My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Resolution PC 96-1 Flatirons Funding
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
Resolution PC 96-1 Flatirons Funding
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2012 6:18:38 PM
Creation date
1/19/2012 6:06:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Resolution
Meeting Type
Regular
Date
6/19/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
about 1 00 feet off the extended runway centerline.. The downwind leg of the <br />traffic pattern is typically flown from 1,000 to 3,000 feet abeam the runway. <br />This would place the building within the inner portion of the traff c p after. The <br />outer portion of the pattern would be over the noise sensitive area of Redwood <br />Shores. The pattern altitude .in either case is 800 feet MSL, and the bu ilding <br />location would have no effect. <br />(c) Radar data from the San Francisco International Airport .PAS.SUR system <br />for runway 30 operations during fair weather :show that the majority of downwind <br />operations take place .in a band 3,000 to 5,500 feet abeam the runway Run <br />y <br />12 operations under 'inclement weather generally take place in .a band of from <br />2,500 to 5,500 feet abeam the runway, and at altitudes of from 500 to 700 feet. <br />Under these conditions, the location and height of the building would have no <br />effect whatsoever on the location of the traffic pattern or noise abatement <br />procedures. <br />4.0 FE"#MINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES <br />461 Introduction <br />CEQA .requires an EIR to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed <br />project or to the locat o the proposed project. The.se� alternatives must ` f easi bly <br />attain most of the basic o bj ectives of the prof ect" and must "avoid or substantially le ssen <br />any of the significant effects of the project." (CEQA Guidelines, .§ 151 26.(d).) "Feasible" <br />means that the alternatives ".are capable of being accomplished in a successful manner <br />within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, <br />social and technological factors.' (CEQA Guidelines, § 1:5.364.) <br />4, Objectives of the Prect <br />The City hereby finds that the obj ectives of the Project are as follows: <br />1. To 'implement the City's general Plan and Zomng Code by developing an <br />office complex on property designated for office use by the City; <br />2. To create an inform campus office enviromment through the placement and <br />massing of buildings and landscaping; and <br />3 . To minim ze impacts on adjacent properties, in particular adjacent residential <br />uses. <br />- 29. <br />.NoP � . Doc <br />5/30195 1 0:51 AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.