HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 151-1985 RESOLUTION NO.151-85
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 U,$, STEEL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT" PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REDE- VELOPMENT PLAN FOR SAID PROJECT
(14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE §§15091, 15092 and 15096)
WHEREAS, I+ is +he policy of the State of California and +he City of South
San Francisco (herelnaf+er "City"), as provided In the California Environmental
Quality Ac+ of 1970, as amended, and the provlslons of Title 14, California
Administrative Code, Guldellnes for Implementation of +he California Envtron-
men+al Quality Ac+ of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA" and "Guldellnes," respectively),
that +he City should not approve projects as proposed If +here are feasible al+er-
natives or feasible mitigation measures available which would mitigate +he en-
vironmental effects of such projects to a level of Insignificance; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of +he objectives of +he Community Redevelopment Law
(commencing a+ Health and Safety Code §33000), +he South San Francisco Redeveop-
men+ Agency (hereinafter +he "Agency ") has undertaken a program for the clearance
and reconstruction or rehablllta+lon of slum and blighted areas in +he City and In
+bls connection Is engaged in carrylng out a redevelopment project known as +he
U.S. Steel Plan+ Site Redevelopment Project (hereinafter referred +o as "Project"),
in an area (hereinafter referred +o as "Project Area"), located In +he Cf+y; and
WHEREAS, In furtherance of +he Implementation of Project +he Agency has under-
taken various redevelopment activities and has submit+ed a Redevelopment Plan and
related report for +he U.S. Steel Plan+ Site Redevelopment Project +o +he City
Council; and
WHEREAS, +he Planning Commlsslon of the City of South San Francisco has sub-
mit+ed to the City Council l+s report and recommendations concerning +he Redevelop-
men+ Plan and Its certlfca+ion that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General
Plan for +he City of South San Franclsco; and
WHEREAS, +he Cl+y prepared a Draf+ Envlronmen+al Impac+ Repor+ (EIR) on +he
Shearwa+er developmen+ proposed for +he Projec+ Area In accordance wl+h CEQA,
+he Guidelines and envlronmen+al procedures adop+ed by +he Agency pursuan+
+here+o; and a duly no+iced join+ public hearing was held on +he Draf+ EIR and
+he Draf+ EIR was +hereaf+er revised and supplemen+ed +o lncorpora+e commen+s
received and responses +here+o, and as so revised and supplemen+ed, a Final EIR
was prepared by +he Cl+y and +he City cer+Ifled +he adequacy of +he Final EIR;
and subsequen+ly +he Agency, ac+lng as Lead Agency on the Redevelopmen+ Plan,
Issued and circula+ed +he previously prepared Shearwa+er EIR as +he Draf+ EIR
for +he Redevelopmen+ Plan; and
WHEREAS, +he Cl+y Council and +he Agency held a join+ public hearing on July
10, 1985, on adop+lon of +he Redevelopmen+ Plan in +he Communl+y Room of +he
Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, Sou+h San Francisco, California;
and
WHEREAS, +he Agency, af+er +he close of sald hearing and af+er reading and
considering all envlronmen+al documen+a+lon comprising +he final EIR, commen+s
and responses +here+o, and +he lis+ of organiza+ions and agencies commenting on
+he Final EIR, found +ha+ +he Final EIR considers all slgnlfican+ environmen+al
lmpac+s a+ a level of de+all commensurate wt+h reasonable requlremen+s for an
informed decision; and
WHERES, on July 10, 1985 +he Agency by l+s Resolu+lon No. 68 , cer+lfled
+ha+ the Final EIR was comple+ed in compliance with CEQA and +ha+ +he Informa+lon
con+alned +herein had been reviewed and considered by +he Agency S+aff, l+s Con-
sul+an+s and +he Agency Board; and
-2--
WHEREAS, +he Flnal EIR considers varlous alternatives Ilkely +o be proposed
under +he plan Including, but no+ limited to, dele+Ion of the conference center,
replacement of one hlgh-rlse office bulldlng with a ho+el, delay cons+ruc+lon of
two mid-rise office buildings, and +he "no project" alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR discusses various significant environmental impacts
of projects likely +o be proposed under +he plan Including, but no+ Ilml+ed to,
Increased +rafflc volume, reslden+lal uses under the San Francisco Interna+lonal
Airport shoreline departure route; noise from various proximate activities; and
WHEREAS, +his Council has reviewed and considered +he Draft and Final EIR's,
comments received from She public both oral and wrl++en, staff responses +o
comments received during +he public review period for the EIR and other subs+an-
tlal evidence In +he record and before +he City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of +he Guidelines requires +hat the City Council make
one or more of +he 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 wl+h statements of fac+ supporting each finding:
Finding 1 - Changes or al+era+ions have been required in, or
Incorporated Into, +he project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as Iden+l-
fled In the Final EIR.
Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsi-
bility and jurisdiction of another public agency and no+ +he
agency making +he 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 +he mitigation measures or project alternatives
Identified In +he Final EIRo
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, +ha+ +he City Council of +he City of South
San Franclsco hereby finds the following based upon its review and considera-
tion of +he Final EIR and other subs+an+Iai evidence In +he record:
FINDINGS AND STATENENTS OF FACT IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE REDE-
VELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE U.$. STEEL
PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Background Statement of Facts
Nature and Function of the Redevelopment Plan
The Redevelopment Plan for the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project
(hereinafter +he "Plan") Is an ordinance which describes the ProJect Area, sets
forth +he proposed public Improvements and faclll+les projects anticipated to be
undertaken pursuant to +he Plan, and provldes the Agency with powers, duties and
obligations +o implement and further the program generally formula+ed In said Plan
for the redevelopment and revltallzatlon of +he ProJect Area. The Plan does no+
present a specific plan or establish priori+les for speclflc projects for the
redevelopment and revitalization of any particular area wl+hln +he Project Area.
Instead, the Plan presents a process and a basic framework wlthln which specific
development plans will be presented, priorities for specific projects will be
established, and speclfic solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are pro-
vlded +o +he Agency +o fashlon, develop, and proceed wlth such specific plans,
projects, and solu+lons.
The boundary of +he ProJect Area ls shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map
attached +o +he Plan as Exhibit "A", and Is described in +he Legal Description of
ProJect Area attached +o +he Plan as Exhibit "B". The ProJect Area Is generally
located East of U.S. Highway 101 and north of Oyster Point Boulevard and comprises
the old U.S. Steel Plan+ Site and old G.S.A. Warehouse Site.
The Plan sets forth the proposed redevelopment activities in general terms
and, provides for owner partlclpatlon In +hose activities.
The Redevelopment Plan Map, at+ached +o +he ordinance as Exhlbl+ "A", illus-
trates +he Ioca+lon of the ProJect boundary, lden+lfles +he major streets within
+he ProJect Area, and deslgna+es +he major land uses authorized wl+hln the Pro-
jec+ Area under the City's current General Plan. The Clty will from time +o time
update and revise the General Plan. The Intention of +he Redevelopment Plan ls
+ha+ +he major and other land uses to be perml++ed within +he ProJect Area shall
be as provided wl+hln the Cl+y's General Plan, as I+ currently exls+s or as 1+
may hereafter be upon amendment, and as Implemented and applied by local codes
and ordinances.
Major public streets wlthln +he ProJect Area Include Oyster Poln+ Boulevard
and Gateway Boulevard.
General Description of +he Proposed Flnanclng Me+hod
The Agency Is au+horlzed by +he Plan +o finance +he ProJect wl+h +ax Increment
funds, Interest Income, Agency bonds, donations, loans from private financial
lns+l+u+lons, +he lease or sale of Agency-owned proper+y, par+lclpa+lon in de-
velopment, or with financial assistance from +he Clfy, State of California, +he
federal government, or any other available source, public or private.
The Agency Is also authorized by +he Plan +o obtain advances, borrow funds,
Issue bonds, and create Indebtedness In carrying out this plan. The principal
and interest on such Indebtedness may be paid from +ax Increments or any other
funds available +o +he Agency. Advances and loans for survey and planning and
for +he opera+lng capital for administration of +he ProJect may be provided by
the City un+il adequate tax Increment or other funds are available or sufficiently
assured +o repay +he advances and loans and +o permit borrowing adequate working
--5--
capI+al from sources o+her fhan +he Ci+y. The Cify, as i+ Is able, may also
supply addl+lonal assls+ance +hrough Issuance of bonds, loans and gran+s and
ln-klnd assls+ance.
The Cl+y or any ofher public agency may expend money +o assls+ +he Agency
In carrying ou+ +he Projec+. As available, gas +ax funds from +he s+a+e and
coun+y may be used for s+ree+ lmprovemen+s and public +ransI+ faclll+les. All
or a por+lon of +he parking may be Ins+ailed +hrough a parking au+horl+y or o+her
public or prlvafe en+l+les. Where approprlafe, special assessmen+ dlsfrlc+s may
be used +o flnance public lmprovemen+s, Including parklng.
Tax Incremen+ financing, as au+horlzed by Secflon 502 of +he Plan, is In-
fended as a source of flnanclng In comblna+lon wlfh ofher sources of flnanclng
fha+ may be available for speclflc projec+ ac+lvl+les.
Dura+Ion and Enforcemen+
The Plan au+horlzes ifs enforcemen+ by II+lga+lon and se+s forfh an effec+Ive
dura+Ion of +he Plan of +h~r+y-flve (35) years from Ifs effec+lve da+e.
Proposed Public Improvemen+s and Faclll+les Projec+s
The Plan sefs for+h +he following proposed public faclll+Ies and Improvemen+
projec+s:
(1)
(2)
Conference Cen+er/Thea+er Complex
Consfruc+Ion of conference, cen+er/+hea+er complex Includ-
ing assoclafed parklng and land acquisl+lon.
Oys+er Poln+ Blvd./U.S. 101/SPRR Overcrosslng
Cons+ruc+lon of four-lane overcrosslng and assocla+ed
freeway ramps, Including rela+ed rlgh+-of-way acqulsl+lon.
--6--
(3) Oyster Point Boulevard
Completion of wldenlng and reconstruction of Oyster Point
Boulevard from Projec+ vlclnl+y +o Oyster Point.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The final Environmental Impact Report for +he U.S. Steel Plan+ Site Redevelop-
ment Project (hereinafter +he "EIR") sets forth a "worst case" descrlp+lon of
development likely to be proposed under the Plan as follows:
The Project site ls located three (3) miles north of San Francisco Interna-
tional Airport, In +he northeastern corner of +he City of South San Francisco,
east of and adjacent to +he Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101) see Figures 3-1 and 3-2
of the EIR). The slte comprises two proper+les -- the former Unl+ed States Steel
pipe and steel fabricatlon plant (47.2 acres of dry land area and 133 acres of
water-covered land) and +he former GSA site of 6.03 acres of dry land. The
to+al current actual dry land comprising +he site Is therefore 53.23 acres. How-
ever, the amount of dry land +ha+ will exist on +he site following Project con-
s+ruc+lon Is 54.03 acres, which takes into account +he fill proposed as part of
the Project and additional water area +o be created at +he end of +he channel
and In +he area of +he proposed yacht club.
A master-planned, mixed-use community Is proposed. I+ may consls+ of up to
1.5 milllon gross square fee+ (gsf) of offlce space, a 450-room firs+ class hotel,
a 100,000 gsf conference center, a performing arts theater, 500 marlna berths,
a yacht club, re+all shops, restaurants, and 350 residential unlts. In +he
Project sponsor's opinion, +he design features a strong water-related activities
scheme to ensure a destlnatlon place +ha+ will operate seven (7) days a week.
The Project Is intended to serve as a focal point of public ac+ivl+y with many
opportunities for enjoying +he waterfront. Further, +he Project Is seen as an
integral par+ of +he redevelopment of the Paclflc International Business Center,
which Is comprised of a number of commercial projects east of Highway 101 and
wes+ of the South San Franclsco waterfront.
-7-
As s+a+ed above, approval of +he Plan is no+ an approval of +he foregolng
developmen+ or reuse of +he sl+e. The Plan merely se+s up +he adminls+ra+lve
framework for lmplemenfa+lon of redevelopmen+ to clear and ellmlna+e bllgh+ wi+h-
In +he Redevelopmen+ Area. Hence, approval of +he Plan will have a more Ilmi+ed
effec+ on +he envlronmen+ than +ha+ se+ forfh In +he EIR.
As designed, +he Projec+ would requlre subml++al of a Specific Plan and re-
lated documen+s, prior to Project approval by +he Cl+y. In addl+lon, +he San
Francisco Bay Conservatlon and Development Commlsslon has jurisdlc+lon over +he
shoreline por+lon of +he Project site. While the Projec+ conforms generally wl+h
a number of objectives and policles of the Bay Plan, preliminary review of the
Project by Commisslon Staff Indica+es +wo posslble areas of concern. These con-
sis+ of the Ioca+lon of the ho+el, and +he exlstence of parking for marina uses
on the proposed piers (see pages 4-6 of +he EIR).
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN
Inasmuch as +he Plan does not call for specific developmen+ or reuse of +he
Projec+ Area, I+ would be unreasonable +o descrlbe al+erna+lve developmen+
proposals and +heir envlronmen+al effec+s a+ +hls +Ime. The al+erna+lves +o
+he Plan Include n._9_o plan a+ all or some varla+lon on public Improvemen+s (here-
lnaf+er "Proposed Projec+") au+horlzed In +he Plan. Therefore, +hls sec+ion will
deal wl+h only +he effec+s of +he Plan i+self and speclflc public facill+ies or
lmprovemen+s se+ for+h +herein and will In addl+lon consider +he "no projec+"
al+erna+lve. Following ls a description of +hese al+erna+lves:
(1) No Projec+: This al+erna+Ive Is +he "no projec+" al+erna+Ive required
by CEQA. The No Project al+ernatlve would no+ Involve any change +o the un-
developed projec+ area as It now exls+s. Prlva+e ownership would be retained
and fu+ure op+ions would remain available for developmen+ of +he Projec+ Area
as allowed in +he General Plan.
The No Projec+ alterna+lve would elimina+e any of +he lmpac+s assocla+ed
wl+h +he "Proposed Projec+." Curren+ levels of noise, air poilu+Ion, energy con-
sump+ion and wa+er quall+y would remain unchanged. Exls+lng solls, vege+a+lon,
wlldllfe, and archaelogical resources would no+ be dis+urbed. Exls+lng views
of +he area as a desolate, underu+llized Indus+rial sl+e would remain. Adjacen+
areas would maln+aln +heir presen+ envlronmen+ and views of +he sl+e.
The No Project al+ernatlve would no+ require an increase In demand for
local services and u+lllty sys+ems. The Cl+y housing stock would no+ be Increased
by 350 unl+s. This alterna+lve would no+ provlde sponsor-rela+ed funds associated
wl+h +ranspor+a+lon and o+her public service lmprovemen+s.
-9-
The No Project alternative would no+ provide additional employment oppor-
tunities. The City would not experience an increase of accrued taxable revenues,
however, costs for supplying services would also not be Increased.
Certain public costs and Ilabllltles could occur If the project sl+e
remains in Its current condition. I+ Is likely +ha+ the site would need +o be
cleaned and cleared of any hazardous debris and possibly purchased by a public
agency +o avoid adverse Impacts +o public health and safety.
An option exls+s for permanent open space wl+h this alternative. The
project sl+e Is currently under private ownership and +he project sponsor would
have +o release his option on +he property before any action could occur. Either
the City of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or private coall+lon
would +hen have +o acquire +he land +o Implement this alternative.
(2) Delete Conference Center
The proposed 100,000 square feet Conference Center Is dele+ed and all
other uses remain +he same as the proposed project.
Dele+ion of +he Conference Center would al+er traffic and circulation
impacts by reducing both AM and PM peak hour +rips by approximately 15%. As a
consequence of eliminating +he Conference Center, +he buildou+ PM peak hour
+rafflc volumes a+ the critical Intersections a+ +he Oyster Point Interchange
would be decreased between 1% and 5%.
This alternative would result In a slight Impact +o +he air quality
environment by reducing traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emissions. A 15%
reduction In emissions would occur as compared with +he Proposed Project. I+
would n~ slgnlflcan+ly al+er +he worst case carbon monoxide concentrations a+
crl+lcal Ioca+lons as shown In +he EIR.
-10-
Thls al+erna+lve would resul+ In sllgh+ reduc+lons in +raffic noise
compared +o +he Proposed Projec+; bu+ would no+ resul+ In a long term noise
environment +ha+ is audibly differen+ from +ha+ which could resul+ from +he
Proposed Projec+. Cons+ruc+lon noise would be sllgh+ly less for this al+er-
native +hah for +he Proposed Projec+.
This al+erna+lve would reduce fiscal and employment benefl+s of
developmen+ in the Projec+ Area below +hose of +he Proposed Project. The
Proposed Project would resul+ in 6,187 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of
$607,900; whereas +his alterna+lve would resul+ In 6,177 employees and a ne+
fiscal balance of $566,700. Conference Cen+er dele+Ion from +he Proposed
Projec+ would decrease proper+y +ax revenues by $340,000, +hereby decreasing
+he tax lncremen+ to +he Redevelopmen+ Agency by abou+ 8.5%. Business license
fees would decrease sllgh+ly ($110) and sewer maln+enance costs would drop by
$9,300 due +o decreased demand. Demand for fire and police services would
decrease sllgh+ly, bu+ no+ enough +o affect the fiscal balance shee+. O+her
costs and revenues should no+ change due +o +he small decrease In employees.
Demand for employee houslng may also drop sllgh+ly.
(3) Dele+e Conference Center and Add Ho+el
This al+ernatlve calls for a 450-room ho+el to replace +he conference
center.
By replacing the conference cen+er wlth a 450-room hotel, bo+h AM and
PM peak hour trips would be reduced by 12% when compared +o +he Proposed Projec+.
As a resul+, +he bulldou+ PM peak hour +rafflc volumes a+ +he crI+lcal In+er-
sec+ions would be decreased between 1% and 4%
This alternative would result In a sllght lmprovemen+ to the air quality
environment by reducing traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emissions. A 12%
reduction in emissions would occur as compared with +he Proposed Project. It
would no+ significantly alter the worst case carbon monoxlde concentrations
a+ critical locations associated with +he Proposed Project as shown in the EIR.
This alternative would result In slight reductlons In traffic noise
compared +o the Proposed Project; but would not result in a long-term noise
environment that Is audibly different from that whlch would result from +he
Proposed Project. This alternative mlgh+ be subject to a finding of Irrespon-
sibility wlth State guidelines for hotel construction.
This alternative would have the greatest benefit In terms of flscal
lmpac+s and employment generation. In comparison +o +he Proposed Project, this
Alternative would have 270 more employees and generate more than $1.6 million
In net annual revenues. This alternative would, however, increase housing demand
by 140 +o 180 unl+s over +he Proposed Project.
The doubled ho+el space and dele+ion of +he conference center would
Increase to+al project employment by 273 jobs. Housing demand would therefore
Increase from +he previous range of 3,440-4,130 to 3,589-4,307. Business license
fees would Increase by $1,835 and transient occupancy +axes would double, assuming
both ho+els can malntaln 80% occupancy. There would be an Increase in publlc
safety services, but not enough +o require addltlonal full-time personnel.
Sewer maintenance costs would also Increase by $9,300. Other costs and revenues
should remain approxlma+ely equal to +hose of +he Proposed Project. The annual
net fiscal balance would be more than $1.6 million or 27% more than +ha+ gener-
a+ed by +he Proposed Project.
It Is no+ed tha+ none of +he al+ernatives or cumula+ive al~erna+lves for
developmen+ proposals se+ for+h In the EIR ellmlna+es +he need for +he con-
s+ruc+Ion of a four lane overcrosslng and associated freeway ramps a+ Oys+er
Poln+ Boulevard/U.S. 101/S.P. Railroad Crossing or +he need for comple+lon of
widening and recons+ruction of Oys+er Poln+ Boulevard from +he Projec+ Area
vlclnlty to Oys+er Point.
FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Cl+y Council of +he Cl+y of Sou+h San Francisco (herelnaf+er the "Council")
flnds +ha+ +he Plan wlll no+ have a nega+Ive lmpac+ In +he following areas Ils+ed
In +he EIR: ]L<a~d Use and Rela+lonshlp +o Plans, Fiscal, Geology, Housing, Visual
Quail+y, Hydrology and Water Quail+y, Vege+a+lon and Wild Life, Cul+ural Resources,
and Safe+y.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Plan Is In conforml+y wl+h +he General Plan of +he Cl+y of Sou+h San
Francisco.
As s+ated above, the Plan provides for the clearance and ellmlna+lon of
bllgh+ from +he Projec+ Area. It does no+ provide for +he reuse of +he Projec+
Area excep+ for certain public facllltles and lmprovemen+s se+ forth above.
The Plan does no+ presen+ a speciflc plan or es+abllshed priori+les for specific
projec+s for +he redevelopmen+ and revltallza+lon of any par+lcular area wl+hln
the Projec+ Area. Instead +he Plan presen+s a process and a baslc formula wi+hln
whlch specific developmen+ plans wlll be presen+ed, prlorltles for speclflc pro-
jects will be es+abllshed, and specific solu+lons will be proposed and by whlch
+ools are provided +o +he Agency to fashlon, develop and proceed wlth such
speclflc plans, projec+s and solu+lons.
The Plan would require subml++al of a Specific Plan and related documen+s,
prior to Projec+ approval by +he Cl+y. In addl+lon, +he San Francisco Bay Con-
serva+lon and Developmen+ Commission has jurlsdlc+lon over +he shorellne por+lon
of the Projec+ Area.
Approval of +he Plan is no+ an approval of development or reuse of
+he site. The Plan merely sets up +he admlnls+ra+lve framework for lmplemen+a-
+lon of redevelopment +o clear and ellmlna+e bllght wi+hln +he Project Area.
Hence, approval of +he Plan wlll have a more Ilml+e8 effect on +he envlronmen+
than that se+ forth In +he EIR.
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following sets forth all slgnlflcan+ adverse Impacts ldentlfled in +he
EIR which are affected by +he Plan, and wl+h respect to each Impact makes one
or more of +he flndlngs se+ forth herelnabove, sma+es facts In support of such
flndlngs and, as appropriate, refers +o +he Statement of Overrldlng Considera-
tion which Is at+ached here+o=
A. Public Services
The Conference Center proposed as a Public Faclll+y by +he Plan would
generate a demand for publlc servlces provided by +he Cl+y and other jurlsdlc-
tlons in +he area.
Findings
The Council makes flndlngs (1) and (3) as described a+ page 3 herein-
above and as requlred by C£QA Guidelines, Sec+Ion 15091, wl+h respec+ to +he above
slgnlflcan+ Impact.
Facts In Support of Flndlng (1)
The Impacts will be reduced mo Insignificance by designing the Conference
Center In accordance wlth +he Marina Security Standards Ordinance of the City
and by provlslons of adequate Pollce and Prlva+e Security forces In the site
subject +o approval by +he Chief of Police.
-15-
Facts In Support of Flndlng (3)
Alternatives +o +he Plan are dlscussed In depth In +he EIR and are summ-
arized above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the proposed
Conference Center may be Imposed with respect to each of +he alternatives.
Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as Infeasible for the reasons se+
forth below.
Alternative (1) No Project
Alternative (1) is rejected as economically and socially infeaslble
because +he no project Alternative would fall +o clear and eliminate +he blight
existing in +he Project Area. Continua+ion of the current use of +he Site could
create a public health hazard, and certain public costs and llabllltles could
occur if the Project Area remalns in its current condl+ion. I+ Is likely +hat
+he site would need to be cleaned and cleared of any hazardous debris and possi-
bly purchased by a public agency +o avoid adverse Impacts +o publlc health and
safety.
An option exls+s for permanent open space with this alternative. The
Project Area is currently under private ownershlp and +he Project sponsor
would have to release his option on the property before any action could
occur. El+her +he Clty of South San Franclsco, another governmental agency
or private coalltion would +hen have +o acquire +he land to Implement +his
alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
Thls alternative Is rejected because 1+ would no+ slgnlflcan+ly reduce
+he demand for public services In +he Project Area and would be economically
infeasible. Thls alternative would reduce flscal and employment benefits of
developmen+ in +he Projec+ Area of +he Proposed Projec+. The Proposed Projec+
would resul+ In 6,187 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of $607,900; whereas
+his al+erna+lve would resul+ In 6,177 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of
$566~700. Conference Cen+er dele+Ion from +he Proposed Projec+ would decrease
proper+y fax revenues by $340,000, +hereby decreasing +he fax lncremen+ fo +he
Redevelopmen+ Agency by abou+ 8.5%. Buslness license fees would decrease
sligh+ly ($110),
Al+erna+ive (3) Dele+e Conference Cen+er and add Ho+el
Thls alferna+lve is rejec+ed because l+ Is envlronmen+ally inferlor fo
+he Proposed Projec+, because 1+ would Increase +he demand for public safely
services. Also, +his alferna+ive would add 270 employees +o +he Projec+ Area
and Increase houslng demand by 140 +o 180 unlfs over +he Proposed Projec+.
In addl+lon, +he overriding economic, social and o+her conslderaflons, as
enumera+ed in +he S+a+emen+ of Overrldlng Consldera+lons, provlde addl+ional
fac+s In suppor+ of finding (3). Any remalnlng unavoidable signlflcan+ lmpac+s
are accepfable when balanced agalns+ +he +acrs se+ for+h above and In +he
Sfa+emen+ of Overriding Consldera+ions.
B. Nolse
The effec+ of +he Plan on +he noise environmen+ would be fei+ during
+he cons+ruc+ion place of +he public improvemen+s se+ for+h In +he Plan, lnclud-
lng +he Conference Cen+er, Oys+er Poln+ Overcrossing and +he comple+lon of widen-
ing and reconsfruc+lon of Oys+er Poln+ Boulevard. Peak noise levels would occur
during plle driving, and would be expec+ed fo reach abou+ 105 dBA In all surround-
lng ou+door spaces wl+hln 50 fee+.
-17-
Flndings
This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as descrlbed above and
as required by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect +o +he above
iden+lfled slgnlflcan+ effec+s.
Facts In Suppor+ of Finding (1)
All construc+ion equipment will be adequa+ely muffled and the Conference
Center wlll be built wl+h ceilings, roofs and walls acous+lcally-rated.
Fac+s In Suppor+ of Finding (3)
Alternatlves +o +he Plan are dlscussed In depth In the EIR and are
summarlzed above. The mi+Iga+lon measures required wl+h respect to the Proposed
Project may be Imposed with respect to each of the al+ernatlves. Never+heless,
these alternatives are rejected as Infeasible for the reasons se+ forth below.
Alterna+ive (1) No Projec+
This al+ernative Is rejected as economically and socially infeasible.
The "no project" al+ernatlve would not achieve +he public purpose of clearly and
elimlnatlng blight for +he Project Area.
The "no project" alternative would no+ provide additional employment oppor-
tunities. The City would no+ experience an Increase of accrued +axable revenues.
Certain publlc costs and liabilities could occur If the Project Area remalns
In Its curren+ conditlon. I+ is likely +hat +he sl+e would need +o be cleaned
and cleared of any hazardous debris and possibly purchased by a public agency
to avold adverse Impacts +o public heal+h and safe+y.
-18-
An op+lon exls+s for permanen+ open space with +hls al+ernative. The Projec+
Area Is currently under prlva+e ownershlp and +he Projec+ sponsor would have
release his op+lon on the proper+y before any action could occur. El+her +he
Cl+y of Sou+h San Francisco, ano+her governmen+al agency or prlvate coall+Ion
would then have +o acqulre the land +o Implemen+ this al+erna+Ive.
Alterna+Ive (2) Delete Conference Center
Thls alternative Is rejected as economically Infeaslble and because It
is no+ environmentally superlor +o +he Proposed Projec+:
Thls al+ernatlve would resul+ In sllgh+ reduc+tons in +rafflc nolse
compared +o +he Proposed Projec+; bu+ would no+ resul+ In a long term nolse
envlronmen+ +hat Is audlbly dlfferen+ from +ha+ whlch could result from the Pro-
posed Project. Construc+lon noise would be sllgh+ly less for this alternative
than for the Proposed Project.
Thls al+ernatlve would reduce fiscal and employment benefits of develop-
men+ In the Projec+ Area. The Proposed Projec+ would resul+ In 6,187 employees
and a ne+ fiscal balance of $607,900; whereas +his al+erna+Ive would resul+ In
6,177 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of $566,700. Conference Center dele+Ion
from the Projec+ would decrease property +ax revenues by $340,000, +hereby
decreaslng +he +ax lncremen+ +o +he Redevelopmen+ Agency by abou+ 8.5%. Business
Ilcense fees would decrease sligh+ly ($110).
-19-
Alterna+ive (3) Dele+e Conference Center and Add Ho+el
Thls alternative Is rejec+ed because I+ Is envlronmen+ally lnferlor +o
the Proposed Projec+.
This al+erna+lve would result in slight reductions In trafflc noise
compared +o the Proposed Projec+; bu+ would no+ resul+ In a long-term noise
envlronmen+ that Is audlbly different from +ha+ whlch would resul+ from the
Proposed Projec+. I+ would call for 270 more employees +han the Proposed
Project, would Increase housing demand by 140 +o 180 units and Increase +he
demand for publlc services.
In addl+lon, +he overrldlng economic, soclal and other consldera+lons, as
enumera+ed In +he S+a+emen+ of Overridlng Consldera+lons, provide addltlonal
facts In suppor+ of flndlng (3). Any remaining unavoidable slgniflcan+ lmpac+s
are accep+able when balanced agalns+ the facts se+ forth above and In +he S+a+e-
men+ of Overrlding Conslderatlons.
C. Air Quall+y
Developmen+ proposals Ilkely +o be presen+ed under the Plan would affec+
regional alr quall+y +hrough changes In +o+al vehicle mlles travelled (VMT). How-
ever +he emissions resul+Ing from +he Projec+ alone and In combina+lon with o+her
projec+s would not be of sufflclent magnitude to result In a measurable degrada-
+Ion of regional air quality. Locallzed air quallty Impacts from dus+ generated
by equlpmen+ and vehicles could also occur during +he cons+ruc+lon perlod.
Flndlngs
This Councll hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and
as requlred by +he CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, wl+h respec+ +o +he above,
Identlfled signlflcant effec+s.
-20-
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
Development proposals presented under the Plan will lncude transporta-
tion management programs described in Table 4-27 of +he EIR. Surfaces of unpaved
roads and cons+ruction surfaces shall be wet+ed down twice dally.
Facts in Suppor+ of Finding (3)
Alternatives +o the Plan are dlscussed in depth in +he EIR and are
summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect to +he Proposed
ProJect may be Imposed with respect to each of the alternatives. Nevertheless,
these alternatives are rejected as Infeasible for +he reasons set forth below.
Alternative (1) No Project
This alternative Is rejected as socially and economically Infeasible
because I+ would not achieve the purpose of clearlng and eliminating blight.
Also, +he "no project" alternative would not provide additional employment oppor-
tunities. The Clty would not experience an Increase of accrued taxable revenues.
Certain public costs and liabilities could occur If the ProJect Area
remains In Its current condltlon. I+ Is likely that the site would need +o be
cleaned and cleared of any hazardous debrls and possibly purchased by a public
agency to avoid adverse Impacts +o public health and safety.
An op+lon exists for permanent open space wlth thls alternative. The
ProJect Area is currently under private ownership and +he ProJect sponsor would
have to release his option on +he property before any actlon could occur. Either
the City of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or prlva+e coalition
would +hen have to acquire the land +o implement this alternative.
-21 -
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This alternative Is rejected as economically Infeasible and because
i+ is no+ environmentally superior +o +he Proposed Project.
Thls alternative would result in a sllgh+ Impact to the alr quality
environment by reducing traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emlsslons. A 15%
reduction in emissions would occur as compared with the Proposed Project. It
would no+ significantly alter +he worst case carbon monoxide concen+ratlons at
critlcal locatlons as shown In the EIR.
This alternative would reduce flscal and employment beneflts of
development In the Project Area. The Proposed Project would result In 6,187
employees and a ne+ flscal balance of $607,900; whereas +hls alternative would
result in 6,177 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of $566,700. Conference
Center dele+Ion from the Proposed Project would decrease property tax revenues
by $340,000, thereby decreasing the tax Increment +o +he Redevelopment Agency
by about 8.5%. Business license fees would decrease slightly ($110).
Alternative (3) Delete Conference Center and Add Ho+el
This alternative Is rejected as being environmentally lnferlor to +he
Proposed ProJect.
This al+ernaflve would result In a slight Improvement to +he air quality
environment by reduclng traffic and, concomitantly, exhaust emlsslons. A 12%
reduction In emissions would occur as compared wl+h +he Proposed Project. It
would po+ slgnlflcan+ly al+er the worst case carbon monoxide concentrations at
critical locations associated with +he Proposed Project as shown In +he EIR.
Thls alternative would increase employees in the Project Area by 270,
Increase housing demand by 140 +o 180 unlts over +he Proposed Project, and
would result In an increased demand for public services over the Proposed Project.
In addition, the overridlng economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated In the Statement of Overriding Considera+lons, provide additional
facts in support of flnding (3). Any remaining unavoidable slgnlflcant Impacts
are acceptable when balanced agalnst the facts set forth above and in +he State-
ment of Overriding Consideratlons.
D. Transpor+a+lon
Development likely +o be proposed under the Plan would generate approxi-
mately 2,725 pm peak hour trlps on the surrounding off-site street system. The
cumulative effect of the Redevelopment Project in comblnatlon with other proposed projec'
the area would reduce the level of service at some adjacent Intersections from
A +o as much as F at bulldou+. Affected lntersec+lons would Include Oyster Point
Boulevard/Shearwater Drlve and Oyster Poln+ Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard.
Findlngs
Thls Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as
required by +he CEQA Guidelines, Sc+Ion 15091, wlth respect +o the above identi-
fied slgnlflcan+ effects.
Facts In Support of Finding (1)
The Plan calls for modlficatlons to Oyster Point Boulevard Oyster Point
Interchange with U.S. Highway 101, and development approvals will Include +he
following:
-23-
- ~ Dual-lane freeway on-and off-ramps both northbound and southbound
- Six-lane bridge over freeway and eight-lane brldge over Sou+hem
Paclflc tracks
- Grade separation of left-+urn movements a+ ln+ersec+lon of Oyster
Point wl+h ramps +o and from the sou+h, as shown In Figure 4-17
of +he EIR.
- Loop ramp for direct access from eastbound Oyster Point to Shear-
wa+er sl+e, as shown In Flgure 4-17 of the EIR.
- An auxllllary Jane on U.S. 101 northbound from the Oyster Point
on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp, and between Oyster
Point and Grand Avenue ramps
- W£de~ Oyster Paint Boulevard to six lanes from the Southern Pacific
overpass to ~e Shearwater eastern entrance, and signalize eastern
entrance.
Also, plans will be requlred +o Include aggressive Transportation Systems Manage-
men+ (TSM) programs.
Facts In Support of Flndlng (3)
Al+ernatlves to +he Plan are discussed In depth in +he EIR and are
summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect to +he Proposed
Project may be Imposed with respect to each of the alternatives. Nevertheless,
these alternatives are rejected as Infeaslble for the reasons se+ forth below.
Alternative (1) No Project
Thls alternative is rejected as socially and economically Infeaslble
because It could no+ a chleve +he public purpose of clearlng and ellmlna+ing
blight In +he Project Area.
The "no project" alternative would no+ provide addltional employment oppor-
tunltles. The City would not experience an increase of accrued taxable revenues.
-24-
Certain publlc costs and Ilablll+les could occur If +he Project Area remains
In Its current condltlon. It ls Ilkely +ha+ +he sl+e would need +o be cleaned
and cleared of any hazardous debrls and possibly purchased by a public agency +o
avoid adverse Impacts to public health and safety.
An option exists for permanent open space with this alternative. The Project
Area Is currently under private ownership and +he Project sponsor would have +o
release his op+lon on +he property before any ac+lon could occur. Either +he
City of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or private coalition
would then have +o acquire the land +o Implement +his alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This al+ernatlve Is rejected as economlcally Infeasible and because I+
is not slgnlflcantly superior to +he Proposed Project from for an environmental
poln+ of view.
Deletion of +he Conference Center would al+er traffic and clrcula+lon Impacts
by reduclng both AM and PM peak hour trips by approxlma+ely 15%. As a consequence
of eliminating +he Conference Center, the bulldou+ PM peak hour traffic volumes
at +he crl+lcal Intersections a+ +he Oyster Poln+ interchange would be decreased
be+ween 1% and 5%.
Thls alternative would reduce flscal and employment benefits of development
In the Project Area. The Proposed Project would result In 6,187 employees and
a ne+ fiscal balance of $607,900; whereas +hls alternative would result In 6,177
employees and a net fiscal balance of $566,700. Conference Center dele+ion from
the Proposed Project would decrease property +ax revenues by $340,000, +hereby
decreasing +he tax Increment to +he Redevelopment Agency by about 8.5%. Business
license fees would decrease sllgh+ly ($110).
-25-
Al+erna+lve (3) Dele+e Conference Cen+er and Add Hotel
This al+erna+ive is rejec+ed as environmen+ally inferior +o the
Proposed Projec+.
By replacing +he Conference Cen+er wl+h a 450-room ho+el, bo+h AN and PM
peak hour +rips would be reduced by 12% when compared +o the Proposed Projec+.
As a result, +he bulldout PM peak hour +rafflc volumes at +he cri+lcal In+er-
sec+Ions would be decreased be+ween 1% and 4%.
This al+ernatlve would add 270 new employees +o +he Projec+ Area,
Increase houslng demand by 140 to 180 unl+s over the Proposed Projec+ and
Increase +he demand for publlc services.
In addi+ion, +he overriding economic, social and o+her consldera+lons, as
enumera+ed In +he S+a+emen+ of Overrldlng Consldera+lons, provlde addl+ional
facts In suppor+ of finding (3). Any remalnlng unavoldable slgnlflcan+ impac+s
are accep+able when balanced agalns+ +he fac+s se+ forth above and In +he S+a+e-
men+ of Overriding Consideratlons.
E. Hazardous Ma+erlals
The Projec+ Area presen+iy con+alns lead, acldic groundwa+er, and organic
compounds. Disturbance of +he sl+e durlng and af+er construc+ion could crea+e
adverse public heal+h Impac+s if ml+Iga+ion measures are no+ required as par+ of
a projec+ approval. Such measures Include a varle+y of generally accep+ed op+ions
for removal or contalnmen+ of the hazardous ma+erlals (page 4-122 of the EIR).
Findlngs
This Council hereby makes findlngs (1) and (3) as described above and
as required by +he CEQA Guidelines, Sec+Ion 15091, wl+h respec+ +o +he above
ldentlfled signlfican+ effec+.
Fac+s in Suppor+ of Flndlng (1)
Ml+iga+lon measures wlil be requlred as part of developmen+ approvals
under +he Plan +o clean up +he followlng:
-26-
- lead in surface solls
- acidic groundwater
- organlc compoun+s
o Clean-up can be accomplished by
- containment In place
- excavation and con+alnmen+ on-site
- excava+lon and dlsposal off-site
- natural neu+urallzatlon
- Induced neu+rallzatlon
- dlsposal of contaminated soils
- air-stripping or carbon absorptlon techniques for contaminated
groundwater
Facts In Support of Finding (3)
Alternatives +o the Plan are described in depth in the EIR and are
summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect to +he Proposed
Project may be Imposed with respect to each of +he alternatives. Nevertheless,
these alternatives are rejected as Infeaslble for the reasons set forth below.
Alternative (1) No Project
This alternative is rejected as socially lnfeaslble because 1+ would
not achieve +he public purpose of clearlng and eliminating bllgh+. I+ Is rejected
as economically infeaslble because +he "no project" alternative would not provide
addltlonal employment opportunltles, and the City would not experience an Increase
of accrued taxable revenues.
Certain public costs and liabilities could occur If the Project Area remalns
in its current condition. It is likely that the site would need +o be cleaned
and cleared of any hazardous debris and possibly purchased by a publlc agency to
avoid adverse Impacts to pubic health and safety.
-27-
An option exls+s for permanent open space wlth +his alternative. The Project
Area Is currently under private ownership and +he Project sponsor would have +o
release his optlon on +he property before any actlon could occur. El+her +he
Cl+y of South San Francisco, another governmental agency or prlva+e coalition
would +hen have +o acqulre the land +o Implement this alternative.
Alternative (2) Delete Conference Center
This al+ernatlve Is rejected because I+ is not envlronmenally superlor
to the Proposed Project and I+ Is economically infeasible. There ls no evidence
that the deletion of the Conference Center would In any way affect the hazardous
materials present on the slte. Also, +his alternative would reduce fiscal and
employment benefl+s of development in +he Project Area. The Proposed Project
would result in 6,187 employees and a ne+ flscal balance of $607,900; whereas
this alternative would result In 6,177 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of
$566,700. Conference Center deletion from the Proposed Project would decrease
property tax revenues by $340,000, +hereby decreaslng +he tax Increment to the
Redevelopment Agency by about 8.5%. Business license fees would decrease sllgh+ly
($110).
Alternative (3) Delete Conference Center and Add Ho+el
Thls alternative is rejected as envlronmen+ally Inferior to the Proposed
Project. Cons+ruction would s+lll be ongolng on the si+e, and hazards set forth
above would still be ex+an+. Further, +hls alternative would add 270 employees
to the Project Area, would Increase +he demand for housing by 140 +o 180
units over the Proposed Project and would Increase +he demand for public services.
-28-
In addl+lon, +he overriding economic, social and o+her conslderatlons, as
enumera+ed In +he Statement of Overriding Consldera+lons, provlde addl+lonal
fac+s In support of flndlng (3). Any remalnlng unavoidable significant lmpac+s
are accep+able when balanced against +he facts se+ forth above and In +he
S+a+emen+ of Overrldlng Considera+lons.
F. Energy
Developmen+ likely to be proposed under +he Plan would consume energy
for construc+lon, operation, and assocla+ed +ransportatlon. The Proposed Projec+
would comply wlth Title 24 of +he California S+ate Admlnis+ratlve Code, manda+ing
a variety of energy conserva+lon measures (page 4-146 of +he EIR).
Findings
Thls Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as descrlbed above
and as required by +he CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, wl+h respec+ to +he
above lden+ifled significant effec+.
Fac+s In Suppor+ of Flndlng (1)
Development Plans In +he Projec+ Area will be required to Include energy
conserva+lon measures such as:
o Passive solar fea+ures In all bulldlngs, including:
- overhangs over glazed areas
- energy efflclen+ glazing
- natural lighting
- high level of Insulation
o Infll+ratlon con+roi measures.
o Energy efflclen+ outdoor Iigh+lng such as hlgh pressure sodium Iigh+s.
o Trees for na+ural shading and wlndbreak, where possible.
o Tlme clock control or au+oma+ed energy management on major energy-consum-
lng equipment In commercial faclll+les:
-29-
-hea+ pumps for space condl+lonlng
- half swl+ching on Indoor Ilghtlng
- solar cells for con+roi of outdoor lighting
- high-efficiency mechanlcal systems
- solar cells for hot water heating
- cen+ral plan+ for space and wa+er condl+lonlng
- projec+ sponsor support energy analysis of all bulldlng designs
as par+ of proposed projec+
- projec+ sponsor considers all economically a+trac+lve measures
for Inclusion in +he project.
Facts In Support of Flndlng (3)
Al+ernatlves to the Plan are discussed In dep+h in the EIR and are
summarlzed above. The ml+Igation measures required with respec+ to +he Proposed
Project may be Imposed with respec+ +o each of +he al+ernatlves. Never+heless,
these alterna+Ives are rejected as Infeasible for +he reasons set forth below.
Alterna+lve (1) No Projec+
This al+ernatlve Is rejected as socially and economically infeasible.
The "no project" al+ernatlve would no+ achieve the public purpose of clearing and
ellmlnatlng blight from +he Project Area.
The "no projec+" alternative would no+ provide addl+lonal employment oppor-
tunitles. The Cl+y would no+ experience an Increase of accrued +axable revenues.
-30-
An op+lon exis+s for permanen+ open space wl+h +his al+erna+ive. The Projec+
Area Is curren+ly under prlva+e ownership and ~he Projec+ sponsor would have +o
release his op+lon on +he proper+y before any ac+Ion could occur. El+her +he
Ci+y of Sou+h San Francisco, ano+her governmen+al agency or prlva+e coall+lon
would +hen have +o acquire the land +o lmplemen+ +his al+erna+lve.
Al+erna+lve (2) Dele+e Conference Cen+er
This al+erna+lve Is rejecSed as economically lnfeaslble and because IV
is no+ envlronmen+ally superior +o +he proposed "Projec+". There ls no evidence
+ha+ a slgniflcan+ reduc+lon in energy lmpac+s would resul+ from +he elimlna+lon
of +he Conference Cen+er. Also, +his al+erna+Ive would reduce fiscal and employ-
men+ benefl+s of developmen+ In +he Projec+ Area. The Proposed Projec+ would resul+
in 6,187 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of $607,900; whereas +his al+erna+ive
would resul+ In 6,177 employees and a ne+ fiscal balance of $566,700. Conference
Cen+er dele+Ion from +he Proposed Projec+ would decrease proper+y +ax revenues
by $340,000, +hereby decreasing +he +ax lncremen+ +o +he Redevelopmen+ Agency
by abou+ 8.5%. Buslness Ilcense fees would decrease
sllgh+ly ($110).
Al+erna+ive (3) Dele+e Conference Cen+er and Add Ho+el
Thls al+erna+ive ls rejec+ed as being environmen+ally Inferior +o +he
Proposed "Projec+". There is no evidence +ha+ +his al+erna+ive would resul+ In
reduced lmpac+s on energy. Fur+her, +his al+erna+Ive would add 270 employees +o
+he Projec+ Area, would Increase houslng demand by 140 +o 180 unl+s over +he
Proposed Projec+ and would Increase demands for public services.
In addl+lon, +he overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated In +he Statement of Overrldlng Consldera+lons, provlde additional
facts In support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable slgnlflcan+ Impacts
are acceptable when balances against the facts set forth above and In +he State-
ment of Overriding Consldera+ions.
I hereby certify +ha+ +he foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced
and adopted by +he City Councll of +he Clty of South San Franclsco at a
regular meeting held on the lOth day of July , 198 ~ , by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Richard A. Haffey,
Gus Nicolopul0s; and Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Councilmember Emanuele N. Damonte
-32-