1993 AGN MAY 04 I16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER This memorandum discusses the changes to your Guidelines, as well as some new law which may be of interest but which we did not feel warranted additional text in the Guidelines. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1745, the court applied the "rule of reason" in holding that the City of West Hollywood ("City") was not required to discuss alternative project sites when no such sites existed in the City. The court stated that an EIR must describe "a range of reasonable alterna- tives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project" but there is no requirement that infeasitil alternative sites be discussed. The court determined that the City's discussion of alternative sites met the rule of reason because: (1) the EQt specifically stated that no other vacant parcels of comparable size were available for a project of that type; (2) the City staff could not identify a single site where the proposed project could be constructed without demolishing a significant number of existing housing units; (3) the City's general plan discouraged the demolition of existing housing units in order to maintain its stock of affordable housing; and (4) the City's general plan and zoning ordinance did not provide for the approval of a project of this type in either commercial or industrial zones within the City. Moreover, the court found that because the EIR stated its reasons for concluding that no alternative sites for the project were feasible, the EIR's discussion of alternative sites was sufficient. Based on SORE, we have added the following language to Chapter 7 of your Guidelines (Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR): "If no alternative sites are available or feasible, the EIR need not discuss alternative sites.. However, the EER must set forth the reasons why alternative sites were not discussed." DIA141324 -2-