Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br />Mr. Steve Worrall <br />January 13, 2012 <br />Page 5 <br />makes it reasonably foreseeable that the nearest sensitive receptor is within the zone, <br />even though the RFEIR indicates that the impact to that receptor is less than significant. <br />The City then tries to have it both ways, saying the impact is both less than <br />significant and significant. The City cannot have it both ways. Either the impact is <br />significant or it is not. <br />V. THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IS LEGALLY INADEQUATE. <br />A. The City Has Deliberately Designed Straw Men Alternatives. <br />What the RFEIR suggests is an "exhaustive analysis" of alternative sites is nothing <br />more than an exercise in the creation of straw men alternatives deliberately designed to <br />create greater environmental impacts, thus dooming them to failure. See Sierra Club v. <br />Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Ca1.App.4th 1212, 1217 -1218, 1222. This results in an <br />improper and inadequate alternatives analysis. <br />The most glaring example of this straw man approach to creating alternatives is <br />with respect to air quality and odor. Most of the alternative sites are large areas. In the <br />case of Alternative Site 2, Segerstrom Triangle, the size is over 1.7 acres. Other sites are <br />large parking lots. Within many of these sites, though, the City has deliberately placed <br />the lift station within 75 feet of a sensitive receptor to place the receptor within a <br />potentially significant odor zone of "around 75 feet." ( RFEIR, p. 3.1 -37.) Similarly, the <br />RFEIR does this for Alternative Sites 3. This is a classic example of creating straw men. <br />G (ii <br />In the case of Segerstrom Triangle, the City compounds the inadequacy by O C= <br />creating straw men to knock down in support of its straw man, telling us why other Cam /� <br />x <br />` Moreover, what substantial evidence does exists shows the nearest sensitive <br />receptor to be within the zone. Figure 3.1 -2 of the prior FIR showed the nearest motel <br />room at approximately 57 feet away from the Project, even though it was not then <br />referred to as a sensitive receptor. We asked in a California Public Records Act request <br />on October 7, 2011 for documents showing how the City arrived at the 75.5 -foot distance <br />used in the RDEIR. The City, in its response, said it did not have any responsive <br />documents showing how it arrived at that figure (Exhibit 3), leaving the only evidence as <br />Figure 3.1 -2 from the prior EIR. (See also Exhibit 4 [Giroux correspondence].) <br />f;� <br />