cumulative impact analysis because of timing and location of other projects)
h. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (In connection with the List of Projects Method, the key question is whether it was reasonable and practical to include projects, and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative effects were reflected accurately)
D. Specific Approach to Determining Cumulative Impacts
a. Two or More Individual Effects, When Considered Together, are Considerable, or Compound or Increase Other Environmental Impacts (e.g., Air, Water, or Traffic)
b. Geographic Scope (Assessment of Impact Area must be Reasonable)
c. List of Projects Method (Past, Present and Probable Future Projects)
d. Summary of Projections Methods (Adopted or Certified Plan, Related Planning Document, or Environmental Document)
e. Degree of Severity of Impacts (Quantify Level of Impact, if Feasible)
f. Likelihood of Occurrence (Possibility, Probability or Certainty of Impacts)
E. Practical Comments
1. Evaluate Baseline by Time, Existing Physical Conditions and Activities
2. Do Not Consider Baseline Per Permit Limits or Capacity
3. Future Conditions Baseline Should be Used Rarely and with Justification
4. Illegal Activities May be Used As Existing Baseline
5. Quantify Degree of Severity of Cumulative Impacts: Air, Water and Traffic
6. Correct Baseline Helps to Correctly Quantify Cumulative Impacts
7. Geographic Scope: Determine by Reach of Impact not by Jurisdiction
8. Project Method and Summary of Projections Method Should be Considered
9. Wrong Baseline Could Skew Cumulative Impacts and Reduced Scope Alternative Impacts