Loading...
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