My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2015 1:07:15 PM
Creation date
10/7/2010 3:42:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
10/11/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
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
7.A <br /> AttachrrRag.44 <br /> unacceptable service levels on some roadway segments based on current <br /> LOS policy. <br /> • Impact 4.15-4: Development allowed by the New General Plan could <br /> generate an increase in future demand for water supply that is not <br /> anticipated to be fully met by the City's existing and future water supplies. <br /> • Impact 4.16-2: The New General Plan would allow for new development <br /> to occur in areas that may be subjected to tidal inundation if sea level <br /> rises; this could place additional people and structures at elevated risk of <br /> exposure to flood hazards associated with long-term sea level rise. <br /> B. Findings Regarding Alternatives Analyzed in the FEIR <br /> In light of the City's goals and objectives for the Project, and given that the <br /> Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental effects even after the <br /> implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the City hereby makes the following <br /> findings with respect to whether one or more of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft <br /> EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the City's goals and objectives for the Project and <br /> substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially significant effects. <br /> 1. Alternative 1 --No Project Alternative <br /> a) Findings. The No Project Alternative is discussed at <br /> pages 5-2 to 5-13 of the Draft EIR. The No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as <br /> infeasible because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the New General <br /> Plan's significant effects and would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the <br /> Project to the same degree as the New General Plan. <br /> b) Explanation. The No Project Alternative is discussed <br /> at pages 5-2 to 5-13 of the DEIR. This alternative assumes that the New General Plan <br /> would not be adopted and that the City's existing 1990 General Plan would remain in <br /> effect. As a result, existing development patterns would largely remain intact and there <br /> would be no substantial changes in land use, density, or intensity patterns within the plan <br /> area. <br /> Compared to the New General Plan, development under the No Project Alternative <br /> would be expected to result in approximately 3,612 fewer new dwelling units, 7,749 <br /> fewer people, 4,133,663 fewer square feet of non-residential development, and 11,008 <br /> fewer jobs. The No Project Alternative also would not include many planned <br /> transportation and infrastructure improvements proposed under the New General Plan. <br /> The No Project Alternative would continue the existing land use designations of <br /> the 1990 General Plan, and so would not introduce the new land use designations and <br /> overlays contemplated by the New General Plan. Commercial land use designations <br /> would remain primarily concentrated in the Downtown; no new mixed-use designations <br /> ATTY/RESO/RESO.2055/ATTACHMENT1.A 30 <br /> 1 0/6/1 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.