The agency has divided the amendments into three categories—Efficiency Improvements,Substantive Improvements and Technical Improvements. The following was taken from the Executive Summary for the Proposed Update in November 2017.
Efficiency Improvements
First, the amendments
promote use of existing regulatory
standards in the CEQA process. Using standards as “thresholds of significance”
creates a predictable starting point for the analysis, and allows agencies to
rely on the expertise of other regulatory bodies, without foreclosing
consideration of possible project specific effects.
Second, the amendments propose to update the
environmental checklist that most agencies use to conduct their environmental
review. Redundant questions in the existing checklist would be eliminated and
some questions would be updated to address contemporary topics. The checklist
has also been updated with new questions related to transportation and
wildfire.
Third, the amendments
include several changes to make existing programmatic environmental review
easier to use for later projects. Specifically, it clarifies the rules on
tiering, and provides additional guidance on when a later project may be
considered within the scope of a program EIR thereby obviating the need for additional
environmental review.
Fourth, the amendments
revise several exemptions expanding an existing exemption for projects
implementing a specific plan to include not just residential, but also
commercial and mixed-use projects near transit. It also clarifies the rules on
the exemption for changes to existing facilities so that vacant buildings can
more easily be redeveloped. Changes to that same exemption would also promote
pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape improvements within an existing right of
way.
Finally, the
amendments include a new section to assist agencies in complying with CEQA in
response to a court’s remand, and to help the public and project proponents
understand the effect of the remand on project implementation.
Substantive
Improvements
First, the Substantive Improvement amendments
would provide guidance regarding an energy impacts analysis. Specifically, it
would require an EIR to include an analysis of a project’s energy impacts that
addresses not just building design, but also transportation, equipment use,
location, and other relevant factors.
Second, the Substantive Improvement amendments
propose guidance on the analysis of water supply impacts. It requires analysis of a proposed project’s
possible sources of water supply over the life of the project and the
environmental impacts of supplying that water to the project. The analysis must
consider any uncertainties in supply, as well as potential alternatives.
Third, the Substantive Improvement amendments
includes propose updates related to
analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to Senate Bill 743. These updates
will specify that vehicle miles travelled is the appropriate measure of
transportation impacts for most projects.
Finally, the amendments include
proposed updates related to analyzing the impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.
It adds that the focus of the GHG analysis should
be “on the project’s effect on climate change” and should not focus on “the quantity
of emissions, and in particular how that quantity of emissions compares to
statewide or global emissions.” Agencies
should “consider the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of
the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change,” but avoid
speculation, according to OPR.
The changes also direct agencies to consider
appropriate time frames for the GHG analysis of their project, noting that in
some cases, it would be appropriate for agencies to consider a project’s
long-term greenhouse gas impacts, such as for projects with long time horizons
for implementation. The changes clarify that agencies can rely on existing GHG
reduction plans, such as Climate Action Plans, when conducting
the GHG analysis.
Technical
Improvements
The Technical Improvement amendments
also include technical changes to
conform to recent cases and statutory changes. For example, it includes changes
related to evaluation of hazards mandated by the California Supreme Court in
CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
Another change clarifies when it may be
appropriate to use projected future conditions as the environmental baseline.
Another change addresses when agencies may defer specific details of mitigation
measures until after project approval.
The Technical Improvement amendments
also propose a set of changes related to the duty of lead agencies to provide
detailed responses to comments on a project. The changes would clarify that a
general response may be appropriate when a comment submits voluminous data and
information without explaining its relevance to the project. Other changes
address a range of topics such as selecting the lead agency, posting notices
with county clerks, clarifying the definition of “discretionary,” and others.
Finally, the amendments include technical
changes to Appendices D and E to reflect recent statutory requirements and
previously adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, and to correct
typographical errors.
Additional Technical Improvements include
those related to: pre-approval agreements; lead agency by agreement; common
sense exemption; preparing the initial study; consultation with transit agencies;
citations in environmental documents; posting notices with the county clerk;
time limits for negative declarations;
project benefits; joint NEPA/CEQA documents; using the emergency exemption;
discretionary projects; conservation easements as mitigation; and Appendices C
and M to the CEQA
Guidelines.
