Reso13 PC 13-16 2898 PC Reso Recommending Stanford EIR Certification

Browse Search

size to accommodate t�� long-term r�eeds of academic an� academic support users for whom an appropriate Iocation on the main Stanford campus is not available, feasible, ar essentEal. Plan the camp�s with sufficient ffezibility to aElow office, researchlde�elopment, and medical clinic uses by Stanford at�dlor othe�users. Redevelop the pro�ect development s�e to conserve nat�ral resources through sustainable land use components and building features, including those affecting transportation, energy, water, and air qualify. Redevelop the site so that it enhances the qua�ity and value of the adjacent residential neighbarhood. Redevelop the site in a manner which promates and enhances a healthy and diverse ecanorr�y in Redwood City. Transform the �roject site's existing campus design ta allow development inter�sity in a manner which implements the City's New General Plan vision for land use, urban form and density, economic devefopment, and circulaf+on. Create a paftern of smaller City blocks integrated into the neighbarhood-scale street grid. Provide a high-quality campus wi#h substantial usable open space. �nsure that the forgoing objectives are achieved through preparation and approval of a comprehensive �and use plat� addressing such issues as development standards, design guidelines, and capital improvement plans and policies. Discussion and Findings Re�ating to the Alternati�es Evaluated in the Draft EIR Under CEQA, a "No-Project Alternati�e" compares the impacts of prooeeding with a proposed project with the impacts of not praceeding with the proposed project. A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with a�ailable infrastructu�e and cammunity services. Here, t#�e EIR considers in detail two No-Praject Alternatives, one of which assumes only that existing buildings on the Project site would be fully occupied and the other af which assumes that the Praject site wouid be built out to its currently permitted 0.7 FAR. The EkR also considered in detail three Action Alternati�es, and explained why an alternate project Iocation was not considered in detail. No Project—Full Occupancy of Existing Buildings Alternative (Alternati�e 18.1j ("Existing BuiEdings Aiternati�e"y. Under the Existing Suildings Alternative, existing buildings on tfie development site would be fully occupied with offioe and R�D uses. None of the adverse ar beneficial enviranmental �mpacts of the Project would occur. ATTYIRE50.2898/PC RE50 RECOMMENDING STANFORp EIR CERTlFICATION REV:08-15-23 VR Page 47 of 56