210 Cal. App. 4th 184
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Siskiyou County approved a cogeneration project at Roseburg’s Weed facility to sell excess power; project includes boiler retrofit, cooling tower, turbine, substation, and noise/airwater controls.
- DEIR/FEIR analyzed water use, air quality, noise, and alternatives; BEIR concluded no significant impacts with mitigation.
- DEIR concluded project would use 120,000 gpd within historic ranges; water impacts deemed less than significant with no mitigation.
- Noise analysis relied on EORM and ExperShare reports; FEIR amended noise tables and added mitigation N-1 and N-2.
- FEIR updated residential noise measurements (closest home ~275 ft) and revised predicted increases to 0.6–1.1 dB; some locations exceed Weed’s nighttime standards.
- Board approved FEIR and project; MSBEC and WCC challenged CEQA compliance, leading to mandamus action; trial court denied petition; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range of feasible alternatives analyzed | Alt. scoping incomplete; several feasible options rejected | Only feasible alternatives considered; No Project analyzed | EIR adequate; no prejudicial defect in alternatives analysis |
| Air quality baseline and NOx analysis | Used wrong baseline, understate emissions | Baseline approximations were reasonable; NOx/particulates properly assessed | Baseline emissions acceptable; EIR not deficient on air quality analysis |
| Noise impacts and mitigation | EIR understates noise increases; mischaracterizes 24-hour impact | Thresholds and measurements properly applied; mitigation adequate | Noise analysis supported by substantial evidence; mitigations sufficient |
| Recirculation of EIR after new noise reports | FEIR lacked full recirculation after added noise data | New data clarified; not recirculation required under CEQA guidelines | No mandatory recirculation required; inclusion of reports in FEIR adequate |
| Water use and disclosure | EIR inadequately described water sources and discharges | Water use within historic range; cooling tower closed-loop; no discharge | EIR adequate on water impacts; no prejudicial defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA harms analysis; informational document standard)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008) (Feasible alternatives; scope of EIR review; rule of reason)
- Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (Judicial deference to agency findings; alternative analysis)
- Sierra Club v. City of Orange, 163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. App. 2008) (Abuse of discretion standard; substantial evidence focus)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. App. 2003) (EIR must disclose environmental effects; full disclosure standard)
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. App. 1990) (Prejudice standard; analysis of disclosure sufficiency)
- Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal.App.4th 1103 (Cal. App. 2008) (Cumulative noise impact analysis; Gray cited for cumulative impacts)