CEQA regulations update

Urged the Board to strike provisions letting developers appeal the level of CEQA analysis to the Board and to keep the requirement that mitigation changes return to the Environmental Evaluation Committee, saying the changes remove public protections.

A researcher with Jobs to Move America said the CEQA changes are an aggressive attempt to make appeals difficult, may conflict with state law, and could invite more litigation, especially ahead of the Lithium Valley Specific Plan.

Asked the Board on behalf of CURE and Safer California labor coalitions to continue the item and adopt their recommended revisions, arguing the amendments restrict public participation.

Called the CEQA changes 'procedural traps' that make environmental appeals easier to reject and urged the Board to reject them.

Via Zoom, asked the Board not to approve the CEQA update, warning it could let AI data centers bypass full environmental review and noting the county is in CEQA litigation.

Cited specific public resources code provisions he says the update violates, called the planning department's credibility compromised, and said Jim Minnick should step down.

Argued the county routinely declares CEQA unnecessary, called the update confusing wordplay, and accused the Board of dodging state environmental mandates.

Echoed Tyson's objections against procedural gatekeeping and thanked Supervisors Cardenas-Singh and Escobar for attending the town hall.

Supported parts of the update but opposed giving CEQA approval power to staff, citing a GIS risk assessment on the data center she says was withheld from supervisors for five months.

Called the mid-game rule change a bad look that undermines developer trust, said there's no trust in the planning director, and warned of another Senator Padilla bill.

Called the rewrite an 'administrative defensive fortress' designed to muzzle the public, citing ten-day appeal windows and evidence deadlines as a procedural trap.

Called CEQA 'the last line of the fence,' traced its history to Reagan-era law, and strongly opposed the update, saying the data center should not be exempt.