Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> ATTACHMENT 1 Pag@ �3 <br /> A. Retain the existin� underlvinq Generaf Plan Land Use Desiqnations in <br /> Planninq Area B Chan,ge the zoninc� to a Planned Commurntv D�stnct. <br /> B. Appfv new "P Disirict" desic�n guidefines to ensure comipaiibifity of <br /> deveiopment in Planninq Area B with development m Planrnna Area A. <br /> The alternatives propos�d and evaluated ir. the FEIR are rejected for the reasons sfiated <br /> in the FEIR and for the following reasons: <br /> A. No ProjectJNo Redevelopment Alternative: This al#ernative is addressed <br /> on �ages �65 ±0 1 fi6. Under a !�o Project/No Redevelapment scenario, <br /> the hospital would nat be modified or structura[iy reinforced to rneet <br /> requirements of SB 1953, the California Seismic Safety Act. After 2013, <br /> the acute care E�ospifal uses would be rec�uired to vacate the existing <br /> h^sN�±u! h��;;!�r:ngs. -r!�!e s!��!!e� n��rsing facility �I�o wauld not be <br /> demoCished and redeveloped with a new medical office building. Medicaf <br /> uses could continue on the site, but hospital uses would not be allowed to <br /> operate. The existir�g buildings could aiso be used far other uses aliawed <br /> under the existing Commercial/C3ffice iand use designations. Each of <br /> these scenarios is described and evaluated in this section. <br /> (i) Findings: The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative is rejected <br /> as an alternative because although this alternative wouid avoid the <br /> significant transportation and construction impacts of the project�he <br /> project ob}ec#ives and goals as identified in Section 1.3 of this ElR <br /> wauld not be met. The basic project objective of providing inpatient <br /> and outpatient services in a seismically sound structure to comply <br /> fully with Senate B'rll (SB) 1953, which requires seismic re#rafitting <br /> af all hospitals, would not be accompfished. This alternative also <br /> wou(d not meet objectives refated to improving the space <br /> canstrainfis, inefficiencies and patient flow issues at the facility or <br /> provide a medical office building adjacent to the hospital for <br /> outpatient procedures. <br /> B. No Prolect/Redevelopment with CommerciaS/Office Uses Aiternative: This <br /> afterna#ive is discussed at pages 166 to 168. The current General Plan <br /> fand use designation for the site is Commercial/Office (Single-Story and <br /> Two-Story Sfructures Adjacent to Residential). Under this alternative <br /> scenario, the site cot�ld be redeveioped with commercial ar office uses, in <br /> conformance with the existing General Plan and zoning and Redwood City <br /> Code development standards. New office or commerciai buildings would <br /> be iimited to twa stories in height. Assum��g uN to 60 percert bui!ding <br /> coverage with two-story buildings, appraximately 675,000 square feet of <br /> office or commercial buildings would be allowed within the 13-acre area <br /> currently occupied by the hospital and skilled nursing facility. <br /> Atty/ResoJReso.1738 7 <br /> os2za7 <br />