HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 257-1985 RESOLUTION N0. 257-85
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION. ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE
"FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
(14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE SSlS091, 15092 and 15096)
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of Californi~ 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 Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(hereinafter "CEQA" and "Guidelines," respectively), that the City should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available that would mitigate the environmental ~ffects of such projects to a level of
insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Envir,)nmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
Shearwater development proposed for the Projecti 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
revised and supplemented to incorporate comments
so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prep~
the adequacy of the Final EIR; and
EIR and the Draft EIR was thereafter
received and responses thereto, and as
~ed by the City and the City certified
WHEREAS, the City, after the close of said hearing and after reading and considering
all environmental documentation comprising the! final EIR, comments and responses
thereto, and the list of organizations and agenciesi commenting on the Final EIR, found
that the Final EIR considers all significant environmental impacts at a level of detail
commensurate with reasonable requirements for an iinformed decision; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 1985 the City by its Resolution No. 93-9~ certified that the
Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQ~ and that the information contained
therein had been reviewed and considered by the CiitY Staff, its Consultants and the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR considers vsrious alternatives likely to be proposed under
the plan ineluding, but not limited to, deletion of tge conference center, replacement of
one high-rise office building with a hotel, delay i eonstruetion 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 inel
traffic volume, residential uses under the San Fral
departure route; noise from various proximate activi
WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed and
comments received from the public, both oral and
received during the public review period for the EIR
record and before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the Guidelines re(
uding, but not limited to, increased
lcisco International Airport shoreline
ties; and
considered the Draft and Final EIRs,
written, staff responses to comments
and other substantial evidence in the
uires that the City Council make one
or more of the following findings prior to approval ~f a project for which a Final EIR has
been completed, and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project, along
with statements of fact supporting each finding:~i
Finding 1 -- Changes or alterations have be~n required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effects
thereof as identified in the Final EIR.
Finding 2 -- Such changes or alterations a_~e within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and non 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,
infeasible the mitigation measures or proje
Final EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
or other considerations make
~t alternatives identified in the
the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco hereby finds the following, based ~n its review and consideration of the
Final EIR on the Shearwater Project and other substantial evidence in the record:
FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE
SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Project DescriDtion
The Project site is located three (3) miles inorth of San Francisco International
Airport, in the northeastern corner of the City !of South San Francisco, east of and
adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101) (see iFigures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Shearwater
Development Project EIR). The site comprises two
Steel pipe and steel fabrication plant (47.2 acres
water-covered land) and the former GSA site of 6.~
properties -- the ~ormer United States
of dry land area and 133+/- acres of
~3 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, iIt may consist of up to 1,310,875 gross
square feet (gsf) of office space; a 750-room firs-, 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 g~f of restaurants; 300 residential units;
related parking~ landscaping, and shoreline access. ~
The project as proposed differs from the iprevious project studied in the EIR
3
(described in the following section as Alternative 10[) in the following ways:
o Addition of 36 marina berths.
o 50-unit reduction in residential space.
o Addition of 300 rooms to the hotel.
o 1300-seat reduction in the capacity of the
an aquarium.
o Modifications to the mix of office/retail/r
square foot reduction in office space, a 72,000-square foot increase
retail/cinema space and a 44,600-square fdot increase in restaurant space.
Removal of the yacht club.
conference center with the addition of
.~staurant space resulting in a 189,125-
in
In the project sponsor's opinion, the design fea:ures a strong water-related activities
scheme to ensure a destination place that will opera.re seven (7) days a week. The Project
is intended to serve as a focal point of public ~ctivity with many opportunities for
enjoying the waterfront. Further, the Project ils seen as an integral part of the
redevelopment of the Pacific International Busin,
number of commercial and residential projects east
:ss Center, which is comprised of a
and west of Highway 101.
Alternatives to the Project
Alternatives to the project proposed include ~o
revised project, four variations of cumulative alter
analyzed as the "project" in the Final EIR for the SI~
is a description of these alternatives:
(1) No Project
This alternative is the "no project" alternative required by CEQA.
alternative would not involve any change to the iundeveloped Project
project at all, four variations of a
.~atives on traffic, and the alternative
earwater Development. The following
The No Project
Area as it now
4
exists. Private ownership would be retained and ful
development of the Project area as allowed in the (3
The No Project alternative would eliminate a
"Proposed Project" studied in the EIR. Current
:ure options would remain available for
eneral Plan.
~y of the impacts associated with the
levels of noise, air pollution, energy
consumption and water quality would remain unchanged. Existing soils, vegetation,
wildlife, and archaeological resources would not bei disturbed. Existing views of the area
as a desolate, under-utilized industrial site would remain. Adjacent areas would maintain
their present environment and views of the site.
The No Project alternative would not require an increase in demand for local services
and utility systems. The City housing stock woul¢
alternative would not provide sponsor-related fun,
other public service improvements.
The No Project alternative would not provide
The City would not experience an increase of acc~
for supplying services also would not be increased.
Certain public costs and liabilities could
current condition. It is likely that the site would
hazardous debris and possibly purchased by a publi
public health and safety.
An option exists for permanent open space wit
not be increased by 300 units. This
is associated with transportation and
additional employment opportunities.
'ued taxable revenues; however, costs
ur if the project site remains in its
Iced to be cleaned and cleared of any
agency to avoid adverse impacts to
h this alternative. The project site is
currently under private ownership, except for the GSA site and the project sponsor would
have to release his option on the property before ary action could occur. Either the City
of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have
to acquire the land to implement this alternative.
(2) Delete Conference Center
The proposed 100,000-square foot conference center is deleted and all other uses
remain the same as the proposed project. '
Deletion of the conference center would ~lt~r traffic and circulation impacts by
reducing both AM and PM peak-hour trips by app
project in the EIR. As a consequence of eliminatir
PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the critical interse
would be decreased between 1% and 5%.
~oximately 15% in comparison to the
g the conference center, the buildout
:tions at the Oyster Point interchange
This alternative would result in a slight impact to the air quality environment by
reducing traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emissions. A 15% reduction in emissions
would occur as compared with the proposed project
alter the worst-case carbon monoxide concentratior
EIR. ,
This alternative would result in slight reductions
in the EIR. It would no__~t significantly
s at critical locations as shown in the
in traffic noise compared to the
proposed project in the EIR; but would not result in ia long-term noise environment that is
audibly different from that which could result from the proposed project. Construction
noise would be slightly less for this alternative than ~or the proposed project.
This alternative would reduce fiscal and employment benefits of development in the
Project Area below those of the proposed project ini the EIR. The proposed project in the
FEIR would result in 6,187 employees and a net fis
alternative would result in 6,177 employees and
Conference center deletion from the proposed p
revenues
~al balance of $607,900, whereas this
a net fiscal balance of $566,700.
roject would decrease property tax
by $340,000, thereby decreasing the t~x increment to the Redevelopment
Agency by about 8.5%. Business license fees woul
maintenance costs would drop by $9,300 due to dec
police services would decrease slightly, but not enoL
d decrease slightly ($110) and sewer
~eased demand. Demand for fire and
gh to affect the fiscal balance sheet.
6
Other costs and revenues should not change due to the small decrease in employees.
Demand for employee housing may also drop slightly.
(3) Delete Conference Center and Add Hotel
This alternative calls for a 450-room hotel to replace the conference center.
By replacing the conference center with a 45J-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 intersection would
be decreased between 1% and 4%. ~
This alternative would result in a slight improvement to the air quality environment
by reducing traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emissions. A 12% reduction in emissions
would occur as compared with the proposed project. It would not significantly alter the
worst-ease carbon monoxide concentrations at critical locations associated with the
proposed project as shown in the EIR.
This alternative would result in slight reductiions in traffic noise compared to the
proposed project, but would not result in a long-tErm noise environment that is audibly
different from that which would result from the pr(,posed project shown in the EIR. This
alternative might be subject to a finding of incompatibility with State guidelines for hotel
and residential construction.
This alternative would have the greatest ber~efit in terms of fiscal impacts and
employment generation. In comparison to the' proposed project in the EIR, this
alternative would have 270 more employees and gE~nerate more than $1.6 million in net
annual revenues. This alternative would, however, i~crease housing demand by 140 to 180
units over the proposed project.
The doubled hotel space and deletion of the conference center would increase total
project employment by 273 jobs. Housing demand would therefore increase from the
previous range of 3,440-4,130 to 3,589-4,307. B~siness license fees would increase by
$1,835 and transient occupancy taxes would double, assuming both hotels can maintain
80% occupancy. There would be an increase in public safety services¢ but not enough to
require additional full-time personnel. Sewer maintenance costs also would increase by
$9,300. Other' costs and revenues should remaini approximately equal to those of the
proposed project. The annual net fiscal b~lanee would be more than $1.6 million or 2'/96
more than that generated by the proposed project ir
(4)
This
the EIR.
Replace One High-Rise Office Building wil h Hotel
alternative replaces one of the h;gh-rise
office buildings containing
approximately 445,300 square feet of floor area, located on the northeast side of the
conference center, with a second 450-room hotel.
This alternative would alter traffic and eireul~ation impacts by reducing AM and PM
peak-hour trips by 17% and 15%, respectively, whe~ compared to the alternative proposed
in the Final EIR for the Shearwater Development. i Consequently, the buildout PM peak-
hour traffic volumes at critical intemeetions would Ibc decreased between 1% and $%.
This alternative results in slight improvements[to the air quality environment. A 15%
to 17% reduction in emissions would be expected
Final EIR. It would not significantly alter the wors
at critical locations as shown in the EIR.
This alternative would result in slight reduetio
)mpared to the proposed project in the
t-case carbon monoxide concentrations
~s in traffic noise but would not result
in a long-term noise environment that is audibly different from that which would result
from the project proposed in the Final EIR.
This alternative would be subject to a finding Of incompatibility with State guidelines
for hotel and residential construction.
The reduction of office space and increase in l~otel space would reduce the number of
project employees to approximately 5,200, which is 16% less than employment in the
project proposed in the Final EIR. Housing dem~.nd 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, assu[ming both hotels can maintain 80%
occupancy. Sewer maintenance costs would increase by about 5%. This alternative would
show a net return to the City of approximately douible that of the project proposed in the
Final EIR.
(5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-RiSe Office Buildings
This alternative delays construction of the twO mid-rise office buildings containing a
total of 250,000 square feet and located adjacent fo Oyster Point Boulevard, for at least
five years.
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%.i
This alternative would result in slight improvements to the air quality environment.
There would be an 11% to 12% reduction in ai~ emissions compared to the project
proposed in the Final EIR. i
This alternative would result in slight reductions in traffic noise but would not result
in a long-term noise environment that is audibl~ different from that of the project
proposed in the Final EIR.
Construction noise would be slightly less thaa that of the project proposed in the
Final EIR.
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. There will be eorresponding delay for police and fire services and all the sewage
treatment capacity will not be needed as quickly
office jobs would be delayed for five years as would
projected. The creation of about 730
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
The cumulative alternatives for which traffic i{npacts were analyzed are:
(6) Office Tower Replaced with a 450 Room Eotel and Construction Delay, ed on Two
Mid-Rise Office
Replacing a high-rise office tower with a 450
on the two proposed mid-rise office buildings w
beyond year 2005 would reduce the project's AM pe~
trips by 26%. Shearwater traffic would represent
traffic at the key intersections, and under this
-room hotel and delaying construction
ithin the Shearwater development to
Lk-hour trips by 30% and PM peak hour
.,ss than one-third of the total buildout
llternative other cumulative volumes
through the intersections would not be reduced. As a result, the buildout AM peak-hour
traffic volumes at the critical intersections woul~ be decreased only between 6% and
11%, while the PM peak-hour volumes would be r~educed between 2% and 8%. Service
levels at least two of the critical intersections on tlhe Oyster Point interchange (Terrabay
Ramps/Airport Boulevard and Airport Boulevard!Hillside. Boulevard) would remain at
service level F in the AM peak hour.
This alternative would result in a 26-30% reduction in air emissions compared to the
proposed project in the FEIR. Traffic would be _~edueed to 5,200 and housing demand
would drop to 2,892-3,472 and a net fiscal surplus nearly double the FEIR project would be
achieved.
Delayed phasing of the
i buildings would result in a delay in
two
mid-rise
office
collecting some property tax increments and bu:
project. There will be corresponding delay for poli,
treatment capacity will not be needed as quickly as
office jobs would be delayed for five years as would
~iness license taxes allocated to the
;e and fire services and all the sewage
projected. The creating of about 730
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
10
(7)
Office Tower Replaced with a 450 Roorr Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two
Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated by Cumulative Development
Reduced by 20%
Replacing an office
construction on the two
tower with a 450-room hotel with simultaneously delaying
mid-rise office buildin~ within the Shearwater Development
would reduce AM peak-hour trips by 3096 and PM i~eak-hour trips by 25%. As a result of
implementing' these measures, in conjunction withi a 2o% reduction in traffic g'enerated
from cumulative development, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic volumes at the critical
intersections would be decreased between 15% an~ 19% while the PM peak-hour volumes
would be reduced between 12% and 19%. The AM I~eak-hour service level at the Terrabay
Hook Ramps would be F, but levels would be E or l~etter at all other critical intersections
on the Oyster Point interchange.
This alternative would result in a 26-30% reduction in emissions compared to the
FEIR project. Traffic and construction noise also would be reduced. Employees housing
demand and fiscal benefits would be the same as Alternative 6. Delays in collecting some
of the funds and in creation of some of the jobs wo[ld occur.
(8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room HOtel,
and Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
Eliminating the conference center, replacing an office tower with a 450-room hotel
and delaying construction on the two mid-rise o
development would reduce AM peak-hour trips by
Consequently, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic
would be decreased between 8% and 17%, where~
!flee buildings within the Shearwater
45% and PM peak-hour trips by 41%.
volumes at the critical intersections
the PM peak-hour volumes would be
reduced between 3% and 13%. AM peak levels of service would be F at the Terrabay
Hook Ramps and at the Airport/Hillside interseetlon, but service levels would be D or
better elsewhere.
11
Air emissions associated with this alternative, would be reduced by 45% in the AM
peak hour and 41% in the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project in the FEIR.
Noise levels enerl~y consumption and public service demands also' would be reduced
although not by a measurable degree.
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 5,100 (18%
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At the same time, the new fiscal balance of
this alternative would increase to $1.19 million (egmpared to $t107,900 for the proposed
project in the EIR). This would not be as great as ihe number of employees (8,142) or the
net fiscal balance ($1.4 million) of the currently proposed plan.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office i 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 wollld be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
(9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel,
Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated
b~, Cumulative Development Reduced by 2(%
Eliminating the conference center, replacing a~ office tower with a 450-room hotel,
and delaying construction on the two mid-rise olfiee buildings within the Shearwater
development would reduce AM peak-hour trips by 45% and PM peak-hour trips by 41%. As
a result of implementing these measures, in conjur.etion with a 20% reduction in traffic
generated from cumulative development, the buildout AM peak-hour traffic volumes at
the critical intersections would be decreased between 18% and 25% while the PM peak-
hour volumes would be reduced between 13% and 2.3%. Service levels would be workable
(E/F or better) at all locations in both the AM ant PM peaks. However, AM conditions
12
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 alternative would result in air quality emissions reductions of 41-45% eompaqred
to the proposed project in the FEIR; carbon monoxide concentrations at critical
intersections also would be reduced between 13-25%, due largely to the 20% reduction in
cumulative development. Noise conditions, energy consumption and demand for public
services also would be reduced slightly, although no~ to a measurable degree.
Elimination of the conference center and reply, cement of an office tower with a 450-
room hotel would result in a reduction of project employees to approximately 5,190 (18%
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At tl~e same time, the net fiscal balance of
this alternative would increase to $1.10 million (eDmpared to $807,900 for the proposed
project in the EIR).
The following alternative is the project proposed in the Final EIR:
(10) "Project" as Proposed in the Final EIR, Shearwater Development Project
This alternative consists of 500 marina berths, 350 residential units, one 450-room
hotel, a 100,000-square-foot conference center, a 15,000-square-foot theatre, a 17,500-
square-foot yacht club; 250,000 square feet of offices (GSA site), and ~336,000 square
feet of office/retail use.
The land areas in this alternative differ slightly from those expressed in the Draft
EIR for the Shearwater Development Project. The development proposed for the site
remains the same.
The project as proposed in the Final EIR would generate 2,740 trips in the AM peak
hour and 2,725 tr]ps in the PM peak hour; by comparison, the currently proposed project
would generate 2,330 trips in the AM peak hour an¢ 2,410 trips in the PM peak hour. The
13
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 Blvd., Hillside/Airport and Oyster
Point/NB101 Ramps). The currently proposed project would improve Service levels at all
{
of these locations except Terrabay Ramps/Airpori Blvd., where the service level would
remain at F. Air quality emissions would be 13-18% higher during the peak hours for the
FEIR project in comparison to the currently proposed project. Noise levels and energy
consumption also would be slightly greater for this alternative than the currently proposed
project.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employee., and a housing demand for 3,440-4,130
units, compared to 6,142 employees and 3,410-4,10 } 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 currently
proposed 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
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
14
FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco (hereinafter the "Council") finds
that the Shearwater Project will not have a negative impact in the following areas listed
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.
Facts in SuI~oort of Findin~rs of No Sil~nificant Imoae:
The proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of South
San Francisco. Submittal of a Specific Plan and :elated documents would be required
prior to approval by the City. Redesign of the project has also 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 o a fill.
The proposed project would more than double the fiscal balance expected from the
original project discussed in the EIR, increasing this amount from $.6 million to $1.4
million. An additional $4 million in property tax revenue would be generated by the
project for the Redevelopment Agency for use in the 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 construc-
tion techniques are used, local geology would not be sdversely affected by the project.
As proposed, the project is the only new development in the area that would include
housing. The 300 residential units proposed would ".nerease existing housing stock in the
City by approximately 296. 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 ;o 9,000 daily visitors, who would be
15
provided new views and access to San Francisco Bay, a significant 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 wof~ld result in a larger volume and more
rapid rate of stormwater runoff resulting in a slight degradation of water quality.
However, dredging of the channel on the project site 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 !mprovements and marina use restric-
tions 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 :he Project Area. Implementation of
the project would not adversely affect unrecorded cultural resources.
16
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following sets forth all significant adverse impacts identified' in the EIR that are
affected by the Shearwater Development Project, and with respect to each impact makes
one or more findings set forth hereinabove, states"facts in support of such findings and, as
appropriate, refers to the Statement of Overrid:ng Consideration, which is attached
hereto:
A. Transportation
The Shearwater Development Project as currently proposed would generate approxi-
mately 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/F 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.
Findings
The City Council hereby makes findinffs (1) and (3) as described above and as required
by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Findinff (1)
A redesign of the Shearwater Development Proi'eet and a reduction in the intensity of
development results in a reduction of AM peak-hour traffic by 15% and a reduction in PM
17
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 Inter,:hange with H~ghway 101 includes the
following improvements that will be the subject of a subsequent EIR/EA:
o Dual-lane freeway on- and off-ramps both .~orthbound and southbound.
o Six-lane bridge over freeway and eight-lane bridge over Southern Pacific tracks.
o 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.
o Loop ramp for direct access from eastbound Oyster Point to Shearwater site, as
shown in Figure 4-17 of the EIR.
o An auxiliary lane on US 101 northbound from the Oyster Point on-ramp to the
Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp, and between Oyster Point and Grand Avenue
ramps.
o 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.
Facts in Sul~l~ort of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Plan are discussed in depth in the EIR and are summarized in the
preceding section above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
project may be imposed with respect to each of the alternatives. Nevertheless, these
alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasor, s set forth below.
Alternative (1) No Proiect
This alternative is rejected as socially and ccc
~nomically infeasible because it could
18
not achieve the public purpose of clearing and eliminating blight in the Project Area.
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 could 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 the public health and
safety. An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area is currently under private ownership and the ?roject sponsor would have to release
his option on the property before any action could occur. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
Alternative (2)
This alternative
significantly superior
point of view.
Deletion of the
Delete Conference Center
is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
conference center would alter traffic and circulation 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%. Th_'s does not represent a significant
improvement in transportation environment compared to the proposed project.
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, w~.ereas this alternative would result in
6,177 employees and a net fiscal balance of $566,700. The currently proposed project, by
19
comparison, would result in 6,142 employees, but would achieve a much greater fiscal
balance of $1,435,400. Conference center deletior~ 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 env"ronmentally 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
currently proposed project.
This alternative 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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social ar.d other considerations, 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 (4) Replace One High Rise Office Building with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not s"_gnifieantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project. ,
Replacement of one high rise office building ~ith.a 450-room hotel reduces AM and
2O
PM peak-hour trips by 17% and 15%, respectively, when compacted to the project
proposed in the Final EIR. Buildout PM peak-hour t.-affic volumes at critical intersections
would be decreased between 1% and 5%. This is not a significant improvement in the
transportation environment compared to the currently proposed project.
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 oc-
cupancy 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 SIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
Alternative (5) Dela.v Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
project.
Delaying construction of these buildings would ."educe 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%.
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.
21
Alternative (6) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project. I
Replacing a high-rise office tower with a 450-room hotel and delaying construction
on the two proposed mid-rise office buildings within the Shearwater development to
beyond year 2005 would reduce the AM peak-hour ~rips by 30% and PM peak-hour trips by
26%. Shearwater traffic would represent less that one-third of the total buildout traffic
at the key intersections, and under this alternative would not be reduced. As a result, the
buildout AM peak-hour traffic volumes at the critical intersections would be decreased
0nly 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 Boule-
yard) would remain at service level F in the AM pe&k hour.
This alternative would result in a reduction of project employees to 5,200, a drop in
housing demand to 2,872-3,472 units, and a net fiscal surplus nearly duble the FEIR
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. There will be corresponding delay for police and fire services and all the sewage
treatment capacity will not be needed as quickly as projected. The creation of about 730
office jobs would be delayed for five years as would the demand for 405-485 housing units.
22
Alternative (7) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated by Cumula-
tive Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the 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 volumes at the critical intersection would be decreased
between 15% and 19% while the PM peak-hour volumes would be reduced between 12%
and 19%. The AM peak-hour 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.
Alternative (8)
Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, and Constructior_ Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economieaLy infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development 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 peals-hour trips by 41%
compared to the proposed project in the Final EIR. Consequently, the buildout AM peak-
hour traffic volumes at the critical intersections would be decreased between 8% and
17%, whereas the PM peak-hour volumes would be reduced between 3% and 13%. 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.
Alternative (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two 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 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. 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 between 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 ~n the E range. Although
this represents a workable condition, it is generally considered unacceptable.
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 (18%
24 i
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At the same time, the new 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 ~he number of employees (6,142) or the
net fiscal balance ($1.4 million) of the currently proposed plan.
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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social ard other considerations, 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 (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 hour; by comparison, the currently proposed project
would generate 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/Airporl: Blvd., Hillside/Airport and Oyster
Point/NB101 Ramps). The currently proposed project would improve service levels at all
of these locations except Terrabay Ramps/Airport Blvd., where the service level would
remain at F.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employees and a housing demand for 3,440-4,130
25
units, compared to 6,142 employees and 3,410-4,10] 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 currently
proposed project would more than double the fiscal balance to $1.4 million. An additional
$4 million in property tax revenue would be ~enerated by either project for the
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
B. Air Quality ~
The proposed project would affect regional air quality through changes in total
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However the emissions resulting 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.
Findings
This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as required by
the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respe~ct to the above, identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
In general, reductions in air pollutant emissions correspond to reductions in traffic
volumes. The proposed 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
26
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.
Facts in Sup{~ort of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the project are discussed in depth in the EIR and are summarized
above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed project may be
imposed with 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 ulight.
The "no project" alternative would not provide additional employment opportunities.
The City would not experience an increase of aec,reed 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. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
27
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
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 currently proposed project.
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 $566,7]0. The currently proposed 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.
In comparison to the proposed project in the FEIR, this alternative would result in a
12% reduction in emissions. This does not represent a significant improvement in air
quality in comparison to the currently proposed pro~'eet.
This alternative would add 270 new employees to the Project Area, increase housing
demand by 140-180 units over the proposed project in the EIR and increase the demand for
public services.
28
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, 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 (4) Replace One High-Rise Office Building with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development 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 proposed project.
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 currently proposed project.
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-R:_se Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not superior to the proposed project.
This alternative would result in slight improvements to the air quality environment
compared to the proposed project in the EIR. Although a 11% to 12% reduction in air
emissions would be expected, this would not be as great an improvement in air quality as
would occur for the currently proposed project.
29
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result in a delay in
collecting some property tax increments and b~:siness 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 (6) Office Tower Re~)laced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project.
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 ?M peak. These reductions would not
result in an air quality environment significantly better than the currently proposed
project.
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 t?e proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise
collecting some property tax increments
office buildings would result in a delay in
and business license taxes allocated to the
3O
project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (7)
Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
This alternative is
significantly superior to
point of view.
on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated by
Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
Overall air emissions from this alternative wo'~ld be the same as Alternative 6 (26-
30% reduction compared to the proposed project in the EIR), but baekground 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 environment significantly superior to the currently proposed project.
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 currently proposed 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 wo~ld be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
31
Alternative (8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, and Construction Dela.yed on Two Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Develop nent Project from an environmental
point of view.
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 improve-
ment in the air quality environment when compared to the currently proposed project.
Elimination of the conference center and replacement of an office tower with a 450-
room hotel would result in a reduction of project e_~ployees to approximately 5,190 (18%
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 F. IR). This would not be as great as the number of employees (6,142) or the
net fiscal balance ($1.4 million) of the currently proposed plan.
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 (9)
Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Dela.ved on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings,
and Traffic Generated by Cumula-.ive Development Reduced b¥'20%
This alternative is rejected as being economically infeasible.
32
The alternative would result in air quality emissions reductions of 41-45% compared
to the proposed project in the FEIR; carbon ~onoxide concentrations 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 s~perior air quality environment when
compared to the currently proposed project.
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 (18%
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 currently proposed plan.
Alternative (10) "Project" as Proposed in the 7inal EIR, Shearwater Development
Project
The 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 compared to 2,330 trips for the proposed project. The EIR project would therefore
result in an 18% increase in air emissions in the AI~_ peak. In the PM peak hour, the EIR
project would generate a 13% increase in emissions compared to the currently proposed
project. The worst-ease carbon monoxide concentrations at key intersections, however,
would not be significantly different in comparison to 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
33
$607,900 in excess of the annual costs of prov".ding public services. The currently
proposed 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
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
C. Noise
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
ereate~high ambient noise levels on the site relative to more distant sites removed from
these noise sources. In particular, proximity of t-~e residential uses on the project site
next to the Bayshore Freeway and location of this use and the hotel underneath the
Shoreline Departure Route would create impacts on these noise-sensitive uses.
Findings
The City Council hereby makes findings (1) an¢ (3) as described above and as required
by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
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 appropriate acoustical mitigation for
the residential and hotel portions of the project to comply with Title 25.
34
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Plan are discussed in depth in the EIR and are summarized in the
preceding section above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
project may be imposed with 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 could
not achieve the public purpose of clearing and elim"_nating blight in the Project Area.
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 could occur if the Project Are& 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 the public health and
safety. An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area is currently under private ownership and the project sponsor would have to release
his option on the property before any action could occur. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative is rejected as economical-y
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development
point of view.
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
infeasible and because it is not
Project from an environmental
35
environment would not change in comparison to FEIR project or the currently proposed
project.
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 currently proposed 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.
Although noise from project traffic would be reduced slightly, addition of a second
hotel would require appropriate mitigation to cor~ply with Title 25. Overall, the noise
environment would not improve in comparison to the FEIR project or the currently
proposed Project.
This alternative 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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, 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.
36
Alternative (4) Replace One High-Rise Office Building with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development 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 currently proposed project.
The reduction of office space and increase in ?otel 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 currently proposed project.
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
project.
Delaying construction of the office buildings would result in a minor reduction of
associated const~--,ction noise. This alternative, however, would not result in a long-term
noise environment that is audibly different from that which would result from either the
FEIR project or the currently proposed 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
37
project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (6) Office Tower Reiulaced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project.
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
currently proposed project.
The reduction of office space and increase in ?.otel 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 t?.e proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result in a delay in
collecting some property tax increments and b~siness 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.
38
Alternative (7)
Office Tower Replaced with a ~50-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
Traffic Generated by
on Two Mid-Rise Office B~ildings, and
Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
This alternative would result in a slight redue:ion in traffic noise with a correspond-
ing 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 currently proposed project.
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
oeeupaney 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 approx-imately double that of the proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result in a delay in
collecting some property tax increments and b~:siness 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.
39
Alternative (8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, and Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
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. Construc-
tion noise also would be reduced. However, Title 25 requirements for the second hotel
would need to be satisfied. Overall the noise reductions that would occur would not be
great enough to result in a significantly different noise environment from that associated
with the FEIR project or the currently proposed pro~ect.
Elimination of the conference center and replacement of an office tower with a 450-
room hotel would result in a reduction of project e~nployees to approximately 5,190 (18%
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 currently pro?osed plan.
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.
4O
Alternative (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower ReI~laced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings,
and Traffic Generated by Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as being econom"_cally infeasible and not significantly
superior to the proposed project from an environmental point of view.
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. Title 25 requirements for the second
hotel would remain.
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 (18%
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 currently proposed plan.
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.
This alternative would generate higher traffic volumes in the AM and PM peak hours
than the proposed project. As a result, associated r4oise levels would be somewhat greater
than the proposed project, although the increase ~rould be virtually imperceptible. From
41
the standpoint of the noise environment, the FEIR project provides no improvement in
comparison to the currently proposed project.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employees and a housing dcm'and 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 currently
proposed project would more than double the fiscal ualance to $1.4 million. An additional
$4 million in property tax revenue would be generated by either project for the
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
D. Public Services
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 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.
Findings
The City Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as required
by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
The impacts will be reduced to insignificance by provision of adequate Police and
Private Security forces in the site subject to approval by the Chief of Police. The public
42
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 G~.teway pump station, the Oyster Point
Boulevard overpass, and the storm drain on-site.
Facts in Sul~port of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Plan are discussed in depth in the EIR and are summarized in the
preceding section above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
project may be imposed with 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 could
not achieve the public purpose of clearing and eliminating blight in the Project Area.
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 could 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 the public health and
safety. An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area is currently under private ownership and the project sponsor would have to release
his option on the property before any action could occur. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
43
Alternative (2)
This alternative is
significantly superior to
point of view.
Delete Conference Center
rejected as economically infeasible
the Shearwater Development Project
and because it is not
from an environmental
Elimination of the conference center would result in a slight reduction in the demand
for fire and police services in comparison to the FEIR project. Overall the effect would
be minimal and the alternative would not be significantly superior to the currently
proposed project. .
This alternative would not significantly improve the fiscal and employment benefits
of development in the Project Area. The proposed .~roject 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 $566,730. The currently proposed 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 because it is environmentally inferior to the proposed
project.
This alternative 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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as enumerated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional facts in support of
finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant 'mpacts are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Alternative (4) ReI~lace One High-Rise Office Bu'lding with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development 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 currently
proposed project.
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 I~IR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
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 honel will be delayed and all the sewage
treatment capacity will not be needed as quickly as projected for the FEIR 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
45
project. The creation of about 730 office jobs would be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (6) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project.
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.
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 wculd 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 currently proposed 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.
Alternative (7)
Office Tower Replaced with a ~_50-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
on Two Mid-Rise Buildings, and Traffic Generated by Cumulative
Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Projects.
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.
The reduction of office space and increase in k.otel 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 t?e proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed 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.
Alternative (8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, and Constructior. Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economicaLy infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
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 buildin~s would be delayed when compared to
the FEIR project. Overall, the demand for public services would not be measurably
different from the currently proposed project.
Elimination of the conference center and replacement of an office tower with a 450-
room hotel would result in a reduction of project e~nployees to approximately 5,190 (18%
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 currently pro.~osed plan.
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 (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings,
and Traffic Generated by Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as being economically infeasible.
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 currently proposed project.
Elimination of the conference center and repl&cement of an office tower with a 450-
room hotel would result in a reduction of project employees to approximately 5,190 (18%
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At t~.e 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 -.he number of employees (6,142) or the
net fiscal balance ($1.4 million) of the currently proposed plan.
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 (10) "Project" as Pro{~osed in the Final EIR, Shearwater Develolument
Project
This alternative is rejected because it is environmentally inferior to the proposed
project.
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 improve-
ments 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 currently proposed project, although
not to a measurable degree.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employees and a housing demand for 3,440-4,130
units, compared to 6,142 employees and 3,410-4,109 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 currently
proposed 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
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
E. Hazardous Materials
The Project Area presently contains leai, 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).
Findings
The City Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as required
by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
Mitigation measures will be
followin~
o lead in surface soils
o acidic groundwater
o organic compounds.
required prior to
project approval
to clean up the
Cleanup can be accomplished by:
containment in place
excavation and containment onsite
excavation and disposal offsite
natural neutralization
induced neutralization
disposal of contaminated soils
air-stripping or carbon absorption techniques for contaminated groundwater.
50
Facts in Support of Findinl~ (3)
Alternatives to the Plan are discussed in deptk, in the EIR and are summarized in the
preceding section above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
project may be imposed with 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 could
not achieve the public purpose of clearing and eliminating blight in the Project Area.
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 could 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 the public health and
safety. An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area is currently under private ownership and the Project sponsor would have to release
his option on the property before any action coulc occur. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative is' rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
There is no evidence that the deletion of the conference center would in any way
affect the hazardous materials present on the site. This alternative would not significant-
ly improve the fiscal and employment benefits of development in the Project Area. The
5]
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 currently proposed projec-., 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 Hotel
This alternative is rejected as not being environmentally superior to the proposed
project. Construction would still be ongoing on the site, and hazards set forth above
would still be extent.
This alternative 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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, 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 (4) Replace One High-Rise Office Building with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project. Construction activities wo~ld still occur, and those hazards set
forth above would remain.
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 '.he previous range of 3,440-4,130 to
52
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 currently proposed project.
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
project. Delaying construction of these buildings would not alter the conditions present
on the site with respect to hazardous materials. Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise
office buildings would result in a delay in collect"ng 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 (6) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
project. Substitution of a hotel for an office tower and delayed construction of two mid-
rise offices would have no measurable effect on hazardous materials present on the site.
The reduction of office space and increase in kotel 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 t?.e proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed project.
53
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 wo~ld be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (7) Office Tower Replaced with a 450-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated by
Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Develop nent Project from an environmental
point of view. None of the changes proposed by this alternative would have a measurable
effect on hazardous materials conditions present on the site.
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 currently proposed 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.
54
Alternative (8)
Conference Center
Room Hotel, and
Buildin~s
is rejected as
to the
This alternative
significantly superior
point of view. None of the changes
conditions present on the site.
Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office
economically infeasible and because it is not
Shearwater Developr~ent Project from an environmental
proposed would alter the hazardous materials
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 (18%
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 aot be as great as t~e number of employees (6,142) or the
net fiscal balance ($1.4 million) of the currently proposed plan.
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 wo~ld be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings,
and Traffic Generated by Cumula-.ive Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as being economically infeasible and not superior to the
Shearwater Development Project from an environmental point of view. The changes
proposed would have no effect on hazardous materials conditions present on the site.
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 (18%
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At the same time, the net fiscal balance of
55
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 currently proposed plan.
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 wo'~ld be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (10) "Project" as Proposed in the Final EIR, Shearwater Development
Project
This alternative is rejected as not being superior to the proposed project from an
environmental point of view. Hazardous materials conditions pertaining to the presence
of lead, acidic groundwater and organic compounds would remain.
Alternative 10 would result in 6,187 employees and a housing demand for 3,440-4,130
units, compared to 6,142 employees and 3,410-4,10£ housing unit demand for the proposed
project. The City General Fund would receive net ~nnual revenues from Alternative 10 of
$607,900 in excess of the annual costs of providing public services. The currently
proposed 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
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
F. Energsr
The proposed project
associated transportation.
California State Administrative Code,
measures (page IV-142 of the Draft EIR).
would consume energy for construction, operation and
The proposed project would comply with Title 24 of the
mandating a variety of energy conservation
56
Findings
The City Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as required
by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
The proposed project will be required to include energy conservation measures such
as:
o Passive solar features in all buildings, inelLding:
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
Time-clock control or automated energy management on major energy-consum-
ing equipment in commercial facilities:
heat pumps for space conditioning
half switching on indoor lighting
solar cells for control of outdoor light'_ng
high-effieieney meehanieal systems
solar cells for hot water heating
eentral plant for space and water conditioning
project sponsor support energy analysis of all building designs as part of
proposed project
project sponsor considers 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 and are summarized in the
preceding section above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
project may be imposed with respect to each of -.he alternatives. Nevertheless, these
alternatives a~e rejected as infeasible for the reasor, s set forth below.
57
Alternative (1) No Project
This alternative is rejected as socially and economically infeasible because it could
not achieve the public purpose of clearing and eliminating blight in the'Project Area.
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 could 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 the public health and
safety. An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area is currently under private ownership and the Project sponsor would have to release
his option on the-property before any action could occur. Either the City of South San
Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition would then have to acquire
the land to implement this alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
There is no evidence that a significant reduction in energy impacts would result from
the elimination of the conference center. 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 currently proposed 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 tI'.e EIR would decrease property tax
58
revenues by $340,000,
Agency by about 8.5%.
thereby decreasing the tax increment to the Redevelopment
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. There is no evidence that this alternative would result in reduced impacts on
energy.
This alternative 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.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as enumerated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional facts in support of
finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant ~.mpacts are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Alternative (4) Replace One High-Rise Office Bu:_ldin~f with Hotel
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project. No evidence exists to suggest that this alternative would
significantly reduce energy impacts in comparison to the FEIR project.
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 8096 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 currently proposed project.
59
Alternative (5) Delay Construction of Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the proposed
project. The alternative would not result in a reduction of energy impacts by a
measurable 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 (6) Office Tower Re{~laced with a 450-Room Hotel and Construction
Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Offices
This alternative is rejected because it is not significantly superior to the Shearwater
Development Project. Energy impacts would not be reduced by a measurable degree when
compared to the proposed project in the FEIR.
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 currently proposed project.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office buildings would result in a delay in
collecting some property tax increments and b~siness 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.
60
Alternative (7) Office Tower Ref~laced with a 450-Room Hotel, Construction Delayed
on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings, and Traffic Generated by
Cumulative Develol~ment Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
point of view.
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 FEIR.
The reduction of office space and increase in ~ otel 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 tr.e proposed project in the EIR, but not
as great as the currently proposed 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.
Alternative (8) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, and Constructio~ Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office
Buildings
This alternative is rejected as economically infeasible and because it is not
significantly superior to the Shearwater Development Project from an environmental
6]
point of view. No evidence exists that would indicate a substantial 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 (18%
fewer than the proposed project in the EIR). At t~e 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 currently proposed plan.
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 wo~ald be delayed for five years as would
the demand for 405-485 housing units.
Alternative (9) Conference Center Eliminated, Office Tower Replaced with a 450-
Room Hotel, Construction Delayed on Two Mid-Rise Office Buildings,
and Traffic Generated by Cumulative Development Reduced by 20%
This alternative is rejected as being economically infeasible and because it is not
superior to the proposed project from a environrrental point of view. Although some
reduction in energy consumption would result from reduced cumulative traffic flows, the
energy consumption associated with the project component of this alternative would not
be significantly less than that associated with 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 (18%
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 currently proposed plan.
Delayed phasing of the two mid-rise office '~uildings 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 (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 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 currently
proposed 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
Redevelopment Project for use in the study area.
*********************************************** **********************************
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 regu] ar n~eting
held on the llth day of DeCember , 1985, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Richard A.
Gus ,Nicol~pulos; and Rober, ta £erri .Te§.tia
Councilmember ·John "Jack" Drago ~
None
Haffey,
63