HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 198-1986RESOLUTION NO. 198-86
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUPPORTING FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE U.S. STEEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
(MODIFIED SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT)
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of South
San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), as provided in the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the provisions of Title 14, California
Administrative Code, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA" and "Guidelines," respectively),
that the City should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alter-
natives or feasible mitigation measures available which would mitigate the en-
vironmental effects of such projects to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
Shearwater development proposed for the Project Area in accordance with CEQA, the
Guidelines and environmental procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto;
and a duly noticed joint public hearing was held on the Draft EIR and the Draft
EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and
responses thereto, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared
by the City and the City certified the adequacy of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City, after the close of the hearing and after reading and
considering all environmental documentation comprising the final EIR, comments
and responses thereto, and the list or organizations and agencies commenting on
the Final EIR, found that the Final EIR considers all significant environmental
impacts at a level of detail commensurate with responsible requirements for an
informed decision; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1986 City by Resolution No. 197-86, certified
that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and that the information
contained therein had been reviewed and considered by the City Staff, its Con-
sultants and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR considers various alternatives likely to be proposed
under the plan including, but not limited to, deletion of the conference center,
replacement of one high-rise office building with a hotel, delay construction of
two mid-rise office buildings, and the "no project" alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR discusses various significant environmental impacts
of projects likely to be proposed under the plan including, but not limited to,
increased traffic volume, residential uses under the San Francisco International
Airport shoreline departure route; noise from various proximate activities; and
WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed and considerd the Draft and Final EIR's,
comments received from the public both oral and written, staff responses to
comments received during the public review period for the EIR and other substan-
tial evidence in the record and before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the Guidelines requires that the City Council make
one or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for which
the Final EIR has been completed, and which identifies one or more significant
effects of the project, along with statements of fact supporting each finding:
Finding I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsi-
bility 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.
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco hereby finds the following based upon its review and considera-
tion of the Final EIR on the Shearwater Project and other substantial evidence
in the record.
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACT IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE MODI-
FIED SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Modified Project Description
The Project site is located three (3) miles north of San Francisco Inter-
national Airport, in the northeastern corner of the City of South San Francisco,
east of and adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101) (See Figures 3-1 and 3-2
of the Shearwater Development Project EIR). The site comprised two properties -
the former United States Steel pipe and steel fabrication plant (47.2 acres of
dry land area and 133+/- acres of water-covered land) and the former GSA site of
6.03 acres of dry land. The total current actual dry land comprising the site is
therefore 53.23 acres.
A planned mixed-use community is proposed. It may consist of up to 1,310,875
gross square feet (gsf) of office space; a 750-room first class hotel, a 100,000
gsf 1,700 seat conference center/aquarium; a 15,000 gsf performing arts theatre;
536 marina berths; 122,000 gsf of retail space and cinemas; 74,600 gsf of restau-
rants; related parking, landscaping, and shoreline access. By Council action,
the 300 residential unit component is being deleted.
The modified project differs from the previous project studies in the EIR
in the following ways:
-3-
o Addition of 36 marina berths.
o Elimination of the Residential Component
o Addition of 300 rooms to the hotel
o 1300-seat reduction in the capacity of the conference center with the
addition of an aquarium.
o Modifications to the mix of office/retail/restaurant space resulting
in a 189,125-square foot reduction in office space, a 72,000-square
foot increase in retail/cinema space and a 44,600-square foot increase
in restaurant space.
o Removal of the yacht club.
The design features a stroh§ water-related activities scheme intended to
ensure a destination place that will operate seven (7) days a week. The Modified
Project is intended to serve as a focal point of public activity with many
opportunities for enjoying the waterfront. Further, the Modified Project is
seen as an integral part of the redevelopment of the Pacific International
Business Center, which is comprised of a number of commercial and residential
projects east and west of Highway 101.
FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco (hereinafter the "Council")
finds that the Modified Shearwater Project will not have a negative impact in
the following areas lis%ed in the EIR: Land Use and Relationship to Plans,
Fiscal, Geology, Housing, Visual Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Vegetation
and Wildlife, Cultural Resources and Safety.
-4-
Facts in Support of Finding of No Significant Impact
The proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan of the
City of South San Francisco. Submittal of a Specific Plan and related documents
are required prior to approval by the City. Redesign of the project ha~ ~l~o
eliminated many concerns about conformance with BCDC policy pertaining to parking
on the marina piers, public access to the waterfront, and location of the hotel
on fill.
The proposed project would more than double the fiscal balance expected
from the original project discussed in the EIR, increasing this amount from
about $.6 million to about $1.4 million. An additional $4 million in property
tax revenue would be generated by the project for the Redevelopment Agency for
the use in Project Area.
Development of the project site as proposed would not alter any unique
geologic features nor would it reduce any known mineral resource base. If
appropriate construction techniques are used, local geology would not be
adversely affected by the project.
In general, the project would enhance the visual character of the area,
which is currently vacant and underutilized and shows little evidence of
shoreline use. Project uses would generate 8,000 to 9,000 daily visitors,
who would be provided new views and access to San Francisco Bay, a signifi-
cant regional resource. Parking structures should be designed and landscaped
in a manner that reduces views of paved and exterior surfaces.
The project would have a minimal effect on water quality and hydrology on
the project site. Increases in impermeable surfaces would result in a larger
volume and more rapid rate of stormwater runoff resulting in a slight degrada-
tion of water quality. However, dredging of the channel on the project site
-5-
would increase the rate of tidal action in the channel, thereby improving
water quality. Pile-supported piers could slightly affect water flow, but
this is not expected to be significant. Marina activities could decrease water
quality. Proposed storm drainage improvements and marina use restrictions would
reduce the impacts of the project.
No significant impacts to wildlife and vegetation are anticipated. The
planting of vegetation on the project site would attract wildlife to the area.
Although piers would be constructed, any minimal reduction of water circulation
that might occur would not be expected to affect mudflats and the off-site salt
marsh.
No National Register listings, California Historical Landmarks, Points of
Historic Interest, or known archaeological sites are within the Project Area.
Implementation of the project would not adversely affect unrecorded cultural
resources.
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following significant impacts have been identified: transportation,
air quality, noise, public services, hazardous materials and energy.
A. Transportati on Impacts
The Modified Shearwater Development Project as currently proposed would
generate as much as 2,330 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,410 PM peak-hour
trips on the surrounding off-site street system. The cumulative effect of the
project in combination with other proposed projects in the area would reduce the
AM level of service at the Terrabay Hook Ramp to F and to E/R at the Hillside/
Airport Boulevard intersection. At the Oyster Point/NB101 Ramps, the level of
service would be D in the AM peak hour. PM peak-hour levels of service at
these locations would be C or better.
-6-
Air Quality Impacts
The proposed project as modified would affect air quality through
changes in total vehicle miles traveled (VMT)~ However the emissions result-
ing from the project alone and in combination with other projects would not
be of sufficient magnitude to result in a measurable degradation of regional air
quality. Carbon monoxide (CO) analysis in the vicinity of the project site
indicates that air quality generally would comply with state and federal
standards. Localized air Quality impacts from dust generated by equipment
and vehicles also would occur during the construction period.
C. Noise Impacts
The project's greatest effect on the area's noise environment would be
during project construction. Peak noise levels would occur during pile driving,
and would be expected to reach about 105 dBA in all surrounding outdoor space
within 50 feet.
Proximity to both San Francisco International Airport and the Bayshore
Freeway create high ambient noise levels on the site relative to more distant
sites removed from these noise sources. In particular, location of the hotel
underneath the Shoreline Departure Route would create impacts on this
noise-sensitive use.
D. Public Services Impacts
The project would generate a demand for public services provided by the
City and other jurisdictions in the area. The Police and Fire Departments would
require additional staff to serve the project and some capital improvements would
be necessary to accommodate sewer and storm drainage requirements. Recent im-
provements to the offsite sewer system should be adequate to serve the project,
but capacity may not be adequate to serve subsequent development near the project.
-7-
Hazardous Materials Impacts
The Project Area presently contains lead, acidic groundwater, and
organic compounds. Disturbance of the site during and after construction could
create adverse public health impacts if mitigation measures are not required as
part of a project approval. Such measures include a variety of generally accepted
options for removal or containment of the hazardous materials (page IV-121 of
the Draft EIR).
F. Energy Impacts
The modified project would consume energy for construction, operation
and associated transportation. The proposed project would comply with Title 24
of the California State Administrative Code, mandating a variety of energy con-
servation measures (page IV-142 of the Draft EIR).
FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The City Council hereby makes findings (1) & (3) as described below
and as required by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the
above identified significant effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
A. Transportati on
A redesign of the Modified Shearwater Development Project and a
reduction in the intensity of development results in a reduction of AM peak-hour
traffic by 15% and a reduction in PM peak-hour traffic by 12% from the original
proposal and schedule of development as analyzed in the Final EIR, Shearwater
Development Project.
Modifications to Oyster Point Boulevard interchange with Highway
101 may include the following improvements that will be the subject of a subsequent
EIR/EA:
-8-
o
o
o
o
Dual-lane freeway on-and off-ramps both northbound and southbound~
Six-lane bridge over freeway and eight-lane bridge over Southern
Pacific tracks.
Grade separation of left-turn movements at intersection of Oyster
Point with ramps to and from the south, as shown in Figure 4-17
of the EIR.
Loop ramp for direct access from eastbound Oyster Point to Shear-
water site, as shown in Figure 4-17 of the EIR.
An auxiliary lane on U'S. 101 northbound from the Oyster Point
on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp, and between Oyster
Point and Grand Avenue ramps.
Widen Oyster Point Boulevard to six lanes from the Southern Pacific
overpass to the Shearwater eastern entrance, and signalize eastern
entrance.
Furthermore, aggressive Transportation Systems Management {TSM) programs will
be required.
B.
Air Quality
In general, reductions in air pollutant emi ssi on correspond to
reduction in traffic volumes. The modified project would result in a 12-15%
reduction in total project emissions when compared to the proposed project
studied in the Final EIR. However, the worst-case carbon monoxide concentrations
would not change significantly at critical intersections. The project will also
include transportation management programs described in Table IV-27 of the Draft
EIR. Surfaces of unpaved roads and construction surfaces shall be wetted down
twice daily.
C. N oi se
In addition to noise from the Bayshore Freeway, single event noise
levels at the project site from departures on the Shoreline Departure Route can
reach 100-105 dBA. This will require an on-site noise study to determine appro-
priate acoustical mitigation for the hotel portions of the project to comply
with Title 25.
-9-
Public Services
The impacts will be reduced to insignificance by provision of
adequate Police and Private Security forces at the site subject to approval by
the Chief of Police. The public revenues generated by the project will be
sufficient to meet the increased service demands while contributions by the
project sponsor will be required for certain existing and future capital
improvements including the Gateway pump station, the Oyster Point Boulevard
overpass, and the storm drain on-site.
E. Hazardous Materials
Mitigation measures will be required prior to project approval to
clean up the following:
o lead in surface soils
o acidic groundwater
o organic compounds
Cleanup can be accomplished by:
o containment in place
o excavation and containment onsite
o excavation and disposal offsite
o natural neutralization
o induced neutralization
o disposal of contaminated soils
o air-stripping or carbon absorption techniques for
contaminated groundwater
F. Energy
The modified project will be required to include energy conserva-
tion measures such as:
o Passive solar features in all buildings, including:
- overhangs over glazed areas
- energy efficient glazing
- natural lighting
- high level of insulation
o Infiltration control measures.
o Energy efficient outdoor lighting such as high pressure sodium lights.
o Trees for natural shading and windbreak, where possible.
-10-
o Time clock control or automated energy management on major
energy-consuming equipment in commercial facilities:
- heat pumps for space conditioning
- half switching on indoor lighting
- sol ar cells for control of outdoor lighting
- high-efficiency mechanical systems
- sol ar cells for hot water heating
- central plant for space and water conditioning
- project sponsor support energy analysis of all building
designs as part of proposed project
- project sponsor considered all economically attractive
measures for inclusion in the project.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Plan are discussed in depth in the EIR. The
mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed project, as modified,
may be imposed wi th respect to each of the alternatives. Nevertheless, these
alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasons set forth below.
Alternative (1) No Project
This alternative is rejected as socially and economically infeasible
because it would not achieve the purpose of clearing the eliminating blight.
The "no project" alternative would not provide additional employment
opportunities. The City would not experience an increase of accrued taxable
revenues. Certain public costs and liabilities would occur if the Project
Area remains in its current condition. It is likely that the site would need
to be cleaned and cleared of any hazardous debris and possibly purchased by a
public agency to avoid adverse impacts to public health and safety.
An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The
Project Area currently is under private ownership and the project sponsor would
have to release his option on the property before any action could occur. The
City of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition
would then have to acquire the land to implement this alternative.
-11-
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and be-
cause it is not significantly superior to the Modified Shearwater Development
Project from an environmental point of view.
Deletion of the conference center would alter traffic and circula-
tion impacts by reducing both AM and PM peak-hour trips by approximately 15%
compared to the previous project in the EIR. As a consequence of eliminating
the conference center, the buildout PM peak hour traffic volumes at the critical
intersections at the Oyster Point interchange would be decreased between 1% and
5%. This does not represent a significant improvement in transportation environ-
ment compared to the modified project.
In comparison to the proposed project in the Final EIR, this
alternative would result in a 15% reduction in emissions. This does not represent
a significant improvement in air Quality when compared to the modified project.
Deletion of the conference center would slightly reduce noise
associated with project traffic when compared to the proposed project in the FEIR.
However, the overall noise environment would not change in comparison to the FEIR
project or the modified project.
Elimination of the conference center would result in a slight re-
duction in the demand for police and fire services in comparison to the FEIR
project. Overall the effect would be minimal and the alternative would not be
significantly superior to the modified project.
There is no evidence that the deletion of the conference center
would in any way affect the hazardous materials present on the site. There is
no evidence that a significant reduction in energy impacts would result from the
elimination of the conference center.
-12-
This alternative would not significantly improve the fiscal and employment
benefits of development in the Project Area~ The proposed project in the EIR
would result in 6,187 employees and a net fiscal balance of $608,900, whereas
this alternative would result in 6,177 employees and a net fiscal balance of
$566,700. The modified project, by comparison, would result in 6,142 employees,
but would achieve a much greater fiscal balance of $1,435,400. Conference center
deletion from the proposed project in the EIR would decrease property tax revenues
by $340,000, thereby decreasing the tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency by
about 8.5%. Business license fees would decrease slightly ($110).
Alternative (3) Delete Conference Center and Add Hotel
This alternative is rejected as not being environmentally superior
to the proposed project. By replacing the conference center with a 450-room
hotel, both AM and PM peak-hour trips would be reduced by 12% when compared to
the proposed project in the EIR, As a result, the buildout PM peak-hour traffic
volumes at the critical intersections would be decreased between 1% and 4%,
although intersection levels of service would not change. The traffic generated
by this alternative would be roughly equivalent to the modified project.
In comparison to the proposed project in the FEIR, this alternative
would result in a 12% reduction in emissions. This does not represent a signifi-
cant improvement in air quality in comparison to the modified project.
Although noise from project traffic would be reduced slightly,
addition of a second hotel would require appropriate mitigation to comply with
Title 25. Overall, the noise environment would not improve in comparison to the
FEIR project or the modified project.
This alternative is rejected because it is environmentally inferior
to the modified project because it would add 270 new employees to the Project
Area, increase housing demand by 140 to 180 units over the proposed project in
the EIR and increase the demand for public services.
-13-
Construction would still be ongoing on the site and hazards would
still be extant. There is no evidence that this alternative would result in
reduced impacts on energy.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considera-
tions, as enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide
additional facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable signifi-
cant impacts are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Alternative (4) Replace One High Rise Office Building with Hotel
Replacement of one high rise office building with a 450-room hotel
reduces AM and PM peak-hour trips by 17% and 15%, respectively, when compared
to the project proposed in the Final EIR. Buildout PM peak-hour traffic volumes
at critical intersections would be decreased between 1% and 5%. This is not a
significant improvement in the transportation environment compared to the modi-
fied project.
This alternative would result in a 15-17% reduction in emissions
compared to the proposed project in the FEIR. However, this does not represent
a significant improvement in air quality compared to the modified project.
A slight reduction in noise from project traffic would occur when
compared to the FEIR project. However, Title 25 requirements for the second
hotel would need to be satisfied, and no significant improvement to the noise
environment would occur when compared to the FEIR project or the modified project.
Replacing one high-rise office building with a hotel would not
have a measurable effect on demand for public services when compared to the FEIR
project, or the modified project.
This alternative is rejected as not being environmentally superior
to the modified project. Construction would still be ongoing on the site and
-14-
hazards would still be extant. There is no evidence that this alternative would
result in reduced impacts on energy'
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considera-
tions, as enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide
additional facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant
impacts are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Building
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior
to the modified project.
Delaying construction of these buildings would reduce AM peak hour
trips by 12% and PM peak-hour trips by 11%. The buildout PM peak-hour traffic
volumes at critical intersections would be reduced between 1% and 4%.
This alternative would result in a 15-17% reduction in emissions
compared to the proposed project in the FEIR. However, this does not represent
a significant improvement in air quality compared to the modified project.
A slight reduction in noise from project traffic would occur when
compared to the FEIR project. However, Title 25 requirements for the second
hotel would need to be satisfied, and no significant improvement to the noise
environment would occur when compared to the FEIR project or the modified project.
This alternative would have a minimal effect on public services
when compared to the FEIR project. This is related primarily to the timing of
public service needs because the demand for police and fire services for the
hotel will be delayed and all the sewage treatment capacity will not be needed
as quickly as projected for the FEIR project.
Delaying construction of these buildings would not alter the
conditions on the site with respect to hazardous materials. The alternative
-15-
would not result in a reduction of energy impacts by a measureable degree when
compared to the proposed project in the FEIR.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result
in a delay in collecting some property tax increments and business license taxes
allocated to the project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed
for five years as would the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative 16) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel and
Construction Delayed on ~wo Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior
to the modified Shearwater Development Project.
Replacing a high-rise office tower with a 450 room hotel and delay-
ing construction on the two proposed mid-rise office buildings within the Shear-
water development to beyond year 2005 would reduce the AM peak-hour trips by 30%
and PM peak-hour trips by 26%. Shearwater traffic would represent less than
one-third of the total buildout traffic at the key intersections, and under this
alternative would not be reduced. As a result, the building AM peak-hour traffic
volumes at the critical intersections would be decreased only between 6% and 11%
while the PM peak-hour volumes would be reduced between 2% and 8%. Service levels
at at least two of the critical intersections on the Oyster Point Interchange
(Terrabay Ramps/Airport Boulevard and Airport Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard)
would remain at service level F in the AM peak hour.
Initially this project would result in a 26-30% reduction in air
quality emissions when compared to the proposed project studied in the EIR.
However, because cumulative traffic volumes through key intersections in the area
would not be reduced, the overall cumulative traffic volumes and corresponding
air emissions would be reduced between 6% and 11% in the AM peak and 2% and 8%
in the PM peak. These reductions would not result in an air quality environment
significantly better than the modified project.
-16-
A slight reduction in traffic noise would result from replacement
of an office tower with a 450-room hotel; construction noise also would be
diminished somewhat from delaying development of the mid-rise office space.
However, the long-term noise environment would not be altered significantly in
comparison to the FEIR project or the modified project.
This alternative would have a minimal effect on public services
when compared to the FEIR project. This is related primarily to the timing of
public service needs because the demand for police and fire services for the
hotel will be delayed and all the sewage treatment capacity will not be needed
as quickly as projected for the FEIR project.
Substitution of a hotel for an office tower and delayed construc-
tion of two mid-rise offices would have no measurable effect on hazardous
materials present on the site. Energy impacts would not be reduced by a reason-
able degree when compared to the proposed project on the EIR.
The reduction of office space and increase in hotel space would
reduce the number of project employees to approximately 5,200, 16% less than
the proposed project in the Final EIR. Housing demand also would decrease from
the previous range of 3,440-4,130 to 2,892-3,472. Business license tax revenues
would decrease $4,668, but transient occupancy tax would double, assuming both
hotels can maintain 80% occupancy. Sewer maintenance costs would increase by
about 5%. Overall, this alternative would show a net return to the City
approximately double that of the proposed project in the EIR, but not as great
as the modified project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result
in a delay in collecting some property tax increments and business license taxes
allocated to the project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed
for five years as would the demand for 405-485 housing units.
-17-
Alternative (7) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced-with'a
45D-Room Hotel, and Construction Delayed on-lwo Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because
it is not significantly superior to the Modified Shearwater Project from an
environmental point of view.
Eliminating the conference center, replacing an office tower with
a 450-room hotel and delaying construction on the two mid-rise office buildings
within the Shearwater development would reduce AM peak-hour trips by 45% and
PM peak-hour trips by 41% compared to the proposed project in the Final EIR.
Consequently, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic volumes at the critical inter-
sections would be decreased between 9% and 17%, whereas the PM peak-hour
volumes would be reduced between 3% and 12%. AM peak levels of service would
be F at the Terrabay Hook Ramps and at the Airport/Hillside intersection, but
service levels would be D or better elsewhere.
Overall air emissions from this alternative would be the same as
Alternative 6 (26-30% reduction compared to the proposed project in the EIR),
but background levels from cumulative traffic flows also would be reduced,
resulting in cumulative air quality emissions reductions of 12-19% at key
intersections. This however, would still not result in an air quality environ-
ment significantly superior to the modified project.
This alternative would result in a slight reduction in traffic
noise with a corresponding reduction in construction noise from delaying
development of the mid-rise office buildings. Background noise levels from
cumulative traffic also would be slightly reduced. However, compliance with
Title 25 would be a concern with the second hotel and overall, the noise
environment would not be audibly different from that associated with the FEIR
project or the modified project.
-18-
Replacement of the office tower with a 450-room hotel would not
have a measurable effect on demand for public services. Delaying construction
of the mid-rise office buildings also would delay the demand for police and fire
services for these buildings; all the sewage treatment capacity would not be
needed as quickly as projected for the FEIR project.
None of the changes proposed by this alternative would have a
measurable effect on hazardous materials conditions present on the site. This
alternative would result in a slight reduction of energy consumption associated
with a 20% reduction in cumulative traffic. However, the reduction would not
be great enough to be significantly different from the proposed project in the
EIR.
The reduction of office space and increase in hotel space would
reduce the number of project employees to approximately 5,200, 15% less than the
proposed project in the Final EIR. Housing demand also would decrease from
the previous range of 3,440-4,130 'to 2,892-3,472. Business license tax revenues
would decrease $4,668, but transient occupancy tax would double, assuming both
hotels can maintain 80% occupancy. Sewer maintenance costs would increase by
about 5%. Overall, this alternative would show a net return to the City
approximately double that of the proposed project in the EIR, but not as great
as the modified project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result
in a delay in collecting some property tax increments and business license tax
allocatd to the project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed
for five years as would the demand for 405-1485 housing units.
-19-
Alternative (8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced'with'-a
with a 450-Room Hotel, and Construction Delayed
Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because
it is not significantly superior to the Modified Shearwater Development Project
from an environmental point of view.
Replacing an office tower with a 450-room hotel with simultaneously
delaying construction on the two mid-rise office buildings within the Shearwater
Development would reduce AM peak-hour trips by 30% and PM peak-hour trips by 26%
compared to the proposed project in the final EIR. As a result of implementing
these measures, in conjunction with a 20% reduction in traffic generated from
cumulative development, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic service level at the
Terrabay Hook Ramps would be F, but levels would be E or better at all other
critical intersections on the Oyster Point interchange. Alternative 6 would
generate 5,200 jobs, reduce housing demand to 2,8872-3,472 units and result
in a net fiscal surplus nearly double the FEIR project. However, delays in
collecting some of the funds and in creation of some of the jobs would occur.
The alternative would result in air quality emissions reductions
of 41-45% compared to the proposed project in the FEIR; since background traffic
volumes would not be reduced, however, cumulative worst-case carbon monoxide
concentrations would be reduced 3-17% at critical intersections. This would
not represent a significant improvement in the air quality environment when
compared to the modified project.
Because of a 41-45% reduction in peak hour traffic associated with
this alternative, traffic noise levels also would be reduced when compared to
the FEIR project. Construction noise also would be reduced. However, Title 25
requirements for the second hotel would need to be satisfied. Overall the
-20-
noise reductions that would occur would not be great enough to result in a
significantly difference noise environment from that associated with the FEIR
project or the modified project.
This alternative would result in a slight reduction in the overall
demand for public services; police and fire protection would not be required for
the conference center, and services required for the two mid-rise office buildings
would be delayed when compared to the FEIR project. Overall, the demand for
public services would not be measurably different from the modified project.
None of the changes proposed would alter the hazardous materials
conditions present on the site. No evidence exists that would indicate a sub-
stantial reduction in energy impacts when compared to the proposed project in
the FEIR.
Elimination of the conference center and replacement of an office
tower with a 450-room hotel would result in a reduction of project employees
to approximately 5,190 118% fewer than the proposed, project in the EIR). At the
same time, the net fiscal balance of this alternative would increase to $1.19
million (compared to $607,900 for the proposed project in the EIR). This would
not be as great as the number of employees (6,142) or the net fiscal balance
($1.4 million) of the modified plan.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result
in a delay in collecting some property tax increments and business license tax
allocatd to the project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed
for five years as would the demand for 405-1485 housing units.
-21-
Alternative (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced With a
450-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on /wo-Mid-Rise Office
Buildings, and Traffic Generated by'Cumulative Development
Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as being economically infeasible.
Eliminating the conference center, replacing the office tower with
a 450-room hotel and delaying construction on the two mid-rise office buildings
within the Shearwater Development would reduce AM peak-hour trips by 45% and PM
peak-hour trips by 41% compared to the proposed project in the Final EIR. As a
result of implementing these measures, in conjunction with a 20% reduction in
traffic generated from cumulative development, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic
volumes at the critical intersections would be decreased beween 18% and 25% while
the PM peak-hour volumes would be reduced between 13% and 23%. Service levels
would be workable {E/F or better) at allocations in both the AM and PM peaks.
However, AM conditions along Airport Boulevard at Hillside and the Terrabay Hook
Ramps would be in the E range. Although this represents a workable condition,
it is generally considered unacceptable.
The project as proposed in the Final EIR would generate 2,740 trips
in the AM peak hour compared to 2,330 trips for the modified project. The EIR
project would therefore result in an 18% increase in air emissions in the AM
peak. In the PM peak hour, the EIR project would generate a 13% increase in
emissions compared to the modified project. The worst-case carbon monoxide
concentrations at key intersections, however, would not be significantly
different in comparison to the proposed project.
Traffic noise levels would be reduced by this alternative to
correspond with a 41% to 45% reduction in peak hour traffic flows when
compared to the FEIR project. Background and construction noise levels also
-22-
r ;T IT
would be reduced somewhat, but overall the noise environment would not be
audibly different from the noise environment associated with the FEIR project
or the currently proposed project, Title 25 requirements for the second hotel
would remain.
This alternative would result in a slight reduction in the overall
demand for public services; police and fire protection would not be required for
the conference center, and services required for the two mid-rise office buildings
would be delayed when compared to the FEIR project. Overall, the demand for
public services would not be measurably different from the modified project.
None of the changes proposed by this alternative would have a
measurable effect on hazardous materials conditions present on the site. This
alternative would result in a slight reduction of energy consumption associated
with a 20% reduction in cumulative traffic. However, the reduction would not
be great enough to be significantly different from the proposed project in the
EIR.
The reduction of office space and increase in hotel space would
reduce the number of project employees to approximately 5,200, 15% less than the
proposed project in the Final EIR. Housing demand also would decrease from
the previous range of 3,440-4,130 to 2,892-3,472. Business license tax revenues
would decrease $4,668, but transient occupancy tax would double, assuming both
hotels can maintain 80% occupancy. Sewer maintenance costs would increase by
about 5%. Overall, this alternative would show a net return to the City
approximately double that of the proposed project in the EIR, but not as great
as the modified project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result
in a delay in collecting some property tax increments and business license tax
allocatd to the project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed
for five years as would the demand for 405-1485 housing units.
-23-
Alternative (10) "Project" as Proposed in the Final EIR, Shearwater Development
Project
This alternative is rejected because it is environmentally inferior to the
proposed project.
The project as proposed in the Final EIR would generate 2,740 trips
in the AM peak hour and 2,725 trips in the PM peak hours by comparison, the
modified project would generate approximately 2,330 trips in the AM peak hour
and 2,410 trips in the PM peak hour. The project in the Final EIR would result
in service levels dropping to F in the. AM peak hour at three key locations
(Terrabay Ramps/Airport and Oyster Point/NB101 Ramps). The modified project
would improve service levels at all of these locations except Terrabay Ramps/
Airport Blvd., where the service level would remain at F.
The alternative would result in air quality emissions reductions
of 41-45% compared to the proposed project in the FEIR; carbon monoxide concen-
trations at critical intersections also would be reduced between 13-25%, due
largely to the 20% reduction in cumulative development. While this represents
an overall improvement in air quality conditions, it does not result in a
significantly superior air quality environment when compared to the modified
project.
Traffic noise levels would be reduced by this alternative to
correspond with a 41% to 45% reduction in peak hour traffic flows when compared
to the FEIR project. Background and construction noise levels also would be
reduced somewhat, but overall the noise environment would not be audibly
different from the noise environment associated with the FEIR project or the
currently proposed project.
remain.
Title 25 requirements for the second hotel would
-24-
The proposed project in the FEIR would generate a demand for
public services provided by the City and other jurisdictions in the area. The
Police and Fire Departments would require additional staff to serve the project
and some capital improvements would be necessary to accommodate sewer and storm
drainage requirements. Recent improvements to the offsite sewer system should
be adequate to serve the project, but capacity may not be adequate to serve
subsequent development near the project. Overall demand for public services
would be somewhat less for the modified project, due to the elimination of the
residential component.
Hazardous materials conditions pertaining to the presence of lead,
acidic groundwater, and organic compounds would remain. The energy consumed
for construction, operation and associated transportation would be slightly
greater than for the proposed project.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employees and a housing
demand for 3,440-4,130 units, compared to 6,142 employees and 3,410-4,100
housing unit demand for the proposed project. The City General Fund would
receive net annual revenues from Alternative 10 of $607,900 in excess of the
annual costs of providing public services. The modified project would more
than double the fiscal balance to $1,4 million. An additional $4 million
in property tax revenue would be generated by either project for the Redevelop-
ment Project for use in the study area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 257-85.
-25-
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at an adj. reqular
meeting held on the 17t'h day of December , 1986 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers John "JaCk" Drago, 'Richard A. Haffev, Gus Nicolopulos,
Rnhprt~ £prri T~gl'in, and Mark N. Addiego
NOES: None
ABSENT: N~ne
-26-