Tag Archives: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Forever, Economy, Elizabeth Patterson, Environmental review, Just transition, Solano County Maritime

Elizabeth Patterson on CEQA, etc… ‘Look Before You Leap’

Look before you leap

By Elizabeth Patterson, first appearing in The Benicia Herald, September 13, 2026

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – 2020

“Look before you leap” describes the reason for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  Before a project is built it is wise and thoughtful to determine impacts to air and water quality, wildlife habitats including terrestrial and aquatic species.  And for many what are the impacts from traffic, water supply, noise – a public health issue often ignored by decision makers.

California Forever pounded the hallways of California legislature in August to get Solano County Senator and Assembly member to sponsor CF’s proposed bill aided and abetted by the Governor’s Go Biz office.  The proposed bill would use  2008 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the County General Plan.  Why wait until August to introduce this so-called trailer bill?  The answer is to avoid public review through the appropriate legislative committees and to use the power of the Governor’s office to wield their billionaire influence.  Sound familiar?

Senator Cabaldon noted that the 2008 General Plan EIR spelled out clearly that any “water related industrial project” would require a full CEQA assessment for potential impacts.  This is why the Senator among other concerns never endorsed the proposed legislation.

Assembly Member Wilson would not support the legislation without the Solano County Board of Supervisors signing on.  They didn’t.  And they didn’t because of multiple reasons including the last-minute California Forever steamrolling approach.  “I am not afraid of the Governor” said Supervisor Mitch Mashburn.  Board Chair Brown said “just say no”.

Mashburn’s motion to consider Solano County Maritime and Manufacturing  Act (Solano County Maritime) was “no” this year but next year consider Benicia’s deep water port and revitalizing Mare Island and its dry docks.  Will the billionaires do that?

Investing in existing communities such as Benicia and Vallejo means fewer new roads, water pipes, electrical power systems and so on versus the proposed shipbuilding near Collinsville.  It means investing private and public resources efficiently and effectively.  The ill-conceived Solano County Maritime “shipbuilding” project would take massive amounts of new roads, miles of new water supply pipes, and miles of new electrical power lines.  As a note, unless the Investor Owned Utilities and Public Utilities Commission change the rules, these new transmission lines will be part of your electricity energy bill.  That is how new development pays for utilities.  It is not just the developer or project.  The costs are spread around to all of us.

Roads.  The Solano Transportation Authority plans projects decades in advance because it must line up resources to pay for the improvements.  STA has a list.  It has projected funding sources.  What California Forever proposes with the shipbuilding project would require limited funds to be redirected and the approved projects list delayed by a decade or so.  Read STA’s comments on the notice of preparation for the EIR for the Suisun City Expansion project.  Legislative rumors have it that CF suggested diverting available funding from SR 37 to apply to SR 12.  It is hard to believe such rumors.

Investing in existing communities means where people live and work.  And it means avoiding significant impacts to tidal marshlands of the Sacramento River in the Delta.  Some of those impacts include harm from dredging especially if the existing ship channel is dug deeper.  The Army Corps of Engineers through numerous studies  identify that dredging the channel deeper could result in the channel walls collapsing because the sediment from hydraulic mining is weak.  Furthermore, the ACOE identified that a deeper channel would enable more salt water into the Delta where farmers pump to irrigate their crops.

The Bay-Delta is the heart of California’s water system. It supports some of the state’s most iconic and threatened fish and wildlife, sustains tribes and other local communities, and provides water for nearly 30 million Californians and 4 million acres of farmland. These benefits are essential to the economy and environment.

It would be helpful to understand all of this which is what a full CEQA review would provide.

Some have said that the proposed legislation to by-pass CEQA and local government adopted policies would still allow County discretionary decision making.  Nope.  Read the draft legislation to note that after the project is designed, the county would issue permits – permits which are ministerial – meaning adhering to adopted standards.  There would be no mitigation measures because there would be no identified impact because there is no CEQA.

Furthermore, all the important decisions of project design are made by the developer and the proposed development agreement is meaningless because there is nothing to negotiate.  And even with a development agreement, things happen such as bankruptcy leaving government holding the empty promises.

Imbedded in the failed CF legislation was a device to solve issues between agencies.  For instance, if STA disagreed with CalTrans, there was a proposed “master” who would decide.  This proposed master would be appointed by Land Use and Climate Innovation whose members are appointed by the Governor.  Want to guess how that decision would go?

It is true that there are many governmental agencies with decision making : air quality districts, water quality and water supply agencies, federal, state, regional and local transportation agencies, PUC, fish and wildlife, Delta Protection Commission, Delta Stewardship Council, NOAA, and Department of Defense – it is a long list.  Because things are complicated, expertise, knowledge and oversight are needed to secure public health, safety and welfare and the Public Trust Doctrine.

It is said that CEQA and the complications of getting approval are ruinous for California.  Really?  CEQA has been law since 1970.  More than 50 years.  And California is the 4th largest economy in the world.  Something must be working.  I suggest it is the “looking before you leap” that has had a net positive benefit.  Other benefits are cleaner air, better water quality, many habits protected, better transportation planning and less reliance on fossil fuels.

Right here in the river City of Benicia are opportunities for ship repair and maritime activities, expanding  tourism and visitors as a perfect place to explore the Delta National Heritage Area of which we are a part.  Invest in Benicia. Reduce our carbon footprint. Restore our fisheries.  And do it with the public.  Perhaps the billionaires will reflect on their attempts to get favorable treatment and remember Winston Churchill’s “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried”.  The billionaires “cram it down our throats” approach didn’t work.  Try public participation and democratic principles.

Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor 2007-2020
State staff environmental scientist, retired

Previously here on this subject:

Walking Back CEQA Protections Will Leave Californians Paying the Price for Ignoring Impacts, by Elizabeth Patterson, July 30, 2024

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Housing, Local land use authority

2026 CEQA Ballot Initiative Briefing

Introduction from Elizabeth Patterson, April 29, 026

The California Chamber of Commerce has qualified an initiative on dismantling CEQA.  Backed by Silicon Valley tech bros and lots of money, there is pressing need to inform voters. Below is the announcement of an informational zoom meeting. >EP

2026 CEQA Ballot Initiative Briefing

The Planning and Conservation League is hosting an informational zoom meeting about the CalChamber ballot initiative on Tuesday, May 5, at 5pm. The zoom registration link is here.

It is imperative that we spread the word about this CEQA-gutting measure and discuss ways our communities can combat it. People who will be presenting on the zoom include:

  1. Aruna Prabhala, Center for Biological Diversity
  2. Gabriel Tolson, Planning and Conservation League
  3. Rachel Hooper, Legal advisor to PCL
  4. Severn Williams, Public Good PR

As a reminder, the initiative applies to entire sprawl housing subdivisions in wildfire zones, toxic industrial projects like landfill gas facilities, large water infrastructure like dams and desalination plants, and all new freeway projects. For these projects, it eviscerates CEQA’s longstanding rules governing environmental review and radically curtails courts’ authority to issue injunctions and other appropriate remedies. The measure is heavily funded by corporate interests and billionaires – the proponents have already raised over $14 million, and have budgeted an additional $50-100 million to pass the measure.

Finally, we greatly appreciate everyone’s cooperation in signing the joint letter to the Legislature about the initiative. We will circulate the final letter to all signatories after it is submitted.

Best regards,
Gabriel

BenIndy Editor: For background on CEQA, see Elizabeth Patterson’s “Walking Back CEQA Protections Will Leave Californians Paying the Price for Ignoring Impacts”

Crude By Rail, Legal action, State regulation

Appeals Court Doesn’t Stop Crude Oil Rail Shipments Through Richmond CA

Repost from CBS San Francisco (5KPIX, 740AM, 106.9FM)

Appeals Court Doesn’t Stop Crude Oil Rail Shipments Through Richmond

July 19, 2016 9:22 PM
Protesters against fracked oil trains held a demonstration outside the Kinder-Morgan rail yard in Richmond on September 4, 2014. (CBS)
Protesters against fracked oil trains held a demonstration outside the Kinder-Morgan rail yard in Richmond on September 4, 2014. (CBS)

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A state appeals court upheld dismissal of a lawsuit in which environmentalists sought to challenge crude oil rail shipments through Richmond.

A trial judge’s dismissal of the lawsuit was upheld in court Tuesday in San Francisco. The court said Communities for a Better Environment, known as CBE, and other groups missed a state law’s six-month deadline for challenging a lack of environmental review for the shipments.

A three-judge panel said the California Environmental Quality Act didn’t allow an exception to the deadline even though the groups said they couldn’t have discovered the project sooner.

“Ultimately, CBE’s arguments about the proper balance between the interests of public participation and of timely litigation are better directed to the Legislature, not this court,” Court of Appeal Justice Jim Humes wrote for the court.

The panel unanimously upheld a similar ruling in which San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch dismissed the lawsuit in 2014.

The crude oil is carried by the Texas-based Kinder Morgan energy company in railroad tanker cars from North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation to Kinder Morgan’s Richmond terminal, where it is transferred to tanker trucks.

The shale oil is extracted through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling.

The environmental groups contend that shale crude oil, which is lighter than other types of crude oil, is dangerous because it is more explosive in the event of a derailment. They also say fumes emitted during the oil transfers harm human health.

The groups sued the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in March 2014 after discovering that the agency had quietly issued a permit for the project in July 2013 without requiring an environmental impact report.

The permit allowed Kinder Morgan to change its previous ethanol facility to the crude oil facility.

In addition to CBE, the plaintiffs were the Natural Resources Defense Council, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Sierra Club. They were represented by the Earthjustice law firm.

They argued that a report should have been required under the CEQA law, while the air district and Kinder Morgan contended no report was needed because granting the permit was a ministerial rather than discretionary decision.

But the issue of whether there should have been an environmental report was never reached in court because Busch ruled, and the appeals court agreed, that the lawsuit was filed too late.

The appeals court said, “We acknowledge that if there were any situation in which it would be warranted to delay the triggering of a limitations period in the manner CBE urges, it would be one in which no public notice of the project was given and the project’s commencement was not readily apparent to the public.”

But the panel said that case law set by the California Supreme Court and other courts established that the Legislature made a “clear determination” that CEQA challenges must be filed within the deadline.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Local Regulation, Public permitting, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Mayor: Public comment period closed – now what?

From an email by Benicia California Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
November 5, 2015

null

Public Comment Period Closed on Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for Valero Proposed Crude by Rail Project. 

What happens next?

Last week the extended Valero Crude by Rail Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) public comment period closed.  People are asking, “now what?”.

Following are some of the scenarios that could happen.  The list is in no way indicative of my thoughts or opinions and I have not asked for validation of any of the following scenarios by city staff.  But the list does represent some of the questions and scenarios being asked by the public.  I anticipate these kinds of questions will be raised at the Planning Commission hearing on the FEIR and project.  I take full responsibility for any errors and will correct such in future e-Alert update on Crude by Rail.

Scenarios:

1.  The staff and environmental consultants will estimate the work needed to respond to all the comments on both the original draft EIR and the RDEIR and advise the applicant.  If applicant agrees to proceed, the responses will be in the Final Environmental Impact Report  for consideration by the Planning Commission.

Or the applicant could appeal the staff decision.  I believe the appeal would be heard by the Planning Commission.  If they agreed with staff, the applicant could appeal to Council seeking relief from the staff and PC decision.  There would be no work done until the appeal is heard or the applicant agrees to fund the response document.  Read further for other permutations of further “delay”.

2.  If applicant agrees to proceed, the responses will be in the Final Environmental Impact Report  for consideration by the Planning Commission.

The public can comment at the Planning Commission FEIR hearing or in writing prior to the public hearing.  Generally, good practice is  staff (consultants) respond at the FEIR hearing which can be verbal or the item can be continued for written response though technically this is not like the draft EIR process.

Staff, consultants and outside attorney would prepare findings to be considered by the Planning Commission.  In the past for other projects the city sometimes has provided both possibilities for findings:  findings that the FEIR is adequate or findings that it is not.  The Planning Commission can find the FEIR adequate to decide on the project.  The Planning Commission could find that the FEIR is an adequate – though not a perfect assessment of the physical effects on the environment – and approve or deny the project.

The Planning Commission could find that the FEIR is not adequate for a decision to approve or deny.

Conventional wisdom is that either decision would be appealed.

3.  There can be an appeal at any step described above including decisions by staff and Planning Commission.  Appeals of staff go to the Planning Commission and their decision can be appealed to the City Council.  If any appeal moves forward, the City Council would have public hearing on any of the staff decisions and/or Planning Commission regarding the FEIR and the project.  The City Council could uphold the decisions of the staff and/or Planning Commission as in scenario #2 or not.

Depending on these actions and decisions there could be legal action.  Until legally decided, there would be no work done to advance the project process and staff time and effort would be to respond to legal action.

5.  Some experts and written opinions from the federal Surface Transportation Board and some legal opinions assert that if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) causes undue delay in rail transportation, that the feds could act preemptively and “overrule” CEQA.  Others suggest that that does not apply to local land use permits.  Others may have more information on how this process would work.

6.  City Council could certify the FEIR and deny or approve the project.  Conventional wisdom is that there would be a lawsuit challenging the decision based on CEQA and local permitting process.  The city is indemnified by the agreement with the applicant, meaning the applicant pays for all legal defense.  Some lead agencies hire the defense attorneys and the applicant pays for the defense.  Other lead agencies have been known to let the applicant choose the attorneys and pay directly for the defense.  The city is the lead agency.

7.  The applicant chooses not to pay for the defense of the CEQA document and land use permit law suit.  City stops the processing and defense.  There is a time factor involved in CEQA lawsuits.

The best place to get accurate current information on the process is with staff.  To get started, click here.  Another source is the Benicia Independent which is editorially opposed to the Crude by Rail project and selective about letters but does provide links that are easier to access.  It is also a comprehensive source of current news.  There is no comparable site in favor of Crude by Rail.  Stay tune for developments in this area.