Opinion ID: 1441925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Project Alternatives

Text: The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections. The Legislature has declared it the policy of the State to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (g); Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 400.) Section 21002.1, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code provides: The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. (Italics added. See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21061 [The purpose of an environmental impact report is... to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. (Italics added.)].) (5a) In determining the nature and scope of alternatives to be examined in an EIR, the Legislature has decreed that local agencies shall be guided by the doctrine of feasibility. [I]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.... [I]n the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, italics added.) The Legislature has defined feasible, for purposes of CEQA review, as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; Guidelines, § 15364; Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 402, fn. 10; Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal. App.3d 893, 910 [165 Cal. Rptr. 401].) (6) (See fn. 4.) Both the California and the federal courts have further declared that [t]he statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason. ( Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 106 Cal. App.3d at p. 910; Village of Laguna Beach v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App.3d 1022, 1028-1029 [185 Cal. Rptr. 41]; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978) 435 U.S. 519, 551 [55 L.Ed.2d 460, 484, 98 S.Ct. 1197]; Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Bowers (9th Cir.1980) 632 F.2d 774, 783.) [4] (5b) As we have explained, One of [an EIR's] major functions ... is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official. ( Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 197, italics added; accord Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 400; Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal. App.3d 1065, 1083-1085 [230 Cal. Rptr. 413].) These statutory and judicial concepts are carried forward in the Guidelines, which state that an EIR must [d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (Guidelines, § 15126, subd. (d), italics added.) As the underscored language suggests, project alternatives typically fall into one of two categories: on-site alternatives, which generally consist of different uses of the land under consideration; and off-site alternatives, which usually involve similar uses at different locations. (See, e.g., Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 403-407; Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal. App.3d 274, 286-288 [152 Cal. Rptr. 585].) CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its facts, which in turn must be reviewed in light of the statutory purpose. Informed by that purpose, we here reaffirm the principle that an EIR for any project subject to CEQA review must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002); and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; Guidelines, § 15364; Goleta I, supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 1167.)