SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Alternatives 3 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Griffith Energy Storage Project (Project), which could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the basic objectives of the Project. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter describes potential alternatives to the proposed Project that were considered, identifies alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration and reasons for dismissal, and analyzes available alternatives in comparison to the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below: 0o The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the proposed Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed Project, even if these alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the proposed Project Objectives or would be more costly. oo The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The No Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. Additionally, the analysis shall discuss what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. oo The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed Project. oo For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed Project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR. oo An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and inform decision-making.Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or that would not achieve the basic Project Objectives. Griffith Energy Storage Project 3-1 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023