Benicia Planning Commission is the panel that will decide — at least initially — whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project should be certified.

Meanwhile, a few other projects that have come across the Community Development Department’s desks also may require similar in-depth examination of their effects on the environment.

That’s because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a complex law that is designed to accomplish a simple goal — to minimize the impacts and determine the consequences of a project on the environment.

The Planning Commission received an overview Monday on such environmental reports by contract attorney Kat Wellman, after several commissioners asked for such training before they see the Valero project’s document.

Wellman stressed she would not talk about the proposed project that would extend Union Pacific Railroad tracks on Valero Benicia Refinery’s property to allow the company to substitute North American crude blends for about 70 percent of the crude it currently obtains through tanker ships from foreign countries.

The panel will be taking public comment Thursday, July 10, on the project’s draft EIR and will decide then whether the comment period on the draft document should extend beyond 45 days.

The workshop Monday night was designed to help the commission understand the hefty draft document, its final version and other environmental reports the panel will see in the future.

An EIR is a document designed to meet the requirements of CEQA, but it’s not the only document type that could satisfy those requirements when Benicia receives a project application, Wellman told commissioners.

Some projects can have their impacts addressed through a negative declaration, in which projects are documented as not having significant impact, or a mitigated negative declaration, in which the project’s impacts are addressed with preventive or compensatory measures.

An EIR could be ordered based on the initial study’s determination that significant impacts can’t be addressed merely through project revisions or other mitigation methods, or if enough evidence is presented to indicate the project may have that level of impact.

Some projects are exempt from CEQA review, either because they can be approved by a manager-level employee, because state statutes allow an exemption or because other regulations provide that exemption, she said.

But projects that fall under CEQA requirements first are subject to an initial study to give the city its first look at the type of effects it might have on the environment. The items that must be considered by the initial study are potential impacts, possible mitigation measures and how those measures could be monitored.

Aesthetics, biological impacts, hazards, air and water quality, noise, utilities, traffic, population and housing, geology and minerals, and land use are among the topics that must be covered, as well as agriculture, recreation, energy conservation, greenhouse gas emissions and cultural resources.

Any significant impact must be addressed, but Wellman said what is “significant” isn’t always clear, even if it’s supposed to be substantial.

Wellman was able to clarify the difference in “effect” and “impact,” saying an effect has an impact on the environment.

Direct effects are caused by a proposed project; an indirect effect could be expected to happen, but wouldn’t occur at the time the project is under way, and may not be related immediately to the project.

A cumulative effect comes from two or more individual effects, and could come from different facets of a single project or multiple projects. But Wellman said the existence of significant cumulative impacts from previous projects alone wouldn’t equate to the project under consideration to be thought of as having a significant impact.

“You can’t look at what’s existing when judging current projects,” she said.

Some changes — economical or social, for example — may not be considered “significant” by themselves, Wellman said, but social or economic changes that can be tied to a project’s physical change could be considered in deciding whether an impact is significant.

Whether described in a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR, those mitigations become a condition of approval and can’t be postponed or assigned to a study, Wellman said. Monitoring or reporting programs also must be put in place, she said.

Once a government agency decides to order an EIR, it usually hires experts to compose the draft. That document is circulated, written comments are solicited and in Benicia, a public hearing on the document takes place, guided by the Planning Commission, which normally takes little other action but may ask questions of staff and the consultant.

Once the comment period closes — usually in 45 days, though CEQA suggests it last no longer than 60 days — the comments are addressed and incorporated in the final EIR, which again is circulated before being voted as certified or rejected by the Planning Commission.

If the panel certifies the EIR, it also issues the applicant’s requested permit.

In analyzing the final EIR, Wellman said the commission must answer four questions: Whether the document has identified the project’s significant impacts; which ones have been reduced or avoided through mitigation; whether there are reasonable alternatives to the project that could meet the objectives with fewer impacts; and if there are unavoidable impacts, would the community still be better off to have the project completed.

She said CEQA’s main requirements are disclosures, a good-faith effort rather than perfection, and mitigation of significant effects.

“If you can’t avoid an impact, you must come up with findings,” she said.

Mitigation measures must make sense, she said. They also need to reflect community values, and may need to address economic or social impacts, not just those affecting wildlife, plants, air or water quality.

The commission may decide to adopt a mitigation measure, decide it’s not within the city’s jurisdiction, or find that mitigation measures are infeasible, she said.

The commission must also evaluate what would happen if the project isn’t built, she said.

Attorney Dana Dean agreed that the EIR takes in more than what is conventionally considered “environment” to examine economic factors and conflict with such city documents as its General Plan.

The panel could certify the EIR and still reject the project, Wellman said, and even if the EIR suggests the project would have significant impacts, the commission still could approve the project, especially if there is significant benefit to the city.

Wellman said the commission should be familiar with any EIR it is considering, and may ask staff for clarifications. Panel members also can air questions during public hearings.

Finally, the commission makes its decision whether to certify the document and issue requested permits, which Wellman said sometimes is a single-vote step, and at other times requires separate decisions.

“If you made a good-faith effort, that usually is sufficient,” she said.