Res96 12834 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

If these alternatives ever were feasible, they are not feasible now. The Project site is surrounded by development, which makes agricultural use particularly unlikely. Furthermore, existing approvals provide for the development of office space on the Project site. Therefore. even if the Project were not approved, development would occur on the site. The GID hereby finds that the Agricultural or Recreational Use Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. The GID further finds that this alternative is infeasible and would not meet the objectives of the Project. 4.3.5 Other Alternatives Discussed in the Redwood Peninsula EIR The Redwood Peninsula EIR discusses a number of other alternatives which, while applicable to the determination of overall land uses, are not applicable to the evaluation of the Project site. One alternative would result in the development of the Redwood Peninsula with a higher population. This alternative would involve increased density in residential areas and would not affect the Project site, which is designated for office uses. Similarly, an alternative involving development with lower population would involve decreased density in residential areas and would not affect the Project site. An alternative that would result in the development of the Redwood Peninsula as a commercial/industrial center would eliminate residential areas, designating the entire Peninsula for commercial or industrial uses. This alternative would not affect the Project site, which is already designated for commercial (office) uses. Finally, the Redwood Peninsula EIR includes an alternative that would involve breaching the lessees and flooding the lowlands on the Redwood Peninsula. At the time that the Redwood Peninsula EIR was adopted, this was considered infeasible. In light of the amount of development that has occurred and the increased population in the area, this alternative now is even more clearly infeasible. 4.4 Alternatives Proposed During the Public Hearing Process 4.4.1 Limit the Height of All Buildings to 100 Feet or Lower Description of the Alternative: In correspondence and during the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, several commentators suggested that the height of all Project buildings should be limited to 100 feet or less. Comparison of the Alternative to the Project: The proposed site configuration, including buildings of graduated heights, is intended to avoid the monolithic appearance that would be created by the conslruction of multiple 100-foot buildings. The variation in height provides greater architectural interest, visibility and better site lines -40- GIDEIRYD.DOC 7/23/96 5:44 PM