14 - Laserfiche WebLink

(Draft SEIR, pp. 4.D-55 to 4.D-56.) L. Alternatives CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would obtain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, and that the EIR evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Case law indicates that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable range (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 56); and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission [ 1992] 10 Cal.App. 4th 908). CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(0 states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) provides that an EIR need not consider alternatives that are infeasible. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(0(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternative are "site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]" The objectives of the proposed Zone described above provided the framework for defining possible alternatives. The alternatives included and evaluated in the SEIR meet those basic objectives. The significant impacts of the proposed Zone are related to the intensity of development. Thus, project alternatives, except the required No Project Alternative, include development programs that are lower in intensity than the proposed Zone. The City finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the proposed Zone, and that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Zone. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed, and discussed in the review process of the EIR. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would result in development consistent 53