HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 171-1984 RESOLUT I ON NO. 171-
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PLANNING CORPORATION TO
PREPARE AN E IR FOR SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT ON THE
FORMER U. S. STEEL AND GSA PROPERTIES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that:
1. Approval of Agreement.
The Agreement entitl ed "Consul ting Agreement" between Environmental
Impact Planning Corporation and the City of South San Francisco is hereby approved,
and a copy of said Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
2. Execution of Agreement.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the
City, and the City Clerk attest his signature thereto.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular
meeting held on the24th day of October , 1984, by the following
vote'
AYES'
NOES'
Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Fmanu~lp N. r)amnntm, Richard A. Haffey,
Gus Nicolopulos; and Roberta Cerri Teglia
None
ABSENT' None
ATTEST'
-
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 171-84
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 24th day of
October 1984, by and between ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PLANNING CORPORATION,.
a California corporation, located at .319 Eleventh Street, San Francisco, California
("Consuitant"), and CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a munieipal corporation, located
at 400 Grand Avenue, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, California, 94080 ("Client){
WITNESSETH THAT, in consideration of the premises and covenants hereinafter
set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1: Consultin~ Serviees. (a) Consultant agrees, during the term of this
!
Agreement, to perform the consulting services set forth in Exhibit A relating to the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("Report") with respect to U.S. Stee! Site
Project.
(b) In addition to the services described in Subparagraph (a) above, the
parties may from time to time agree in writing' during the term of this Agreement that
Consultant aha J1 perform additional services in eonneetion with the Report or the Project.
Such additional services may include, but are not limited to (i) changes in the services set
'-' forth in Exhibit A because of design changes in the Project; (ii) preparation of..speeial
detailed graphics; (iii) research and analysis in addition to the requirements therefor set
forth in Exhibit A; (iv) additional studies or modifications of existing documents because
.,
,of chang;es in any laws, rules, reg~llations or polieies of any state, federa~ or loea~
governmenta~ authority having jurisdiction over the Project, or additionsd work on the
Environmenta~ Impact Statement if required beyond the scope of services set forth in
Option 2 of Exhibit A; (v) attendance by Consultant at more than 4 public hearings
eoneernin~ the Report.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement shall operate or be construed to preclude or
inhibit Consultant' from rendering similar serviees to any other t~erson or entity.
Consultant shs21 be obligated to devote only so mueh of its attention, skil! and effort as
': may be reasonably required to perform the serviees deseribed herein in a professional and
timely manner.
2. Duties of Client. la order to permit Consultant to tender the services
required hereunder, Client shall, at its expense and in a timely m~nner~ (i) provide such
information concerning the Project as Consultant may require from time to time to
---- enable Consultant to formulate a description of .he Project for purposes of Consultant's
Page 1 of 7 Pages
study ahd eValuation of the Project's environmental effects; (ii) assist Consultant in the
development of a description of alternatives to the Project based on the requirements set
forth by client; (iii) assist Consultant in the coordination and exchange of such planning
and design information relating to the Project as Consultant may require from time to
time; (iv)promptly inform Consultant of any'pending or confirmed changes in the design
of the Project; (v) promptly, review any and all documents and materials submitted to
Client by Consultant for client's comment in an effort to avoid unreasonable delays in the
progress of Consultant's services; and (vi) promptly notify Consultant of any fault or
def~et in the Project in any way relating to the performance of Consultant's services
hereunder.
:
3. Personnel' (a) Consultant agrees that it will employ, at its own expense,
all personnel reasonably necessary in its discretion to perform the services required by
this Agreement ~md in no event shall such personnel be the employees of Client. Ail of
the sePvices required hereunder shall be performed by Consultant or under its direction
and all personnel engaged therein shall be fully qualified under applicable state, federal
and local law to undertake the work'performed by them.
(b) In addition to Personnel employed directly by Consultant, Consultant
shall have the right to engage such subcontractors as it may deem necessary to the
performance of its services hereunder with the prior approval of Client, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
·
4. Comoensationo Client shall pay to Consultant an amount not to exceed the
sum of $46,500 as consideration for the performance of the services under the Base Work-
Program set forth in Exhibit A. In the event that an EIS on the project is ~equired the
compensation for such. services is estimated to be $50,000 to $58,125. The sum of $50,000
would cover the cost of services provided in Option 1 of the Work Program contained in.
Exhibit A. The sum of $58,125 would cover the cost of services provided in Option 2 of
the Work Program in Exhibit A. Such compensation shall be payable in the following
manner: .~
(i) A work retainer of $1,000 shall be paid to Consultant'at the time
Consultant commences the performance of services hereunder. Sueh work retainer shall
be applied against the monthly statements described in Subparagraph (ii) below until
exhausted.
(ii) Client shall pay within thirty (30) days of receipt the amount set forth
in monthly statements submitted to Client by Consultant describing in reasonable and
understandable detail the .services rendered, and fees charged and expenses incu,'red by
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Consultant during the previous month in accordance with the billing standards set forth in
Ekhibit B, including fees and expenses for additional services authorized by Subpara-
graph (b) of Section I above.
(iii) Upon Client's failure to pay within thirty (30) days' of receipt the full
amount set forth in 'any monthly statement submitted to Client by Consultant, said unpaid
balance will beat- interest at. the rate of 'one (1) Percent per month until the amount of
said. unpaid balance plus interest thereon shall be paid in full.
· (iv) Consultant shall, at its sole discretion, have the right to suspend work
on ~he services performed hereUnder, if Client has any monthly statements as described in
subparagraph (i) above more than 60 days past due. Consultant shall recommence work
upon p/~yment of all statements then past due.
5. Time of Performance. Consultant shall commence the performance of its
services under this Agreement forthwith as of the date of execution thereof, and shall
diligently proceed therewith in accordance with the following schedule:
· st~bmittal of the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) on December 5, 1984
· submittal of the Draft EIR (DEIR) two weeks following receipt of com-
ments on the ADEIR
· submittal of the Final EIR two weeks following the close of the public
r_e. view- period and ree_eipt of all comments on the Draft EIR.
'The schedule is subject to delays for causes beyond the reasonable control of Consultant
or occasioned by changes in the design of the Project or the failure of Client to perform
its obligations hereunder in a' timely fashion. Time is of the essence in completion of this
agreement.
6. Term. (a) The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date first-
above written and shall continue until the earliest to occur of the following:
(i) the date on which Consultant notifies Client in writing that it has
completed all of the services required hereunder;, or
(ii) five (5) working days after written notice by either party of
substantial failure-by the other party to fulfill its obligations under'this Agreement in a
timely manner through no fault of the terminating party.
(b). The City may for its own convenience terminate this agreement at any
time by giving written notice to the consultant of such termination and. specifying
effective date thereof, which notice shall be given at least twenty days prior to the
effective date of such termination.
Page 3 of 7 Pages
(e) If this Agreement is terminated prior to the completion of Consul-
tan:'s work, in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this
Agreement, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services performed and'
costs incurred hereunder through and including the date of termination.'
7. Ownership of Documents. Consultant agrees to return to Client. upon
.termination of'this Agreement all documents, drawings, Photographs and other written or
graphic material, however produced, received from Client and used by Consultant in the
performance of its services hereunder.' All documents of any kind Which are included in
the EIR or which provide technical back-up of any kind to the EIR shall become the
property of the Client at the completion of Consultant's work on said EIR or upon
.termination of this agreement pm;suant to Paragraph 6 above. The Consultant may retain
a copy of all material produced under this Agreement for its use in its general business
·
activities.
8. Indeloendent Judgment. Client understands and acknowledges that the
preparation and presentation of the Report may invite criticism, controversy and
litigation which may be motivated {~y public or private opposition to the Project although
based on the adequacy or accuracy of the Report. Client agrees that any such criticism,
controversy or litigation with respect to the Report will not cause Client to withhold
payments due to Consultant hereunder.
9. Litigation. In the event that either party brings an action under this
Agreement for the breach or enforcement thereof, the prevailing party in such action
shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if such action is prosecuted to '
..
judgment.
10. 'Insuranc.e. The Consultant shall take out and maintain during the life of'
this Agreement the following policies of insurance:.
(a) Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance providing
full statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, the Consultant makes the following
certification, required by Section 1861 of the California Labor Code:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
California Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions
'of the Code, and I will comply with such provisions before
commencing the performance of the work of this Agree-.
ment?~
Page 4 of ? Pages
(b) Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for injuries including but not limited to death to any
one person and subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less than ONE
·
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) on account of any one occurrence.
(c) Prol~ertv Damage Insurance. In an amount not less than FIVE
HUNDRED 'THOUSAND DOLLARS ($$00,000.00) for damage to the property Of each
person on account of any one occurrence.
(d) Contractual Liability Insurance. Consultant shall take out and main-
rain during the life of this Agreement an insurance policy in the amount of at Iea~st ONE
'MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00), insurin~ City, its elective and appointive boards,
.commissions, officers, agents and employees, and Consultant against damages sustained
by reason of any. action or actions at. law or in equity~ a_nd/or any claims or demands by
reason of any alleged breach of any contract, or provisions thereof, or by reason of any
contractual liability, or alleged contractual liability on any contraet~ entered into by
Consultant and/or any of its agents or. employees.
(e) It is agreed that 'the insurance required by Subsections b, c and d shall
be extended to include as additional insureds the City of South San Francisco, its elective
and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, with respect to operations
performed by the ConSultant, as described herein. Evidence of this insurance described
above shall be provided to City upon exeeutior[ of this agreement and shall be subject to
approval by the City Attorney as to form~ amount and earriero The policy of insurance
shall also contain a provision indicating that such insurance shall not be reduced or
cancelled except upon thirty (30) days' written notice to City. In addition, the following
endorsement shall be nlade on said policy of insurance:
"Notwithstanding any other pt;ovision~ in this policy, the
insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San
Francisco shall be primary as to any other insurance or
reinsurance covering or available to the City of South San
Francisco, and such other insurance or reinsurance shall
not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until
and unless the approximate limit of liability afforded
hereunder is exhausted."
I1. Notices. Any notice or demand desired or required to be given hereunder
shall be in writing and deemed given when personally delivered or deposited in the mail,
postage prepaid, sent certified or registered, and addressed to the p~zties as set forth
above or to such other address as either party shall have previously designated by such a
notice. Any notice so delivered personally shall be deemed to be received on the date of
Page 5 of ? Pages
deli.ver~." and.any notice so mailed shall be deemed to be received five ($) days after the
d~te on which it was mailed.
'12. Waivers. Waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall not constitute a
continuinl~ waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach either of the same or of another
proviSion of this Agreement.
'13. 'Modification. No waiver, ~alteration, modification or termination of.this
Agreement shall be valid unless made 'in writing-
14. Assi.~ment. 'Neither party shall assign, transfer or' otherwise dispose of
thi~ Agreement in whole or in Part to any individual, firm or corporation without the prior
written consent of the other party. Subject to the provisions of the preceding sentence,
this AKreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of~ the respective
successors and assi~.s of the parties hereto.
15. Governing' Law. This A~reement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
16. Counterl~arts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counter-
parts, each of which shall be deemed to be an ori~inal~ but all of which to~ether shall
constitute but one and the same instrument.
17. Further Assurances. The parties agree to have executed any-and all
documents and take any and all actions which may be necessary or advisable to effectuate
the purposes of this A~reement.
18. Caotions. The headings or captions to the sections of this A~Teement are
not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect upon the construction or
interpretation of any part thereof.
19.' Severabilit¥, If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the ~emainder of this A~reement shall
remain in effect.
20. Resoonsibilit¥; Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless,
and at Clienbs request, defend Client, its employees, at'ents and representatives from and
against all claims, demands~ actions~ causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities~ costs
and expenses includint' reasonable attorneys fees or obligations, for Or in connection with
personal injury (including' but not limited to death) or damage to property which arises out
of or is in any way connected with the negligent act, error or omission of Consultant and
its a!ients~ subeontractors~ or employees as a result of Consultant's rendering.of services
under this A~reement.
Page 6 of 7 Pages
21. Entire ARTeement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding
-between the parties as to the subject matter of this A~eement and merges all prior
discussions,, negotiations, letters of understanding or other promises, whether oral or in
writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and
year first-above written.
"Consultant" "Client"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PLANNING
CORPORATION, a California
corporation
Doug~fis Donaldson
Chie~ Ad ministrative
Officer
ATTEST'
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
a municipal corporation
By
Page 7 of ? Pages
I. INTHODUCTION
.
The City of South San Francisco has received an application for a mixed-use development
on.the former United States Steel/American Bridge and former G.S.A, properties located
on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard east of Highway 101o The site comprises
approximately 47.2 acres of dry land and 133 acres of water-covered land. The former.
pipe and Steel manufacturing' facility has been demolished, leaving' only asphalt pavement~
concrete slabs and docks and a deep water channel entry that provides access to the Bay.
One large warehouse building' owned by the City of South. San Francisco (formerly owned
by G.S.A.) still remains, but it will also be demolished and the land developed as part of
the overall Master Plan. . .
The applicant proposes a master planned, mixed-use community, consistin~ of 'a 1.00,000-
square-foot Convention Center, a 4§0-room, first-class hotel, 500 marina berths, a yacht
club, 1.5 million square feet of offices, retail shops and restaurants, and-3b-0-residential
units. Based on the findings of the initial study, the City of South San Francisco has
determined that an environmental impact repot-t will be required.
IL APPROACH
·
·
The proposed project represents a unique opportunity to achieve a high quality develop-
m~nt which contributes to a positive future image for the City in addition to enhancing
the City's fiscal outlook. Our approach to the EIR is based on a number of principles
allOwing' for the preparation of technical environmental information which can be Useful
to the City in achieving its objectives. 'l:he following key points summarize the principles
that have guided our study design and which will characterize our participation as
consultants to the City. .
COMPR~.H~,N'SIVE UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL ISSUES
The RIP Team is thoroughly versed in the range of technical issues to be studied in the
EIR. Each firm comprising' the RIP Team has worked on or is currently working on
significant projects in_.the site._vieinity. 'With this background we are able to provide a
comprehensive assessment of critical issues at the outset of the study, ensuring that n'o
issue will be left unresolved. (See Chapter IV for a detailed discussion of issues.)
PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH
A mere description of 'environmental consequences of the project is not enough. Because
of the significance of the project to the City anc~ the developer, it is vital that feasible
mitigation measures be developed to minimize or eliminate significant impacts. We view
the EIR proce.ss as more than an academic exercise; our .approach is based on the
application of practical and effective solutions to identified problems.
EFFICIENT PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
All of the RIP study team members have worked on projects on or in the vicinity of the
U.S. Steel site. Because of this we are thoroughly prepared to undertake, the study
immediately, and to complete the study in a timely manner in full conformance with the
City's and developer's preferred schedule.
OI~JI~CTIV~ UNBIASED APPROACH
Participants in the study will consist of decision makers and other interested parties with
a range of professional perspectives and priorities~ It is essential that the environmental
consultant's contribution be trusted as reliable and unbiased. Our approach will be based
on the application of sound professional and scientific methods to the identification of
problems and development of solutions. To the extent feasible we will quantify the
'impacts of the proposed project and alternatives. Those impacts that cannot be
quantified (i.e. visual conditions) will be clearly and explieity defined so that assumptions
are understood.
CLF.,AR COMMUHICATION OF TI~CHNICAL FLND~G8 '
The best technical analysis available is useless if it cannot be communicated. Clearly
identifying~ impacts and potential mitigation measures to a diverse audience requires a
practical approach that takes the mystery out of numbers, especially those relating; to
traffic and economic considerations. Our team believes in backing up technical findings
with clear explanations SO that necessary tradeoffs are easily understood by key decision
makers and other involved parties.
While much of the technical work in preparing' tl~e environmental analysis and the EIR wiI1
.
be straightforward, some unknowns could influence the [~rocess. Some of these include
the numbee of final alternatives to be studied anti whether an ElS will also be required.
(See Work Program discussion in Chapter IV.) What is needed beyond straightforward
environmental analysis is an understanding of the environmental review and planning
L~rocess, which ira@lies flexibility to changing conditions as new ideas and requirements
emerge.
LEGAL ADEQUACY ..
It is imperative that the EIR meet all standards of legal adequacy as prescribed by the
California Environmental Quality Act. Douglas Donaldson, environmental attorney and
Principal-in-Charge of the Study, will review all EIR sections to ensure their legal
adequacy.
SENSITI"FIT~ TO POLICY FACTORS AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
·
Final/y, the EIP team has a practical orientation to the environments/ process which
involves sensitivity to local policy mat~:e~s and political issues. While much of our work
will be technics/in nature, our experience in community involvement and the forms/. EIlt
public hearing process will allow us 'to determine with the City which community concerns
are legitimate and which ones are' purely p~litical or inappropriate for consideration in. the
environmental process. At the same time, our role will be vital to facilitating the
decision-making process at the Council level, by providing reliable data, articulation of
potential impacts, and definition of mitigation options.
HI. WOrK pROGRAM
A number of regional, state and federal agencies will review and comment on the
environmental documentation prepared for the project. Because of the potential concerns
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers~ it is conceivable that an Environmental Impact
Statement could be required on the project. Should this need arise, we would recommend
that a joint EIS/EIR be prepared. Based on our past exluerienee, we feel it is more
efficient in the long run to prepare a joint document initially rathe~ than to produce a
second environmental document to satisfy federal requirements at: a later date.
The proposed work program for preparation of an environmental im@aet report, in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, state guidelines and t.he
environmental guidelines of the City of South San Francisco, is set forth below under Base
Work Program. Should an EIS be required, we would recommend additional work tasks for
preparing a joint EIS/EIR document. These work tasks are outlined in the Optional Work
Program at the end of this chapter.
BASE WORK PROGRAM
TASK 1. IDEl~'£11f~. ISSUES
William Ziebron, EIP's Project ManaIIer, will meet with the City to further discuss the
issues in the environmental impact report. Our specific approach to each issue, as
outlined in Chapter IV, will be verified. Any additional information that City staff, the
public or concerned agencies may have to assist the study process will be transmitted at
this time.
, .
It is expected that the EIR will address all issues as outlined in the Initial Study and
Request for Proposals. The precise emphasis to be placed on each issue, however, will be
determined iol!0wing the outcome of this task.
TASK 2. COLLECT DATA AND INVESTIGATE SITE
An intensive review of ail existing' plans, reports, studies, reg.ulations and doeuments
relating to the site will be eondueted, lneluded will be offieial documents fz;om the City
such as the General Plan, the Zoning and subdivision ordinance and EiRs prepared by EIP
on projects in the vicinity of the site (Terrabay Development and Gateway RedeveloLu-
ment). Other sources of data will be provided from traffic studies in the area. by. PRC
Voorhees and toxic waste monitoring studies c°ndueted on the site by Brown and Ca]dwell.
This material will be supplemented by site data provided by the project sponsor.
Site investigations will also be undertaken in this task. The site will be investigated for'
all relevant issues and information will be collected, organized and displayed on maps for
·
use in conducting the impact analysis in Task 3.
TASK 3. CONDUCT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Different environmental characteristics are likely to exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity
to alteration. The criteria for determining constraints to'construction will be based on
evaluation of site and local area characteristics and response of these characteristics to
disturbance. EIP will fully investigate and evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts associated with the proposed project, in accordance with CEi~A requirements.
·
·
TASK 4. PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAYT EIR
The EIR will be~in with a Summary listing impacts and mitigation measures suggested by
tilP; a detailed Project Description; and Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures relating'
to Traffic, Toxic Wastes, Public Services, Fiscal, Noise, Water Quality, Housing,. Air
(~uality, Aesthetics and Vegetation and Wildlife.-The EIR will also include all statutory
sections required by CEQA: Unavoidable Adverse tmpacts~ Mternatives to the Project;
Short-term versus Long-term Effects{ Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; and
Growth-Inducing Impacts of the project.
, .
The EIR will address alternatives to the prOposed project in a separate chapter of the EIR.
Although [~recise aldtrnatives have not yet been defined, it is possible that a modified
density alternative could be studied along with the no-project alternative. The complete
set of alternatives to be analyzed will be determined with the City and project sponsor at
the outset oi~ the study.
TASK 5. PI1EPAlllE DP. AFT EIlt
Following review .and comment on the Administrative Draft by City staff, EIP will
prepare a Draft /:IR responding to those comments. One hundred copies of the Drgft
will be printed and delivered to the City of South San Francisco ~or distribution.
TASK $. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The City of South San Francisco will advertise for and conduct at least four public
hearings on the Draft and Final EIlls. At such public hearings, William Ziebron, EIP's .
Project Manager~ will summarize and explain the document as necessary. If it is deemed
appropriate by the City, other EIP staff specialists and consultants will attend the
hearings to explain particular issues of importance.
TASK ?. PRI~PAllIE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
EIP will respond to written comments on the Draft EIP. and comments made in the public
hearings. Bill Ziebron will meet w_ith the City ~ollowing completion of..t_h_e resp_onses to
comments to ensure that the material is adequately prepared. One hundred copies of the
Responses to Comments (the Final Silt) will be delivered to the City.
OPTIONAL WOltK PllOGRAM
Option 1: Assist Corps of Engineers in Preparation of an ElS
If an Environmental Impact Statement is required, and said document is to be prepared by
the Corps, it may be advantageous for EIP to work closely with the Corps to ensure that
information from the EIR is properly incorporated into the EIS. The services to be
provided would be limited to coordination meetings and clarification of information
,
contained in the EIR document as necessary.
Option 2: Prepare Joint ElS/Eli{ Document
This option assumes that an ElS will b_e required and that. a joint ElS/Ell{ will be prepared
by EIP. The precise tasks in the work program for preparation of a joint document will be
determined following an initial meeting with the Corps of Engineers and following further
discussions with the City of South San Francisco.
ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES
A. THAN~ORTA~ON
A ~ange of transportation issues will be. studied including offsite roadway capacity, on-site
circulation and access requirements, on-site parking,, transit usage, and pedestrian
circulation. The proposed workscope for assessing these issues consists of four major
·
tasks:
1. Review of Existing Transportation Conditions, Plans and Policies - w{th special
attention to committed development and roadway projects and MTC's corridor-
level highway and transit issues.
2. Assessment of Impacts of U.S. Steel Site Development - with special attention to
the. effects on the planned Oyster Point Interchange. -
3. Impacts of Cumulative Developments - including a review of long range corridor
issues identified by MTC and Caltrans.
4. Development and Appraisal of Mitigation' Measure - including; stree{ and inter-
change designs, on-site circulation, and a TSM Plan.
These tasks are described below.
1. Review of Ttan.sL~ation Conditions, Plans and Policies
The evaluation of existing transportation conditions will include analysis of current traffic
facilities, volumes and service levels, transit services, and Transportation Systems
Manag;ement (TSM) programs in force in the area. Conditions will be investigated not only
as they exist. 'in late 1984 but also as they will be followin~ completion of committed
projects. Regional and corridor-wide transportation plans and policies that affect the site
will also be discussed.
a. Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic facilities, including access freeways and interchanges, arterial Streets and
intersections, will be inventoried, and their geometric characteristics and traffic controls
will be described.
described, including:
· The City's preferred desiKn for' the new Oyster Point interchange.
Proposed and committed improvements will als~ be identified and
· The Hillside Boulevard extension.
· The new ramps to/from U.S. 101 ~rom/to Bayshore Boulevard at the Te~rabay
entrance.
· The southerly e~ension of Gateway Boulevard.
The effects of these modifications on traffic circulation patterns will be discussed.
Traffi'c counts ~ill be conducted for the AM and PM peak periods at key intersections and
,
tamps along Oyster Point BouleVard and Airport Boulevard. it is anticipated that up to
five locations will need to be counted in each time period. Counts and capacity analysis
from recent (198:1/1984) traffic studies in the area will be reviewed so that any additional
critical locations can be identified.
Traffic level of service analysis will be per/ormed to identify the late-1984 AM and PM
peak hour operating ratings of:
· Oyster Point/Dubuque/101 Ramps
· Oyster Point/.Airport Boulevard
· Airport Boulevard/Scissors Ramps
· Airport Boulevard/. Linden On-Ramp
· Oyster Point/Gateway Boulevard
· Other critical locations.
The effects of the planned roadway improvements identified above will also be deter-
mined. Traffic touting changes will be predicted and resulting service level changes
calculated.
At the same .time, approved cumulative developments will be considered. Traffic
generated by The Gateway, Terrabay, Oyster Point Business Center and other major
committed projects will be added to the planned street network's volume and service level
analysis.
b. ' -Transit and 'ISM Conditions
l!:xisting. Samtrans bus and Caltran commuter rail services in the area will be described,
and planned service changes will be discussed. Regional and corridor-level transit
improvement prospects will be discussed, including MTC's on-going' transit alternatives
analysis. 'ISM facilities (such as e.~l~ress bus and rail park-ride lots) and programs
(includintI the Gateway's and Oyster Point Business Centetas shuttle services) will also be
described. Key elements of the MTC Coordinated Traffic Mitigation Plan for the Route
101 corridor will be discussed as the~ apply to the proposed project.
Bicycling and pedestrian access to the site will be described.
Assessment of Impacts of U,S. Steel Site Development ....
The amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed uses at the U.S. Steel Site
will be predicted on the basis of empirical data from comparable land uses. Trip
generation studies by Caltrans and the Institute of Transportation Engineers will be
consulted along' with traffic studies for t!:IR's on similar nearby projects such as the
Gateway and Terrabay and market studies on special uses proposed for the site.
a. Traffic Impacts
Traffic volumes generated in the am and pm peak hours will be distributed on the ~oadway
network according to travel patterns derived from recent surveys of nearby work places~
U.S. census data, and observed traffic routing' though the area. In the course of its
ongoing involvement in traffic studies in the area, PRC Engineering' has developed a
traffic network for the entire eastern sector of South San Francisco covering the Oyster
Point peninsula and the Highway 101/Airport Boulevard corrdior from Brisbane to SFO.
Using its microcomputer-based traffic model IMPAX, PRC is able to simulate traffic
flows and determine levels' of service for all of the key streets and interchanges serving
·
the U.S. Steel site.. This model wiII be used to forecast the traffic volume increases and
congestion impacts associated with the U.S. Steel development plan, as well as for
buildout of committed projects and future cumulative development. Particular attention
will be paid to turning conflucts, weaving maneuvers, traffic delays and safety associated
with the planned Oyster Point interchange.
b. Transit and' TSM
The residence locations of new employees and the work places of new residents will be
predicted, along with preicted trip lengths, modal splits and auto occupancy rates.
Transit ridership.f~e'nerated by the proposed developoment will also be estimated, and the
'need for additional services will be determined alon~ with the effects on corridor-level
transit objectives.' '
3. Impaet~ of Cumulative Development
Other proposed, but not yet committed, development in the area will be included in the
assessment of cumulative impacts. These projects will be identified through discussions
with City and County staffs. Their traffic and transit impacts will be predicted using the
same process as applied in the analysis of U.S. Steel site impacts. Long-term ~TC
.
objectives fo~ TSM and transit improvements will be taken into consideration.
4. Development and Appz. aisal of Mitigation Measures
Measures to mitigate the traffic and transit impacts for the U.S. Steel site proposal, in
particular, and cumulative development, in general, will be. formulated and approved.
These will inel~de traffic flow improvements (including street and intersection design
concepts) and measures to reduce traffic generation. Key amon~ the circulation issues
will be the eonfiguation of the Oyster Point interehang;e. The approved design will be
evaluated in terms of its ability to handle projected traffic flows and serve the general
circulation patterns in the area. If suitable service levels cannot be provided, conceptual
solutions will be sugl~ested and evaluated. Solutions that use part of the U.S.' Steel site
may be considered, if traffic flows can be significantly improved. Methods to meet the
MTC/Caltrar, s goal of providing surface street capacity parallel to Route 101 for sho~:
distance trips will be investigated as well.
..
Proposed eom@onents of the on-site circulation system will also be evaluated and
mitigation measures sul~ested if needed. This evaluation' will cover roadway widths,
intersection configurations, spacing between' intersections, driveway locations, si~n~ and.
stop-siipa locations, parking garage layo.uts, provision of bus turn-outs and other features.
Special attention will be paid to TSM-oriented site desist features that make transit,
bieye!e and pedestrian movement as easy and attractive as possible.
The effects of various TSM and transit commitments will also be determined. A TSM plan
will be prepared.in accordance with the recommendations of the MTC ~Coordinated Traffic
Mitigation Plan for the Route 101 Corridor. It will include measures to increase use of
non-automobile modes (transit, vanpools, carpools, bicycle, walk) and measures to better
distribute traffic' flow (variable wo.rk hours, flex-time, coordination of land uses). The
program will represent an action plan for implementation by the developer, the compo-
nents of whietm the developer may elect to commit to as specific mitigations for the
project's impacts. TSM measures that will be considered for inclusion in the program if
they pass standard tests of applicability and efficiency include:
_
· transit, pedestrian and bicycle amenities
· transit/earpool information services
· RIDES campaigns
· transportation coordinator services
· preferential parking programs
· ~mployee surveys and incentive programs
· work-hour adjustments
· formal transit access plan~ priority treatments
· transit, vanpool, carpool brokerage
· transit, vanpool subsidies
· parking management programs
· shuttle bus services.
The TSM plan will also contain techniques to monitor the program and enforce compli-.
aP. ce. The program, including monitoring and enforcement terms, will be structured to
.o
translate directly into a list of conditions for approval of the project to assure that the
City Will ultimately benefit from an early commitment by the project sponsor.
·
·
· o
Suggestions will be made regarding funding options and responsibilities for the proposed
mitigation measures.
The effects of TSM and transit measures on trip lengths, modal splits and auto
occupancies will be predicted. The effectiveness of the proposed TSM plan in improving
traffic levels of ervice in the area will be estimated. For the cumulative traffic
assessment~ the consequences of a successful Corridor-wide TSM pro,ram as envisioned by
MTC (With 25-30% ~eduction in single-occupant auto communities) will be predicted.
Also, in the long-range' ret~ional context~ the effects of MTC's proposed Route 101
Corridor highway and transit improvement pro,Tams will be estimated.
B. TOXIC WASTES
Previous studies indicate a limited presence of soil and groundwater contamination at
specific locations on the property. Contaminants of concern include lead, chromium,
nickel, copper, tin and low and trace concentrations of priority' pollutant organic
chemicals. To properly characterize toxic waste conditions on the site and to satisfy the.
requirements-of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency~ the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the Hazardous Waste Management Branch of the California Depart-
ment of Health Services, two approaches are .proposed. The first approach (Base
Approach) assumes that existing data ~or the site is adequate and analysis will be limited
to reviewing and assessing this information to determine the potential for impact to the
project. The second approach (Optional Approach) assumes that additional data collection
is required.. A full scale and systematic sampling program is included in this option.
1. Base Approach
Available information on the previous use of the property would be reviewed to determine
the potential presence of hazardous materials. The existing data would be evaluated
relative to existing and proposed re~oulations to determine the existence and e.~cent of any
potentital environmental problem. Appropriate r~medial or mitigative measures will be
o.
developed and, evaluated if necessary based on agency requirements, planned long-term
property use and other criteria. These measures could include excavation and removal,
on-site treatment, or containment and long-term monitoring. · -
2. Optional Approach - Detailed Sampling Program
·
Existing data may not be sufficient l{o evaluate the eavironmental impact of potential.
hazardous materials throughout the property~ The following approach assumes that
regulatory agencies will require a systematic sampling program to define and mitigate any
potential hazard. This approach could be refined using existing data and specific.
requirements of the developer, California Department of Health Services, and Regional
Water Quality Con.trdl .Board.
a. Surfaee Soil Samples
A number of surface soil sample sites would be located throughout the unpaved portion' of
the property on a 100 by 100 foot grid. Ten percent of the 0 to 6-inch interval samples
(20) would be analyzed-Trot-13 priority pollutant metals, including antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium,
and zinc. Based on these data, the remaining 0 to 6-inch samples would be analyzed for
the metals identified as being of major concern. Hazardous concentrations of these
metals may require additional soil samples using a smaller grid pattern to define their
horizontal and vertical extent.
All samples obtained during the investigation will be saved so ttmt additional analyses can
be performed if necessary. These samples will be stored at the laboratory until comments
are received on' the findings of the investigation.
b. Monitoring Wells
Five shallow monitoring wells would be located on the property' to determine geohydro-
logic conditions of the shallow groundwater beneath the property. These wells will
provide information on groundwater quality and the direction and volume of groundwater
flow. This analysis would focus o~ five Environmental Protection Agency priority
pollutants, including purgeable and e.~raetable organic chemicals, 'pesticides, metals,
cyanide, and phenols.
Following installation, all monitoring wells will be developed to remove fine materials and
water affeted by well installation. Deve!gpment will be done by a combination of bailing
and .pum@in~.
Following. development, the monitoring,' wells will be sampled usin/; a positive-displace-
ment o'r peristaltic sampling, pump. Water samples will be collected in ~lass containers.
Prior to taking the sample, a minimum volume equal to four times the volume of fluid in
the ,~ell will be flushed from the well to provide a representative water sample. Each
water sample will be appropriately marked and assigned a consecutive identification
number. Water samples will be refrigerated on site before transfer to the laboratory for
analysis. ..
c. Summarize Findinfl;s
..
Information obtained during' this investigation will be presented in a brief report. The
report will present the findings~ data, and methods and will include necessary maps,
fiffures, and table. This report will be summarized for inclusion in the EIR and atlacl~ed
as an appendLx to the EIR, and will describe probable impacts and mitif~ation strategies as
discussed under the base approach above.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FISCAL IMPACTS
1. Public Serviees
The proposed. 'mixed-use development proieet would pose new demands for a range of
e°mmunity services, including, fire and police protection, public sehools, water suppl)-,
wastewater transport and treatment, and stormwater drainage. Provision of these
services may involve important concerns for eapital and operating, cost impacts.
A preliminary evaluation of existing services su~ests that some services wiU definitely
be more affected than others, and the level of effort in the analysis will be focused
accordingly. An improvement plan for Oyster Point Boulevard is bein~ developed by
Wilsey Ham and Associates. The plan includes two sanitary server lines that will
accommodate the U.S. Steel property. The final size of the sewer lines will be
determined when verification of the projected sewage contributors for the development is
given. Currently a 24 x 36 inch oval storm drain pipe crosses the project site. This pipe is.
very old and in a deteriorated state, it must be 'relocated and upgraded prior to
development of the site. AdditiOnal catch basins will be added along the south side of
Oyster Point Boulevard as improvements occur. Presently, a 16-inch water line is located
in Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent to the site. An 18-inch pipe has been proposed to
connect the water line at Grand Avenue with the existing line. The water will be provided
by the Califorr~ia Water Service Company. Domestic water supply and fire-flow
requirements for the .U.S. Steel site can probably be adequately served by the existing
system.
o.
Wastewater transpor~ and treatment will be evaluated with regard to the proposed
development. Presently the wastewater treatment facilities are not operating at capacity
level.
·
Fire services to the project area will most likely be adequate upon completion of the new
station on Hillside Boulevard. The existing stations on Harbor Way and Baden Avenue
would also provide services to the U.S. Steel property. Police protection needs will
increase, but a security plan developed by the applicant should minimize security impacts.
School enrollment has de. elined in South San Francisco in recent years, and eurrently is
estimated at 9,400 (capacity level for the district is over 13,000). The generation of
school-age children could be beneficial to the district. As in many school districts along
.
·
the peninsula, an increase in enrollment could be recognized as a positive impact resulting
from the project.
The public services impact analysis will describe and quantify all service demands
anticipated for .the proposed project. Service demand estimates will be calculated using
local engineering and administrative standards wherever.appropriate. Service provision
plans incorporated into the proposed project will be described and analyzed against local
standards and our demand level projections. The impact of the project's service demands
upon existing .City services will be discussed and
significant adverse impacts that are identified.
2. ' Fiscal Imuacts
mitigation measures proposed for
The fiscal analysis will be based upon the information described above. Capital
ex.~enditures required to extend services to the site and to accommodate the needs of the
project will be reported and capital finance options will be discussed. The financial
responsibilities of the project sponsor and the City under each finance option will be
identified.
The operating and mairttenance expenses incurred by the City will be determined by major
function or activity. This will involve identifying current costs per unit of service under
existing service leve]B and assessing the increment of service costs related to the
provision of public services to the proposed project.
One-time revenues will be identified bY major source, including special contributions
toward (or actual provision of) public infrastructure as discussed in the capital finance
analysis above, building permits, processin~ fees and other developer contributions.
Recurring revenues will be calculated by source, including property taxes, sales and use
taxes, licenses and permits, charges for current services (fee and permit revenue) and
other sources. .
Finally, a summary public sector "cash flow" analysis will be developed to summarize one-
time capita.[ costs and revenues and recurring public costs and revenues generated by the
proposed development. These costs and revenues will be related to the proposed phasing
plan for the' project. A discussion of phasing is important if significant public
, .
expenditures are required early in the development of the project and later revenues are
depended upon to recoup initial costs.
Adverse fiscal impacts will be identified and m.itigation measures proposed to ensure that
a significant cost burden does not fall on the public sector.
D. NOISE
The noise section of the EIR will include a description of the existing noise environment
of the site, potential impacts due to construction and operation of.the propo.sed..p.roject,
the consistency of the site with the proposed development and mitigation· measures to
reduce significant impacts.
The project site's acoustic environment is dominated by noise from motor vehicle traffic,
..
particularly from US-Highway 101, nearby aircraft flyove~ and the Southern Pacific
Railroad track west of the site.
According to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, the project is exposed to
Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) 65-70 dBA due to aircraft. The Airport Land
Use Plan reeommendi~ maximum ~Oise levels considered compatible with residential,
commercial, industrial and open space development as does the Noise Element of the
·
South San Francisco General Plan.
·
In addition, Title 25 of_the California Administrative Code (CAC) governs the maximum
noise levels compatible with development of multiple dwellings, including hotels, 'motels
and apartment buildinTs. Specifically, Title 25 requires that noise levels in any
inhabitable interior room with closed windows not exceed a CNEL (a measure of 24-hour
average noise with a penalty built in for nighttime noise) of 45 dB. Residential structures
to be located within a CNEL 60 dB contour due to an airport are required to have an
acoustical analysis demonstrating an' adequately quiet interior environment. Similarly, an
acoustic analysis is required if residential spaces are to be located within a CNEL 60 dB
contour of a road or railroad. The residential portion of the proposed development is
located within'the 65-70 dBA contours for the airport as noted above, and is adjacent to
the railroad tracks and the freeway. The location of this land use will be a critical issue
for the noise analysis in the EIR.
The Federal H!ghway Administration's Traffic Noise model will be used to predict future
noise levels as influenced by project-generated traffic. These noise levels will be used to
determine the'alters compatibility with the proposed mixed-use development in terms of
CAC Title 25 and local noise guidelines.
.
·
EIP will recommend Specific mitigation measures'that can be incorporated as elements of
· .
the project design.
F.. H'TDROLOGY A_ND WATER QUALITY
At pre~ent, Oyster Point Boulevard and the'site itself drain to the Bay through a large~ old
and probably deteriorated pipe that bisects the site and discharges to the shoreline near
the dockini; area at the north end. The City believes that this old pipe will have to be
replaced and relocated'as part of the development. EIP staff will review the [~roposed
grades a_nd storm drainage design t'or the development and estimate the probability of
flooding. Although the site is rather low lyin~ it appears probable that the flood hazard
can be kept to a minimum by [~roper engineering design, taking account of possible future
settlement.
The development may affect water quality in three ways. Pollutants generated as a result
of human activities, domestic pets and vehicles will be flushed out into the Bay by storms.
EIP staff wil/ estimate the mass emission of pollutants to the Bay from this source.
Mitigation .measures such as pollutant-trapping eatehbasins and street-sweeping' will be
considered if justified.' Second, vessels occupying the marinas may affect water quality as
a result of 'illicit discharge of waste, fuel spills and. debris from boat maintenance
activities. Mitigation measures to be considered will include marina regulations that
prohibit live-aboards and restrict the types of maintenance acitivites that can be
conducted. .Finally, the leaching of toxic substances from the soil could affect
groundwater quality and the quality of Bay water. This issue is addressed in detail in
Section B of this chapter.
HOUSING AND LAND USE
The proposed project includes 350 dwelling units in addition to 1.5 million square feet of
office space, the convention center and other facilities. The non-residential uses will be
major employment generators; the relation of this new employment to proposed real-
dential uses and to the existing housing market in South San Francisco and San Mateo
County are.important issues to be addressed in the EIR.
·
. · o
The setting, portion of the section will discuss the current and projected housing market in
·
terms of both housing availability (units built and vacancy rate) and housing cost for
re}total and ownership units. The residential units proposed in the Project will be described
in terms of unit type and projected cost.
The impact analysis will estimate the-amount of housing in South San Francisco and
northern San M;-teo County likely to be demanded by employees within the project. The
analysis will include data on the numbers of employees for each land use, the average
numbers of workers per household, the labor markets from which they will likely be hired
and proportion of workers who would be induced to move to the local housing market and
the projected household incomes of the employees. This information will then be matched
to existinf~ housing resources as well as the proposed residential units to determine if
adequate numbers of the appropriate type and cost of housing units can be expected to be
'-available'io meet the demand ~enerated by the project. If such housin~ does not appear
to be available, appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended.
The land use discussion will involve a broader level of analysis, describing existing uses on
the site in adjacent areas and discussing the ~ompatib'ility of the proposed project with
this environment. Compatibilit~ with existing City General Plan policy will Also be
described. Where significant impacts occur (Lc., ~dlacent land uses are not well suited to
each other), mitigation measures will be proposed to enhance the project design.
G. AIR
This section will describe the current atmospheric environment of tile project site based
on existing air quality and meteorological data. The section will _~!so include a description
of applicable air quality ret~ulations and the regional air quality plan. Impacts of both
consl:ruction and project operation will be assessed.
Major air quality impacts of the proposed project would be caused by increases in boat and
motor vehicle traffic. The analysis will identify the potential effects on local carbon
monoxide (CO).concentrations and on the total regional emissions of major pollutants.
This will be accomplished using the CALINE3 dispersion model developed by Caltrans and
recommended by the State of Califoz~nia Air Resources Board and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
The cumulative effects of existing area traffic, particularly on Highway I01, along with
project' generated traffic, will also be included in the analysis.
Predicted levels of air POllution will be compared to air quality standards and to the
growth allowances in i:he regional Air Quality Plan. Discrepancies, if any, will be
highlighted. [n addition, special .impacts on sensitive receptors will be described..
Mitigation necessary to reduce or eliminate significant air quality impacts will be
recommended as appropriate.
AESTH]~TICS '
·
·
The physical and visual characteristics of the project area will be fully described to
establish a framework for full exploration of the project's aesthetic and visual impacts.
The project will be described in similar format to fully define its appearance'and design
characteristics.
The visual impact analysis will add~ess the effect the proposed project will have on views
from adjacent areas. Detailed consideration will be given to viewshed (view area) and the
sense of vista from nearby locations, including views from' public roads, particularly
US 101, neighboring hills and buildings. Visual impacts to be I~urther evaluated concern
building mass, vegetation, height/bulk relationships, scale relationships and the color,
form and materials of all physical elements comprising the project.
%
The visual compatibility of the proposed project with adjacent land uses will be examined.
Consideration will be giv~.n to the visual relationships of @roject land uses to existing and
potential land uses considering the overall form of the proposed project, and project site
development densities. Community image, land use transitions ~nd consistency of
character will ~also be addressed. CumuLative impacts will be discussed with reference
made to potential trends in development patterns in the vicinity of the project. .. '..
The visual impacts of night lighting; on the surrounding community and regional view
perception will be evaluated. Visual impacts to be expected as a result of construction
processes will be addressed and appropriate mitigation measures will be suggested. The
topographic form and extent of site grading; proposed for roadways and site construction
will be'assessed as will the anticipated appearance of the completed project. Alterations
to veg;etative massings will also be compared to existing conditions.
Recommendations on building; location and height wilt be made as appropriate, together
with the location and e.,rtent of ope. n space and other areas to receive grading;, construc-
tion and remedial planting and landscape treatment. Mitigations will also include an
analysis of methods to establish a. compatible tie between the proposed project and
adjacent land uses.
·
I. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
The emphasis of this section will be upon the aquatic habitat. The proposed project site is
within the historic marshlands of the Bay, but the past land uses have significantly altered
the terresterial habitat and limited its wildlif~ values. However, field surveys will be
conducted if neeessar~ by the EIP staff biologist, s on bot.h the aquatic and terresterial
habitats to determine which wildlife species utilize the site and to what extent. Of
special interest will be the use of the site by any rare species, such as California least
terns (unlikely,. but possible given the habitat) and populations of waterfowl and shore
birds durin~ the winter migration.
A portion of the site of considerable interest is the mud fiat area off the northern shore
of the site. Mud flats play an important role in the ecology of the Bay. They are private
feeding areas for waterfowl, shore birds and young' fish (salmon, striped bass and herring).
They also play an important role in supplying; oxygen to and removing; pollutants from the
aquatic habitat.'
EIP will evaluate the relative importance of this mud flat are~ by first determining the
use level of mi~'ating waterfowl, shore birds and fish. Should it appear that population
·
.
levels are redu'eed at this site when compared to a site of equivalent size elsewhere ir/the
Bay, surveys, of invertebrate and benthic organisims Would be initiated. The purpose of
these surveys is to establish the relative importance or value of this area to other areas in
the' Bay, and .also to estimate a value of the site should it be necessary for offsite
mitiTation of equal replacement value~
Other bioloKieal factors to be addressed would be possible changes in water circulation
and flushing actions, water oxygen content and pollution levels as a result of the project.
impacts to offsite habitats will also be considered such as the dumping of dredge
materials in another aquatic area, or the transport of sediment to nearby marsh/ands, in
each case. both positive and negativ& effects will be identified.
EIP will wOrk closely with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in developing any mitigation or compensation plans in an effort to
assure approval of not only the Ell?,, but also BCDC and U.S. Army Corps of En~/neer
permits.
J. OTH~P. ISSUES
·
A number of additional issues will be addressed in the gilt. Potential impacts related to
geolog3r and soil conditions and the energy consumption of the project have been identified
in the initial study and will be evaluated in the EIR. Although unlikely, the discussion of
other issues such as the potential for presence of archaeological resources on the site may
also be required,
SCHEDULE
EIP's schedule for preparation of the United States Steel/American Bridge/G.S.A.
properties /:IR is attached.. We propose to Complete the Administrative Draft l/Ill in six
weeks and to publish the Draft gIR two weeks after ~eeeipt of the comments on the
Administrative Draft EIR.
We recognize the need for ex~peditious performance and stand ready to begin work upon
receipt of the t~otiee to P~oeeed. No problems are anticipated in meeting the preferred
schedule. ~
Should an EIS be required, the schedule for preparation of a joint EIS/EIR document would
be extended by weeks. A proposed joint document schedule is also attached.
ACt.,L:~,ERATED ENVIRONMENTAL l~t:v~W SCHEDULE
U.S. STEEL/GSA PROPERTIES EIR'
PUDLIC I IEARIN(~S ~'
WEEKS I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Identify Issues
'2. Collect Data
3. Impact Analysis
4. Administrative Draft EIR
5. Draft EI R
6. Public Involvement
7. Response to Comments