On a number of occasions since then, allegations regarding the environmental issues, the purpose of the lawsuit, the adequacy of environmental review, the club litigation process and assorted economic considerations have been made in council meetings, informal gatherings and the public press.
Despite the obvious absurdity of many of these accusations (for example, attempts to blame the club for the city's financial crisis) some of them have apparently gained a certain level of credence.
With litigation in progress, and in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement, Lake Group has refrained from public response up to now, but in the belief that it's time to put an end to the confusion, presents the following fact sheet.
Allegation: There are no important environmental issues surrounding the Lowe's project because it would be built on an industrial wasteland.
The facts: Environmental considerations are not limited to the site of any particular project. Larger development issues regarding sprawl, infill, traffic, greenhouse gases and the preservation of core communities are central to the mandate of the Sierra Club, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically requires evaluation of potential “urban decay” impacts when a commercial development is under consideration.
Allegation: The Sierra Club lawsuit is intended to stop the Lowe's project.
The facts: The lawsuit has one objective only, and that is the preparation of an EIR as the basis for project approvals, as required by California law. The eventual decision on project approval still rests entirely with the responsible public body, in this case the Clearlake City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
Allegation: No EIR is needed because the project has already been studied thoroughly enough.
The facts: Under CEQA, an EIR must be prepared if a “fair argument” can be made that a project “may” cause significant impacts to the environment that have not yet been identified, or that have not yet been fully mitigated. It is not necessary to demonstrate that those impacts will occur, merely that they might occur. This is a very low threshold, designed to ensure that a project’s environmental impacts are thoroughly evaluated, in public, before an agency approves anything. For the airport project, there is strong evidence the project not only may but will have significant environmental effects in the areas of urban decay, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic.
Allegation: A detailed economic study of the Lowe's project has already been provided.
The facts: The study commissioned by the city was restricted to an evaluation of potential municipal revenues (sales taxes, property taxes, and fees), and did not look at the project’s effects on the economy of the city in general, or the specific CEQA requirement to investigate potential urban decay. No attempt whatsoever has been made to evaluate the project’s consequences for Lake County as a whole even though the welfare of the city and the unincorporated county are inextricably bound together.
Even within the narrow context of municipal revenues, the economic study is faulty, both because it fails to take into account possible revenue losses from reduced business at other competing stores, and because it does not consider alternative sources of additional revenues that could be generated by investing Redevelopment funds in the existing business district.
Allegation: Sierra Club demands for an EIR on the Lowe's project are illegitimate because the club did not comment on the Kelseyville Lumber expansion.
The facts: Although the issues surrounding the two projects are so different that no direct comparison would be fruitful, and although Lake Group representatives did speak before the Board of Supervisors in 2003 in opposition to the Kelseyville Lumber General Plan amendment, in hindsight the group regrets not having more vigorously supported the Farm Bureau’s objections to the conversion of agriculturally zoned land across from the current retail store. As a newly formed local organization within the Sierra Club, the group was then just beginning to evolve into its present activist role, and did not pursue the variety of issues that it has later addressed.
Allegation: loss of anticipated revenues resulting from the Sierra Club lawsuit has caused the city’s financial crisis, including substantial staff layoffs.
The facts: Clearlake’s financial problems are the result of decisions made over the course of many years. Many specific cutbacks, including the elimination of the code enforcement department, were proposed at city council meetings before the lawsuit was filed. Even if nothing had happened to delay the Lowe's project, it would not have produced any new sales or property tax revenues for more than two years at the very least.
In the meantime, the only possible offsetting source of temporary revenue was a proposal for the city to borrow $100,000 from the Redevelopment Agency in order to pay a portion of the city administrator’s and city engineer’s salaries.
Allegation: Costs of litigation are making the city’s financial problems worse.
The facts: Testimony provided by the club before the project was approved made the possibility of legal action obvious. Prudent governmental bodies ordinarily require project developers, through indemnity agreements, to assume any costs associated with litigation; if the city administration did not take this standard precaution it neglected the protective responsibility it owes its citizenry. Under these circumstances the administration was particularly rash in failing to accept the club’s offer of a negotiated settlement at the earliest possible opportunity, but instead to drag the process out despite mounting legal bills.
Allegation: Without the Sierra Club lawsuit the Lowe's project would now be moving ahead.
The facts: The sewer district is at the limit of its capacity, with chronic spills of raw sewage during heavy rains, and no new hookups are being approved in the project area without the direct authorization of the Board of Supervisors. The project cannot go forward until sewer service is available. Under the currently projected best-case scenario, this could not occur before the fall of 2011; allowing the project to move ahead on the assumption that additional sewer capacity will be available when needed is not a legally permissible course of action.
Allegation: The Sierra Club is profiting financially from the Lowe's lawsuit.
The facts: So far, the suit has cost Lake Group a substantial sum in legal fees and costs, which it has met through local donations with assistance from the Redwood Chapter (the chapter represents nearly 10,000 club members in northwest California, from Solano County to the Oregon border). If the club prevails in court, a judge may require the defendant to reimburse the portion of these expenses that were incurred subsequent to project approvals, but a plaintiff is never allowed a “profit” in cases of this sort.
Allegation: The local Sierra Club group acted rashly in deciding to bring suit.
The facts: The club never takes legal action lightly. Any decision to litigate must be approved by a series of specified committees, starting with the local entity. In this case the Lake Group Executive Committee’s recommendation was passed on to the Redwood Chapter Legal Committee, then to the Chapter Executive Committee, then to the National Litigation Committee.
Extensive documentation about the case (including legal validity, environmental importance, and financial responsibility) was presented throughout, and every one of the listed bodies had to approve the suit before it could be initiated. Although concurrence by the national club is required for all litigation, no national financial or legal staff support is provided.
Additional information about the local Sierra Club, including a position paper on the airport redevelopment project, is available at the Lake Group Web site, http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake.
Victoria Brandon is the Sierra Club Lake Group legal liaison. Shes lives in Lower Lake, Calif.
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
