Not a “Project” Under CEQA. (1) If the transaction is not a “project” under CEQA, please explain why. Similar to the CPUC’s approval of a Master Agreement for ▇▇▇▇▇ in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, PG&E’s advice letter here seeks the Commission’s approval of a Master Agreement for ▇▇▇▇▇▇, which like ▇▇▇▇▇, is not a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 (CEQA). The Master Agreement for ▇▇▇▇▇▇ neither, in and of itself, has any potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment within the meaning of CEQA Guideline 15378(a). Rather, approval of this advice letter merely establishes a standardized set of terms and framework applicable to future unspecified individual site licenses (D.09- 07-035, Conclusion of Law 2, mimeo, p. 24; see also overall CEQA discussion, mimeo at pp. 9-11). The site-specific information in these future site licenses will be subject to future Section 851 approvals. However, under the existing circumstances, no CEQA review is required for the proposed approval of the Master License Agreement here, as the CPUC found was appropriate in approving the ▇▇▇▇▇ MLA in D.09-07- 035. Lastly, D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, mimeo, pp. 10-11, states: Several courts have recognized that the adoption of broad-brush or preliminary planning tools–tools that establish some type of roadmap or framework for processing future approvals–do not commit an agency to a particular course of action on a particular project and thus do not trigger CEQA review. For example, in Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, an agency Advice 3112-G/3654-E - 13 - April 23, 2010
Appears in 2 contracts