AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 236 they still support their claim that the Creekside Green A�ternative"was determined ta have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project" (p. 23 of the FEIR).This makes no sense.There is no substantial evidence in the Draft EIR or the FEIR comments that support this conclusion,and in fact this conclusion is refuted by evidence the preparers acknowledge to be true. General Comment an Alternatives Comment(I-12),by another cammentor, indicated that the EIR should identify all contributors to the Alternatives, including the project applicant, not just single out that the Creekside Green alternative was contributed by the Finger Avenue Pride Committee.The FEIR response reads in part as follaws: "7'he remaining alternatives discussed in the EIR were developed wrthout bias by the EIR preparers(City staff and consultant)accordinQ to the SettlementAgreemen� The praject applicant did nor suggest alternatives beyond participation in the Settlernent Agreement" In January, �011,our review of the project file identified a number of project plan alternatives,all drafted by Mr. McGowan's engineer (MacLeod and Associates) and all prepared for McGowan Development,not the City.Also included in the project file are notes about these alternatives authored by t�e developer.When we asked for copies nf these plans and dacumentation,we were initially refused access to them; the City relented after same follow-up from our attorney and the City's counsel. Qne of these plans is identical to the"Nine-Lat Alternative A",another is identical to the Five Lot (non PD) alternative,which was dismissed in the EIR as infeasible. [n a subsequent inspection of the project file in August, 2011,we identified and obtained additional an�updated alternative plans (attached],also drafted by MacLeod and Associates for McGowan Development, Save for building footprints,these plans are identical to the Nine-Lot Alternative A, Nine-Lot Alternative B, Faur Lot and Five Lot alternatives presented in the DEIR. It appears that the above FEIR response is false-at least for all but the "Project with 2S'Setback"alternative.These alternatives were clearly developed by the applicant, or with substantiaZ applicant input and review,not hy the City anc�its consultant. There is nothing inherently wrong with the applicant submitting alternatives for evatuation,hut it is dishonest and deceptive for the City to claim these as their own unbiased al#ernatives,as t�e statement abave indicates-unless of course, Mr. McGawar�is a member af City staff,which we do not believe is the case. As described below,in this case,it appears that permitting the applicant to develop the alternatives (as well as t�e project objectives) resulted in alternatives that fail to mitigate any of the project's impacts. Throughout the history of#he project, Mr.McGowan has heen resistant ta any modificatian af his prnject. It is therefore reasonable to assume that he would not be motivated to deve�op a reasonab�e range of alternatives to his own project that may be considered enviranmentalZy superior.The City is well aware of Mr. McGowan's