Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steve Worrall <br />January 13, 2012 <br />Page 8 <br />• <br />Moreover, to rely on a "grant application" as further evidence of a significant <br />impact is to rely on false information. There is no grant application pending of which we <br />are aware, and despite requests, this firm was never provided with such an application — <br />not on October 31, 2011 or at any other time. <br />What the City submitted to the California Resources Agency, and what was <br />provided to this firm, was a concept proposal in response to a mass solicitation for such <br />proposals. (Exhibit 6.) According to the FAQ for the process, which we submitted with <br />our October 31, 2011 correspondence as Exhibit 4, the proposal process is itself <br />competitive and "invitations to submit full applications are anticipated to be issued two or <br />three months after the concept proposals are received, with applications due in the fall of <br />2011." <br />The RFEIR cites the FAQ ( RFEIR, p. 64), but fails to include this language. The <br />response is written as though the City has a competitive grant application pending, for <br />which awards will be announced in early 2012. If the City was invited to submit a grant <br />application based on the concept proposal, it has misled us and our client, and violated <br />the California Public Records Act by failing to disclose the application in response to a <br />request made under the Act. If the City was not invited to submit a grant application, <br />then the response itself is false and a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. <br />With respect to traffic, Response to Comment 13 claims it is "unclear" how more <br />laydown space potentially results in a shorter construction duration and a reduction in <br />associated traffic impacts. Mr. Dickson's February 7, 2011 Report (Exhibit 7 to our <br />correspondence of October 31, 2011) could not be more explicit: "A larger laydown area <br />should allow equipment from one phase to be moved to the site before the prior phase has <br />concluded, allowing for an overlap of phases that compresses the construction schedule." <br />As he further explains in Exhibit 1 to this correspondence: <br />"The fact that the contractor would have access to all four <br />sides of the project at Site No. 2 would provide more <br />alternatives for the contractor to shorten the duration of <br />construction than would be available at the proposed project <br />site, where the contractor has full access only from one side, <br />and only partial access from Segerstrom Avenue." <br />Indeed, despite the Response's claimed lack of clarity, it nevertheless appears to <br />accept Mr. Dickson's conclusion by noting that "it is reasonable to conclude that <br />additional laydown space could reduce total construction time for the alternative..." <br />55A -141 <br />