My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Res96 12719
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
City Council
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
Res96 12719
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:35:57 PM
Creation date
12/19/2002 11:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Resolution
Agency Type
City Council
Date
4/8/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
and expansion of the largest wetland area on the Site's northeast <br /> side as mitigation for said filling. Corresponding revisions to the <br /> location of buildings and amenities would be made, reducing the <br /> over-all scale of the Project. This Council finds that this alternative <br /> is infeasible and undesirable because it would not eliminate the <br /> unmitigatable significant effects of the Project described in <br /> paragraph 5 and would reduce the benefits of the Project, likewise <br /> described in paragraph 5. <br /> (f) Acquisition of the Area for Public/Quasi Public Use/Park, This <br /> <br /> altemative would require the pumhase of the Property with public <br /> funds, similar to that described under alternative (b), above. Said <br /> alternative would further require the expenditure of an <br /> undetermined amount of funds to prepare and maintain the Site for <br /> wetlands, open space, and park purposes. This Council finds that <br /> this alternative is infeasible because no agency or entity has been <br /> identified with the desire or funding necessary to implement the <br /> alternative. Further, this Council finds this alternative undesirable <br /> because it would deprive the City of the benefits of the Project <br /> described in paragraph 5. <br /> <br /> (g) Alternative Site. This altemative assumes that the Project could <br /> be developed on another Site. This Council finds that this <br /> alternative is infeasible because the Project Proponent does not <br /> have control or possession of any other property which would serve <br /> <br />DES:rg 29 <br />Reso-25a <br />G:~hared',Redwood~Council <br />03/04/96 <br />04/01/96R <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.