Issue
In Sierra Club v. County of Napa, (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,939, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Aug. 6, 2004), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an environmental impact report (EIR) is inadequate if the report does not analyze the economic feasibility of identified alternatives to a proposed project.
Facts
Beringer Wine Estates (Beringer) filed an application for a use permit to develop an integrated winery facility in Napa County. The Napa County Conservation, Development, and Planning Department (Department) prepared a draft EIR which noted that .461 acres of wetlands would be lost if the project was allowed to proceed. After two public hearings were held on the project, the Department certified the final EIR and approved the use permit with conditions. The Department found that the effects on the wetlands, which it concluded were unavoidable, were outweighed by the benefits from the project. The Sierra Club appealed the decision to Napa County Board of Supervisors (Board). The Board denied the appeal. The Sierra Club then filed a petition in superior court, which was also denied.
Appellate Court Decision
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigations that would substantially lessen the environmental effects of the project. The purpose of the EIR is to identify significant effects on the environment, identify alternatives to the project, and indicate ways in which the effects can be mitigated or avoided. The Sierra Club argued that the EIR was inadequate because the EIR itself did not analyze the economic feasibility of the identified alternatives. It further argued that even if the Board considered evidence of economic feasibility, the consideration of the evidence violated the CEQA because the evidence was not set forth in the EIR and was not available to the public for consideration and comment.
The Court noted that the Beringer EIR discussed potential alternatives to the project, but only provided environmental analysis of three alternatives because the other three alternatives did not meet Beringer’s objectives. Of the three alternatives discussed in the EIR, the Department found that the alternatives would be infeasible and less desirable than the project. Although the economic feasibility of the alternatives was not discussed in the EIR, the Court found that the CEQA does not require the EIR to include an analysis of economic feasibility. The Court further concluded that the CEQA does not require the public to be a part of the debate over economic feasibility, but only requires that officials inform the public if they choose economic feasibility over environmental concerns when they approve a project.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.