HomeMy WebLinkAboutSSF Large Format Retail DEIR Ilr��(/✓/IiA���r rrP�� �� �r���III���1�//�� �% �%'iiiiiiii/��%%%///iio�iii�„
i e WViUI
A �
n�!r�reu�i+ml uumm�,vu�V
�i//G��� � �yit Mw✓lam� i� �� ��i�i�ii�i
III°
i
I
g
i
rµ t
r
• `�� a d r a
• ■ r ,� a t
1 • � "�'��. r Y rub w � y �y Is I
lu:+
�v �7 r r rirr
7
i umuiu ��� 111111, ���p
IIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
' �` � � ����it i uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111
!� � ��''„ � Yt�..III�� uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuul uu y�
4r
.Mwr,r
min
oil
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment
State Clearinghouse # 2013112011
PREPARED FOR:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONTACT:
Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner
Telephone: (650) 877-8535
Email: gerry.beaudin @ssf.net
PREPARED BY:
Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:
Mike Parker, Project Manager
Telephone: (916) 444-7301
mike.parker @ascentenvironmental.com
January 8, 2014
12010067.01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................................Iii
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................S-1
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................S-1
Summary Description of the Proposed Project.......................................................................................S-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................S-2
Summaryof Alternatives..........................................................................................................................S-2
Areasof Controversy................................................................................................................................S-3
Issuesto be Resolved ..............................................................................................................................S-3
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................i-1
1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this DEIR...................................................................................1-1
1.2 Scope of Environmental Analysis...............................................................................................1-2
1.3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities.............................................................................................1-4
1.4 CEQA Public Review Process......................................................................................................1-4
1.5 Organization of this DEIR............................................................................................................1-6
1.6 Standard Terminology.................................................................................................................1-7
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................24
2.1 Project Background.....................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Objectives........................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Proposed Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment.................................................................................................................................2-4
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................3-1
Approach to the Environmental Analysis................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Traffic........................................................................................................................................3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................3.2-1
3.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change................................................................................3.3-1
3.4 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................3.4-1
4 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Considerations for selection of alternatives..............................................................................4-2
4.3 Alternatives Evaluated in this DEIR............................................................................................4-3
4.4 Evaluation of ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................4-4
4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................................4-6
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, GROWTH INDUCEMENT,AND OTHER CEQXREQUIRED
CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................................................54
5.1 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts............................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Other CEQA-Required Considerations........................................................................................5-2
6 LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Lead Agency.................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Preparers of the Environmental Document...............................................................................6-1
tl:w e Cii:i ti,mts Asci,mt II:IInvir mauuv nW
7 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................7-1
Appendices
A Notice of Preparation
B NOP Comments
C Environmental Checklist
D Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
E Traffic Memo
F Seifel Memo
Exhibits
Exhibit2-1 Regional Location........................................................................................................................2-2
Exhibit2-2 Project Area..................................................................................................................................2-3
Exhibit2-3 Affected Parcels...........................................................................................................................2-5
Exhibit 3.2-1 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County..................................................................3.2-3
Exhibit 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
Sector........................................................................................................................................3.3-2
Tables
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................S-4
Table 2-1 Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for
Commercial and R&D Uses South San Francisco.....................................................................2-6
Table 3.1-1 Commercial Trip Rates.............................................................................................................3.1-7
Table 3.2-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants.............................................................3.2-1
Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality(2010-2012)1..........................................3.2-2
Table 3.2-3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................3.2-4
Table 3.2-4 Attainment Status Designations for San Mateo County........................................................3.2-5
Table 3.4-1 General Plan Consistency........................................................................................................3.4-4
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"�d������„�;��,luuuuu��!„�:uw�u�uu��uu�r.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�w+Muwabu�ua^u�N Iw'�wtltl
My I',lid'i 1ligw$tl4 15awp I II aw&tl`.tl+"cii.'iii
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AIA Airport Influence Area
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
CAA Clean Air Act
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
Caltrain commuter train service
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plan
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CMA community market area
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
DEIR Draft environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEIR Final EIR
GHG greenhouse gas
IS Initial Study
JPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board
LOS level of service
Mg/M3 milligrams per cubic meter
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
CRY 11 111!51i:iuth!:San II II antl:.pscii.:'iii
AI:.uremuu,yn is,/Abbe Wal ions Ascilmt II fIlnvir mmvenW
N20 nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
parts per billion ppb
parts per million ppm
Plan Bay Area Bay Area 2040 RTP/SCS
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
ROG reactive organic gases
RTAC Regional Targets Advisory Committee
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
s.f. square feet
SamTraIns San Mateo County Transit District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
S02 sulfur dioxide
superstore large format retail use or store
TACs toxic air contaminants
pg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
VMT vehicle miles traveled
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll:NtAm+Muwabuva^nN Draft
IV My I',lid'i 1ligw$tl4 15aww I II aw&tl`.tl+"cii.'iii
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This summary is provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations [CCR]) Section 15123. As stated in CCR Section 15123(x), "an
environmental impact report(EIR) shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its
consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical." As
required by the CCR, this section includes: (1) a summary description of the proposed project; (2) a synopsis
of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures; (3) identification of the alternatives
evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative; (4) a discussion of the areas of controversy
associated with the project; and (5) issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives.
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Background
An economic impact analysis was prepared for the City of South San Francisco by Seifel Consulting(Seifel
2012)that concludes that the addition of a grocery component within a new large format retail store
(superstore) in the community could translate into a loss of 5 to 9 percent in grocery sales for existing stores
in the city. The report also suggests that a superstore could limit the community's ability to attract future
grocers. In response, City Council adopted an interim ordinance to impose a moratorium to "pause" any new
large format retail uses citywide and grocery uses in the East of 101 Area in order to provide City staff time
to evaluate the City's land use regulations and report back to City Council with any recommended changes.
City staff has reviewed the City's General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance and is recommending text
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify various classifications of stores, including providing a
definition for superstore, and to prohibit superstore uses in all zoning classifications within which a
superstore use may currently be allowed. Staff also recommends prohibiting all grocery store uses within the
East of 101 Area, and additional amendments to clarify definitions of food and beverage sales uses.
Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment are to:
promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well being;
promote economically responsible and fiscally sound land use planning;
promote maintenance of existing commercial uses deemed desirable to the long-term identity of the City;
protect the downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center and focus of commercial activity;
encourage mixed-use development along principle corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce
Avenue.
protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales and diverse
retail uses.
CRY 1 111 151iP:Vuth!San I'II I"nd;&sciiPai S I
VVN4NRV VVW And.lmt 1:,,1171 0V"4mggVN4 NVW
i minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community.
promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood-level retail uses.
reflect the intent of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El Camino Real with "Smart Growth" principles,
which include but are not limited to: maintaining walkable neighborhoods; compact urban form;
opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives; and an effective use of available infrastructure.
Project Overview
The proposed zoning amendments include changes to remove the potential for future grocery store uses
within the East of 101 Area and to prohibit superstore use city-wide. The East of 101 Area includes no
existing or planned residential uses. Because a retail grocery use generally serves residential
neighborhoods, such a use would be inappropriate for this planning sub-area. The project would resolve this
potential planning conflict by eliminating potential grocery uses from the East of 101 Area.
The proposed superstore definition would include retail establishments that serve as a one-stop shopping
destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted price. Superstores
are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales (defined in the proposed Zoning
Ordinance as over 80,000 square feet in sales area with over 5.000 square feet of the gross floor area
dedicated to full service food/beverage/grocery sales).A superstore may also feature various business
centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s).
Proposed alterations to the Zoning Ordinance will also require revised or new definitions for the following
uses: Convenience Market, Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and Superstore. The changes
to these definitions are primarily for purposes of clarification by differentiating these uses from the proposed
to be prohibited superstores. The amendments do not make any substantive changes to the permitted use
in these subcategories, other than prohibiting superstores citywide and grocery uses in the East of 101 Area.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1, at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed
project, the level of significance of the impact before mitigation, recommended mitigation measures, and the
level of significance of the impact after the implementation of the mitigation measures. Implementation of
the project would not result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
This DEIR evaluates two alternatives to the proposed project in Chapter 4, "Alternatives": "The No Project
Alternative" and the "Limited Superstore Zone Alternative." Under the No Project Alternative, no zoning
amendments would be made and the current zoning definitions and categories would remain the same
throughout the city. For purposes of comparison, the No Project Alternative assumes that a supercenter
would be developed.
The Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit superstores, but not
citywide. The alternative would allow a superstore use only in strategic locations within the city in order to
reduce economic impacts to existing grocery and other retail uses. Similar to the No Project Alternative, the
Limited Superstore Zone Alternative also assumes development of a superstore for purposes of comparison.
Development of a superstore under both alternatives would not be consistent with General Plan policies
related to business climate and economic criteria. Also, because the economic analysis indicates a
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
„i;..2 My ii 'i I IigV$tl4!San 1 II wtl`.tlscii.'iii
Ascent I'11710rommW yII.VUN4nalIW
superstore could, along with other factors, contribute to closure of existing grocery stores with the city, based
on the current information available, it is possible that the two alternatives could potentially contribute to
urban-decay-related impacts. The project is also restricting the development options available, while both
alternatives are maintaining the current menu of development options. While any environmental impacts of
the alternatives are likely similar to those of the project, on the whole, the project is considered the
environmentally superior alternative.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
No areas of controversy have been identified with the proposed project. No public comments were received
that raised opposition to the project.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The City will need to determine whether to approve the proposed project or an alternative for
implementation. The decision will be based on factors besides potential environmental impacts, including
consistency with General Plan policies.
Large Il
CRY�Q%W I V1 51l;'Dg0tb`4 i x44`0. 'II ii4ntl;,J4+w1:.i1;'D S 3
U) to
C O C C O C o 0 C C O C u'
co
bAO W 0 W U) O W bAO W
ILI
Q U) (1) C U) (1) C a) C fA a) C 25
O 0 T O 0 T (6 2:1 O T
•(n z E c z E c E c z E c
co co -J _ co co :s
u'~,u
uceu
2
O (1) (1) (1) (1) I,^2o
CCI':2.
Ln U) (n (n 'I�.urv'h
O O O O ;n
bA bA bA bA a',
:-P :' :-p 25
E E E E
O O O O
a) a) a)
c 0 c 0 c 0
o w 0 w ° � w 0 w
LI C
o C _ Co C _ Co _
N fn — a) a) fn — a) (n
p C U (a C C U co C J C C U C
fn z Co (6 z Co (6 b.A (6 z co (6 (D
E E Cn E
U) 0}' N v p a) :
coo E Cz Cz bo � .— O o � aa`�i O -
a c U .y a Q Q c 3 °' a) o +� a a) Cn �a .E Cn c
a) a) co N 0 ° co W E U N Z O O Q) U)i a)
E- o U E a) > Cz U)i .� Cn � o .0 ~ w z o Co C3 O co > - a
C ° E 0 0 C 0 ±� 0 o Cn ai C z a) — }' —
N .o o Co o a Cz o .� � o � p _ E 0')
w
> E c T 0 cn a +� U) +� _ ±� .0 C o co O a) � C f9 C a)
C Co ai C a) cn a) a M co p — C
!t 0 _0 .E o +� U) c O +�—+ U) c6 p a) a) a Co C 0 CO3
cz o w Cz E a) 3 o (D 0-+03 +r Q) 0 a) m U U Co o +, Co Cn
-Q UJ C Co N C3 .0 -6 C a) Q (U6 a) w C a) O +, co .� C C N .E _
O 0 ? O ° ~ a) O '� +� + O Q .� .T C'3 •m a) 6 a) O +, cn U
v +� ° 0 0 a a o Co E N +� W o E a U)
N � } _ +� E +� Co W +� C O C: co N O O 0 O U N O N G}'1 U -0 o N N 0 m W
.o Q a) ° a) C Cz._ o U E .0 0 ++ . U C c
E *' Cz a) v a) a a�i ° a) w C +� o f v o 0 cn 0 0 ° cn co
+� ° O O cn C3 Co C O Q � Q Q > .� +' p d Q
7 a a) o a) C 0 Co +� > o o O Co m -0 a) D a)
c ° o Q o 3 o o a) a0i a a�i o °� `� 0 o COn O 0 a 2 E
*� p 3 o Ca C .� Cz c
Co 0 o oQ ° u0i U ° O
Eaxi om a�i ° $ ° 3 � Qo � � +; E o oc� U)
To m E E E v c ° a C� +' t3 +, ° +� c N cz U) U) :1
+� QQQx0 , c b00 tl a) a) 0 ' c N
a) rl Cn -0 co a) Q a) bA a) +� U lap a) co
ac � mmm �oco � � � �oQ} 3 vo ~ U ° O � s0 � � E -90
a �o a) a) a) 0 +, 0 � - w a) C a) 0 r t: M 0--a � � . � �04 m
t`o w a) +, a) N a) O N �i o N
0 .+, E a C O -0 Co �„� Co E 0 cz trl 0 crj 0 .�
CL C7 E E E a > c c C ca 5 Q m r._ � - - m a) � m N o ?
m o 0 0 o a) a) 0 � � > N a � � ai °� a�i ac a�i c0i � ° � >
M +� m U U U U 3 Q C3 .� ° . a) ri co co -0 C m bA 0 w .c? E a a) 0
co c
U + a)
C3
a)
b 0 + W U) U) U)
U N
O 0 T
E co
cn — co
2
N
Co
bA
O O O O
bA bA bA bA
E E E E
O O O O
z z z z
a)
�_
o co
W
m o bA ° co (n (n (n
d J J J
} T co
a) to o a)
V) O Co (a
z
CX
E
0 0 0 o o c nz
p
O c Co co co N a) } a) rn 0 Q >
O U
(a U) > o +, nz a) a c o
c O � a) � o 30 o ra) - � Q Ica � 1 � .o
> fNly . ac ai c r�
° � co 3 nz E noc c �
Z3 0
�aco i i
—c ai Q U c c-) E u) ?
O O �O W O Q
°� E �> o o o
a) a -0 3 U E � co o c o +, cn cn +� 3 a c .� v ""'n
o c +� E
o ca W vi O o ° C� a a) +� } o m .cn {a�0 o > n5 N E
U)i N O U) a) C3 U '0 a) cn O a) co +� C-) a) +- p .� U)
co c Q a o co +� 3 c o C3 o U)
a) o a) U) a c Q Q U a) _ a) o
c s ° > co o Q c o 0 o co a) a� ° O o p
" c
o -0 U O 1 -2 _ v W w � O O O+03 + E O C .(t—YV l >O o+ E
Q) N O W a O n Q 7 O aa))
—
O
c:
a Z3 CID ° ' ° O Co .} 0 0 O co E Q E Q Q) �c, Q
> 0 Co p n c N co Q -0 a) 0
0 6 p E +O —o- -0
a o E U) c ) U) c Q) a
} U) +-, � 00 � � o ~ � � 0 o
O p o a) a) O N -0
d o a) c- 0 O c co c >O 0 4—
!'^
+R Q N O c a E n
a a CD O O o .N p n U 0 U 0 n — 'O c c c co ED a) co co L 0-
T a) O Q O
co rT Q
O N 2 -p p
Jill ° . -LIP Q U co
O - o o o o
O n"
..H;..
,..
(n p p U a) p
0- (a cs m � � � nz � .� .a) ? a) a � � m � � n � — a) ma � � � .- tea)
0- a a) o 0-z o nz > = o a• a o a) n— c. 0 a) — > c c a U �,
M H ° o .EC3 N QN u) (D E EWE Q� co M NH 0 -06003 7 .x -06 ' '"-
II:.cs'v...
} U ...
4:1 I'r
ILI
r r,n
<.a Q to N
bA Z
co
u'
N co
co
II�,V
IICIW;;;V
2
cc
CD
Ln
_ VCIII9
O O $
bA bA a',
-P .± 25
E E u
O O
U)
o U W
00 E C co
�, 6 d
� .�
3 -0 T CO
N N
C/) O QcoC3
z E
O M Co — X
Q d p O U > > 6
O
0 p
0 O } co 6 O co
N U) c U bA N > N 0 0
X U cn O Q o 'p O N C co O U N co +� O
N +� p T N U) O w Q C3 +� p } N co
c c cn N N E O U Q N
D > > O a� o 3 E co a� 3 E Q U Q o a�
>1 co +� a�
c U 0 = cn
`o E a� co moo � o c m o 3 0 co 3
p > Q O 6 N Q 0 .- .O � Q O T N c 0
N N co T 0 0 0 O � o U N > co U
O co U O > C, c +� U) U N co } O U N co
O � O � c E U O o c } a� c E c O L O p
-0 to C co � '— E C co co a--� 7 co ) U 0 U 0 +J
cn E U
T c�1� +� +) co 0 cn �, a�
N 6 O rl Q O 0 O O c 6 O O
L U �o Q O D - .—cn N N 00 O b0 c
-0 . I co co 0 0 +, w N N c w-0 cn
Q 0 0 T O 0 Q (n i W N C 3 co cn 0 0 c M p
� � - co N O _ c N c a co
d Q 6 N +' i + E d N c � +� U N N U
co -6 cA -6 _6 p LLJ 70 -6 (� (6 -O � N � O N
T� E Q o c o ai- c � a p Q�
U cc O N O
O -0
(D O -Cc,; N d Q
n — � Q � u) E c U o Q co N Q p ~ c�
rl
.� .m co R o co Q.E . o a� 0 LL 0 u0i a�i 0 = 3 o Q o
Q00 � c � a�i �� E EE � 0E �?
oa� +, o � a� a� 0a� � � occo o +,
a� o a�
E c E Q� E E Q� Q ° N 0 co
cn � > N � N c N OO O E x E O O O 6 U U U U N N U W 6 — 6 O +� N U U U }
+� N
1 INTRODUCTION
This draft environmental impact report(DEIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments Project. The City of South San Francisco
proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the potential for future grocery store uses within the
East of 101 Area and to prohibit superstore use city-wide.
This DEIR has been prepared under the City's direction in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000-21177) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
The City is the lead agency for consideration of this EIR and potential project approval; CCR Section 151367
defines the lead agency as the agency with principal responsibility for carrying out and approving a project.
The City meets these criteria, as further explained in Section 1.3.1, "Lead Agency," below.
1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS DEIR
According to CCR Section 15064[f][1]), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a project may result in a
significant environmental impact. An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision
makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to
mitigate or avoid the significant effects, and describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that
could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any
of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented
in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project.
CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental effects of projects over
which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects (PRC Section 21000 et seq.).
CEQA also requires that each public agency avoid or mitigate to less-than-significant levels, wherever
feasible, the significant environmental effects of projects it approves or implements. If a project would result
in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (i.e., significant effects that cannot be feasibly
mitigated to less-than-significant levels), the project can still be approved, but the lead agency's decision-
maker(City Council) must prepare findings and issue a "statement of overriding considerations" explaining
in writing the specific economic, social, or other considerations that they believe, based on substantial
evidence, make those significant effects acceptable (PRC Section 21002; CCR Section 15093).
CEQA permits streamlined environmental review for certain projects that are consistent with a general plan
for which an EIR was certified. (PRC Section 21083.3, CCR Section 15183.) Streamlined environmental
review specifically applies to zoning amendments that limit development, such as the project currently under
consideration, when that zoning limitation is consistent with a general plan for which an EIR was prepared.
(Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, 138 Cal. App. 4th 273 (2006).) South San Francisco prepared a
General Plan in 1999 and certified an EIR for that General Plan on October 13, 1999.
Specifically, for projects that are consistent with the development density contained in the General Plan,
additional environmental review is only required to "examine whether there are project-specific significant
effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." (CCR Section 15183(x).) Where a proposed zoning
amendment is consistent with a general plan, the zoning amendment should be evaluated through this
streamlined process. (CCR Section 15183(i).)A proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the general
plan if the following criteria are satisfied:
(1)the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the
involved parcel in the general plan for which an EIR was certified; and
CRY 1V 151iP:Vd,th!Sanl'IIwd&sciiPai �. :�.
luulf 0duu:hon Ascilmt Il:uuu+uuruuuuv uuW
(2)the project complies with the density-related standards in the general plan.
(CCR Section (i)(2).)
As described in Section 1.1.1, below, the proposed zoning amendment satisfies these criteria and is
consistent with the General Plan. Accordingly, this EIR identifies: (1) project-specific effects that are peculiar
to the project and that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR and (2) any impacts that substantial new
information shows will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIR.
1.1.1 Relationship to the City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR
The proposed project includes amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance to prohibit superstores citywide
and to prohibit grocery uses in the East of 101 Area. Section 2 "Project Description" provides the details
including the specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project does not include
amendments to the City's 1999 General Plan. It should be noted that the 1999 General Plan has been
amended to provide updates for four substantive areas within the city since 1999. These areas include the
East of 101 Planning Area (adopted in 2001); the South San Francisco Bart Station Transit Village Plan
(adopted in 2001); the South El Camino Real area (adopted in 2010); and Chestnut/El Camino Area Plan
(adopted in 2011). This project—the amended Zoning Ordinance--is consistent with the policies and land use
designations identified by the City's General Plan, as amended. General Plan policy consistency is discussed
in detail in this EIR under Section 3.4 "Land Use."
The proposed project does not increase the density allowed for the affected parcels and therefore complies
with all density-related standards in the General Plan.
Thus, the project is considered in the context of the General Plan and the General Plan EIR (certified 1999),
which evaluated long-term buildout of the City of San Francisco. The analysis included in this document
evaluates whether the project would result in new significant impacts that were not evaluated in the General
Plan EIR.
1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuantto CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agencyshall focus an EIR's discussion on significant
environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not
significant(PRC Section 21002.1, CCR Section 15143).A determination of which impacts would be
potentially significant was made for this project based on review of the information presented in the NOP
prepared for the project and comments received as part of the public review process(Appendices A and B,
respectively), as well as preparation of an Initial Study that was not circulated with the NOP but was completed
to help determine the scope of the project's potential significant environmental effects (Appendix C).
The City has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant environmental
impacts on the following resources,which are addressed in detail in this DEIR:
.. Air Quality,
.. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (which were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR),
.. Land Use and Planning, and
.. Traffic.
II uu��„�If':uu'nmuuull Il�ia��u”
uU/'iiuµ�u a^!u�uure,II iuivatl�'tla ll�t"�d�uu��„�;� uuuuuu�!„�:uuu�uuuuuur. tlu;+u�l�uuu�Muuabu�ua^uuN uu��
My iIIf!i I Vuuth 15an II wtl'ltl+,"wW 1IIii
Ascent Il:uu0uruuuuuu uuW nll oduuWon
1.2.1 Methodology
As described above,this EIR evaluates project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project. CEQA
requires that the City analyze effects related to physical change, either directly or indirectly caused by the project.
(CCR Section 15358.)When the project is a zoning text amendment,as is the case here, it is unlikely there will be
any direct physical changes.This is due to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance regulates future development;
therefore,a change in the text of the Zoning Ordinance does not cause development, but rather changes how
development will occur in the future. In the case of this project,the zoning amendment does not regulate whether
development will occur, but restricts one use type from an entire range of development that is currently allowed.
No direct physical changes will occur as a result of the proposed zoning amendment.
Further, CEQA requires analysis of an indirect physical change only"if that change is a reasonably foreseeable
impact which may be caused by the project.A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably
foreseeable." (CCR Section 15064(d)(3).)The proposed zoning amendment would remove one specific type of
development -superstores citywide and grocery uses within the East of 101 Area.All other development
possibilities that are currently available would remain after adoption of the proposed amendment.The
amendment would neither encourage nor discourage development in the city.Accordingly, identifying any site-
specific changes that could result from the project may require speculation and may not be reasonably
foreseeable.
It should also be noted that the City's standard review practices apply to all future development proposals
regardless of adoption of the proposed amendment. This process allows the City to fully analyze the
environmental impacts of each project proposal, to require compliance with adopted City policies that
minimize any environmental impacts, and to impose mitigation measures if necessary.
1.2.2 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Pursuant to CEQA, the discussion of potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those
impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the detail of
discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (PRC Section 21100,
CCR Sections 15126.2[x] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effect on the
environment be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions that
exist within the affected area, as defined in PRC Section 21060.5 (statutory definition of "environment").
Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed
further in the EIR unless the Lead Agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in
the Initial Study(CCR Section 15143).
The Initial Study(Appendix C) determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in no
impacts or less-than-significant environmental impacts, or no new environmental impacts beyond what was
already identified in the General Plan EIR, related to the following resources; therefore, these environmental
issues are not discussed further in this DEIR.
Aesthetics i Hydrology and Water Quality
Agriculture and Forestry Resources i Mineral Resources
Biological Resources i Noise
Cultural Resources i Population and Housing
Geology and Soils i Public Services
Hazards and Hazardous Materials i Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Il..duu�„�Ili:uu'nm°udulf Ili�u'uV/P;l�uuµ� u^au:uu�;If muub°+zll��wud�uu��„��'�:uuuuuu��;uuu��'uuuuuuud. �u,aGl�uuua^uuubu�uuuulllu„u�ll Ilallf'�
CRY 1 111 151i�:Vduth!:San 1'II wd&sciiPai
luulf 0duu:hon Ascilmt Il:uuu+uuruuuuv uuW
1.3 AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This EIR will be used by the City to ensure it has met its requirements under CEQA before deciding whether
to approve the project.
1.3.1 Lead Agency
The City is the lead agency for CEQA compliance. The City Council has the principal responsibility for
approving and carrying out the project and for ensuring that the requirements of CEQA have been met. After
the EIR public review process is complete, the City Council is the party responsible for certifying that the EIR
adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. The City Council has the authority to
approve, approve with modifications, or reject the project.
1.3.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Under CEQA, a responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has responsibility to
carry out or approve a project(PRC Section 21069).A trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction
by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (PRC Section
21070). The proposed zoning amendment applies only to the City's Zoning Ordinance and would not require
approval or permit issuance from other agencies orjurisdictions; therefore, there are no responsible or
trustee agencies associated with the project.
1.4 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation
In accordance with PRC Section 21092 and CCR Section 15082, the City issued an NOP on November 6,
2013 to inform agencies and the general public that an EIR was being prepared and to invite comments on
the scope and content of the document(Appendix A). The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse;
posted on the City's website (http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=367); and made available at the City's
office located at 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. In addition, the NOP was distributed directly to
public agencies (including potential responsible and trustee agencies), interested parties, and organizations.
The NOP was circulated for 30 days, through December 6, 2013.
Scoping Meeting
In accordance with PRC Section 21083.9 and CCR Section 15082 (c), a noticed scoping meeting for the EIR
occurred on December 5, 2013 at the City of South San Francisco City Hall (annex). No members of the public
or representatives of public agencies attended at the public scoping meeting, and no public comments were,
therefore, received at the meeting.
Public NOP Comments
Two written public comments were received during the public NOP comment period. (The comment letters are
included as Appendix B of this DEIR.)The first comment letter was received on November 14, 2013 by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans letter identifies recommendations for a traffic
impact study. It is noted that the Caltrans letter appeared to be directed toward consideration of standard
development projects, rather than issues requiring consideration under an amended Zoning Ordinance.The
I a rge If'��:uu'muuull Il�i�a�u"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl&ll�t"ideuage tliuuuuuug�:urduuuauur.i�tl�u;+utAuuueuuabuva^uuN Draft
tl. My IIf!i i Vuuth 15an II wtl'ltl+,"wc1IIii
Ascent Il:ln0rrdmd ddW nllmoddur:,fion
second letter was received on December 6, 2013 by the City/County Association of Governments(C/CAG) of
San Mateo. The C/CAG letter relates primarily to airport land use compatibility. The letter concludes that the
proposed action does not affect the airport land use compatibility criteria for future commercial/retail land uses
within Area B of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for SFO and that the project does not require formal
review or action by the Airport Land Use Commission or C/CAG.
1.4.2 Public Review of This DEIR
This DEIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days, from January 8 to
February 24, 2014.
A public hearing will be held on the DEIR on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at the City's Municipal Services
Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco at 7:00 p.m. to receive input from
agencies and the public on the DEIR.
During the public comment period, written comments from the general public as well as organizations and
agencies on the DEIR's accuracy and completeness may be submitted to the lead agency. Because of time
limits mandated by State law, comments should be provided no later than 5:30 p.m. on February 24, 2014.
Please send all comments to
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Gerry Beaudin, Project Manager
Telephone: (650) 877-8535 Fax: (650) 829-6639
Email: gerry.beaudin @ssf.net
Agencies that will need to use the EIR when considering permits or other approvals for the proposed project
should provide the name of a contact person, phone number, and email address. Comments provided by
email should include the name and physical address of the commenter.
Copies of this DEIR are available for public review at the following South San Francisco locations:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
South San Francisco Main Library
840 West Orange Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080-3125
Grand Avenue Branch Library
306 Walnut Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
City Clerk's Office
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
The DEIR is also available for public review online at: http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=367
CRY 1V 151iP:Vd,th!San1'IIwd&sciiPai �...,
luulf 0duu:hon Ascilmt Il:uuu+uuruuuuv uuW
1.4.3 Final EIR
Upon completion of the public review and comment period, a Final EIR (FEIR) will be prepared that will
include both written and oral comments on the DEIR received during the public review period, responses to
those comments, and any revisions to the DEIR. The DEIR and the FEIR will comprise the EIR forth e project.
Before considering approval of the project, the lead agency(the City Council) is required to certify that the
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered
the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DEIR
This DEIR is organized into chapters as identified and briefly described below. Chapters are further divided
into sections (e.g., Chapter 3, "Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures," and Section 3.2,
"Air Quality"):
Summary, This chapter introduces the project, including potential permits and approvals required; and lists
significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-
significant level. A summary of alternatives to the proposed project are presented and the environmentally
superior alternative is identified. Finally, areas of controversy as well as issues to be resolved are described.
Chapter 1, Introduction:This chapter describes the purpose and intended uses of the DEIR, the scope of the
environmental analysis (including the effects found not to be significant), the lead and responsible agencies,
the public review process, and organization of the EIR.
Chapter 2, Project Description: This chapter begins by describing the project location, background, and
purpose and objectives. The project is described in detail.
Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts,and Mitigation Measures:The resource sections within this
chapter evaluate the expected environmental impacts generated by the project. Within each subsection of
Chapter 3, the environmental setting, regulatory setting, previous environmental analysis(if applicable),
methods and assumptions, thresholds of significance, and issues or potential impacts not discussed further
are described. The anticipated changes to the existing environmental conditions associated with the
proposed project are then evaluated for each resource. For any significant or potentially significant impact
that would result from project implementation, mitigation measures are presented along with the remaining
level of significance. Environmental impacts are numbered sequentially throughout the sections of Chapter 3
(e.g. Impact 3.2-1, Impact 3.2-2, etc.). Any required mitigation measures are numbered to correspond to the
impact numbering; therefore, the mitigation measure for Impact 3.2-1 would be Mitigation Measure 3.2-1.
Chapter 4,Alternatives:This chapter provides a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project, including
the No Project Alternative and the environmentally superior alternative. Evaluation of alternatives is provided
in sufficient detail to allow comparison with the proposed project.
Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts: This chapter provides information regarding the potential cumulative
impacts that would result from implementation of the project together with other past, present, and probable
future projects.
Chapter 6, Other CEQATopics: This chapter provides a discussion of potential direct and indirect growth
inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant and irreversible environmental
changes.
II uu��„�If':uu'nmuuull Il�ia��u”
uU/'iiuµ�u a^!u�uure,II iuivatl�'tla ll�t"�d�uu��„�;� uuuuuu�!„�:uuu�uuuuuur. tlu;+u�l�uuu�Muuabu�ua^uuN uu��
1 tl'3 My Ilif'i i Vuuth 15an 11 wtl'ltl+,"wc1IIii
Ascent Il:ln0rrdmd ddW nllmoddur:,fion
Chapter 7, List of Preparers: This chapter identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this
DEIR.
Chapter 8, References: This chapter identifies the organizations and persons consulted during preparation
of this DEIR and the documents used as sources for the analysis.
1.6 STANDARD TERMINOLOGY
This DEIR uses a variety of terms to describe the level of significance of adverse impacts identified during
the course of the environmental analysis. These terms are defined below.
A "less-than-significant impact" is an impact that is adverse but that does not exceed the defined
standards of significance. Less-than-significant impacts do not require mitigation.
A "significant impact" is an impact that exceeds the defined standards of significance and would or
could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Mitigation measures are recommended to
eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less-than-significant level. A "potentially significant impact" is an
impact for which information may not be definitive, but where it is likely or reasonably foreseeable that a
significant impact may result. A potentially significant impact is equivalent to a significant impact and
requires the identification of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.
A "significant and unavoidable impact" is an impact that exceeds the defined standards of significance
and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of
mitigation measures.
1luulf xOd uchon Ascilmt 11::nviromvenW
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 1 rn iia 11 1161 a fl/!S 11 u pmst,III re/111&lieve vage,IIIin ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend III Ient 11)raft 1:1111
8 My IIf!S1IIuth!San 11:randsciIIi
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
In September 2012, City Council directed staff to evaluate and analyze the potential economic impact(s)that
a superstore (large format retail use), which includes a full-service grocery component, might have on South
San Francisco's current and future grocery market. That work, which included an economic impact analysis
prepared by Seifel Consulting(Seifel 2012)was completed and the results were presented to City Council on
November 14, 2012. The economic impact analysis concludes that the addition of a grocery component
within a new large format retail store (superstore) in the community could translate into a loss of 5 to 9
percent in grocery sales for existing stores in South San Francisco. In addition to the impact on existing
grocery uses, the report also suggests that a superstore with a grocery component could also limit the
community's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future.
On December 12, 2012, City Council adopted an interim ordinance to impose a moratorium to "pause" any
new large format retail uses (which by definition include superstores) city-wide, as well as grocery uses in the
East of 101 Area. The purpose for the interim moratorium was to provide City staff time to comprehensively
evaluate the City's land use regulations and report back to City Council with any recommended changes. On
January 23, 2013 a further interim ordinance was adopted to extend the moratorium for an additional
sixteen months.
City staff has reviewed the City's General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance and is recommending text
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify various classifications of stores, including providing a
definition for "superstore," and to prohibit superstore uses in all zoning classifications within which a
superstore use may currently be allowed. Staff also recommends prohibiting all grocery store uses within the
East of 101 Area. Exhibit 2-1 shows the location of the City of South San Francisco within the region. Exhibit
2-2 shows the city limit and the East of 101 Area. The proposed project is described in detail below.
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment are to:
promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well being;
promote economically responsible and fiscally sound land use planning;
promote maintenance of existing commercial uses deemed desirable to the long-term identity of the City;
protect the downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center and focus of commercial activity;
encourage mixed-use development along principle corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce
Avenue.
protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales and diverse
retail uses.
CRY 1V1,;i;1iI:Vuth ian 'IIzntl;&psW;aP,:V °�...�.
Project Location o0rovllle 49
Ail
Nevada
City '
Yuba City Marysville B7 r
49
South San
Framcusca }l �°
Glearlake
19 Auburn
16
99 Roseville
!"'wo � "olsom 50
cadl'and
Callstoga SACRAMENTO 49
1 Davi,,
Santa(Rosa
.ta son
lone
CY
VaCaS,+Ile
1 01 Napa Fairfield Galt 68
160 °9 12
Novato i 37 Lo i
£Gnt
San r
afael STOCKT N—
(n
Berkeley
Project. Location SAN FFtANICmS �} Qdkland
Daiy city Modesto
Livermore
92 �Haywa
Sari ateo Turlock
Sunnyvale SAN I JOSE 99
r« Merced
PACIF/C OCEAN
Los
Banos
Gilroy 152
aanta Cruz
Wat prrvilie Hollister
Marine Salinas
Monterey
Big Sur Cim � 25
Approximate Scale
in Miles
CF1201,0067 01 001
�I'
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location
�I
E
0
0 (a 0
0
LL
CL
2
1-1 0 cc
U) 0 (D
C3 O
4a
U) LLJ
4 COD
01
g"
... ...................
o me
a
0
co� Ul
�P o ,Iuqm u
W"*rKK
v
'05,
In
NN,
&MV"'
0%1
Ull
0
U/
V)
'
rj
ic
4a
P W
111 fl t 1D s+:.u'tlpWn Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community.
promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood-level retail uses.
reflect the intent of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El Camino Real with "Smart Growth" principles,
which include but are not limited to: maintaining walkable neighborhoods; compact urban form;
opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives; and an effective use of available infrastructure.
2.3 PROPOSED LARGE FORMAT RETAIL/SUPERSTORE/FOOD & BEVERAGE
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
2.3.1 Project Overview
The proposed Zoning Amendments include changes to remove the potential for future grocery store uses
within the East of 101 Area and to prohibit superstore use city-wide.
The East 101 Area (See Exhibit 2-2) includes no existing or planned residential uses. Because a retail
grocery use generally serves residential neighborhoods, such a use would be inappropriate for this planning
sub-area. The proposed Zoning Amendment would resolve this potential planning conflict by eliminating
potential grocery uses from the East of 101 Area.
The proposed "superstore" definition would include retail establishments that serve as a one-stop shopping
destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted price. Superstores
are distinguished from other retail uses by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales (defined in the
proposed zoning code as over 80,000 square feet in sales area with over 5 percent of the gross floor area
dedicated to full service food/beverage/grocery sales). A superstore may also feature various business
centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s).
Proposed alterations to the Zoning Ordinance will also require revised or new definitions for the following
uses: Convenience Market, Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and Superstore. The changes
to these definitions are primarily for the purpose of clarification, to differentiate these uses from the
superstore use proposed to be prohibited. The proposed zoning amendment does not make any substantive
changes to the permitted uses in these subcategories, other than prohibiting superstores citywide and
grocery uses in the East of 101 Area.
The proposed zoning amendments are intended to implement existing General Plan policies and principles
to promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well being, and maintain the downtown as
the City's physical and symbolic center as a focus of commercial activity. The project is intended to also
encourage mixed-use development along principle corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce
Avenue and to protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales
and diverse retail uses. Furthermore, the proposed zoning text amendments seek to minimize negative
impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community promote stable neighborhoods
by protecting neighborhood-level retail uses. The proposed zoning text amendments also reflect the intent of
the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El Camino Real with "Smart Growth" principles, which include but are not
limited to: maintaining walkable neighborhoods; compact urban form; opportunities for
transportation/transit alternatives; and an effective use of available infrastructure.
Although the text amendment applies citywide, only specific commercial zoned properties would be affected.
Properties affected by the proposed zoning amendments are shown in Exhibit 2-3.
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��l',uu��,Il lul',uatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„uy��l�u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
m
IH
J
CN
8 l; ICI
ch
0 1f
c
.% y
cc
a
40
> a
r�
/ // �l
cn
1A 1,'l )N l 11
„dM M s /„
/
�.,
a
a a � mww o wmmm muuuuuuuum�mmmmmm m /n t
iL
Qkff t VU i
vtP IG t
OD
rws s�rr��g IMi � i�� " �'.'4
rih "/
dj
�kl
Sol
IV
w ri w � rP
fA
n
���Prrkarr,4, a / 0O'�//
110
dh
4/009
I �
��d f '4 d Y
" ii//
x '2 N
E 2 Q)
0 fC6 E Q
0
r
C: c
._ � us y,
cu SKI Ln ry N
E G k 4 W
5 III
G QED m L1I ll
/i// N
v ,r I
111 fl t 1D s+:.u'tlpWn p wci,mt II:Invirr miu enW
2.3.2 Allowed Uses
Table 2-1 below outlines the various use classifications that are permitted and conditionally permitted within
each of the affected zoning categories. Table 2-1 also identifies which use classifications would be affected
by the proposed zoning amendment.
Community Commercial El Camino Real Business Freeway
Use Classification (CC) Mixed Use Commercial Commercial Proposed Amendments
(ECRMX) (BC) (FQ
Adult Oriented Businesses C(4)
Animal Care,Sales and Services See sub-classifications
below.
Pet Stores P P P P
Kennels MUP
Veterinary P P MUP
Pet Day Care MUP
Artists'Studios P P
Auto mobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications
below.
Auto/Vehicle Rental MUP MUP(1)
Auto/Vehicle Sales and Leasing MUP C C
Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair, C
Major
Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair, MUP
Minor
Auto/Vehicle Washing MUP C(1)
Service Station C C(1) C
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications
below.
Banks and Credit Unions P P P
Check Cashing Businesses MUP MUP MUP
Building Materials Sales and Services P
Business Services P P P
Commercial Entertainment and See sub-classifications
Recreation below.
Amusement Arcade C C MUP(6)
Indoor Entertainment C C C C
Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C
Outdoor Entertainment C C C
Outdoor Sports and Recreation C C C
I a rge If'�I;uueu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!ut�IUU��,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"iderage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„r;„,rrtAm+Muuabuma^nN Draft
2 y I',lid! I liq t 4 15an Irantl`.pscii.',li
Community Commercial El Camino Real Business Freeway
Use Classification (CC) Mixed Use Commercial Commercial Proposed Amendments
(ECRMX) (BC) (FQ
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications
below.
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C C C
Coffee Shops/Cafes P P P C
Hookah Bar/Smoking Lounge C C
Restaurants,Full Service P P P P
Restaurants,Limited Service P P P C
Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub-classifications Sub-classifies food and beverage
below. retail sales categories
Convenience Market P P P Adds new classification and
modifies description
Adds new classification and new
GroceryStore P P P(1) C(1) description and prohibits use in
East of 101 Area
Adds new classification and new
Supermarket P P P(1) C(1) description and prohibits use in
East of 101 Area
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries C C
Live-Work Units P P
Lodging See sub-classifications
below.
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP
Hotels and Motels C C C P
Maintenance and Repair Services P P P
Nurseries and Garden Centers MUP MUP
Offices See sub-classifications
below.
Business and Professional P(9) P P C
Medical and Dental P(9) P P
Walk-In Clientele P(9) P
Parking,Public or Private P P MUP P(8)
Personal Services See sub-classifications
below.
General Personal Services P P P P
Massage Establishments C C C
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P C
Retail Sales See sub-classifications Modifies classifications and adds
below. new categories
General Sales P P P P
L.ddrge 11I iI:�I�u'niallf� ll�E% vage 6l;unA ng�)rd'unaiindel ii::Nd AuA endhvent,llllmill II::IIIf11
11rrtl+fl t 1D ru+:.u'tlpWn p wci,mt Il:ln0rrruuvcruU
Community Commercial El Camino Real Business Freeway
Use Classification (CC) Mixed Use Commercial Commercial Proposed Amendments
(ECRMX) (BC) (FQ
Large Format Retail C C P P Modifies description
Off-Price Merchandise C C
Second Hand Store C C C
Swap Meet C
Superstore Adds new definition and prohibits
use citywide
Research and Development(R&D)* P P
Clean Technology P
The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
P permitted uses.
MUP Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner.
C Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
Uses that are not permitted.
(#):Numbers in parentheses referto specific limitations listed below:
(1) Prohibited east of 101.
(4) Limited to locations east of South Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway.
(6) Only within hotels and motels.
(8) Restricted to:(a)areas located underneath major utility lines or under elevated freeways;or(b)consistentwith General Plan Policy 3.2-1-5,airport-oriented parking
facilities on Produce Avenue thatwere legally approved priorto 1999.
(9) Hours of operation 7am to 7pm weekdays only exceptwithin 400 feet of a BART station.
*Additional employment related uses are allowed in the Zoning Ordinance,and no modifications are proposed to R&D and other employment related categories.
Note:A broad range of residential uses are also allowed in ECRMX.
Source:City of South San Francisco,Zoning Ordinance Table 20.090.002 and Table 20.110.002,and Seifel Consulting.
2.3.3 Text Amendments
The proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are provided below. Note that only the sections of
affected text are provided. The full Zoning Ordinance with proposed text amendments is available on the
City's website at the following URL: http://ca-southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=367
(Additions are identified in underline and deletions in .)
1. Revise `Food and Beverage Sales"definitions(SSFMC Chapter 20.620.004 - Commercial Use
Classifications)to differentiate between `Convenience Market," `Grocery Store,"and "Supermarket"The
main differentiator is the size of the establishment.
Food and Beverage Sales. Retail sales of food and beverages for off-site preparation and
consumption. Typical uses include food markets, convenience markets, groceries, liquor stores, and retail
bakeries.
Convenience Market Retail establishments that sell a limited line of groceries, prepackaged food
items, tobacco, magazines, and other household goods, primarily for off-premises consumption and typically
f,,,,r,, ;r os+ahrShmor+S with long or late hours of operation and in a relatively sFA building that is less
than 5.000 gross square feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as
�ur��„ If'I;uumurull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u r^!utIUU�,Il luluatl 113erde ragebluuuuurg Ord uuraurr.Iatll„r;„,rrt Amend un ua^urN lraft
8 Uy I'lid! 1Iiuth i an I IIirntl`.tlscii.',li
Ascent Ikons+irrmAAAAA aAW 1n*ct1D as+A'npWn
or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include del 26,teSseRS orspecialty food shops.
it exGludes establishMeRtS WhiGh have a sizeable aSSE)FtFAeRt Of fFeSh 464S a Rd Vegetables E)FfFesh
GroceXStore. Retail establishments that primarily sell food, but also may sell other convenience
and household goods, and could include a delicatessen or specialty food shop, baked goods,frozen foods,
fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and prepared food, and which occupy at least 5,000 square feet
dedicated to sales, but not more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Supermarket Retail establishments that primarily sell food, but also may sell other convenience and
household goods, and could include a delicatessen or specialty food shop, baked goods, frozen foods,fruits,
vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and prepared food, and which occupy more than 25,000 square feet of
gross floor area, but not more than 80,000 square feet of gross floor area.
2. Revise `Retail Sales"definitions(SSFMC Chapter 20.620.004 - Commercial Use Classifications)to
differentiate between `General Sales," `Large Format Retail,"and `Superstore."Create a new definition for
"Superstore."
Retail Sales.
GeneraiSaies The retail sale or rental of merchandise not specifically listed under another use
classification. This classification includes retail establishments with 80,000 square feet or less of sales
area; including department stores, clothing stores, furniture stores, pet supply stores, small hardware stores
(with 10,000 square feet or less of floor area), and businesses retailing the following goods: toys, hobby
materials, handcrafted items,jewelry, cameras, photographic supplies and services (including portraiture
and retail photo processing), medical supplies and equipment, pharmacies, electronic equipment, records,
sporting goods, kitchen utensils, hardware, appliances, antiques, art galleries, art supplies and services,
paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, office supplies, bicycles, video rental, and new automotive
parts and accessories(excluding vehicle service and installation). Retail sales may be combined with other
services such as office machine, computer, electronics, and similar small-item repairs.
Firearm Sales.An establishment engaged in the selling, dealing in,trading, or transferring firearms.
Large Format Retail. Retail establishments over 80,000 square feet in size of sales area that sell
merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including, but not limited to
department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses which
emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and other big box format stores.
Large Format Retail uses may include a limited (5,000 square feet or less) grocery store sales
component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores, as defined by this section.
Superstore. Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area)that serve as a one-stop
shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted price. They
are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically feature a full-
service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 5,000 square feet of the gross floor area, and
could include a delicatessen, baked goods, frozen foods,fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and
prepared food. A superstore may also feature various business centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision
center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s).
3. Prohibit new `Superstore" uses in the City by adding a new chapter prohibiting the opening,
establishment, and/or operation of new superstore uses in the City(SSFMC 20.430 - Prohibition on New
Superstores).This amendment will also require the addition of this chapter title in the Zoning Ordinance
Chapter Index.
Chapter 20.430
11 are 11 ii:�irn ialf� li ads cage 6:�inA ng Ord'inannci, �,:Ni d Amen lll�mfl Il:allf1'1
111 fl t 1D s+:.u'tlpWn Asci,mt Il:ln0rrmmmW
PROHIBITION ON NEW SUPERSTORES
Sections:
20.420.001 Purpose and Intent
20.420.002 Definitions
20.420.003 Superstores Prohibited
20.420.004 Violation and Enforcement
20.420.001 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or operation
of new superstore uses in the City. (Ord. . 2013)
20.420.002 Definitions
The words and phrases included in this section shall have the following meanings, unless it is clearly
apparent from the context that another meaning is intended:
"Superstore" means retail establishments (over 80.000 square feet of sales area)that serve as one-
stop shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted
price. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically feature
a full-service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 5.000 square feet of the gross floor area, and
could include a delicatessen, baked goods,frozen foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and
prepared food. A superstore may also feature various business centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision
center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s). (Ord. . 2013)
20.420.003 Superstores Prohibited
A. Superstores are not a permitted use and are prohibited in all zones throughout the City. No
permit or any other applicable license or entitlement for use, nor any business license, shall be approved or
issued for the establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore within the City.
B. The establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore within the City is declared to be
a public nuisance and may be abated by the City either pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code
or any other available legal remedies, including, but not limited to, declaratory relief and civil injunctions.
(Ord. � . 2013)
20.420.004 Violation and Enforcement
The establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore in violation of, or in noncompliance
with, any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable provisions of the Zoning Code or South San
Francisco Municipal Code, shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the
South San Francisco Municipal Code. In addition, the City may enforce the violation of this chapter by means
of civil enforcement through a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other
means authorized by the law. (Ord. _q , 2013)
4. Update the applicable use tables throughout the Zoning Ordinance as identified below:
a. Table 20.090.002 - Land Use Regulations-Commercial, Office, and Mixed Use Districts: Add
subclassifications below "Food and Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarify where in the City each of these
uses are permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted.
I arge If'��:uu'mu ull Il�i�a�u"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"iderage tliuuuung�:urdunanr.i�tlu;+��1�u�u�Muuabu�ua^u�N uu��
C'Ry iP,Vf! i Vut 4!San II IIantl'ltl+,"cii,ai
Ascent IE nviromvenW I1n*cI1D as+A'npWn
Use Classification CC BPO CMX I ECRMX Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses(cont'd)
Food and Beverage Retail See sub-classifications below
Sales ° P(q) P P
Convenience Market P P(9) P P See Section 20.350.014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P EL91 P P
Supermarket P EL91 P P
Limitations:
9. Hours of operation 7 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station
b. Table 20.090.002 - Land Use Regulations-Commercial, Office, and Mixed Use Districts: Update the
section reference for the additional regulations that pertain to "Large Format Retail"
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses(cont'd)
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P - P P
See Section
Large Format Retail C - - C 20.350.02-2024
Large Format Retail
Off-Price Merchandise C - - C
Second Hand Store C - C C
c. Table 20.100.002 - Land Use Regulations-Downtown Districts: Add subclassifications below "Food and
Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted, conditionally
permitted or not permitted.
Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses(cont'd)
Food and Beverage Retail See sub-classifications below
Sales ° P
See Section
Convenience Market C C - - - 20.350.813014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P - - -
Suaermarket P P - - -
11 are 11 ii:�irn ialf� li ads cage 6:�uAAft Ord'uuAa nci �sx�Amen 111:1111'1
CRY 11�111!51i�iuth San 11:izndscii�ii
111 fl t 1D s+:.u'tlpWan Asci,mt Il:ln0rrmmmW
d. Table 20.110.002 - Land Use Regulations-Employment Districts: Add subclassifications below "Food and
Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted, conditionally
permitted or not permitted.
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses(cont'd)
Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
P ,P G S
nni
Convenience Market P P _ P See Section 20.350.94:3014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store RUD -
Supermarket RUD - CUU -
Limitations:
1. Prohibited east of 101
e. Table 20.110.002 - Land Use Regulations-Employment Districts: Update the section reference for the
additional regulations that pertain to "Large Format Retail"
Use Classification BC I BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses(cont'd)
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P P
Firearm Sales - - - C
Large Format Retail P - p _ See Section 20.350.9024
Large Format Retail
Second Hand Store C - - -
Swap Meet C - - C
f. Table 20.250.003 - Land Use Regulations-Transit Village Sub-Districts: Add subclassifications below
"Food and Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted,
conditionally permitted or not permitted. Clarifying the areas where "Grocery Store" and "Supermarket" uses
are permitted, conditionally permitted, or not permitted.
Uses Permitted I TV-C TC-R r TV-RM TV-RH
Commercial Use
Classifications
Food and Beverage Retail See sub-classifications below
Sales P P
Convenience Market P C _ _ See Section 20.350.93014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P - -
Supermarket P P - -
I arge If1 iii:�uu'n call Il�i�a�u"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl&llit"werage liuunungOrdunanr.ia tlNtAmeuuabuva^nN Draft
2 12 C'V'tl'yiiliif!Sii ni nth!'Vian 11Ili;nntl'lp+,"wciiaai
Ascent IE nviromvenW I1n*cI1D as+A'npWn
g. Table 20.270.003 - Land Use Regulations-El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-Districts: Add subclassifications
below "Food and Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted,
conditionally permitted or not permitted. Clarifying the areas where "Grocery Store" and "Supermarket" uses
are permitted, conditionally permitted, or not permitted.
Uses Permitted ECR/C-MXH ECR/C-MXM ECR/C-RH
Commercial Use
Classifications
See sub-classifications
Food and Beverage Retail Sales
_P _ -
Convenience Market P P _ See Section 20.350.83014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P -
Supermarket P P -
11 are 111 ii:�irn ialf� li ads cage ti:�uAAft Ord'uuAa nci, �,:Ni d Amen lllmfl Il:allf1'1
CRY 1 111 151iP:Va,th!San I'11 llidA&tl:&sciip:V �.;:�
11r*c,t 1D escrtlptlion Asci,mt InU
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii:ii rn iia 11 1161 a H/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve ragebi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in wnt 11)raft 1:1111
2 14 CRy i�iC51i iath!5an 11:randsciiai
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter is organized by environmental resource category; each resource category is organized to
provide an integrated discussion of the existing environmental conditions (including regulatory and
environmental settings), potential environmental effects (including direct and indirect impacts), and
measures to reduce significant effects, where feasible, of the proposed project.
Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Chapters 5, "Cumulative Impacts, Growth
Inducement, and Other CEQA-Required Considerations".
It should be noted that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of two primary
components: text revisions to prohibit superstores citywide, and text revisions to prohibit grocery uses within
the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Area is dominated by commercial and industrial uses. Grocery uses
are generally supported by and located within residential areas. Development of a stand-alone grocery use
is not foreseeable in this area. The proposed prohibition of grocery uses in the East of 101 Area is essentially
a "clean-up" amendment to prohibit a use that is inappropriate for a commercial/industrial area of the city
and is already considered unlikely to occur. Because a grocery use is already considered unlikely to occur in
this area, prohibiting grocery use in the East of 101 Area would most likely result in no physical change to
the environment and there would be no unique environmental impacts. For these reasons,this EIR's
environmental analysis focuses primarily on the potential adverse physical impacts that could result from
prohibiting superstores citywide.
APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this chapter identifies and focuses on the
significant and potentially significant direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed Zoning
Amendments Project. As explained in Section 1.1, "Purpose and Intended Uses of this DEIR," the analysis
focuses on those environmental resource topics that were determined to be potentially significant during
project scoping(see Section 1.2, "Scope of Environmental Analysis," for further details). Also, please refer to
Section 1.1 for additional a discussion of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlined
environmental review for projects that are consistent with a general plan for which an EIR was certified.
This chapter is organized by the following resource topics:
Section 3.1, "Traffic";
Section 3.2, "Air Quality";
Section 3.3, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions"; and
Section 3.4, "Land Use and Planning".
Sections 3.1 through 3.4 follow the same general format:
Environmental Setting presents the existing environmental conditions within the project area and
surrounding area as appropriate, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations
[CCR] Section 15125. This setting generally serves as the baseline against which environmental impacts are
evaluated. The extent of the environmental setting area evaluated (the project study area) differs among
resources, depending on the locations where impacts would be expected. For example, air quality impacts
are assessed for the air basin (macroscale) as well as the site vicinity(microscale), whereas traffic impacts
are assessed for the project site vicinity only.
Regulatory Setting presents the laws, regulations, plans, and policies that are relevant to each issue area.
Regulations originating from the federal, state, and local levels are each discussed as appropriate.
CRY 1 V 151iP:Vd,th!San l'II I"nd&sciiPai :..:�.
I:Invirrmnm n W Ana yms Ascilmt II:IInvirmmn nW
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures describes the key methods and assumptions used to frame
and conduct the impact analysis. The thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance
of the environmental impacts for each resource topic are identified, in accordance with CCR Sections
15126, 15126.2, and 15143. The thresholds of significance used in this DEIR are based on the checklist
presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; best available data; and regulatory standards of
federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally, potential impacts not discussed further(such issues for
which the project would have no impact) are described.
Project impacts are organized numerically in each subsection (e.g., Impact 3.2-1, Impact 3.2-2, Impact 3.2-
3, etc.). A bold-font impact statement, a summary of each impact, and its level of significance precedes the
discussion of each impact. The discussion that follows the impact summary includes the substantial
evidence supporting the impact significance conclusion.
The DEIR must describe any feasible measures that could avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate
for significant adverse impacts, and the measures are to be fully enforceable through incorporation into the
project(Public Resources Code Section [PRC] 21081.6[b]). Mitigation measures are not required for effects
that are found to be less than significant.
I arge If1 iii ilirn call II�I,a,q"
nU/'�Iluµ�u a^!uy�luu'�,Il luluatl&llit"wevagellunnung Ordunanr.Iatll NyAm+Munabuva^nN Draft 1:111
.."° y I',i 1lign$tln 15ann Iran&tl`.tlscii.'iii
Ascent I::lnd+°nmrddduvddddW �.uzffir ndtl�uzn apcirllafion
3.1 TRAFFIC
This section evaluates potential impacts associated with traffic and transportation. This section describes
the existing transportation system and roadway operation,followed by a description of the regulatory
context, a summary of the General Plan EIR traffic analysis, and evaluation of potential traffic impacts
associated with the proposed project. The information in this section and the traffic analysis is based
primarily on a December 2013 memorandum prepared specifically for the proposed project by Crane
Transportation, Inc.
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Transportation System
The transportation system serving South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system, transit and
public transportation, and alternative modes including informal carpools,formal vanpools, employer-
sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by two major north-south freeways
- US 101 and 1-280 - and is also close to 1-380 running east-west. A system of surface streets collects and
distributes traffic to and from the freeways and between the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of
the city.
Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north and San
Jose Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service is provided to South San Francisco by the Bay Area
Rapid Transit(BART) extension, which continues southerly to Millbrae and the San Francisco International
Airport and northerly into San Francisco and then under San Francisco Bay to the East Bay. Local bus service
is currently provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. The transit needs of the East of 101
Area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours
only. Ferry service from the Oyster Point Marina connects South San Francisco to the East Bay.
At present,there are intermittent bicycle trails and routes in South San Francisco. Facilities include the Bay Trail,
a linear park on the BART extension right-of-way, and striped bicycle lanes along several arterial roadways.
Roadway System Operation
The operations of roadways are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative
description ranging from Level A, or free flow operations with little or no delay, to Level F, or oversaturated
conditions with excessive delays. LOS E represents conditions at capacity. The 1995 Congestion
Management Program for San Mateo County reports 1-280 operating at LOS F and US 101 operating at LOS
D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak commute hours. The Countywide Transportation Plan
2010 projections show LOS F on US 101 and LOS E on 1-280.
Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand
Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors and on Westborough Boulevard near the 1-280
interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the
intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue/US 101 interchange.
In general, the City's transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most travel is
conveyed by automobile, and the roadway system within the City has capacity to accommodate additional
growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that provide access to the city, US 101 and 1-280,
are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. Therefore, other modes of transportation
will be needed to accommodate regional travel.
L.ddrge 11I ii:�irn ialf� 11 lim vage ti:�uudft Ord'udda nci:��:Mt Amen ddad ent 111mfl II:IIIf11
CRY 1 11 151iP:Vd,th!:San 1'111"nd&sciiPai
tl.uaffic aurou: ranroapcirf[afion Asci,mt 11:unvirmmvenW
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation are relevant to the proposed project.
State
Caltrans has jurisdiction over the freeways, freeway ramps, and State routes (such as El Camino Real).
Local
The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic signals. The
transit service providers have jurisdiction over their services. These include BART, San Mateo County Transit
District(SamTrans)fixed-route bus service and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board (JPB) commuter
train service (Caltrain).
There are several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs
affecting South San Francisco, including:
San Mateo County Transportation Authority oversees improvements contained in the County Measure A
Strategic Plan. Improvements affecting South San Francisco include auxiliary lanes on U.S. 101;
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County(C/CAG) is the Congestion
Management Agency that sets State and federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the CMP
Roadway System. The CMP roadway system components in South San Francisco include U.S. 101, 1-280,
and SR 82 (El Camino Real). C/CAG also reviews transportation impact analyses included in
environmental clearance documents for land use applications prepared by jurisdictions in San Mateo
County to ensure that impacts to the CMP Roadway System are adequately addressed. State law no
longer requires congestion management programs. San Mateo County, like all other counties in the Bay
Area, has opted to continue with its CMP; and
.. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the regional clearinghouse for both State and
federal funds for transportation improvements.
3.1.3 Previous Environmental Analysis
The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would apply to the entire
city(although only specific commercial zoned properties would be affected, as shown in Exhibit 2-3). The City
of South San Francisco certified an EIR in 1999, which analyzed impacts resulting from buildout of the
General Plan. The traffic analysis included later in this section includes a determination of whether the
proposed zoning amendment remains within the scope of the traffic analysis included in the General Plan
EIR. In order to appropriately examine whether the project remains within the scope of the General Plan EIR,
it is important to describe the traffic analysis and conclusions of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the
following summary is provided.
General Plan EIR Traffic Analysis
The purpose of the South San Francisco General Plan EIR's traffic analysis was to develop policies and to
identify major transportation system improvements needed to accommodate the projected growth afforded
by the proposed land uses designations. This level of analysis was sufficient to identify new roadways (and
the number of lanes on those roadways), roadway extensions, new interchanges, and new transit service.
The General Plan EIR evaluated traffic impacts based on expected development, accordingto land use
I arge If1 ii�:�uu'n ial[I1161 a"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"idevage tliuunung�:urdunanr.i�tl�NtAmeuuabuva^nN 11)raft
My iIIVf!i I Vuth!San0.I II wtl'ltl+,"wciiaai
Ascent I::lnWrrddduvddddW �zffican dtl�uzn apcirllafion
designations, between 1997 and 2020 (expected build out of the general plan). According to City staff, the
development that has occurred within the city since adoption of the 1999 General Plan is primarily within,
and in some areas below,the growth assumptions in the General Plan. (Beaudin 2013)
Thresholds of Significance
The General Plan EIR considered an impact to be significant if implementation of the General Plan would
result in one or more of the following:
Cause an increase in traffic beyond established LOS standards on roadway segments. Roadway
conditions to increase beyond LOS D or the current LOS, if worse.
A substantial decrease in the level of accessibility within South San Francisco.
A failure to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of
new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development.
Trip Generation
The General Plan EIR indicates that approximately 44,500 daily trips were projected to be added to South
San Francisco's transportation system as a result of approved developments. Buildout of the General Plan
over this same period was projected to add an additional 87,240 daily trips.
Approximately 817,000 square feet of community commercial development and 2,028,000 square feet of
business commercial development were projected to be added as part of the General Plan, resulting in
41,910 daily two-way trips, or approximately 48 percent of the total General Plan added development trip
generation.
Surface Street Impacts
Congested conditions were projected to occur at the following locations on the local surface street system as
it currently exists, without the street improvements proposed in the General Plan. The specific locations are
identified in the traffic memo provided as Appendix E.
Regional Freeway Impacts
Impacts to the regional roadway facilities, US 101 and I-280 were evaluated by assessing their projected
levels of service. According to the General Plan EIR,the US 101 freeway would be operating unacceptably,
while 1-280 would be operating at an acceptable level.
Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan
According to the General Plan EIR, the following Draft General Plan Transportation Element policies and their
related programs would mitigate this potential impact.
Policy 4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growing and emerging
employment areas such as the East of 101 Area.
Policy 4.2-G-2: Improve connections between different parts of the City.
Policy 4.2-G-3:Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of-way to
establish new streets.
Policy 4.2-G-7: Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements.
Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections,
and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
Policy 4.2-G-9:Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
L.ddrge 11I ii:�irn ialf� 11 lim vage ti:�ind ng Ord'udda dung�:Mt Amen ddad ent 111mfl II:IIIf11
CRY 1 11 151iP:Vd,th!San 11'111"nd&sciiPai
tl.uaffic aurou: ranroapcirf[afion Asci,mt 11:unvirmmvenW
• There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
• The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
.. Policy 4.2-1-2: Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 (figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-5
of the DEIR).
Policies and programs were intended to substantially reduce congestion impacts and provide the framework
for requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels of service
from being reached. With street improvements provided in the proposed General Plan, six of the eight street
segments that were projected to experience congested conditions(LOS C or worse)would have reduced
(improved)V/C levels. Thus, congested conditions would not occur at these locations. However,two local
roadway segments are projected to exceed their capacities with buildout under the maximum development
allowed under the General Plan Update. These include portions of Westborough Boulevard (west of W. Orange
Avenue) and Oyster Point Boulevard (US 101 to Gateway Boulevard). The General Plan EIR concluded that the
impact on local roadways would be significant by 2020. These projections appear to be on target.
The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County indicated that US 101 was operating at
LOS D in the city, and was projected to decline to LOS F in 2010. (It is however likely that the freeway
segment is operating at a better LOS than projected due possibly to the recent economic downturn and the
loss of airport-related business.)Additional growth under the General Plan was not expected to change the
LOS from its projected designation, but would contribute to additional congestion. However, if the projected
through traffic demand (i.e. demand generated by people traveling to and from surrounding cities and
counties) was removed and the effects of the proposed General Plan were isolated, operational levels in the
segment of US 101 through the city were not projected to decline to below LOS E. Therefore, declines in the
LOS could have occurred even with no additional development in South San Francisco.
If operational levels along US 101 decline to below LOS E, the County CMP establishes the C/CAG will notify
the jurisdiction(s) responsible for creating the deficiency that a deficiency plan be prepared. While
development in South San Francisco was not projected to create a deficiency, buildout under the General
Plan was nonetheless anticipated to aggravate an existing significant problem, which would affect city
residents and employees driving on the freeway. Not only would drivers lose time being stuck in traffic, this
congestion would also create safety problems. The General Plan EIR concludes that this is a significant
impact, which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated to a level that is less than significant. (Again, however, it is
likely that this segment of US 101 operates at a LOS that is better than projected.)
Buildout of the General Plan, in combination with other relevant projects,was anticipated to contribute to
congestion along major roadways in the South San Francisco area.The expanded SFIA and continued growth in
North San Mateo County would attract even more trips than now, many of which would be made by automobile
via regional routes(for example, US 101, I-280 and El Camino Real).Since these routes run the entire length of
the Peninsula,they would also be affected by development outside the immediate South San Francisco areas.
Traffic conditions along US 101 and I-280 were described as being influenced by development occurring
throughout the Bay Area, not just development in the immediate South San Francisco area, and therefore,
the General Plan EIR examined overall growth trends for the Peninsula and the entire Bay Area. Due to
better-than-expected employment rates, residential development was expected to occur at a slightly higher
rate than the County and San Francisco, but was not anticipated to grow as fast as other parts of the Bay
Area. This was anticipated to contribute largely to overall levels of traffic congestion in the area. The General
Plan EIR concludes that the contribution of the General Plan's increased growth to cumulative traffic impacts
would be potentially significant.
Regarding alternate modes of transportation,the General Plan EIR concludes that the General Plan
transportation element policies and their related programs would mitigate any impacts associated with
provision of adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new
development and between existing neighborhood and areas of new development.
I arge If1 ii�:�uu'n ial[I1161 a"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"idevage tliuunung�:urdunanr.i�tlNtAmeuuabuva^nN 11)raft
My i,i i i lath 15an0.II II i;nntl'ltl+,"cii,ai
Ascent I::lnWrrddduvddddW �.uzffir ndtl�uw apcirllafion
3.1.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methods and Assumptions
The proposed zoning amendment would be consistent with the adopted General Plan because the revision
would only remove one type of development from all permitted development types within the same zoning
designation. While the Zoning Ordinance would no longer allow a superstore, superstore is but one of a
variety of development types allowable within the affected zoning districts. Under the existing Zoning
Ordinance, a superstore could be developed in the Business Commercial, Community Commercial, Freeway
Commercial and El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone Districts. Other uses that could be developed within these
zones are detailed in Table 2-1, and range widely, including such uses as pet stores, arcades, banks, coffee
shops, restaurants, mortuaries, and medical offices(to name only a few). Altering the Zoning Ordinance to
prohibit superstores simply removes one type of development from the variety of development types allowed
within the relevant zoning districts. Thus, altering the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit superstores would not
change the general type or intensity of land uses that may be developed on sites that would be affected by
the zoning amendment(as shown in Exhibit 2-3).
With respect to traffic generation, some uses allowed within the City's commercial districts would, as
described further below, generate more traffic per square foot than a superstore, whereas other
development allowed within the same zoning designation would produce less traffic per square foot.
Removing the superstore development option would not alter the range of development proposed in the
General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
However, as explained by Crane Transportation, a superstore would likely have different local and regional
trip distribution patterns compared to other potential permissible commercial uses, such as those identified
in Table 2-1. To determine differences in trip distribution patterns, the City would need to predict detailed
characteristics of future development, including, but not limited to, the exact location in the city, proximity to
freeway access, size, the specific proposed alternative commercial development type, proximity of other
nearby complementary commercial uses and ease of driveway access. (See the memorandum by Mark
Crane included as Appendix E.)
As of this writing, no superstores are proposed in the City of South San Francisco. The proposed amendment
would not directly result in the approval or rejection of any specific development proposal that could cause a
physical change in the environment. The proposed zoning amendment would apply to a number of parcels of
varying sizes in different geographical locations across the city(See Exhibit 2-3). Because the revised Zoning
Ordinance would only eliminate one of a number of potential development types, the amendment would not
be a catalyst for any specific type of development, or for development generally.
In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are long-term planning tools. As described in a report
(Appendix F) prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc., experts in development markets and economics, the real
estate market changes over time. Seifel indicates that retail is one of the more challenging forms of real
estate development to predict due to market volatility, pricing pressure, variations in market performance,
and demanding consumers. Despite growth returning to the global economy following the recession, risks
associated with retail development remain significant as consumers worldwide have reduced consumption,
cut back on impulsive shopping behavior, and increasingly use online price-comparison sites and e-
commerce. This has contributed to a structural shift to a lower demand retail environment in the United
States and other developed countries(Seifel 2013).
As a result, retail is expected to become leaner in the future. Retailers are rethinking size requirements, and
some industry representatives see the gradual decline of big-box stores and indicate that the prospects are
shifting toward mixed-use urban developments, due to changing demographics, including the preference of
the younger, millennial generation for urban environments. All of these changes will affect the future
demand for retail space, which in turn makes it difficult to precisely predict what type of future retail
development may occur on the affected parcels (Seifel 2013).
L.ddrge 11I ii:�irn ialf� 11 lim vage ti:�ind ng Ord'udda nci:��:Mt Amen ddad ent 111mfl II:IIIf11
CRY 1 11 151iP:Vd,th!:San 1'111"id0.&d&sciiPai .:�.
tl.uaffic aurou: ranroapcirf[afion Asci,mt 11:unvirmmvenW
Given the typical scale of a superstore, and the associated amount of parking and merchandise loading
space, a significant number of the affected parcels would likely be too small for a superstore in their current
configuration. Furthermore, superstores tend to be located adjacent to a major highway and only a few of
the larger affected parcels are located within close proximity to a freeway exit. With site assembly and/or lot
line adjustments, some of the affected parcels could potentially be reconfigured to accommodate a
superstore. As of December 2013, no superstores are proposed in the City, and it is impossible to predict
with certainty which parcels affected by the zoning amendment might be considered suitable for a
superstore by a retailer or developer(Seifel 2013).
As described above, big box, large format retail development products will need to continue to evolve and
change in response to shifts in economic conditions, market trends and customer preferences. By way of
example, major retailers that have built superstores over the past two decades in the United States are now
exploring new retail formats. Most notably, Target recently opened two urban "CityTarget" stores in San
Francisco that range in size from approximately 100,000 to 120,000 square feet and sell household goods,
clothing, electronics and groceries. Thus, while major retailers may currently prefer certain development
types and parcel configurations, those market preferences will almost certainly change over the lifetime of
the Zoning Ordinance. (See the memorandum by Seifel Consulting included as Appendix F.) As a result, the
City determined that the future development of individual parcels with a specific development type is not
reasonably foreseeable and would require speculation.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this analysis focuses on the General Plan EIR and whether the
removal of superstore uses would change the scope of the traffic impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR, certified in 1999, evaluated environmental impacts resulting from buildout of the city
as designated in the General Plan. Because the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and its
land use diagram, the General Plan EIR evaluated the general level of development allowed under the
current Zoning Ordinance. This section evaluates traffic impacts resulting from city-wide changes to the
Zoning Ordinance by determining whether the proposed amendment would fit within the scope of the
General Plan EIR. In other words,the traffic impact evaluation will determine whether the proposed
prohibition of superstores citywide and grocery within the East of 101 Area would result in new significant
impacts that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
According to Crane Transportation, the General Plan EIR considers trip generation from four categories of
new commercial activity(coastal commercial, downtown commercial, business commercial, and community
commercial). Superstores would fit within the community commercial and business commercial categories.
Thresholds of Significance
See "Thresholds of Significance" above under General Plan EIR Traffic Analysis.
Issues or Potential Impacts not Discussed Further
As described above, the General Plan EIR concludes that the policies and programs of the General Plan
transportation element would mitigate any impacts associated with provision of adequate sites and facilities
for pedestrian and bicycle movement. The mode split for superstore uses (and other regional retail uses) is
typically auto dominated and does not generally facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, or other alternate modes as
well as community-and neighborhood-serving retail uses. Prohibition of a superstore use would not
substantially affect access to alternate transportation modes. This impact is not discussed further.
I arge If1 ii�:�uu'n ial[I1161 a"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"idevage tliuunung�:urdunanr.i�tlNtAmeuuabuva^nN 11)raft
3.1 4'���p Myi�ii 5ilat h!5an0.111wtl'ascii.ai
Ascent l::limvirmmmmmmm.mmU .i.uzffor andtli zn pci�ml,rmfion
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.1-1. Potential to generate traffic beyond the levels anticipated in the General Plan EIR such that a
potentially new significant environmental effect could result.
The General Plan EIR traffic estimates indicate (General Plan EIR Table 4.3-2)that added development
anticipated to occur under the General Plan will likely generate an additional 87,240 daily trips, for an
approved + General Plan total of 131,730 daily trips. Community Commercial development(1,145,000
square feet) and business commercial development(2,028,000 square feet) combined identified by the
General Plan would generate an estimated 48,960 daily trips, or 37.2 percent of the total expected trip
generation from development added under the approved + General Plan scenario. Therefore, assuming the
zoning amendment would prohibit a superstore of 178,000 square feet(s.f.), which represents the average
size of a typical "supercenter" as indicated by Target and Wal-Mart corporate websites (Seifel 2013), the
superstore would represent only a small segment(5.6 percent) of the Community Commercial and Business
Commercial combined 3,173,000 square footage of development anticipated in the General Plan. The
combined Community Commercial and Business Commercial constitutes less than 7 percent(9,030 trips)
of the total number of approved and added trips identified for buildout by 2020. Trips generated by a
superstore would represent a fraction of that 7 percent. The difference in trip generation between a
superstore and a different commercial use would represent a much smaller fraction of that 7 percent
(assuming that there is any notable difference in trip generation between the two development types).
For the reasons described above under "Methods and Assumptions," the City cannot reasonably foresee a
specific alternate development type. However, when examining the trip generation rates of the range of
potential representative commercial uses that could be developed in lieu of a superstore, it is useful to note
that a superstore is neither the highest trip generator, nor the lowest trip generator, on a gross "per square
foot" basis. Table 3.1-1 below lists from highest to lowest the "per-square-foot" trip generation rates
representative of the range of commercial uses allowed under the affected zoning. As shown in the table,
the superstore ("Freestanding Discount Superstore") is close to the middle on the trip generation scale.
Commercial Land Use Category Average Weekday Trip Rate per 1,000 s.t
Supermarket 102.24
Discount Supermarket 90.86
Freestanding Discount Store 57.24
Freestanding Discount Superstore 50.75
Specialty Retail Center 44.32
Shopping Center 42.70
Discount Club 41.80
Home Improvement Superstore 30.74
Factory Outlet Center 26.59
Department Store 22.88
Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 20.00
Note:The trip generation rates may change based on size;other considerations also affect the net newtrip generation on the local circulation system,such as pass-by
frequency.Therefore,the trip generation numbers presented in this table are not intended to be used for any other purpose than to demonstrate that superstores are likely
not the highest or lowest trip generating development allowed within the affected zoning.
Source: Crane Transportation 2013
Trip generation from a different commercial development type would either be higher or lower than that of a
superstore . As noted above and in Table 3.1-1, the actual trips generated by a given commercial use
depends on floor area, as well as other considerations, such as pass-by trips or diverted linked trips. While a
11 arge 11 ii:mm'n iiall�� 11 111:wE d:mage 6::i muump Ord'uuma nci,�i:Mt Amen dment lll�mfl Il III
tl.uaffic Enron: ranapcirf[afion Asci,mt 11:unvirmmvenW
few of the commercial uses presented in theta ble may have higher trip rates, they would almost certainly
not have as large a floor area as a discount superstore, and therefore might result in a similar level of trip
generation as the superstore. This is based upon review of trip rates and typical development sizes for
potential replacement commercial uses in the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate
data: Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. (See
Appendix E)
Because a superstore use does not represent either the most or least intense trip generator, removing the
superstore from the menu of development options does not change the range of trip generation allowed. For
example, using Table 3.1-1 above, if the "Freestanding Discount Superstore" row was removed from the
table, the trip generation scale would still range between 20.00 and 124.24 trips per 1,000 s.f., based on
the larger size of the superstore, its trip generation rate increased to be the highest trip generator on the
scale, then prohibition of the superstore would result in less overall trip generation.
In addition, because a stand-alone grocery use is on the high end of the trip generation scale, and because,
similar to prohibiting citywide superstores, prohibiting grocery uses within the East of 101 Area would still
leave a wide range of allowable uses, prohibiting grocery use within the East of 101 Area would not result in
increased traffic generation beyond the level anticipated in the General Plan and evaluated within the
General Plan EIR.
The proposed project involves prohibition of a specific commercial development type. The project does not
dictate whether commercial development would occur, or encourage any specific type of commercial
development. Therefore, the entire range of commercial uses currently allowed, except for the superstore
development type (and grocery within the East of 101 Area), would continue to remain as development
possibilities, consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the permitted development would remain
consistent with the General Plan (including density standards and policies) and would remain within the
scope of the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any significant increase in
expected traffic congestion on surface street or routes of regional significance as projected in the General
Plan EIR (and summarized above). The impacts of the proposed project are consistent with the traffic
impacts evaluated under the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any new
significant environmental impacts.
I arge If1 ii�:�uu'n ial[I1161 a"
nU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"�d���n��„�;���uunuu��!„�:uu�u�uu��uu�r.��tlNtAmeuuabuva^nN 11)raft
:.;tl 8 My iiy,lid!i i Vuth!San 11 Iizntl'Jtl+,"cii,ai
Ascent II:n0rommW uu Qpuu sky
3.2 AIR QUALITY
This section includes a discussion of existing air quality conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and
an analysis of potential short-term and long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project.
The method of analysis is consistent with the recommendations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District(BAAQMD)—the regional air quality regulatory agency.
Section 4.4 (Air Quality) of the City's General Plan EIR contains a summary of federal, state, regional and
local laws, rules, regulations, goals and policies that apply to air quality. The existing air quality environment
has changed slightly since the General Plan was completed in 1999. Changes include revisions to ambient
air quality standards, associated attainment designations, updates to regional air quality planning efforts,
and new methodology and guidance from the BAAQMD. A brief summary of the current regulatory setting
and existing air quality conditions in the project area are discussed below.
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The plan area is located in San Mateo County, California, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB also includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, Santa
Clara Counties; the western portion of Solano County and the southern portion of Sonoma County. The
ambient concentrations of air pollutant emissions are determined by the amount of emissions released by
the sources of air pollutants and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural
factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight.
Existing Air Quality
Criteria Air Pollutants
Concentrations of emissions from criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. A
brief description of key criteria air pollutants in the SFBAAB is provided below. Emission source types,
pollutants, and their potential health effects are summarized in Table 3.2-3.Air quality monitoring data
applicable to the plan area is provided in Table 3.2-4. Ozone and particulate matter are the criteria air
pollutants of greatest concern in the plan area because exceedences of ambient air quality standards are
known to occur. EPA and ARB use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to attainment
status for criteria air pollutants established by the agencies. The purpose of these designations is to identify
those areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic
designation categories are "nonattainment," "attainment," and "unclassified." The attainment designations
are summarized above in Table 3.2-2.
III W
Pollutant Sources Acute'Health Effects Chronicz Health Effects
Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction increased respiration and permeability of
of ROG and NOx in presence of sunlight. pulmonary resistance; cough, respiratory epithelia,
ROG emissions result from incomplete pain,shortness of breath, lung possibility of
combustion and evaporation of chemical inflammation permanent lung
solvents and fuels; NOx results from the impairment
combustion of fuels
Carbon monoxide Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor headache, dizziness,fatigue, permanent heart
(CO) vehicle exhaust nausea,vomiting, death and brain damage
My 1 Vy 151i�:Uuth!ian I'll wtl;,Jpscii.;'iii I
ir Vuu rky p clmt II:11nvir man ve nW
III W
Pollutant Sources Acute'Health Effects Chronicz Health Effects
Nitrogen dioxide combustion devices; e.g., boilers,gas coughing, difficulty breathing, chronic bronchitis,
(NO2) turbines,and mobile and stationary vomiting, headache, eye decreased lung
reciprocating internal combustion engines irritation, chemical pneumonitis function
or pulmonary edema; breathing
abnormalities, cough, cyanosis,
chest pain, rapid heartbeat,
death
Sulfur dioxide(S02) coal and oil combustion,steel mills, Irritation of upper respiratory Insufficient
refineries,and pulp and paper mills tract, increased asthma evidence linking S02
symptoms exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable fugitive dust,soot,smoke, mobile and breathing and respiratory alterations to the
particulate matter stationary sources, construction,fires and symptoms,aggravation of immune system,
(PMio), Fine natural windblown dust,and formation in existing respiratory and carcinogenesis
particulate matter the atmosphere by condensation and/or cardiovascular diseases,
(PM2.5) transformation of S02 and ROG premature death
Lead metal processing reproductive/developmental numerous effects
effects (fetuses and children) including
neurological,
endocrine,and
cardiovascular
effects
Notes:NOx=oxides of nitrogen;ROG=reactive organic gases.
1"Acute"refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants,usually at fairly high concentrations.
2"Chronic"refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants,usually at lower,ambient concentrations.
Source:EPA 2013
2010 2011 2012
Ozone
Maximum concentration(1-hr/8-hr avg,ppm) 0.113/0.077 0.076/0.062 0.063/0.055
Number of days state standard exceeded(1-hr/8-hr) 2/0 0/0 0/0
Number of days national standard exceeded(8-hr) 1 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5)
Maximum concentration(pg/m3) 36.5 39.7 34.3
Number of days national standard exceeded(measured2) 1 1 0
Respirable Particulate Matter(PMio)
Maximum concentration(pg/m3) 39.7 45.6 50.6
Number of days state standard exceeded(measured/calculated2) 0/0 0/0 1/6
Number of days national standard exceeded(measured/calculated2) 0/0 0/0 0/0
Notes:pg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter;ppm=parts per million
s Measurements from the Redwood City monitoring station for ozone and PM2.5,and from the San Francisco-Arkansas Street station for PM 10.Measurements from these
stations are representative of air quality conditions in the plan area.
2 Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the level of the State daily standard or the national daily standard.Measurements are
typically collected every 6 days.Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had
measurements been collected everyday.The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number ofviolations of the standard for the year.
Source:ARB 2013b
I arge I1 iI;,lirn call Il�l,at,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!uy�luu'�,Il lulurtl&ll3everagebluunung Ordunanr.Iatll„u;„,rryAm+Mrnabuva^nN Draft
3.'°.,2 Uy I'Vy!i l Huth!Sinn I Iizn&tl`.tlscii.',li
,uceM I::iwirrumn unW &Quaky
Emissions Inventory
Ozone and particulate matter are the pollutants of primary concern due to their nonattainment status. Ozone
is not emitted directly into the atmosphere—rather, it is a secondary pollutant formed from oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. Existing sources of criteria air pollutant
and precursor emissions in San Mateo County are summarized in Exhibit 3.2-1. Mobile emissions are the
primary source of ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, and area-wide sources; such as wood-burning, dust from
construction activity, and vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces; are the primary sources of
particulate matter in the county.
70
...................................................................................................................................................................................
60
................................................
50
a
M
c 40 111111111111 Stationary
111111 Areawide
,0 30 111111111111 On-Road Vehicles
11111111111 Other Mobile
W ....
20
10
....... ... llllllf
0
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Source:ARB 2013c.
Exhibit 3.2-1 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are pollutants that have been determined to cause have health effects even at low levels of exposure.
ARB designates substances as TACs based on research, public participation, and scientific peer-review of
epidemiological studies. Once a TAC is identified, ARB then adopts airborne toxics control measures that
include the best available control technology to minimize emissions from sources that emit TACs. Mobile-
source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) in California have been reduced
substantially over the last decade, and will be reduced further through a progression of regulatory measures,
cleaner fuels, more efficient engines, and control technologies.
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The plan area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality in the plan area is
regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the
BAAQMD. Each of these agencies develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with
applicable legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations are
allowed to be more stringent.
The quality of ambient air(and consequently the premise of air quality regulations) is based on
concentrations of several air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
1 arge 11 ii:�l�u'n ialf� 11 i m uui°+z 111�wE de cage ti:�irhig 0rd'ura iici, i:Ni d Au:pa^nidment lll�mill 11:111
A'irQVuurky A clmtIl:llnviramveauW
(S02), respirable particulate matter(PMso), fine particulate matter(PM2.5), and lead. Because these
pollutants are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health, they are commonly
referred to as "criteria air pollutants." Their effects on human health have been studied in depth and their
criteria for affecting health have been documented.Acceptable levels of exposure to criteria air pollutants
have been determined and ambient standards have been established for them (Table 3.2-1).
Air quality regulations also focus on toxic air contaminants (TACs). For those TACs that may cause cancer,
there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts may not be expected to occur. In other
words, all concentrations present some risk. EPA and ARB regulate TACs through statutes and regulations
that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. These
statutes and regulations, in conjunction with additional rules set forth by BAAQMD, establish the regulatory
framework for TACs.
Federal
EPA implements national air quality programs. EPA's air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the
Federal Clean Air Act(CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments were made by
Congress were in 1990. CAA required the U.S. EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS), which are presented in Table 3.2-1. The primary standards protect the public health and the
secondary standards protect public welfare. EPA also oversees state air quality planning efforts to attain and
maintain the NAAQS and conform to the requirements of the CAA and its amendments. Attainment
designations are summarized in Table 3.2-2.
Pollutant Averaging California National Standards'
Time Standards2,3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm(180 pg/m3) - -
8-hour 0.070 ppm(137 pg/m3) 0.075 ppm(147 pg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
Carbon monoxide(CO) 1-hour 20 ppm(23 mg/m3) 35 ppm(40 mg/m3) -
8-hour 9.0 ppm(10 mg/m3) 9 ppm(10 mg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm(57 pg/m3) 53 ppb(100 pg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
Nitrogen dioxide(NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm(339 pg/m3) 100 ppb(188 pg/m3) -
Respirable particulate Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 pg/m3 -
Same as Primary Standard
matter(PM1o) 24-hour 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3
Fine particulate matter Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 pg/m3 12.0 pg/m3 Same as Primary Standard
(PM2.5) 24-hour No Separate State Standard 35 pg/m3
24-hour 0.04 ppm(105 pg/m3) - -
Sulfur dioxide(S02)6 3-hour - - 0.5 ppm(1,300 pg/m3)
1-hour 0.025 ppm(655 pg/m3) 75 ppb(196 pg/m3) -
30-dayAverage 1.5 pg/m3 - -
Lead' Calendar Quarter - 1.5 pg/m3
Same as Primary Standard
Rolling 3-Month Average - 0.15 pg/m3
I urge If'�I;uueuaull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!uy�luu'�,11 lulua'tl&ll�t"adeaage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„uyaylym+Mu'uabuva^nN Draft
y IIVy! lliuth iiaan 111wtl'ltlscii:',li
Ascent I11::n+iromveuntal Air Quality
lily
Pollutant
Averaging California National Standards'
Time Standards2,3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Sulfates 24-hour 25 pg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm(42 pg/m3) No
Vinyl Chloride 7 24-hour 0.01 ppm(26 pg/m3) National
Visibility-Reducing Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Standards
Particle Matter 8-hour kilometer—visibility of 10 mi or
more
Notes:ppb=parts per billion;ppm=parts per million;Ng/m3=micrograms per cubic meter;mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter
1 National standards(other than ozone,particulate matter,and those standards based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean)are not to
be exceeded more than once a year.The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year,averaged over three
years,is equal to or less than the standard.The PMio 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 ug/m3 is equal to or less than 1 day.For PM2.5,the 24-hour standard is attained when 98%of the daily
concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to or less than the standard.Contact the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency for further
clarification and current federal policies.
2 California standards for ozone,CO(except Lake Tahoe),NO2,and particulate matter are not to be exceeded.All others are not to be equaled or
exceeded.California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of
Regulations.
3 Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were issued(i.e.,ppb,ppm or ug/m3).Equivalent units given in parentheses are based
on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr.Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr;ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume,or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health.
5 National Secondary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a
pollutant.
6 The U.S.EPA strengthened the NAAQS for S02 on June 2,2010 by establishing a new 1-hour standard.The U.S.EPA has also revoked the annual
and 24-hour standards because they will not add additional public health protection given the new 1-hour standard.
7 ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined.These actions allow for
the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
Sources:ARB 2013a
WE
Pollutant National Designation State Designation
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
PMio Unclassified Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
NO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
S02 Attainment Attainment
Lead (Particulate) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide — Unclassified
Sulfates — Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates — Unclassified
Notes:CO=carbon monoxide;NO2=nitrogen dioxide;PM2.5=fine particulate matter;Win=respirable particulate matter;S02=sulfur dioxide;"—"=no standard.
Source:ARB 2012
State
ARB coordinates and oversees the state and local programs for controlling air pollution in California and
implements the California Clean Air Act(CCAA), adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires ARB to establish
California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) (Table 3.2-1) (ARB 2013x). Attainment status for the CAAQS
11 arge 111 ii:�l�rn i alfl 11 11 1111 id&11 3me cage ti�i nung Ord'uura nci, i:Ni d Amen dmeny,11)WIll Il:aR
City ii if!51ifiuth!5an I'll anrtl:,:isciif'li 3.2
&QVuuaky Ascilmt II:IInvirmauuv nW
for San Mateo County, which includes the plan area, is shown in Table 3.2-2. In most cases the CAAQS are
more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects
studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the
CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.
ARB also oversees local air district compliance with federal and state laws, approving local air quality plans,
submitting air quality plans to EPA, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and
maps, and setting emissions standards for certain sources.
Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the plan area through a comprehensive program of
planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality
issues. The clean air strategy of BAAQMD includes the preparation of plans and programs for the attainment
of ambient air quality standards, which includes the Clean Air Plan discussed below. BAAQMD also adopts
and enforces rules and regulations, issues permits for and inspects stationary sources, responds to citizen
complaints, and monitors ambient air quality.
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan defines a control strategy that the BAAQMD and its partners will
implement to: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2)
safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an
emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. In its dual roles as an update to the Bay Area state ozone plan
and a multi-pollutant plan,the 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses four categories of pollutants: ground-level
ozone and its key precursors (ROG and NOx), particulate matter(PM2.5 as well as precursors secondary to
PM2.5), air toxics, and greenhouse gases (BAAQMD 2010).
City of South San Francisco
The City's General Plan includes the following policies relevant to air quality(City of South San Francisco
1999).
General Plan Policies
Policy 4.1-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of
land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems
serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.
Policy 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient
air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile
sources, where feasible.
Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the
automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling.
Policy 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing
them from one another.
Policy 7.3-1-3:Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines.
11 a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!uy�luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll:Nylym+Muuabuva^nN Draft
3.2(3 My ii�if!Sii�iuth!San 11:iwdscii�ii
Ascent II:n0rrmmmW &Qwaky
3.2.3 Previous Environmental Analysis
General Plan EIR
The EIR for the 1999 City of South San Francisco General Plan evaluated impacts of the plan on air quality.
The City determined that construction-generated air quality impacts from land use development that would
occur under the General Plan were less than significant. (See Impact 4.4-a on page 4-82 of the DEIR.)The
EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policy 7.3-1-3, which requires adoption of standard dust
control measures as part of the environmental review process for individual subsequent development
projects, would result in a less-than-significant impact for construction-generated emissions.
In addition, Impact 4.4-b evaluated the General Plan's consistency with the regional air quality plan (pages
4-83-4-85 of the DEIR). The regional air quality plan at the time the DEIR was prepared was the 1997 Clean
Air Plan. One of BAAQMD's criteria for determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan is that the City's
projections of population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be consistent with the population and VMT
assumptions used in developing the Clean Air Plan. The City estimated that the projected rate of growth in
VMT(37 percent) would exceed the projected rate of population growth (14 percent) under the General Plan.
The DEIR concluded that this inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan was a significant and unavoidable impact
of the General Plan, even with the General Plan policies that encourage VMT reductions and implementation
of applicable transportation control measures (City of South San Francisco 1999).
3.2.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methods and Assumptions
Evaluation of potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed zoning amendment is based on a
review of documents, including the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) and EIR, as well as the
BAAQMD's Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The proposed project does not include any changes to the City's
General Plan land use designations. The proposed project would not directly result in any land use
development or construction activity.
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur associated with the
proposed project if it would result in one or more of the following:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
11 ar„e 11 ii:�lrn iall� 11 lime vage 6 inft Ord'unalnci �dx�Amenddad ent 1l)mflf 1111:11111
&QVuuaky Ascilmt II:IInvirmauuv nW
Issues or Potential Impacts not Discussed Further
TAC and odor-related impacts are localized in nature. The proposed project does not involve the siting of any
sources of TACs emissions nor sensitive receptors that could be exposed to TACs. Sensitive receptors would
not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of the project.
The proposed project does not involve the siting of any sources of odors nor sensitive receptors that could
be exposed to odors. These issues will not be discussed further in this EIR.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.2-1.Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air Quality plan.
The applicable air quality plan at the time of writing is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The primary goals
of the 2010 Clean Air Plan are:
attain air quality standards;
reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and
reduce greenhouse gas emission and protect the climate.
The 2010 Clean Air Plan was developed in part based on the land use and development assumptions, and
associated emissions sources, in the nine-county SFBAAB. This includes population projections and
associated VMT derived from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's)transportation demand
model. MTC's travel demand model relies on regional demographic forecasts from the Association of Bay
Area Governments' (ABAG's) socio-economic and population projections, in this case, Projections 2007
(BAAQMD 2010).
ABAG relies on the land use assumptions and population projections in the local jurisdictions' general plans
to inform the region's demographic projections. Thus, the City's population projections in the existing
General Plan are accommodated in the assumptions used to develop the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
The proposed project would remove one potential development type (superstore)from an entire range of
development types across affected parcels throughout the City. (See Exhibit 2-3.) Table 2-1 shows the wide
range of potential land uses that could still be developed after implementation of the proposed project. As
described in Section 3.1 "Traffic," it is not possible to reliably forecast where a superstore may develop in
the future without the project, nor is it possible to accurately forecast the land use(s)that would be
developed if superstores are prohibited. In fact, no superstores are currently proposed; thus, it is not known
if the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would, in fact, alter any land uses that would be developed. This
speculation is further complicated by the fact that the City's Zoning Ordinance is a long-term regulatory
device; therefore, any discussion of potential land uses would require speculation about changing market
conditions, local development, and developer preferences overtime.
The City's General Plan land use diagram designates appropriate land uses across the City. The City's Zoning
Ordinance is consistent with and a more specific implementation of the land use diagram. Both the General
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance specify various development types that are allowed (with varying levels of
approval) within in each land use designation/zoning category. The proposed project is consistent with the
land use designations, as well as the density standards of the General Plan. (See Section 3.4 "Land Use and
Planning" for additional detail regarding density consistency.) The City's General Plan EIR evaluated
environmental impacts resulting from buildout of those land uses (which covered the range of development
types allowed within each land use designation). Removal of one development type, in this case superstore,
citywide and grocery use east of Hwy 101 from the range of allowed development types within the zoning
category does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the General Plan EIR with respect to consistency with
the Clean Air Plan.
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!uyluu'�,Il luluatl"'tlall�t"�d�����„�;�,luuuuu��!„�:uuu�uu�uu�r.Itll„u;„,r�y�yu�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
Ascent II:n0rrmmmW X44 Qp4u sky
As indicated by Table 3.1-1 in Section 3.1 "Traffic," a superstore is neither the most intense nor least
intense commercial trip generator. By removing the superstore development type from the menu of
development options, the upper and lower ends of trip generation scale remain the same. Removal of
grocery use within the East of 101 Area would remove a trip generator at the higher end of the trip
generation scale. The proposed project would not result in foreseeable additional traffic and associated
mobile-source emissions beyond the development allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,
the proposed project would not affect the conclusions in Section 4.4 (Air Quality) of the General Plan EIR.
As mentioned above, the General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would result
in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, even with the General Plan policies that encourage VMT
reductions and implementation of applicable transportation control measures. This is because the City
estimated that the projected growth rate identified in the 1999 General Plan would generate VMT that would
exceed the assumptions contained in the 1997 Clean Air Plan. It should be noted that the 2010 Clean Air
Plan is based, in part, on the growth projections identified in the City of South San Francisco 1999 General
Plan. Therefore, while the proposed project would not affect the conclusions or the analysis of the General
Plan EIR, the updates to the Clean Air Plan, which bring the Clean Air Plan into consistency with the City's
General Plan, would likely reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level if evaluated today. Despite a
potentially different conclusion resulting from the updates to the Clean Air Plan, the proposed project
remains within the scope of the General Plan EIR.
In sum, the proposed project would not cause direct physical changes to the environment; any indirect
physical changes caused by the project are within the scope of the adopted General Plan and further,
specific indirect physical changes are not reasonably foreseeable and would require speculation. The project
would not substantially increase or result in any new impacts beyond those evaluated in the General Plan
EIR.
Impact 3.2-2.Short-Term Construction Emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5.
The proposed zoning amendment would not directly result in any land development or associated construction
activity. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan's density standards. (See Section 3.4
"Land Use and Planning"for additional detail regarding density consistency.)The level of construction activity
that would be allowed under the proposed zoning amendments would not exceed the level of development
intensity assumed in the 1999 General Plan EIR. The 1999 General Plan EIR concluded that short-term air-
quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Under the proposed project, no net
increase in construction-generated emissions of ozone precursors or particulate matter would occur above-
and-beyond the levels evaluated in the 1999 General Plan EIR. Consistent with the conclusion of the General
Plan EIR, this impact is less than significant.
Impact 3.2-3. Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5.
The proposed project would not result in any direct land use development or associated long-term
operational emissions of ozone precursors or particulate matter. For the reasons described above under
Impact 3.2-1, although the project would remove one development option (superstores citywide and grocery
east of Hwy 101) allowed under the current zoning,the proposed project would not result in development of
a land use that exceeds the intensity of the land uses currently allowed under the existing General Plan. The
proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan's density standards. (See Section 3.4 "Land Use
and Planning" for additional detail regarding density consistency.) Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a net increase in regional VMT and associated emissions greater than the levels evaluated in the
City's General Plan EIR. This impact is within the scope of the air quality analysis completed for the City's
General Plan EIR, and the project would not substantially increase or result in any new impacts beyond those
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
1 arge Il
CRY 111!5P:Uuth!:ir440.I'IIwtl;,JsciiP:'iii 3.29
&Qmaky Ascilmt 11::nviromvenW
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii:ii rn iia 11 1161 a fl/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve vagebi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in wnt 11)raft 1:1111
3.2 W My ail iC51i iath!5an 11:imndsciiai
Ascent IJdd RddgdeNW Greenhouse ° se and Chwte Cdddlldg
3.3 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This section provides a summary of applicable regulations with respect to federal, state, regional, and local
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources, applicable GHG reduction planning efforts, existing climate change
science, and GHG emissions sources. This section also discusses the potential impacts of the proposed
project on GHG emissions and climate change. The City's 1999 General Plan EIR did not address climate
change or GHG emissions.
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Science
Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth's
surface temperature through a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing
to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated compounds. The
greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth. Without the greenhouse
effect, Earth would not be able to support life as we know it. CO2 is the most prevalent of all GHG emissions.
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate,
known as global warming or global climate change. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the
past 50 years can be explained without taking into consideration the contribution of GHG emissions from
human activities (IPCC 2007).
GHGs differ from criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants discussed in Section 3.2, which have
mostly localized air quality effects and have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day). GHGs have
long atmospheric lifetimes(1 year to several thousand years), and thus GHGs persist in the atmosphere for
long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe.
According to Cal-Adapt, a climate change scenario planning tool developed by the California Energy
Commission, temperatures in the project area are projected to rise 3-5°F by 2100, with the range based on
low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2013). Cal-Adapt downscales global climate model data to local
and regional resolution under two emissions scenarios; the A-2 scenario represents a business-as-usual
future emissions scenario, and the B-1 scenario represents a lower GHG emissions future. Other anticipated
climate change impacts that may affect the project area include sea level rise, increased frequency of
coastal flooding, water and energy supply variability due to altered precipitation patterns (Cal-Adapt 2013).
Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
The City's draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory from activities in the
community during year 2005. GHG emissions attributable to the City were approximately 550,000 metric
tons CO2 equivalent in 2005. The largest emissions source is energy consumption (48 percent of
community-wide emissions), followed by transportation (36 percent). The community-wide baseline GHG
emissions inventory by sector is presented in Exhibit 3.3-1 below.
GreeAouse Grdses,md: tl hvati,,tl„haa11119e Ascilmt I:.,1171PyRrdllgquN4enU
1%
i
i
Energy
(IIIIIIII Transportation
IIIIIIII Stationary Sources
1111111 Off-road
IIIIIIIIII Solid Waste
IuU)Landfill
111111 Water and Wastewater
Source:City of South San Francisco 2013
Exhibit 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide Baseline
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the
Clean Air Act(CAA). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its decision in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental
Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120), issued on April 2, 2007,that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an
air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. This
has led EPA to take actions to begin regulating and monitoring GHG emissions from mobile and stationary
sources.
State
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra
Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea
level. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total GHG emission targets. Specifically,
emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below
the 1990 level by 2050. This Executive Order is binding only on state agencies, and has no force of law for
local governments; however, the signing of S-3-05 sent a clear signal to the California Legislature about the
framework and content for legislation to reduce GHG emissions.
I a rge If'�I;uunu ull II�I,a,q”
uU/'111uµ�u a^!u��luu'�,11 lulua'tl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuuni!„�:urdunaunr.I�tll„uy��l�u�u+Mu'uabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
Ascent I.7vRrdq4eNU Greenhouse ° se an d Uhnate Change
It is estimated that in 1990 average global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were about 353 parts per
million (ppm), which is widely considered to be the maximum concentration of CO2 that would avoid
catastrophic climate change impacts. Furthermore, 280 ppm CO2 is considered the pre-industrial, or natural
concentration that would help stabilize climate change trends, and is approximately 80 percent below the
1990 concentration of 353 ppm (IPCC 2007). These CO2 concentration levels serve as the scientific basis
for GHG reduction benchmarks in California (ARB 2008).
Assembly Bill 32 (2006),California Global Warming Solutions Act
In September 2006, the Governor of California signed AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which enacted Sections 38500-38599 of the California Health and
Safety Code. AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This equates
to an approximate 15 percent reduction compared to existing statewide GHG emission levels or a 30
percent reduction from projected 2020 "business as usual" emission levels (ARB 2008). AB 32 directed ARB
to prepare a plan to demonstrate a quantified path by which the 2020 GHG target would be attained. The
ARB "Scoping Plan" was first adopted in 2008 and is currently in the process of being updated.
Senate Bill 375,The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
SB 375, signed in September 2008, aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction
targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) as part of the MPO's Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)that sets land use allocation and transportation investments necessary to meet GHG emission
reduction targets for the region. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are jointly responsible for developing the SCS for the Bay Area. Known as Plan
Bay Area, this SCS is the successor to Transportation 2035,the long-range RTP adopted by MTC in 2009.
Plan Bay Area was adopted in July 2013 and covers the time period through 2040 (One Bay Area 2013).
With the assistance of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) and in consultation with the MPOs,
ARB provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light
trucks for 2020 and 2035. The specific GHG reduction targets to be used by MTC and ABAG in Plan Bay Area
include 7 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, and 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 (ARB
2013).
Regional and Local
Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy(Plan Bay Area)
MTC and ABAG adopted the Bay Area 2040 RTP/SCS (Plan Bay Area) in July 2013. The plan demonstrated
that implementation of the plan would exceed the applicable GHG reduction targets of 7 percent below
2005 per-capita emission levels by 2020 and 15 percent below 2005 per-capita emissions levels by 2035
for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (One Bay Area 2013). MTC generates vehicle activity data from
its travel demand forecasting model, which accounts for the land use pattern and transportation
improvements contained in the plan and growth projections developed by ABAG (One Bay Area 2013).
City of South San Francisco Draft Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco is in the process of preparing a climate action plan (CAP), and released the
draft CAP for public review in November of 2013. The draft CAP includes the following components:
a baseline GHG emissions inventory for year 2005,
GHG emissions projections for years 2020 and 2035,
a proposed GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emissions by year 2020,
estimates of GHG reductions associated with applicable legislation and City-initiated actions,
a section on monitoring and updating the plan; and
a draft environmental document(draft initial study/mitigated negative declaration).
L.ddrge 111 ii:�l�rn iall� 11 il1iudb&lliedde sage�if i�n nag Ord inalnci �dx�Amendment 11)mfl 111:11111
Greenhouse Grdsesan d:tl tl tlhvaNti,,.Change Ascilmt 1:.,71vRrdllgqu`N4enW
3.3.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methods and Assumptions
The 1999 General Plan EIR did not address GHG emissions and climate change because this issue was not
commonly evaluated in CEQA documents until the passage of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, in
2006. Evaluation of potential GHG and climate change impacts resulting from the proposed zoning
amendment is based on a review of documents, including the 2040 RTP/SCS applicable to the plan area
(Plan Bay Area), the AB 32 Scoping Plan, the City's draft CAP, and the traffic analysis prepared for this
project(see Section 3.1 "Traffic").
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if a proposed project
would:
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of GHGs.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.3-1 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Short-Term Construction and Long-Term Operations.
As explained in Section 3.2 "Air Quality," the proposed project would not result in a net increase in
construction-generated emissions compared to existing conditions because the proposed zoning
amendment would not directly result in any land development or associated construction activity that is not
currently allowed under the General Plan. This explanation also applies to short-term, construction-related
GHG emission.
As described within Section 3.1 "Traffic," it is speculative to attempt to forecast where, or if, a superstore
might develop in the future, or, if the project is implemented, which type of commercial use might develop
instead of a superstore. No superstores are currently proposed in the City. Therefore, due to this level of
speculation, the EIR cannot evaluate impacts that could result from a specific development type. Rather, this
EIR addresses whether the project has the potential to foreseeably increase GHG emissions.
As indicated by Table 3.1-1 in Section 3.1 "Traffic," a superstore is not the most intense or least intense
commercial trip generator. By removing the superstore development type from the menu of development
options, the upper and lower ends of the trip generation scale remains the same. A grocery use is at the
higher end of the trip generation scale; therefore, prohibiting grocery use within the East of 101 Area would
not result in increased trip generation. The proposed project would not result in an increase in traffic and
associated mobile-source GHG emissions.
Long-term GHG emissions associated with building operations would be expected to be very similar between
the various types of commercial uses allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance because, similar to the
explanation above regarding trip generation, the building operation of the commercial development types
would likely be within the same scope. No additional GHG emissions associated with building operations
(e.g., energy consumption) would be expected to occur under the proposed project.
Climate change and GHG emissions were not addressed in the City's 1999 General Plan EIR. The project is
consistent with the density standards identified in the General Plan. (See Section 3.4 "Land Use and
Planning" for more specific information regarding density standads.) It is important to note that the proposed
I a rge Ifl'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'Illuµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunaunr.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
My I',Vf!IIIIg0th!San 1 Ilwtl`.tlscii.',II
Ascent I.7vRrdq4eNW Greenhouse ° se and Uhnate Change
project would not result in new development beyond what was designated in the 1999 General Plan. The
proposed project could result in slightly different development of one or more of the affected parcels shown
in Exhibit 2-3, assuming that a superstore would develop in the future without the proposed zoning
amendment. However, the intensity of development would not be greater under the proposed project than
currently allowed under existing conditions. Even though it is possible that buildout of the General Plan could
result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions (an analysis is not included in this EIR because an
analysis of buildout of the General Plan is beyond the scope of this project), the proposed project would not
affect this impact because it would not add GHG emissions above the emissions that will be generated by
General Plan buildout, whether the project is approved or not. In other words, although General Plan buildout
has the potential to generate significant GHG emissions, this project does not alter this conclusion as it does
not foreseeably increase the amount or intensity of development that could occur under General Plan
buildout. Although impacts related to GHG were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the project would not
increase the severity of a GHG-related impact above the level that would result from buildout of the General
Plan. The project is within the scope of the General Plan and General Plan EIR and would not result in any
new or more significant GHG impact.
Impact 3.3-2 Consistency with a Plan for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
As discussed under Impact 3.3-1, the proposed project would not result in a net increase in construction
activity, operational vehicle miles traveled (VMT), energy consumption, or associated GHG emissions, as
compared to the level of buildout anticipated under the General Plan. The City prepared a draft CAP that
includes the required elements to be considered a Plan for Reduction of GHG Emissions pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.5 itemized previously in the Regulatory Framework of this section, except for
element(f) because the plan has not yet been adopted. The proposed zoning amendment would not
increase GHG emissions above-and-beyond the GHG emissions projections contained in the CAP because
the project is consistent with the City's General Plan policies, land use designations, and density standards,
and the proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit superstores would not affect the ability of
future development to comply with any proposed GHG reduction measure that would apply. Therefore, the
proposed project would not interfere with implementation of the draft CAP, should it be finalized and
adopted.
In addition, SB 375 is a component of the AB 32 Scoping Plan; the state's plan to achieve AB 32-mandated
emission reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 (ARB 2008). The RTP/SCS applicable to the project area—Plan
Bay Area—demonstrates compliance with SB 375 requirements to reduce per-capita GHG emissions from
vehicles by 7 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. The RTP/SCS
is based on vehicle activity data generated from MTC's travel demand forecasting model, which accounts for
the land use pattern and transportation improvements contained in the plan (One Bay Area 2013). The
growth projections contained in the plan are based in part on the growth allocations in the region's general
plans, including the City's 1999 General Plan. The EIR for the 2040 RTP/SCS concluded that GHG emissions
and associated climate change impacts of the RTP/SCS would be less than significant. Because the
proposed project(prohibition of the superstore development type citywide and grocery use within the East of
101 Area)would not result in higher intensity or more traffic-intensive land uses compared to existing
allowable land use types, the proposed project would not conflict with the assumptions in the RTP/SCS.
The proposed project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS, which is consistent with ARB's AB 32 Scoping
Plan. The proposed project would also be consistent with the City's draft CAP. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with all relevant, applicable plans for the reduction of GHG emissions. This
impact would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gasesan d Uhvati::°.Change Ascilmt 11::nviromvenW
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii;ii rn iia 11 1161 a H/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve vagebi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in mit 11)raft 1:1111
�3,;3 (3 My i�iC51i iath!5an 11:imndscii;ii
Ascent I::ln0rrdmd ddW 11 an Wean d I1:111a nnhi
3.4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section evaluates the issues of concern for land-use and planning as raised in Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines: 1)the potential for the proposed project to physically divide an established community and
2)the potential for the project to conflict with any adopted plans policies are regulations that have been
established by a public agency for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a significant impact. This section
also evaluates the potential for a link between economic changes associated with changes to the Zoning
Ordinance and the potential for indirect physical environmental impacts.
Descriptions and analysis in this section are based partly on information contained in the Superstore
Economic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Seifel Consulting, Inc. in October 2012. The
complete report is included as Appendix D.
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
San Mateo County is located on the San Francisco Peninsula. San Mateo County is bounded San Francisco
County to the north, San Cruz County to the south, Santa Clara County to the southeast, Alameda County to
the east, the San Francisco Bay to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. San Mateo County is
comprised of approximately 455 square miles of land that is distributed among twenty incorporated cities,
including the City of South San Francisco, and twenty unincorporated communities.
As a whole, the county is relatively undeveloped. Although located in the San Francisco Bay Area—one of the
most populated urban areas in the nation just 20 percent of the county is urbanized, while the other 80
percent is used for agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, or general open space. (San Mateo County
1985)
Project Area
The City of South San Francisco lies north of San Bruno and San Francisco International Airport in a small
valley south of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain; east of Pacifica and the hills of the
Coast Range; and west of the San Francisco Bay.
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to land use apply to the proposed project.
State
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt
and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that
describes plans for the physical development of a city or county and of any land outside its boundaries that,
in the city's or county's judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of
topics, including at a minimum land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In
addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and
plan proposals that support the city's or county's vision for the area.
IL.ddd"�„�Ili:uu'nm°uddlf Ili�d'uV/P;l�iiuµ���^a��:u���;If�musb°+zll��w�d��d��„��'��:uu�uu���;uHd,�'uu��du�d.� ��d,�aGl�u�da^d�dbAaddd�lll�a„dill Ilallf�'�
CRY 1V 151iP:Vd,th!San1'III"idd&d&sciiPai 3.4-1
l an Us ndtl II11llann'un wd.lmt II:IInvir mmve nW
The State Zoning Law(California Government Code, Section 65800 et seq.) establishes that zoning
ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific zone district, are required to be
consistent with the general plan.
Local general plan policies and zoning ordinances, as they relate to the proposed project, are summarized
below.
Local
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Land Use and Economic Development Elements
contain the following policies that may be applicable to the proposed project:
Guiding Policies:Land Use
Policy 2-G-5: Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential,
commercial, and entertainment activities.
Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they
would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that
currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and
vitality.
Guiding Policies:Economic Development Strategy
Policy 6-G-1: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's
economic development.
Policy 6-G-2: Establish economic development priorities and undertake targeted investments to facilitate
expansion, retention, and attraction of businesses that meet the City's economic development
objectives.
Policy 6-G-3: Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting business in South San
Francisco.
Policy 6-G-5: Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and sound fiscal planning; reserve
sites for designated uses rather than accepting any development.
Guiding Policy: El Camino Real Sub Area
.. Policy 3.44G-7: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and
non-residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment.
City of South San Francisco Area Plans
Several sub-areas within the city are governed by Area Plans that guide and regulate development within the
sub-areas. These include:
.. East of 101 Area Plan,
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
.. South El Camino Real Plan, and
./ Downtown Station Area Plan (approval anticipated in early Summer 2014).
I arge 11 iI;,iirn ial[11161,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�uu^!u��luu'�,Illuluatl�"'tlall�rc"�d��rn��„�;��,luunuu��!„�:uu�d�uu��uu�r.I�tll:NtAm+Munabuva^nN l raft :
My I'lif!illiuth!Sann I Ilwtl`.tlscii.',li
Ascent II:n0rrmmmW 11 an Wean d I1:111a nnhi
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Policies set forth with the General Plan and the Area Plans are implemented through enforcement of the
City's zoning regulations. Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specified zoning districts
and impose standards on those uses.
3.4.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methods and Assumptions
Evaluation of potential land use impacts are based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site,
including the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) and the City of South San Francisco Zoning
Ordinance. In determining the level of significance, this analysis assumes that the proposed project would
comply with relevant state and local ordinances and regulations, as well as the General Plan policies
presented above.
As described above, in October 2012, Seifel Consulting, Inc. analyzed the potential economic impact on the
city's existing grocery stores from the potential opening of a new superstore along the Highway 101 corridor,
proximate to East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. The report is titled Superstore Economic Impact
Analysis and is included as Appendix D. The report's methodology is summarized as follows:
identified grocery stores and supermarkets in South San Francisco;
defined the primary, community, and regional market areas for a potential superstore;
evaluated current market conditions for grocery stores in these market areas;
analyzed retail demand, sales attraction, and spending leakage for grocery stores;
projected the potential amount of grocery store expenditures from area residents and employees;
projected sales to be generated by residents and workers to be added to the market area; and
assessed the likely impact on existing grocery stores in South San Francisco.
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines,the project could have a significant adverse effect
related to land use and planning if it would:
.. physically divide an established community;
.. conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or
.. conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines does not expressly address the issue of "urban decay" (commonly
referred to as "urban blight"). This issue is generally evaluated as an indirect, economically induced physical
impact. The urban decay analysis in this section will use the following threshold and will consider whether
the project would:
directly or indirectly result in physical deterioration to properties or structures that is so prevalent,
substantial, and lasting a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties
and structures and the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Types of physical
deterioration includes abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term
unauthorized use of properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings,
dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery and uncontrolled
weed growth, or illicit shelters or encampments.
IL.ddd"�„�Ili:uu'nm°u�d1f Ili�d'uV/P;l�liuµ� �^a�:u��;If musb°+zll��w�d��d��„��'�:uu�uu���;uHd,�'uu��du�d. �d,aGl�u�da^d�dbAaddd�llla„dill Ilallf'�
I an Use:dntl 11�111ann'ung Asclmt II:unvir mvenW
The Initial Study(IS), included as Appendix C to this DEIR, includes an evaluation of impacts associated with
physically dividing an established community and conflict with habitat conservation plans. The IS concludes
that, because the affected parcels would not be located with any habitat conservation area and the project
does not directly result in development or ground disturbing activities, the project would result in no impact.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.4-1: Potential to conflict with relevant plans, policies,and zoning adopted forthe purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
The project site is located within the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, land uses on the project site are
regulated by the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) and the City of South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed zoning amendments are intended to implement and to be consistent with existing General
Plan policies and principles. The proposed project does not include any changes to the City's General Plan
policies or land use designations. Table 3.4-1 includes each of the applicable General Plan policies with a
corresponding discussion regarding project consistency.
General Plan Policy Is the Project Consistency Discussion
Consistent?
Policy2-G-5;Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, Y Economic studies(See Seifel 2012)show that
and a focus of residential,commercial,and entertainment activities. superstores may result in adverse economic effects on
existing grocery and other local retail.Prohibiting
superstores would not adversely affect the City's
downtown but may have the potential to bolster existing
uses.
Policy2-G-7;Encourage mixed-use residential,retail,and office Y Superstores are typically stand-alone or associated with
development in centers where they would supporttransit,in locations where other retail development.Superstores do nottypically
they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack include mixed uses and are notgenerally as conducive to
such facilities,and in corridors where such developments can help to foster transit as smaller retail uses(shorter walking distance
identity and vitality. from stop to door,fewer purchases and bags to carry,
etc.).Prohibiting superstores would not discourage mixed-
use development supported bytransit,
Policy6-G-1;In partnership with business and community groups, Y Awide range of commercial and retail development types
proactively participate in the City's economic development. would be available after implementation of the proposed
project.Prohibiting superstores would not discourage
overall commercial development within the city and would
not adversely affectthe City's partnerships with business
and communitygroups or the City's participation in
economic development.
Policy6-G-2;Establish economic development priorities and undertake Y Superstores have been shown to adversely affect other
targeted investments to facilitate expansion,retention,and attraction of local grocery retail uses.The Seifel Study(2012)indicated
businesses that meetthe City's economic development objectives. that a superstore could contribute to the closure of grocery
store uses in the City.This would not be consistent with
City economic objectives.Prohibiting superstores would
not conflict with this policy.
Policy6-G-3;Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting Y See discussion above for Policy 6-G-2.The proposed
business in South San Francisco. project would not adversely affectthe climate for
conducting business.
Policy6-G-5;Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and Y Economic studies,includingthe Seifel 2012 reportand
I a rge If1'�I;uunu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�uu^!u��luu'�,Illuluatl�"'tlall�rc"�d��r���„e;��,luuuuu��!„�:uu�d�uu��uu�r.I�tll„u;„,rrtAm+Muuabuva^nN Draft :
3.4-4 Uy I',lif!i l Huth 15ran I II zn`.pscii.',li
Ascent Il:n0romvenU 11 an Wean d If'"Nrrnnhi
MMIMMM
General Plan Policy Is the Project Consistency Discussion
Consistent?
sound fiscal planning;reserve sites for designated uses rather than reports referenced therein,indicate that a superstore may
accepting any development. contribute to adverse economic effects to local
businesses.The land use decision to prohibit superstores
would be based on economic data and would be
consistent with this policy.
Policy3,4-G-7;Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a Y See discussion above for Policy 2-G-7.Prohibiting
variety of residential and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and superstores would not discourage walkable mixed-use
pedestrian-scaled environment. development supported bytransit.Itwould also not
substantially Iimitthe variety of residential and non-
residential uses.
Source:Ascent2013
Because the proposed zoning amendments are consistent with General Plan policies and principles, the
project would comply with relevant plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Also, as described in Section 1.1 of this EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the density standards
and related policies expressed in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. The General Plan identifies density
standards in Table 2.2-1: "Standards for Density and Development Intensity." (City of South San Francisco
1999)The proposed project includes amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would result in prohibition
of superstores citywide and grocery uses within the East of 101 Area. The Zoning Ordinance is the regulatory
device for implementing development in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan and is also more
specific than the General Plan in terms of allowed uses. Therefore, amendment the Zoning Ordinance to
prohibit one specific type of development within the entire range of development types allowed does not
alter the density standards identified in Table 2.2-1 of the General Plan. This impact would be less than
significant.
Impact 3.4-2: Potential to result in physical deterioration leading to urban decay
As mentioned above under "Thresholds of Significance" an urban decay impact is generally considered an
indirect, economically induced impact to the physical environment. Urban decay impacts typically occur
when a project results in economic impacts (which CEQA does not consider to be "environmental impacts")
that are so severe and prolonged that the physical environment is affected, typically in the form of noticeably
deteriorated communities, neighborhoods, or individual structures. This deterioration is most often the result
of abandoned buildings that lead to reduced structure and landscaping maintenance, neglect, and
eventually dilapidation. For this analysis, the project would result in a significant urban decay impact if it
would directly or indirectly result in severe physical deterioration to properties or structures such that it
impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures and the health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding community.
In October 2012, Seifel Consulting, Inc., experts in economics, analyzed the potential economic impact on
the city's existing grocery stores from the potential opening of a new superstore along the Highway 101
corridor, proximate to East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco (Seifel Consulting Inc., 2012). The following
is a summary of the potential economic impact on existing grocery stores:
.. Overall, there could be an average of 5 to 9 percent decline in grocery sales at existing stores , with
these sales diverted to the superstore given its discount pricing, wide array of offerings and services, and
its ability to attract shoppers for one-stop shopping.
L.ddrge 111 i:uu'e°u dlf Ili�d'uV/P;l�liuµ� r at:u�;If musb°+z ll�ed:�d��„ '�:uu�uu�p�;uHd,�'uu�rdu�d. �d,aG l�u�da^d�dbAadedd llla„dill llallf'�
l an Us ndtl II111ann ng Ascilmt II:unvir mauuAU nW
Based on anticipated growth in demand in the community market area (CMA), which is a 3.5-mile-radius
area around a superstore, in the next five years a superstore would not likely be the sole contributing
factor to the closure of a grocery store; however, given the intense competitive climate for grocery sales
that already exists in South San Francisco, the presence of a superstore could exacerbate the continued
decline of a store that is already experiencing declining or low sales volume.
Grocery stores within two miles of a superstore are likely to experience the greatest impact. Grocery
stores that are likely to experience the greatest impacts due to a potential superstore include:
r larger chains with discount pricing and little differentiation from superstores;
r marginal, declining businesses that will experience intensified declines;
r stores lacking a unique market position and no specialized customer base; and
r older grocery stores that haven't received recent upgrades or expansions.
Characteristics of grocery stores that are likely to make them more resilient to the competition posed by
a potential superstore include grocery stores with:
r a specialized customer base, such as ethnic, up-market, and small business customers;
r discount product offerings and store characteristics that differentiate them from superstores;
r neighborhood convenience;
r high customer loyalty; and
r ability to absorb sales losses through contraction and diversification of private labels.
The proposed project would prohibit superstores within the city, thereby reducing the potential economic
effects described above. It is acknowledged that no economic studies have been prepared for "non-
superstore" development types that are currently allowed on the affected parcels and that other allowed
development types may also result in some degree of economic effect. As described in Section 3.1, Traffic
and Circulation, it is speculative to forecast development of specific alternate development types. Because
the economic impact of other allowed development types is not known, this analysis does not conclude that
prohibiting superstore uses would necessarily result in a beneficial effect associated with urban decay. This
analysis concludes that prohibiting superstores eliminates potential adverse economic effects that are
known to be associated specifically with superstores. Any adverse economic impacts associated with "non-
superstore" are unaffected by the project. In other words,the proposed zoning amendment would result in
no change with respect to the potential economic effects that could result from "non-superstore"
development types. Further, the proposed prohibition of grocery uses within the East of 101 Area would not
be anticipated to result in urban-decay-related impacts because such uses are not considered foreseeable
because a grocery use would not be appropriately supported by the surrounding light industrial and
commercial uses in this area.
Project implementation would not be expected to increase the potential for economic decline, which could
lead to urban decay or other physical deterioration of a community. The project is consistent with General
Plan policies to promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well-being, and maintain the
downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center as a focus of commercial activity. The project would
result in a less-than-significant impact related to urban decay.
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u��uure,Il iuivatl"'tla ll�rc"�d��r���„�;��uuuuu��!„�:uud�uu�uu�r.� tl�u;+��1�u�u�Muuabu�ua^u�N �ud��
;3.4-03 My iP,Vf!i i Vuth!San II II i;dntl'ltl+,"cii,ai
4 ALTERNATIVES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6(x) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to describe "... a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,
and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives
that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad
rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason." This
section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should
consider. Subsection (b)further states the purpose of the alternatives analysis, as follows:
Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have
on the environment(Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow
meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause
one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the
project as proposed (Section 15126.6[d]).
The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the "no project" alternative be considered
(Section 15126.6[e]).
In defining "feasibility" (e.g., "...feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."), Section
15126.6(f) (1) states, in part:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are
site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans
or regulatory limitations,jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact
should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or
otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one
of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the
objectives of the project, the project's significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors
are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(x).
Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of "potentially feasible" alternatives, the ultimate
determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency's decision-
making body, here the City Council of the City of South San Francisco. (See PRC Section 21081[x] [3].)
11 arge Il
CRY 1 11 151iP:Vd,th!San 1'111"nd&sciiPai t'k
Akin wfl h+m s Ascilmt II:;;IInvirmauuv nW
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.2.1 Attainment of Project Objectives
As described above, one factor that must be considered in selection of alternatives is the ability of a specific
alternative to attain most of the basic objectives of the project(Section 15126.6[x]). Chapter 2, "Project
Description," articulated the project objectives, and they are repeated here:
.. promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well being;
promote economically responsible and fiscally sound land use planning;
promote maintenance of existing commercial uses deemed desirable to the long-term identity of the City;
protect the downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center and focus of commercial activity;
encourage mixed-use development along principle corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce
Avenue.
protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales and diverse
retail uses.
minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community.
promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood-level retail uses.
reflect the intent of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El Camino Real with "Smart Growth" principles,
which include but are not limited to: maintaining walkable neighborhoods; compact urban form;
opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives; and an effective use of available infrastructure.
4.2.2 Environmental Impacts of the Project
Chapter 3, "Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures," addresses the project-specific and
cumulative environmental impacts of the project. The project would not result in a change in the potential
environmental impacts that could result from development as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. It should
be noted that impacts associated with GHG were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR; development in
accordance with the General Plan may result in a substantial contribution of GHG's although the City has
prepared a draft climate action plan to attain GHG reduction targets that would reduce its contribution of
GHG to a less-than-significant level. Development in accordance with currently adopted zoning designations,
which is an implementation of the General Plan, would generate GHGs that are consistent with the total GHG
generation under buildout of the General Plan. The project would restrict one type of development that falls
within the overall range of permissible development and therefore would not foreseeably alter this potential
for GHG emission.
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
4-2 My ii�if!Sii�iuth!San 11:iwdscii�ii
Ascent II:11n0rrmAAAnA aAW ARli,nafives
4.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS DEIR
4.3.1 No Project Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (1) requires that the no project alternative be described and
analyzed "to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not
approving the project." The no project analysis is required to discuss "the existing conditions at the time the
notice of preparation is published...as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services" (Section 15126.6[e][2]). "If the project is...development project on
identifiable property, the `no project' alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not
proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its
existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of
the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some
other project, this `no project' consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project
alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where
failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the
analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of
artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment." (Section
15126[e][3][B].)
Under the No Project Alternative, no zoning amendments would be implemented and the current zoning
definitions and categories would remain the same throughout the city. It is unknown whether a superstore
use would eventually be developed within the city under the No Project Alternative. No superstores are
currently proposed. If no superstores were developed, the physical outcome of the No Project Alternative
would be identical to the proposed project. Therefore, in order to be able to conduct a comparison of
potential impacts, it is necessary to assume that a superstore would be developed under the No Project
Alternative. The No Project Alternative does not assume development of a grocery use within the East of 101
Area because, as discussed in the beginning of Section 3 "Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures", development of a stand-alone grocery use is not foreseeable in this area.
4.3.2 Limited Superstore Zone Alternative
Under the Limited Superstore Zone alternative, superstores would not be prohibited citywide; the
"superstore", as defined in the project description, would be prohibited in all zoning categories, but a special
new zoning category would be created that includes a superstore as a conditionally permitted use within
specific locations. The new zoning category would be applied to several strategically located sites within the
city to attempt to minimize, as much as possible, the economic impacts to local grocers and other retail
uses. The specific location for the new zoning category would be determined based on further economic
study. All other allowed uses under current zoning would be allowed under the alternative. As with the No
Project Alternative, implementation of the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would not necessarily result
in the development of a superstore. There is a possibility(the likelihood of which cannot be determined)that
the physical change to the environment under the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would be identical to
the proposed project. Therefore, in order to be able to compare potential impacts of the Alternative to the
proposed project, it is assumed that a superstore would be developed under the Limited Superstore Zone
Alternative. The Limited Superstore Zone Alternative does not assume development of a grocery use within
the East of 101 Area because, as discussed in the beginning of Section 3 "Environmental Setting, Impacts,
and Mitigation Measures", development of a stand-alone grocery use is not foreseeable in this area.
11 arge Il i:uu'°u A1f Il i�n'uV/P;l�liuµ a a�:u��;If�m usb°+z ll�w ds�n��„ '��:uuAUUw �;unn,�'uuA nu d.� ��n,�aG l�uAna^n�dbn n nn lll�n„null Il allf
CRY 11�111!51i�iuth!:San 11:iwdscii�ii 4-3
Akin wfl h+m s Ascilmt 11:;;unvurrmauuv nW
4.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.4.1 No Project Alternative
Traffic and Transportation
As mentioned above, this discussion assumes that, under the No Project Alternative, a superstore would be
a permitted use at some location within the city. A superstore, if developed, would generate an average
amount of traffic (per square foot) when compared to other commercial uses allowed under the Zoning
Ordinance. Other use consistent with the Zoning Ordinance would produce more traffic per square foot, and
others less traffic per square foot. Therefore, determining whether the No Project Alternative might have
greater or fewer impacts related to traffic congestion and level of service than the proposed project is not
reasonably foreseeable. Both the project and the No Project Alternative are consistent with the General Plan;
therefore, the impacts of both are within the scope of the General Plan EIR. It is notable that superstore uses
are generally not considered very conducive to alternate transportation modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit).
Other allowed commercial uses may also not be conducive to alternate transportation modes, but still other
permitted commercial or employment uses would better accommodate these modes, including restaurants,
medical and dental offices, professional offices, general retail sales and research and development.
Although it cannot be conclusively determined whether the No Project Alternative would generate more or
less traffic than the proposed project, because the proposed project would not result in new significant
traffic-related impacts (in comparison to the General Plan EIR), it can be determined that the No Project
Alternative would not substantially reduce the traffic and transportation impacts of the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the traffic discussion above,there is expected to be a marginal difference (either higher or lower)
in vehicle emissions between a superstore and a different commercial use that is currently allowed under
the existing zoning, and it is speculative to assume a particular commercial use would be developed for
comparison purposes. Regardless, both the project and the No Project Alternative would be consistent with
the General Plan and the analysis of the General Plan EIR. Although it cannot be determined whether the No
Project Alternative would generate more or less pollutant emission than the proposed project, because the
project would not result in a significant new air quality-related impact, the No Project Alternative would not
substantially reduce or increase the impacts of the project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed above, for the purposes of comparison, the No Project Alternative is assumed to result in the
development of a superstore within the city. The size and location of such a superstore cannot be predicted,
however. The level of greenhouse gas emission of a superstore is largely dependent on its size and location.
Similarly, under the proposed project, the City cannot reasonably foresee which commercial development
type, out of the entire range of possible development types allowed in the Zoning Ordinance, might be
developed instead of a potential superstore. In addition to the speculation required to identify a commercial
use, the size and location of that commercial use would remain unknown. Therefore, any comparison of the
level of greenhouse gas emission between a superstore and an alternate commercial use would require
speculation, which is not required by CEQA. It is worth noting, however, that a superstore is a more region-
serving development type than many other commercial uses allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, such as
banks and credit unions, business services, coffee shops, convenience markets, and medical and dental
offices. Although a superstore may not be the most intense development type in terms of trip generation, the
number of vehicle miles traveled may be higher than many of the other development types because the
supercenter draws from a wider geographical market. Regardless, both the project and the No Project
Alternative would be consistent with Plan Bay Area, which sets regional emission reduction goals for GHG.
Although it cannot be determined whether the No Project Alternative would generate more or less GHG
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
4-4 My i�iC51i�iath!5an 11:randscii�ii
Ascent II:11n0rrmAAAnA aAW ARli,nafives
emissions than the proposed project, because the project would not result in a significant impact related to
GHG emission, a determination can be made that the No Project Alternative would not substantially reduce
the impacts of the project.
Land Use and Planning
Although a superstore would be consistent with the current General Plan land use designations, a superstore
would not be consistent with several of the General Plan policies discussed in Section 3.4 "Land Use,"
especially those related to enhancing the local business climate (Policy 6-G-3) and prioritizing land uses
based on economic criteria and sound fiscal planning(Policy 6-G-5). Furthermore, the economic study
prepared by Seifel indicates that a superstore may be a contributing factor to the potential closure of
existing grocery uses in the City. Closure of a business does not necessarily lead to urban decay, but it could
be a contributing factor to urban decay in a community that is already experiencing an economic downturn.
Although it is unknown whether, under the proposed project, certain alternate commercial uses could
similarly contribute to closures of other business types, it can be determined that the No Project Alternative
would not reduce urban-decay-related impacts of the proposed project, especially due to the fact that the
proposed project would not result in significant urban decay impacts. However, regarding consistency with
General Plan policies, it is likely that development of a superstore assumed under the No Project Alternative
would not be consistent with General Plan policies related to business climate and economic criteria.
Although City Council should consider these policy inconsistencies during deliberation on the proposed
project, these policies do not relate to the physical environment. Both the project and the No Project
Alternative would be consistent with General Plan policies adopted to mitigate or avoid environmental
impacts. Regardless, the No Project Alternative would not substantially reduce the impacts of the project.
4.4.2 Limited Superstore Zone Alternative
Traffic and Transportation
As described in the description of the No Project Alternative above, for the sake of comparison, this
Alternative assumes that a superstore would be developed on a strategically located site within the city. A
similar assumption is made under the No Project Alternative. The only difference in potential outcome
between the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative and the No Project Alternative is that the Limited
Superstore Zone Alternative would further restrict the location of that superstore beyond the current zoning.
However, it has not been determined (and would require further economic study)to determine the specific
locations within the city where this new zoning category would apply, and as a result this analysis is not site
specific. It is possible that any superstore(s) developed under the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would
be the same size and located in the same place as under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, impacts
related to traffic and transportation would likely be very similar, if not identical,to the No Project Alternative.
(See the traffic and transportation discussion under No Project Alternative above.) Similar to the No Project
Alternative, although it cannot be conclusively determined whether the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative
would generate more or less traffic than the proposed project, because the proposed project would not
result in new significant traffic-related impacts (in comparison to the General Plan EIR), it can be determined
that the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would not substantially reduce the traffic and transportation
related impacts of the project.
Air Quality
As described under the traffic and transportation discussion above, the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative
and the No Project Alternative would have a similar, if not identical, physical outcome with respect to
development of a superstore and therefore would result in very similar, if not identical, impacts to the
environment. (See the air quality discussion under the No Project Alternative above.) Similar to the No
Project Alternative, although it cannot be determined whether the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would
generate more or less pollutant emission than the proposed project, because the project would not result in
IL.�A��„�Ili:uu'�°u�A1f Ili�n'uV/P;l�liuµa �^a�:u��;If musb°+zll��w�ds�n��„��'�:uuAUUw��;unn,�'uuA�nund. �n,aGl�u'Ana^n�dbn�nnn�llln„null Ilallf�
Akin nzflh+m s Ascilmt 11:;;unvurrmauuv nW
a significant new air quality-related impact, the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would not substantially
reduce or increase the impacts of the project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The physical outcome of the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would be similar, if not identical, to the No
Project Alternative with respect to development of a superstore. The impacts related to emission of
greenhouse gas would, consequently, also be very similar, if not identical. (See the greenhouse gas
emissions discussion under the No Project Alternative above.) Similar to the No Project Alternative, although
it cannot be determined whether the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would generate more or less GHG
emission than the proposed project, because the project would not result in a significant impact related to
GHG emission, a determination can be made that the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would not
substantially reduce the impacts of the project.
Land Use and Planning
As described above, the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would likely result in very similar physical
effects as the No Project Alternative. (See the land use and planning discussion under the No Project
Alternative above.) Similar to the No Project Alternative, both the project and the Limited Superstore Zone
Alternative would be consistent with General Plan policies related to mitigation or avoidance of
environmental impacts. Regardless,the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would not substantially reduce
the impacts of the project.
4.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 suggests that an EIR should identify the "environmentally superior"
alternative. "If the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." In this EIR, the proposed
project and both alternatives would be within the scope of development contemplated by the City's adopted
General Plan, and would not result in new significant environmental impacts. In addition, neither the project
nor the alternatives would result in any direct development. The project and the alternatives dictate "which"
not "whether" commercial development will occur in the future. For the reasons stated previously, identifying
specific alternative commercial uses that could develop in the future with the proposed project or the
alternatives would require speculation about market conditions and developer preferences, and is not
reasonably foreseeable. And because the project and alternatives differ by only one development type out of
the entire spectrum of development allowed under Zoning Ordinance, the difference in the generation of
traffic, pollutant emissions, and GHG between the project and the alternatives, although unknown, is likely
minimal. Further, the No Project Alternative and the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative assume that a
superstore is developed; but a possibility also exists that, in actuality, implementation of either of these
alternatives would not result in development of a superstore within the city, which would result in the
identical physical outcome as the proposed project. One difference between the project and the alternatives,
however, is that development of a superstore under both alternatives would not be consistent with General
Plan policies related to business climate and economic criteria. Also, because the economic analysis
indicates a superstore could, along with other factors, contribute to closure of existing grocery stores with
the city, based on the current information available, it is possible that the two alternatives could potentially
contribute to urban-decay-related impacts. The project is also restricting the development options available,
while both alternatives are maintaining the current menu of development options. While any environmental
impacts of the alternatives are likely similar to those of the project, on the whole, the project is the
environmentally superior alternative.
Furthermore, as described above, CEQA requires that project alternatives feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but also avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, City staff determined
I arge If'��:uu'mu ull Il�i�a�u"
uU/'�iiuµ�u a^!u���uure,II iuivatl��'tla ll�t"idevage tliuuuung�:urdunanr.i�tlu;+��1�u�u�Muuabu�ua^u�N uu��
4-0'3 My i,i i i Iath 15an II II antl'ltl+,"cii,ai
Ascent II:11n0rrmAAAnA aAW ARli,nafives
that the Limited Superstore Zone Alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but would not meet
three of the most basic project objectives:
protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales and diverse
retail uses.
minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community.
promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood-level retail uses.
The Limited Superstore Alternative does not meet these objectives because even though the alternative
would limit the location of superstores within the city, the potential adverse economic effects of a superstore
may not necessarily be limited to the immediate vicinity of the superstore, but may affect local retail
throughout the city, regardless of the location. Therefore, neither of the alternatives meets the basic project
objectives.
IL.�A��„�Ill;uu'�°u�A1f III�n'uV/P;l�liuµal�„�I:u�l;If Imusb°+zll��w�ds�n��„��'�I;,uuAUUw��;unn,�'uuA�nund.l �In,I�Gl�u'Ana^n�dbn�nnn�lllln„null Ilallf��
My ii if!Sii�iuth!San 11:i wtl:,:Asciil;'li �
Akin wfl lives Ascilmt 11::nviromvenW
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii;ii rn iia 11 I1161,a H/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve vagebi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in wnt 11)raft 1:1111
2k8 CRY i�iC51i�iath!5an 11:randscii�ii
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, GROWTH INDUCEMENT,
AND OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130(x) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when
the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15065(x)(3), means that the "incremental effects of an individual project are significant
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects."
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.
The proposed project does not alter the intensity of land uses that could be developed under the General
Plan; it only removes one type of commercial development(superstores)that could be developed on
commercially-zoned parcels, and prohibits development of grocery stores on properties east of US 101. The
impacts of developing the expected intensity of commercial uses, unchanged by the project, was evaluated
in the General Plan EIR. As demonstrated throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR, the project is within the scope of
the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR evaluated impacts associated with additional development
identified in the General Plan, including cumulative impacts. Furthermore, due to the fact that the project is
a change to a long-term regulatory device that affects the specific future commercial development, Chapter
3 of this EIR examines the project in the context of future development and is therefore cumulative in
nature. Finally, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the environment and
would therefore not substantially contribute to any cumulative impact.
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA specifies that growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR (CCR Section
21100[b][5]). Specifically, Section 15126.2(d)states that the EIR shall:
Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in
this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater
treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population
may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage
and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of
little significance to the environment.
Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing, which would
facilitate new population to an area. Indirect growth inducement would result,for instance, if implementing a
project resulted in any of the following:
substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental
enterprises);
11 arge Il
RY 1 111 151iP:Vd,th!San 1'II wd&sciiP:;li �.
�:"uuu��llutl��lf:gwdms^Il ll�ull�,u�.�w,�:°du�:m�w��Ilu�abuua.l Ewa uaN� �:o�,�p���"q�;us�..tl�l rtllluuu�ou��:"I ouuauutl+M���u�u7muu�w ,rida��Il fu��+u�rmuuu�uuu��uV
substantial short-term employment opportunities(e.g., construction employment)that indirectly
stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment
demand; and/or
removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a
required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an
undeveloped area).
The State CEQA Guidelines do not distinguish between planned and unplanned growth for purposes of
considering whether a project would foster additional growth. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, to reach
the conclusion that a project is growth inducing as defined by CEQA, the EIR must find that it would foster
(i.e., promote, encourage, allow) additional growth in economic activity, population, or housing, regardless of
whether the growth is already approved by and consistent with local plans. The conclusion does not
determine that induced growth is beneficial or detrimental, consistent with Section 15126.2(d) of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
Mechanisms by which a project may directly induce growth may include creatingjobs that attract economic
or population growth to the area; promoting the construction of homes that would bring new residents to the
area; or removing an obstacle that impedes growth in the area. The project does not include the construction
of new homes and, therefore, would not directly bring new residents into the city. The project would amend
the Zoning Ordinance such that superstores would be prohibited citywide and grocery stores would be
prohibited east of US 101. The project does nothing to affect whether growth ultimately occurs in the City.
5.3 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
5.3.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 21100(b)(2)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR shall include a detailed statement
setting forth "in a separate section: any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the
project is implemented." As described in Chapter 3 of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project
would not result in any significant impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR, and although the
impacts associated with GHG were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR, as explained in Section 3.3
"Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change," the project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG..
5.3.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126) require a discussion of the significant irreversible environmental
changes which would be involved in a project should it be implemented.
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is the permanent loss of resources for future or
alternative purposes. Irreversible and irretrievable resources are those that cannot be recovered or recycled
or those that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms. The proposed project would result in the
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy and material resources during construction and
operation, including the following:
.. construction materials, including such resources as soil, rocks, wood, concrete, glass, roof shingles, and
steel;
land area committed to new project facilities;
water supply for project operation; and
I a rge If'�I;uu mu ull II�I,a,q"
uU/'�Iluµ�u a^!u��luu'�,Il luluatl�"'tlall�t"idevage;t luuuung�:urdunanr.I�tll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
Ascent II!fn0rommW
energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil for equipment and transportation
vehicles that would be needed for project construction and operation.
The project prohibits a specific commercial development type and geographically limits another to west of
US101. The proposed project would not result in physical development and would therefore not require
commitment of the resources described above. The project would not result in significant irreversible
environmental changes.
5.3.3 Energy Conservation
CEQA requires consideration of potential energy impacts of a proposed project(California Public Resources
Code Section 21100[b][3]). Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines outlines issues related to energy
conservation, and includes potential project description considerations, types of impacts applicable to
energy use, and potential mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption
of energy. According to CEQA, the goal of energy conservation implies wise and efficient use of energy, which
can be accomplished by reducing energy consumption (e.g., natural gas and oil) and increasing reliance on
renewable energy sources.
The project does not alter the scope of commercial development that could occur under the General Plan
and as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not alter energy consumption in the
city.
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii;ii rn iia 11 I1161,a fl/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve vagebi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in mit 11)raft 1:1111
5 4 My i�iC51i�iath!5an 11:randscii�ii
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
SusyKalkin ...........................................................................................................................................Chief Planner
Girard Beaudin, AICP, MCIP, LEED AP........................................................................................... Principal Planner
6.2 PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Ascent Environmental
GaryJakobs, AICP......................................................................................................................................... Principal
MikeParker, AICP............................................................................................................................Project Manager
Heather Phillips, AICP..........................................................................Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Honey Walters.........................................................Senior Reviewer, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sarah Henningsen................................................................................................................Land Use and Planning
Marianne Lowenthal...........................................................................................................Environmental Checklist
LisaKashiwase.....................................................................................................................................GIS Specialist
AmberGiffin............................................................................................................................ Document Production
Gayiety Lane ........................................................................................................................... Document Production
Crane Transportation
Mark D. Crane, P.E. .........................................................................................................Traffic and Transportation
Seifel Consulting
LibbySeifel..................................................................................................................................Economics Analysis
11 are 111 ii:�irn iall� 1imusb&llime vage 6:�unft Ord'una nci ��dx�Amenddad ent 11)mflf 1111:111f11
CRY 1 111 151iP:V0.,th i a n 111'111"nd;&sciiPai ('���p..1
11 list 11�11repar&s Ascilmt 11::nviromvenW
This page intentionally left blank.
Ila rge 11 ii:ii rn iia 11 1161 a H/!S 11 u pmsti�ii re/11 11�1111�114&lieve rage bi�in ing Ord i nan cia tl iNt Amend in wnt 11)raft 1:1111
(3 2 My i�iC51i iath!San 11 rancisciiai
7 REFERENCES
Chapter 2, Project Description
Seifel Consulting Inc. 2012 (October). Superstore Economic Impact Analysis. San Francisco, CA. Prepared for
the City of South San Francisco.
Section 3.1,Traffic
Crane Transportation. 2013. Memorandum from Mark Crane, P.E. regarding potential traffic generated by a
superstore and the reliability of traffic projection for an alternate land use. December 2013.
Beaudin 2013. Personal Communication by telephone with Gerry Beaudin, planner at the City of South San
Francisco. Mike Parker with Ascent called Gerry on December 18, 2013. Gerry verified that the
growth that has occurred within the city is consistent with the levels (and in some cases below)the
levels anticipated in the 1999 General Plan and EIR.
Section 3.2,Air Quality
ARB. 2013x. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf
ARB. 2013b. Air Quality Data Statistics. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourl.php.
Accessed December 4, 2013.
ARB. 2013c. 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat—query.php?F—DIV=-
4&F—DD=Y&F—YR=2008&F—SEASON=A&SP=2009&F—AREA=CO&F—CO=41. Accessed December 5,
2013.
ARB. 2012. Area Designations. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
BAAQMD. 2010. Clean Air Plan. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-
Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General
Plan Update.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Criteria Air Pollutant Information. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/. Accessed December 4, 2013.
Section 3.3, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
California Air Resources Board. 2008 (December). Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available: <
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf >.
California Air Resources Board. 2013x.Approved Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets.
Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/final_targets.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2013.
Cal-adapt. 2013. Temperature Projections. Available: http://cal-adapt.org/tools/factsheet/?units=on&
scenario=a2&lat=37.6875&Ing=-122.4375&zoom Level=l0&gridID=9g8ymug9x7ny&tool=
temperature. Accessed December 4, 2013.
11 arge Il
CRY 1 11 151iP:Vd,th!San 1'111"nd;&sciiP:V �.
I I:4emnces Ascilmt II:;;um+nrrmnm nW
City of South San Francisco. 2013. Draft Climate Action Plan. Available:
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=1463. Accessed December 4, 2013.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 (February). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva,
Switzerland.
One Bay Area. 2013. Bay Area 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
Environmental Impact Report. Available: http://onebayarea.org/plan-bay-area/plan-
elements/environmental-impact-report.html. Accessed December 4, 2013.
Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning
City of South San Francisco. 1999 (October). City of South San Francisco General Plan. Available:
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. Accessed December 2013.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012 (October). Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Redwood City, CA.
Prepared by Ricondo &Associates, Inc. in association with Jacobs Consultancy and Clarion
Associates. Available: http://www.ccag.ca.gov/pdf/plans-
reports/2012/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_10-29-12.pdf. Accessed December 2013.
Grand Boulevard Initiative. 2013. Grand Boulevard Initiative Website. Available:
http://www.grandboulevard.net. Accessed December 2013.
San Mateo County. 1985. General Plan Background and Issues. Chapter 7: General Land Use. Prepared by
the Department of Environmental Management, Planning and Development Division. San Mateo
County, CA. Available: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning/genplan/. Accessed December
2013.
Seifel Consulting Inc. 2014 (January).Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for Large Format Retail, Superstore and Food& Beverage Uses. Prepared for the City of South San
Francisco.
Seifel Consulting Inc. 2012 (October). Superstore Economic Impact Analysis. San Francisco, CA. Prepared for
the City of South San Francisco.
II u���„�If'I;uunmu�ull II�I,a�,„q”
uU/'Iluµ�u a^!u�luu'�,Il luluatl"'tlall�t"�d�����„�;�,luuuuu��!„�:uuu�uu�uu�r.Itll„u;„,r�'���u�u+Muuabu�ua^u�N lu'utltl
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
November 6, 2013
To: Interested Parties
Subject-. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Large Format Retail I Superstore Zoning Text Amendments
Lead hgency:
Agency Name: City of South San Francisco
Pl in Division
Street Address: 315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
94080
Mailing Address P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
94083
Contact: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
susy.kalkin@ssf.net
The
it of out San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Enviromnental Impact
Report (EIR) for the project identified below. Ascent Environmental, Inc. has been retained by the City
to prepare the EIR. We a r e seeking input f r o m the public and agencies as t o t he scope and content of
the environmental information that you feel should be included in the subject EIR.
The EIR will address a proposal (the "Project")by the City to modify its zoning code, as it pertains to
Large Format Retail/Superstore designations("Zoning Amendments").
A description of the Zoning Amendments is summarized below. An Initial Study is not attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not later than 30 days after the mailing of this notice. All comments are due by December 6, 2013.
Comments can be provided in writing via regular or e-mail, or in writing or verbally at a public
scoping meeting, to be held from 3prn to 4pm on December 5, 2013 in the Annex Conference Room at
315 Maple Avenue, out San Francisco, CA.
Please send any written response to Susy Kalkin at t e a ddress shown above. Please provide a contact
name for your comments.
Project Title: Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments
'w
r
AUµ°....... �� y. .i, ,. •,..,., .... .® ....._......,.. ...,....». .;*�. � "e'w� �A .V/ �(/� �r,..( .O,
V l
ApMl
' r
Al d �����
p+ °,�
4!'
m'
roar M1',I10/
d But
a a � «ui„ s ,,« x� B l9 /� �, l
;e w
Rr r
TN
"— � a ° � �u '^°°� 0o-'- � � Y° ;�� 'mn "� • �r Jy ,_ar d
t y +M
i
VII
J, a t °
Y
- X
I'll Al
aWVB„ Y°f
% fin
W,
SF City UmIt
Study Area
Other Cities a' :6 . � .• `
.,ww.» C W'rvro' ....w..a.�.nu»»...a'J' L�..»mm...»..h»: »—»w..».»mm» 1+'°..w..mm'.S.a».�.»..».» '� .m.».�.+n.m»..•¢�,»....».....
Project Description & Scoping: The proposed Zoning Amendments include changes to
remove the potential for future grocery store uses within the st of 10 1 planning sub-area to
prohibit"Superstore" use city-wide.
The East 10 1 planning sub-area includes no istin or 1 a residential uses. Because a retail
grocery use generally serves residential neighborhoods, such a use would be inappropriate for this
planning sub-area. The proposed Zoning e l resolve this potential planning conflict by
eliminating tti uses from the East of 10 1 planning sub-area.
The proposed"Superstore" definition would include retail establishments that serve as a one-so
shopping destinti offering wide variety of oo s and merchandise, often isco to
price. Superstores are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of oce sales (defined in the
proposed zoning code as over square feet in sales area with over ret of the gross floor
area dedicated to full service food/beverage/grocery sales). A Superstore may also feature various
business centers, such s a bank,pharmacy, vision center,pet center,photo center, and prepared o0
outlet(s).
Proposed alterations to the zoning ordinance will also require revised or new definitions for the
following uses: Convenience Market,Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and
Superstore. The changes to these definitions provide clarification by differentiating these uses from
the proposed to be prohibited"Superstores."
The proposed Zoning Amendments are intended to implement existing General Plan policies and
principles to promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well being, and maintain
the downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center as a focus of commercial activity. The
Zoning Amendments will also seek to protect the City's neighborhood shopping centers as Primary
Market Areas for Grocery sales and diverse retail uses. Furthermore,the proposed Zoning Text
Amendments seek to minimize negative impacts on standalone Food and Beverage Retail Sales uses
in the community,mitigate negative impacts on vehicle,bicycle and pedestrian circulation patterns,
and avoid potential adverse effects on real property values resulting from diminished neighborhood
and/or regional shopping centers resulting from a new"Superstore"use vdthin the City limits. The
proposed Zoning Text Amendments also reflect the intent of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El
Camino Real with"Smart Growth" principles,which include but are not limited to: maintaining
walkable neighborhoods; compact urban form; opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives; and
an effective use of available infrastructure.
The EIR will focus on environmental effects in the following topic areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emission and Climate Change, Land Use Planning, and Transportation and
Circulation.
Date: November 6, 2013
4s Su Kal 'n, Chief Planner ����
Telephone: (650) 877-8535
2192332.1
Appendix B
NOP Comments
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TR DRATION AGENCY EDMUND Q BROWN Jr C vem
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT f
111 GRAND AVENUE
P.O.BOX 23660,MS-10
OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 Flex your power!
P (510)286-6053 Be energy efficient!
FAX (510)286-5559
Y 711
www.dot.ca.gov �
November 13, 2013
117
13112 11
Ms. Susy Kalkin
Planning ivisi
City of o Francisco
Box 711
South r cisco, CA 94083
Dear s. .
Large Format Retai]VSuperstore Zoning Text Amendment-Notice of Preparation
Thank you for including the lio is Department of Transportation( lr s)in e
environmental review process forte above project. The following comments are based on the
Notice of r ti As the lead agency, the i of o Francisco (City)is responsible
for all project mitigation, including needed improvements o state highways. The project's
fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency
monitoring should be fully discussed all proposed mitigation measures. This information
should also be presented in the i ' ti on Monitoring and Reporting of the v' l
document. Required roadway improvements s o completed o issuance of e
Certificate c ice an encroachment permit is required or work in the state right
way( s will not issue a permit ti concerns are adequately sse , we
strongly recommend a the City work applicant and Caltrans to ensure that our
concerns a resolved i the environmental process,and in y case prior to submittal o
encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during encroachment
permit rocess; see the end of this letter for more information regarding a e permits.
Traffic Impact Study
One of Caltrans' ongoing responsibilities is collaborate with local agencies to avoid,
eliminate, or reduce to insignificant levels potential adverse impacts to the state highway
system local development projects. We recommend using i for the
Preparation of r fic Impact Studies Guide) for determining which scenarios
methodologies to use in the analysis. We encourage the it to coordinate preparation of the
Traffic )with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review
e scope e include the information detailed below in the to s e that
project-related s to state roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. is
available t the following website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov /tpp/offices/ocp/igr-ceqEk-files/tisguide.pdf
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Ms. Susy Kalkin/City of out San Francisco
November 13,2013
Page 2
The TIS should include:
1. Vicinity map,regional location map, and a site plan clearly showing project access in
relation to nearby state roadways. Ingress and egress for all project components should be
clearly identifi ed. The state ROW should be clearly identified.
2. The maps should also include project driveways, local roads and intersections, parking,
and transit facilities.
3. Project-related trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and
methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, and
should be supported with appropriate documentation.
4. Average Daily Traffic, AM and PM peak hour volumes and levels of service (LOS) on all
significantly affected roadways, including crossroads and controlled intersections for
existing, existing plus project, cumulative and cumulative is project scenarios.
Calculation of cumulative t r a f f i c volumes should consider all traffic-generating
developments, both existing and future,that would affect study area roadways and
intersections. The analysis should clearly identify the project's contribution to area traffic
and degradation to existing and cumulative LOS. Lastly, the Cal trans LOS threshold,
which is the transition between LOS C and D, and is explained in detail in the TIS GUIDE,
should be applied to all state facilities. Please note, Caltrans considers LOS by itself as an
inadequate measure of effectiveness (MOE) for describing traffic operational conditions
since it may actually mask a deficient condition on one or more approaches. As for
intersection analysis the accepted MOEs used by Caltrans include flow(output), aversge
control delay, queue (length or number of vehicles), and Volume/Capacity (V/C)ratio.
For freeway and ramp operations, flow(output), speed, and travel time/delay are the
accepted MOEs in addition to LOS.
5. Schematic illustration of traffic conditions including the project site and study area
roadways,trip distribution percentages and volumes as well as intersection geometries,
i.e., lane configurations, for the scenarios described above.
If the proposed project will not generate the amount of trips needed to meet the Department's
trip generation thresholds, an explanation of how this conclusion was reached must be
provided.
Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any work or traffic oft encroaches onto the state ROW requires an
encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit
application,environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating the state
ROW must be submitted to: Office of Pen-nits, California Department of Transportation,
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Ms. Susy Kalkin/City of South San Francisco
November 13, 2013
Page 3
District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures
should be incorporated into the construction plans during t e e ncroachment permit process. See
the website link below for more information. hW://www,dot.ca.gov/h I�tra� is/devel sere/� ILUn 09Y919pagY42e its/
Please feel free to call ore ail Sandra Finegan at(51 0) 622-1644 ors a fine an __v
with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
4.
ERIK ALM, AICP
District Branch Chief
Local Development—Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across California
j IJ� llf�'r
CITY/COUNTY S I
F SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton•Belmont-Brisbane-Burlingame•Cola•Daly City•East Palo Alto•Foster City-Half Moon Bay-Hillsboroug4fenlo Park•Millbrae
Pacifica•Portola Valley-Redwood City San Bruno•San Carlos•San Mateo•San Mateo County-South San Francisco•Woodside
December 4,2013
sy Kalkin, Chief Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Division
315 Maple Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 940
Dear sy:
C/CAG Staff Comments on tic Preparation ) of r 'r
[ pact Report( I )for Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments,
Re: Airport Land Use Compatibility in the Environs of San Francisco International i ort
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above-referenced document. The following
are C/CAG staff comments regarding potential 0 land use compatibility issues related to a content
of e proposed zoning text amendments.
Project ci '
The project for CEQA review is an administrative action by the City of o Francisco to amend the
text in e City's Zoning r ' ce to (1)remove e potential for future grocery store uses within the
East of 101 planning subarea (2)to prohibit"superstore"uses citywide. As stated in the NOP,
"Proposed tertios to the zoning ordinance will also require revised or new definitions for the
following uses: Convenience Market, Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and Superstore.
The changes to these definitions provide clarification y differentiating these uses from the proposed to
be prohibited"Superst res." The proposed action does not include a proposed commercial/retail
development project nor a general l e et.
AiKport Land Use Com]gatibifily Issues
The key airport land use compatibility issues in a environs of San Francisco International Airport( )
include: (1)airport noise, ( ) safety(runway s ety zones), and( )height of structures/airspace
protection. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendments will not affect airport land use
compatibility policies and criteria related to future development of commercial/retail l uses in e
environs of S , as discussed below on a next page.
Airport oise Compatibility. Table I -1 on -1 in a Comprehensive Air ort Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs o San Francisco International Airport November 2012 document
indicates co erci rt il land uses area compatible in 1 airport noise contour levels(Below 65 dB,
5- 0 dB, 70-75 dB, and 7 over), as measured the Community Noise Equivalent Level
( )noise metric. The content of the proposed zoning text amendments would not change these
airport noise compatibility criteria.
555 County Center,I'Floor,Redwood City,CA 94063 P$oNE:650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227
www.ccag.ca.gov
Letter to Susy Kalkin,Chief Planner, City of South San Francisco,Re: C/CAG Staff Comments on
a Notice of Preparation(NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for Large Format
Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments,Re: Airport Land Use Compatibility
December 4,2013
Page 2 of 2
Safety Compatibility. The City of South San Francisco includes territory within Safety Zone 2, Inner
Approach/Departure Zone, Safety Zone 3, Inner Turing Zone, and Safety Zone 4, Outer
Approach/Departure Zone for Runways 28 Le at San Francisco International Airport(SFO).
Table IV-2 on pp. IV-31 and IV-32 in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs ofSan
Francisco International Airport November 2012 document lists land uses that are incompatible and uses
that should be avoided in each safety zone. Commercial/retail uses are not listed in the table as uses that
are incompatible or uses that are to be avoided in any safety zone. The content of the proposed zoning
text amendments would not change the safety compatibility criteria for commercial/retail land uses.
Height of Structures/Airspace Protection Compatibility. All of the territory within the city limits of
the City of South San Francisco in subject to one or more of the airspace protection policies for the
environs of San Francisco International Airport. These policies are shown on pp. IV.-55,IV.-59, and IV.-
60 in the ComprehensiveAirport Land Use Plan for the Environs of8an Francisco International Airport
November 2012 document. The policies address compliance with 14 CFR Part 77, Subpart B, "Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration,"compliance with findings o f FAA aeronautical studies,maximum
compatible building heights, and other flight hazards(land use characteristics)that are incompatible. All
future commercial/retail land development must be compatible with the relevant airspace protection
policies. The content of the proposed zoning text amendments will not change this compatibility
requirement.
Prol2osed Action Does
The proposed project is considered by the Airport Land Use Commission(C/CAG Board)to be a land
use policy action and affects real property within Area B (policy/project referral area) of the Airport
Influence Area(AIA)for San Francisco International Airport. In most cases, a proposed land use policy
action changes a land use designation or zoning designation on a specific parcel to a different
designation. If such an action would affect real property within Area B, it would require a formal
ALUC/C/CAG ALUCP consistency review. However,in this case,the proposed action does not change
the land use and/or zoning designation on any specific parcel nor does the action affect the airport land
use compatibility criteria for future commercial/retail land uses within Area B of the Airport Influence
Area(AIA)boundary for SFO. Based on these parameters,the proposed action does not require formal
ALUC/CCAG review/action. If you have any questions out these comments,please contact me at
650/599-1453, T-TH or via email, at&4Lbone me ov.or
Sincere�yl,,f
4
David Carbone, C/CAG Staff
cc: Sandy Wong, C/CAG Executive Director
John Bergener,Manager, SFO Bureau of Planning and Environinental Affairs
CCAGstaffcomletSSFNOPcomzoningamendmentsl2l3.doex
555 County Center,5b Floor,Redwood City,CA 94063 PHONE:650.599.1406 FAx: 650.361.8227
www.ceag.ca.gov
Appendix C
Environmental Checklist
C. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title. Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711,South San Francisco, CA
94083
3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner, (650) 877-8535
4. Project Location: City of South San Francisco
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as Lead Agency
6. General Plan Designation: N/A(city-wide)
7. Zoning N/A(city-wide)
S. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and
anysecondary,support,or offLsite features necessaryfor its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
See Chapter 2, "Project Description," of the DEIR.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting N/A(city-wide)
(Briefly describe the project's
surroundings)
10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: See Chapter 1, "Introduction," of the DEIR.
(e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation
agreement)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
lone impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forest Resources ® Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
® Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality
® Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise
❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
® Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance
❑ None With Mitigation
My P:Uf!SiiP'iiuth I!Saaad I ll"i:ad&tl;aAacii:'iii
11 aarge 111 ii:�l�rn iaall� 11 i iii bid&llimev age of iunft Ordina iieli ��a,�d Mimid�bAvent Iliil l[W Study C
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
DETERMINATION (To be completed bythe Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
F-] I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
F-1 I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
F-] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
® I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
F-1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Susy Kalkin Chief Planner
Printed Name Title
City of South San Francisco
Agency
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
L:argeIIi:irn iiallf u1114&View vageti�i nin gOw"d'unanci,p�MtAm+^nabuventIlniia
AauabN
,ada^drN I::llra+irra nvenU uraa"nrraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. CEQA permits streamlined environmental review for certain projects that are consistent with a general plan for
which an EIR was certified. (PRC Section 21083.3, CCR Section 15183.)Streamlined environmental review
specifically applies to zoning amendments that limit development,such as the project currently under
consideration,when that zoning limitation is consistent with a general plan for which an EIR was prepared.
(Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.v. City of Turlock, 138 Cal.App.4th 273(2006).)South San Francisco prepared a
General Plan in 1999 and certified an EIR for that General Plan on October 13, 1999.
Specifically,for projects that are consistent with the development density contained in the General Plan,
additional environmental review is only required to "examine whether there are project-specific significant
effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." (CCR Section 15183(a).)Where a proposed zoning
amendment is consistent with a general plan,the zoning amendment should be evaluated through this
streamlined process. (CCR Section 15183(i).)A proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the general
plan if the following criteria are satisfied:
(1)the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel
in the general plan for which an EIR was certified;and
(2)the project complies with the density-related standards in the general plan.
(CCR Section (i)(2).)As described in Section 1.1.1, below,the proposed zoning amendment satisfies these
criteria and is consistent with the General Plan.Accordingly,this environmental checklist identifies: (1) project-
specific effects that are peculiar to the project and that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR and (2)any
impacts that substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIR.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an
EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant
Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses,"as described in (5) below, may be
cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources:A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Uy P:Uf!Sii„Muth I'Ciaaar I ll"i:ar&tl:aAacii:'iii
11 aarge 11 ii�:I�rn iaalf� 11 viii bid z llime aage ti�inft Ord ina iieli"p ia]id Mimid�bdrarwnt Iliill[W
l:uiu+urrmmmiW tl h fl:.kHst c,Mt II:11i0rouun uuU
8. This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects
in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance.
�.;u'ni;�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dn➢�tl`n"�;;i�a�0�L II"iiun`&tl:,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C..4 II cr ell i:uu iall: i it liewvagebi:iaing Oudunanci,�tl�utMv^uauv tIliiI II[
'ltuaN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNUU nv"nrwuarueNUW C grefl:.kfist
C.1 AESTHETICS
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
V. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑
to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑
site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that
contribute to the public's experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which
a project's presence would negatively alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment,
aesthetic impacts may occur.
The city's aesthetic resources include, but are not limited to, the shoreline, creeks, ridgelines, tree cover,
and vegetation. Sign Hill and the Bayfront are the city's most significant aesthetic resources.
South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno
Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, US 380 to the south, and the San
Francisco Bay to the east provide the city with distinctive edges. The city is surrounded by hills on two sides.
The city's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all
parts of the city, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the
City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the city is
relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east
to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern
parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses.
Uy P:Uf!51iliuth I!5aarn I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aurge 11 ii�:irn iaulf� 11 llRwe usage ti�inung Ord ina ncia i ia]ia�Amen ment Ilnl l[W
Study
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst c t II:1n0rrmmmW
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan E/Ralready addresses The proposed project does not propose
new development or uses that would adversely affect the city's aesthetic resources, including adverse
effects to a scenic vista, damage to scenic resources, degradation of the existing visual character, or
changes in light and glare. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could
be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of
101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be
developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C-(3 11 argeII i:irniiallf� u1114&View vage li:�uafi ngOw"d'unanci:���MtAm+^nabuventIlnii a
AauabN
Ascent I11::n+iromventa„ l:nv"nmtamventa„ C hefl:.Vrfist
C.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
III. Agriculture and Forest Resources.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997,as updated)prepared by
the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.In determining whether
impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
Would the project;
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared
pursuantto the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoningfor agricultural use or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoningfor,or cause rezoning of,forest land ❑ ❑ ❑
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or
timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ ❑
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which,due to ❑ ❑ ❑
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Setting
Agricultural Resources
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland classifications—Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance—recognize the
land's suitability for agricultural production by considering physical and chemical characteristics of the soil.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines addresses direct conversion of agricultural land on Prime
Il..aa��„�II�:uue°uaalf Ili��a'uV,�P,i;�liuµ��eaq i:u�i�;If�m uab�"rz Il��ead���a��„���'��:uuauuap�'oHa��'uuaaauaa.� �ia]ia�l�uaaa^�adbAVae�a�Iluaull p�aV�
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland together under the term "Agricultural
Land" (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21060.1 and 21095 and State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G).
Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county's local
advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors; conversion of this land is typically not
considered significant under CEQA.
In 2010, DOC estimated that San Mateo County had approximately 54,089 acres of agricultural land, of
which approximately 5,292 acres were identified as Important Farmland and 48,797 acres were identified
as Grazing Land (DOC 2011). None of the farmland is located within the City of South San Francisco, which
is considered to consist of urban and built-up land and other land (DOC 2011). Further, the City of South San
Francisco does not contain any land under a Williamson Act contract(DOC 2012).
Forestry Resources
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines defines forestland as land that can support 10 percent native tree
cover and woodland vegetation of any species—including hardwoods—under natural conditions, and that
allows for management of one or more forest resource—including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife,
biodiversity, water quality, recreation—and other public benefits (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
12220[g])•
The City of South San Francisco is primarily used for developed uses (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial). Areas that support large populations of trees are limited to open space areas, including Common
Greens, Bayfront Linear Park, Oyster Point Marina Park, and Sign Hill Park(City of South San Francisco
1999).
Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses No land within the City of South San
Francisco is considered to be agricultural land or land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the
proposed project would not involve the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, nor would it conflict with land under a Williamson Act contract.
The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city
and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C..8 liargell Il�eid vagetli:uapi ng�)w"d'unancii:,�
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 1222 0(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
section 511 04(g))?
No New Significant Impacts;Genera/Plan EIR a/read}l addresses.The City of South San Francisco consists
of developed land (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial), open space, and parks and recreation. There are
no forest resources or areas zoned for timber harvest within or adjacent to the city. Thus, the project would
have no impact related to timberland harvest or conflicts with land zoned for forestry or timber harvest. The
project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and
grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use?
No New Significant Impacts;Genera/Plan EIR already addresses.The project involves a Zoning Ordinance
amendment that would prohibit superstores in the City of South San Francisco. The amendments would
apply to lands classified for commercial uses and would not affect areas capable of supporting forest land,
as defined by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. No significant effects would occur and this issue will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.The project involves a Zoning Ordinance
amendment that would prohibit superstores in the City of South San Francisco and grocery uses east of Hwy
101 and would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No significant
effects would occur, and this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� lime aage 6i:unr ng Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen In!I[W Study C..9
I:InvironmenU C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Inviromi� enU
C.3 AIR QUALITY
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
III. Air Quality.
Where available,the significance criteria established bythe applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make
the following determinations.
Would the project;
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ® ❑ ❑ ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantiallyto an ® ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ® ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutantfor which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
Environmental Setting
The project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality within the city is
regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB),
and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). Each of these agencies develops rules,
regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with applicable legislation.
U.S. EPA and ARB have set ambient air quality standards for certain air pollutants to protect the public
health and welfare. U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS)for the
following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
inhalable particulate matter(PMso), fine particulate matter(PM2.5), and lead (Pb). ARB has set California
Ambient Air Quality Standards(CAAQS)that are the same or are more stringent than the corresponding
federal standards. The CAAQS also include standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.
If an area has not achieved the NAAQS or CAAQS for any criteria pollutant, EPA and ARB classifies it as a
nonattainment area for the respective criteria pollutant. A nonattainment area is required to have an air
quality attainment plan (AQAP)to attain and maintain the required standards.
For state air quality planning purposes, the Bay Area is classified as a serious non-attainment area for the
one-hour ozone standard. The "serious" classification triggers various plan submittal requirements and
transportation performance standards. One such requirement is that the Bay Area update the Clean Air Plan
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II"am&tl;,lAscii;li
:"..:W liargell Il�eidvagetli:�Iiapinp�)rd'unancii:,�
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
(CAP) every three years to reflect progress in meeting the air quality standards and to incorporate new
information regarding the feasibility of control measures and new emission inventory data. The Bay Area's
record of progress in implementing previous measures must also be reviewed. Bay Area plans are prepared
with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area
Governments(ABAG). On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the most recent revision to the Clean
Air Plan -the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010).
Sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences) are located throughout the City of South San
Francisco.
Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Potentially Significant impact. The EIR analysis will determine if the project would conflict with an applicable
air quality plan, violate air quality standards, or contribute to a projected or existing air quality violation.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Potentially Significant Impact The EIR analysis will determine if the project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact The EIR analysis will determine if the project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No NewSignificant impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.The project e I i m i n aces su pe rsto res fro m
the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses
that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity
of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
odor effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR. Odor issues will not be
considered further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii:�l�rn iaalf� 11 ime v age ti�inuurg Ordina nci ��ax�Amen Ilnl l[W Study C..I.I
I:InvironmenWN C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enta
C.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significantwith Significant Impacts;
Impact Mitigation Impact General Plan
Incorporated El already
addresses
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly orthrough habitat ❑ ❑ ❑
modifications,on anyspecies identified as a candidate,sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies,or
regulations,or bythe California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations or bythe California Department of Fish and
Game or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not
limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,
filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑
migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑
resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
Historically, vegetation in South San Francisco included native grasslands, coastal scrub, oak woodlands,
riparian communities, and coastal salt and brackish marshes. Human intervention and development have
altered the landscape, restricting natural vegetation to isolated, scattered parcels. Currently, South San
Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands,fresh and saltwater
marshes, mud flats, disturbed grasslands, and significant stands of trees. Much of the vegetative area is
landscaped. Fresh emergent wetland is limited to channelized portions of Colma Creek, and potential saline
emergent wetland habitat includes the tidal salt marshes along the Bay fringe (City of South San Francisco
1999).
The vegetative communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including those under
federal and state protection. Species include endangered butterflies on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill,
including Mission Blue, Calippe Silverspot, San Bruno Elfin, and Bay Checkerspot. San Bruno Mountain
supports many threstened or enadangered plant species, and the city's salt marshes provide foraging
habitat for seven special status bird species and may include red-legged frogs. Grassland and scrub habitat
0 P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C..1.2 liargell
Study
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
in the area attract a variety of reptile, amphibian, and bird species for breeding and foraging. Some reptile
and amphibian species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoon, skunk, and fox, may use
wetland habitat. The nearshore tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open water, provide habitat
for many species of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals (City of South San Francisco
1999).
South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sigh
Hill currently designated parkland by the City. The purpose of the Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) is to
conserve and enhance as much of the remaining natural habitat on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill as
possible. The plants allow for limited development in strict accordance with the provisions of each HCP,
ensuring enhancement of habitat through the transfer of privately held lands to the public, and through the
provision of funding for conservation and enhancement activities outlined in each HCP(City of South San
Francisco 1999).
Regulations
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(16 U.S.C., Section 703-712)
There are over 900 species of birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA). The MBTA
prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or
nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Game.
A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season, which
in San Mateo County is September 1 through January 31, or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior
to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds have
fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird
species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and
tree removal)would be required until the birds have fledged.
California Department of Fish and Game
Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads,
"It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise
provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto."
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a
circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated
by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or
unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and
Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival.
My P:Uf!SiiPliuth I!Saaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� ime aage 6i:unr ng Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen In!I[W
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst c t II:1n0rrmmmW
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,fulling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No/Uew Significant Impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.The project involves a Zoning Ordinance
amendment that would prohibit superstores in the City of South San Francisco (and grocery use east of Hwy
101) on lands designated for commercial use and would not affect designated HCPs. Areas designated for
commercial use are generally developed lands that provide little wildlife habitat. The project eliminates
superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the
range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential
use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no
new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR. Thus, there
would be no adverse effects to biological resources.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C-1.4 11 a rge 11 i:i rn ivallf:11 11 1 u 1 114&View vage l P:upfing Ow"d'una nci:��Mt Amend uvent 11 ni i a
AauabN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNaU nv"irtamveNaU C grefl:.kfist
C.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
V. Cufturel Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑
archaeological resource pursuantto Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,includingthose interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑
formal cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
South San Francisco's growth is notable for the close relationship between industry and community. The
development of a residential town in support of new industrial plants was the calculated strategy of local
industrialists throughout the late 19th and 20th Century. With the success of the city's industries, South San
Francisco earned an important role as "The Industrial City" of the region.
The conservation of this unique history is the objective of historic and cultural preservation in South San
Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources in South San Francisco include several residential
and commercial buildings in the downtown area. The City's Municipal Code, and state and federal law,
protect these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and demolition. The Historic
Preservation Commission oversees the protection of these resources.
Sign Hill is South San Francisco's only national historic landmark. Sign Hill has proclaimed the city's identity
since 1891 when the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, initially installed the
sign. After a period of several years during which the sign was absent, the Chamber of Commerce had the
words "South San Francisco The Industrial City" whitewashed onto the hillside. The concrete letters were
installed in 1929. The sign has become a regional landmark, clearly visible to travelers on nearby freeways
and to those flying into and out of San Francisco International Airport(City of South San Francisco 1999).
Historical Resources
South San Francisco's older buildings display a wide range of architectural styles, emblematic of the shifting
styles that characterize the periods of the city's growth. Queen Anne, Victorian, Neoclassical, Craftsman,
Spanish and Mission Revival, Moderne, as well as contemporary styles, are all represented in the city's
central neighborhoods.
The city has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near
the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. In addition, many of
Uy P:Uf!51iliuth I!5aan I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�Irniaalf� 11 113E%e aage�if inr ng Ord ina%1ncia i ax�Amen ment Ilnl llW Study C..15
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
the structures in downtown along Grand, Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were identified as potential
historic resources in a comprehensive survey completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of an
architectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well-restored examples of vernacular
architecture.
Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites are
currently designated historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American
village sites and shell mounds scattered around the city. Known resources include:
A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El Camino Real Corridor
Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials.
A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and one small shell midden (CA-SMA-40) near the south slope of San
Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeological resource.
South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of
additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely.
Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15 064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15 064.5?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan E/R already addresses. Historic resources in the City of South San
Francisco consist of homes and commercial buildings. In addition, because the City of South San Francisco
is located on the San Francisco Bay coast, the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources
is likely. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in
the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does
not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with
the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan E/R already addresses. Although the city is essentially built out,
existing paleontological resources could be disturbed during earth-moving activities associated with
development and redevelopment projects. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial
uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed
within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C-1.(3 11 a rge 11 i:I�rn i allf: 11 1111 114&View vage l P:upfing Ord'una nci,p��Mt Amenab uvent Il ni i a
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and
these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan EIR already addresses. Although the city is essentially built out,
existing human remains could be disturbed during earth-moving activities associated with development and
redevelopment projects. However, the potential for this disturbance would not be increased with adoptions
of the proposed amendment. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that
could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the
East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be
developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inuurgOrdina ncia pia]ia�Amen Study C..I.��
I:InvironmenW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enW
C.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significantwith Significant Impacts;
Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
vi. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving;
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most ❑ ❑ ❑
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bythe
State Geologistfor the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault?(Refer to California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would ❑ ❑ ❑
become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ❑
Uniform Building Code(1994,as updated),creating substantial
risks to life or property
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Environmental Setting
Geology and Soils
South San Francisco is comprised of three distinct topographic zones, each with its own soil compositions
and hazards to development, described as follows.
Lowland Zone
A large portion of the city, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay mud of up to 80 feet
deep. Associated development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards
include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the lowland zone often requires
engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in
this area.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C-1.8 liargell Il�eidvagetli:�Iiapinp�)w"d'unancii:,�
Study
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
Upland Zone
Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-fill. The cut-and-fill in some areas
has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creek floodplain. The difficulty in this zone is the varying
nature of the fill, which was laid with varying attention to engineering practices. There is a moderate
potential for shrink-swell and/or erosion hazard here.
Hillside Zone
The Hillside Zone includes some slopes of over 30 percent. The native soils of this zone are characterized as
various sandy and gravelly loams with generally high to very high erosion potential, low strength and stability,
and shallow depth. These areas are susceptible to soil creep and small landslides.
SEISMICITY
South San Francisco is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. There are
approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes;
eleven of these are within 40 miles of the city. The Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, the
predominant fault system in California, passes through the westernmost corner of South San Francisco,
commonly referred to as the Westborough area. This area was developed after Interstate 280 was built in
the 1970s and contains a large concentration of townhomes and one of the city's main concentrations of
local-serving commercial.
The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire city, creating potential
for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. It has generated some of the largest, most destructive
earthquakes in the Bay Area, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 8.3) and the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 7.1). Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VII
(Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate)from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault
during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. Portions of the city with unstable soil conditions, particularly the
fill areas in the east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Other faults in the region may also
generate earthquakes that affect South San Francisco. While most of South San Francisco is comprised of
flat to gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern and western portions of the city.
Seismic and other structural hazards are related to two geologic conditions found in South San Francisco:
Soils in the flat lowland areas, comprised largely of Bay mud overlain with fill in the eastern portions
of the city, have high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength. These soil conditions
amplify earthquake waves and groundshaking, and are subject to liquefaction.
Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazard, and low strength.
Some of these soils have severe limitations for bearing dwellings without basements and for local roads.
In addition, substantial portions of the south flank of San Bruno Mountain are classified as a high
landslide risk area.
Existing Seismic Risk to Development
Within South San Francisco, earthquake damage to structures can be caused by ground rupture, near-field
effects, liquefaction, landsliding, ground shaking, and possibly inundation from seiche or tsunami. The level
of damage in the city resulting from an earthquake will depend upon the magnitude of the event, the
My P:Uf!SiiPliuth I!Saaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�Irn iaalf� 11 ime aage�if inr ng Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen Ilnl l[W Study C..1.9
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
epicenter distance from the city, the response of geologic materials, and the strength and construction
quality of structures.
Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions in the
Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. The most severe hazards are presented by unreinforced
masonry buildings constructed of brick or concrete block. Under strong intensity ground shaking, many of
these structures may be expected to collapse or require demolition. The City has developed a list of
unreinforced masonry buildings to assess their potential to meet Uniform Code for Building Conservation
(UCBC) requirements through retrofit.
Other types of buildings that may also be severely damaged are older buildings of steel and concrete framing
that were not designed to resist earthquake vibrations and older reinforced brick and masonry structures.
Ground Shaking
The distribution of earthquake wave amplification as related to geologic materials has been mapped by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with input from the U.S. Geological Survey. Areas subject to
extremely high or very high levels of wave amplification include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent
to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between Orange and
South Linden Avenues. ABAG has also mapped the intensities created by a rupture of the Peninsula
Segment of the San Andreas Fault registering 7.1 on the modified mercalli intensity scale in the South San
Francisco area. Only the southeastern and eastern portions of the city, including much of the area east of
U.S. 101, would experience an intensity level VIII (Moderate); damage is expected to be nonstructural in
other areas.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid-like state
because of earthquake ground shaking. Most of the lowland areas of South San Francisco potentially have
liquefaction hazards, with moderate liquefaction potential in the alluvial fan of Colma Creek and in a narrow
strip of land south of Sister Cities Boulevard. Lateral spreading(lurching) also may be present where open
banks and unsupported cut slopes provide a free face, or where artificial fill overlies Bay mud. Ground
shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may induce lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes.
Landslidin
The strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally
where unstable soil conditions already exist. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest
susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than 15 percent.
In South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the
Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard.
Inundation
Earthquakes can cause tsunami (`tidal waves') and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in
the Bay. As portions of the city are located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are low-lying, tsunami or seiche
inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet(msl)for tsunami with a 100-
year recurrence and 6.0 feet(msl)for a 500-year tsunami. Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C-(20 11 argeII i:irniiallf� iiid&View vage lP:nfingOw"d'unanci:��MtAmenabuventIlnii a
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
infrastructure within the city is not only a function of the seismic risks outlined above, but also of the form,
structural design, materials, construction quality, and location of the structure. Since the 1970s, the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) in California has incorporated minimum strength standards to which a building must be
designed. New construction in South San Francisco is required to meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC,
and buildings of special occupancy are required by the State to meet more stringent design requirements
(City of South San Francisco 1999).
Discussion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) SeismiD-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property'?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.As described above,the location of the
City of South San Francisco contributes to substantial risk of exposure of people and structure to various
substantial adverse effects associated with geology and soils. The project eliminates superstores from the
range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that
could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
MyP:Uf!:Si i:liuthI!:iaaar11:ri:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�Irn iaalf� 11 lim aage ti�inuurgOrdina ncia pia]ia�Amen Study C 21
I:InvironmenW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enW
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
C.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significantwith Significant Impacts;
Impact Mitigation Impact General Plan
Incorporated El already
addresses
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, ® ❑ ❑ ❑
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the ® ❑ ❑ ❑
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Science
Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth's
surface temperature through a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing
to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. The
greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth. Without the greenhouse
effect, Earth would not be able to support life as we know it. CO2 is the most prevalent of all GHG emissions.
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate,
known as global warming or global climate change. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the
past 50 years can be explained without taking into consideration the contribution of GHG emissions from
human activities (IPCC 2007).
GHGs differ from criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants discussed in Section 3.2, which have
mostly localized air quality effects and have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day). GHGs have
long atmospheric lifetimes(1 year to several thousand years), and thus GHGs persist in the atmosphere for
long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe.
According to Cal-Adapt, a climate change scenario planning tool developed by the California Energy
Commission, temperatures in the project area are projected to rise 3-5°F by 2100, with the range based on
low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2013). Cal-Adapt downscales global climate model data to local
and regional resolution under two emissions scenarios; the A-2 scenario represents a business-as-usual
future emissions scenario, and the B-1 scenario represents a lower GHG emissions future. Other anticipated
climate change impacts that may affect the project area include sea level rise, increased frequency of
coastal flooding, water and energy supply variability due to altered precipitation patterns (Cal-Adapt 2013).
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C-22 11 rrgeIIrlrni allf: u1114&Iliev vagelP:nfingOrd'unanci:�iMtAmendiveentIlnii a
AauabN
,aceM Il:iwiraadaara aaU uraa'irraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.k in
Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
The city's draft CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory from activities in the community during
year 2005. GHG emissions attributable to the city were approximately 550,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent
in 2005. The largest emissions source is energy consumption (48 percent of community-wide emissions),
followed by transportation (36 percent). The community-wide baseline GHG emissions inventory by sector is
presented in Figure 3.3-1 below.
1%
IIIIIIIIIII Energy
(IIIIIIII Transportation
IIIIIIII Stationary Sources
1111111 Off-road
IIIIIIIIII Solid Waste
IluUl Landfill
111111 Water and Wastewater
Source:City of South San Francisco 2013
Figure 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide
Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
PotentiaiiySignificantimpact Consideration of impacts associated with additional greenhouse gas
emissions is discussed in greater detail in the Draft EIR.
My P:Uf!51i'iiuth I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aiacii:'iii
11 aari„e 11 ii:�I�rn iaall� 11 m uai"rz Ili me aage ti�inung 0rdina iici:” Mimiddrarwnt IlurullpaV:Audy C 23
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst c t II:1n0rrmmmW
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
PotentiaiiySignificantimpact Consideration of impacts associated with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is discussed in detail in
the Draft EIR.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
��auabN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNaU nv"nmtamveNaU C hefl:.Vrfist
C.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.Would the project
a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where ❑ ❑ ❑
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or ❑ ❑ ❑
death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials
Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have manufactured, handled,
stored and disposed of hazardous materials in South San Francisco. Hazardous materials sites include
manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking underground storage tanks
(UST's), permitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous waste (City of South San Francisco 1999).
UyP:Uf!51i PHuth 15aanI ll"i:antl;,lAacii:li
Il..aa��„�II�:uue°uaalf Ili��a'uV,�P;;�liuµ��eaq i:u�i�;If�m uab�"rz Il��ead���a��„���'��:uuauuap�'oHa��'uuaaauaa.� �ia]ia�l�uaaa^�adbAVae�a�Iluaull p�aV�'
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after
the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's presence on the list, has
bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA). Because this statute was enacted over twenty years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency
activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases,
the information to be included in the Cortese List does not exist.
Aircraft Safety
The land surrounding the San Francisco International Airport(SFO) and under the landing and departure
flight paths is almost entirely developed with urban uses. Portions of the City of South San Francisco are
subject to frequent overflight from aircraft departures on Runway 28 and less frequent overflight from
arrivals on Runway 10. Protection against such conditions is essential to airport/land use safety
compatibility. The Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) recognizes and discourages approval of specific
land uses that would pose a potential hazard to aircraft in flight. The Land Use and Sub Area elements of the
General Plan include policies restricting building heights in the vicinity of SFO in accordance with Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 77 height limits (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Emergency Services
The San Mateo County Office of Emergency services provides preparation, training and information for
various emergency situations, including earthquakes, fire,flooding, landslides, oil spills, and pandemics. In
1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan, integrated with the San Mateo Area/ County Multi-
Hazard Functional Plan.
Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.The proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment would prohibit superstores within the City of South San Francisco (and grocery uses within the
East of 101 Area). The potential types of hazardous materials that could be transported, used, disposed, or
emitted would remain regulated by various federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Environmental
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C 2 11 argeIIi:irn iial[I1161 a uU,�'�l�liuµ�u��^a�uu"��^,�If u�u�tl"rzIl�eid vagetli:�Iiapi ng�)w"d'unancii:,���MtAm+^nabuventIIn!I a
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and State Water Resources
Control Board. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate
regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, resources, and the environment. The project
eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery
use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter
the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan.
Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
There would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.The City of South San Francisco is
adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport. However, the proposed amendment addresses the types
of commercial uses that are allowed and does not address height, location, or other issues that may be in
conflict with airport land uses. Physical features of structures are regulated by the Zoning Ordinance and the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure safety. The project eliminates superstores from the range of
commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be
developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses. Because the proposed amendment
addresses the type of commercial development allowed within the city and does not alter the requirements
for height, location, or other issues that may be in conflict with adopted emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans, the project would not impair implementation or otherwise physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project eliminates superstores from the range
of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be
developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildiands?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.The proposed a m e n d m e n t d i re cts t h e
development types that would be constructed in areas zoned for commercial use in the City of South San
Francisco. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in
the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inuurg Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen Ilnll[W Study C 2(
I:InvironmenW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enW
not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with
the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
C.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially ❑ ❑ ❑
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in
a manner which would result in substantial on-or off-site erosion or
siltation?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ❑
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-yearflood hazard area structures that would ❑ ❑ ❑
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or ❑ ❑ ❑
death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j) Result in inundation byseiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C..28 11 rrgeIIi:irn iiallf u1114 Iliev vageli:�uafi ngOw"d'unanci:�i�MtAmendiventIlnii[W
Study
Ascent I11::n irradaara aaU nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
Environmental Setting
Water quality is a particular area of concern in the city because of the ease of water pollution and the effects
of pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. Point sources of pollution are regulated through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Permits are required under NPDES for all
publicly operated treatment plants and for surface-water runoff in urban areas. These permits specify the
discharge limits for certain pollutants and ensure that local industries pretreat the pollutants they discharge
into treatment plants. For the purposes of administering NPDES, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) has jurisdiction over nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) in California. South San
Francisco falls under the authority of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for implementing
State policy through the preparation of basin plans for water quality control and the regulation of all activities
affecting water quality.
The quality of groundwater and water flowing into Colma Creek and the Bay is most likely to be affected by
nonpoint pollution sources in South San Francisco, simply because they are not as rigorously regulated as
point sources. Development can potentially pose a threat to surface and groundwater quality through
construction sediment, materials used on-site, and related increases in automobile use.
Surface Water Quality and Pollution
Since the city is largely developed, there is a high proportion of impermeable surface area. Stormwater and
irrigation runoff is collected in the City's storm system and discharged to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay.
Colma Creek is particularly susceptible to water quality problems due to nonpoint sources of pollution. These
sources include general pollutants picked up by runoff from streets, open areas, and urban lands. In most
urban areas, nonpoint pollution includes sediment, oil, debris, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, volatile organic
compounds, herbicides and pesticides, and fertilizers. Industrial areas may have a variety of other toxic and
hazardous substances as well. Any pollution in Colma Creek affects the immediate habitat and is ultimately
discharged into San Francisco Bay near sensitive mudflat habitat areas.
In order to control nonpoint source pollution, the City joined the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (STOPPP) in 1991. STOPPP functions under a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for
stormwater quality management, as authorized by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The program includes
pollutant source identification and water quality measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges;
structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrial
facilities; and, controls for new development and construction sitesl and other elements.
The program also calls for the preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)for each municipality.
The City has selected a variety of best management practices (BMPs)for adoption into its plan. These
practices include street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill cleanup, and annual catch basin
maintenance. Since much of Colma Creek flows through private property, the City has also adopted a
number of BMPs aimed at private land owners to control litter, gain compliance from industrial dischargers,
reduce pollutants at commercial sites, minimize construction sediment, and clean and maintain privately-
owned watercourses.
Groundwater Quality and Pollution
Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of transmitting groundwater,
especially in the southwestern portion of the city which is underlain by a portion of the San Mateo
Groundwater Basin. With the exception of industrial areas or locations with underground storage tanks
My P:UCu51i i,Ila th I!5aaar 11:ri:ar&tl;aAa cii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�Irn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inuurg Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen Ilnll[W �d
'i�tiduab,pl �° i.i,P
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected, the quality of this water is considered
good. However, contamination may be present in existing or former industrial areas of unconfined waste
disposal, or in the areas of high groundwater levels.
Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a
level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
on-or off-site erosion or siltation?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Result in inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan E/Ra/read}l addresses.The proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment would prohibit superstore use citywide. This amendment would not directly result in
^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C 30 11 argeIIi:Irni allf:I1161 a uU,�'l;�liuµ�u��^a�uu��^,�If iiid&Iliew vagelP:nfingOrd'unanci:���MtAmenabuventIIn!I a
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
construction of any structures or other facilities and would therefore not substantially increase flows subject
to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project would not affect implementation of
existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project eliminates superstores from
the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses
that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity
of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inuuig Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen Ilnll[W
Study C 31
I:InvironmenW C h efl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enW
C.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
X. Land Use and Planning. Would the project
a) Physically divide an established community ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of ® ❑ ❑ ❑
an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not
limited to,a general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or
zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
San Mateo County is located on the San Francisco Peninsula. San Mateo County is bounded San Francisco
County to the north, San Cruz County to the south, Santa Clara County to the southeast, Alameda County
across the San Francisco Bay to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. San Mateo County is comprised
of approximately 455 square miles of land that is distributed among twenty incorporated cities, including the
City of South San Francisco, and twenty unincorporated communities.
As a whole, the county is relatively undeveloped. Although located in the San Francisco Bay Area—one of the
most populated urban areas in the nation just 20 percent of the county is urbanized, while the other 80
percent is used for agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, or general open space. (San Mateo County
1985)
Project Area
The City of South San Francisco lies north of San Bruno and San Francisco International Airport in a small
valley south of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain; east of Pacifica and the hills of the
Coast Range; and west of the San Francisco Bay.
Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.The project eliminates superstores from
the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city. It does not otherwise alter the potential
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C 3 liargell Il�eid vagetli:uaping�)rd'unancii:,�
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no
new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project(including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Potentia//ySignificant/mpact Conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect, are discussed in detail in the Draft EIR.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No New Signiffcant Impacts;General Plan EIR a/readyaddresses. South San Francisco contains two areas
set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species: the southern base of San
Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as parkland by the
City. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the
city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
My P:Uf!SiiPliuth I!Saaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inuurg Ord ina ncia p ia]ia�Amen Ilnll[W
.ouab, C 33
I:InvironmenW C h efl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Inviromi� enW
C.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
)a. Mineral Resources. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific
plan,or other land use plan?
Environmental Setting
Mineral resources are all the physical materials that are extracted from the earth for use. Mineral reserves
are known deposits of minerals that can be legally mined economically using existing technology. Mineral
resources within South San Francisco are limited to mercury deposits on Point San Bruno and significant
stone deposits in the vicinity of Sign Hill Park and San Bruno Mountain County Park. These areas are
designated MRZ-2, indicating a high likelihood that substantial mineral deposits are present(San Mateo
County 1986). These areas do not coincide with commercial districts (San Mateo County 1986).
Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;GeneraiP/an E/Ra/ready addresses Portions of the City of San Francisco may
contain mineral resources of regional or local importance. However, these areas are not zoned for
commercial use, and would not be affected by the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. The project
eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed
further in the EIR.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C-;34 liargell�:uu"e°u�1f:II����uU/'�l�liuµ�u�^ateuu"�^,�Ifu�u�tl"rzIl�ed����„
��auabN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNUU nv"nrwu veNUW C gaefl:.kfist
C.12 NOISE
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
XII. Noise. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or in other applicable local,state,orfederal standards?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) Asubstantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑
projectvicinity above levels existing withoutthe project?
d) Asubstantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑
levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing withoutthe
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such ❑ ❑ ❑
a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport,would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting
Noise levels in California are typically measured in dBA, which is the A-weighted sound level of decibels (dB).
This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Decibels are a unit of measurement indicating the relative amplitude or intensity of a sound. Sound levels
are typically regulated by a maximum sound level (1—max) and/or a percentile-exceeded sound level (Lxx). Lxx
represents the sound level exceeded "x" percent of a specific time period (e.g., L50 is the sound level
exceeded 50%of the time).
The intensity of a sound and the subjective noisiness or loudness is related as is the intensity of a sound and
a sensitive receptor's distance to that sound. Noise from construction activities and stationary sources is
considered a "point source" of noise. Sound from this type of source radiates uniformly outward in a
spherical pattern. The rate at which noise typically dissipates from a point source is 6 to 7.5 dBA for each
doubling of the distance, depending on the ground absorption, atmospheric conditions, and other shielding
factors. Traffic noise appears to be from a line rather than a point as the vehicles are moving and the noise
spreads cylindrically rather than spherically. The rate at which traffic noise generally dissipates is 3 to 4.5
dBA for each doubling of the distance, depending on other shielding factors.
South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA, particularly large, heavy
aircraft climbing slowly over the coast range for Pacific Rim destinations. Aircraft flyovers comprise South
Uy P:Uf!SiiPliuth I!Saaan I ll"i:an&tl;aAacii:li
11 audge 11 ii�:irn iaulf� llRwe usage 6 in ng Ord inauncia i ia]ia�Amendment In!I naV
Stuuab,
I:InvirrmramcnW C h fl:.kHst Asci,mt II:Inviro mien W
San Francisco's major noise source. In addition, traffic noise aIongfreeways and major streets is particularly
high in South San Francisco due to the proportion of truck traffic travelling to, from and through the city.
Traffic noise depends primarily on speed and the proportion of truck traffic; changes in traffic volumes have
a smaller impact on overall traffic noise levels.
The City has established noise standards by adopting amendments to its Municipal Code. Chapter 8 of the
Municipal Code regulates Health and Welfare and provides noise regulations. Section 8.32.020 defines
sound level and noise level, giving specific information on how noise monitoring is to be conducted. Section
8.32.030 defines the maximum permissible sound levels for various land use categories. The information
contained in this section is summarized in the table below.
NEM
NEM
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
(dB)
R-E,R-1,and R-2 zones or any single-family or duplex residential in a specific plan district 10:00 PM-7;00 AM 50
7:00 AM-10:00 PM 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any 10:00 PM-7;00 AM 55
specific plan district
7;00 AM-10;00 PM 60
C-1,P-C,Gateway,and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any 10:00 PM-7;00 AM 60
specific plan district
7;00 AM-10;00 PM 65
M-1,P-1 Anytime 70
Source:City of San Francisco Municipal Code
Discussion
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal
standards?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.The location and extent of new
development that would be allowed under the proposed zoning amendments would not exceed the current
level of intensity assumed in the 1999 General Plan EIR. The proposed project would remove one potential
development type (superstore citywide and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from an entire range of
development types throughout the city. It is not possible to forecast, with any degree of reliability, where a
CR 1II zm&tl;,lAsc1::',li
C.rD3 liargell
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
superstore may develop in the future without the project, nor is it possible to accurately forecast which
alternate land use(s) would most likely replace a superstore once the superstore development type is
prohibited. Regardless, removing a superstore (and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of currently
allowed commercial uses would not result in trip generation increase that would substantially affect traffic
noise levels. A doubling of traffic volumes is necessary to produce a 3 dB increase in noise, which is
generally considered a significant increase. The proposed project would not substantially increase traffic
noise. Furthermore,the project would not directly result in construction of any structures or other facilities
that could generate noise. Noise within the City of South San Francisco would continue to be minimized
through various General Plan policies that address construction activities, and site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques. Also noise levels would be limited to levels described
in Chapter 8 of the City Municipal Code. In sum, the project would not cause any direct physical changes; any
indirect physical changes caused by the project are not reasonably foreseeable and therefore would require
speculation. If the amendments are adopted, any physical change would be consistent with and authorized
by the existing General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no new significant effects would
occur that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR and these issues will not be discussed further in the
EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan EIR already addresses. The z o n i n g a m e n d m e n t w o u I d affect the
types of potential development within areas designated as commercial. The South San Francisco Noise
Ordinance contains existing and future noise contours associated with SFIA, located south of the city. The
proposed zoning amendment would not alter the location of commercial land uses or otherwise affect
implementation of the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The project eliminates superstores (and
grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of commercial uses that could be developed. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan.As discussed above,the project would not cause any direct physical changes; any indirect
physical changes caused by the project are not reasonably foreseeable and therefore would require
speculation. If the amendments are adopted, any physical change would be consistent with and authorized
by the existing General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no new significant effects would
occur that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR and these issues will not be discussed further in the
EIR.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.There are no private airstrips within the
City of South San Francisco. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that
could be developed in the city. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses
that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. As discussed above, the project would not cause
any direct physical changes; any indirect physical changes caused by the project are not reasonably
foreseeable and therefore would require speculation. If the amendments are adopted, any physical change
would be consistent with and authorized by the existing General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, no new significant effects would occur that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii:�I�rn iaalf� 11 m usb"+z Ilime v age ti�inung Ordina Hama��ax�Amen IInl l[W Study C �:(
I:InvironmenW C h efl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Invirr min enW
C.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
Xill. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for ❑ ❑ ❑
example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly
(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The U.S. Census Bureau collects and estimates demographic data for the entire United States. The most
recent census, completed in 2010, reported a total population of 63,632 people living in the City of South
San Francisco. This population was spread over approximately 20,938 households, which constituted a 96%
occupancy rate (DOF 2010).
Discussion
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan E/Ra/ready addresses The project eliminates superstores(and
grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of commercial uses that could be developed. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, no substantial employment generation would occur that is not anticipated under
the General Plan. The proposed project does not result in any zoning text amendment that would affect
residential development; consequently, no new population would be generated and the project would not
affect the provision of housing within the city. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II"am&tl;,lAscii;li
C-r38 liargell Il�eidvagetli:uaping�)rd'unancii:,�
AauabN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNUU nv"nrwuarueNUW C grefl:.kfist
C.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
Mv. Public Services. Would the project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,or
the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response
times,or other performance objectives for any of the public
services;
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The South San Francisco Fire Department has firefighters and paramedics located in five different fire
stations throughout the city, allowing for the best possible response time to incidents within that station's
respective still district. The department is dispatched to a variety of incidents including: structure fires,
hazardous materials, medical calls, and traffic accidents.
Fire stations are located at 480 N. Canal Street(Central), 249 Harbor Way(Station 62), 33 Arroyo Drive
(Station 63), 2350 Galway(Station 64), and 1151 South San Francisco Drive (Station 65). Central Station
and Station 3 are staffed with both an engine company and an ambulance. Each engine company is staffed
with 3 people and each ambulance has two paramedics (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Law Enforcement
The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. Two unincorporated
pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County
Sheriff 's office. As of 1999, the Department had a total of 122 employees, with 80 sworn officers and 37
police units. The current ratio of officers is 1.4 per 1,000 residents. The Police, Fire, and Parks and
Recreation departments share facilities within the City's Municipal Building. The Police Department also has
one station, located in the Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive. The Department is generally able to
respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response
time goals. The entire city is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area.
Uy P:Uf 151iPliuth I!5aarn 11:ri:ar&tl;aAa cii:li
11 aurge 11 ii�:irn iaulf� 11 llRwe usage ti�inung Ord ina ncia i ia]ia�Amen ment Ilnll[W Study C �:39
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:1n0rrmmmW
The Department typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his
personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-
officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory
units available for backup and overlap (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces
Parks and recreational open spaces provide opportunities for both active recreation, such as organized or
informal sports, and passive recreation. Despite the relatively small quantity of parkland in South San
Francisco, a broad range of outdoor recreation opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the city's
landscape and pattern of development. These range from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to
Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain County
Park—a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark—lies directly north of the city
(City of South San Francisco 1999).
Educational Facilities
South San Francisco Unified School District(SSFUSD or the District) operates all public schools serving
South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The District is
responsible for 10 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 3 high schools. South San Francisco also
contains 3 private schools serving students from kindergarten through 81h grade and one private school
serving students from kindergarten through 121h grade (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
No New Significant impacts;GeneraiPianE/R already addresses.The proposed zoninga mend ment pertains
to the types of commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. As described
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C..40 11 argeII �MtAmenabuventIlniia
AauabN
Ascent I::ln0ruadaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
above in Section C.13, "Population and Housing," this modification to the Zoning Ordinance is not
anticipated to affect population levels. Because there would not be a substantial increase in population,
related to the proposed amendment, there would be no substantial increase in the demand or use of public
services. The project eliminates superstores (and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of
commercial uses that could be developed. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
L.aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� ime aage 6i:unr ngOrdina%1ncia��ax�Amen Study C..41
I:InvironmenW C h efl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Inviromi� enW
C.15 RECREATION
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
XV. Recreation. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or ❑ ❑ ❑
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting
There are approximately 320 acres of parks and open space in the City of South San Francisco, including
community, neighborhood, mini and linear parks, open space, and school land. Community and recreation
centers provide space for many of the classes and services that are central to South San Francisco's
recreation programs. The City has six community/recreation buildings, some of which are used for
specialized service such as senior programs at the Magnolia Center, public meetings at the Municipal
Services Building, and Boy and Girls Club programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation Center. The City also
has an indoor public pool at Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San Francisco High School and El Camino
High School supplement Orange Pool during the summer. A new public gymnasium was constructed in 1998
as part of the Terrabay Project(City of South San Francisco 1999).
Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No/UewSignificantImpacts;General Plan E/R already addresses.The proposed zoningamendment pertains
to the types of commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. As described
above in Section C.13, "Population and Housing," this modification to the Zoning Ordinance is not
anticipated to affect population levels. This modification would not increase population or otherwise affect
the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks compared to the existing regulations. The project
eliminates superstores (and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of commercial uses that could be
developed. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be
developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II"am&tl;,lAscii;li
C..42 11 r rge 11 Il�eid v age tli;�Iiapinp�)rd'unanr.i i MtAm e duveent IInii a
AauabN
Ascent Il:ln0romveNUU nv"irwuuveNUW C grefl:.kfist
C.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready
addresses
Xvi.Transportation/Traffic. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing ® ❑ ❑ ❑
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system,taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, ® ❑ ❑ ❑
including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures,or other standards established bythe county
congestion management agencyfor designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an ❑ ❑ ❑
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp ❑ ❑ ❑
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs regarding public ® ❑ ❑ ❑
transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Environmental Setting
Transportation System
The transportation system serving South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system, transit and
public transportation, and alternative modes including informal carpools,formal vanpools, employer-
sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by two major north-south freeways
- US 101 and 1-280 - and is also close to 1-380 running east-west. A system of surface streets collects and
distributes traffic to and from the freeways and between the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of
the city.
Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north and San
Jose Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service is provided to South San Francisco by the Bay Area
Rapid Transit(BART) extension, which continues southerly to Millbrae and the San Francisco International
Airport and northerly into San Francisco and then under San Francisco Bay to the East Bay. Local bus service
is currently provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. The transit needs of the East of 101
UyP:Uf!51i PHuth 15aanI ll"i:untl;,lAacii:li
Il..aur�„�II�:uuo°urulf Ili��u'uV/P,,il�liuµr�eaq i:u�ir;If�m uub�°rz Il��eud�u�u��„���'��:uuauuap�;uru��'uuaauuaa.� �ia]ia�l�uaua^uauburueuu�Iluaull p�uV�
.uuab,
I:Invirrmnm nW tl h fl:.kHst Asci,mt ll:ln0rrmmmW
area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours
only. Ferry service from the Oyster Point Marina connects South San Francisco to the East Bay.
At present, there are intermittent bicycle trails and routes in South San Francisco. Facilities include the Bay
Trail, a linear park on the BART extension right-of-way, and striped bicycle lanes along several arterial
roadways.
Roadway System Operation
The operations of roadways are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative
description ranging from Level A, or free flow operations with little or no delay, to Level F, or oversaturated
conditions with excessive delays. LOS E represents conditions at capacity. The 1995 Congestion
Management Program for San Mateo County reports 1-280 operating at LOS F and US 101 operating at LOS
D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak commute hours. The Countywide Transportation Plan
2010 projections show LOS F on US 101 and LOS E on 1-280.
Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand
Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors and on Westborough Boulevard near the 1-280
interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the
intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue/US 101 interchange.
In general, the City's transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most travel is
conveyed by automobile, and the roadway system within the city has capacity to accommodate additional
growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that provide access to the city, US 101 and 1-280,
are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. Therefore, other modes of transportation
will be needed to accommodate regional travel.
Discussion
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Potentially Significant Impact Impacts related to conflicts with applicable plan, ordinances, and policies
establishing measures of transportation effectiveness will be discusses in detail in the Draft EIR.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Potentially Significant Impact Conflicts with applicable congestion management programs will be discussed
in the Draft EIR.
�.;u'��I;'D'�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�tl`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C..4.4u�„ Il :uu"m°uu1f:II� �uuU�'�!l� r �:''uu� �uu"u��'uu�uu�r. tl��+� l�u�u�^uuatlu�ud�u�N�Ilu�ullpuV
Ascent I::ln0rradaara aaW nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses.The proposed zoning amendment pertains
to the types of commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. The project
would not affect airfields and would not create safety hazards to existing air traffic. The project eliminates
superstores (and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of commercial uses that could be developed.
It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?
No New Significant Impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses The project addresses the types of
commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. It would not affect roadway
design or promote incompatible uses. There would be no impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan EIR already addresses. The zoning amendments concern
permissible commercial facilities in the City of South San Francisco and would not affect existing emergency
access requirements. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be
developed in the city. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could
be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
PotentiaiiySignificantimpact. Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities are discussed in the Draft EIR.
My P:UCu51iIlath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�I�rn iaalf� 11 ime aage ti�inungOrdina%1ncia��ax�Amen �:m,..�t��."
'ii�tiduabN
I:InvironmenU C h efl:.V Hst Asci,mt II:Inviromi� enU
C.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
Xvil.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projectfrom ❑ ❑ ❑
existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination bythe wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑
that serves or mayserve the projectthat it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand,in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served bya landfill with sufficient permitted capacityto ❑ ❑ ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Complywith federal,state,and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
Water
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District
(CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San
Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation
among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department
(SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 MGD per year. An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater.
The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280 (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Wastewater
The South San Francisco Waste Quality Control Plant is located adjacent to San Francisco Bay on Colma
Creek. This facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, San
Bruno, and Colma. It also provides the dechlorination treatment of chlorinated effluent for the cities of
U P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II"am&tl;,lAscii;li
C-4.(3 liargell Il�eidvagetli:uaping�)rd'unancii:,�
Study
Ascent I11::n iruadaara aaU nvirraaaaraadaaU C grefl:.kfist
Burlingame, Millbrae, and the San Francisco International Airport prior to discharging the treated wastewater
into San Francisco Bay. The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 million gallons per day(MGD).
Peak wet weather flows can exceed 60 MGD. The Water Quality Control Plant underwent a $47 million
facility upgrade in 2000. Another$45 million was spent in 2004 for additional improvements to the facility
including construction of a 7 million gallon effluent storage pond and reconstruction of two large pump
stations (City of South San Francisco 2012).
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processes at the
Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be
recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-
Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los
Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will
be expanded further or Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Discussion
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Significant impacts;Genera/P/anE/R already addresses.The proposed a mend mentwouId prohibit
superstores in the city and grocery use east of Hwy 10). Parcels affected by the zoning amendment would
My P:UCu51ii,Ilath I!5aaar I ll"i:ar&tl;aAacii:li
11 aarge 11 ii�:�Irn iaalf� ime aage 6i:unr ng Ordinancia pia]ia�Amen Study C..4��
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst c t II:1n0rrmmmW
remain commercially-zoned areas, and contain or would be developed with uses that would demand similar
levels of water, wastewater, and storm water drainage facilities, and produce comparable levels of solid
waste. The project does not alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
CR P;'D ^,yP;'Dfl➢b4^,lia�0�I II zm&tl;,lAscii;li
C..4.,8 11 argeII ��MtAmenabuventIlniia
AauabN
Ascent Il:ln0romneuuU nv"irwuurueNUW C grefl:kfist
C.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No New
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impacts;
with Mitigation General Plan
Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready
addresses
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrictthe range of an
endangered,rare,or threatened species,or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but ® ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means
thatthe incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects
of other current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause ® ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083,21083.5.
Reference: Government Code Sections 65088.4.
Public Resources Code Sections 21080,21083.5,2 109 5;Eureka Citizens forResponsibie Govt.v.City&Eureka(200 7)147 Cal.App.4th 357;Protect the Historic
AmadorWaterways v.AmadorWaterAgency(2004)116 Cal.App.4th at 1109;San Franciscans Upho iding the Downtown Plan v.Cityand County ofSan Francisco(2002)
102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened
species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No New Significant impacts;General Plan E/R already addresses. As described in the Biological Resources
discussion above, the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would not substantially and adversely
affect biological resources. The project would not directly result in development of structures or facilities, or
directly result in ground disturbance. Therefore, the project would not substantially reduce wildlife or fish
habitat or populations, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce numbers or restrict the
range of a special-status species. As described above in Cultural Resources, the project would not directly
result in demolition of any structure or any ground disturbance; therefore the project would not eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project eliminates
aur;„ II�:uue°urull ll�i�u'uV/P,,il�liuµr�eagi:urir;If�muub"rz ll�eud:uu„ '��:uuruurp�;uru��'uurauura.� pia]ia�l�urua^uruburueuu IlurullpuV'��uuab, C..4.9
I:Invirrmnm nW C h fl:.V Hst c t II:1n0rrmmmW
superstores (and grocery use east of Hwy 101)from the range of commercial uses that could be developed.
It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Potentially Significant Impact Cumulative impacts will be addressed in the Draft EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project does not directly result in construction of structures or
other facilities; therefore, the project would result in no impact related to environmental effects associated
with construction activities, such as ground disturbance, or long-term operation of a structure. However,
environmental effects such as urban decay, traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions will be
evaluated further in the Draft EIR.
�„��%�I;'D�"�;;i�l:'Dfl➢�b`4"�;;i�a�0�L II"ii�m`&tl;,Jp+"wI;.P:'D
C 0 11 argeII i:irniiallf� u1114&View vage lP:nfingOw"d'unanci:���MtAmenabuventIlnii a
AauabN
Ascent I11::n+iauuuuuuu uuU luua"n wuuAUaduuW C quefl:.kfist
C.19 REFERENCES
City of South San Francisco. 1999. General Plan. Available: http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
Accessed January 2012.
2012. Water Quality Control Plan. Available: http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=506. Accessed
January 2012.
Department of Conservation. 2011. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2010. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/smtl0.pdf.Accessed January 2012.
2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/sanmateo_06_07_WA.pdf. Accessed January 2012.
DOC. See Department of Conservation.
San Mateo County. 1986. San Mateo County General Plan. Chapter 3 Minerals. Available:
www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning/genplan/pdf/gp/GPCh03_Minerals.pdf. Accessed January 2012.
My P:Uf!SiiP'iiuth I!Saaan I ll"i:an&tl;aAacii:'iii
11 aud"ge 11 ii:urn iaall� 11 lime uage of�lna ng Ord inauncia p ia]ia�Amen IluuullW Study C 51
Appendix D
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
REPORT
Superstore Economic
Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
October
INC.S eif e I
CONSULTING
221 Main Street
Suite 420
San Francisco CA
94105
415.618.0700
fax 415.618.0707
www.seifel.com
Table of Contents
South San Francisco
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
1. Introduction......................................................................................... 1
11. Market Area ....................................................................................... 3
A. Market Area Definition............................................................... ...... ...............................................3
B. Overview of Competitive Supply......................................................................................................6
C. Demographic and Economic Trends................................................................................................12
111. Retail Supply and Demand Analysis.............................................. 19
A. Estimated Sales at Potential Superstore............................................................ ..............................19
B. Retail Demand for Grocery Sales....................................................................................................19
C. Impact on Existing Grocery Stores..................................................................................................23
D. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................26
Table of Figures
Figure I Location of Market Areas..................................................................................................................4
Figure 2 Location of Grocery,Target and Costco Stores in Community Market Area.................................10
Figure 3 Location of Costco and Target Stores in Regional Market Area.....................................................I I
Table of Tables
Table I Grocery Stores Located in the Market Areas......................................................................................9
Table 2 Population Growth 2000-2013 .........................................................................................................12
Table 3 Population Growth Projections 2013-2018......................................................................................13
Table 4 Household Growth in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2000-2013..........................................13
Table 5 Household Growth in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2013-2018..........................................14
Table 6 Household Growth in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2018-2040..........................................14
Table 7 Median Householder Age in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2000,2013,and 2018..............15
Table 8 Household Income Distribution in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2013................................15
Table 9 Median Household Income in the PMA,CMA,RMA,and County,2000-2018.............................16
Table 10 Employment Growth Projections,2013-2018.......................................... .....................................17
Table 11 Suburban Office-Worker Spending,2011.......................................................................................17
Table 12 Employment Growth Projections,2018-2040................................................................................18
Table13 Superstore Sales 2011 .................................................................................. ..................................19
Table 14 Estimated Retail Demand for Grocery Sales in CMA(in constant 2012 dollars)..........................20
Table 15 Estimated Capture of Grocery Sales by Superstore in CMA(in constant 2012 dollars)................23
Appendix
Appendix A:Bibliography
..............................—.1.....................—� I.................. ........... ................
City of South San Francisco Seitel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
1. Introduction
The City of South San Francisco retained Seifel Consulting Inc. (Seifel)to analyze the potential
economic impact on the City's existing grocery stores from the potential opening of a new
superstore along the Highway 101 corridor near central South San Francisco. This report presents
an analysis of existing market conditions for grocery stores and evaluates the anticipated impacts
on grocery stores from a future superstore that would contain a significant grocery component.
The economic impact of a superstore is quantified in terms of new grocery sales attracted to the
area and grocery sales taken away from established full-service grocery stores located in
South San Francisco.The differences between market area spending by store type and the sales
earned by local established grocery retailers provides the baseline information needed to estimate
the net new sales that a superstore may attract, and the grocery sales that may be captured or lost
from existing businesses.
1. Superstores
Superstores are large retail stores that serve as one-stop shopping destinations by offering a wide
variety of discount merchandise and goods. They are distinguished by their size,which may be
considerably larger than typical big box outlets,and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores
typically feature a full-service supermarket,including a delicatessen,baked goods, frozen foods,
fruits,vegetables,meats, cheeses,dairy,and prepared foods.A superstore is also likely to feature
various business centers such as a bank,pharmacy,vision center,pet center,photo center,and
fast food outlet(s). Some superstores also include gas stations as part of the center.
Superstores are not warehouse clubs,like Costco,which charge membership dues and specialize
in groceries and discount general merchandise.Warehouse clubs typically have a more limited
selection of goods than superstores or supermarkets and primarily sell bulk merchandise.
Thus,the to superstore not only refers to size and sale of groceries,but also to the existence of
combined full retail and full grocery services.' The most common examples of superstores are
Walmart Supercenters,offering merchandise for sale at a Walmart discount store as well as a
full-service supermarket. The first Walmart Supercenter opened in 1988 and today over
3,000 Walmart superstores currently operate in the US,each store having a footprint of about
182,000 square feet and employing 300 associates.2 Most Walmart Supercenters are open
24 hours a day. The Walmart Supercenters located closest to South San Francisco are located in
San Jose(two locations),Napa,and American Canyon. Since 2008,the"Supercentef'portion of
the Walmart name has been phased-out in the US, and they are now simply referred to as
Walmart.
Full-service grocery stores typically sell fresh meat,seafood,and produce and often have an onsitc butcher.They also
sell a full assortment of dairy products,dry foods,ingredients,and frozen foods and often have an in-store pharmacy.
2 h walinarl,.com/(.)ur.,��st(.)i r-stores/Uiiite(.1-states-stores
City of South San Francis 1 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
In 1995,Target Corporation opened its first superstore,called Seri get.'Unlike Walmart
Supercenters, SuperTargets,which are typically about 175,000 square feet in size,are not open
24 hours. Of the 1,772 Targets in the US,over 200 are SuperTargets.4"No SuperTargets operate
in the Bay Area;the closest to South San Francisco is the SuperTarget located in Atwater,over
140 miles away.
2. Assumptions and Methodology
a. Potential Location
For purposes of the analysis,a central location within the City of South San Francisco—
East Grand Avenue at US Highway 101—is assumed as the proximate location of a potential
superstore. The superstore is also assumed to be 150,000 square feet in size, with groceries
comprising at least 25 percent of the store area,which is a typical average for superstores in
Northern California,which tend on the whole to be slightly smaller than superstores in the US.
b. Methodology
Seifel performed several tasks for the analysis,including the following:
• Identified grocery stores and supermarkets in South San Francisco
• Defined the primary,community and regional market areas for a potential superstore
• Evaluated current market conditions for grocery stores in these market areas
• Analyzed retail demand, sales attraction and spending leakage for grocery stores
• Projected the potential amount of grocery store expenditures from area employees
• Projected sales to be generated by residents and workers to be added to the market area
• Assessed the likely impact on existing grocery stores in South San Francisco
C. Data and Information Sources
Seifel used the following sources in preparing the analysis:
• City of South San Francisco reports and information provided by City staff
• Retail sales data compiled by iServices
• Demographic and market data prepared by Claritas and Association of Bay Area
Governments(ABAG)
• Research of other independently prepared data sources,including academic research and
recent articles on superstore trends and impacts
3 hU: i eslar aet.com.5ma�ws ho .�oratz.'.a b 9 d
! A........................2� u vh MaWLWsto
4 litin.Lp ..:s ct.com/cor.roor
p.5 —
5 ht �H n wikk cdia.oi v/wikirra
1P...........P .....................R )rLrget�Co ra�ration
City of South San Francisco 2 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
11. Market Area
The City of South San Francisco is located in a major regional retail marketplace that draws
consumers from the northern and central portions of San Mateo County as well as the County of
San Francisco. Three major roadways serve as regional connecters from South San Francisco—
the Junipero Serra Freeway,Interstate 280(1-280)on the City's west side; El Camino Real, State
Route 82(SR 82); and the Bayshore Freeway,Highway 101 (US 101)to the east.
The grocery component of a potential superstore located on Dubuque Avenue in the Freeway
Commercial(FC)Zoning District,east of US 101 and north of East Grand Avenue would
primarily attract customers who live within close proximity and customers who work along the
US 101 corridor in the northern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula and commute on
Highway 101 through South San Francisco. The workforce east of US 101 could serve as a key
market segment of potential customers. South San Francisco's major Research and Development
(R&D)employers are located east of US 101, and they include biotech companies such as
Genentech(8,500 employees),a satellite office of Amgen(480 employees), and Janssen
(2 10 employees). Customers could also be drawn from other nearby employers within South
San Francisco, such as Royal Laundry on San Mateo Avenue(300 employees),Bimbo Bakeries
USA on South Canal Street(300),and other employers in South San Francisco as well as nearby
cities.
A. Market Area Deflnition
Consumer shopping decisions depend upon convenience, drive time, distance,and store type
preference. Seifel conducted research to develop a potential superstore's market area—the area
from which the majority of shoppers will originate, and mapped the nearest competitors, defined
as grocery stores,grocery outlets,and discount stores/membership clubs retailing grocery.
Seifel also reviewed various studies to better understand how entry of a new superstore impacts
existing grocery stores nearby.A bibliography of these studies is included as Appendix A.
Discussions with City staff and consultants also helped to inform the delineation of the market
area boundaries.
As shown in Figure 1.,Location of Market Areas, Seifel has identified three market areas:
• Primary Market Area(PMA),where the impacts from entry of a superstore on
South San Francisco grocery stores would be greatest(within a 2-mile radius of the
proximate location of a potential superstore).
• Community Market Area(CMA),where most grocery shopping trips would be expected to
originate and where a superstore would compete to some extent with other large-format
retailers offering full-service grocery stores(within a 3.5-mile radius of the proximate
location).
• Regional Market Area(RMA),where consumers would be drawn from the larger regional
marketplace to purchase competitively priced goods and who may purchase groceries.while
doing merchandise shopping(within an 8-mile radius of the proximate location).
_I _ -1....................................-..............._ I .................._.............................I................................................................1............ ................... ............_._......
City of South San Francisco 3 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Figure 1
Location of Market Areas
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
101 0 13
LA
d,
r
Primary Market Area(2 mi)
Community Market Area(3.5
I I Sah Francisco
® i
Regional Market Area(8 mi) Bay
® ,® 92 }
4
1 �
101
Pacific Ocean
Potential Superstore
San Mateo County
0 3.5 7 10.5 14 m.
Miles
City of South San Francisco 4 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
1. Primary Market Area (PMA)
The P is defined as the geography where the impact from a potential superstore on existing
South San Francisco grocery stores is expected to be greatest.Research suggests that entry of a
superstore significantly impacts grocery store sales,prices and employment for grocery stores
located within a two-mile radius.One study found the impacts from the entry of a new Walmart
Supercenter to be highly localized,significantly impacting only those rival supermarkets within a
two-mile radius of a new Walmart store.'
The PMA encompasses the area located within 2 miles of the potential location of a superstore
and includes the central and eastern portions of the City. South San Francisco's two Safeway
stores, Smart&Final,Costco membership club on South Airport Boulevard, and several ethnic
grocery stores are located within the PMA. The PMA also includes the Lucky supermarket and
the Tanforan Target on El Camino Real in San Bruno. (See Figure 2,Location of Grocery,Target
and Costco Stores in Primary and Community Market Areas.)
While the majority of grocery stores in South San Francisco are located within the PMA along
El Camino Real,a large portion of the PMA is non-residential,particularly the areas east of
US
101,which contain primarily R&D and industrial land uses.
2. Community Market Area (CMA)
The CA is defined as the geography where most grocery shopping trips to a superstore would
be expected to originate.An estimated 60 to 80 percent of grocery sales is expected to come from
repeat shoppers who live within this area.'
The CMA encompasses an area within a 3.5-mile radius of the proximate location of a potential
superstore,which captures nearly all of South San Francisco.According to the Food Marketing
Institute,the average consumer makes 2.2 trips per week to the grocery store.8 A 2006 study
found the mean household travel distance to grocery stores to be 3.5 miles,based on data
collected from over 10,000 households.9 Based on the frequency of grocery store trips and the
highly perishable nature of grocery products, 3.5 miles represents the travel distance that the
average consumer is willing to travel on a regular basis."
The CMA contains several full-service grocery stores and large-format discount/membership club
stores with groceries that would compete to some extent with a potential superstore.In general,
for most shoppers living in the CMA,the superstore would not be the closest location for
shopping trips to a full-service grocery store or large-format general merchandise store offering
grocery services.However,a potential superstore would likely capture shopping trips from the
CMA or the larger RMA,either due to shoppers"trip chaining"(i.e.,combining various trips
together such as work-store-home)and/or due to consumer preferences to shop at a superstore
located near their home. This is particularly true given the potential location of a superstore along
the US 101 corridor and within close proximity to a major employment center.
6 Ellickson and Grieco(2012)."Wal-Mart and the Geography of Grocery Retailing."
7 Brett and Schmitz(2009)."Real Estate Market Analysis Methods and Case Studies."Urban Land Institute.
8 h L�Www..ftUL,2rg,LqS -Lqj r�qL/.qu r &gL:fiL s(Retrieved 10/23/12)
qg[O:L Qq- __pn_m4_ qt�
9 Singh,Hansen and Blattberg(2006)."Market Entry and Consumer Behavior:An Investigation of a Wal-Mart
Supercenter."
10 Ellickson and Grieco(2012).
City of South San Francisco 5 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
In addition to the stores located in the PMA,the portion of the C within South San Francisco
includes the Trader Joe's,Pak'n Save, Grocery Outlet, and Costco on El Camino Real. Outside of
the City,the Cohna.Target and the Mollie Stone's Market in San Bruno are located within the
CMA. The CMA includes all of Brisbane,which does not have a fall-service grocery store,and
portions of Co a,Daly City and San Bruno. (See Figure 2.)
3. Regional Market Area (RMA)
The Regional Market Area(RMA)includes the larger marketplace to meet the regional need.
Consumers may purchase groceries vihile shopping at membership warehouse clubs(e.g.,Costco)
and discount stores with grocery(e.g.,Target)in the regional marketplace. The RMA
encompasses an area within an 8-mile radius of the proximate location of a potential superstore,
which is expected to have a regional draw and potentially compete with larger retail centers
outside of the primary and community market areas. This includes neighborhoods located in the
southern half of San Francisco,primarily those neighborhoods with convenient access to US 101,
Interstate 380 and Interstate 280.Residents living in these neighborhoods likely already make
shopping trips to other large retailers located in Cola,Daly City,Millbrae, San Bruno,
San Francisco, and South San Francisco.
Figure 3,location of Costco and Target stores in RMA, indicates the proximate location of a
potential superstore,the three market areas,and the Costcos and Targets within the market areas.
In addition to the stores located in the PMA and CMA,the RMA includes the San Francisco
Costco on 10h Street,and the Daly City Target at 133 Serramonte Center.No Walmart
Supercenters or SuperTargets are located within the RMA.
B. Overview of Competitive Supply
A key factor informing market area definitions is the competitive supply of existing supermarkets
and grocery stores in the vicinity of the proximate location of the potential superstore.
The following section provides an inventory of competitive grocery stores in the PMA and CMA,
as well as membership warehouse clubs and discount stores with grocery in the RMA,compiled
based on data supplied by the City and other sources.
Table I provides a list of grocery stores within the PMA and CMA.As shown,six retailers
offering full-service groceries are located within the PMA, including four within the City
boundaries: the two Safeways on El Camino Real, Smart&Final on Kenwood Way,and Costco
on South Airport Boulevard. The other two are the Lucky Supermarket and Target on El Camino
Real in San Bruno.The PMA also includes 11 ethnic and other food stores,including Panaderia
Hernandez on Grand Avenue,Rancho Market on Hillside Boulevard,Alfredo's Market on Linden
Street,and Pacific Supermarket on El Camino Real.
Expanding further,the CMA includes six additional retailers offering full-service groceries,four
of which are located within city boundaries, including Trader Joes on Mclellan,Costco on
El Camino Real, Grocery Outlet on Hickey Boulevard,and Pak'n Save on Gellert Boulevard.
Outside South San Francisco,the Target in Cohna,Mollie Stone's Market in San Bruno, and
Manila Oriental Market in Daly City are located in the A.
........... ................................................................................ ............................_-,........ ....................
City of South San Francisco 6 Selfel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
1. Conventional and Upscale Grocery Stores
Full-service grocery stores are stand-alone stores that offer dry groceries,canned goods,frozen
products,fresh meat and seafood,nonfood products(for example,food storage,paper goods and
health products),fresh produce and other perishables. These stores often include multiple service
departments including,but not limited to,bakeries,butchers,delis,florists, and photo. Similar to
conventional grocery stores,upscale grocers often feature fresh foods,gourmet products and
organic products,but tend to have a limited selection of general merchandise in typically smaller
locations. Conventional grocery stores are opening larger upscale stores, such as the Safeway in
Milpitas,which is being rebuilt and expanded to the company's lifestyle concept,which offers
customers expanded selections of prepared foods,bakery,seafood,and organic foods and florist
and pharmacy departments.
The PMA and/or CA include several stores in this category,including the following:
• Safeway, 170 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
• Safeway, 30 Chestnut Avenue, South San Francisco
• Trader Joe's, 301 Mclellan Drive, South San Francisco
• Lucky, 1322 El Camino Real, San Bruno
• Mollie Stone's Market,22 Bayhill Shopping Center, San Bruno
2. Ethnic-Oriented and Other Grocery Stores
Ethnic-oriented grocery stores often offer a wide selection of ethnic-oriented groceries not
typically found in conventional grocery stores. These stores generally serve Asian,Latino or
other ethnic customers.Typically ethnic grocery stores stock a wider variety of specialty foods
targeted to the specific ethnic customer base. The PMA and CMA include several ethnic-oriented
grocery stores. The PMA also includes several smaller retail grocery stores that carry a limited
supply of grocery items such as fresh produce, dairy,meats,and baked goods. The smaller stores
included in this analysis are situated in South San Francisco within the PMA and are at least
5,000 square feet in size. The PMA and/or CMA include several stores in this category,including
the following:
• Pacific Supermarket, 1015 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
• Pacific Supermarket, 3573 Callan Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Panaderia Hernandez,390 and Avenue, South San Francisco
• Alfredo's Market,722 Linden Street, South San Francisco
• Rancho Market,249 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Chavarrarria's Market,900 Linden Street, South San Francisco
• Manila Oriental Market,950 King Drive,Daly City
.............------ ...........I—.............. ....................................................................
City of South San Francisco 7 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
I Discount Grocery Stores and Discount Stores/Membership Clubs with
Grocery
Discount grocery stores and discount stores/membership clubs with grocery feature lower-than-
average price points on grocery items. Some discount stores have aggressively entered the
grocery market.As an example,in 2009, Target tested offering enhanced assortments of dry
grocery,frozen foods,dairy products,meat,and produce at two of its general merchandise store
locations,and planned to introduce these services as a prototype element in the majority of new
stores going forward." By March 2012,Target had expanded food departments in 900 of its
stores,offering fresh produce,fresh packaged meat and pre-packaged baked goods,as well as dry
and frozen offerings. By the end of the year,it is expected to remodel another 200 stores with the
fresh food layout.12 Membership clubs often feature bulk items that allow customers to maximize
value relative too er grocery stores.Three discount grocery stores and four discount
stores/membership clubs with grocery are located within the PMA and/or C-MA:
• Grocery Outlet, 125 Hickey Boulevard,South San Francisco
• Pak'n Save,2255 Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Smart&Final,249 Kenwood Way, South San Francisco
• Costco,451 South Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Costco, 1600 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
• Target,5001 Junipero Serra, Col ma
• Target, 1150 El Camino Real, San Bruno
The RMA includes additional discount store/membership clubs with grocery, including the
following:
• Costco,450 10'b Street, San Francisco
• Target, 133 Serramonte Center,Daly City
Refer to Figure 3,Location of Costco and Target Stores in the Regional Market Area,which
shows the location of these stores relative to the potential superstore.
4. Planned and Proposed Retail Development
Based on conversations with planning staff at the City of South San Francisco,plans are
underway to build a new Safeway asp of a mixed-use development to replace the existing
Safeway in the Brentwood Shopping Center on Brentwood Drive. The new center would include
200,000 square feet of commercial space,including a 58,000 square foot Safeway store,which
would replace the existing 25,000 square foot store, and provide nearly 300 residential units.13
Construction will not begin until at least 2013. The project is currently in the entitlement and EIR
process.No other developments involving grocery are proposed,planned or underway.
h..t.!R):Li/,",-S-Uu(qn--ngairk.etmiews.com/1 atest news/tar&.et----ex.and[god ofteri
p (Retrieved 10♦12/12.)
12 hfitp.,
da
o finance.com/2012,'06,'14/the S&Lmaig:!h2d more
....... ..... -------
(Retrieved 10/12,12.)
13 htt ://"!southsarffiraiiwisro, atch.com,'arti(,Ies/new:::�safew irki,existing square foot estimates provided
pL-��l--m............... .........................................
by Safeway Corporation representative.
City of South San Francisco 8 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Table 1
Grocery Stores Located in the Market Areas
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Distance to
Proximate
Location
Name Address files
Primary Market Area Of Impact
DiseQuitt Stores and Membership Clubs with Grocery
Costco 451 South Airport Blvd.,South San Francisco 1.0
Smart&Final 249 Kenwood Way,South San Francisco 1.4
Target 1150 El Camino Real,San Bruno 1.5
Conventional and Upscale Grocer
Safeway 170 El Camino Real,South San Francisco 1.3
Lucky 1322 El Camino Real,San Bruno 1.4
Safeway 30 Chestnut Ave.,South San Francisco 1.4
Ethnic and Other Grocery Stores
Panaderia Hernandez 390 Grand Ave.,South San Francisco 0.3
Alfredo's Market 722 Linden St.,South San Francisco 0.3
Camiceria Tepa 801 Linden Ave.,South San Francsico 0.4
Valencia Market 354 Commercial Ave.,South San Francisco 0.4
Chavarria's Market 900 Linden St.,South San Francisco 0.4
Jalisco Produce Market 441 Grand Ave.,South San Francisco 0.4
Rancho Market 249 Hillside Blvd.,South San Francsico 0.5
Mike&Ken's Grocery and Deli 1031 Airport Blvd.,South San Francisco 0.6
A)ar Produce Market 106 S.Spruce Ave,South San Francisco 0.7
Good N'Rich Market 130 S.Spruce Ave.,South San Francisco 0.8
Pacific Sppermarket 1015 El Camino Real,South San Francisco 1.6
Additional Stores in Community arket Area
Discount Stores and Membership Clubs with Grocery
Costco 1600 El Camino Real,South San Francisco 2.4
Grocery Outlet 125 Hickey Blvd,South San Francisco 2.6
Pak'n Save 2255 Gellert Blvd,South San Francisco 2.7
Target 5001 Junipero Serra,Colma 3.4
Conventional and Upscale Groggry
Trader Joe's 301 Melellan Dr.,South San Francisco 2.2
Mollie Stone's 22 Bayhill Shopping Center,San Bruno 2.3
Ethnic and Other Grocery Stores
Pacific Supermarket 3573 Callan BIN d.,South San Francisco 3.3
Manila Oriental Market 1950 King Dr.,Daly City 1 3.4
...................---............. ........................................—.................................................. ................................................. .......
City of South San Francisco 9 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Figure 2
Location of Grocery,Target and Costco Stores in Primary and Community Market Areas
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Community Market Area .5 mi) �
�Y
l \
•
` !
daPr1nr� rket Area,(2 md \
\
101
et
•Tae - _.
1 Gt efi
J
° IN T BP /
Mar� 1
f � ������ ' mama i� , /� r San Francisco
Bay
s i � r ✓in 7
' R rf ermarke� r /
F
�� ,✓ v trir i. ti r Al
`A
\ '
N +.
/
v T
Potential Superstore City of South San Francisco
Conventional and Upscale Grocery Stores
O Ethnic and Other Grocery Stores(5,000+SF) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
IN Discount Stores and Membership Clubs with Grocery 1 Miles
City of South San Francisco 10 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Figure
Location r e t Stores in i I Market Area
Superstore is Impact Analysis
1
0 13
Yr/^
/ 101
/ mmunn;Macke 'rea
/ Y _ \
h �Primary Market a(2 mi)
j1 j Sari Francisco Bay
\ < l' 101 / 92
\ ��� 4
Regional Nate mi) .�' ` l
N Imo,
r1
n a n
7t Potential Superstore O
Costco
I Target(w/Fresh Grocery) 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 m
City of South San Francisco Mlles
City of South San Francisco 11 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
C. Demographic and Economic Trends
This section summarizes the demographic and economic conditions in the market areas that are
relevant to evaluating local consumer buying power,including population,number and size of
households, and household income. In addition,employment trends in the market areas are
described because worker expenditures can provide an additional source of retail demand.
In general,demographic and economic data is presented for the years 2000, 2013 and 2018, in
order to evaluate historical trends and project forward through a potential five-year time horizon
for a superstore opening where relevant, longer-range regional projections through 2040 are
included.
Data sources include demographic data and projections from the US Census, US Bureau of Labor
Statistics,California Department of Finance and Claritas,with longer-term household and
employment projections by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)."As each
market area is a concentric ring around the potential store location,the data provided for ithe
CMA includes the population,households,and employment in the PMA,for example.
1. Population Trends
Local population is a key determinant of the local consumer buying power within a market area.
According to the Urban Land Institute(ULI),the population needed to support a traditional
grocery-store anchored neighborhood shopping center is approximately 30,000 to 40,000
people."As shown in Table 2,the population of the PMA was approximately 45,000 in 2000 and
is expected to increase by approximately 4,800 to a total of 49,800 by 2013. This increase
represents an average annual rate of growth in the PMA of 0.8 percent, indicating that the PMA
has grown at a faster rate in comparison to the CMA,RMA and San Mateo County.
Table 2
Population Growth 2000-2013
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Population
Annual
2000 2013 Growth Rate
Primary Market Area 44,979 79,733 0.8%
Community Market Area 123,231 131,905 0.5%
Regional Market Area 749,596 781,614 0.3%
San Mateo County 707,161 737,586 0.3%
California 34,000 835 38,280773 0.9%
Source:Claritas,California Department of Finance,Seifel Consulting Inc.
1 4 Claritas is a private vendor providing estimates of current and future demographic conditions.
15 According to ULI,a neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods(foods,drugs and sundries)and
personal services(laundry and dry cleaning,barbering,shoe repairs,etc.)for the day-to-day li-V ing needs of the
immediate neighborhood.It is built around a supermarket as the principal tenant and typically contains a gross
leasable area of about 60,000 square feet.In practice,it may range in size from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
—------—---
City of South San Francisco 12 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Five-year projections indicate continued growth in the PA from 2013 through 2018, as shown
in Table 3. Over this time period,the population in the PMA is projected to grow at an average
annual rate of 1.1 percent,outpacing the RMA(0.8 percent)and the County (0.9 percent).
Between 2013 and 2018,the PMA will add approximately 2,800 residents, while the CA will
add approximately 6,900 residents,at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent. As population
continues to increase,residents in these market areas will generate demand that can support
additional grocery store sales.
Table 3
Population Growth Projections 2013-2018
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Po ltio n
Population Annual
2013 2018 - Change Growth Rate
Primary Market Area 49,733 52,535 2,802 1.1%
Community Market Area 131,905 138,764 6,859 1.0%
Regional Market Area 781,614 813,189 31,575 0.8%
San Mateo Coun!y 73725861 77024621 32:8761 0.9%
Source:Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
2. Household Trends
Also relevant to local consumer buying power is the number of households in•a market area and
key household characteristics, including age and income. Table 4 below presents data on the
number of households in the relevant geographies for the years 2000 and 2013.As shown,the
PMA and CMA experienced stronger growth in the number of households relative to the RMA
and County between 2010 and 2013.
Table 4
Household Growth in the PIVIA, CIVIA, RIVIA, and County,2000-
u rr ic Impact Analysis
Households
Annual
2000 2013 -Growth Rate
Primary Market Area 15,158 16,720 0.87/o
Community Market Area 42,063 45,213 0.6%
Regional Market Area 266453 281242 0.4%
San Mateo Coug!y 254:2181 264:6151 0.3%
Source:Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
............... ..................... ............................................. ......................................................................_'..................................... .............
City of South San Francisco 13 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Based on short-term demographic projections,the PMA and CMA will continue to grow at a
higher rate than the surrounding geographies,as shown in Table 5. Between 2013 and 2018,the
PMA is projected to grow by 959 households to a total of 17,669 households.
Table 5
Household Growth in the PMA, CIVIA, RMA, and County,2013-2018
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Households
Household Annual
2013 2018 Change Growth Rate
Primary Market Area 16,720 17,669 949 0.9%
Community Market Area 45,213 47,628 2,415 0.7%
Regional Market Area 281,242 293,3971 12,155 0.5%
San Mateo Cojan 264,6151 276 635 12,020 0.5%
Source:Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
Long-term projections indicate continued strong growth in the number of households in the PMA
and the CMA from 2018 through 2040,as shown in Table 6. Over this time period,the number of
households in the PMA is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent and the
CMA is expected to grow at a rate of 0.7 percent,compared to 0.9 percent for the RMA and
0.6 percent for the County.Between 2018 and 2040,the PMA will add an estimated
3,755 households,while the CMA will add 7,480 households. With an increasing number of
households,these areas can be expected to continue generating additional demand for grocery in
the coming decades.
Table 6
Household Growth in the PMA,CIVIA, RMA, and County,2018-2040
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Households
. Household Annual
2018 2040 Growth Growth Rate
Primary Market Area 17,669 21,424 3,755 0.9%
Community Market Area 47,628 55,108 7,480 0.7%
Regional Market Area 293,397 358,850 65453 0.9%
San Mateo Coun!y 276635 315733 39:0981 0.6%
1----------- 2 1
Source:Claritas,ABAG TAZ Growth Projections, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of South San Francisco 14 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Table 7 below shows median householder age in the PMA,CA,RMA,and County for 2000,
2013 and 2018. The household demographic data also shows that for all areas the median
householder age is increasing.According to the 2018 projections,median household age in the
PMA and RMA will continue to be lower than the CMA and County.
Table 7
Median Householder Age in the PMA, CMA, RMA,and County,2000, 2013, and 2018
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
2000 2013 2018
Primary Market Area 47.1 51.2 52.7
Community Market Area 48.3 52.3 53.9
Regional Market Area 47.2 50.9 52.5
,San Mateo CoMpLty 47.9L52.2 53.9
Source: Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
Another important factor affecting potential retail demand is household income and the
corresponding consumer buying power.In general,approximately 30 percent of household
expenditures are spent on retail products,not including the purchase of motor vehicles and
gasoline.16 Table 8 shows the 2013 household income distribution and median household income
for the PMA,C and County.As shown,the PMA,CMA and RMA have significantly
lower median household incomes and a higher percentage of low-income households relative to
the County. This indicates that the market areas for a superstore at the proximate location would
have more lower-income households relative to surrounding geographies.
Table 8
Household Income Distribution in the PMA, CMA, RMA, and County,2013
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Household Income Primary Market Area Community
.v Market Area Reldlonal Market Arem San Mateo County
Less than$15,000 1,242 7.4% 2,928 6.3% 21,393 7.6% 15,796 6.0%
$15,000-$24,999 1,240 7.4% 3,019 6.7% 19,581 7.0% 15,942 6.0%
$25,000-$34,999 1,319 7.9% 3,045 6.7% 19,853 7.1% 16,902 6.4%
S35A0-$49.999 I U0 12.0% 4.242 10.2% 28,303 10.1 24.922 2.41
Less than$50,000 5,810 34.8% 13,841 30.6% 89,130 31.7% 73,562 27.8%
$50,000-$74,999 3,532 21.1% 8,761 19.4% 44,934 16.0% 42,666 16.1%
1=0_122M 23-56 14.1% 6" 15.1 37.806 12-4YI 34,952 13,20'a
$50,000-$100,000 5,888 35.2% 15,567 34.4% 82,740 29.4% 77,618 29.3%
0
$100,0004124,999 1,929 11.5% 5,911 13.1% 31,540 11.2% 29,668 11.2%
$125,000-$149,999 950 5.7% 3,284 7.3% 20,525 7.3% 20,250 ]7.7%
$150,000-$199,0()0 1,240 '.4% 3,792 &4% 27,627 9.8% 27,401 10.4%
$200,000 and Aboyc M 5AA 2.8n 611A 22,680 10.6% 36,116 D-6.
$100 000 and More 1020 30.0%--------------15----------35.0%-----------MM72 38.9% 113,435 42.9%
�7 -
281242 �264
Total Number of Households 1617181/:///'�///,,/,,//,,'/'/,,', �45,2�1217,`//,
Q'f"
M OJL'-z
i - 17 7:f 7 9 336
Source:Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
16 Source of data is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures Surveys.
"I'll 1111............... ........
City of South San Francisco 15 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Since 2000,median household incomes in the PMA,CA, RMA,and County have steadily
increased.Table 9 shows historical, current and projected median household incomes for these
geographies. The growth in the RMA and County median income outpaces the PMA and CMA.
Table 9
Median Household Income in the PMA, CMA, RMA, and County, 2000-2018
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Median Income
Change Annual
2000 2013 2018 (2000-2018) Growth Rate
Primary Market Area $57,100 $68,045 $72,257 $15,157 1.3%
Community Market Area $62,586 $75,016 $81,041 $18,455 1.4%
Regional Market Area $63,624 $79,3361 $85,235 235 $21,611 1.6%1
1 San Mateo Coun!y $71,244 $86,5011 $94,5821 $23 338 1.6%
Source:Claritas,Seifel Consulting Inc.
3. Labor Force
Workers can also be an important contributor to local consumer buying power based on retail
expenditures near their place of employment.As shown in Table 10,the PMA is projected to be
the location for 52,300 jobs in 2013,including 26,000 manufacturing,wholesale and
transportation jobs; 9,500 financial and professional jobs; 7,600 health,educational and
recreational jobs;3,400 retail jobs;and 5,900 other jobs.
While,most consumer expenditures tend to occur closer to one's home than one's place of work,
national surveys indicate that, on average,suburban office workers spend approximately$5,300
annually at stores located closer to their place of work than their home. Of that amount,as shown
in Table 11,office workers spend approximately 21 percent(or about$1,120) annually at grocery
stores located near their place of work.When considering expenditures solely from financial and
professional office workers employed in the PMA, an additional$10.6 million of potential
consumer buying power for grocery stores exists within the PMA,before adjusting to account for
persons who both live and work in the PMA.
City of South San Francisco 16 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Table 10
Employment Growth Projections,2013-
r r ic Impact Analysis
Annual
Market Area Employment Sector 2013 2018 Difference Growth Rate
Primary Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 120 116 -4 -0.6%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 25,852 26,177 325 0.3%
Retail 3,364 3,435 71 0.4%
Financial and Professional Services 9,465 10,254 790 1.61/o
Health,Education and Recreation 7,637 8,370 '33 1.9%
Other 5,906 6,149 242 0.8%
Total 52,343 54,500 2,1571 0.8%
Community Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 201 197 4 -0.4%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 28,084 28,425 341 0.2%
Retail 8,387 8,532 146 0.3%
Financial and Professional Services 13,476 14,473 997 1.4%
Health,Education and Recreation 14,720 16,212 1,492 1.9%
Other 9,390 9,751 360 0.8%
Total K257 77,590 3J321 0.9%
Regional Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 520 498 -22 -0.9%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 52,730 52,877 147 0.1%
Retail 32,958 33,637 679 0.4%
Financial and Professional Services 63,123 69,724 6,601 2.0%
Health,Education and Recreation 109,708 118,557 8,849 1.61/o
Other 60,580 62,698 2,118 0.7%
Total 319,618 337,991 18,373 1.1%
San Mateo Count,- Agricultural and Natural Resources 2,172 2,104 -68 -0.6%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 67,442 67,386 -56 0.0%
Retail 35,737 36,382 645 0.4%
Financial and Professional Services 89,920 95,921 6,101 1.3%
Health,Education and Recreation 91,033 97,772 6,739 1.4%
Other 69,019 72,372 3,353 1.0%
Total 354 222 2171 ate
Source:ABAG TAZ Growth Projections,Scifiel Consulting Inc.
Table 11
Suburban Office-Worker Spending, 2011
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Average Spending
Store Type npr vpae Percent
Department Stores $470 9%
Discount Stores $589 11%
Drug Stores $395 7%
Grocery Stores $1,122 21%
Clothing Stores $230 4%
Shoe Stores $177 3%
Sporting Goods Stores $181 3%
Electronics,Phone and Computer Stores $464 9%
Jewelry Stores $195 4%
Office Supplies,Stationar,Novelty Gifts and Cards $385 7%
Warehouse Clubs $641 12%
Other Goods(florist,non-food vendors,etc.) $195 4%
Personal Care Shops $258 5%
JTotal 3 100%
a.Based on a spending survey of suburban office-workers conducted by ICSC in October 2011.
Source:International Council of Shopping Centers(ICSQ,Seitel Consulting Inc.
................
City of South San Francisco 17 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
As shown in Table 12,the number of market area employees is projected to continue to grow as
new businesses are attracted to the area.Between 2018 and 2040, employers are projected to add
nearly 9,500 additional jobs in the PMA,and 80,843 jobs in the RMA.As the number of
employees in the PMA and CMA continues to grow,retail buying power will also grow.
Table 12
Employment Growth Projections, 2018-2040
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Annual
Market Area to entSector 2018 2040 Difference Growth Rate
7
Primary Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 116 100 16 -0.7%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 26,177 27,606 1,429 0.2%
Retail 3,435 3,747 312 0.4%
Financial and Professional Services 10,254 13,728 3,474 1.3%
Health,Education and Recreation 8,370 11,596 3,226 1.5%
Other 6,149 7,215 1,066 0.7%
Total 54,500 63,992 9 492 0.7%
Community Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 197 181 -16 -0.4%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 28,425 29,925 1,500 0.2%
Retail 8,532 9,174 642 0.3%
Financial and Professional Services 14,473 18,859 4,386 1.2%
Health,Education and Recreation 16,212 22,777 6,565 1.6%
Other 9,751 11,336 1,585 0.7%
Total 77,590 92,252 14,662 0.8%
Regional Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 498 402 -96 -1.0%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 52,877 53,525 648 0.1%
Retail 33,637 36,625 2,988 0.4%
Financial and Professional Sen ices 69,724 98,771 29,047 1.6%
Health,Education and Recreation 118,557 157,493 38,936 1.3%
Other 62,698 -2,018 9,320 0.6%
Total 337,991 418,834 80 843 1.0%
_
San Mateo County Agricultural and Natural Resources 2,104 1,807 -297 -0.7%
Manufacturing,Wholesale and Transportation 67,386 67,139 -247 0.0%
Retail 36,382 39,219 2,837 0.3%
Financial and Professional Services 95,921 122,766 26,845 1.1%
Health,Education and Recreation 97,772 127,421 29,649 1.2%
Other 72,372 87,126 14,754 0.8%
371,936 445,478 73 542 0.8%
Source:ABAG TAZ Growth Projections,Seifel Consulting hie.
City of South San Francisco 18 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Ill. Retail Supply and Demand Analysis
Based on the preceding discussion of existing conditions in the market areas,the following
section provides a retail supply and demand analysis to determine the expected impact of a
potential superstore on grocery stores located in South San Francisco.
A. Estimated Sales at Potential Superstore
In order to estimate expected sales perfon-nance for a potential superstore, Seifel utilized data
contained in the annual 10-K Reports for Target and Walmart, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,as well as the Target Corporation 2011 Annual Report and data provided
by iServices. As shown in Table 13,the estimated annual superstore sales would range
between $60 million to$70 million assuming a 150,000 square foot store,which is about$433 of
sales per square foot.
Based on a review of the 10-K and other data,-it is estimated that between 40 to 50 percent of a
superstore's sales are grocery related. Thus,for a 150,000 square foot superstore,with estimated
annual sales of$65 million,grocery-related sales would be about$29 million."
Table 13
Superstore Sales 2011
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Estimated Superstore Sales
Net Sales(2011) $65,000,000
igkl Square Footage�tae 15kaffl-
Sales Per Sguare Foot(2011) $433
Source:Walmart and Target SEC 10-K Reports,2012;Seifel Consulting Inc.
B. Retail Demand for Grocery Sales
In order to examine the potential impact from a superstore locating in South San Francisco, Seifel
analyzed the current(2012) and future(2017)demand for grocery retail sales in the CMA,as well
household and worker expenditures on grocery retail sales to determine the potential impact of a
superstore on existing stores in the CMA. Table 14 summarizes the current and future demand
and additional retail square footage for grocery store space that could be potentially supported by
this growth over this five-year period.
1. Existing Household Demand
In 2012,Claritas estimates that demand for grocery expenditures is $222.9 million in the CMA.
In order to verify the data provided by Claritas, Seifel estimated potential grocery store spending
capacity in the CMA using data obtained from the State Board of Equalization(BOE)and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS)2009 Consumer Expenditures Survey.After adjusting the
California average household retail expenditures to account for the CMA's household income
17 The estimated grocery related sales of$29 million represents an estimated average between a SuperTarget and
Walmart Supercenter.Studies specifically looking at Walmart Supercenters indicate higher levels of grocery sales
depending on the size of the Supercenter and its location.
............ .................................._,_........... .......................................................
City of South San Francisco 19 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
levels, Seifel aggregated the average 2009 household expenditures over all households in the
CMA.Based on$4,818 in average household expenditures,the 45,213 households in the CMA
generated$217.8 million in estimated consumer demand for groceries. The results of the analysis
are generally consistent with the 2012 estimates provided by Claritas based on potential growth in
demand for grocery expenditures since 2009.
2. Existing Worker Demand
As discussed in Section 11,office workers spend approximately$1,122 annually at grocery stores
located near their place of work.Based on 13,476 financial and professional service workers
employed in the CMA according to ABAG,an additional$15.1 million of potential consumer
buying power for grocery stores exists within the CMA.While these worker expenditure
estimates do not address the overlap for persons who both live and work in the CMA,the worker
demand is likely underestimated,as it only accounts for expenditures from 18 percent of all
workers employed in the CMA.
Table 14
Estimated Retail Demand for Grocery Sales in CIVIA(in constant 2012 dollars)
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
Estimated
2012 2017 Growth
Demand(Consumer Expenditures)'
Primary Market Area(2 mile) $79,434,026 $82,253,413 $2,819,387
Additional Market Area(2 to 3.5 mile) $143,502,939 $148,596,352 $5,093,413
Total Community Market Area(3.5 mile) $222,936,965 $230,849,765 $7,912,800
Office Demand $15,120,072 $16,238,706 $1,118,634
Total Demand $238,057,02 9,031,434
Average Sales/SF Supportable SF
Supportable Grocery Square Footage
Superstore' $433 20,858
T)Mical Sypermarketd $527 17,137
a.Based on household growth at 0.7 percent per year per ABAG household growth projections.
b.Assumes$1,122 in grocery spending per office worker per year according to ICSC.
c.See Table 13.
d.Based on the median annual sales per supermarket($24.23 million)divided by the median store size
(46,000 square feet)in 2010 according to the Food Marking Institute.
Source:City of South San Francisco,Claritas,International Council of Shopping Centers(ICSC),
Food Marketing Institute,Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),Seifel Consulting Inc.
...........
City of South San Francisco 20 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
3. Future Demand from Households and Workers
To project future household demand, Seifel increased the 2012 Claritas estimates for consumer
buying potential by 0.7 percent per year to reflect the projected growth in households within the
CMA according to A . To project future worker demand, Seifel utilized ABAG's projections
for financial and professional service workers multiplied by a worker's typical expenditures on
grocery items.Based on these projections,the CMA would generate about$247.1 million in
future demand for grocery sales in 2017,as indicated in Table 14.
4. Supportable Grocery Square Footage from Growth in Demand
As described earlier,the CMA has many competitive grocery retailers that are located within
relatively close proximity to each other and to the potential location of a superstore.In addition,
many of these retailers are located in the middle of residential areas,primarily along El Camino
Real,rather than along the US 101 corridor.Based on Claritas data, estimated worker
expenditures and sales tax data provided by MuniServices, existing grocery retailers appear to be
capturing most of the household demand from nearby residents in the CMA. For existing retailers
within the CMA not to be impacted by the entry of a new superstore,the growth in grocery
demand from new households and workers would need to represent a significant portion of new
demand for the grocery component of a superstore.
As shown in Table 14,the estimated growth in grocery demand from households and workers in
the CMA is $9 million.Based on typical sales data for a superstore($433 per square foot), as
reported in Table 13,the growth in demand for grocery sales could support about 20,900 square
feet for a superstore.As described earlier,however, Safeway is proposing to expand one of its
grocery stores in South San Francisco. Given average sales per square foot fora typical
supermarket($527 per square foot in 2010,according to the Food Marketing Institute),
the growth in demand could support about 17,000 square feet of supermarket space. Given the
Safeway expansion plans,50 percent of the demand from new growth is assumed to be captured
by Safeway given its central location in South San Francisco and established customer base,with
the remaining 50 percent captured by the new superstore.18
5. Potential Capture of Grocery Sales by Superstore
As described in Section 1,households located in the CMA are expected to capture 60 to
80 percent of new grocery sales by a superstore. This analysis uses this range to bracket the
potential capture of grocery sales by the superstore in the CMA,with Scenario I representing
80 percent of grocery sales derived from the CMA,and Scenario 2 representing 60 percent.
Assuming the grocery component of a typical superstore would be expected to capture about
$29 million in sales,as indicated in Scenario 1,this would mean that$23.2 million worth of sales
would need to be generated from CMA households.Assuming that the superstore captures
50 percent of increased demand from new growth,with the remaining captured by the proposed
Safeway,then the net sales capture from existing CMA household demand would be about
$18.7 million. This amount represents 8.4 percent of existing CMA household demand,as shown
in Table 15.Following the same analysis for Scenario 2,the net sales capture from existing CMA
household demand would be about$12.9 million.This amount represents 5:8 percent of existing
CMA household demand,as shown in Table 15.
18 As described earlier,Safeway is proposing to expand its Brentwood Shopping Center location at 170 El Camino Real
South from 25,000 to 58,000 square feet.This would likely result in a consolidation of Safeway grocery store
locations in South San Francisco,as Safeway's two existing stores are much smaller than Safeway's typical store.
.1—11.1-1—................. ......................................................................I---.-................... ............,........... ...................... ..............................................
City of South San Francisco 21 Seitel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Thus,the analysis indicates that existing grocery retailers located in the C are estimated to
lose on average between 5 to 9 percent of grocery sales to a superstore given its discount pricing
and ability to attract shoppers for multiple purpose trips.Assuming a superstore captures between
60 and 80 percent of grocery demand from the CMA,it would need to capture additional demand
from the RMA.Under either scenario,the additional capture from the RMA appears supportable,
because the superstore capture rate would need to be between 0.4 to 0.9 percent of additional
RMA household demand(from households located outside the CMA). This is reasonable based
on the location of the potential supercenter along the US 101 corridor and its ability to draw
shoppers from greater distances than traditional supermarkets.In addition, it indicates that the
RMA could be a significant source of additional demand if the superstore were larger and/or the
amount of grocery sales were to be significantly greater than$29 million.
The 5 to 9 percent range of impact is consistent with findings from other studies examining the
impact of Walmart Supercenters on existing grocery retailers.
• A 2010 study found the entry of a Walmart Supercenter to have significant and predictable
effects on grocery sales,with grocery stores suffering a median decline of 17 percent in
sales."
• A 2006 study examined the impact of Walmart Supercenters on grocery store sales in local
markets in Mississippi.Based on its findings,the Supercenters located in non metropolitan
counties captured 17 percent of the existing grocery market within the first two years of
operation. In metropolitan counties, Supercenters captured about 4 percent of existing grocery
stores' sales one year after entry. The study concluded,in general,that Walmart Supercenters'
effect on existing local retailers is negative.21
• A 2004 analysis found the market capture of Walmart Supercenters could range between
6 and 18 percent. The study evaluated the potential impact of Supercenters on the Bay Area
grocery industry. The study assumed that if Walma rt were to replace all of its 16 discount
stores with Supercenters,the Supercenter market share in the Bay Area in 2010 would be
about 6 percent of the retail food market. The study found the upper bound harder to estimate,
since Supercenter saturation had yet to occur in most US cities.If Walmart were to replace or
upgrade all of its discount stores and also acquire Kmart's locations and replace or upgrade
those into Supercenters,the study estimated a market share closer to 18 percent. This finding,
however,is based on a higher average level of grocery sales per superstore?'
• A 2004 study on grocery shopping patterns in Carson City,Nevada found a 10 to 20 percent
decline in grocery sales at existing grocery stores resulting from the opening of a Walmart
Supercenter.22
19 Ailawadi,Krisha and Kruger(2010)."When Wal-Mart Enters;How Incumbent Retailers React and How This
Affects Their Sales Outcomes."
20 Artz and Stone(2006)."Analyzing the Impact of Walmart Supercenters on Local Food Store Sales."
21 Bo et,Crane,Chatman and Manville(2004)."Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery
Industry:Issues,Trends and Impacts."
22 Rogers(2004)."Wal-Mart Supercenter's Impact on Grocery Shopping Patterns in Carson City,Nevada."
.......... ................................. ............................................-.1-................
City of South San Francisco 22 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Table
Estimated Capture r I Superstore in (in constant 2012 dollars)
Superstore Economic Impact I i
Scenario 1 Scenario
80%of Sales 60%of Sales
from CMA fro C A
Projected New Superstore Sales
Groce Cotn onent of Superstore' $29,000,000 $29 000 000
Demand Captured by Superstore in C A
Percent of Demand From CAb 80% 60%
Demand From CA Households $23,200,000 $17,400,000
Captures 50%of Demand from New Growth $4,515.717 $4,515,717
Net Sales Capture from Existing Household Demand $18,684,283 $12,884,283
Current Total CMA Household Demand 2012 $222,936,965 $222936965
Percent o C A Demand Diverted to u erstore .4 5.8%
a.Based on a review of annual reports and sales data for Walmart and Target,sales at a superstore are
estimated to range between$60 million to$70 million,of which between 40 to 50 percent would be
grocery related.On average,this translates to about$29 million in grocery related sales for a typical
superstore.
b.According to ICSC,60 to 80 percent of sales come from shoppers who live within 3 miles of a
neigbhorhood shopping center with a supermarket anchor.
Source:City of South San Francisco,Claritas,MuniSer6ces,International Council of Shopping
Centers(ICSC),Association of Bay Area Governments(AAG),Annual I O-K reports from Walmart
and Target,Seifel Consulting Inc.
C. Impact on Existing Grocery Stores
The preceding retail demand analysis examines the average overall impact of a superstore on
grocery retailers in the CN4A.However,the impact on grocery retailers within various store
categories will likely vary,as described in national research on the impact of Walmart
suercenters,which has been the focus of economic research on a impact of superstore
expansion over the past decade."
According to recent research,as described in Chapter I,the impact of a new superstore on
existing grocery retailers is highly localized,primarily affecting retailers within a two-mile radius
(the A).This research also indicates that the impact of a new superstore is most intense for
stores that are already in decline or poorly performing, often results in intensified declines in
sales at these stores due to contraction and exit of competitors. The grocery retailers most
impacted are the outlets of larger chains with discount pricing.W art's expansion into
groceries has been distinct from its experience in the discount industry,where the primary
casualties were small chains and sole rorietorsis.24
23 The published economic research on the impact of superstores cited in this report focuses on the impact of Walmart
Supercenters giF en Walmart's rapid expansion experience and number of superstores.No published studies on the
impact of a SuperTarget were readily identified in economic research journals.
24 Ellickson and Grieco(2012)." al-Mart and the Geography of Grocery tailing."
City of South San Francisco 23 X „ eifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Differentiation from a superstore, such as distinct product offerings, store characteristics and
neighborhood convenience,are found to soften competition in the grocery industry.A number of
grocery stores have chosen to offer more high-end goods in response to Walmart. Other grocery
stores have offered preferred shopper programs,which serve to build customer loyalty and
prevent a potential loss of customers.Additionally,some larger grocery store chains further
diversify their private label merchandise,which offers savings to customers of 20 to 40 percent
and provides retailers a higher profit margin compared to other national brands.21
The following discussion focuses on the impact of a superstore on grocery stores in South
San Francisco.
1. Competition with Existing Grocery Stores
As discussed in Section 1,no al art Supercenters or SuperTargets are located in the A.
However,one Target with fresh grocery and two Costcos are located within the CMA and
compete with grocery stores located in South San Francisco.Given their large retail format and
competitive offerings,the existing Costcos and Target could be in direct competition with a
Walmart Supercenter,or alternatively, a SuperTarget would expand the market reach of Target
into South San Francisco. The focus of this analysis is to address the impact on the broad variety
of grocery stores and other smaller stores selling groceries in South San Francisco,rather than to
address the impact on larger format grocery retailers that are already in direct competition.
a. Conventional and Upscale Grocery Stores
As indicated in Figure 2,the largest conventional/upscale grocery stores in South San Francisco
that would be in competition with a superstore are as follows:
• Safeway, 170 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
• Safeway,30 Chestnut Avenue, South San Francisco
• Trader Joe's, 301 Mclellan Drive, South San Francisco
All of these grocery stores are currently located in relatively close proximity to the existing
Target and Costco stores,and as such,they have needed to respond to the existing competition
from these cost competitive retailers.Based on conversations with market experts and business
representatives of grocery retailers,the opening of a superstore in South San Francisco would
create significant competition for Safeway,as it would likely attract a portion of Safeway's
existing customer base. In their experience,the opening of a superstore typically could result in a
loss of between 5 to 20 percent in grocery sales,depending on the store location(dense urban
areas typically having a lesser impact),proximity to its existing customer base, and a grocery
store's market differentiation,particularly in face of increased competition from a superstore.
Both Safeway and Trader Joe's have undertaken corporate strategies to further differentiate
themselves and are refining their offerings to be more attractive to their respective customer
bases, for example,adding more prepared and organic foods.As discussed earlier, Safeway is
considering a major expansion in the Brentwood Shopping Center,more than doubling its
existing store size.Both of its existing stores in South San Francisco are smaller stores that have
not undergone major upgrades,which are critical investments to maintaining and building a
strong customer base.In nearby Millbrae, Safeway has recently upgraded and expanded its
Safeway store to provide a greater range of offerings and enhanced shopping experience.
25 Agnee(2003).Industry survey for supermarkets and drugstores.
..........................
City of South San Francisco 24 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Overall,the entry of a superstore would likely result in a 5 to 10 percent loss in grocery sales to
the superstore, although given its significant differentiation in retail offerings and clientele,
Trader Joe's may not be as negatively impacted as Safeway.The continued differentiation and
upgrade of the Safeway Brentwood store will be a critical component in Safeway's ability to
sustain increased competition from a superstore.
b. Ethnic-Oriented and Other Grocery Stores
As indicated in Figure 2, the ethnic-oriented and other smaller grocery stores in
South San Francisco that would be in competition with a potential superstore are as follows:
• Pacific Supermarket, 1015 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
• Pacific Supermarket, 3573 Callan Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Panaderia Hernandez,390 and Avenue, South San Francisco
• Alfredo's Market, 722 Linden Street, South San Francisco
• Rancho Market,249 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Chavarrarria's Market,900 Linden Street, South San Francisco
All of these stores except the Pacific Supermarket on Callan Boulevard are located within 2 miles
of the potential superstore location.Each of these stores has unique market positions within the
community,and most offer specialty foods targeted to a focused ethnic customer base.
As described in the research studies,a superstore would likely draw some discount-oriented sales
away from these stores,similar to the impact on conventional/upscale grocery stores.However,
the market differentiation of ethnic-oriented stores will be a distinct competitive advantage.
Those stores located in closest proximity to the potential location of a superstore that do not have
a focused ethnic customer base will likely suffer the greatest impact.In particular,poorly
performing stores that have been experiencing declining sales due to increased competition from
other retailers in the C will be most affected and could face closure if sales are not sufficient
to cover operating expenses.
C. Discount Grocery Stores
As indicated in Figure 2,the discount grocery stores in South San Francisco that would be in
competition with a potential superstore are as follows:
• Grocery Outlet, 125 Hickey Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Pak'n Save,2255 Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco
• Smart&Final,249 Kenwood Way, South San Francisco
Recently opened in South San Francisco,the Grocery Outlet is located adjacent to the Colma line
along Hickey Boulevard in the CMA,about 3 miles from the potential location of a superstore.
Grocery Outlet is a value-oriented grocery retailer that sells mostly name brand close-outs,
overstocks and seasonal merchandise with limited offering of essential perishable products,like
milk and eggs.
The Pak'n Save is located within the CMA, on the western side of South San Francisco near
San Bruno.Pak'n Save, operated by Safeway,is a"box warehouse"supermarket with a wide
selection of grocery offerings and where customers pack their own groceries.
..........
City of South San Francisco 25 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
The Smart&Final is located within the PMA,and its typical customer base includes foodservice
clients as well as household customers.Foodservice clients typically include operators of small
restaurants and catering companies,which represent a major portion of its sales.
A superstore featuring lower-than-average price points on any grocery items will be in strong
competition with the discount grocery stores in South San Francisco.However,given Smart&
Final's distinct market niche for food sen,ice clients, it will not likely be as impacted as the other
two discount grocery stores.
D. Conclusion
The following is a surnmary of the potential impacts to existing South San Francisco grocery
stores from a superstore that could be potentially located on Dubuque Avenue in the Freeway
Commercial(FC)Zoning District,east of US 101 and no of East Grand Avenue. The analysis
presented in this report indicates that existing grocery retailers in South San Francisco would
experience on average a 5 to 9 percent decline in grocery sales that would be diverted to the
superstore given its discount pricing,wide array of offerings and services, and its ability to attract
shoppers for one-stop shopping,reducing the need for multiple trips to purchase groceries and
other products. This range is consistent with findings from published economic literature
examining the impact of Walmart Supercenters on existing grocery retailers.
The grocery stores that are likely to experience the greatest impact from entry of a potential
superstore in South San Francisco are those located within a 2 mile radius of the proximate
location of a superstore. Research indicates that the impacts are highly localized and will vary
among individual grocery retailers and grocery store categories. Characteristics of grocery stores
that are likely to experience the greatest impacts due to a potential superstore include:
• Larger chains with discount pricing and little differentiation from supercenters
• Marginal,declining businesses that will experience intensified declines
• Stores lacking a unique market position and no specialized customer base
• Older grocery stores that haven't received recent upgrades or expansions
Characteristics of grocery stores that are likely to make them more resilient to the competition
posed by a potential superstore include grocery stores with:
• A specialized customer base, such as ethnic,up-market and small business customers
• Distinct product offerings and store characteristics that differentiate the from supercenters
• Neighborhood convenience
• High customer loyalty
• Ability to absorb sales losses through contraction and diversification of private labels
In conclusion,the analysis indicates that existing grocery stores located in South San Francisco
would experience negative sales impacts,losing on average between 5 to 9 percent of grocery
sales to a superstore. Given anticipated growth in demand in the CMA over the next five years,
grocery related sales from workers in South San Francisco and additional demand from the RMA,
the potential presence of a superstore would not likely be the sole contributing factor to the
closure of a grocery store.However,given the intense competitive climate for grocery sales that
already exists in South San Francisco,the presence of a superstore could exacerbate the continued
decline of a store that is already experiencing declining or low sales volume.
... ............................................................................................................................................. ................................... .....................................
City of South San Francisco 26 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012
Appendix A.-
Bibliography
Bibliography
Ailawaa J.Z.,Aradhna Krishna, and Michael W.Kruger. "When Wal-Mart Enters: How Incumbent
Retailers React and How This Affects Their Sales Outcomes."Journal of Marketing Research.47: 4.
2010.
Agnee,J.Industry survey for supermarkets and drugstores. Standard oor's.2003.
Artz, Georgeanne M.and Kenneth E. Stone. "Analyzing the Impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters on Local
Food Store Sales."American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 88:5, 1296-1303. 2006.
Bay Area Economic Forum. "Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry."
2004.
Boa met,Marlon and Randall Crane. "The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs,
Wages,and Municipal Finances."Prepared for the Orange County Business Council. September 1999.
Boarnet,Marlon,Randall Crane,Daniel G. Chatman,and Michael Manville. "Emerging Planning
Challenges in Retail: The Case of Wal-Mart."Journal of the American Planning Association. 71:4,433-
449. 2005.
Davis,Julie,David Merriman,Lucia Samyoa,Brian Flanagan,Ron Baiman,and Joe Persky. "The Impact
of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses:An Evaluation of One Chicago Neighborhood's
Experience."Center for Urban Research and Learning, Loyola University Chicago. 2009.
Ellickson,Paul B.and Paul L.E. Grieco. " al-Mart and the Geography of Grocery Retailing."Working
Paper. 2012.
Hunter College Center for Community Planning&Development and New York City Public Advocate
Bill de Blasio. "Wal-Mart's Economic Footprint:A Literature Review."January 10,2010.
Paruchuri, Srikanth,Joel A.C.Baum,and David Potere. "The Wal-Mart Effect:Wave of Destruction or
Creative Destruction."Economic Geography. 185:2,209-236.2009.
Rogers,David." al-Mart Supercenter's Impact on Grocery Shopping Patterns in Carson City,Nevada."
August 25,2004.
San Francisco Legislative Office. "Possible Impacts of Formula Retail on Fresh Food Businesses."July
25,2012.
Singh,Vishal P.,Karsten T.Hansen, and Robert C.Blattberg. "Market Entry and Consumer Behavior:
An Investigation of a Wal-Mart Supercenter."Marketing Science.2545.457-476.
Appendix E
Traffic Memo
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - ELIMINATION OF DISCOUNT
SUPERSTORE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM GENERAL PLAN - TRAFFIC INPUT
I. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION SETTING
Transportation System
The transportation system serving South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system,
transit and public transportation, and alternative modes including informal carpools, formal
vanpools, employer-sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by
two major north-south freeways —US 101 and I-280 —and is also close to I-380 running east-
west. A system of surface streets collects and distributes traffic to and from the freeways and
between the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of the city.
Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north
and San Jose Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service is provided to South San
Francisco by the BART extension, which continues southerly to Millbrae and the San Francisco
International Airport and northerly into San Francisco and then under San Francisco Bay to the
East Bay. Local bus service is currently provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US
101. The transit needs of the East of 101 area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby
Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours only. Ferry service from the Oyster Point
Marina connects South San Francisco to the East Bay.
At present, there are intermittent bicycle trails and routes in South San Francisco. Facilities
include partial completion of the Bay Trail, a linear park on the BART extension right-of-way,
and striped bicycle lanes along several arterial roadways.
Roadway System Operation
The operations of roadways are described with the term level of service. Level of service (LOS)
is a qualitative description ranging from Level A, or free flow operations with little or no delay,
to Level F, or oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. LOS E represents conditions at
capacity. The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports I-280
operating at LOS F and US 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during
peak commute hours. The Countywide Transportation Plan 2010 projections show LOS F on
US 101 and LOSE on I-280.
Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, E.
Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors and on Westborough
Boulevard near the I-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other
locations with congestion include the intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough
Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/US 101 interchange.
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 1
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
In general, the City's transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most
travel is conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the City has capacity to
accommodate additional growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that
provide access to the city, US 101 and I-280 are projected to exceed their capacities during
commute periods. Therefore, other modes of transportation will be needed to accommodate
regional travel.
II. GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION ANALYSIS REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General
Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following:
• Cause an increase in traffic beyond established Level of Service (LOS) standards on
roadway segments. The San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes
LOS standards for Routes of Regional Significance. In South San Francisco, these
highways and principal arterials and their corresponding CMP LOS standards (in
parentheses) are:
• US 101 (E)
• I-280 (D)
• I-380 (C)
• State Route 82: El Camino Real (E)
• Bayshore Boulevard(E)
CMP standards, initially established in 1991, are based on existing conditions with the
goal of preventing future congestion levels from becoming worse than currently
anticipated. For the South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR, a significant effect
would occur if full implementation of the General Plan would cause:
• Roadway conditions to increase beyond LOS D or the current LOS, if worse.
• A substantial decrease in the level of accessibility within South San Francisco.
• A failure to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle
movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods
and areas of new development.
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 2
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
III. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
& CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the General Plan EIR's transportation analysis is to develop policies and to
identify major transportation system improvements needed to accommodate the projected growth
afforded by the proposed land uses designations. Therefore, the transportation analysis was
based on the ability of the transportation system to accommodate daily traffic volumes and travel
demand. This level of analysis is sufficient to identify new roadways (and the number of lanes
on those roadways), roadway extensions, new interchanges, and new transit service.
Impact 4.3-a Future Development could cause an increase in traffic beyond
established Level of Service(LOS) standards on roadway segments.
The San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes
LOS standards for principal arterials and their corresponding CMP
LOS standards (in parentheses) are:
• US 101 (E)
• I-280 (D)
• I-380 (C)
• State Route 82: El Camino Real (E)
• Bayshore Boulevard(E)
Trip Generation
Approximately 44,500 daily trips are projected to be added to South San Francisco's
transportation system as a result of approved developments. Buildout of the General Plan is
projected to add an additional± 87,240 daily trips. Business park uses are replacing
warehouse/industrial uses as part of the General Plan land use changes. This will change the
vehicle mix from truck traffic to automobile traffic east of the US 101 freeway.
Approximately 817,000 square feet of community commercial development and 2,028,000
square feet of business commercial development was projected to be added as part of the General
Plan, resulting in 41,910 daily two-way trips, or approximately 48 percent of the total General
Plan added development trip generation.
Surface Street Impacts
Congested conditions are projected to occur at the following locations on the local surface street
system as it currently exists, without the street improvements proposed in the General Plan.
These locations are:
• El Camino Real—North of Hickey and south of Westborough Boulevard
• Westborough Boulevard—Junipero Serra to W. Orange Avenue
• Orange Avenue—Miller Avenue to Sunset Avenue
• Oyster Point Boulevard—US 101 to Gateway Boulevard
• East Grand Avenue Gateway Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
• Grand Avenue—Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue
• Linden Avenue—N. Canal Street to Commercial Avenue
• Baden Avenue—West of Linden Avenue
Regional Freeway Impacts
Impacts to the regional roadway facilities, US 101 and I-280 were evaluated by assessing their
projected levels of service. The projected two-way PM peak hour volumes for the segments in
(or closest to) South San Francisco are presented below.
Regional Roadway Segment Analysis PM Peak Hour Volumes, Capacities and VCs
Base SSF General
Projection Plan Added Total
Freeway Segment Capacity V/C Traffic Traffic V/C
US 101 County Line to 18,400 18,725 1,500 20,225 1.10
Oyster Point Blvd. 1.02
I-280, Hickey Blvd. to 18,400 13,945 300 14,245 0.77
Westborough Blvd. 0.76
As shown, the US 101 freeway would be operating unacceptably, while I-280 would be
operating at an acceptable level.
Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan
The following Draft General Plan Transportation Element policies and their related programs
would mitigate this potential impact.
4.2-G-1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and
emerging employment areas such as the East of 101 area.
4.2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the City.
4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of-way
to establish new streets.
4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements.
4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections,
and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
• There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
• The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 4
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 (figures 4.3-1 and
4.3-5 of the DEIR).
Policies and programs substantially reduce congestion impacts and provide the framework for
requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels
of service from being reached. With street improvements provided in the proposed General Plan,
six of the eight street segments that were projected to experience congested conditions (LOS C
or worse)would have reduced (improved) V/C levels. Thus, congested conditions would not
occur at these locations. However, two local roadway segments are projected to exceed their
capacities with buildout under the maximum development allowed under the General Plan
Update. These include portions of Westborough Boulevard (west of W. Orange Avenue) and
Oyster Point Boulevard (US 101 to Gateway Boulevard). The impact on local roadways is
significant.
The 1995 Countywide Transportation Plan indicated that US 101 was operating at LOS D in the
City, and is projected to decline to LOS F in 2010. Additional growth under the General Plan
would not change the LOS from its projected designation, but would contribute to additional
congestion (a change in the V/C from 1.02 to 1.10). However, if the projected through traffic
demand (i.e. demand generated by people traveling to and from surrounding cities and counties)
are removed and the effects of the proposed General Plan are isolated, operational levels in the
segment of US 101 through the City would not decline to below LOS E. Therefore, declines in
the LOS may still be reached even with no additional development in South San Francisco.
If operational levels along US 101 decline to below LOS E, the County CMP establishes the
C/CAG will notify the jurisdiction(s)responsible for creating the deficiency that a deficiency
plan be prepared. While development in South San Francisco will not result in a deficiency to be
created, buildout under the Draft General Plan will nonetheless aggravate an existing significant
problem. Many South San Francisco residents and employees will be affected by this freeway
congestion. Not only will drivers lose time being stuck in traffic, this congestion also creates
safety problems. This is considered a significant impact which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated
to a level that is less than significant.
Buildout of the General Plan Update, in combination with other relevant projects, would
contribute to congestion along major roadways in the South San Francisco area. The expanded
SFIA and continued growth in North San Mateo County would attract even more trips than now,
many of which would be made by automobile via regional routes (for example, US 101, I-280
and El Camino Real). Since these routes run the entire length of the Peninsula, they would also
be affected by development outside the immediate South San Francisco areas.
Traffic conditions along US 101 and I-280 will be influenced by development occurring
throughout the Bay Area, not just development in the immediate South San Francisco area, and
therefore, it is necessary to examine overall growth trends for the Peninsula and the entire Bay
Area. As shown in Table 5.4-1, South San Francisco is expected to higher overall rates of job
growth 1995-2020, relative to San Mateo County and the Bay Area. Also, the City will
potentially rise in its share of County employment, from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to
more than 16 percent in 2020, based on buildout estimates. Residential development would be
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 5
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
expected to occur at a slightly higher rate than the County and San Francisco, but would not
grow as fast as other parts of the Bay Area.
The large relative increase in jobs in South San Francisco means that development under the
auspices of the General Plan Update would make a large contribution to overall levels of traffic
congestion in the area. The General Plan Update's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts
would therefore be potentially significant.
Impact 4.3-c The General Plan Update could fail to provide adequate sites and
facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new
development and between existing neighborhood and areas of new
development.
Potential impacts would be mitigated by proposed General Plan transportation element policies
and their related programs.
IV. REPLACEMENT OF ONE COMMERCIAL PROJECT BY
ANOTHER SIMILAR TYPE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE CITYWIDE TRIP GENERATION NOR
CIRCULATION IMPACTS AS DETERMINED IN THE GENERAL
PLAN EIR
The General Plan EIR traffic estimates indicate (General Plan EIR Table 4.3-2) that added
development anticipated to occur under the General Plan will likely generate an additional
87,240 daily trips, for an approved+ General Plan total of 131,730 daily trips. Community
Commercial development(1,145,000 square feet) and business commercial development
(2,028,000 square feet) combined identified by the General Plan would generate an estimated
48,960 daily trips, or 37.2 percent of the total expected trip generation from development added
under the approved+ General Plan scenario. Therefore, assuming the zoning amendment would
prohibit a superstore of 178,000 square feet(s.f), which represents the average size of a typical
"supercenter" as indicated by Target and Wal-Mart corporate websites (Seife12013), the
superstore would represent only a small segment(5.6 percent) of the Community Commercial
and Business Commercial combined 3,173,000 square footage of development anticipated in the
General Plan. The combined Community Commercial and Business Commercial constitutes less
than 7 percent (9,030 trips) of the total number of approved and added trips identified for
buildout by 2020. Trips generated by a superstore would represent a fraction of that 7 percent.
The difference in trip generation between a superstore and a different commercial use would
represent a much smaller fraction of that 7 percent(assuming that there is any notable difference
in trip generation between the two development types).
Trip generation from shopping center or other commercial activities that may replace a discount
superstore would not be expected to be higher than that of a discount superstore or to result in
any significant difference in overall citywide General Plan added development trip generation.
This is based upon review of trip rates for potential replacement commercial uses in the traffic
engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data: Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition,
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012 Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in any significant difference to expected surface street or routes of regional significance
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 6
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
traffic congestion as projected in the General Plan EIR. As shown in the table below, a
"Freestanding Discount Superstore"is close to the middle of the commercial trip generation
scale.
Commercial Trip Rates
Commercial Land Use Category Average Weekday Trip Rate per 1,000 s.f.
Supermarket 102.24
Discount Supermarket 90.86
Freestanding Discount Store 57.24
Freestanding Discount Superstore 50.75
Specialty Retail Center 44.32
Shopping Center 42.70
Discount Club 41.80
Home Improvement Superstore 30.74
Factory Outlet Center 26.59
Department Store 22.88
Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 20.00
Trip Rate Source: Trio Generation Manual,9th Edition,by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,2012
Compiled by:Crane Transportation Group
*Note:The trip generation rates may change based on size;other considerations also affect the net new trip generation on the local circulation
system,such as pass-by frequency.Therefore,the trip generation numbers presented in this table are not intended to be used for any other
purpose than to demonstrate that superstores are likely not the highest or lowest trip generating development allowed within the affected
zoning.
V. RELYING ON THE GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION
ANALYSIS IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IDENTIFYING
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT TYPES IS SPECULATIVE
A change in commercial land use for one parcel in the City from that considered in the General
Plan would not produce a significant difference in overall citywide trip generation that would
produce any changes in General Plan EIR projected significant circulation impacts. The General
Plan considers four categories of new commercial activity (coastal commercial, downtown
commercial, business commercial and community commercial). Only the community and
business commercial categories are pertinent to a discussion of changes in commercial land use
as it relates to a discount superstore. Because identifying one particular type of commercial
development is speculative in the context of the General Plan analysis horizon, it is appropriate
to depend upon the more generalized"community and business commercial" categories that have
been utilized in the General Plan EIR.
VI. THE PROPOSED PROJECT REMAINS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
Prohibiting discount superstore use citywide as well as grocery store use east of the US 101
freeway would result in replacement of these land uses by other community or business
commercial activities that would be unlikely to generate the same or higher levels of trip
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
generation. Therefore, traffic impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project
should remain within the parameters utilized for the General Plan EIR circulation analysis.
VII. SITE SPECIFIC EVALUATION - DIFFERENCES IN TRIP
DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES
The General Plan EIR circulation analysis did not evaluate site specific impacts. However, a
discount superstore would be likely to have different local and regional trip distribution patterns
compared to any potential commercial replacement use. Determining exact differences would be
speculative at a General Plan level of detail and would depend upon a multitude of inputs
including, but not limited to, the exact location in the City,proximity to freeway access, size, the
specific proposed alternative commercial development type,proximity of other nearby
complementary commercial uses and ease of driveway access.
CTV December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 8
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Appendix F
Seifel Memo
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for Large Format Retail, Superstore and
Food and Beverage Retail Sales Uses
City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco (City)retained Seifel Consulting,Inc.,real estate economists, to
analyze proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would include the following
key changes for retail uses:
• Remove the potential for future grocery store or supermarket uses to be located in the East of
101 Area,which does not include any existing or planned residential uses. (As grocery store
and supermarket uses generally serve residential neighborhoods, such uses would be
inappropriate for this planning area.)
• Revise or add definitions for uses related to food and beverage retail sales (convenience
market, grocery store and supermarket) and retail sales (large format retail and superstore).
The changes to these definitions provide further clarification in the Zoning Ordinance by
differentiating these uses from the definition of a superstore use.
• Prohibit superstore use citywide.
This report presents an analysis of these proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance,
organized as follows:
1. Description of Affected Parcels—Describes the properties that would be potentially affected
by the proposed amendments.
2. Evaluation of Future Development Potential of Affected Parcels—Evaluates the future
development potential on these properties, taking into account the proposed amendments.
3. Conclusion—Concludes with a discussion of the inherent challenges in forecasting specific
development types that would be developed on these affected parcels.
This report relies on information contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance as of December 2013
and technical analyses prepared for the Draft Environmental Impact Report by Ascent
Environmental and Crane Transportation. Seifel Consulting,Inc. (Seifel),
real estate economists,prepared the report as a supplemental appendix for the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
City of South San Francisco 1 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
1. Description of Affected Parcels
As described above, the City is considering Zoning Ordinance amendments that would further
define and/or restrict uses related to food and beverage retail sales. These amendments would
only affect properties that are currently zoned Community Commercial, El Camino Real
Mixed Use, Business Commercial, or Freeway Commercial in South San Francisco.
City staff and Ascent Environmental analyzed what properties would be affected by the proposed
amendments and prepared a map that shows the affected parcels. (See Exhibit 1 at the end of this
report,which is referenced as Exhibit 2.3 in the Draft EIR.) Three major roadways serve as
regional connectors to South San Francisco, intersecting the City from west to east:
• Junipero Serra Freeway, Interstate 280 (US 280) along the west side of the City
• El Camino Real, State Route 82 (El Camino Real) in the center of the City
• Bayshore Freeway, Highway 101 (US 10 1) along the east side of the City
The location of the affected parcels is described in relationship to each of these major roadways,
as they serve as the major access routes to the affected parcels.
a. Community Commercial(CC)
As shown in Exhibit 1, the parcels currently designated Community Commercial (CC) that would
be affected by the amendments are located to the west of US 280 and along El Camino Real. The
largest grouping of CC parcels is located at the intersection of US 280 and Westborough
Boulevard,which is currently developed as the Westborough Square Shopping Center. This
shopping center has a broad range of retail establishments including an Orchard Supply
Hardware,Pet Club, Sears Home Appliance Store, Walgreens, Bank of the West and a variety of
small restaurants.
The next largest grouping of affected CC parcels are located at the intersection of Westborough
Drive and Callan Blvd, and they are currently developed as public storage, auto repair,
convenience market and bakery uses. Most of the remaining CC parcels along El Camino Real
are small parcels, currently developed as medical offices, fast food restaurants and small retail
establishments.
b. El Camino Real Mixed Use(ECRMX)
All of the parcels located along El Camino Real with the land use designation of
El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)would be affected by the proposed amendments. Many of
these parcels are already developed as retail uses, and the area includes both the Southwood and
Brentwood Shopping Centers. Safeway, Staples, Walgreen's, CVS, Bedroom Express, Lazy Boy
and the Old Century Theater are the largest existing retail and entertainment uses in the area.
Most of the remaining affected parcels are small, and they are primarily developed as small retail
establishments and fast food restaurants.
C. Business Commercial(BC)
Most of the parcels currently designated Business Commercial(BC) that would be affected by the
proposed amendments are located to the east of US 101, and many of these parcels are already
developed as retail, lodging, Research and Development(R&D) and industrial uses. In addition,
the amendments would also affect a small cluster of BC designated properties along South Spruce
City of South San Francisco 2 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
Avenue between El Camino Real and North Canal Street, a few parcels between North Canal
Street and US 101, and a string of frontage parcels along the west side of US 101 located just
south and to the north of Hillside Boulevard. Most of these parcels are currently occupied by
industrial and warehouse uses.
d, Freeway Commercial(FC)
All of the parcels currently designated Freeway Commercial(FC)that would be affected by the
proposed amendments are located along the US 101 corridor. Many of these parcels are located in
close proximity to Business Commercial parcels that would also be affected by the amendments.
Most of these parcels are currently developed as industrial and warehouse uses,lodging facilities,
R&D buildings and large format retail(including Costco east of US 101).
2. Evaluation of Future Development Potential of Affected Parcels
The amendments would possibly affect the future development potential of parcels by modifying
allowable uses or further restricting use. The proposed amendments would not allow future
grocery store or supermarket uses to be located within the East of 101 Area and would prohibit
the development of a"superstore", defined as follows:
Superstore. Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that serve as a
one-stop shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often
at a discounted price. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of
grocery sales. Superstores typically feature a full-service food and beverage retail sales
area that exceeds 5,000 square feet of the gross floor area, and could include a
delicatessen, baked goods,frozen foods,fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and
prepared food. A superstore may also feature various business centers, such as a bank,
pharmacy, vision center,pet center,photo center, and prepared food outlet(s).
In addition, the City would modify the definition of large format retail as follows,which would
clarify that the grocery store sales component is limited to 5,000 square feet or less:
Large Format Retail. Retail establishments over 80,000 square feet in size
that sell merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including,
but not limited to department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses
which emphasize bulk sales to the eg neral public as well as to other businesses, and other
big box format stores. Large Format Retail uses may include a limited(5,000 square feet
or less) rg ocery store sales component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores,
as defined by this section.
In order to evaluate the effect of the amendments, City staff and its consultant team (EIR team)
analyzed how the proposed modifications would affect future allowable development uses for the
four affected zoning designations (Community Commercial, El Camino Real Mixed Use,
Business Commercial and Freeway Commercial)by reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance and
the proposed changes. Table 1 presents a summary of the commercial and R&D uses that are
currently allowed to be developed on the affected parcels and the proposed changes with the
amendment.
1 R&D uses are included as they represent a likely employment generating use for the Business Commercial and
Freeway Commercial categories.Additional employment related uses are allowed in the Zoning Ordinance,and the
proposed amendments would not modify R&D and other employment related categories.
City of South San Francisco 3 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
As indicated in Table 1, the Zoning Ordinance uses the following designations for each type of
allowable use to indicate whether it is permitted or could be allowed after review and upon
approval by a Chief Planner or the Planning Commission:
• "P" designates permitted uses.
• "MUP"designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor
Use Permit by the Chief Planner.
• "C"designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
•
"(9)"numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the relevant
Zoning Ordinance table.
• "-"designates uses that are not permitted.
As Table 1 indicates, the proposed amendments would only modify a few of the potentially
allowable development types for the affected parcels, and the superstore restriction would simply
remove one type of development from a variety of development types allowed within the relevant
zoning designation. Many alternative development uses would be permitted("P") on the affected
parcels, taking into account the proposed amendments, including the following:
• Community Commercial—Pet stores,veterinary services, artists' studios,banks and credit
unions,business services, coffee shops/cafes,restaurants,convenience market, grocery store,
supermarket, maintenance and repair services, live-work units,business and professional
offices, medical offices, general personal services, and general retail sales.
• El Camino Real Mixed Use—A broad variety of residential uses,pet stores,veterinary
services, artists' studios,banks and credit unions,business services, coffee shops/cafes,
restaurants,convenience market, grocery store, supermarket, maintenance and repair services,
live-work units,business and professional offices,medical offices, general personal services,
and general retail sales.
• Business Commercial—Pet stores,banks and credit unions,building materials sales and
services,business services, coffee shops/cafes,restaurants, convenience market, grocery store
and supermarket(west of US 101), maintenance and repair services,business and
professional offices,medical offices, general personal services general retail sales,large
format retail and R&D uses.
• Freeway Commercial—Pet stores,restaurants,hotels and motels, general personal services,
general retail sales, and large format retail.
In addition to these permitted uses, many other development types would be allowed after review
and upon approval by a Chief Planner or the Planning Commission, as indicated by "MUP" and
"C" on Table 1. Given the broad variety of potential uses and development types that could be
developed on the affected parcels, as well as the different size, configurations, and location of
these parcels across the City, it is not possible to predict what use would be most suitable for
these affected parcels or if the proposed amendment would in any way affect what would be
developed on them.
Retail is one of the more challenging forms of real estate development to predict due to market
volatility,pricing pressure,variations in market performance, and demanding consumers. Despite
growth returning to the global economy following the recession,risks associated with retail
development remain significant as consumers worldwide have reduced consumption, cut back on
impulsive shopping behavior, and increasingly used online price-comparison sites and
City of South San Francisco 4 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
e-commerce. These factors have contributed to a structural shift to a lower demand,retail
environment in the United States and other developed countries.
As a result,retail is expected to become leaner in the future. Retailers are rethinking size
requirements, and some industry representatives see the gradual decline of big-box stores while
indicating that the prospects for mixed-use urban developments due to changing demographics,
including the preference of the younger, millennial generation for urban environments.' All of
these trends will affect the future demand for retail space,which in turn makes it difficult to
precisely predict what type of future retail development may occur on the affected parcels.
Given the typical scale of a superstore, and the associated amount of parking and merchandise
loading space, a significant number of the affected parcels would likely be too small for a
superstore in their current configuration.4 Furthermore, superstores tend to be located adjacent to
a major highway and only a few of the larger affected parcels are located within close proximity
to a freeway interchange. With site assembly and/or lot line adjustments, some of the affected
parcels could potentially be reconfigured to accommodate a superstore. However, as of
December 2013,no superstores are proposed to be located in South San Francisco, and it is
impossible to predict with certainty which parcels affected by the amendments might be
considered suitable for a superstore by a retailer or developer.
As described above,big-box retail development products will need to continue to evolve and
change in response to shifts in economic conditions,market trends and customer preferences. By
way of example, major retailers that have built superstores over the past two decades in the
United States are now exploring new retail formats. Most notably, Target recently opened two
urban "CityTarget" stores in San Francisco that range in size from approximately 100,000 to
120,000 square feet and sell household goods, clothing, electronics and groceries.' Thus,while
major retailers currently may prefer certain development types and parcel configurations, their
market preferences will almost certainly change over the lifetime of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Conclusion
Given the broad range of development types that would continue to be allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance taking into account the proposed amendments, it is challenging to forecast specific
development types that would be developed on the affected parcels given the long time horizon
for future development envisioned in the General Plan and accompanying Zoning Ordinance. As
the City of South San Francisco has seen over the past decade, development proposals can change
dramatically over time as market and development conditions shift. Sometimes development is
approved,but the approval is not acted upon before market conditions and the development
climate change.'Therefore, any attempt to forecast specific development types that would be
2 According to Ernst Young's review of the risks and opportunities for the retail sector.See
http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Consumer-Products/Turn-risk-and-opportunities-into-results--Retail-sector
3 According to Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014 published by the Urban Land Institute/PWC,pages 58-59.See
http://www.uli.org/research/centers-initiatives/center-for-capital-markets/emerging-trends-in-real-estate/americas/
4 Walmart and Target are the two major US retailers that currently include superstores.According to their corporate
websites,a typical Walmart Supercenter is about 182,000 square feet(http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/our-
business/walmart-us)and a SuperTarget is about 174,000 square feet(http://pressroom.target.com/news/fastfacts).
'http://pressroom.target.com/news/san-franciscos-second-citytarget-opening-october-2013
6 City staff cited two particular examples of properties where development proposals have changed significantly over
the past 15 years.Home Depot purchased the former Levitz property at 900 Dubuque Avenue and received approvals
in 2005 to build a new Home Depot on the site,but then decided not to build.This property continues to remain
City of South San Francisco 5 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
constructed on the affected parcels, faking into account a prohibition on superstores, is
speculative over the long term.
While the Zoning Ordinance amendments would prohibit superstores, they may have no effect on
what would be constructed on individual sites that would otherwise accommodate this use. As of
December 2013,no applications for superstores are currently on file or have recently been
pursued in the City. Further, the Zoning Ordinance provides for alternative uses on the affected
parcels,which would provide property owners and developers with a broad range of development
types to respond to changing market and development conditions.
vacant.A second example is BWC Parcel 1,located at US 101 and Oyster Point.In 1998,an Auto Nation was
approved for development,then Hines received approvals for an office project in 2000 and a revised
office/R&D/hotel project in 2001.HCP,Inc.is currently seeking development approvals for a revised office/R&D
hotel project,but nothing has yet been built to date on BWC Parcel 1.
City of South San Francisco g Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
Exhibit 1
Location of Affected Parcels by Zoning Designation
q
�u
�r mrrr
UPI d ro r�z�rr r
Jr M xr A/
1 t
F
)/ IIIIIIIIIIIIIV
1 lid Il
ic1z`FAY
M f
r
5 o%ko
V P,r
i
ri J �✓„r�
5�+"FrGir��J
Pi
i
w ,
ION%
I�uugilWu ' 1��`z, z� 1i 5
«
a
r
Legend
r,.
City Limits P"k Ie
Affected Parcels
Business Commercial ' /���
Community Commercial ape
El Camino Real Mixed Use
/ r
Freeway Commercial p
0 1,500 3,000
O Feet
—emar:esfv zosa cszosoo— uunox
Sour ,:"Data received from the City of South San Francisco in 2013:
City of South San Francisco 7 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014
Table 1
Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R&D Uses
City of South San Francisco
El Camino Real
Community Mixed Use Business Freeway
Use Classification Commercial(CC) (ECRMX) Commercial(BC) Commercial(FC) Proposed Amendments
Adult Oriented Businesses C(4)
Animal Care,Sales and Services Scc sub�classificatibns below;.
Pet Stores P P P P
Kennels MUP
Veterinary P P MUP
Pet Day Care MUP
Artists'Studios P P
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services S66 subs classifications below,.
Auto/Vehicle Rental MUP MUP(l)
Auto/Vehicle Sales and Leasing MUP C C
Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair,Major C
Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair,Minor MUP
Auto/Vehicle Washing MUP C(l)
Service Station C C(l) C
Banks and Financial Institutions S66 sub�classificatums below,.
Banks and Credit Unions P P P
Check Cashing Businesses MUP MUP MUP
Building Materials Sales and Services P
Business Services P P P
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation S66 sub�classificatums below,.
Amusement Arcade C C MUP(6)
Indoor Entertainment C C C C
Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C
Outdoor Entertainment C C C
Outdoor Sports and Recreation C C C
Eating and Drinking Establishments S66 sub�classificatums below,.
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C C C
Coffee Shops/Cafes P P P C
Hookah Bar/Smoking Lounge C C
Restaurants,Full Service P P P P
Restaurants,Limited Service P P P C
Food and Beverage Retail Sales 566 sub*claSSiflcati6nS below, ! Sub-classifies food and beverage retail sales categories
Convenience Market P P P - Adds new classification and modifies description
Grocery Store P P P(l) C(l) Adds new classification,new description and prohibits
use in East of 101 Area.
Supermarket P P P(l) C(l) Adds new classification,new description and prohibits
use in East of 101 Area.
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries C C
Live-Work Units P P
Lodging S66 sub»classfflcati6nr below;.
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP
Hotels and Motels C C C P
Maintenance and Repair Services P P P
Nurseries and Garden Centers MUP MUP
Offices Se6 sub»classfflcati6nr below:.
Business and Professional P(9) P P C
Medical and Dental P(9) P P
Walk-In Clientele P(9) P
Parking,Public or Private P P MUP P(8)
Personal Services She sub�classificatums below,,
General Personal Services P P P P
Massage Establishments C C C
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P C
Retail Sales 5cc sub*claSSiflcati6nS below, Modifies classifications and adds new categories
General Sales P P P P
Large Format Retail C C P P Modifies description
Off-Price Merchandise C C
Second Hand Store C C C
Swap Meet C
Su erstore I jAdds new definition and prohibits use citywide
Research and Development(R&D)* P P
Clean Technology P
Seifel Consulting Inc. January 2014
Notes to Table 1
Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R&D Uses
City of South San Francisco
The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
P:permitted uses.
MUP:Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner.
C:Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
-:Uses that are not permitted.
(#):Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed below:
(1)Prohibited east of 101.
(4)Limited to locations east of South Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway.
(6)Only within hotels and motels.
(8)Restricted to:(a)areas located underneath major utility lines or under elevated freeways,or(b)consistent with General Plan
Policy 3.2-1-5,airport-oriented parking facilities on Produce Avenue that were legally approved prior to 1999.
(9)Hours of operation lam to 7pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station.
*Additional employment related uses are allowed in the Zoning Ordinance,and no modifications are proposed to R&D and other-employment related categories.
Note:A broad range of residential uses are also allowed in ECRMX
Source:City of South San Francisco,Zoning Ordinance Table 20.090.002 and Table 20.110.002,and Ascent Environmental.
Seifel Consulting Inc. January 2014