HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 78-1985 RESOLUTION NO. 78
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO ADOPTION
AND APPROVAL OF THE U.S. STEEL PLANT
SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO:
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the
Community Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency of the
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (hereinafter "Agency") has under-
taken a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabi-
litation of slum and blighted areas in the City and in this
connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project
known as the U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(hereinafter referred to as "Project"), in an area (hereinafter
referred to as "Project Area"), located in the City; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the implementation of
Project the Agency has undertaken various redevelopment activities
and has approved and adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the
U. S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, (hereinafter "CEQA"), a final Environmental Impact
Report (hereinafter "Final EIR") has completed the review
process and has analyzed impacts and policies contained within
the U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, including all of
the general activities proposed within the Redevelopment Plan,
all the specific activities proposed and as set forth within
the Redevelopment Plan and the Plans of approval contained
therein; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California
and the City of South San Francisco, as provided in CEQA and
Title 14, California Administrative Code, Guidelines for
--1--
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (hereinafter "Guidelines,") that the Agency should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures available which would mitigate
the environmental effects of such projects to a level of
insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the Agency, in Resolution No. , has
made certain findings pursuant to requirements of CEQA and
Section 15091 of the Guidelines pertaining to the significant
impacts identified in the Final EIR and has identified those
significant impacts which, by virtue of mitigating measures
described in the Final EIR have been mitigated to acceptable
levels, as well as those impacts which are infeasible of
mitigation and for which feasible alternatives are not available;
and
WHEREAS, the Agency has considered a balancing of
the benefits of the Project against certain identified
unavoidable environmental risks in its approval of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, certain significant effects are identified
in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, and therefore the
Agency in accordance with the findings made pursuant to
Section 15091 of the Guidelines, sets forth herein the reasons
to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other
information in the records;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO makes
the following Statements of Overriding Considerations in
support of its action, and as required by the Guidelines:
1. Development likely to be proposed in the
U. S. STEEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT would advance up to 15.5
Million Dollars ($15,000,000) for use on capital improvements
or other purposes in the vicinity of the project.
2. The general fund of the CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO would receive up to $607,000 in excess of providing
--2--
services to developments likely to be proposed under the
Redevelopment Plan.
3. Developers would be required to contribute
necessary funds toward certain existing and future capital
improvements including the Gateway Pump Station, the Oyster
Point Overcrossing and storm drain requirements on-site.
4. Developments likely to be proposed under the
Redevelopment Plan would provide up to three hundred (300)
residential units; thereby increasing existiqg housing stock
in the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by approximately two
percent (2%).
5. Residential development in the U.S. STEEL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT would provide fifteen percent (15%)
low and moderate income housing and would further the goals
of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan.
6. Development likely to be proposed under the
Plan would change existing views of the Project site from
that of a desolate, underutilized industrial site to that
of a mixed use site.
7. Potential uses would generate up to 9,000 daily
visitors, who would be provided new views and access to
San Francisco Bay, a significant regional resource.
8. Public costs and liabilities might occur if the
Project site remains in its current blighted and unused
condition. It is likely that the site would need to be
cleared and cleaned of any hazardous debris and possibly
purchased by a public agency to avoid adverse impacts to
public health and safety.
9. Development likely to be proposed under the
U.S. STEEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT would employ up to 6,200
people, and would greatly stimulate business in the area
such as retail, service and business support activities.
· Application of the Association of Bay Area Governments
-3-
employment multipliers to developments likely to be proposed
under the U. S. STEEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT indicates that
there could be generated up to 23,200 new jobs throughout the
Bay Area.
10. Developments likely to be proposed under the
Project would stimulate local business activity and increase
nearby land and lease values. New revenues would also be
generated by sales and use tax, real property transfer tax,
franchise tax, transient occupancy tax and business license
tax.
11. Development of the Project site would result
in a clearance and elimination of blight in furtherance of
the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing
at Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.).
12. Development of the Project site would provide
for more effective removal of hazardous waste from the former
steel plant site.
13. Development of the Project site would provide a
means of financing improvements to the circulation system to
benefit not only users of the proposed developments on their
respective sites; but would also benefit users of other prop-
erties in the area and those using various modes of transporta-
tion in the Area.
14. Development of the Project site would allow
consideration and encouragement of improvements and coordi-
nation of public transportation facilities, including but not
limited to trains and buses, thereby improving circulation of
private motor vehicles.
15. Development of the Project site would give the
Agency and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO greater control over
development taking place on said site, becuase of controls built
into the Redevelopment Plan and the development process.
16. The Agency further finds and declares that this
--- Statement of Overriding Consideration, the reasons and facts
having been completed in accordance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act and the state Guidelines
and that the information contained therein has been reviewed and
considered by the Agency staff, its consultants and this Board.
17. The Agency further finds, determines and declares
that the significant environmental effects considered herein and
resulting from the Redevelopment Project including the provisions
as set forth within the Redevelopment Plan have been balanced and
out-weighed by the benefits set forth herein and in findings
adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and the
aforesaid significant environmental effects are acceptable.
ADOPTED, signed and approved this llth day of
December , 1985.
'CJh~irman, Redeve£opme~t .~ency
City of South San Franci'sco
Ayes: Chair Roberta Cerri Teglia; Vice Chair Mark N. Addiego, Member Richard A. Haffey
Member Gus Nicolopulos
Noes: Member John Drago
Absent: None
EXecutive Dire~o~, Redevelopment
Agency of the City of South San
Francisco
-5-
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
OIUGINAL SHEARWATER PROJECT AND
THE REVISED PLAN
A comparative development schedule for the revised Shearwater Project and the project
studied in the EIR is shown in the Table 1. A comparison of the effects of these projects
on each environmental category, excluding traffic, is summarized in the foilowing
sections.
LAND USE AND RELATIONSHYP TO PLANS
The revised development plan would not change most of the project's land uses to ~
measurable degree. Although some modifications are proposed, the basic concept of a
master-planned, mixed-use community with a strong water orientation would be retained.
Minor modifications would result in a slight increase in marina berths, a slight decrease in
residential units and modifications to the mix of office/retail~restaurant space resul:ing
~n a ~eater amoun~ of retail and restaurant use, with a corresponding reduction in office
use. In addition, the conference center would be reduced in capacity from 3,000 to 1,700
seats; an aquar;,um also would be added. The most noticeable change is in hotei use,
~vhere 750 rooms are now proposed in comparison to 450 in the earlier plan. Finally, the
yacht club contained in the earlier plan has been removed. (See Table 1.)
The ~evised development plan contains a number of changes which will substantially
stren~then its conformance with the policies of the Bay Conservation and D~veiopment
Commission. First, the revised plan removes all parking from the marina pie~s, which are
now proposed to be constructed primarily as floating structures supported by far fewer
piles than under the previous plan. Parking for the marina would be provided in the
gar~_ges, which eliminates the conflict with BCDC policy opposing parking as an allowable
use to be located on fill. Second, the revised plan allows for continuous public access to
the shoreline along the entire waterfront boundary of the project; by comparison, the
~revious plan provided less access due to restrictions From the hotel location extending
over the water at the end of the channel and the yacht club near the northeastern corner
of the project site~ Removal of the yacht club and relocation of the l~otel back frOm the
water's edge have eliminated these concerns. Relocation of the hotel ha~ al~o eliminated
possible conflict with BCDC policies discouraging this type of use on fill Public, access
also has been improved to the north, with the provision of a public walkway and bikepath
connecting to Sierra Point. In addition, three public vista points accessible by automobile
have been provided.
Other policy issues related to conformance with the City's General Plan, zoning and
height regulations would not change substantially from that discussed in the EIR on the
previous project.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FI,SC,aiL IMPAC'~
The revised development plan would not change most of the project's public service needs
to a measurable degree. Some services, such as water and sewer demand, can be
calculated based on small differences in project square footages, but other services, such
as police and fire protection, cannot be calculated in this way.
The revised development plan would not alter the original project significantly in terms of
public safety impacts or costs; one full shift of police and fire personnel would still be
required. The new development plan calls for an increase in the hotel height limit from
t.~e previous 250 fe~.-t to 290 feet. The Fire Marshall notes that existing flrefighting
equipment does not reach to 250 feet now; an additional 40 feet would not significantly
affect the Fire Department's ability to prevent, or halt a blaze in the hotel's upper
st ories. 1
Total water demand for the revised project would be 28% higher than that noted in the
Draft EIR. Exclusive of aquarium use, project water demand would equal 540,625 gallons
per day (gpd). Sewage flows would be 417,100 to 628,000 glxl.2 Sewer maintenance costs
would be 30% higher than those noted in the Draft EIR (Table 2). The revised
development plan would have 300 residential units rather than 350. The number of
students expected to enroll in grades K-8 would therefore decrease from the original
estimate of 75-85 to 64-73.
85134 3
dp
O~fgn
TABLE 2 .
FISCAL IMPACT OF THE ORIGINAL SHEARWATER PROJECT
AND REVISED PLAN
(At Full Buildou~ of the Project)
Origins2 Plan,
As Documented In New
EIR Development Plan
Revenues
Property Tax $ 5,9001 $ 5,9001
Sales Tax2 148,200 318,500
Business License 19,000 21,600
Transient Oeeu[~ancy Tax3 1,051,200 1,752,000
TOTAL REVENUES $1,224,300 $2,098,
Costs
POt'iC"~4 $ 241,400 $ 241,400
Fire Protection5 183,700 183,700
Street Maintenance 37,500 37,500
Sewer Maintenance 153,900 200,100
TOTAL COSTS $ 616,500 $ 662,600
NET FISCAL BALANCE $ 607,900 $1,435,400
1An additional $4 million in property tax revenue would be generated by this alternative
for the Redevelopment Agency for use in the project area, as discussed in the Draft EIR.
This revenue is not shown in this table because it would not accrue directly to the City
of South San Francisco.
2Assumes average sales of $180/sq ft for all retail space.
3Assumes room rate of $100 and an occupancy rate of 80%. The tax rate is 8%.
4Ron Petrocchi, Crime Prevention Officer, personal communication, December 11, 1984.
5J.L. Drago, Fire Chief, telephone communication, November 17, 1984.
31~ E!evenm Street
5on Fronc~sco.
California 94103
85134 4
(415) 864-2311
Both the original and the revised plans would have the same street requirements and
maintenance costs.
The net fiscal balance of the revised project would more than double the fiscal balance
expected from the original project, increasing this figure from the Draft EIR's estimate
of $.6 million to $1.4 million. An additional $4 million in property tax revenue would be
generated by either plan for the Redevelopment Agency for use in the project area.
Table 2 displays revenues and costs attributable to the new development plan and
compares these figures to those published in the Draft EIR.
1Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshall, South San Francisco Fire Department, telephone
communication, Sept. 24, 1985.
2The low estimate equals total project water demand less irrigation use. The high
estimate reflects the methodology of City staff who, when calculating the original
project's sewage flows, estimated the sewage flows at 490,850 gpd. This figure was
muc.h higher than water demand minus irrigation, which would have equaled 326,D00 gpd
for the original project.
AiR QUALITY AND NOISE
The revised development plan would result in a slight improvement in the air quality
environment in comparison to the project plans assessed in the EIR. In general, reductions
in air pollutant emissions correspond to reductions in traffic volumes. The traffic analysis
notes a 12-15% reduction in peak-hour trips and total vehicle miles traveled attributable
to the revised plan.1 A corresponding 12-15% reduction in total project emissions would
be expected; however, the worst-case carbon monoxide concentrations would not change
significantly at critical intersections (see Table IV-8 on page I¥-30 of the Draft EIR).
The revised plan would also result in a slight reduction in traffic noise, but the long-term
noise environment would not be audibly different from that of the proposed project. The
85134
level of construction noise also would remain essentially the same as that noted in the
Draft EIR, although the noise contours may change somewhat because of the increased
height of the hotel. If office construction ]s delayed, construction noise would decrease
slightly, as noted in evaluation of project alternative C (see Final EIR, page 3-4). Finally,
the revised plan would not alter the need to conduct a detailed onsite noise study to
determine appropriate noise mitigation for the hotel and residential uses in conformance
with Title 25.
1juergen Fehr, letter to Mark Lewis, August 28, 1985; and Juergen Fehr, telephone
communication, September 25, 1985.
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING DEMAND
Table 3 demonstrates that the project as shown in the new development plan would
generate 7% less employees than the plan evaluated in the Draft EIR. Also, these
employees would require slightly less housing than originally projected.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING DEMAND
New
Plan As Evaluated Development
in Draft EIR Plan
Employees 6,187 6,142
Housing Demand1 3,440 3,410
Housing Demand2 4,130 4,100
~Assumes 1.8 workers per household.
2Assumes 1.5 workers per household.
Source: EIP Associates
85134
Calculations og employment and housing impacts are based on the figures in Tables IV-12
and IV-13 and the assumptions detailed in the Draft EIR, page IV-46.
VISUAI~ QUALITY
A substantial change in the shape of the office buildings has been incorporated in the
revised plan that will provide a significantly different visual appearance of this portion of
the project when compared to the earlier project studied in the Draft EIR. Although the
same footprint for the office structures adjacent to the channel has been maintained, the
total square footage has been reduced and the shape of the structures has been altered
from office towers to resemble a terraced form stepping back from the waterfront.
Combined with a more generous provision of public access along the waterfront, the result
will be a reduction in visual scale and height impacts, especially for the pedestrian, when
compared to the previous plan. While the allowable height of 250 feet for these
structures has not changed, it is the project sponsor's intention to not exceed a height of
200 feet with these office structures at the outset of the projects. The overall effect of
these changes will also eliminate shadow effects on public areas, which was not the case
with the previous plan.
Other changes to the revised plan that will alter its visual appearance include relocation
of the hotel back from the water's edge and a reorientation of the internal circulation
system to emphasize the two entry, roads as direct points cf access to both ends of the
project, rather than the loop roadway provided }n the previous plan. Although the height
of the hotel remains roughly the same, (the current height of 290 feet compared to 250
feet in the previous plan, shown in Table 1, reflects a difference in how the measurements
were taken rather than actual height), the footprint of the facility could be expanded to
accommodate the increase of rooms from 45(} to 750. These changes, combined with
public access changes discussed in the Land Use section, will provide a more visually
pleasant experience for the pedestrian when compared to the previous plan.
WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
The Draft EIR indicated that water quality effects on the channel from construction Of
the piers in the previous plan would likely be minor. Since the piers in the revised plan
are now designed to essentially float on the water, with fewer piles required, the
resultant effect on water quality would likely be more beneficial than in the earlier plan.
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Response #29 on page 2o13 of the Final EIR diseusses the existence of a mudflat ranging
in width from 60 to 240 feet just north of the proposed pier near the northern boundary
of the project site. In the previous plan, the eastern end of the pier would be placed over
a por.'.ion of the.mudflat resulting in potential disruption to bird wildlife in the area. In
the revised plan, the pier has been shortened by approximately 400 feet which, together
with construction of fewer piles, would result in likely avoidance of disturbance to the
madflat. The revised plan would therefore have a beneficial effect on vegetation and
wi.ld'.ife ;.n comparison to the earlier plan studied in the E!R.
OTHER ISSUES
Other issues studied in the Draft EIR on the earlier project include geology and soils,
hazardous materials, energy consumption and cultural resources. With the exception of a
slight reduction in energy consumption resulting from fewe:, vehicle miles traveled for
the revised plan, no measurable differences exist between the two plans in impacts on
these issues.
85134 8
,~ Fehr & Pee~ Assodates
August 28 1985
Mr. Mark Lewis -~
Deputy City Manager, Community
Development and Administration
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Effects of Reduced Shearwater Development
on Traffic Impacts
Dear Mr. Lewis:
In accordance with your request, we have adjusted the traffic
impacts resulting from modified development levels of the
Shearwate= Project. The analysis procedures and levels of
_detail are the same as were used in the Hay 7, 1985 letter to
you from Gerard Walters and the results are, therefore,
directly comparable.
The evaluation of traffic impacts reflects the following :
· Modified Shearwater development levels as
described Tn Table 1
· A reduction of year 2005 other cumulative
development by 25% from the level assumed-
in the fIR
· Reduction of vehicular travel due to internal
trip ~inkages as reflected in the Shearwater
· Traffic reduction due to 'moderate' TSM measures
as reflected in the fIR and the May 7, 1985 analysis
Due to the limited time available for this analysis and in
order to allow a direct cOmparison with the May 7, 1985
analysis, the traffic level of service estimates for this
alternative are approximate and the true level could fa1!
within plus or minus one-half grade of the estimated values.
The following summarizes the results of our investigation.
pFehr & Peers ~ates
Transi:x:~lx)n Consul~an~
Page 2
Alternative 5 - Offices Uses, Reduced, ~lotel increased to 750
rooms, other Moderate Changes, and Traffic Generated by
Cumulative Development Reduce by 25 per cent
Under this alternative, Shearwater's traffic generation would be
reduced by 15% (to 2,330 trips) during the A.M. peak hour, and
by 12% (to 2,410 trips) during the P.M. peak hour~ as
compared to the EIR (1) (Table IV - 20). As a result of
implementing these measures, in conjunction with a 25%
reduction in traffic generated from cumulative development,
the buildout A.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the critical
intersections would be decreased between 14% and 16% while
the P.M. peak hour volumes would be reduced between 13% and
17%. The resulting intersection service levels would be
very similar to Alternative 2 described in the May 7, 1985
letter. That is the A.M. peak hour service level at the
Terrabay Book Ramps would be F, and at Rillside/Airport
would be ElF, but levels would be C or better in al1 other
time periods and at other critical intersections in the
Oyster Point Interchange, as shown in Table 2.
If 250,000 sq.ft, of office development is delayed by several
years as is being considered, the intersection volumes could be
reduced between 16% and 20% in the A.M. peak hour and between
14% and 20% in the P.M. peak hour. The service levels would
remain rather similar to the service levelswithout the office
development delay because of the rather small impact of the
250,000 sq. ft. on the total intersection volumes. (See Table
2).
I hope that this analysis will be helpful in arriving at your
decisions. Should there be any q~stions, please call me.
Sincerely,
FEHR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Enclosures
%85-032
Lewis.let
cc. Phil Gorny
Shearwater Development Project, Environmental Impact Report,
Corporation, January 1985.
Table ~
EFFECTS OF SHF..ARWATER CUMULATIV~ ALTERNATIVES
ON CRITICAL INTERSECTION SERVICE LEVELS
APPROXIMATE PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERIVCE*
Terrabay Ramps Hillside/ Oyster Point/
/Airport Blvd. Airport NBI01 Ramps
Proposed Proje'ct F D F D F C
Cumulative Alt. I F D F D E B
Cumulative Alt. 2 F C E/F C D A
Cumulative Alt. 3 F D F C/D D/E B
Cumulative Alt. ~ E/F C ElF C C/D A
Alt. 5a 1 F C E/F C D A/B
Alt. 5b 2 F C E C C/D A
Note : Alt. 1 through 4 were described in May 7, 1985
letter report.
* With interchange mitigations and MTC TSM programs in effect as specified In
Shearwater Project 'Final EIR. Service Levels for Alternatives accurate to
plus or minus one-half grade.
Ultimate Shearwater buildout level
250,000 sq. ft. of office' development delayed
September 25, 1985
Mr. Phil Gorny
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Environmental Effects of Revised Shearwater Development Project
(EIP #85134)
Dear Mr. Gorny:
In response to your request, we have evaluated the environmental effects of the
revised Shearwater Development Project in comparison to the eariie.~ project
that was studied in the EIR. The results of our evaluation indic.~te that, in
general, the revised project will result in a slightly greater beneficial effect on
the environment when compared to the earlier project. In arriving at this
conclusion, we have evaluated each of the issues studied in the EIR, with the
exception of traffic and circulation. This issue is addressed separately in
Juergen Fehr's letter to Mark Lewis of August 28, 1985.
A summary of the results of our investigation is contained in the brief report
attached to this letter. If you have any questions about the report, please do not
hesitate :o eontac¢ me.
Sincerely,
William S. Ziebron
Vice President
31o ~_~event.~ ~treet
Ca:iforn~a ¢4183
ADT AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR TSM AND INTERNAL TRAVEL
~ (Ref: 4-20)
LAND USE S.F./UNITS TRIP RATE APT
OFFICE 1,310,875 8.46 11,090
HOTEL 750 4.23 3,172
RETAIL 122,000 12.3 1,500
RESTAURANT 74,600 17.17 1,281
THEATRE 180
CONFERENCE 1,500
MARINA 1,600
RESIDENTIAL 1,002
ADT TOTAL: 21,325
ADT TOTAL IN EIR: (21,325)
NOTE: REFER TO EXPLANATION IN EIR OF NATURE OF THESE ADTs
"...Presence of services (Restaurants, Retail, Hotel,
Convention Center, Residential & Recreation) on
the site is expected to reduce peak hour office
traffic generation by 15-24% below the amount
that would occur if the office space was isolated
from such services..." (p.4-78)
(T.S.M. estimated office traffic reduction of 25%)
EXHIBIT