Laserfiche WebLink
7.A <br /> 9/30/2010 9:36 AM Page 80 <br /> > such significant effects . " <br /> > In reading the staff report documents , it seems apparent that 411 <br /> they are <br /> > recommending adoption of the proposed GP - not any of the <br /> alternatives , <br /> > and there is no discussion as to why that is the case at this <br /> time . The <br /> > GP has unavoidable impacts and therefore a "statement of <br /> overriding <br /> > conditions" needs to be drafted that presents substantial <br /> evidence in the <br /> > record that justifies that the benefits of the proposed plan <br /> outweighs <br /> > the environmental harm. Since the City is required to adopt <br /> the feasible <br /> > alternative that has the least impact , the statement of <br /> overriding <br /> > considerations needs also to justify why Alternative #2 is <br /> not feasible . <br /> > <br /> > On the face of it, I don ' t see any reason why Alternative #2 <br /> would be <br /> > considered infeasible - in fact it is not substantially <br /> different than <br /> > the proposed plan, yet does significantly lessen some impacts . <br /> Why is <br /> > that not being considered - and what is the justification for <br /> not <br /> > adopting Alternative #2? Has the staff prepped you folks on <br /> this at all? <br /> > It appears that the Statement of Overriding Considerations <br /> will not be <br /> > presented to the PC - . but rather to the Council . Unless you <br /> know <br /> > something I don ' t , I don' t see how the Commission can certify <br /> the EIR and <br /> > recommend the GP to the Council under these circumstances <br /> until staff <br /> > presents to you an adequate rationale for not adopting an <br /> environmentally <br /> > preferable alternative to the plan. You would be remiss in <br /> your duties <br /> > under CEQA to approve the GP unless and until you are <br /> satisfied that the <br /> > preferred alternative can be justified as infeasible . <br /> 5 <br />