Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 08-06-15 (Reso 2773-2015) - 127 W. Harris Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Consideration 8.6.15REVISED 8.6.15 Exhibit B CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations I. Introduction The Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott Hotel Project (“project”) consists of the development of an approximately 65,600 square foot, 128 room hotel, located at 127 West Harris Ave. The objectives of the project are as follows: 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 2. Develop a hotel use to own and operate for the long term. 3. Develop a hotel use that serves both business and leisure travelers and the City of South San Francisco. 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 5. Develop a hotel use with 128 guest rooms, the minimum number of rooms to insure the project’s economic feasibility. 6. Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscaping and sustainable design elements that are in line with the East of 101 Area guidelines. 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. 10. Provide an exceptional working environment for more than 50 employees. 11. Become a partner and work closely with the local Chamber of Commerce to make the City of South San Francisco a better place to work and live. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. When an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or REVISED 8.16.15 3. Specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less than significant. (See ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 716.) As lead agency under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott Hotel Project environmental review documents, including the 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) certified by the City on _____, 2015. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the “EIR”. II. General Findings The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) REVISED 8.6.15 The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) “’[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn.v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving…any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These Findings constitute the Planning Commission members’ best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the Planning Commission recognized that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The Planning Commission specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. REVISED 8.16.15 III. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below. Impact 7: The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the Northbound Off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where Without Project volumes would be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable). Impact 7 would remain significant and unavoidable even with all feasible mitigation measures incorporated. The feasible and required measures are: MM 7: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Product Avenue  Adjust signal timing. This measure is required to clear northbound/westbound S. Airport Boulevard traffic through this intersection and eliminate backups extending through the Gateway and Wondercolor intersections. S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane  Restripe the northbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes and one combined through/right turn lane.  Widen the northbound on-ramp to provide two departure lanes, which will then merge to a single lane before merging to the freeway mainline.  Adjust signal timing.  Reconfigure the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to S. Airport Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one shared through/right turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. Resultant 2017 With Project Operation would be: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-42.8 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-162.5 seconds control delay) Finding: Mitigation Measure 7 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours. The restriping of the northbound intersection approach and associated signalization equipment changes along with the widening of the on-ramp departure to two lanes are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive beyond the Project’s fair share contribution for the Project to fund entirely. The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 7 are infeasible for the Project to fully fund and freeway off- REVISED 8.6.15 ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to less than significant. The individual measures, by themselves, would not eliminate the significant impact. While the low cost signal timing adjustment could be provided and would provide some improvement, by itself it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 12: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2035 With Project conditions. However, Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline.  Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.1 % during the AM peak hour and + 1.8 % during the PM peak hour The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the southbound off-ramp to Product Avenue where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline.  Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.3 % during the AM peak hour + 1.5 % during the PM peak hour Impact 12 would remain significant and unavoidable even with all feasible mitigation measures incorporated. The feasible and required measures are: MM 12: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue  Adjust signal timing.  Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound Produce Avenue approach to eastbound S. Airport Boulevard with the same curvature as the existing right turn lane. Signal control both right turn lanes and provide overlap phasing with the westbound left turn movement. S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Avenue/Mitchell Avenue REVISED 8.16.15  Extend the left turn lanes on the eastbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue to at least 225 feet. Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue  Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue.  Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. Resultant 2035 With Project Operation at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue would be: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.6 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS F-205.4 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-205.6 seconds control delay) Finding: Mitigation Measure 12 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours. However, at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, the added right turn lane and dual right turn lane signalization are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be beyond the Project’s fair share contribution to fund. Also, measures at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection are also not on the City’s TIP for this area and for the proposed Project. Therefore, the City has determined that the identified intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12 are infeasible. The Project could not fully fund all the identified mitigation measures, and therefore freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. IV. Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation The Final EIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas discussed below. The Final EIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval, the City finds that for each of the following project impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and in the Final EIR, the following impacts will be less than significant with identified feasible mitigation measures. Impact 6: Project traffic would, increase volumes by more than 2 percent at S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue an intersection already experiencing unacceptable operation. REVISED 8.6.15 Mitigation Measure 6: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards provision of a third lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach to the S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Finding: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 and compliance with local regulations, impacts related to increased volumes at S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue would be less than significant. Impact 12: Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. No mitigation is available to completely reduce this impact to less than significant. However the Mitchell Avenue improvements are feasible and will alleviate conditions in the immediate Project area but not reduce Impact 12 to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 12: Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue. This will just require restriping the existing 40-foot curb-to-curb width in order to provide a 12-foot-wide left turn lane as well as 14-foot-wide east and westbound thru travel lanes. Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure 12 is feasible and will alleviate conditions in the immediate Project area. Impact 19: Project-related traffic would access West Harris Avenue via two driveways where safety impacts may result due to potential limited sight line issues. Mitigation Measure 19: Prohibit truck parking along the entire Project frontage. Prohibit all on-street parking along the Project frontage at least 80 feet north of the south Project driveway, and at least 40 feet south of the north Project driveway.. Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure 19 is feasible and would alleviate potential sight line issues, and therefore the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. V. Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” REVISED 8.16.15 Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715). Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – Existing Conditions Vacant Undeveloped and Variants Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative – 96 room hotel Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative – 64 room hotel The Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The Planning Commission also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. (See Draft EIR, Chapter 5.) A. No Project Alternative As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative (Alternative A). In this case, the No Project Alternative consists of a “Undeveloped No Project” variant, a “Reduced Development No Project” variant, and a “Retail Commercial Development” variant, which is defined as the circumstances under which the project would not proceed (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2) and (3)(B)). Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project and maintenance of the existing environmental setting on the project site. Impacts: None of the impacts associated with the Project would occur under the Undeveloped No Project Alternative or the 0.50 Reduced Hotel Alternative. A low intensity Retail Commercial Development Alternative could reduce Project impacts to less than significant, if the specific intensity of use did not trigger traffic impacts. REVISED 8.6.15 Finding: The No Project Alternative development variants would not fulfill the Project’s Objectives or any of the East of 101 Area Plan’s stated purpose of maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City’s East of 101 Area, and is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible. B. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative This alternative would allow development of the project site at a FAR of 0.75, resulting in a 96 room hotel. Impacts: Both significant and unavoidable impacts would remain with the 0.75 FAR Alternative. However it is worthy to note that the significant and unavoidable impacts relate to the delay in traffic queuing and flow. The significant and unavoidable impacts do not increase air quality, greenhouse gas, health risks, noise exposure or hazards and hazardous materials impacts; these impacts would still remain less than significant. The impacts associated with the Project relate to traffic queuing and flow only. All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems are considered less than significant. The Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As identified in the Initial Study (see Appendix A) and Chapter 6 of the DEIR, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Finding: The reduced project alternative would eliminate the impacts associated with traffic. There would be no environmental benefit with this alternative. The applicant provided a pro forma of the project demonstrating the economic infeasibility of reducing the size of the hotel below 128 rooms. The reduced project alternative would not meet the project objectives to maximize the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City’s East of 101 Area, to promote higher quality business and leisure serving hotels, and to lend support to the Eastern Neighborhood of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which will experience land use changes from industrial uses to research and development/office and commercial uses. The reduced project alternative is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative to be infeasible. C. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative REVISED 8.16.15 This alternative would allow development of the project site at a FAR of 0.50, resulting in a 64 room hotel. Impacts: Both significant and unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. However it is worthy to note that the significant and unavoidable impacts relate to the delay in traffic queuing and flow. The significant and unavoidable impacts do not increase air quality, greenhouse gas, health risks, noise exposure or hazards and hazardous materials impacts; these impacts would still remain less than significant. The impacts associated with the Project relate to traffic queuing and flow only. Finding: The reduced project alternative would eliminate the impacts associated with traffic. However, the applicant provided a pro forma of the project demonstrating the economic infeasibility of reducing the size of the hotel below 128 rooms. The reduced project alternative would not meet the project objectives to maximize the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City’s East of 101 Area, to promote higher quality business and leisure serving hotels, and to lend support to the Eastern Neighborhood of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which will experience land use changes from industrial uses to research and development/office and commercial uses. The reduced project alternative is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative to be infeasible. D. Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be selected. The State CEQA Guidelines also note “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would remain vacant and no development would occur, and would have the least environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the proposed project with respect to development of the site. CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either no development on the site, or reduced FAR of 0.75 or 0.5 on the site. However, although all of these alternatives would result in some reduction in vehicle trips to the project site, only the reduced FAR of 0.50 alternative would reduce impacts to a level that would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts to traffic, and this alternative would be economically infeasible to construct at the proposed hotel service level. Therefore, none of the evaluated alternatives is superior in this regard. VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations REVISED 8.6.15 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco EIR (SCH No. 2015012006; Certified _____, 2015 by Resolution No. _____), as further identified and described in Section III of these Findings. The Planning Commission has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The Planning Commission has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project.  The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant tax revenue for the City.  The existing physical environment consists of a vacant lot, with limited sidewalks and minimal site improvements, and which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the property to a hotel use, including additional amenities and improvements. The proposed project will provide site improvements that will improve the overall aesthetic character of the site.  The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies for the East of 101 Area, which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses and promotes visitor oriented service uses.  The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally promote hotel uses, to the exclusion of residential and more traditional industrial uses.