California Environmental Quality Act: Approach to Determining the Reasonable Range of Alternatives

» Articles » Environmental Articles » Article

December 23, 2015

A. Framework for Determining Alternatives
1. CEQA: Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21100, 21061.1
2. CEQA Guidelines: 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15124, 15126.6, 15364
3. Key CEQA Cases:

a. Friends of Goleta v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1990) 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Exclusion of off-site alternative proper because of lack of applicant control over site, requirement of amendment to local coastal plan, and site outside lead agency’s jurisdiction)
b. Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Upheld Program EIR rejecting further analysis of reduced export (scope) alternative because secondary effects will be analyzed at project level)
c. Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) (General Plan EIR invalid for failing to consider reduced scope alternative even
though it would reduced significant impacts and met most project objectives)
d. Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) (EIR does not have to consider every conceivable variation of alternatives)

B. Specific Approach to Determining Alternatives

1. Guiding Principle: An EIR shall describe and evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives (including alternative site locations) that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.

2. Three-Part Approach: Rule of Reason – Discussion of Various Alternatives is Necessary to Permit Reasoned Choice by Decision-Makers

a. Clearly Define Multiple Project Objectives
i. Objectives Taxonomy: Planning, Social, Economic, Environmental
ii. State and Explain Each Objectively Separately
iii. More than One Objective should be Stated, especially Economic Operational Feasibility

b. Select the Reasonable Range of Alternatives
i. No Project (Evaluation of Impact to Environment without Project)
ii. Environmentally Superior (Least Environmental Impact)
iii. Reduced Scope (Density or Intensity)
iv. Off-Site Factors to Consider (Site Suitability; Economic Viability; Infrastructure Availability; General Plan Inconsistency; Plan or
Regulatory Limitations; Jurisdictional Boundaries; Off-Site Acquisition, Control or Access)

c. Feasibility: Use Reverse Approach by Demonstrating Infeasibility
i. Facial Infeasibility (Impossibility; Speculation; Irrationality)
ii. Threshold Infeasibility (Preliminary Exclusion)
iii. Substantive Infeasibility (Demonstrated Infeasibility in EIR)
(1) Capable of Being Accomplished in a Successful Manner (Effectiveness) within a Reasonable Time (No Excessive Length)
(2) Taking into Account Legal, Economic, Environmental, Social, and Technological Factors (Analyze Each Factor Separately)

C. Practical Comments
1. Search Governing Documents of Applicant and Lead Agency for Goals (e.g., General Plan, Strategic Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Annual Budget, Business Plan, and Financing Plan) to be used as Project Objectives
2. Discuss Alternatives in Terms of Whether Most of Project Objectives are Met, Whether the Project’s Significant Environmental Effects are Substantially Lessened or Avoided, and Whether the Alternatives are Feasible as defined in CEQA
3. Support Rejection of Alternatives (Infeasibility) with Analysis and Evidence
4. Off-Site Multi-Factor Analysis is Critical
5. Tie-Back to General Plan or Community Plan
6. Wrong Baseline Could Skew Reduced Scope Alternative Impacts and
Cumulative Impacts
7. Look for Environmentally Superior Alternatives

More Environmental Articles

The material appearing in this web site is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided herein is intended only as general information which may or may not reflect the most current developments. Although these materials may be prepared by professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. If legal or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.

The opinions or viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Lorman Education Services. All materials and content were prepared by persons and/or entities other than Lorman Education Services, and said other persons and/or entities are solely responsible for their content.

Any links to other web sites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of these sites. The links provided are maintained by the respective organizations, and they are solely responsible for the content of their own sites.