California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In their application, the applicants indicated they do not believe the proposed transaction is subject to the CEQA. We construe this argument to be a motion under our Rule 17.2 for determination of the applicability of CEQA. We have reviewed the application and other information submitted by PG&E to determine whether CEQA applies to this proposed conveyance.
CEQA applies to a "project" or action "which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change . . . [and involves] the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or entitlement for use by one or more public agencies."6 If an application does involve a project under CEQA, our Rule 17 imposes other procedures and requirements on the applicant.
We have previously held that a change in ownership may give rise to foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment; but, absent substantial evidence of such indirect changes, the application for approval of the ownership change does not involve a project within the meaning of CEQA.7
To investigate this matter even further, the ALJ required the applicants to respond to a series of questions about current and proposed environmental conditions on the property. As a result of verified answers to these questions, the record discloses that the property is zoned by the City of Oakland as R-30 (One-Family Residential), S-10 (Scenic Route), S-11 (Site Development and Design Review), and S-145 (Expedited Design and Bulk Review Guidelines for Fire Damage Area). PG&E's transmission towers and lines are permitted under Section 17.16.050.A of the R-30 zoning ordinance. PG&E intends to continue the same transmission-related functions on its retained easement. Brickner may build a driveway on part of the acquired property. PG&E has no knowledge or information concerning the presence of any species listed as threatened or endangered under federal or California law or of the habitat of such species.8
Based on this information, we do not believe there is any substantial evidence of any potential direct or indirect change to the environment as the result of our approval of this application. As a result, we conclude that our approval of the application is not a project as defined by CEQA. Even if an indirect environmental change might result as a consequence of our approval, we believe the project would be exempt under CEQA.9 We conclude that CEQA review of the application is not required.
6 CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378(a) (2003). 7 See Decision (D.) 98-02-026, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1024 (1998); D.97-07-019, 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 584 (1997). Cf. Northeast Utilities Service Co., 56 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n Report (CCH) ¶ 61,269 (1991) (approval of disposition of facilities under § 203 of the Federal Power Act does not generally constitute major federal action significantly affecting quality of human environment). 8 See Response of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Administrative Law Judge's Request for Further Information (Feb. 18, 2003). 9 See CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061(b)(4) (2003) (a project is exempt where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity . . . may have a significant effect on the environment . . .").
