Laserfiche WebLink
l~ <br /> t <br /> CHAPTER 4 <br /> Alternatives <br /> 4.1 Introduction <br /> -°� An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the project location <br /> that could feasibly attain most of the project's objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen <br /> any of the significant effects of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the <br /> alternatives(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). <br /> a <br /> Additionally,CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)requires consideration of alternatives that could <br /> avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including <br /> alternatives that may be more costly or could otherwise impede to some degree the attainment of <br /> the project's objectives. The range of alternatives considered in the EIR is governed by a"rule of <br /> t. reason"that limits the analysis to potentially feasible alternatives that allow the lead agency to <br /> make a reasoned choice(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f). <br /> ~� 4.1.1 Factors in Selection of Alternatives <br /> The lead agency should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed, <br /> -- identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible, <br /> and explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination (CEQA Guidelines Section <br /> 15126.6(a)and(c)). <br /> The alternatives addressed in this EIR were selected in consideration of one or more of the following <br /> rfactors: <br /> • The extent to which the alternative would avoid or substantially lessen any of the <br /> identified significant environmental effects of the project; <br /> i • The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the <br /> project(See Chapter 2, "Project Description"); <br /> • The feasibility of accomplishing the project objectives,taking into site suitability,economic <br /> ' viability, availability of infrastructure,general plan consistency,other plans'or regulatory <br /> limitations,jurisdictional boundaries(projects with a regionally significant impact should <br /> consider the regional context),and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,control or <br /> otherwise have access to the alternative site(or the site is already owned by the proponent); <br /> "" • The appropriateness of the alternative in contributing to a"reasonable range"of <br /> alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice; and <br /> . f <br /> Munn&Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit 4-1 ESA 1211086 <br /> Draft EIR April 2011 <br /> ( i <br /> € ; r <br /> mow' <br />