September 28, 2009
Previously published on September 24, 2009
A public agency’s discretion to find project alternatives infeasible based on the incompatibility of the alternatives with either the agency’s policy considerations or the objectives of the project, has been enhanced considerably through a recent published appellate court opinion. California Native Plant Society, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz, et al. (H032502, September 18, 2009).
City of Santa Cruz concerned the city’s Arana Gulch Master Plan, which provided for creation of a multi-use trail system allowing public access to the beach by bicycle and wheelchair-accessible paved trails. The environmental impact report (EIR) documented the project’s significant impact on biological resources and evaluated four potential alternatives to the project. The Santa Cruz City Council found all four alternatives infeasible, rejecting them for failure to “meet the objectives of the Project” and as “undesirable from a policy standpoint.” The Native Plant Society challenged the EIR’s analysis of the alternatives and the Council’s infeasibility findings in the trial court and lost, resulting in this appeal.
The appellate court concluded that the council’s findings were valid and adequately supported by evidence. The court found that two independent reasons supported the infeasibility finding: First, each of the alternatives failed to satisfy certain policy considerations, such as the city’s interest in promoting transportation alternatives and beach access for persons with disabilities. Second, each of the alternatives failed to meet key project objectives such as completion of a trail that would provide the highest level of public access.
The court’s reasoning made it clear that an agency need not find an alternative to be literally impossible before it can reject that alternative as infeasible; an alternative’s undesirability, based on policy considerations or project objectives, is sufficient to support the agency decision.
The court also held that the EIR analyzed an adequate range of alternatives, as the alternatives evaluated satisfied most of the basic objectives of the project. The court endorsed the position that differing factors come into play in assessing feasibility depending upon the stage of the proceedings. Alternatives included in an EIR need only be potentially feasible, and actual feasibility need not be determined until the decision-making body approves the project.
|