First Name: | James |
---|---|
Last Name: | Andrew |
Email Address: | jandrew@ellman-burke.com |
Affiliation | Ellman Burke Hoffman & Johnson |
Subject | Comment on Boxes 2 and 3 of Attachment B |
Comment |
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 |
Attachment |
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-01-02 14:36:09 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.