Opinion ID: 3011395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternatives to the Project.

Text: NEPA requires all Federal agencies to [s]tudy, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 42 U.S.C. 4331(2)(E). The CEQ regulations require that EAs include a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, and of the environmental impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives. HUD regulations require an EA to [e]xamine and recommend feasible ways in which the project or external factors relating to the project could be modified in _________________________________________________________________ 10. [W]e do not propose to attempt the impossible, namely, the enunciation of a general rule that will cover all cases. The crucial dependence is upon the facts before the court in the particular case sub judice. Sierra Club v. Froehike, 534 F.2d 1289, 1297 (8th Cir. 1976). 22 order to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental impacts and [e]xamine alternatives to the project itself, if appropriate, including the alternative of no action. 24 C.F.R. S 58.40(d) & (e). The Residents contend that the City's finding of no significant impact is arbitrary and capricious because the City improperly rejected an alternative location for the project. Appellants' Br. at 41. The Residents urged the City to consider locating the proposed hotel just south of the foot of Market Street. Id. The Residents contend that location is better suited for a hotel because it is a larger site which will allow a structure with a larger footprint and a lower overall profile, while providing the same total capacity without leading traffic directly into the narrow streets of Society Hill via Dock Street. Id. The Residents state, and the City does not dispute, that the City rejected the alternative location because the Development Plan adopted by the City Planning Commission prohibits the construction of structures at the ends of various streets to protect eastwest views from Center City to the river, the location would have a closer proximity to resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the alternative location would have required alteration or relocation of several interceptor sewers at significant cost. Id. The Residents contend that these reasons are not legitimate, however, because the City has planned since 1963 to build a 50story office tower at the alternative location. Id. NEPA only requires that appropriate alternatives be considered. 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2)(E). NEPA does not mandate that any particular alternative be selected during an EA. See Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 869 F.2d 719, 730 n.9 (3d Cir. 1989)(NEPA imposes procedural requirements, not substantive outcomes). The City did consider the alternative proposed by the Residents and the City provided reasons for not selecting that alternative location. While the City did not select the location preferred by the Residents, the City notes that new traffic analyses were conducted and included in the record in response to concerns raised during the public comment period. The Residents would have us view the City's reasons for not selecting the 23 alternate location as arbitrary and capricious because the City allegedly has had plans for over 25 years to build a larger structure at this same location near the foot of Market Street. The Residents have not shown, however, that the City actually intends to build that structure. D. The Controversial Nature of the UDAG Application. Under a heading entitled: The Public Outcry Demands Preparation of an EIS, the Residents argue,[e]xistence of a public controversy relating to a project is a factor that an agency should consider in assessing whether to prepare an EIS. Appellants' Br. at 43. The CEQ identifies ten factors that should be considered in determining if a project's impact is so significant that an EIS is required, and one of these factors is the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 40 C.F.R. S 1508.27(b)(4). However, in Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830 (2d Cir. 1972), the court states: [T]he term `controversial' apparently refers to cases where a substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature or effect of the major federal action rather than to the existence of opposition to a use, the effect of which is relatively undisputed . . . The suggestion that `controversial' must be equated with neighborhood opposition has also been rejected by others. Here, the Residents have not raised a substantial dispute regarding the environmental effects identified by the City in its EA for this project. Rather, the controversy here centers on the Residents' opposition to the City's choice of location for the project. Moreover, even if the issues that the Residents raise could be deemed to raise a controversy under the regulations, it is important to note that the existence of a controversy is only one of the ten factors listed for determining if an EIS is necessary. Given the nature of the controversy involved and the fact that degree of controversy is only one of ten factors to be considered in determining whether a significant impact is present, we can not conclude that the City's decision to issue a FONSI was arbitrary and capricious. 24