California Code of Regulations
Title 14 - Natural Resources
Division 6 - Resources Agency
Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
Article 9 - Contents of Environmental Impact Reports
Section 15130 - Discussion of Cumulative Impacts
Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 38, September 20, 2024
(a) An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in section 15065(a)(3). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.
(b) 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. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(c) With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.
(d) Previously approved land use documents, including, but not limited to, general plans, specific plans, regional transportation plans, plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and local coastal plans may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan where the lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(f), in a certified EIR for that plan.
(e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section 15183(j).
1. Amendment of section heading, new subsection (d) and amendment of NOTE filed 5-27-97; operative 5-27-97 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 97, No. 22).
2. Amendment of section and NOTE filed 10-26-98; operative 10-26-98 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21087 (Register 98, No. 44).
3. Change without regulatory effect amending subsection (d) filed 2-1-2001 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2001, No. 5).
4. Change without regulatory effect repealing subsection (a)(4), amending subsection (b)(1)(B), redesignating former subsection (b)(1)(B)1. as subsection (b)(2), repealing former subsection (b)(1)(B)2., renumbering subsections and amending NOTE filed 7-22-2003 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2003, No. 30).
5. Change without regulatory effect amending NOTE filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40).
6. Amendment of subsections (a), (b)(1)(B) and (d) and NOTE filed 2-16-2010; operative 3-18-2010 (Register 2010, No. 8).
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003(d), 21083(b), 21093, 21094 and 21100, Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 397; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692; Laurel Heights Homeowners Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Sierra Club v. Gilroy (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 30; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421; Concerned Citizens of South Cent. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed'n v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Cal. Dept. Of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574; Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98; and Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383.