Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission
202 Cal. App. 4th 549
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- The Lands Commission renewed a 30-year lease allowing Chevron to continue operating the Long Wharf marine terminal in San Francisco Bay, near Richmond, California.
- The terminal sits on submerged lands held in trust by the state; the refinery sits on private upland; a pipeline link crosses both lands and the causeway.
- The 1902 terminal predates CEQA; the Lands Commission prepared a nine-year CEQA review (1998–2007) including a draft and final EIR centered on oil spill risks and other impacts.
- The baseline for the EIR was ultimately set to reflect current operating conditions (existing terminal operations), not a purely intact structure or a no-use baseline.
- Public hearings were held; the Lands Commission adopted an overriding consideration to renew the lease despite ongoing spill risks, and Chevron entered into Bay Trail concessions.
- Plaintiffs filed a CEQA and public trust challenge in March 2009; the trial court denied relief and the appellate court affirmed, upholding the baseline, EIR, and trust analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CEQA baseline was correct. | Plaintiffs argued baseline should exclude current operations. | Lands Commission and Chevron argued baseline must reflect existing conditions. | Baseline reflecting current operations upheld. |
| Whether the EIR properly analyzed alternatives. | EIR failed to consider burying the pipelines and removing the causeway. | Alternative was not required if it addressed non-significant impacts or wasn’t an effect of the project. | No additional burial/causeway alternative required; impacts were not identified as significant. |
| Whether the public trust doctrine was violated. | Public trust uses beyond navigation/commerce (recreation) must be considered and mitigated. | CEQA review suffices and further public trust analysis is not required when a long-standing trust use is continued. | CEQA review alone sufficed; no independent public trust violation found. |
| Whether cumulative impacts were properly addressed. | EIR failed to address cumulative impacts with refinery discharges and other Bay impacts. | Baseline and scope did not require additional cumulative discussion for the specific project under review. | Cumulative impacts adequately addressed within the project’s scope and baseline. |
| Whether trustee agency consultation and responses to public comments were proper. | Consultation with trustee agencies and response to comments were insufficient. | Notice and comment processes were satisfied; responses addressed significant questions; irrelevant comments were not required to be addressed. | Consultation and responses were adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (baseline must reflect existing conditions)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008) (no uniform baseline; baseline must be realistic)
- Fat v. County of Sacramento, 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal.App.2d 2002) (baseline reflecting current operations upheld)
- Riverwatch v. County of San Diego, 76 Cal.App.4th 1428 (Cal.App.4th 1999) (existing illegal development can be part of baseline)
- Bloom v. McGurk, 26 Cal.App.4th 1307 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (existing facility baseline for CEQA purposes)
- National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983) (public trust and CEQA interplay; consideration required)
- Carstens v. California Coastal Commission, 182 Cal.App.3d 277 (Cal.App.3d 1986) (public trust balancing with other policy considerations)
- Zack's, Inc. v. City of Sausalito, 165 Cal.App.4th 1163 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (public trust and use of tidelands; regulatory discretion)