Alternatives Analysis Under CEQA: Building a Defensible Record for Project Alternatives
An inadequate range of alternatives is one of the recurring grounds for challenging an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Courts apply a CEQA rule of reason to this analysis, but that flexibility cuts both ways. Agencies receive discretion in how they frame a project’s objectives and screen out infeasible options. Yet that same discretion is often the point at which litigation risk concentrates, particularly when project objectives are drafted narrowly enough to eliminate alternatives that should have been given serious study.
This article examines how courts evaluate the CEQA alternatives analysis, from the range of reasonable alternatives CEQA requires to the substantial evidence behind CEQA alternatives feasibility determinations. It also covers the environmentally superior alternative requirement and the challenges most often raised when an alternatives analysis falls short, closing with a reference to the CEQA Hub for current authority and checklists.
The CEQA Rule of Reason: Defining a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives while avoiding or lessening environmental effects. The CEQA rule of reason gives agencies flexibility, but it does not permit them to define the range so narrowly that meaningful alternatives disappear.
Project objectives should reflect the basic purpose of the work, rather than describe the applicant’s preferred design or location. Guidelines section 15126.6(b) directs the alternatives discussion to focus on options that would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects, even if they would impede the project objectives to some degree or would be more costly.
When reviewing the alternatives framework, ask whether:
- The objectives describe the project’s basic purpose.
- Alternatives could meet most objectives while reducing significant effects.
- The EIR explains why alternatives were selected or rejected.
- The range provides enough variation for informed decision-making.
A defensible CEQA alternatives analysis therefore starts with objectives that leave room for genuine alternatives. For attorneys working through these questions, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act provides detailed guidance on project alternatives, including the scope of alternatives an EIR must consider and the legal standards governing their evaluation.
CEQA Alternatives Feasibility: Supporting the Agency’s Determination
An alternative does not have to be ideal to be feasible. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines feasible as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,” taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds legal factors to that list. The following table illustrates how those considerations apply to each feasibility determination:
| Factor | Questions for the record |
| Economic | What would the alternative cost be, and are funding or financial constraints supported by evidence? |
| Legal | Are there statutory, regulatory, land-use, or permitting barriers? |
| Technological | Is the necessary technology available and reasonably implementable? |
| Environmental | Would implementation create environmental constraints that affect feasibility? |
| Social | Are there relevant social or community conditions affecting implementation? |
An agency should not rely on a conclusory statement that an alternative is too expensive or legally infeasible. The evidence should explain why the constraint is considerable enough to make the alternative impractical. When evaluating feasibility, the practical lesson is to build the evidentiary foundation as alternatives are evaluated, rather than attempting to justify the conclusion after the EIR is challenged.
The Environmentally Superior Alternative and Common Litigation Challenges
The CEQA alternatives analysis should enable decision-makers and the public to compare the environmental consequences of the proposed project with those of the alternatives studied. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(d) requires enough information to permit meaningful evaluation and comparison. The EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative and, if that is the no-project alternative, must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the others analyzed.
The agency is not required to select the environmentally superior alternative for approval. It must identify and adequately evaluate it, and if the agency approves a project with significant effects that an alternative would reduce, Public Resources Code section 21081 requires findings that the alternative is infeasible and, for effects that remain significant, a statement of overriding considerations.
Common challenges include:
- Failing to analyze an alternative that could lessen a noteworthy effect.
- Rejecting an alternative based on conclusory feasibility findings.
- Defining project objectives so narrowly that reasonable alternatives are effectively eliminated.
- Providing insufficient information to compare alternatives meaningfully.
- Identifying an environmentally superior alternative without adequately addressing its feasibility.
In Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2023), the Third District found that the EIR’s range of reasonable alternatives fell short because it failed to consider relocating the Capitol visitor center to the building’s south side. That option became apparent after the final EIR moved the project’s parking garage, and it would have lessened impacts on the historic West Lawn while still meeting project objectives.
When reviewing an EIR, don’t stop at whether alternatives appear in the document. Go further and check whether the analysis provides enough evidence and comparison to support informed decision-making.
Building a Defensible Alternatives Record: A Practical Checklist
A defensible alternatives analysis is easier to build when you document the reasoning throughout the CEQA process rather than assembling it after litigation begins. The record should show how the agency moved from project objectives to alternative selection, feasibility findings, and the final environmentally superior alternative.
Before the EIR is finalized, you should check the:
- Project objectives: They describe the project’s basic purpose without effectively selecting the proposed project in advance.
- Range of alternatives: The EIR considers alternatives that can meet most objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects.
- Screening: The reasons for rejecting alternatives are documented and supported.
- Feasibility: Economic, legal, environmental, social, and technological conclusions have evidentiary support.
- Comparison: The EIR provides enough information to compare alternatives with the proposed project.
- Environmentally superior alternative: The EIR clearly identifies it and addresses the no-project requirement under Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2).
Keep the supporting evidence in the record as the analysis develops. That may include cost information, technical studies, site constraints, permitting requirements, and other materials relied upon in making feasibility determinations. It also helps demonstrate that the agency evaluated alternatives rather than adopting the applicant’s preferred project.
For environmental attorneys working through these issues, the CEQA Hub provides current authority and practical resources, including checklists that can help counsel review an alternatives analysis before certification.
CEB also offers Essential Forms, more than 700 CLE programs and compliance packages, and a library of California-specific law books and practice guides.
