Item 22 - Resolution Adopting Local CEQA Guidelines Resolution

Home Browse Search

Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2023) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2023 City of Santa Ana Local Guidelines 7-21 ©Best Best & Krieger LLP be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency and rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and it should briefly explain the reasons for rejecting those alternatives. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives should be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (b) infeasibility; or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Evaluation of Alternatives: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. The matrix may also identify and compare the extent to which each alternative meets project objectives. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The Rule of Reason: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” which courts have held means that an alternatives discussion must be reasonable in scope and content. Therefore, the EIR must set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit public participation, informed decision-making, and a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones the City determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Feasibility of Alternatives: The factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives include: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context); and whether the proponent already owns the alternative site or can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the site. No one factor establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. Alternative Locations: The first step in the alternative location analysis is to determine whether any of the significant effects of the project could be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. This is the key question in this analysis. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. The second step in this analysis is to determine whether any of the alternative locations are feasible. If the City concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose its reasons, and it should include them in the EIR. When a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for a project with the same basic purpose, the City should review the previous document and incorporate the previous document by reference. To the extent the circumstances have remained substantially the same