HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 237-1985 RESOLUTION NO. 237-85
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
FACTS, ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER-
ATIONS, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that:
1. Findings and Statement of Facts.
The Findings and Statement of Facts attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and
by this reference incorporated herein as though set forth verbatim are hereby
approved and adopted.
2. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "2"
and by this reference incorporated herein as though set forth verbatim is hereby
approved and adopted.
3. Approval of Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment entitled "Fifth Amendment to Owner Participation
Agreement" among the City of South San Francisco, Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco, and Homart Development Company is hereby approved,
and a copy of said Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "3."
4. Execution of Fifth Amendment.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Amendment on behalf of
the City, and the City Clerk attest his signature thereto.
I hereby certi fy that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a re.qular
meeting held on the 13th day of November , 1985 , by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Emanuele N. Damonte, Richard A. Half,y,
Gus Nicolopulos; and Roberta Cerri Teglia
None
None
EXHIBIT i TO RESOLUTION NO. 237-85
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THE SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15091, 15092 and 15096
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. It is the policy of the State of California and the City of South San
Francisco (hereinafter "City"), as provided in the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the provisions of Title 14, California Administrative
Code, Guidelines for Implementation of the California 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 which would mitigate the environmental effects of
such projects to a level of insignificance; and
2~ In furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law
(commencing at Health and Safety Code Section 33000), the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter the "Agency") has undertaken a program for the
clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of slum and blighted areas in the
City and in this connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project
known as the Gateway Redevelopment Project (hereinafter referred to as "Project"),
in an area (hereinafter referred to as "Project Area"), located in the City; and
3. In furtherance of the implementation of Project the Agency and the City
have undertaken various redevelopment activities and have, among other things,
entered into an Agreement entitled "Owner Participation and Development Agree-
ment'' with Homart Development Company and four (4) amendments thereto (hereinafter
the "OPA"); and
4. On June 3, 1981 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco by Resolution No. 18 certified a Final Environmental Impact Report
for the project and on August 24, 1984 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco by motion certified a Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Report for an amendment to the Project to increase the number of hotel
rooms authorized from 600 to 1,300 (hereinafter "Project Amendment"); and
5. The Supplemental Final EIR considers alternatives to the Project Amendment
including a reduction in the number of increased hotel rooms from 700 to 200 and
a "no project" (i.e. no increase) alternative; and
6. The Supplemental Final EIR discusses various significant environmental
impacts of the Project Amendment, including traffic, land use and relationship
to plans, public services and economics, hydrology and drainage air quality
and noise; and
7. This Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and Supplemental
Final EIR, comments received from the public both oral and written, staff
responses to comments recived during the public review period for the EIR and
other substantial evidence in the record before the City Council; and
8. Section 15091 of the Guidelines requires that the City Council make one
or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for which 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:
"Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsi-
bility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
2
FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE
GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Background Statement of Facts.
The Gateway Redevelopment Project located in South San Francisco, is an office,
commercial and hotel project in the early stages of development. When complete, the
project will feature buildings ranging from 1 to 22 stories and a major landscaped
roadway (Gateway Boulevard) passing through the middle of the site from Oyster
Point Boulevard to East Grand Avenue. Construction will be phased over approx-
imately six to ten years. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
Redevelopment Agency in January 1981. The EIR was prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, state EIR Guide-
lines amd Guidelines adopted by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency;
the EIR was certified in June 1981.
The EIR's purpose was to enable the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency,
acting as the lead agency, and the general public to evaluate the project's effect
upon the environment, to examine and institute methods of mitigating adverse
impacts and to consider alternatives to the project as proposed.
The State EIR guidelines (sec. 15162) states that no additional EIR need be
prepared unless subsequent changes in the project are proposed that will require
important revisions to the EIR. The lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement
to an EIR rather than a subsequet EIR if only minor additions or changes would be
necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the changed project.
After the Gateway Redevelopment Project EIR was certified, new proposals not
included in t~e original Redevelopment Plan were developed. An initial Study was
prepared and appears in Appendix A to the Supplemental Final EIR. Accordingly,
the Supplemental EIR addresses the major items that have been added and contains
3
the information necessary to update and make the previous EIR adequate for the
revised project, The previous Gateway Redevelopment Project EIR is incorporated
in the Supplemental Final EIR by reference (CEQA Guidelines 15149).
Project Amendment Description
The proposed Project Amendment would involve construction of an additional
700 hotel rooms in the Gateway Redevelopment Area, bringing the total number of
rooms on-site to 1,300~ This hotel development would most likely occur in the
southern portion of the site, al though the exact number and locations of bull dings
are as yet unspecified[
Alternatives to the Project Amendment
1' No-Project Alternative
The no-project alternative would involve no change to the Gateway Redevelop-
ment Project as currently planned[ The number of hotel rooms would remain at 600
instead of the proposed 1,300 rooms[ The no-project alternative would not create
any additional environmental impacts over those identified in the previous Gateway
Redevelopment Project Draft and Final EIR[ The levels of noise and air pollution
projected in the earlier EIR would remain unchanged~ Traffic and land use impacts
would also be as identified in the earlier EIR~ This alternativw would not in-
crease the demand for public services, nor would it provide increased revenues
to the City or increased employment opportunities from construction and operation
of the additional hotel rooms[
2[ Reduced Project Alternative
This alternative would reduce the size of the project to 200 additional
hotel rooms, or about one-third the size of the proposed project~ The purpose
of the reduced project alternative would be to add only the number of hotel rooms
that would have no measurable traffic impacts[ The addition of 200 hotel rooms
4
to the site would add a maximum of [01 to existing volume/capacity ratios; this
increase would essentially not be measurable, Associated air quality impacts
would also be reduced, as would levels of energy consumption and noise impacts.
The demand for public services would likewise be reduced and, like the proposed
project, this demand would not have a significant impact[ Projected revenues
to the City from one-time and annual fees and taxes would be substantially lower
than from the proposed project[ Impacts on land use, hydrology and drainage
would be no different than the proposed 700-room project[
Findings of No Significant Impact
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco (hereinafter the "Council")
finds that the Project Amendment will not have a negative impact in the following
areas listed in the Supplemental Final EIR: Land use and relationship to plans,
economics, hydrology and drainage and air quality[
Facts in Support of Findings of No Significant Impact
The addition of 700 hotel rooms would be compatible with the City's General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance[ It would also be consistent with applicable regional
plans developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Mateo
County Airport Land Use Committee (subject to the actual hotel design conforming
to height restrictions designated in the ALUC Plan).
Although the Project Amendment will increase the need for some public services
as set forth, infra, the proposed Project Amendment will continue to return positive
cash flows to the City with the additional hotel rooms~
The proposed hotel uses would occur in areas originally proposed as general
office/commercial sites. Since ground coverage and storm drainage characteristics
of the hotels would be similar to office/commercial uses, no substantial changes
5
in absorption rates, drainage patterns or runoff would occur unless major alter-
ations in landscaping were planned~ Mitigations proposed in the 1981 EIR, and
incorporated as part of the project, would be equally effective for either hotel
or office/commercial uses.
Project-related construction activities and vehicles would temporarily increase
dustfall near the site, The project would affect local and regional air quality
through increased automobile traffic~ Violations of federal and state 8-hour
Carbon Monoxide (CO) average standards and the state 1-hour average standard are
expected to occur at the South Airport/Mitchell and South Airport/Grand inter-
sections with or without the proposed additional hotel rooms~ Project-generated
emissions would not be of sufficient magnitude to measurably degrade regional
air quality, although in combination with increased emissions from other sources,
measurable air quality degradation could result~ No mitigation measures beyond
those discussed in the 1981 EIR and the proposed Gateway Boulevard are suggested
by the Supplemental Final EIR~
Si gni ficant Adverse Impacts
The following sets forth all significant adverse impacts identified in the
Supplemental Final EIR which are affected by the Project Amendment, and with
respect to each impact makes one or more of the findings set forth hereinabove,
states facts in support of such findings and, as appropriate, refers to the
Statement of Overriding Consideration which is attached hereto:
A~ Traffic
The proposed 700 hotel rooms would generate an estimated 565 p~m~ peak-hour
trips, representing a 10%-11% increase in the trip generation originally calculated
for the Gateway Redevelopment Project (based on 85% occupancy)~ In addition to
the proposed project, cumulative development would include projects generating a
total of 60,005 daily trips and 8,120 p~m~ peak-hour vehicle trips. Traffic flow
6
conditions will substantially degrade as a result of cumulative development with-
out the project's additional 700 hotel roms. With the hotel roms, the Volume/
Capacity (V/C) ratios of selected intersections would degrade by 2%-5%; these
increases would probably not be measurable on day-to-day basis. A particular
concern would be the East Grand/Gateway and East Grand/Old East Grand inter-
sections, which are only about 350 feet apart.
A mitigation measure to alleviate traffic impacts of the proposed project and
cumulative development would be the extension of Gateway Boulevard.
Findings
The Council makes findings (1) and (3) as described at page 2 hereinabove and
as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above signi-
fi cant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
The foregoing increases brought about by the Project Amendment would probably
not be measurable on day-to-day basis. The extension of Gateway Boulevard from
East Grand Avenue to South Airport Boulevard would mitigate traffic impacts of
the Project Amendment.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Project Amendment are discussed in depth in the Supplemental
Final EIR and are summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect
to the Project Amendment may be imposed with respect to each of the alternatives.
Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasons set forth
bel ow.
Project Alternatives (No Project or Reduced Project)
The two project alternatives (i.e. no project and reducing the increase to only
200 hotel roms) are rejected as socially and economically infeasible because,
7
although traffic impacts would be slightly decreased by either alternative,
neither alternative would increase employment opportunities in the City or
increase property values by $80.5 million and the property tax increment due
to the Redevelopment Agency by one percent of that amount~ The increased in-
come to the Agency will, among other things: (a) result in increased monies
being earmarked for development of low and moderate income housing and (b)
better enable the Agency and City to fund the cost of construction of the Oyster
Point Separation which will be needed as a traffic mitigation measure for
cumulative impacts of development regardless of whether or not the Project
Amendment proceeds ~
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 State-
ment of Overriding Considerations~
B~ Public Services
The proposed project would increase water consumption by 70,000 gallons per
day and would generate an additional 63,000 gallons per day of wastewater flow~
The project would probably result in an increase in auto thefts and burglaries;
burglaries in the hotel(s) would also be a concern~ The project would have no
significant impacts on the City Fire Department or the County school system~
No mitigations would be required for the project's increased demand on water
services~ Pumping station #4 would have to be upgraded to handle increased waste-
water flow from the project and it is likely that an additional pump would have
to be installed~ With regard to police protection, the project sponsor will be
required to confer with the Police Department in the design stage to identify
appropriate mitigation measures~ The proposed project would be required to
follow all local and Title 24 requirements for fire protection~
8
Findings
The Council makes findings (1) and (3) as described at page 2 hereinabove
and as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section :[5091, with respect to the above
significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding (:[)
The impacts will be reduced to insignificance by upgrading Pumping Station #4
at the cost of tl~e developer and by requiring the developer to mitigate the effects
of the Project Amendment as determined by the Police Department. The proposed
project will be required to follo~ all local and Title 24 reeuirements for fire
protect1 on.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Project Amendment are discussed in depth in the Supplemental
Final E:[R and are summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect
to the Project Amendment may be imposed with respect to each of the alternatives.
Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasons set
forth below:
Alternatives to Project Amendment (No Project or Reduced Project)
The two alternatives to the Project Amendment (i.e. no project and reduction
of increase to 200 hotel rooms) are rejected because they are not environmentally
superior to the Project Amendment, as mitigated, and because they are socially and
economicall~v infeasible. As set forth above, the effects of the Project Amend-
ment, as mitigated, are reduced to insignificance. Also, neither alternative
would increase employment opportunities in the City and increase the propert~v
values in the Project Area by $80.5 million and the property tax increment to the
Redevelopment Agency by one percent of that amount. Those monies would be used,
among other things, to: (a) increase monies being earmarked for development
of low and moderate income housing and (b) fund the cost of construction of the
9
Oyster Point Separation, a mitigation measure that will be required as a result
of the cumulative effects of development whether or not the Project Amenanent is
approved.
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 State-
ment of Overriding Considerations.
C. No~se
[f the additional hotel space is built, there would be more noise from con-
struction activities and from project-generated traffic. Maximum noise levels
would not exceed those reported in the Final EIR in 1981. Since the additional
hotel space would add no more than 5~ more traffic than without the project, no
audible change in traffic noise would be attributable to the hotel.
tn addition to mitigation measures in the Final EIR in 1981, the Supplemental
Final E[R recommends that buildings containing activities not sensitive to noise
be located nearest the area's significant noise generators; that building orienta-
tion minimize glass area'facing noise sources; and that outdoor use areas be
located to avoid line-of-sight contact with major noise sources.
Findings
The Council makes findings (1) and (3) as described at page 2 hereinabove
and as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above
significant impacts.
Facts in Support of Finding
The impacts will be reduced to insignificance by carrx~ng out the mitigation
measures, certified in the Supplemental Final EIR. Buildings shall be designed
and constructed to mitigate the effects of noise.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives to the Project Amendment are described in depth in the Supplemental
Final EIR and are summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect
to the Project Amendment may be imposed with respect to each of the alternatives.
Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasons set
forth bel ow.
Alternatives to Project Amendment (No Project or Reduced Project)
The two alternatives to the Project Amendment (i.e. no project and reduction
of increase to 200 hotel rooms) are rejected because they are not environmentally
superior to the Project Amendment, as mitigated, and because they are socially
and economically infeasible. As set forth above, the effects of the Project Amend-
ment, as mitigated, are reduced to insignificance. Also, neither alternative
would increase employment opportunities in the City and increase the property
values in the Project Area by $80.5 million and the property tax increment to
the Redevelopment Agency by one percent of that amount. Those monies would be
used, among other things, to: (a) increase monies being earmarked for develop-
ment of low and moderate income housing and (b) fund the cost of construction
of the Oyster Point Separation, a mitigation measure that will be required as
a result of the cumulative effects of development whether or not the Project
Amendment is approved.
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.
11
EXHIBIT 2 TO RESOLUTION NO. 237-85
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT
TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THE SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15091, 15092 and 15096
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
I It is the policy of the State of California and the City of South San
Francisco (hereinafter "City"), as provided in the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the provisions of Title 14, California Administrative
Code, Guidelines for Implementation of the California 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 which would mitigate the environmental effects of
such projects to a level of insignificance; and
2. In furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law
(commencing at Health and Safety Code Section 33000), the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter the "Agency") has undertaken a program for the
clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of slum and blighted areas in the
City and in this connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project
known as the Gateway Redevelopment Project (hereinafter referred to as "Project"),
in an area (hereinafter referred to as "Project Area"), located in the City; and
3, In furtherance of the implementation of Project the Agency and the City
have undertaken various redevelopment activities and have, among other things,
entered into an Agreement entitled "Owner Participation and Development Agree-
ment'' with Homart Development Company and four (4) amendments thereto (hereinafter
the "OPA"); and
4[ On June 3, 1981 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco by Resolution Ho. 18 certified a Final Environmental Impact Report
for the project and on August 24, 1984 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco by motion certified a Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Report for an amendment to the Project to increase the number of hotel
rooms authorized from 600 to 1,300 (hereinafter "ProJect Amendment"); and
5. The Supplemental Final EIR considers alternatives to the Project Amendment
including a reduction in the number of increased hotel rooms from 700 to 200 and
a "no project" (i.e[ no increase) alternative; and
6. The Supplemental Final E[R discusses various significant environmental
impacts of the Project Amendment, including traffic, land use and relationship
to plans, public services and economics, hydrology and drainage air quality
and noise; and
7. This Council has reviewed and considered the Final E~R and Supplemental
Final EIR, comments received from the public both oral and written, staff
responses to comments recived during the public review period for the E~R and
other substantial evidence in the record before the City Council; and
8. The City Council, in Exhibit "1" to this Resolution has made certain
findings pursuant to requirements of CEQA and Section 15091 of the Guidelines
pertaining to the significant impacts identified in the Final E~R and has iden-
tified those significant impacts which, by virtue of mitigating measures described
in the Final EIR and Supplemental Final E~R have been mitigated to acceptable
levels, as well as those impacts which are infeasible of mitigation and for which
feasible alternatives are not available; and
9[ Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project; and
2
10~ Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires where the decision of
the City allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in an
EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support
its action based on that EIR and/or other information in the records;
NOW. THEREFORE. based on the foregoing, the City Council adopts the follow-
ing Statement of Overriding Considerations:
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. More hotel space will allow for more flexibility in making the Gateway
Redevelopment Project a successful development~
2. A new hotel will substantially increase the Tax Increment coming to the
Agency from this Project,
3~ The increased Tax Increment will provide funds needed for the Oyster
Point overcrossing and related highway improvements~
4. The increased Tax Increment will provide funds needed for storm and
sanitary sewer improvements in the area~
5. The increased Tax Increment will provide more funds for low and moderate
income housing due to 20 percent of all increment being set aside for this
purpose.
6, The City's General Fund will benefit from increased income from the
transient occupancy tax. making more funds available for City services~
7,' The encouraging of earlier development for certain sites in the project
area will assist in the creation of greater demand for full development~
8. The creation of more hotel space will make the construction of a conference
center more feasible,
9' The presence of more hotel space will add to the desirablility of the
existing and proposed office space.
10~ The increase in number of hotel rooms will increase employment oppor-
tunities in the City~
3
this Fifth Amendment to the Owner Participation and Development
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: -
ATTEST:
Secretary
ATTEST:
· City Clerk
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
-4-
EXHIBIT 3 TO RES OLUI'I ON NO. 237-85
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
This Fifth Amendment to Owner Participation and
Deuelopment Agreement is made as of this 13th day of November ,
1985, by and among CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter called "City"), REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a public body, corporate and
politic (which, together with any successor public body or officer
hereinafter designated by or pursuant to law is hereinafter called
"Agency"), duly created, established and authorized to transact
business and to exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to the
Community Redeuelopment Law of the State of California (Part i of
Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code} and having
its office at the City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, in the City of
South San Francisco, California, and HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO.
(hereinafter called "Developer").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, City, Agency and Developer have entered into
that certain Owner Participation and Development Agreement
(hereinafter called the "OPA") dated as of March 19, 1981, in
connection with the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco
Redevelopment District, which provides for the redevelopment of an
area located in the City of South San Francisco (hereinafter
called the. "Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 1981, Agency, Developer and
Genentech, Inc. entered into the First Amendment to the OPA, which
First Amendment dealt primarily with the parcel within the Project
Area which Genentech, Inc. has acquired from Developer; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1983, City, Agency and Developer
entered into the Second Amendment of the OPA, which Second
Amendment extended the time for reaching an agreement pursuant to
Paragraph 2.2.3 of the OPA to a date not later than August 31,
1983; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 1983,~ City, Agency and Developer
entered into the Third Amendment to the OPA, which Third Amendment
extended the time for reaching an agreement pursuant to Paragraph
2.2.3 of the OPA to a date not later than August 31, 1983; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 1983, City, Agency and
Developer entered into the Fourth Amendment to the OPA ("Fourth
Amendment"), which, among other things, provided for Developer's
contribution toward the Oyster Point Separation and the possible
expansion of the scope of development to permit 1,300 hotel rooms,
subject to environmental review; and
WHEREAS, City, Agency and Developer desire to enter into
a further amendment of the OPA to confrom the Oyster Point
contribution formula set forth in the above referenced Fourth
Amendment to the said formula which was adopted by the City as a
part of Resolution No. 71-84, adopted by the City Council of the
City on May 23, 1984, and to expand the scope of development as
set forth in the OPA to permit the development of 1,300 hotel
rooms within the Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as
-9-
follows:
1. Oyster Point Contribution Formula. The Oyster
Point Contribution Formula as set forth in Exhibit A to this Fifth
Amendment is hereby substituted in its entirety for the Oyster
Point Contribution Formula attached as an exhibit to the Fourth
Amendment.
2. Scope of Development. A supplemental environmental
impact report, considering among other'things an increase in the
number of hotel rooms from 600 to 1,300 was certified by the City
Council of the City on August 24. lgR4 . Accordingly, the
scope of development is hereby modified to increase the total
permitted number of hotel rooms to within the Project Area from
600 to 1,300. The hotel rooms may be developed in accordance with
and at locations permitted by the Gateway Specific Plan (Ordinance
No. 868-81).
The Gateway Specific Plan shall be the sole control
of the location of permitted land uses within the Property,
notwithstanding the map attached as Exhibit E-2 to the OPA.
3. Ratification. Except as modified by this Fifth
Amendment, the OPA as previously amended is ratified and
confirmed.
////
////
////
////
////
////
-3-
this Fifth Amendment' to the Owner Participation
: and Development
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST
ATTEST:
Secretary
ATTEST:
~ City Cler~'~"~
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FP-ANCISCO
-4-
1. General Provisions:
Cont'ributions shall be based upon weekday Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation
by various land uses as~set forth in Exhibit ! attached hereto a~d incorporaled
herein by reference as though set forth verbatim,
Note:' (a) 't/hen ADT generation is based upon gross square footage
of a building, the gross square foot~ge tnc~udes the
.... total floor area ~ithin the building shell~ which sba11
be computed by measuring to the ~nside finished surface
· of permanent outer building walls. The gross square
footage of a building, shall be the sum of the ~quare
footage of all enclosed floors of the buildtng~ including
basements~ mechanical equipment areas'j corridoKs )nd
general support areas-and the ]ike~ Gross square footage
.. shall not include first f~oor oPen lobby area in exes~ of
four hundred {400) square feet, atrium openings which
extend to floors above the atriuim floor, or Penthouses
used exclusively to house mechanical equipmentT Credit
· may be given for ADT generated by uses previously existing
.. on the parcel(s) proposed for.development'if.those previoi~-
uses were lawful and active within two {2) years prior to
the-date the project proposal was accepted by .the City as
a complete application~ .
~. Contribution Formula:'
'Engineering ~e~s Record Construction Cost Index
· For San Francisco at date of Cash Payment Amount of
ADT x $154* ~ 5139.61** =-Contribution
3[ Methods of Payment:
(a) 'In most cases~ payment or guarantees of payment shall be made prior
to issuance of building permits.
(b) In some cases (i~e~ projects underway prior to adoption of the
formula contained herein} guaranteed delayed payment plans may be
approved by agreement with adequate surety~ Delayed payment agreement'
will be subject to adjustment in accordance with Enginer. ing News Record
Index changes~ In no case shall the per-tr~p contribution amount be less
than the $154 figure set forth aboveL Should the. Engineering News Record
Index be discontinued~ the formula provided-above shall be converted
to any new or changed indexwhich might replace said ind'ex~
*The $154 figure set forth above is based upon the total estimated
cost of the Oyster PoinL Separation divided by the projected total
ADT applicable to that projectL
**July~ 1983 Engineering Ne~s Record Construction Cos~ Index for
San Francisco.
EXHIBIT "A" TO' FIFTH AtIEh'DMENT TO OWNER .PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT '
Land Use
Truck Terminal
General Industrial
I.lanufacturing
Warehou. sing
Hotel
Motel
o o
General Office
Building
Research Center
Recreational Club
Dinner House
Restaurant
EXHIBIT I TO
.~'STER POINT CONTRIBUTION FOP~HI
General Desc6iption
ADT
Trip Rate Per lOOO*
Gross Square Feet
Facilities where goods are transferred
between trucks, trucks and railroads,-
or trucks and airports.
'TyPical uses are printing plants, material
testing laboratories, assemblers of data
processing equipment, and power stations
· which usually employ less than 500 emp-
loyees with an emphasis on uses other than
manufacturing.
Primary activity is the c~nversion of
materials or parts into finished products.
Facilities which are all or largely devoted
to storage of materials.
Place of lo~ging which generally contain~
one hundred (100) or more lodging rooms or
suites and which could include restadrants,
cocktail lounges,'meeting rooms, b~nquet.
rooms, and other retail and service shops'
"within the same building. "
9.86
' 5.46
3.99
l)
4.50
10.50 {Per ~c
Place of lodging %~ich ordinarily contains
less than one hundred (100) rooms or suites
which could include a restaurant on the same
premises.
10.14 CPer Rc
~ffice building housing one or more tenants 12.30
and is the location where the affairs of a
'business, commercial or industrial organizati6n,
professional person or firm are conducted and
· related support services.
Facilities or groups.of facilities devoted
nearly exclusively to research and develop-
ment activities.
5.30
Privately owned facilities including tennis
courts, Swi,..-~ning pools, racquet ball courts,
handball courts, and other minor gymnastic
facilities.
11.70
Eating establishments of high quality in
interior furnishings and food which,generally
have a customer turnover rate of on~ hour or
longer and are not open 24 hours· per day.
56.30
Page 1 of 3
-- Land Use
Xigh Turn-over
Restaurant
Shopping Center
General Commercial
-Banks in'.Savings
and Loan'
Harina
Single Family Dwe~'ling~
Townhouses.
Condominiums and
Apartments .
EXHIBIT 1 TO
OYSTER POINT CONTRIBUTION FORHULA
: General Descr'iption
Eating establishments which generally ha~e
a customer turn-over rate of less than one
hour, including, but not'limited to, coffee
shops, cafeterias and delicatessens.
An integrated group of comercial est-
ablishments which is.planned, developed
owned, and managed as a Unit:
Under' SO,OOO Gross Square Feet
50,000 Gross Square Feet and Greater
· Establishments contained v~thin freestand-
ing comnercial buildings including strip
commercial buildings.
ADT
Trip Rate Per 1000' '
Gross Square Feet
.164.40
I15.8
~9.1'
· 48.00
Contain banks or savings and loan
facilities.
Public or private marina with some
having social activitie~ scheduled
throughout the week.
74.00
11
3.2/berth
lO.O/unit -
'
9.0/unit
5.O/unit'
Except for general office buildings and banks.and savings and loan use,. all land use
listed above shall be calculated at the applicable primary land use rate notwith-
standing the fact that the use may include up to 25% of office use ancillary to the
primary use. Office use exceeding 25% for a given structure shall be computed at
the general use rate-as set forth above. Any other uses in the same structure shall
be computed as a separate use of that structure. .
The following typical 'example would apply to a 50,000 square foot industrial
building which contains 30% Office, 2% Delicatessen, 8% General Industrial anO.
60% Warehousing:
· Average Trip Rate ADT
Square 1000 Sq. Ft. of Trip
use ' Feet Gross Floor Area Generation
Office 2,500 {15,000-12,5001 12.30 30.75
· 164.40
Delicatessen 1,O00 164.~4D ·
General Industrial 4,000 5.46 21.84
Warehousing 42,500 (30,000+12,5001 4.50 291.25
4Q8.24
In this case, the total trip generation would be 409 trips per day:
*See next p~age ,,.,,
k Paoe 2 of .3
~For specific de~.ini! ~s of land use categories and ta supporting trip generation
~rates see 'Trip Gene~otion Second Edition - 1979' prepared by the Institute of
lransportation Engineers. A copy of this report, including use definitions and
variations of the above listed rates, has been placed in the files of the Depart-
~ent of Community Oeve)opment, 400 Grand' Avenue, South San Francisco: CA 94080.
I) A Traffic Impact Analysis of t~e Proposed Oyster Point Busin'ess Center;
Transportation Consultantj Dec: 1981: .
.Z) £ALTRAhS - 12th Progress' Report on Trip Ends Generation Research CgJnts
Dec'ember~ 1979~
3)' Terrabay. Development; Final Environmental Impact Report~ August~ lg8Z
Page 3 of 3