AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 324 they still sUpport their claim that the Creekside Greer�Aiternative"was determined to have greater envzronmentat ir�pacts than the propvsed project" (p.�3 0€the FEIR).This makes na sense,There is no substantial evidence in the Draft EIR ar the FEIR comments that s�pport this canclusion,and in fact thFS conclusi�n is refuted bq e�vidence the greparers acKnawledge to be true. �en�r�l C�anment on Alterna�fves Cnmment�[-12),by another cornmentor,indicat�d that�he EIR shouid ide�ttify all contributars to the Alternatives,[ncluding the project applicant, nok just singIe out that the Creeksid��reen alternative was contributed by the Fir�gerAvenv�Pride �ommittee.The FEIR respqn.se reads in part as fallaws: "The remaining alternatives diseussed in the EIR were develaped withaut bias by the EIR preparers(City stuff and consuTtant)arcording to the SettlementAgreemen� T'he prvject applicar�t drd nor suggest a2ternatives beyond parCrcipation in the Settlement Agreement" ln January, 2011,our review of the project file identified a numb�r a�project pian al#ernatives,all drafted by Mr.MGGpW�T]'s engineer{MacLeod and Associates) and a11 pr�pared for McGowan De�relapment,notthe City.Also included in the project file are notes ahaut these alternatives authored by t�e developer.When we asked for capies af these pians and docu€nentation,we were initially refused access to them; the City relented af�er sa�ne fnllow-up fz-om our attorney and the City's counsel.One of these plans is identical tv the"Nine-Lot Alternative A",another is identical td the Five Lot[non PD) alternative,which was dismissed in the E1R as infeasible, In a sabseyuent 9nspection of the project�le in August,20�1,we identified and obtained adcfitior�al and updated alternative plans (attached],also drafted by MacLeod and Associates for McGowan Developm.ent� Save far building �aatprints,these plans are id�ntical ta the Nine-Lot A�ternative A, Nine-Lot Alt�rnative B,�"aur Lot and Five Lot alternatives present�d ir�the DEIR. It appears that the above FEIR response is false-at least for all but the'"Praject with 2S'Setback"alternaCive.These alternatives were clearly developed by the applicanL, or with stabstantial applicant input and review,n�t by ths �ity anc� its consultant. There is z�athing inherentiy wrvng with the applicant submitting alternatives for eva�uation,t�ut it is dishonest and deceptive for the Gity to claim these as their own unbiased alternatives,as the sta�ement abave indicates-unless of course,Mr. McGowan is a member of City staff,which we do nat b�li�ve is the case. As described 6elow,in this case,it appears that permitting the applicant ta develop the alternatives [as well as the project abjectives) resulted in alternatives that fait kn mi�igate any of'the project's innpacts. T`hrou�hout the history of the project, Mr.McGawan has been resistant to any rnodification of his praject. I�is thereFore reasonahle to assurr�e that he w�uld not be mativated ta dev��op a reasanable range of alterna�ives ta his own project that may b�cor�s9dered en�riranrnenYally superior.The�iry is well aware of Mr.McGawan's