Resolution PC 96-1 Flatirons Funding

Browse Search

included in this category are those that, according to the Redwood Peninsula EIR, "would require major improvements (access roads, bridges, utilities, new dikes, etc.." Redwood Peninsula EIR, p. -9.) The Project site is included in the areas that would remain undeveloped under this alternative. C omparison :of the Alternative to the Project The Redwood Peninsula EIR concluded that this alternative would result in f ewer foundation problems, seismic risks, air quality effects, and impacts on water quality, biology, ecology, noise, traffic and demands on public services. It also states that the alternative "may be feasible." This is no longer the ease, however. Existing approvals con template the de of office p space on the Proj site, The refore, even if the Proj were not .approved, develop would occur on the . site. The City hereby finds that the Confine. Development to Improved .Parcels Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. The City.further finds that this arlternative is . infeasible and would not meet the - db" ectives of the Project. 4.3.4 Develop fo r Agricu tural or R Use ]�eser fl on o f the Alterna.t�i�e The Redwood P EIR includes alternatives that would designate the entire undeveloped portion of the Redwood Peninsula for agricultural or recreational uses.. Because the Redwood Peninsula EIR concludes that the environmental impacts of both uses would be similar, this section : iscusses bothalternatives, Agricultural use cou involve field crops, greenhouses or both. Recreational uses could range from parklands to athletic fields to race course. Comparison of the Alternative to the Pro' eet: The Redwood Peninsula EIR ............ concluded that the impacts of these alternatives would depend upon the precise uses involved. In eneral, however, the alternatives would result in fewer eotechnical g g problems, meteorological effects, air pollution and demands on public. services. Other impacts woulThe either greater or lesser, depending .on the proposal. For example., although traffic impacts night decrease, impacts on water quality could increase. .If these alternatives ever were feasible, they are not feasible now. The Project site is surrounded by development, which makes agricultural use particularly unlikely. Furthermore, exis ting approvals provide for the development .of office space on the Project site. Therefore. even if the Project were not approved, development would o ccur on the site. -3 2- FNDNGP 1.DDC 5130!961 0:51 Aid