My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 74133
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1970-1979
>
1974
>
RES 74133
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2015 4:19:56 PM
Creation date
7/9/2015 4:19:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/10/1974
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> 1 <br /> design or mitigation measures which could be incorpora- <br /> ted into the project to further minimize any significant• <br /> environmental impact (that have not been discussed under <br /> item (c) above) , and the reason these have not been <br /> included. This examination should also include recom- <br /> mendations that consider "off-site" alternative features <br /> 1 or designs as they could affect the environmental impact <br /> of the proposed project . Include in this discussion <br /> alternatives capable of substantially reducing or elim- <br /> inating any adverse impacts , even if these alternatives <br /> substantially reduce the project objectives and are more <br /> costly. <br /> (e ) The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of <br /> Man 's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement <br /> of Long-Term Productivity : <br /> 1 Describe the cumulative and long-term effects of the <br /> proposed project which adversely affect the state of <br /> the environment . In particular, the desirability of <br /> the project shall be weighed to guard against short- <br /> sighted foreclosure of future options or needs . Special <br /> attention shall be given to impacts which narrow the <br /> range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose <br /> long-term risks to health or safety . In addition, <br /> the reasons why the proposed project is believed by the <br /> Sponsor to be justified now, rather than reserving an <br /> option for further alternatives, should be explained. <br /> (f) Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would <br /> Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be <br /> Implemented: <br /> Describe the extent to which the proposed project cur- <br /> 'tails or expands the diversity and range of beneficial <br /> uses of the environment . Uses of non-renewable resources <br /> during the initial and continued phases of the project <br /> may be irreversible since a large commitment of such <br /> resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely . <br /> Primary impacts and, particularly , secondary impacts <br /> (such as a highway , improvement which provides access <br /> 1 to a non-accessible area) generally commit future gener- <br /> ations to similar uses . Also irreversible damage can <br /> result from environmental accidents associated with <br /> the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources <br /> should be evaluated to assure that such current con- <br /> sumption is justified. <br /> (g) The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action: <br /> Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could <br /> foster-economic or population growth, either directly <br /> or indirectly , in the surrounding environment . In- <br /> eluded in this are projects which would remove <br /> obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of <br /> a waste water treatment plant might , for example, <br /> allow for more construction in service areas) . In- <br /> -22- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.