Reso PC22-14 0114 PC Reso Certifying Final EIR 557 E. Bayshore Road

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0114/PC RESO CERTIFYING FINAL EIR – 557 E. BAYSHORE ROAD REV: 12-09-22 VR Page 21 of 61 Commercial Development Only Alternative A commercial development only would eliminate the residential use, and just provide commercial uses. This alternative would assume additional commercial development would occur in the northern portion of the site where residential uses are currently proposed. This alternative would not reduce the need for any of the proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, this alternative would not be in compliance with the General Plan land use designations for the site. In addition to not meeting the Mixed-Use Waterfront designation, a project without residential development would not address RHNA needs or address the City Council’s strategic priority for housing. Therefore, a commercial development only alternative was considered but rejected. Location Alternative In considering an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise that the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location”. The proposed project is a high-density mixed-use development within East Bayshore Road. It is not likely that an alternative location within this area of Redwood City would substantially lessen the identified impacts. A site not near the bay and tidal habitats would likely avoid the project’s biological impacts and avoid the need for mitigation noted above. As a private development project proposed by a private applicant, the consideration of alternative locations is tempered by the fact the applicant has control over the current proposed site, and may not be able to obtain control of another location, unlike a public agency, which may employ eminent domain to acquire a site. For these reasons, an alternative location is not considered further. No Project Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines [Section 15126(d)4] require an EIR specifically include a “No Project” alternative. The purpose of including a No Project alternative is to allow decision- makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” [Section 15126.6(e)(2)] The Guidelines emphasize that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment [Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)].” No Project – No Development Alternative The No Project – No Development Alternative would retain the existing commercial buildings and surface parking lots, with the buildings assumed under this alternative to continue to remaining vacant. Implementation of the No Project – No Development alternative would avoid the less than significant impacts with mitigation identified in this EIR. The No Project No-Development alternative would not, however, allow for new waterfront, high density, mixed-use development to be constructed on the project site consistent with the General Plan. A project without residential development would also not address RHNA needs or address the City Council’s strategic priority for housing. This