SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 6 it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced."(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors(1990)52 Cal.3d 553, 576 (Goleta II).) In the City of Del Mar case, the petitioner municipality(Del Mar), in attempting to force the approval of an alternative development project less dense than what its sister city (San Diego) had proposed and approved, asserted that the respondent lead agency "ha[d] misconstrued the scope of CEQA's infeasibility requirement" by equating "feasibility" with "desirability." The Court of Appeal disagreed Emphasizing that San Diego had attempted to accommodate various economic and social factors in reaching its land use decision, the court reasoned as follows: "feasibility" under CEQA encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (133 Cal.App.3d at p.417 (emphasis added).) Under City of Del Mar, a court reviewing a lead agency's ultimate assessment as to whether an alternative is "infeasible"—a determination made in findings, not in the EIR—looks only to see whether the agency has reasonably balanced competing environmental, economic, social, and technological considerations, and has supported its decision with substantial evidence. Another leading case, Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 CalApp.4th 1490 (Sierra Club),upheld a lead agency's reliance on an applicant's project objectives in rejecting alternatives as infeasible in findings. There, a wine-making company submitted to the respondent county an application for a use permit to develop a 1.4 million square foot integrated winery facility on 218 acres of property zoned for industrial uses and located in an industrial park near the county's airport. The applicant identified several objectives related to its desire to consolidate at a single location existing wine-making and warehousing facilities operating at different locations.(Id at p. 1499.) The EIR for the project concluded that, despite mitigation, impacts to wetlands would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR analyzed three project alternatives: a no project alternative, an alternative that avoided all on-site wetlands, and a reduced-scale alternative. Based in large part on the applicant's objectives and information submitted by the applicant, the county board of supervisors,in approving the project,rejected the alternatives as infeasible. Sierra Club sued, arguing that the county had insufficient bases to reject the reduced- scale alternative as infeasible. The reduced-scale alternative would have reduced the size of the project by 50 percent, thereby reducing the impacts of the project, including those relating to the wetlands. Rejecting this challenge, the appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion in the county's findings that this alternative would frustrate the objectives of consolidating winery operations and thereby reducing the existing traffic and air quality impacts occurring from the existing, fragmented operations. (Id. at pp. 1506-1509.)