Res03 14549 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

option would contain only three parking structures rather than the five parking structures under the proposed project. Phasing for the Marshall Street Hospital Alternative differs slightly from the proposed project. Rather than construct the replacement Hospital in Phase 2, MOB 2 and Parking Structure B would be constructed in Phase 2. The replacement Hospital would be constructed during Phase 3. Finding: The Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would have the same impacts on air quality, noise, hazardous materials, population and housing, public services, and utilities and service systems as the Project. In addition, the Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would have the same less- than - significant impacts on land uses as the Project. The Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would have the same trip generation characteristics as the Project, but the location and accessibility of site driveways would be different, which could change vehicle circulation in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would slightly reduce the visual quality impacts related to mass and scale in comparison to the Project. The Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would conflict with certain policies of the Downtown Area Plan. For example, the Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would include a surface parking lot at the Main Street/Bradford Street gateway parcel and a surface parking lot behind an administrative clinic at the Main Street/Veterans Boulevard Gateway parcel. These parking lots would be inconsistent with the objective of developing the gateway parcels to define and enhance the City's downtown and to establish Main Street as a primary pedestrian corridor. The Marshall Street Hospital Alternative would also conflict with the project objectives of providing facilities to meet changing health care demands by limiting Kaiser's flexibility with regard to the design and layout of subsequent phases of development at the Project Site. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that, on balance, the Project is preferable to the Marshall Street Hospital Alternative and that the Marshall Street Hospital Alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project as that term is defined in CEQA. V. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION Full or partial relocation of the hospital and the medical office buildings would be cost - prohibitive and inconsistent with the project objectives. Relocation would be cost - prohibitive because it would require the acquisition of a new site. In addition, it would be difficult to find another site within Redwood City that would allow a campus -style layout and that would meet the project objectives of establishing a central downtown public gathering space that serves