Page 852 - tesoro_sdeir0218

Tesoro del Valle (Phases A, B, C)
Draft Supplemental EIR

SECTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a discussion of
reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter
identifies potential alternatives to the proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[b] through [f]) are
summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis
in the EIR.

 “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location
which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the
project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objective, or would be more costly” (15126.6[b]).
 “The specific alternative of 'no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact”
(15126.6[e][1]). “The 'no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time
the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is
commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior
alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally
superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6[e] [2]).

 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that
requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit 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 that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and
discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision
making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility
of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f]).

 For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR”
(15126.6[f][2][A]).
 “If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose
the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example,
in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or
mining project which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given locations”
(15126.6[f][2][B]).

 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained
and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6[f][3]).

R:\Projects\BLC\3BLC000100\Draft EIR\6.0 Alternatives.docx 6-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project