Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CWM:djm 11/06/89 (098/#25) <br />CWM:djm/29/89R <br /> <br />b. Findings. Adverse impacts on the visual quality of <br /> <br />the Amendment Area could be mitigated to a less than <br /> <br />significant level. <br /> <br />c. Rationale and Facts Supporting Findings. The visual <br /> <br />compatibility of specific projects proposed in the <br /> <br />Amendment Area should be assessed and mitigations <br /> <br />recommended during site specific planning as a part <br /> <br />of <br /> <br />the <br /> <br />environmental <br /> <br />review process. <br /> <br />Critical <br /> <br />analysis of Proposed Projects will continue to be <br /> <br />undertaken, as it is now, to ensure visual quality <br /> <br />and compatibility. <br /> <br />d. Monitoring Responsibility. Responsibility for <br />moni toring these mitigation measures shall be with <br /> <br />the Redevelopment Agency and the Redwood City <br /> <br />Planning Director. <br /> <br />3. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT. <br /> <br />a. Significant Effects. Based on projected employment <br /> <br />generated by General Plan buildout of the Amendment <br /> <br />Area, there could be a potential demand for 706 new <br /> <br />dwelling units. <br /> <br />Figures used in the Amendment and <br /> <br />EIR suggest that up to 935 units could be built in <br /> <br />the Amendment Area, resulting in an increase of up to <br /> <br />229 units. <br /> <br />b. Findings. <br /> <br />1. Demand for Dwelling Units. Demand for dwelling <br /> <br />uni ts should not be as high as the EIR indicated <br /> <br />since some employees may already reside elsewhere in <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />11190 <br />