Comment Log Display

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Development of
significance thresholds is not an easy task.  Thank you for your
efforts.

I have several concerns regarding the draft thresholds, most of
which concerns are captured in the letters from the APA California
and CBIA.  I will not repeat those concerns here.  I do add the
following comments, and specific proposal to modify Box 3 of
Attachment B.

I do not believe that Box 2 will be useful for projects in most
jurisdictions.  It is simply too layered with programmatic
requirements, and will be too hard for local agencies to apply. 
CEQA is filled with exceptions and streamlining provisions that
assume that cities and counties have the time and money to
undertake the higher level programmatic planning work.  This simply
does not happen in most cases.   In any event, the SB 375 process
will be a type of programmatic approach by itself (which is why Box
3 needs to reference SB 375).  From a land-location perspective as
it may impact global warming (including from transportation),
consistency with an approved SCS/APS should be enough by itself,
regardless of project size.  If a project also meets the
performance standards for water use, energy use, etc. - which are
not covered by SB 375 - then the project should be less than
significant. 

The idea that a "large" project must be treated as potentially
significant simply because it is large (as Box 3 states) cannot be
supported.  AB 32 sets up an overall cap, and the Scoping Plan
clearly defers to the SB 375 process to get there.  Imagine that we
could predict and precisely plan where all growth in California
will occur and could require that it all occur there and that it be
constructed to meet water/energy performance standards, AND we
planned it to meet the Scoping Plan's 5 MMT target.  The CEQA
review for that planning exercise would have to conclude that the
impact of such development on global warming is less than
significant.  Accordingly, why should any project that is
consistent with SB 375 (which is what we've set up to get us to the
same place) ever be treated as significant from a global warming
perspective (again, assuming it meets water/energy requirements)?

Consistent with the foregoing, I would suggest that Box 3 for
Residential and Commercial projects be revised to reference the SB
375 SCS and APS.  SB 375 specifically includes a provision (see
Sec. 15 of SB 375, to be codified at PRC 21159.28) that says that a
CEQA document for a project consistent with an approved SCS or APS
does not have to discuss GHG emissions from cars and light-duty
trucks.  This would hold true regardless of the size of the project
or its emissions.

With this, Box 3 would be as follows:

"3.(a)...

Construction...

Operations...

·         ...

·         ...

·         ... standard for waste

AND

(b) (i) Meets an interim ARB performance standard for
transportation OR (ii) is not required to reference, describe, or
discuss impacts from cars and light-duty trucks generated by the
project on global warming under Public Resources Code 21159.28

AND

(c) if (b)(ii) does not apply, the project with performance
standards...will emit no more than X....."

Thank you,
Jim Andrew