Laserfiche WebLink
without productive use. This Council hereby finds that this <br /> altemative is infeasible and undesirable and hereby rejects the <br /> alternative because it would deprive the City of the benefits of the <br /> Project described in paragraph 5. <br /> (b) Complete Restoration of the Property to Wetlands. This <br /> <br /> alternative would require restoration of the Property to a condition <br /> approximating that of its probable natural state prior to the diking, <br /> draining, filling, and industrial use thereof over the past six or seven <br /> decades. This Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and <br /> undesirable and hereby rejects the alternative because it would <br /> likely require a public agency or public interest group to pumhase <br /> the Property from its current owners and ther~ invest substantial <br /> funds to implement restoration neither of which agency or group <br /> has been identified to implement restoration. Further, this Council <br /> finds this alternative undesirable because it would deprive the City <br /> of the benefits of the Project described in paragraph 5. <br /> <br /> (c) Development of the Property for Port-Related Industrial Uses. <br /> This alternative would require the purchase of the Property by the <br /> Port of Redwood City or by private interests, and the development <br /> thereof for industrial purposes related to maritime commerce. This <br /> Council finds this altemative undesirable and infeasible because <br /> the Port of Redwood City does not have the financial capacity, nor <br /> the need or desire to acquire the Property for such purposes, nor <br /> <br />DES:rg 27 <br />Reso-25a <br />G:~shared~Redwoo~Council <br />03/04/96 <br />04/01/96R <br /> <br /> <br />