SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) identifies the following requirements for the selection and evaluation of alternatives in an environmental impact report(EIR): An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative,but rather must consider a range of feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making. An EIR must also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]) _ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level of less than significant, even if these alternatives would partially impede the attainment of the proposed goals or would be more costly. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[6]) The EIR shall briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives discussed and shall identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but then rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]) If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project,the significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed,but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]) The"no project'alternative shall be evaluated along with the impacts of this alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the"no project'alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]) 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 key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision making and informed public participation.An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]) This chapter identifies alternatives that were initially considered and then rejected from further consideration and those carried forward for detailed evaluation.This chapter also assesses the environmental effects of alternatives carried forward relative to those of the proposed project and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. ` This analysis of alternatives is intended to supplement the analysis of alternatives contained in the Mountain House Master Plan(MHMP)EIR. Please see the MHMP EIR for additional analyses of alternatives. 5.2 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in this chapter: No-Project(No-Development)Alternative, W MHMP Buildout Alternative,and W Traffic/Air Emissions Reduction Alternative. College Park at Mountain House Specific Plan III Draft EIR EDAW San Joaquin County 5-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project