| 2. Alternatives |
Alternatives are studied in the EIR to give the County a basis of comparison for the impacts of the project. They do not always constitute valid alternatives - often they are there only for the sake of comparison, and how seriously they are treated by the County is a matter of discretion and political will. Occasionally, an EIR will identify an alternative that is clearly superior in terms of its impacts on the environment and surrounding community and the needs of the owners that it can be moved forward as a preferred alternative.
In this case. concern is expressed as to whether the project is adequately described, specifically in terms of what is being proposed beyond the development of the 35 housing units. Questions that appear unanswered still include:
These details for the current proposal and other omissions mentioned throughout this document will need to clarified before being honestly able to properly consider alternatives.
| 2.1. Currently Proposed Alternatives |
Alternatives are required to be studied under all sections as thoroughly as the proposed project to the extent they differ. The proposal from the EIR consultants contains a number of standard alternatives for this project. Suggestions about how these might be constructed are included.
A. No Project - as required by CEQA, including potential site development under existing zoning (if any - see "no project discussion" below.)
B. Alternative Site: A similar project at an alternate site that would allow this scale of development. An example would be an existing infill parcel with equivalent development potential. It is suggested that this be taken beyond the hypothetical to the actual exploration of a property trade between the Mirada Surf owners and the CUSD for the fully subdivided infill parcel in North El Granada, which would give the owners immediately develop-able land and the School District much needed expansion space for the elementary school.
C. Reduced Density Alternative: Reduced so as to avoid significant impacts identified in the EIR research process, and as such avoid the mitigation's necessary. This could result in a reduction of the number of houses down to as few as ten or fifteen, depending on the amount of mitigation needed for identified impacts.
D. Mitigated Project Alternative: A redefinition of the project with all identified mitigation measures in place. This could create a substantially different project than what is being proposed.
Of these, the consultants will also identify an "Environmentally Superior Alternative", as required by CEQA, excluding the no project alternative.
| 2.2 No Project Discussion and Other Alternatives |
The CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15126(d)(4 - 5):
"(4) "No project" alternative. The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foresee-able 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. "(5) Rule of reason. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "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.
|
The definition of what is a feasible alternative may in this case rely on just what the definition of "No Project" is. Assuming that it means doing nothing and the situation remaining where it is, it brings up some interesting questions:
If it is, as the project applicants contend, that there is an existing Land Use/Zoning conflict (privately held RM/CZ land with a designation of Community Park) on the property that prohibits them from the proper use of their land, constitutes a "taking" and is basis for legal action against the county, then "no project" means retaining just that situation, with no development possible and the County and the Community left in a tenuous and vulnerable position.
Would it not, then, qualify some of the following as valid alternatives to be studied in the EIR?
E. Implementation of the General Plan Designation Alternative: The County and the Community enter into a process to acquire the property for a properly assessed value for conversion to a Community Park. This would require the identification of possible funding sources, assessment mechanisms, and receiving, maintaining and operating entities for the property.
F. Use of the land for a combined El Granada School and Community Park use. This could be in conjunction with Alternative B above.
G. Implementation of Existing Zoning Capabilities Alternative: The County would remove the Community Park designation from the property, and re-designate it something equivalent to other, similarly zoned parcels in the urban area (probably Open Space), allowing the owners to develop the land under the existing regulations and guidelines.
If, however, in the course of the "no project" study by the consultants it is determined that the owners contention is not correct, it would substantially change the climate in which this project is being studied, and change significantly the underlying basis for this proposal.
It is encouraged that the EIR make a full study of all the proposed alternatives, especially in defining the exact parameters of what the "no project" alternative actually is.