55A - SAN LORENZO SEWER LIFT STATION

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT "A" alternatives, a lead agency need only make an objective, good faith effort to provide information permitting a reasonable choice of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant adverse environmental impacts. (California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California (2010) 188 Cal.App. 4th 227, 275 -276.) "An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project" or multiple variations on the alternatives analyzed. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) "What is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." (Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v.21 Board of Supervisors of Orange County (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022.) If the relative advantages and disadvantages of other potential alternatives can be ascertained from a review of the alternatives presented in an EIR, the EIR is not defective for not discussing variations on each theme. (1d; Mira Mar Mobile Cmty. v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477; Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Comm., 89 Cal.App.3d at 287). The EIR's discussion and analysis of 19 different alternative site locations allows assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of other potential alternatives and complies with CEQA. Section V.B In claiming that parking capacity should not have been studied in the EIR, the commenter essentially argues that a lead agency may not analyze any impact or resource not expressly identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This is simply not the law's intent. CEQA gives the lead agency discretion to determine appropriate significance criteria. "The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An iron clad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b).) Therefore, "a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to classify an impact described in an EIR as `significant,' depending on the nature of the area affected." (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 493.) CEQA Lead Agencies have discretion to identify thresholds of significance in an EIR above and beyond those set forth in Appendix G. (CEQA Guidelines §15064.7.) The checklist in Appendix G is "only a suggested form" with a list of "sample" questions to help a lead agency determine whether an EIR should be prepared for a particular project; it is not a mandatory set of thresholds. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.) The CEQA Guidelines explain that "[ s]ample forms for an applicant's project description and review form for use by the lead agency are contained in Appendices G and H ... These forms are only suggested, and public agencies are free to devise their own format for an initial study." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(f)). Moreover, case law makes clear that a lead agency should not rely exclusively on Appendix G. (See Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109- 1112.) Accordingly, the significance criteria used in an EIR is not limited to the questions provided in Appendix G. 55A -124