Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-16 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING Council Chambers 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, APRIL t6,2014 6:00 P.M. Purpose of the meeting: Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Public Comments — comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda, 4. Agenda Review PUBLIC HEARING 5. An Ordinance amending the Zoning Code to prohibit superstore uses city -wide and grocery and supermarket uses in the East of 101 area and consideration and certification of an associated Environmental Impact Report. (Tony Rozzi, Associate Planner) STUDY SESSION 6. Economic Development Strategy (3rd Session) (Pat O'Keeffe, Economic and Community Development Consultant) a. Economic Development Program Partnerships. b. Disposition of Affordable Housing Cash & Property Assets. 7. A Resolution authorizing a joint application by the City of South San Francisco and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Tiger VI grant funding of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvements Project. (Brian McMinn, Public Works Director). 8. Adjournment, Deputy City Clerk 0 n Staff O DATE: April 16, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick O'Keeffe, Economic & Community Development Consultant SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PROHIBIT SUPERSTORE USES CITY -WIDE AND GROCERY AND SUPERMARKET USES IN THE EAST OF 101 AREA AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Case Nos.: P13 -0075: ZA13 -0002 & EIR13 -0001 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR13 -0001; and 2. Introduce an Ordinance approving Zoning Amendment ZA13 -0002, related to prohibiting Superstore uses City -wide and prohibiting Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 area, and waive further reading. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2012, the City Council expressed concern about the potential impact a Large Format Retail use with a full - service grocery component (a "Superstore")' might have on the City's current and future grocery market, and directed staff to prepare an initial evaluation of those potential impacts. Staff's initial analysis, which included an economic impact report, concluded that a Superstore could have a significant impact on existing grocery stores in South San Francisco, and could also limit the City's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future. In response, in December 2012, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that temporarily prevented the City from issuing any entitlements for Large Format Retail or Superstore uses City -wide and for Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 area. The City Council extended the initial moratorium for an additional 16 months on January 26, 2013, and the temporary moratorium is set to expire on May 26, 2014. During the moratorium, staff studied the potential impact of Superstores, drafted proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code to address those impacts (the proposed "Zoning Amendment "), and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Amendment in an Environmental 1 As used in this report and in the proposed Zoning Amendment, a "Superstore" is defined as a large retail use (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) with over 5,000 square feet dedicated to grocery sales. In contrast, a Large Format Retail use, while of a similar size (over 80,000 square feet of sales area), has less than 5,000 square feet dedicated to grocery-type sales. Staff Report Subject: LARGE FORMAT RETAIL/SUPERSTORE ZONING AMENDMENT Date: April 16, 2014 Page 2 of 6 Impact Report ( "EIR" ). The proposed Zoning Amendment would prohibit Superstore use City -wide and prohibit Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 area. DISCUSSION Zoning Amendment — Overview Based on a comprehensive economic and land use analysis of the potential impacts of a Superstore use on the City's grocery and retail market, staff is proposing to amend the text of the Zoning Code (the proposed Zoning. Amendment) as summarized below and presented in the draft Ordinance. The proposed Zoning Amendment would: 1. Prohibit Superstore use in all zoning districts of the City; 2. Prohibit Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 area; and 3. Revise and add new use definitions (Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore) to clarify the City's intent. The proposed Zoning Amendment is intended to implement existing General Plan policies, including to promote the City's commercial vitality and economic well- being, and to maintain the downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center as a focus of commercial activity. Consistent with the General Plan, the proposed Zoning Amendment is also intended to encourage mixed -use development along the City's principal 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 Amendment seeks to minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community and to promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood -level retail uses. The proposed Zoning Amendment also reflects 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. In order to prohibit Superstores City -wide and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 area, several definitions in the Zoning Code need to be updated and new definitions need to be added. The proposed Zoning Amendment includes new or revised definitions for Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore uses. Those changes are summarized below, and the full text of all the proposed definitions is provided in the proposed Ordinance, attached to this report. With adoption of the proposed Zoning Amendment, food and beverage retail sales use classifications would be distinguished by size. From smallest to largest, this would include Convenience Markets (less than 5,000 square feet), Grocery Stores (between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet), and Supermarkets (between 25,000 and 80,000 square feet). The proposed Zoning Amendment would also revise the Large Format Retail use definition. While this definition currently includes retail establishments over 80,000 square feet, a provision would be added to allow only an incidental amount of grocery sales (less than 5,000 square feet). The purpose of allowing limited grocery sales is to provide flexibility for retailers such as a Lowe's or a Best Buy that sell pre- packaged snacks, but do not engage in Grocery sales. The definition of Large Format Retail use would Staff Report Subject: LARGE FORMAT RETAIL /SUPERSTORE ZONING AMENDMENT Date: April 16, 2014 Page 3 of 6 continue to include retailers such as Costco, as membership warehouses that emphasize bulk sales to the general public and other businesses. The revised Large Format Retail definition also specifically excludes Superstores. As summarized previously, the proposed Superstore definition would include any retail establishment over 80,000 square feet that dedicates more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area to Grocery sales, including but not limited to a delicatessen, baked goods, frozen foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and prepared food. Although the proposed Zoning Amendment would apply City -wide, only specific commercially -zoned properties would be affected, as shown in the attached Exhibit 2 -3. The proposed Zoning Amendment would also slightly modify the use tables to reflect the new definitions and to clarify that Grocery and Supermarket uses would not be permitted east of 101. Lastly, the proposed Zoning Amendment would add a new Chapter (20.430) to explicitly prohibit Superstore use in all zones throughout the City. Prohibit Superstore Use City -wide —Rationale Broadly, the proposed Zoning Amendment is intended to protect the public interest, economic vitality and the neighborhood -based retail centers that provide services to residents and are accessible to all modes of travel. The proposed Zoning Amendment is also intended to protect the City's commercial businesses, including existing Food and Beverage Sales uses in particular. Seifel Consulting analyzed the potential impacts of a Superstore on the City, and also the potential impacts of a ban on Superstores. Seifel Consulting concluded that a new Superstore in the City could: 1. Translate into the loss of 5 to 9 percent in grocery sales for existing stores in South San Francisco; 2. Concentrate negative economic impacts on a two -mile radius (Primary Market Area) that would likely include the downtown commercial area and neighborhood shopping centers, both of which include conventional grocery stores, ethnic grocery stores and discount stores; and 3. Limit the community's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future ( Seifel Consulting, 2012 — available as Appendix D in the DEIR). Other academic and professional studies have also evaluated the impacts or potential impacts of Superstores and suggest that if the superstore market is heavily saturated, as it is in the South San Francisco regional vicinity, it is likely that superstore revenue would be a shift from existing retail within the City, resulting in direct losses to those businesses (Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004)2. The U.S. Census Bureau supports this finding with their own analysis concluding that both "Mom and Pop" retailers and small grocery chains are susceptible to substantial sales and job loss when a Superstore opens within one to five miles of a retail center or downtown core (2009). Furthermore, any loss of a neighborhood supermarket to Superstore competition could threaten the economic health of the entire shopping center that often relies on pedestrian traffic associated with that supermarket (Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004). Residents rely on neighborhood shopping centers like the Downtown area, Westborough Square, Brentwood Shopping Center, and the forthcoming Centennial Village that are anchored by grocery stores or supermarkets; a Superstore ban helps to preserve these critical shopping centers for the City's residents. z A full list of the academic and professional studies reviewed and consulted to understand the potential impacts of a Superstore is included as an attachment to this report; these studies are available for review at the Planning Division counter located at 315 Maple Avenue. Staff Report Subject: LARGE FORMAT RETAIUSUPERSTORE ZONING AMENDMENT Date: April 16, 2014 Page 4 of 6 In those districts where a Superstore use would be permitted under the existing Zoning Code, Superstore use is neither the most nor the least intense permitted use. As a result, while the proposed Zoning Amendment would limit the range of potential uses that could be developed on a given parcel (by eliminating the possibility of Superstore use), other development types of similar or greater intensity than Superstores would still be permitted. Accordingly, the proposed Zoning Amendment would not directly change the scale of possible development on a given parcel (Seifel Consulting, 2014). Prohibit Grocery and Supermarket Uses within the East of 101 area —Rationale The proposed Zoning Amendment will keep grocery and supermarket stores near residential neighborhoods, where there are strong existing travel -mode connections for pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, and transit users. This not only encourages healthy communities, but it preserves existing neighborhood commercial centers that are typically anchored by a grocery or supermarket store use. Prohibition of Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area, where residential use is not allowed, helps ensure the economic health of both the downtown and neighborhood commercial centers by only allowing grocery retail where residential uses are also permitted. Amenities including restaurants, convenience markets and cafes would continue to be allowable uses in the employee -rich East of 101 Area. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the relevant specific plans, and the City's overall vision for community and economic development, including the specific policies listed below. General Plan Land Use Policies: GP Policy 2 -G -1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non - residential areas. GP Policy 2 -G -5: Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. GP 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 foster identity and vitality. General Plan Economic Development Policies: • GP Policy 6 -G -1: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. • GP 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. • GP Policy 6 -G -3: Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting business in South San Francisco. • GP 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. Staff Report Subject: LARGE FORMAT RETAIL /SUPERSTORE ZONING AMENDMENT Date: April 16, 2014 Page 5 of 6 El Camino Real Sub Area General Plan Policies: • GP Policy 3.4 -G -5: Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. • GP Policy 3.4 -G -7: Develop the South El Camino area as a x ibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non - residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. CE 0A The City issued a notice of preparation (NOP) on November 6, 2013 to inform agencies and the general public that the City was preparing an Environment Impact Report (EIR) and inviting comments on the scope and content of the document. A scoping meeting was held on December 5, 2013 with no public attendees. Based on the scope of the draft Zoning Amendment (the "project" for purposes of the CEQA analysis), the City determined that there could be a potential impact on Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use & Planning, and Traffic. Accordingly, the City prepared and circulated a Draft EIR for the mandatory 45 -day public review period on January 8, 2014; the public comment period closed on February 24, 2014. Two (2) letters were received but no substantive changes were necessary or reflected in the Final EIR. After a thorough analysis of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use & Planning, and Traffic, the EIR concluded that adoption of the proposed Zoning Amendment would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission for public comment on February 6, 2014. At that time, staff provided a brief overview of the Zoning Amendment proposal. The primary purpose of the February 6th hearing, however, was to allow an opportunity for both the Planning Commission and public to comment on the Draft EIR content. There were no substantive changes to the Draft EIR as a result of public comments. At the March 20, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Amendment and Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the Draft EIR and Final EIR Response to Comments document. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the proposed Zoning Amendment. The Planning Commission staff report, resolutions, and draft minutes of the Commission meeting are attached to this staff report. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR13 -0001; and 2. Introduce an Ordinance approving Zoning Amendment ZA13 -0002, related to prohibiting Superstore uses City -wide and prohibiting Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 area, and waive further reading. Staff Report Subject: LARGE FORMAT RETAIL /SUPERSTORE ZONING AMENDMENT Date: April 16, 2014 Page 6 of 6 By: Approved Patrick O'Kee Mike Futrell Economic & Community City Manager Development Consultant STM /PO /JR/MA/SK/tr ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution w/ attachments a. Draft EIR — available for review at: hqp://ca-southsanfrancisco.civipklus.com/index.aMx?NID=367 b. Final EIR Response to Comments — available for review at hlW://ca-southsanfrancisco.civiolus.com/index.as-px?NID=367 2. Draft.Zoning Amendment Ordinance 3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes — Meeting of March 20, 2014 4. Planning Commission Resolutions a. Resolution 2742 -2014 — CEQA Resolution b. Resolution 2743 -2014 —Zoning Text Amendment Resolution 5. Exhibit 2 -3 Affected Parcels 6. Bibliography List of Academic and Professional Studies 2260586.1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT SUPERSTORE USES CITY -WIDE AND TO PROHIBIT GROCERY AND SUPERMARKET USES WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") has proposed a Zoning Code text amendment ( "Zoning Amendment" or "Project ") to prohibit Superstores City- wide and to prohibit Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area, including additions and clarifications to the following Zoning Code definitions: Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment is considered a "Project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on November 6, 2013, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") was prepared and circulated for the mandatory forty -five (45) day public review and comment period beginning on January 8, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on February 6, 2014 to take public comment on the circulated DEIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the DEIR and prepared and circulated a Final EIR ( "FEIR ") for the Project, which consists of the DEIR, all comments received on the circulated DEIR, written responses to those comments, and minor revisions to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR ") at a duly noticed public hearing held on March 20, 2014, and at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 16, 2014, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution to certify the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification and discussion of the Project's environmental impacts. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before -it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on March 20, 2014, and all Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's meeting held on April 16, 2014, and all City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2),, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The EIR for the Zoning Amendment (EIR -13- 0001), attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, is incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the proposed Project will further the City's General Plan vision for the City's long -range physical and economic development established in the General Plan, and none of the new or revised definitions and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. The General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well- being, preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and maintain commercial uses deemed desirable to the long -term identity of the City. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Project. Based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and certifies EIR -13- 0001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. -2- I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 16th day of April, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Exhibits: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Exhibit A: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, prepared on March 12, 2014 by Ascent Environmental, Inc for the City of South San Francisco 2260594.1 -3- ORDINANCE NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PROHIBIT SUPERSTORE USES CITY -WIDE AND TO PROHIBIT GROCERY AND SUPERMARKET USES WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concern about the potential impact(s) a Large Format Retail use which includes a full- service grocery component (a "Superstore "), might have on South San Francisco's current and future grocery market; and WHEREAS, the City Council ( "Council ") directed staff to evaluate and analyze the potential impact(s) Large Format Retail use which includes a full- service grocery component ( "Superstore "), might have on South San Francisco's current and future grocery market; and WHEREAS, staff entered into an agreement with Seifel Consulting to complete a grocery use economic impact analysis report; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012 City staff presented Seifel Consulting's Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012) to Council; and WHEREAS, the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012) concludes that the addition of a grocery component within a new superstore in the community could translate into the loss of 5 to 9 percent in grocery sales for existing stores in South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012) also concludes that Large Format Retail use with a grocery component (a "Superstore ") could also limit the community's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future; and WHEREAS, in addition to the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012), staff's evaluation of Superstore uses within the context of the City's existing land use regulations revealed a need to clarify where certain grocery related uses should be situated within the community and better define the various uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted, or not permitted; and WHEREAS, at the November 14, 2012 City Council meeting, Council stated concern that the City's Large Format Retail use regulations were not consistent with Council's expectations for regulating these types of uses, and Council directed staff to draft an Interim Ordinance to provide staff time to study potential modifications to the City's land use regulations; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2012 Council adopted an Interim Ordinance ( "Moratorium ") that established (1) a City -wide moratorium on the issuance of use permits, IF building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for Large Format Retail or Superstore uses, and (2) a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, the Moratorium effectively imposed a "pause" on any new Large Format Retail uses (which by definition include Superstores) City -wide, and Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2013, Council approved a 16 -month extension of the Moratorium and said Moratorium will expire on May 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, in order to further the City's General Plan vision for the City's long -range physical and economic development, the City evaluated the potential impacts of new Superstore use in the City and Grocery and Supermarket use in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, given the changes in the retail sector, it is necessary that the Zoning Code be amended to regulate larger retail establishments appropriately; and WHEREAS, there is a national trend toward increasing the size of retail outlets and diversity of products offered at such large -scale discount stores; and WHEREAS, Superstore uses typically combine a large variety of discount general merchandise with full - service grocery sales under one roof, thereby often generating more intense land use and environmental impacts than other large -scale retailers; and WHEREAS, the establishment of Superstores in the City is likely to negatively impact the vitality and economic viability of the City's neighborhood commercial centers by drawing sales away from traditional supermarkets located in these centers; and WHEREAS, industry and academic studies indicate Superstores rarely add any retail services currently not provided within a community, and that the majority of sales growth at a Superstore comes from a direct shift of spending within a community, which can depress sales and reduce employment at both existing retailers and grocery stores; and WHEREAS, Superstores compete directly with existing grocery stores that anchor neighborhood - serving commercial centers; and WHEREAS, smaller stores within a neighborhood center rely upon the foot traffic generated by the grocery store for their existence and in neighborhood centers where the grocery store closes, vacancy rates typically increase and deterioration takes place throughout the commercial center; and WHEREAS, typical Superstore design often adversely affects the viability of small -scale, pedestrian- friendly neighborhood commercial areas, contributing to blight' in these areas; and -5- WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to preserve the City's existing downtown and neighborhood - serving shopping centers centrally located within the community; and WHEREAS, the City's current distribution of neighborhood shopping centers and the downtown area provides convenient shopping and employment in close proximity to most residential zoning districts in South San Francisco, consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the distribution of shopping, grocery, and employment creates a land use pattern that reduces the need for vehicle trips and encourages walking and biking for shopping, groceries, services, and employment; and WHEREAS, the development of Superstores within the City would concentrate retail sales around that Superstore's location, which would depress the neighborhood shopping centers and downtown area in the City that, thus far, have evenly dispersed sales and provided walkable, pedestrian- friendly community amenities throughout the City using the concept of neighborhood -based retail centers; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting Superstores, prevents the likelihood of reduced retail sales, depressed employment and wages, and possible closures or vacancies in neighborhood -based retail centers consistent with professional and academic analysis; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting Superstores, serves as a means for protecting South San Francisco's neighborhood - serving and downtown shopping areas; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting the establishment of Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area, where no residential uses currently exist or are permitted, will ensure that the daily needs of the City's residents are available by shorter vehicle trips, walking and cycling; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to protect grocery stores in existing neighborhood centers to prevent a significant change in land use, employment, and traffic patterns throughout the City, and WHEREAS, City staff developed the Zoning Code text amendment ( "Zoning Amendment ") to remove the land use potential for future Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area and to prohibit Superstore use City -wide; and WHEREAS, said Zoning Amendment revises or adds definitions and regulations for Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore uses to the City's Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEW') for the Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment; -6- WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for the required 45 -day public comment period on January 8, 2014 and ended on February 24, 2014 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing on February 6, 2014 to solicit public comment and consider the DEIR, take public testimony, and provide Commission input on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, two (2) comments were received on the document and a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments ( "FEIR ") was prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR and FEIR ( "EIR. "), and by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed. and carefully considered the proposed Zoning Amendment and by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council adopt the Zoning Amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2014 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS 1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and findings of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco. 2. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the relevant specific plans, and is consistent with the City's overall vision for community development, economic vitality, neighborhood -based retail and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction as set forth in the General Plan. None of the new or revised use definitions and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. The prohibition of Superstore use City -wide and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area will remove, rather than add, potential uses from a large number of commercially zoned parcels. As a result, the Zoning Amendment would not affect any particular subject property; it would require speculation to determine which specific parcels could potentially be affected by the proposed Zoning Amendment. Prohibition of Superstore use City -wide, however, is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to land use and economic vitality. Furthermore, prohibiting Grocery and Supermarket -7- uses within the East of 101 Area, where residential uses are not allowed, helps ensure the economic health of both the downtown and neighborhood commercial centers by siting grocery retailers near residential neighborhoods, where strong existing travel -mode connections exist. 4. The proposed Zoning Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the proposed Zoning Amendment removes certain uses from certain zoning districts in the City. More specifically, the Zoning Amendment prohibits Superstore use City -wide and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area. Rather than be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zoning district, the proposed Zoning Amendment will preserve the economic vitality of surrounding commercial areas by preserving existing neighborhood - retail centers that are often anchored by a grocery or supermarket retailer. Professional analysis by Seifel Consulting indicates that the proposed Zoning Amendment will not have any - likely detrimental impact to the City's.other zoning districts or zoning districts impacted by the Zoning Amendment. Finally, the proposed Zoning Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the proposed Zoning Amendment will support the public interest, as set forth in the General Plan's economic development and land use elements: SECTION II. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in see indicating deletion and underlined text indicating addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. A. Revise Chapter 20.620.004 "Food and Beverage Sales" definitions (Commercial Use Classifications). 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 with long or late hours of operation and in a rvlafive4y sm building that is less than 5,000 cross square feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include delisatesseas -e specialty food shops. It e*eWdes Grocery Store. 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, daky, 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. -8- 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. B. Revise Chapter 20.620.004 "Retail Sales" definitions (Commercial Use Classifications). Retail Sales. General Sales. 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 ea that sell merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including, but not limited to department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses ehabs and super-etere, 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 gLocm sales. Superstores typically feature a full- service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds five thousand square feet of the gross floor area, and could include a delicatessen, baked og ods, 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). -9- C. Add a new Chapter 20.430 — Prohibition on New Superstores. Chapter 20.430 PROHIBITION ON NEW SUPERSTORES Sections: 20.430.001 Purpose and Intent 20.430.002 Definitions 20.430.003 Superstores Prohibited 20.430.004 Violation and Enforcement 20.430.001. Purpose and Intent It is the pumose and intent of this chapter to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or operations of new Superstore uses in the City. 20.430.002 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 offered at a discount. 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 five thousand 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). Some superstores may also include gas stations as part of their center. 20.430.003 Superstores Prohibited A. Superstores are not a permitted use and are vrohibited 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. 20.430.004 Violation and Enforcement -10- 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 City's 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. D. Update the applicable use tables throughout the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Revise 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. Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations Commercial Uses (cont'd) Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub - classifications below P nines= P Convenience Market P P P See Section 20.350.014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P(9) P P Supermarket P P(9) P P Limitations: station 9. Hours of operation 7 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART -11- 2. Revise 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 Commercial Uses (cont'd) Large Format Retail C - - C See Section 20.350.024024 Large Format Retail Off -Price Merchandise C - - C Convenience Market Second Hand Store C - C C 20.350.94 -3014 3. Revise 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 D D See Section Convenience Market C C - - - 20.350.94 -3014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - - - Supermarket P P - - -12- 4. Revise 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 B F INH Additional Regulations Commercial Uses (cont'd) Food and Beverage Retail Sales See Sub - classifications below Convenience Market P P - P See Section 20.350.94-3014 Convenience Market Grocea Store P(1) - C 1 CO) Large Format Retail Supermarket P 1 = MI - Second Hand Store Limitations: 1. Prohibited east of 101 5. Revise 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 B F JW. 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 Ic - C -13- 6. Revise 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 TV -C T ITV-RM ITV--RH Uses Permitted Commercial Use Classifications Food and Beverage Retail See sub - classifications below Sales Classifications p p Sales R Convenience Market P C Convenience Market P See Section 20.350.9014 - See Section 20.350.9014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - - Supermarket P P _ 7. Revise 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. -14- EC'R./C- E EH Uses Permitted MXM RH Commercial Use, ..., Classifications Food and Beverage Retail See sub-classifications Sales R P Convenience Market P P - See Section 20.350.9014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - Supermarket P P = -14- SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall. be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 16th day of April, 2014. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of , 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: -15- ABSENT: Attest: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of , 2014. Mayor 2260593.1 -16- Plannin g Commission cgL7FOR�� Staff Report 4/./ DATE: March 20, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Large Format Retail/Superstore /Food and Beverage Retail Zoning Amendment — Consideration of Zoning Text Amendments, and related Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final), to clarify various classifications of stores, including a new definition for "superstore ", and revised definition of "large format retail ", and to prohibit superstore uses in all zoning classifications. In addition, the amendments would revise and clarify definitions of food and beverage sales uses including "convenience market ", "grocery store" and "supermarket ", and prohibit all grocery and supermarket uses with the East of 101 Area, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550. Case Nos.: P13 -0075: ZA13 -0002 & EIR13 -0001 RECOMAMNDATION That the Planning Commission, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550: 1. Adopt a resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council certify EIR13 -0001; and 2. Adopt a resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Amendment ZA13 -0002. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2012, the City Council expressed concern about the potential impact(s) a Superstore (Large Format Retail use) which includes a full- service grocery component, might have on the City's current and future grocery market, and directed staff to prepare an initial evaluation. That work, which included an economic impact analysis, concluded that the addition of a grocery component within a new large format retail store (commonly, referred to as a superstore) could have a significant impact (5 -9% loss in sales) for existing grocery stores in South San Francisco, and could also limit the City's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future. In December 2012, Council adopted an Interim Ordinance that established: 1. A City -wide moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for large format retail or Superstore uses; and 2. A moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area. -11- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format RetaiUSuperstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 2 of 7 The moratorium was extended on January 26, 2013 for 16 months; it will expire on May 26, 2014. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will prohibit Superstore use City -wide and prohibit Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area. The project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was presented to the Planning Commission for public comment on February 6, 2014. At that time, staff provided a brief overview of the text amendment proposal; the primary purpose of the hearing, however, was to allow an opportunity for both the Planning Commission and public to provide continent on the DEIR content. There were no substantive changes to the DEIR as a result of the public hearing comments. The Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the DEIR and Final EIR Response to Comments document (FEIR) and the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment are now before the Planning Commission. for a recommendation. DISCUSSION Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Overview Based on comprehensive economic and land use analysis of the potential impact(s) a Superstore use could have on the City's grocery and retail market, staff is recommending the following Zoning Ordinance text amendment to: 1. Prohibit Superstore use in all zoning districts within which a Superstore use may currently be allowed; 2. Prohibit Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area; and 3. Revise, update and/or add new definitions (Convenience Market, Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and Superstore) to clarify the City's intent. 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 also intended to 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 amendments seek to minimize negative impacts on standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community and promote stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood -level retail uses. The proposed 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. Prohibit Superstore Use City -wide — Rationale Broadly, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is intended to protect the public interest, economic vitality and neighborhood -based retail centers that provide services to residents and are accessible to all modes of travel. More specifically, the proposed amendment is intended to protect the City's commercial businesses, including Food & Beverage uses. Utilizing the economic expertise of Seifel Consulting, staff evaluated the potential impacts of a Superstore use on the City and the potential impacts of a Superstore ban. The analysis, included as an appendix in the DEIR, concluded that any new superstore (with a grocery sales component) locating within the City could: -18- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 3 of 7 1. Translate into the loss of 5 to 9 percent in grocery sales for existing stores in South San Francisco; 2. Concentrate negative economic impacts on a two -mile radius (Primary Market Area) that would likely include the downtown commercial area and neighborhood shopping centers, both of which include conventional grocery stores, ethnic grocery stores and discount stores; and 3. Limit the community's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future. Similar academic and professional studies (citation list included as an attachment) have also evaluated the impacts or potential impacts of a Superstore use and suggest that since the superstore market around South San Francisco is heavily saturated, it is likely that superstore revenue would be a shift within the City or from existing retail in the immediate area. Additionally, a superstore could bring a substantial drop in grocery prices compared to traditional supermarket chains and subsequently, put downward pressure on wages and benefits in the grocery sector. Accordingly, the immediate' employment sector for. grocery retailers can be depressed and threaten the survival of other smaller retailers. These multiplier effects on the local economy may include job loss, reduced local spending, higher vacancies and blight. Further analysis by. Seifel Consulting determined that 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. Prohibiting 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 Ordinance text amendment. In other words, 'the range of potential uses would be reduced with this amendment (eliminating the possibility. of Superstore use) but the scale of possible development in terms of gross size would remain the same; other development types of similar or greater intensity than Superstores would still be permissible. Property owners would still have the ability to develop a building to the fullest extent of the Zoning Ordinance regulations. Prohibit Grocery and Supermarket Uses within the East of 101 Area — Rationale The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will keep grocery and supermarket store locations near residential neighborhoods, where there are strong existing travel -mode connections for pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, and transit users. This not only encourages healthy communities, but it preserves existing neighborhood commercial centers that are typically anchored by a grocery or supermarket store use. Prohibition of Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area, where residential use is not allowed, helps ensure the economic health of both the downtown and neighborhood commercial centers by only allowing grocery retail where residential uses are also permitted. Revised and New Definitions Overview In order to implement both the City -wide ban on Superstore use and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area, several definitions are to be updated and new definitions added. In general, the definitions add clarity for use classifications and the size of gross floor area related to grocery retailers. New or revised definitions for the following uses are included and listed below: Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore. 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 fetmd in establi&hmefl s with long or late hours of operation and in a mlmively small building that is less than 5,000 gross square feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same -19- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 4 of 7 parcel as or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include de4iemesseas or- specialty food shops. Grocery Store. Retail establishments that.jLnmarily 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 Nuare feet of gross floor area, but not more than 80,000 square feet of gross floor area. Large Format Retail. Retail establishments over 80,000 square feet in size of salesfea 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 ocer_y 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 rgrocery sales. Superstores 13iically feature a full- service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds five thousand 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, pharm@LeL vision center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(sl. The definition for Large Format Retail has been revised to include all retail establishments over 80,000 s.f and allow an incidental amount of grocery sales (less than 5,000 s.f.). The revised definition specifically excludes Superstores. The limited grocery sales component is intended to allow flexibility to retailers such as Lowe's or Best Buy that offer pre - packaged snacks for purchase by customers. The Superstore definition has been introduced to identify any retail establishment over 80,000 s.f. that dedicates more than 5,000 s.f of gross floor area for grocery sales, including but not limited to a delicatessen, baked goods, frozen foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and prepared food. Although the text amendment applies citywide, only specific commercially zoned properties would be affected as shown in the attached Exhibit 2 -3. Additionally, the use tables have been modified slightly to reflect the new definitions and to clarify that Grocery and Supermarket uses would not be permitted East of 101. Lastly, anew Chapter (20.430) has been created to prohibit Superstore use in all zones throughout the City. A complete "marked -up" version of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment is included in the draft amendment resolution as Exhibit A. -20- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format Retail /Superstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 5 of 7 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. In this case, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment has the following objectives: Promote: • The City's existing commercial vitality and economic well- being; • Economically responsible and fiscally sound land use planning; • Maintenance of existing commercial uses deemed desirable to the long -term identity of the City, • Stable neighborhoods by protecting neighborhood -level retail uses; • The intent of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" for El Camino Real with smart growth principles, including maintaining walkable neighborhoods, compact urban form, opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives, and an effective use of available infrastructure; and • Mixed -use development along principle corridors such as El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Protect: The downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center and focus of commercial activity; The City's neighborhood shopping centers as primary market areas for grocery sales and diverse retail uses; and Standalone food and beverage retail sales uses in the community. These objectives are consistent with the following General Plan Land Use Policies: • GP Policy 2 -G -1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non - residential areas. • GP Policy 2 -G -5: Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. • GP 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 foster identity and vitality. As well as the following General Plan Economic Development Policies: • GP Policy 6 -G -1: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. • GP 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. • GP Policy 6 -G -3: Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting business in South San Francisco. • GP 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. -21- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 7 And finally, the following El Camino Real Sub -Area General Plan Policies: • GP Policy 3.4 -G -5: Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. • GP Policy 3.4 -G -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. In summary, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City's overall vision for community and economic development. CEOA The City issued a notice of preparation (NOP) on November 6, 2013 to inform agencies and the general public that the City was preparing an Environment Impact Report (EIR) and inviting comments on the scope and content of the document. A scoping meeting was held on December 5, 2013 with no public attendees. Based on the scope of the draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, the City determined that there could be a potential impact on Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use & Planning, and Traffic. Accordingly, the City prepared and circulated a DEIR for the mandatory 45 -day public review period on January 8, 2014; the public comment period closed on February 24, 2014. Two (2) letters were received but no substantive changes were necessary or reflected in the FEIR. Adoption of the draft Zoning Ordinance text amendment would NOT result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. After a thorough analysis. of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use & Planning, and Traffic, the EIR concludes that "no new significant impact," "less than significant impact," or "no impact" would be expected as a result of the proposed Amendment. The EIR includes a discussion and evaluation of two alternatives to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: "No Project Alternative" and "Limited Superstore Zone Alternative ". For the purpose of the environmental review, the "No Project Alternative" assumes that a Superstore would be developed. Under the "Limited Superstore Zone Alternative," superstores would not be prohibited City -wide; a special new zoning category would be created that includes a superstore as a conditionally permitted use within specific locations. Development of a Superstore would not be consistent with several General Plan policies related to business retention, business climate and other economic criteria in either alternative analyzed in Section 4.3 of the DEIR. The environmental impacts of the alternatives are largely unknown, but likely similar to those of the project. Overall, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would be consistent with General Plan policies related to business climate and economic criteria. Furthermore, economic analysis indicates a superstore could, along with other factors, contribute to closure of existing grocery and supermarket stores within the City and potentially contribute to urban- decay - related impacts. -22- Staff Report Subject: Lg. Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: March 20, 2014 Page 7 of 7 CONCLUSION After extensive research, professional analysis and public input, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. This proposed ordinance represents an opportunity to revise certain portions of the City's governing law that are inconsistent with General Plan policies supporting community development, economic vitality, neighborhood -based retail and protection of the Downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction. By: Tony Rozzi, AICP Associate Planner SK/JR/MA/tr ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution w/ attachments a. Draft EIR (previously distributed to Planning Commission) — available for review at httv://ca- southsanfrancisco.eivicvlus.com/index.aspx?N]D=367 b. Final EIR Response to Comments — also available for review at hgp: / /ca- southsanfrancisco .civicolus.com /index.aspx ?NID=367 2. Draft Zoning Text Amendment Resolution 3. Exhibit 2 -3 Affected Parcels 4. Bibliography List of Academic and Professional Studies 2252055.1 -23- Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Text Amendment Citywide P13 -0075: ZA13 -0002 & EIR13 -0001 Consideration of Zoning Text Amendments, and related Environmental Impact Report, to clarify various classifications of retail stores and food and beverage sales uses, including new definitions for "superstore" and. "supermarket" uses, revised definitions for "large format retail ", "convenience market ", and "grocery store" uses, and to prohibit superstore uses citywide and all grocery and supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area, in accordance with the provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550. Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Associate Planner Rozzi presented a brief staff report, noting that Mike Parker from Ascent Environmental was available for any questions on the EIR. There being no speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commission commentslauestions: • Commission asked for clarification of the CEQA alternatives. Mike Parker responded that CEQA requires the evaluation of alternatives. CEQA requires a no project alternative which, in this case, would be no zoning text amendment and could result in the development of a superstore use. There wasn't an alternative that easily reduced impacts but a limited superstore alternative was also chosen to meet CEQA alternative analysis requirements. The limited superstore alternative assumes that a superstore would be constructed and accordingly, could have negative economic impacts on the City's existing retailers which could result in blight. The EIR determined that the project was the superior choice to the alternatives since it was the only approach that would prevent blight and the physical deterioration of communities, which the EIR specifically examines. • Commission commended staff on a well written report but wanted clarification on how the Costco stores would fit into the Superstore definition, given it has more than 5,000 sf of grocery. Associate Planner Rozzi responded that Costco is considered a membership based warehouse under the Large Format Retail definition. It is differentiated since visitors use a membership based warehouse periodically, typically buying in bulk, rather than shopping daily for standard sized products as is typical of grocery stores or Superstores with a grocery component. Commission asked what would be the course of action if, in the future, there are land -use changes that would make a supermarket a suitable use in the -24- East of 101 area. Chief Planner Kalkin responded that there continue to be sites available on the west side of the freeway for grocery store development. She informed the Commission of a site identified at the north end of Linden that the General Plan envisions as a neighborhood shopping center with a supermarket to fill the need of the downtown specific plan. The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to prohibit grocery and supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area is an attempt to keep grocery uses closer to residences and avoid requiring driving east of US 101. In the future, however, the Planning Commission and City Council could consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow any type of use that they deemed to be consistent with the General Plan, similar to the presented project. Commission asked for verification that Superstores, not grocery stores are prohibited City -wide. Chief Planner Kalkin responded that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment only prohibits grocery stores and supermarkets within the East of 101 Area. Commission mentioned that, typically, subdivisions have had their own grocery stores and inquired whether this would prohibit that from continuing. Associate Planner Rozzi stated that the prohibition of grocery and supermarket uses only applies to East of 101 and the City wants to encourage and promote neighborhood shopping centers close to residential zoning districts with this Zoning Text Amendment. Commission asked for clarification regarding the definition of the difference between Large Format Retail and Superstore. Associate Planner Rozzi responded that the difference between Large Format Retail and Superstore is the latter's inclusion of grocery sales that occupy more than 5,000 square feet of the building. • Commission stated that this regulation is important to protect smaller retailers within the City. • Interim City Attorney Rosenberg stated for the record that these regulations are not retailer specific and have no basis on a retailer's hiring practices. He further clarified that this proposed ordinance seeks to accomplish land -use objectives contained in the General Plan. Motion -- Commissioner Ochsenhirt /Second -- Commissioner Giusti to adopt a Resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council certify EIR13- 0001. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (7 -0). Motion -- Commissioner Ochsenhirt /Second -- Com mission er Sim to adopt a Resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Amendment ZA13 -0002. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (7 -0). -25- RESOLUTION NO. 2742 -20 4 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LARGE FORMAT RETAIL/SUPERSTORE/FOOD & BEVERAGE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") has proposed a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ( "Project ") to prohibit Superstores City -wide and to prohibit Grocery uses within the East of 101 Area, including additions and clarifications to the following Zoning Ordinance definitions: Convenience Market, Large Format Retail, Grocery Store, Supermarket, and Superstore; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on November 6, 2013, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") was prepared and circulated for the mandatory forty -five (45) day public review and comment period beginning on January 8, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on February 6, 2014 to take public comment on the circulated DEIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the DEIR and prepared and circulated a Final EIR ( "FEW') for the Project, which consists of the DEIR, all comments received on the circulated DEIR, written responses to those comments, and minor revisions to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR!') at a duly noticed public hearing held on March 20, 2014, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends certification of the EK as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification and discussion of the Project's environmental impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General -26- Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on March 20, 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The EIR for the Large Format Retail /Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (EIR -13- 0001), attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. is incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the proposed Project will further the City's General Plan vision for the City's long -range physical and economic development established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860), and none of the new or revised. definitions and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. The General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to promote the City's existing commercial vitality and economic well- being, preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and maintain commercial uses deemed desirable to the long -term identify of the City. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for the Project. Based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the City Council certify EIR -13 -0001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. -27- I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 20th day of March, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong. Commissioner Giusti Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhfi t, Commissioner Sim and Commissioner Zemke NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibits: Exhibit A: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, prepared on March 12, 2014 by Ascent Environmental, Inc for the City of South San Francisco 2252197.1 -28- RESOLUTION NO.2743 -2014 PLANNING COMAUSSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT SUPERSTORES CITY -WIDE AND TO PROHIBIT GROCERY USES WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA, INCLUDING ADDITIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE FOLLOVIMG DEFINITIONS: CONVENIENCE MARKET, LARGE FORMAT RETAIL, GROCERY STORE, SUPERMARKET, AND SUPERSTORE RESULTING IN AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20.620.004 ( "COMMERCIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS "), CHAPTER 20.630 ( "TERMS AND DEFINITIONS'J, TABLE 20.090.002 ("LAND USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS), TABLE 20.100.002 ( "LAND USE REGULATIONS — DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS "), TABLE 20.110.002 CILAND USE REGULATIONS — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS"), TABLE 20.250.003 ("LAND USE REGULATIONS — TRANSIT VILLAGE SUB - DISTRICTS "), TABLE 20.270.003 ( "LAND USE REGULATIONS — EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS") AND THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 20.430 ( "PROHIBITION ON NEW SUPERSTORES "). WHEREAS, the City Council had expressed concern about the potential impact(s) 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council ( "Council ") directed staff to evaluate and analyze the potential impact(s) 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; and WHEREAS, staff entered into an agreement with Seifel Consulting to complete a grocery use economic impact analysis report; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012 staff and Seifel Consulting presented the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012) to Council; and WHEREAS, the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2012) concludes that the addition of a grocery component within a new superstore in the community could translate into the loss of 5 to 9 percent in grocery sales for existing stores in South San Francisco; and -29- WHEREAS, the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2412) also concludes that a Superstore (Large Format Retail use) with a grocery component could also limit the community's ability to attract certain types of grocers in the future; and WHEREAS, in addition to the Grocery Use Economic Impact Report (October 2412), staff s evaluation of Superstore uses within the context of the City's existing land use regulations revealed a need to clarify where certain grocery related uses should be situated within the community and better define the various uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted, or not permitted; and WHEREAS, at the November 14, 2012 City Council meeting, Council stated concern that the City's Large Format Retail use regulations were not consistent with Council's expectations for regulating these types of uses, and Council directed staff to draft an Interim Ordinance to provide staff time to study potential modifications to the City's land use regulations; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2012 Council adopted an Interim Ordinance ( "Moratorium ") that established (1) a City -wide moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for large format retail or superstore uses, and (2) a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for grocery and supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, the Moratorium effectively imposed a "pause" on any new Large Format Retail uses (which by definition include Superstores) City -wide, and Grocery uses in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2013, Council approved a 16 -month extension of the Moratorium and said Moratorium will expire on May 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, in order to further the City's General Plan vision for the City's long -range physical and economic development, the City evaluated the potential impacts of new Superstore use in the City and Grocery and Supermarket use in the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, given the changes in the retail sector, it is necessary that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to regulate larger retail establishments appropriately; and WHEREAS, there is a national trend toward increasing the size of retail outlets and diversity of products offered at such large -scale discount stores; and WHEREAS, Superstore uses typically combine a large variety of discount general merchandise with full- service grocery sales under one root thereby often generating more intense land use and environmental impacts than other large -scale retailers; and -30- WHEREAS, the establishment of Superstores in the City is likely to negatively impact the vitality and economic viability of the City's neighborhood commercial centers by drawing sales away from traditional supermarkets located in these centers; and WHEREAS, industry and academic studies indicate Superstores rarely add any retail services currently not provided within a community, and that the majority of sales growth at a Superstore comes from a direct shift of spending within a community, which can depress sales and reduce employment at both existing retailers and grocery stores; and WHEREAS, Superstores compete directly with existing grocery stores that anchor neighborhood- serving commercial centers; and WHEREAS, smaller stores within a neighborhood center rely upon the foot traffic generated by the grocery store for their existence and in neighborhood centers where the grocery store closes, vacancy rates typically increase and deterioration takes place throughout the commercial center; and WHEREAS, typical Superstore design often adversely affects the viability of small - scale, pedestrian - friendly neighborhood commercial areas, contributing to blight in these areas; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to preserve the City's existing downtown and neighborhood- serving shopping centers centrally located within the community, and WHEREAS, the City's current distribution of neighborhood shopping centers and the downtown area provides convenient shopping and employment in close proximity to most residential zoning districts in South San Francisco, consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the distribution of shopping, grocery, and employment creates a land use pattern that reduces the need for vehicle trips and encourages walking and biking for shopping, groceries, services, and employment; and WHEREAS, the development of Superstores within the City would concentrate retail sales around that superstore's location, which would depress the neighborhood shopping centers and downtown area in the City that, thus far, have evenly dispersed sales and provided walkable, pedestrian - friendly community amenities throughout the City using the concept of neighborhood based retail centers; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting Superstores, prevents the likelihood of reduced retail sales, depressed employment and wages, and possible closures or vacancies in neighborhood based retail centers consistent with professional and academic analysis; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting Superstores, serves as a means for protecting South San Francisco's neighborhood - serving and downtown shopping areas; and -31- WHEREAS, this Ordinance, by prohibiting the establishment of Grocery and Supermarket uses in the East of 101 Area, where no residential uses currently exist or are permitted, will ensure that the daily needs of the City's residents are available by shorter vehicle trips and to pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to protect grocery stores in existing neighborhood centers to prevent a significant change in land use, employment, and traffic patterns throughout the City; and WHEREAS, City staff developed the Zoning Ordinance ( "Ordinance ") text amendment ( "Amendment ") to remove the land use potential for future Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area and to prohibit Superstore use City -wide; and WHEREAS, said Amendment revises or adds definitions and regulations for Convenience Market, Grocery Store, Supermarket, Large Format Retail, and Superstore uses to the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental -Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment; WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for the required 45 -day public comment period on January 8, 2014 and ended on February 24, 2014 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held .a lawfully noticed public hearing on February 6, 2014 to solicit public comment and consider the DEIR, take public testimony, and provide Commission input on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, two (2) comments were received on the document and a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments ("FEIR ") was prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR and FEIR OUR "), and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, on March 20, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the -32- Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Retail Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed March 20, 2014 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. Exhibit A attached to this Resolution — Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments &hLbit A — is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. By Resolution No. , the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council find that an EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the Project. B. Zoning Amendments: Prohibit Superstore Use City -wide & Prohibit Grocery Use East of 101 As Well As Other Associated Amendments to Definitions The proposed zoning district change is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, it does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City's overall vision for community development, economic vitality, neighborhood -based retail and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction. None of the new or revised definitions and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the prohibition of Superstore use City -wide and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 -33- Area will remove potential uses from a large number of commercially zoned parcels. In this case, however, there is no particular subject property to examine as it would require speculation to determine which specific parcels could potentially be affected by the proposed text amendment. Staff has determined that the prohibition of Superstore use City -wide is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to land use and economic vitality. Furthermore, prohibiting Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area, where residential uses are not allowed, helps ensure the economic health of both the downtown and neighborhood commercial centers by only keeping grocery retailers near residential neighborhoods, where strong existing travel - mode connections exist. 3. The proposed change of zoning district is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the proposed text amendment removes certain uses from certain zoning districts in the City. More specifically, the text amendment prohibits Superstore use City -wide and Grocery and Supermarket uses within the East of 101 Area. Rather than be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zoning district, the proposed text amendment will preserve the economic vitality of surrounding commercial areas by preserving existing neighborhood - retail centers that are often anchored by a grocery or supermarket retailer. Professional analysis by Seifel Consulting, Inc indicates that the proposed text amendment will not have any likely detrimental impact to the City's other zoning districts or zoning districts impacted by the text amendment. - Finally, the proposed text amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the proposed text amendment will support the public interest, as detailed in the General Plan's economic development and land use elements. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code, as attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 20th day of March, 2014 by the following vote: -34- AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim and Commissioner Zemke NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: --- �-64z= Susy K Secretary to the Planning Commission -35- EXHIBIT A PROPOSED LARGE FORMAT RETAEL /SUPERSTORE/FOOD & BEVERAGE ZONING ORDINANCE 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: httv://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicylus.com/index.aspx?NIOD=367 (Additions are identified in underline and deletions in swle6mu ) 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 Marker. 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 shmeats with long or late hours of operation and in a #ems building that is less than 5,000 er ss_square feet. This classification includes small retail stones located on the same parcel as or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include de}iopussees or-specialty food shops. fmah out OWPA. Grocery Store, 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, dgky, 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 propared 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. 3. Revise "Retail Sales" definitions (SSFMC Chapter 20.620.004 — Commercial Use Classifications) to differentiate between "General Sales", "Firearm Sales", "barge Format Retail', and "Superstore ". Create a new definition for "Superstore ". Retail Sales. General Sales. 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 -36- 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 fim that sell merchandise and/or bulk goods primari ly for individual consumption, including, but not limited to department stores, home imQroyement stores, membership warehouses eh+bs -a - supemeres which emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and other big box format stores Lame 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. SXnerstom 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 di¢ counted price. 11ey are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically feature a full- service food and beverat*e retail sales area that exceeds five thousand 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). 4. 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 PROHIBITION ON NEW SUPERSTORES Sections: 20.430.001 Purpose and Intent 20.430.002 Definitions 20.430.003 % eistores Prohibited 20.430.004 Violation and Enforcement 20.430.001 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. 4 .2013) 20.430.002' Definitions -37- The words and phrases included in this section shall have the following meanings, unless it is clearly apparent from the context that another Mqgning is intended: "Superstore" means retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales areal that serve as one- stop shopping, destination by offering a wide variety of p ods and merchandise, of%n offered at a discount. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales Superstores typically feature a full-semee food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds five thousand square feet of the Wss floor area, and could include a delicatessm baked goods, frozen foods, fruits. ventables. 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). Some superstores Ma also include gas stations as part of their center. (Ord. § . 2013) 20.430.003 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 ap�uoved 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 apublic 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) 20.430.004 Violation and Enforcement The establishment. maintenance or operation of a superstore in violation o£ or in noncompliance with any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable �rovisions of the Zoning Code or South San Francisco Municipal Code, shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the City's 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. 4 .20131 -38- 5. Update the applicable use tables throughout the Zoning Ordinance as ideindfiied 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. Use Classification Ice G BPt) CUIX EC'RMY Additional Regulations Commercial Uses (cont'd) Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub - classifications below P F(9) P D Convenience Market P P(9) P P See Section 20.350.014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P PP) P P Off-Priee Merchandise Sunermarkei P � P P Second Hand Store 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 G 113PO C I WRM.X I Additional Regulations Commercial Uses (cont'd) Retail Sales Sec sub - classifications below General Sales P - P P Large Format Retail C - - C See Section 20.350.923024 Large Format Retail Off-Priee Merchandise C - C Second Hand Store C - IC Ic -39- 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 DRI3 Addit'r®nal Regulatiom Commere al Uses (cont'd) Food and Beverage Retail See sub - classifications below Sales n r P See Section 20.350.913014 Convenience Market Grocery Store 1' 1 - —C U1 See Section Convenience Market C C - - - 20.350.9014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - - Suaermarket P P d. Table 20.110.002 — Land Use Regulations - Employment Districts: Add subclassifications below `Food and Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarit- where in the City each of these uses are permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted. rse Classification BC IBTP IFC- MI Jxkd4itional Regulatidns . Commertial Uses (cant'd) Food and Beverage Retail Sales See Sub - classifications below D NRJP E G Convenience Market P P _ P See Section 20.350.913014 Convenience Market Grocery Store 1' 1 - —C U1 Supermarket Limitations: 1. Prohibited east of 101 -40- 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 Chmification 3C B �FC Mi Additional Regulation Commercial' Uscs (corWd) Retail Sales See sub - classifications below General Sales P P P P P Firearm Sales - - - C P Large Format Retail P - P - See Section 20.350.924 220Large Format Retail Second Hand Store C - - Swap Meet IC - IC f. Table 20.250.003 — Land Use Regulations - Transit Village Sub - Districts: Add subclassifications below "Food and Beverage Retail Sales" to further clarifj 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 [lees Permitted IV-C ITC-R TV -R3vI. TV R11 l Commercial Use Classifications Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub - classifications below Convenience Market P C - See Section 20.350.943014 Convenience Market Grocer„ ►Store P P = - Supermarket P P -41- 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 P.Bnmittcei HC.. ; 'EGR/C -MU4 PCWC -RH Commercial Lrse Classifications See sub - classifications Food and Beverage Retail Sales P P - Convenience Market P P See Section 20.350.81-3014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P = supermarket P P = 2252523.1 -42- ■ Qs z* a Id b fd lid li • S -43- Bibliography List of Academic and Professional Studies Bay Area Economic Forum. (2004). Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts. Retrieved from htti-):,,.'www.bqyareaeconpmy.org/niedi i, "filesipcit PPRSCs reenl l 2.ydf. Boarnet, Marlon and Randall Crane. (1999). The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances. Prepared for the Orange County Business Council. Retrieved from hqp: / /www.wdxwhb.ufcw770.org/ sites/ all/themes /danland/files/BiLBoxGrocerspdf. Ellickson, Paul B. and Paul L.E. Grieco. (2012). Wal-Mart and the Geography of Grocery Retailing. Journal of Urban Economics, 75, 1 -14. Retrieved from hM://www.econ.psu.edu/—plgl5/SgpgEmpDi st.pdf. Public Law Research Institute. (2004). California Responses to Supercenter Development. Prepared for the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Retreived from http: / /Rov.uchastings.edu/ public - law/ docs/ Supercenter9 /o20rgport%202004.R Seifel Consulting — Commissioned by the City of South San Francisco. (2012). Superstore Economic Impact Analysis. Seifel Consulting — Commission by the City of South San Francisco. (2014). Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments far Large Format Retail, Superstore and Food and Beverage Retail Sales Uses. US Bureau of the Census. (2009). Mom and Pop Meet Big Box: Complements or Substitutes. Retrieved from httv:/ /papers.ssm.com/sol3 /Vaners.cfin ?abstract id= 1491529. -44- �W •a a° IS-s.� y� AR ASCEND 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 .................................................................. ............................... ............................vii 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 ........................................................................................... ............................2 -1 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 Large Format RetaiVSuperstore/ Food& Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 7 REFERENCES Appendices A Notice of Preparation B NOP Comments C Environmental Checklist D Superstore Economic Impact Analysis E Traffic Memo F Seifel Memo Exhibits Exh i bit 2 -1 Exhibit 2 -2 Exhibit 2 -3 Exh i bit 3.2 -1 Exhibit 3.3 -1 Tables Table S -1 Table 2 -1 Table 3.1 -1 Table 3.2 -1 Table 3.2 -2 Table 3.2 -3 Table 3.2 -4 Table 3.4 -1 A 7 -1 RegionalLocation ............................................................................................ ............................2 -2 ProjectArea ................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -3 AffectedParcels ............................................................................................... ............................2 -5 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County ........................................ ..........................3.2 -3 2005 South San Francisco Community -Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector......................................................................................................... ............................... 3.3 -2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................... ............................... Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R &D Uses South San Francisco ...................... ............................... CommercialTrip Rates ................................................................. ............................... Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ................. ............................... Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality ( 2010 - 2012 )1 ............................. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................ ............................... Attainment Status Designations for San Mateo County ............ ............................... General Plan Consistency ............................................................ ............................... Laigo rUuuai noiau aupmawio FUUU a oovoiago ILUuuig viuwaueo C ............... 2 -6 ............3.1 -7 ............3.2 -1 ............3.2 -2 ............3.2 -4 ............3.2 -5 ............ 3.4 -4 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 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 PM so 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 Sam Trans 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 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(a), "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. 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 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. 9J i N i 7 N cc (D cc roman _ cc cc R Q. E 0 cc E E 7 N OW4 ?-, N c E E O �U c R c to 0 (% U +' c O� c O� � ry > W > W � > W > W Q fA N fA N N C fA N � C U � C U O U � a N U 6 a z C � O Co T z �co O T z �co co T co � co O Co T z �co (n E c E C E C E C (6 (6 J ._ (6 (6 i N (C bA O O O O E E E E O O O O z z z z o U) c co U) c + m° w U) c w w w m c F- c c E c c C) _ (a c _ (a T' _ tj m T -6 -6 a �= N M -0 N (6 U O N (6 — T (6 �� ofn -o ofn -o (n T -o ofn -o �p C Uco C C Uco U(a C (n Z co (6 0 z co (6 � b.A (6 � z Q (6 � E E U) E } C N U N N C O O N a 0 C6 U O m E Q.y � Z3 - oC a ' 3 75 2 co c ° o o a n c N N ° W U Z3 O N C E > O N Z (D O ( N-E a C E N N � O _C A N .O EW � Z — U N�� m U) C (o C N c6 a M Qj a�i!CO �0E.E0� U)i� o (n N m m � oa`�i�oa bQO noo�°�`� °� c.� ° o�� Q +� aEiO 2 a� � � °� m O � Q(n ° cn c ca aoi c c a� 3 Q N° N nn c 0 o� (a � c c o.E O O? c E E rn 0 o � O co N } U t C3 N b 0 T W (n (n (n 0 U N O 0 T cn E c - co 2 N Co bA U U U O E E E E O O O O z z z z U) m o b�0 O (n (n (n • N � — N in O Qco� z E o E o oao o 0 au 5 � � co o M L -+ 2 �' + c6 c6 fA Q > + c q > ao b D +� U N N L :! o co O O N 7 E o U N m =C Vi m— E m� qp -6 c6 c + 2 N a t�� 1 E N } c N +� a� co +, NoEoc)cn�c�+,po O� U) =. bC: n >Ea� �—> -0-0= Q W C O O O -6 O 3: U) H O CO3 O u C3 U _ > E a a m � o C) o a N p bA c c O c co N a .� v! O O O N +' •� -p E O }' c p c +� U O N 0 cA (n to c) O +� w C -O -6 U O N E E •C - U Z3 ron � .� U) 0o ac a3 0 c o 0 -0 -E ig a) o o o �o o Q o � U O D o = o O 0 c o �- o tl o R N o N N N 6 N :2 . O O 0 E o 0 p c co a .E +� C3 ' = O Q o co L , O Q O a uN � c a O U cc _0 _a 0 3 co E -0 c� o c o +, � o w o W t0 U 0 5 o o. O Co 3: <E° a Q° R � °O co �o U+a, � Eoc it, -0> _ O O c c+ a— Q °p Q N Q o� Q O Q N U w O N E Q) N N N N. +O+ Q 6 E E o c O -O d U) � c6 co O c co N O NC c 7 N +� O O 5 o mo = o f Q W co O H _6 L E — co co O u0i D o N— co O C3 m o co d 0 p N c CO3 = +� .� Q U O OQ U O = c a w 0 c +o—, +, O U P' y c o c co — O O o �� 'E u) Z3 -0 CD o o v a�i a� o °�_ � +� Q o N � a° o O O a� N c (3 c c o N co co r I i '— N O C U U .0 � .o fV Oy c R o N' U co W -0 Q— co a Q + N O 1++ TNC3.o+ co— cow �~ o- Q� y +� 6 Qc c co t0�+ U 6 .c? o 0 6 p O a c N a N O ,� O c O N coo — V +� O N 0 a=i N� E O +, -U) O U O M B = m p m 13 uN ) O U U C-) co O M n o O U N ' C o T Q cn a o > Q . a o o c > c a a cU o m M O _a N - W Q'- M 5E W c a� -Ea c E a U cc 0 un c N 'QO m co L 0 d U cc C. H to •C •E � tq R E o oon o 3 U c E E rn O •U c to 0 cn U C O N co co O N } U t C3 0 N � T � W 0 U N O 0 T (n E c _ co 2 N Co O � � Cc b}A N N L C C O O bA bA E E O O z z U) o U W m O C (6 b6 N N V) O Q(aC3 z E O Q U) M Co — X d 0 O U>> 6 0 O _ c i } co 6 O N O co O co NU) to c +�-� c U b.A N? y i X U u) O Q N 0 O N EO W 0 a) c6 C'3 � U T� O� N 0 c� c U) N N� O� � b�.0 Z3 U c� Q� �� Q co U) +� to U co +� O Z U .� co + c E 6 N N a) 0 N c c = �, U) O N _ N co U) _6 N .(6 U C (6 O coo 7 0 bccA U t O p N U u) U Q N +' bA'� +' co 0 U u) (o C N O O o E U O � O c co '� E c co co 0 z3 co n U N 0 i bA C _ U O d � d C u) -c62 �"'' i C U y 2L U) N to a (6 N H — a--� U x a--� +- O Q p N N O O u) c p O v R rj O .— tA 1 c N � oU O b0 c =- U U co — +: co Co 6� I c6 U co N N +, W N WO N YaA 6 u) E Q O U O> O N co U) i W 0 C 3 co cA 0° ' co E O � � N c p c6 O T N u) O E d Q N - N N 4-- O 6 N 6 N 6 U_ d N Q 6 N _6 + U- E— N� c z3 .0 O C D -6 U �_ N .O U E (6 -6 u) 'p N m O IS LLJ CO (6 -O O N TH + D E A N c N N O c Z3 N N U N O N T H W a E 0 0 � �� N N c n p Q N u) — N Q o a c -mo u) E ~ +, O > 0 Q ) U O Q Q a 00 co � rl Z, > co N N> 6 T O c 0 0 > 6 +� a p O O O 0 (6 (6 (6 •• E O m L O Q rl Q O i U E E E N Q E CO T 0 Co a� E E E E ° � Q � � c E E o Q o c N o +� O O 0 O O � O W O N N O OU 6 .6 N 0 � N D O •U c to 0 cn U 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(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 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. 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[a] 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 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities and Service Systems 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 intrust forth e 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 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 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 OFTHIS 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. 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. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 1 -8 City of South San Francisco 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. `1 •Oroville 49 Glenn r r � Colusa Lake - Nevada Yuba City City 80 Marysville 5 49 70 Clearlake 113 Auburn 16 — 99 Roseville 50 e Folsom W odland Calistoga SACRAMENTO 49 Davi Santa Rosa 10 acav Ile s lone Ja son 101 Napa Fairfield Galt 88 160 99 12 Novato • 37 SoJano Lo i 49 San r afael �� STOCKTON Cunha Berkeley Costa Project Location SAN FRANCISCO Oakland Daly City Livermore Modesto 94 •Haywa San ateo Turlock 101 1 Sunnyvale SAN JOSE 90 Merced 101 PACIFIC OCEAN Los Banos Gilroy 152 Santa Cruz Watsonville Hollister Marina Salinas Monterey 101 1 Big Sur 0 12.5 25 Approximate Scale in Miles CP12010067 01 001 Exhibit 2 -1 Regional Location OP ++ o 0 .E G o 0 U O � � U �p a y v _,o G Oc 0_ ao, Q° ru S 6 �A E� & 7/ a00 Y S , 5yoply Ava Gel \cl m v Y ,an O�Jd Jd T a Ga\ SkYline C7 W F U� �o Q w N N O LL G s Co — -7 c s y � � p li r6 t Qe d C tl Q O Qt o fA O O � P ♦� L 4C Y a X44 � N O ( J fn W o � m.r o d ebb a _ J 01 1 > a W o V) ♦ u m mr ♦ o a v_ 'rj O 7eh pvu a ^buaA u 3�dp,4 �a 4r C w p o u � y ` '^ ar,b oalow UCS ,ae LL b eraAu �7 �\�Ye S y e A o b nrtl N� B P, m N= IL u a c D U m O w °^ b lrrp+sa4J J, , P 10 "'di d s b �445i a y v _,o G Oc 0_ ao, Q° ru S 6 �A E� & 7/ a00 Y S , 5yoply Ava Gel \cl m v Y ,an O�Jd Jd T a Ga\ SkYline C7 W F U� �o Q w G s Co — -7 c s y � � x li b t Qe Z aea V) Q O o a � P ♦� L 4C Y o V C m.r +C _ 1 W o V) 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. M r-I 4 N c 0 U N U C s N U ro LL III /JIIT� ,n V O O 0 d y }O co') W 6 0 ue�a V c IL N 4a co v 0 o N Q Y in V ❑ A 7A. ?� 04 0 4E•n�a r� Off£ •. �2 O N 7th AV* �• �u��b' r Sa ape ,fib ui u N 9�P�e .� a' AV `ate tnN r ,^ b angoalrW UCR U. uaPur7 3 e A O a ^b °rue, HJnUn91 JQ m m G9 m' ✓ =a a c 'a °b ° c s 150 A G r `Pob a Jae = a4 eG m p ' _0 O `P - ❑ o; 0 a ❑ c /■ aby ca r`hS pf /� nasi N r,- '_c per• 4 #° R it ` Qi °o V/ t •` � -7� r N X_ o _ O O M. CO 'C c U>•, E E o M o ynf,ty Avn 'O U m U W LL `,GC`0�.1 c G6 ' `` B��d d N D w - o v 1 K W a 11an a Ga � Skyline e Q u c ° Project Description 2.3.2 Allowed Uses Ascent Environmental 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. Table 2 -1 Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R &D Uses South San Francisco Use Classification Community Commercial (CC) El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Business Commercial (BC) Freeway Commercial (FQ Proposed Amendments 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, Major C Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor MUP 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 Recreation See sub - classifications 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 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 2 -6 City of South San Francisco Ascent Environmental Project Description rWV Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R &D Uses South San Francisco Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR City of South San Francisco 2 -7 Community Commercial El Camino Real Business Freeway Use Classification (CC) Mixed Use Commercial Commercial Proposed Amendments (ECRMX) (BC) (FQ See sub - classifications Eating and Drinking Establishments 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 See sub - classifications Sub - classifies food and beverage Food and Beverage Retail Sales below. retail sales categories Adds new classification and Convenience Market P P P 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 See sub - classifications Lodging 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 See sub - classifications Offices 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) See sub - classifications Personal Services below. General Personal Services P P P P Massage Establishments C C C Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P C See sub - classifications Modifies classifications and adds Retail Sales below. new categories General Sales P P P P Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR City of South San Francisco 2 -7 Lble2-1 Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for Commercial and R &D Uses 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 bythe 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 underelevated 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 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 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,,,,rd OR os+ahrShmor+S with long or late hours of operation and in a relatively sFR building that is less than 5.000 gross sauare feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as 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 bythe 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 underelevated 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 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 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,,,,rd OR os+ahrShmor+S with long or late hours of operation and in a relatively sFR building that is less than 5.000 gross sauare feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include de I icateSseRS orspecialty food shops. 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 FormatRetai/. Retail establishments over 80,000 square feet in size Of Sales aFea 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 sauare 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 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 reauirements 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. Ascent Environmental Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations Commercial Uses (cont'd) Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub - classifications below ° D(q) P P Convenience Market P — P(9) P — P — See Section 20.350.014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P RL911 P P Off -Price Merchandise Supermarket P RL911 P P Second Hand Store 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 - Large Format Retail C - - C See Section 20.350.02-2024 Large Format Retail Off -Price Merchandise C - - C P 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 Sales See sub - classifications below ° P Convenience Market C C - - - See Section 20.350.013014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - - - Supermarket P P - - - 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 nni P , P G S Convenience Market P P _ P See Section 20.350.94:3014 Convenience Market Grocery Store ELL - 9-L CUU Supermarket ELL - 9-L - See Section 20.350.9024 Large Format Retail 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 TV -C TC -R TV -RM TV -RH Commercial Use Classifications Food and Beverage Retail See sub - classifications below P P Sales See Section 20.350.93014 Convenience Market P C _ Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - - Supermarket P P - - 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 I ECR /C -MXM ECR /C -RH Commercial Use Classifications Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub - classifications _P _ - Convenience Market P p _ See Section 20.350.83014 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P - Supermarket P P - Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 2 -14 City of South San Francisco 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. 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. 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. 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 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 LOSE or F after finding that: r There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and r 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. 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). 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. 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). Forth e 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. Table 3.1 -1 Commercial Trip Rates I 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 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. 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 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. 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. Table 3.2 -1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants 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 Table 3.2 -1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute' Health Effects Chronic' 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, (PM1o), 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 JI&AL-IMSummary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2010 - 2012)1 2010 I 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) 1 36.5 1 39.7 1 34.3 Number of days national standard exceeded (measured2) I 1 I 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 1 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 of violations of the standard for the year. Source: ARB 2013b 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 0 c ,0 30 E W 20 10 0 Source: ARB 2013c. Exhibit 3.2 -1 ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 • Stationary Areawide • On -Road Vehicles • Other Mobile 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 (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. Table 3.2 -3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California National Standards' Standards23 PrimaV,4 SecondaV,5 1 -hour 0.09 ppm (180 pg/m3) - - Ozone 8 -hour 0.070 ppm (137 pg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 pg/m3) Same as Primary Standard 1 -hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) - Carbon monoxide (CO) 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 matter (PM1o) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 pg/m3 - Same as Primary Standard 24 -hour 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 pg/m3 12.0 pg/m3 Same as Primary Standard 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 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 3.2 -4 City of South San Francisco Ascent Environmental Air Quality le_32;T Summary of Ambient Air Qu ndards State Designation Averaging California National Standards' Pollutant Time Standardsz,3 Primary3,4 Secondary3s Sulfates 24 -hour 25 pg/m3 No Hydrogen Sulfide 1 -hour 0.03 ppm (42 pg/m3) S02 Attainment Attainment Vinyl Chloride 7 24 -hour 0.01 ppm (26 pg/m3) National - Unclassified Sulfates Visibility- Reducing Attainment Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Standards Unclassified 8 -hour kilometer - visibility of 10 mi or Particle Matter 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 ugW). 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 Table 3.2 -4 Attainment Status Designations for San Mateo Count 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; PM,o = 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 Large Format Retail /Superstore /F & Beverage Zoning OrdinanceTe nendment Draft EIR City of South San Francisco 3.2 -5 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. 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. 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. 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, PM lo 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, PM lo 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. Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 3.2 -10 City of South San Francisco 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. Accordingto Cal- Adapt, a climate change scenario planningtool developed bythe 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. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 1% Source: City of South San Francisco 2013 Exhibit 3.3 -1 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal ■ Energy ■ Transportation ■ Stationary Sources ■ Off -road ■ Solid Waste Landfill Water and Wastewater 2005 South San Francisco Community -Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 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. 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). 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 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 Gases and Climate Change This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 3.3 -6 City of South San Francisco 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. 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). 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. 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 for the 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. 91 Table 3.4 -1 General Plan Consist General Plan Policy Is the Project Consistent? Consistency Discussion 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 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 3.4 -4 City of South San Francisco Land Use and Planning 3.4 -1 General Plan 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: Ascent 2013 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. 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. 4 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15126.6(a) 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(a). 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[a] [3].) 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[a]). 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. 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. 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 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR City of South San Francisco 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 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 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. Alternatives This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 4 -8 City of South San Francisco 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, GROWTH INDUCEMENT, AND OTHER CEQA- REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130(a) 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(a)(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); 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 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. Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement, Other CEQA- Required Considerations This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 5 -4 City of South San Francisco 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 OFTHE 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 Large Format RetaiVSuperstore/ Food& Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR 6 -2 City of South San Francisco 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. 2013a. 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. 2013a. 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. 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. 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 / Superstore Zoning Text Amendments Lead Ag_ency: Agency Name: I City of South San Francisco Planning Division Street Address: 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: I Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner susy.kalkin @ssf.net The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. Ascent Environmental, Inc. has been retained by the City to prepare the EIR. We are seeking input from the public and agencies as to the 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, South San Francisco, CA. Please send any written response to Susy Kalkin at the address shown above. Please provide a contact name for your comments. Project Title: Large Format Retail / Superstore Zoning Text Amendments Project Description & Scoping: The proposed Zoning Amendments include changes to remove the potential for future grocery store uses within the East of 101 planning sub -area and to prohibit "Superstore" use city -wide. The East 101 planning sub -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 proposed Zoning Amendment would resolve this potential planning conflict by eliminating potential grocery uses from the East of 101 planning sub -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 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 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 v6thin 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 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 4 111 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 23660, MS -10 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -6053 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov November 13, 2013 Ms. Susy Kalkin Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: 6. L ., I Flex your power! Be energy efficient! /VV t SM101476 '�' SCH# 2013112011 Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendment — Notice of Preparation Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above project. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. As the lead agency, the City of South San Francisco (City) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document. Required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the state right of way (ROW), and Caltrans will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the City work with both the applicant and Caltrans to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the environmental process, and in any case prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Traffic Impact Study One of Caltrans' ongoing responsibilities is to collaborate with local agencies to avoid, eliminate, or reduce to insignificant levels potential adverse impacts to the state highway system from local development projects. We recommend using the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS Guide) for determining which scenarios and methodologies to use in the analysis. We encourage the City to coordinate preparation of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please include the information detailed below in the TIS to ensure that project - related impacts to state roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. The TIS Guide is available at the following website: http: / /www. dot. ca. gov/hq /tpp/ offices/ ocp /igr_cega_files /tisguide.pdf. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Ms. Susy Kalkin/City of South San Francisco November 13, 2013 Page 2 The TIS should include: I. 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 identified. 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 plus project scenarios. Calculation of cumulative traffic 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 Caltrans 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), average 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 geometrics, 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 control that 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 Permits, 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 the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information. http: / /www.dot.ca. og v/hg /traffops /develo sn ery /permits/ Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra finegan&dot.ca. ov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ERIK ALM, AICP District Branch Chief Local Development — Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" C /CAG DEC 0 6 2013 CITY /COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay - HillsboroughWenlo Park - Millbrae Pacifica • Portola Valley - Redwood City San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County -South San Francisco • Woodside December 4, 2013 Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Susy: 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 in the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above - referenced document. The following are C /CAG staff comments regarding potential airport land use compatibility issues related to the content of the proposed zoning text amendments. Proiect Description The project for CEQA review is an administrative action by the City of South San Francisco to amend the text in the City's Zoning Ordinance to (1) remove the potential for future grocery store uses within the East of 101 planning subarea and (2) to prohibit "superstore" uses citywide. As stated in the NOP, "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 action does not include a proposed commercial/retail development project nor a general plan amendment. Airport Land Use Compatibility Issues The key airport land use compatibility issues in the environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) include: (1) airport noise, (2) safety (runway safety zones), and (3) 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 land uses in the environs of SFO, as discussed below and on the next page. Airport Noise Compatibility. Table IV -1 on p. IV -18 in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport November 2012 document indicates commercial/retail land uses area compatible in all airport noise contour levels (Below 65 dB, 65 -70 dB, 70 -75 dB, and 75 dB and over), as measured with the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metric. The content of the proposed zoning text amendments would not change these airport noise compatibility criteria. 555 County Center, 4" Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHONE: 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 Left/Right 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 of San 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 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San 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 of 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. Proposed Action Does Not Require Formal ALUC /C /CAG Review 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, aproposed 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 about these comments, please contact me at 650/599 -1453, T -TH or via email, at dcarbonena smegov.org Sincere ,l Da ' . Carbone, C /CAG Staff cc: Sandy Wong, C /CAG Executive Director John Bergener, Manager, SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs CCAGstaffcomletSSFNOPcomzoningamendments 1213.docx 555 County Center, 4b 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: lone The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least 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 DETERMINATION (To be completed bythe Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 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. 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. ❑ 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 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. 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. Ascent Environmental C.1 AESTHETICS 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. No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready addresses I. 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. 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/UewSignificantImpacts; 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. C.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES II. 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; No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready ❑ addresses II. 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 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/UewSignificantImpacts; 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. 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; General Plan EIR already 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. C.3 AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Significant Impacts; General Plan 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 (Os), 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 (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 /UewSignificant impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The project e I i m i n ates superstores 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. C.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significantwith Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Significant Impacts; General Plan 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 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 forth e 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. 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/UewSignificantImpacts; General Plan E/R already addresses. The project involves a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would prohibits uperstores 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. C.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; 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 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 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. C.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significantwith Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Significant Impacts; General Plan ElRalready addresses M. 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. 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 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 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) 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? No/UewSignificantImpacts; 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 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 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. Accordingto Cal- Adapt, a climate change scenario planningtool developed bythe 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). 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. Accordingto Cal- Adapt, a climate change scenario planningtool developed bythe 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). Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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% 3% 2% Source: City of South San Francisco 2013 Figure 3.3 -1 Discussion ■ Energy ■Transportation 48% ■ Stationary Sources ■ Off -road ■ Solid Waste ■ Landfill Water and Wastewater 2005 South San Francisco Community -Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 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. City of South San Francisco Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C -23 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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. City of South San Francisco C -24 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact ElRalready ❑ addresses VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project 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 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). Ascent Environmental 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 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; Genera /PianE /R a /read}, 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 wildlands? No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. Th e proposed a me n d me nt d i rects th 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 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 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impacts; 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ City of South San Francisco C -28 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study 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 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 1®® 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 1OO -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}, addresses. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would prohibit superstore use citywide. This amendment would not directly result in 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. C. 10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; 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 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? PotentiaiiySignificantimpact 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 Significant impacts; Genera /P/anE/R a lready addresses. 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. C.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 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; General Plan 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. No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; 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; General Plan 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. Ascent Environmental C.12 NOISE 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 (d B). 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 No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready addresses )(II. 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 (d B). 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 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. City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standards A 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/UewSignificantImpacts; 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 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/UewSignificantImpacts; 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. C.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING XIII. 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/Ralready 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. No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready addresses XIII. 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/Ralready 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. C.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 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? No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impacts; 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. 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; General Plan E/R already addresses. The proposed zoning amend men 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. 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. Environmental Checklist C.15 RECREATION 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 zoning amend men 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. No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; 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 zoning amend men 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. Ascent Environmental C.16 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC Environmental Checklist b) Conflictwith an applicable congestion management program, ® ❑ No New ❑ Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; General Plan Impact Incorporated Impact EIRalready addresses XM. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing ® ❑ ❑ ❑ measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in system, taking into account all modes of transportation including substantial safety risks? mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, ❑ ❑ streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? equipment)? b) Conflictwith 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 City of South San Francisco Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C -43 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 I -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. 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/UewSignificantImpacts; 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 NewSignificantimpacts; 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. Environmental Checklist C.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Ascent Environmental 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 City of South San Francisco Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Significant Impacts; General Plan ElRalready addresses XVII. 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 City of South San Francisco Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study 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 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. C.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador WaterAgency(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upho iding the Downtown Plan v. Cityand County of San 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 No New Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant Impacts; 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 (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador WaterAgency(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upho iding the Downtown Plan v. Cityand County of San 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 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. 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. Appendix D Superstore Economic Impact Analysis REPORT Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of South San Francisco October 2012 Seifel CONSULTING INC. 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 I. Introduction ................................... :.................................................... i II. Market Area ........................................................ ............................... 3 A. Market Area Definition ........................................................................................ ..............................3 B. Overview- of Competitive Supply ........................................................................ ..............................6 C. Demographic and Economic Trends ................................................................... .............................12 III. 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 1 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 ...................... ............................... 11 Table of Tables Table 1 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 City of South San Francisco Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 I. 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 term 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 " Supercenter" 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 onsite butcher. They also sell a full assortment of dairy products, dry foods, ingredients, and frozen foods and often have an in -store pharmacy. 2 httn :'.Icorporate.walmart.com/our -story/our- stores/united- states- stores City of South San Francisco Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 In 1995, Target Corporation opened its first superstore, called SuperTarget.3 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 .4,5 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 MuniServices • 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 http :! /sites.target.com.!ima eg s corporate'about/pdfs /target history timeline.pdf 4 hgp:/, 'i3ressroom.target.com/corporate 5 htip : / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Target Corporation City of South San Francisco 2 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 II. 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 (I -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 Definition 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). 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 a Primary Market Area (2 mi) j/.- I Community Market Area (3.5 mi)�_ I Regional Market Area (8 mi) \ \ \ I 1 I �I Sah Francisco Bay i f Pacific Ocean *Potential Superstore O San Mateo County 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 Miles City of South San Francisco 4 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Primary Market Area (PMA) The PMA 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 CMA 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 stores 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.10 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." ' Brett and Schmitz (2009). "Real Estate Market Analysis Methods and Case Studies." Urban Land Institute. S h_ptt : / /www.f ni.ore,' research - resources /supermarket -facts (Retrieved 10/23/12) 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 CMA 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 full- service grocery store, and portions of Colma, 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 while 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 Colma, 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 10`h Street,and the Daly City Target at 133 Serramonte Center. No Wahmart 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 1 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 CMA. City of South San Francisco Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. 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 CMA 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 Grand 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 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 to other grocery stores. Three discount grocery stores and four discount stores /membership clubs with grocery are located within the PMA and/or CMA: • Grocery Outlet, 125 Hickey Boulevard, South San Francisco • Pak'n Save, 2255 Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco • Smart & Final, 249 Kenw•ood Way, South San Francisco • Costco, 451 South Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco • Costco, 1600 El Camino Real, South San Francisco • Target, 5001 Junipero Serra, Colma • Target, 1150 El Camino Real, San Bruno The RMA includes additional discount store /membership clubs with grocery, including the following: • Costco, 450 loth 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 as part 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." 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. 11 http: 'supermarketnews.com/latest- news /target - expand- food - offering- new- stores (Retrieved 10,12/12.) 12 hgp:Nwww.dailyfinance.com/ 2012 ;06,`14 /the - future -of- target- more - food- more -city- stores - more- tar -zha (Retrieved 10/12,'12.) 13 http : /.'southsanfrancisco.patch.com articles /new- safeway_ plans -in -the- works, existing square foot estimates provided by Safeway Corporation representative. City of South San Francisco g Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Table 1 Grocery Stores Located in the Market Areas Superstore Economic Impact Analysis City of South San Francisco Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. October 2012 Distance to Proximate Location Name Address Miles Primary Market Area of Impact Discount Stores and Membership Clubs with Grocery 451 South Airport Blvd., South San Francisco 1.0 Costco Smart & Final 249 Kenwood Way, South San Francisco 1.4 Target 1150 El Camino Real, San Bruno 1.5 Conventional and Upscale Grocery 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 Ayar 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 Supermarket 1015 El Camino Real South San Francisco 1.6 Additional Stores in Community Market Area Discount Stores and Membership Clubs with Grocery 1600 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 2.4 Costco 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 Grocery Trader Joe's 301 Mclellan 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 Cite 1 3.4 City of South San Francisco Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. 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 mr) '.I{ -- ��'. �}:1 - 'fir.:. , _ •. r ='' i \ Ptimary Market Area .(2m \ 101 \♦ G Is I! - - - I San Francisco 1 \ PaQrfK SupelsYrartSa+ a1 Paa�¢er �rdez _. -.._ I Bay 't. _ �" - em>arke feway F Costco " v: Target." Potential Superstore Q City of South San Francisco O Conventional and Upscale Grocery Stores O Ethnic and Other Grocery Stores (5,000+ SF) ' 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ■ 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 3 Location of Costco and Target Stores in Regional Market Area Superstore Economic Impact Analysis * Potential Superstore O Costco ❑ Target (w/ Fresh Grocery) 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 ® City of South San Francisco Miles r 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).14 As each market area is a concentric ring around the potential store location, the data provided for the 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 Source: Claritas, California Department of Finance, Seifel Consulting Inc. 14Claritas 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 living 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 Population Annual 2000 2013 Growth Rate Primary Market Area 44,979 49,733 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 38 280 773 0.9% Source: Claritas, California Department of Finance, Seifel Consulting Inc. 14Claritas 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 living 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 PMA 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 CMA 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 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 PMA, CMA, RMA, and County, 2000 -2013 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Population Population Annual 2000 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 County 737,5861 770,4621 32 876 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 PMA, CMA, RMA, and County, 2000 -2013 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Source: Claritas, Seifel Consulting Inc. City of South San Francisco 13 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. October 2012 Households Annual 2000 2013 Growth Rate Primary Market Area 15,158 16,720 0.8% Community Market Area 42,063 45,213 0.6% Regional Market Area 266,453 281,242 0.4% San Mateo County 254:2181 264:6151 0.3% Source: Claritas, Seifel Consulting Inc. City of South San Francisco 13 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. 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, CMA, RMA, and County, 2013 -2018 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis 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, CMA, RMA, and County, 2018 -2040 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 281,242 293,397 12,155 0.5% San Mateo County 264,6151 276,6351 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, CMA, RMA, and County, 2018 -2040 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Source: Claritas, ABAG TAZ Growth Projections, Seifel Consulting Inc. City of South San Francisco 14 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 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 65,453 0.9% San Mateo County 276,635 315,733 39,0981 0.6% 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, CMA, 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 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, CMA, RMA, 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 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 County 47.9 52.2 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, CMA, RMA, 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 Prima � Market Area Community Market Area Regional Market Area San Mateo County Less than $15,000 ],242 7.4% 2,828 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% $35.000449.999 2.009 12.0% 4.949 10.9% 28.303 10.1 °° 24.922 2AN 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% $.15.000499.999 2356 14.1% 6.806 15.1 37.806 13.4% 34-952 13.24 $50,000 - $100,000 5,888 35.2% 15,567 34.4% 82,740 29.4% ' 77,618 29.3% $100,000 4124,999 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- $199,000 1,240 ^.4% 3,792 8.4% 27,627 9.8% 27,401 10.4% $200.000 and Above M 5.424, 2.817 6.2% 29.680 10.6% 36.116 13.6% $100 000 and More 1 5.020 30.0% 15,804 35.0% 109.372 38.9% 113,435 42.9% Total Number of Households 16,7181 45,212 281,242 264 615 Median Household Income $68,0451 $75 016 $79 336. $86 501 Source: Claritas, Seifel Consulting Inc. 16 Source of data is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures Surveys. City of South San Francisco 15 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Since 2000, median household incomes in the PMA, CMA, 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 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 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 $79,336 $85,235 $21,611 1.6% San Mateo County $71 244 $86,5011 $94:5821 $2393381 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 -2018 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Source: ABAG TAZ Growth Projections, Seifel Consulting Inc. Table 11 Suburban Office- Worker Spending, 2011 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Store Type Average Spending per Year° Percent Department Stores $470 Annual Market Area Employment Sector 2013 2018 Difference Growth Rate Primary Market Area Agricultural and Natural Resources 120 116 -4 -0.6% Shoe Stores Manufacturing, Wholesale and Transportation 25,852 26,177 325 0.3% Electronics, Phone and Computer Stores Retail 3,364 3,435 71 0.4% Office Supplies, Stationar, Novelty Gifts and Cards Financial and Professional Services 9,465 10,254 790 1.61/o Other Goods (florist, non -food vendors, etc.) Health, Education and Recreation 7,637 8,370 '33 1.9% Total 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 74,257 77,590 3 32 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 1.6% 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 89,820 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 355,222 371,9361 16,7141 0.9% Source: ABAG TAZ Growth Projections, Seifel Consulting Inc. Table 11 Suburban Office- Worker Spending, 2011 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Store Type Average Spending per Year° 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% Total $5,303 100% a. Based on a spending survey of suburban office - workers conducted by ICSC in October 2011. Source: International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSQ, Seifel 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 Source: ABAG TAZ Growth Projections, Seifel Consulting hie. City of South San Francisco 18 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Annual Market Area Employment Sector 2018 2040 Difference Growth Rate 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 3,74" 312 0.4% Financial and Professional Services 10,254 13,72€ 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 9A92 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 95174 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 72,018 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% Total 1 371,936 445, 478 73.5421 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 III. 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 perfonnance 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 MuniServices. 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 Total Square Footage 150.000 Sales Per Square 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 II, 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 CMA (in constant 2012 dollars) Superstore Economic Impact Analysis 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 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 $222,936,965 $148,596,352 $230,849,765 $5,093,413 $7,912,800 Total Community Market Area (3.5 mile) Office Demandb $15,120,072 $16 23 8 706 $1,118,634 Total Demand $238,057,037 $247,088,471 $9,031,434 Average Sales /SF Supportable SF Supportable Grocery Square Footage Superstore` $433 20,858 Typical Su ermarketa $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 ABAG. 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 for a 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 I, 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 1 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. City of South San Francisco 21 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Thus, the analysis indicates that existing grocery retailers located in the CMA 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.19 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 nonmetropolitan 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." 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 Walmart 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. 12 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 Boarnet, 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." City of South San Francisco 22 Superstore Economic Impact Analysis Seifel Consulting Inc. October 2012 Table 15 Estimated Capture of Grocery Sales by Superstore in CMA (in constant 2012 dollars) Superstore Economic Impact Analysis 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, MuniSenices, International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Annual 10 -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 CMA. However, the impact on grocery retailers within various store categories will likely vary, as described in national research on the impact of Walmart supercenters, which has been the focus of economic research on the 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 PMA). This research also indicates that the impact of a new superstore is most intense for stores that are already in decline or poorly performing, and 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. Walmart's expansion into groceries has been distinct from its experience in the discount industry, where the primary casualties were small chains and sole proprietorships.24 23 The published economic research on the impact of superstores cited in this report focuses on the impact of Walmart Supercenters given 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). "Wal -Mart and the Geography of Grocery Retailing." City of South San Francisco 23 Seifel Consulting Inc. Superstore Economic Impact Analysis October 2012 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 80% of Sales 60% of Sales from CMA from CMA Projected New Superstore Sales Grocery Component of Superstore' $29,000,000 $29 000 000 Demand Captured by Superstore in CMA Percent of Demand From CMAb 80% 60% Demand From CMA 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 1 $222,936 965 Percent of CMA Demand Diverted to Superstore 8.4%1 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, MuniSenices, International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Annual 10 -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 CMA. However, the impact on grocery retailers within various store categories will likely vary, as described in national research on the impact of Walmart supercenters, which has been the focus of economic research on the 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 PMA). This research also indicates that the impact of a new superstore is most intense for stores that are already in decline or poorly performing, and 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. Walmart's expansion into groceries has been distinct from its experience in the discount industry, where the primary casualties were small chains and sole proprietorships.24 23 The published economic research on the impact of superstores cited in this report focuses on the impact of Walmart Supercenters given 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). "Wal -Mart and the Geography of Grocery Retailing." City of South San Francisco 23 Seifel 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. 25 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 I, no Walmart Supercenters or SuperTargets are located in the RMA. 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 Grand 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 CMA 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 Cohna 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 many 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 summary 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 north 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 them 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 Ailawadi, 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 & Poor'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. Boarnet, 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. "Wal -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. "Wal -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. 25:5.457 -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. CTGDecember 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. CTGDecember 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 f 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 CTGDecember 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) 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. CTGDecember 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 4 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Base SSF General Projection Plan Added Total Freeway Segment Ca acit (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. CTGDecember 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 CTGDecember 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 (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). 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 CTG 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 CTGDecember 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. CTGDecember 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 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 efsakes ape 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 npublic 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) r�ry 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.' ' 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 Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Seifel Consulting Inc. 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: • "Y' 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. • "( #)" 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.2 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. I 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/Industric s /Consumer - Products /Turn -ri sk- and - opportunities- into -re sults -- 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/re search/centers- initiatives / center - for - capital- markets /emerging- trends -in- real -e state /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). 5 http: / /pressroom.target.com/ news /san- franciscos- second- citytarget- opening - october -2013 ' 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, taking 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 - ?meiery d C iilr rn �cnl� =r nomeBNd inzss 11,�,1y ,ellrn Park H« C G1 i n 2 o a o °ni t 7 v o°nnsset Legend O City Limits Affected Parcels a Business Commercial Community Commercial - El Camino Real Mixed Use - Freeway Commercial 0 1,500 3,000 a °a 0 Feet anc rk B.-,: - 2013 G12-67 01002 Exhibit 1 Location of Affected Parcels by Zoning Designation 0 N ��s.de 8rva fxt v \ P Sign Be�Va HIII Park y ° v° as +R'AV° Q a v U arh Z n c v' yp X, al' +�rf •�]" 8atle"4yv rahC'4Ve ''� ' Fnrhe: Blvd � B r q"e'4"a 6fangy isr any Ln 3ratn S—th d¢ °°llr Mari �^ San Park Francisco P ^� 161 O - , Q• N Ganes ��' �r;,.a °'Ave . � a Calllorma � ° v i c, n Club v c -I San Fi.m a h F. 0 0� ex o' ° 5 1!. a „ a' aeF ya go, ,y'y y faP u Hntiws"'c v PVe�l�°; ut 9 `m g v -0 VIM c gr 5 an pus San C� 'F Bruno °jY' 1 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 Use Classification Community Commercial (CC) El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Business Commercial (BC) Freeway Commercial (FC) Proposed Amendments 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 AutomobileNchicle Sales and Services See sub - classifications below. AutoNchicle Rental MUP MUP (l) AutoNchicle Sales and Leasing MUP C C AutoNchicle Service and Repair, Major C AutoNchicle Service and Repair, Minor MUP AutoNchicle Washing MUP C(l) 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 Recreation We sub - classifications 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 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 below. Sub - classifies food and beverage retail sales categories Convenience Market P P P Adds new classification and modifies description Grocery Store P P PO) C(1) Adds new classification, new description and prohibits use in East of 101 Area. Supermarket P P PO) C(1) 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 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 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 Superstore Adds 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 opemtion 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 - 1 j, ....'!.- QQ����bA'n'TT�lM.af'. will TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ ............................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS ......................................................... ............................i -1 1.1 Purpose of this Document .............................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.3 Organization of the Final EIR .......................................................................... ............................1 -2 1.4 Commenters .................................................................................................... ............................1 -3 2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................ ............................3 -1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR Nh, of Cnufh Can F--i —n Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR City of South San Francisco 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 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 PM so 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 Sam Trans 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 1 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT The Draft EIR forth e Large Format Retail /Superstore Zoning Text Amendments Project was released for public review on January 8, 2014. A public hearing to receive verbal comments on the Draft EIR was held February 6, 2014. This document includes all agency and public comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR, SCH #2013112011). Two written comments were received by the City of South San Francisco during the public comment period held from January 8, 2014 through February 24, 2014. This document includes written responses to the comments received on the DEIR. This document also includes changes to the DEIR which clarify and amplify text in the DEIR, as appropriate. These changes do not alter the conclusions of the DEIR. This Final EIR document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, together with the DEIR (and Appendices), constitutes the EIR for the proposed project that will be used by the decision makers during project hearings. 1.2 BACKGROUND The proposed project analyzed in the DEIR would result in text amendments to the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance to 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 in the DEIR) 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 5,000 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 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 and 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 amendments apply citywide, only specific commercial zoned properties would be affected. (Refer to Exhibit 2 -3 of the DEIR for a map of properties affected by the proposed zoning amendments). 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. 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. A scoping meeting was held on December 5, 2013; no comments were received at the scoping meeting. The NOP and comment letters on the NOP are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the DEIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on January 8, 2014. An official 45 -day public review period for the DEIR was established by the State Clearinghouse, ending on February 24, 2014. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR was posted at the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder's Office, and a public hearing was held on the DEIR on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at the City's Municipal Services Building 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 were submitted to the lead agency. The DEIR was also published on the City's website ( http : / /www.ssf.net /index.aspx ?nid =367). Copies of the DEIR were available for public review at the following 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 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR is organized as follows: Chapter 1- Introduction and List of Commenters: This chapter summarizes the project under consideration and describes the contents of the Final EIR. This chapter also contains a list of all of the agencies or persons who submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period, presented in order by agency, organization, individual and date received. Chapter 2 - Revisions to the DEIR: This chapter summarizes text changes made to the DEIR in response to comments made on the DEIR and /or staff -- initiated text changes. Changes to the text of the DEIR are shown by either a line through the text that has been deleted or double underlined where new text has been inserted. The revisions contain clarification, amplification, and corrections that have been identified since publication of the DEIR. The text revisions do not result in a change in the analysis and conclusions presented in the DEIR. Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses: This chapter contains the comment letters received on the DEIR followed by the responses to the comments. 1.4 COMMENTERS Two comment letters were received duringthe DEIR public comment period from the following commenters: Ken Chiang, P.E., Utilities Engineer at the California Public Utilities Commission; and David Carbone, Staff at City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. No comments on the contents of the Draft EIR were received at the public hearing, although a minor correction to the address of a business was requested by a Planning Commissioner. No other comments were received during or after the comment period (as of the date of this document). Introduction and List of Commenters This page intentionally left blank. Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR 1 -4 City of South San Francisco 2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes text changes made to the Draft EIR either in response to a comment letter or initiated by city staff or in response to a modification in the project as proposed by the project applicant. New text is indicated in double underline and text to be deleted is reflected by a strike thre g . Text changes are presented in the page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Staff - initiated Change After release of the DEIR, staff noted a minor inconsistency in Section 2 "Project Description." a Section 2.3.1 Project Overview (p. 2 -4), the Superstore definition identifies "5 percent" rather than "5,000 square feet" as correctly indicated throughout the rest of the DEIR. Therefore, the following revision is made to page 2 -4 (third paragraph under Section 2.3.1): 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 PeFGeRt 5.000 square feet of the gross floor area dedicated to full service food /beverage /grocery sales). This text change to the DEIR is a minor clarification and is consistent with the Superstore definition throughout the rest of the DEIR. It does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the DEIR. APPENDIX D OFTHE DEIR The following minor correction has been made on page 8 of the Seifel Memo (Appendix D of the Draft EIR) based on Planning Commission comments at the Draft EIR hearing on February 6, 2014: ...to replace the existing Safeway located at 170 El Camino Real Drive. This text change to the DEIR Appendix is minor and for purposes of clarification. It does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the DEIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR 2 -2 Ascent Environmental Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR City of South San Francisco 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains the two comment letters that were received on the DEIR. Following each comment letter is a response. It should be noted that, during the DEIR hearing, a verbal comment was received from the Planning Commission regarding a minor correction to an address provided in an appendix to the DEIR. The minor text correction to the DEIR is provided in Section 2 of this Final EIR. Comments and Responses Ascent Environmental STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 �c , LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1 (213) 576-7083 Cs_ February 6, 2014 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: Re: SCH 2013112011 South San Francisco Large Retail- Superstore — DEIR The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway -rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) is in receipt of the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Large Formal Retail /Superstore Zoning Text Amendments. The City of South San Francisco (City) is the lead agency. The project area includes active railroad tracks. RCES recommends that the City add language to the Large Formal Retail /Superstore Zoning Text so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad /light rail right -of -way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at -grade crossings. This includes considering pedestrian /bike circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at -grade crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (213) 576 -7076, ykc0cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Safety and Enforcement Division C: State Clearinghouse Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR City of South San Francisco California Public Utilities Commission Response Ken Chiang, P.E. February 6, 2014 As indicated throughout the Draft EIR, the proposed Zoning Amendment does not include any development proposals. The proposed Zoning Amendment restricts superstore development within the City and grocery uses within the East of 101 Area. Because the proposed project does not result in any construction of structures, infrastructure, or other facilities and would not increase traffic or demand for other transportation modes (such as rail), the proposed Zoning Amendment would not affect rail corridors or rail crossings or public safety associated with these rail facilities. Therefore, no additional text is required in the DEIR to address rail facilities or rail safety. The comment does not raise any issues that require changes to the DEIR's analysis or conclusions. The City, however, appreciates the comment and considers rail safety in review of specific development proposals. Ascent Environmental C /CAG ,,AN,� 9j�g CITY /COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Hal(Moon Bay • Hillsbo, bu k • Millbrae Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County *South San Francisco • Wo si ` January 22, 2014 Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Susy: RE: C /CAG Staff Comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments, Re: Airport Land Use Compatibility in the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments On the above - referenced document. Please see my detailed C /CAG staff continents on this proposed land use policy action in my letter to you dated December 4, 2013. Pro!ect Description The project for CEQA review is an administrative action by the City of South San Francisco to amend the text in the City's Zoning Ordinance to (1) remove the potential for fixture grocery store uses within the East of 101 planning subarea and (2) to prohibit "superstore" uses citywide. As stated in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed action, "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 defmitions provide clarification by differentiating these uses from the proposed to be prohibited "Superstores." The proposed action does not include a proposed commercial/retail development project nor a general plan amendment. C /CAG Staff Comments The following comments were also included in my December 4, 2013 letter: "Proposed Action Does Not Require Formal ALUC /C/CAG Review 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." 555 County Center, f Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 Fax: 650.361.8227 www.ceag.ca.gov Ascent Environmental Comments and Responses Letter to Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner, City of South San Francisco, Re: CCAG Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Large Format Retail/Superstore Zoning Text Amendments, Re: Airport Land Use Compatibility in the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) January 22, 2014 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 6501599 -1453, T -TH or via email, at dcarboneaa,smcgov.org Sincere David, Carbone, C /CAG Staff cc: Sandy Wong, C /CAG Executive Director John Bergener, Manager, SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs CCAGstaffcom 1etSSFDEIRcomzoningtex tamendments0 114. doex 555 County Center, S° Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PxoNa: 650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227 www.ccag.ca.gov Large Format Retail /Superstore /Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR City of South San Francisco 3 -5 City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Response David Carbone January 22, 2014 This comment letter from the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) is essentially a re- submittal of the comment letter provided by C /CAG during the NOP comment period. As described in the DEIR (p. 1 -5), 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. This comment letter does not require any changes to the DEIR. DATE: April 16, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick O'Keeffe, Economic and Community Development Consultant SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND TASKS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt or amend the following economic development tools and direct staff to proceed to undertake the following tasks and programs: • Initiate the South San Francisco Business Cooperation Program. o Business Outreach and Visitations. o Promote Commercial Private Assessment Clean Energy (PACE) program. o Sales and Use Tax Recovery. • Augment Business Attraction and Retention Programs and Marketing. o Update bio marketing for BIO Conference, including marketing plan, contacts to local developers and businesses for participation, set convention meetings and post conference follow -up. o Update the Economic Development webpage for site selection purposes including the Commercial Real Estate Directory. o Create Downtown Branding/Marketing Plan and Business Outreach Program. Develop New and Enhance Existing Partnerships with Other Organizations. o Develop partnership with the new Bay Area Center for International Trade Development ( BACITD) Incubator in San Bruno. o Support the new Small Business Development Center in the BACITD incubator to outreach to SSF businesses. o Work with ChinaSF and China Silicon Valley. o Maintain memberships with Team California, BayBio, SAMCEDA, and Joint Venture Silicon Valley. o Cooperate with Skyline College to develop a new biotech certificate program that can benefit SSF students and community members. o Join Silicon Valley EDA (SVEDA). BACKGROUND Prior to the elimination of redevelopment agencies, South San Francisco's business attraction and retention plans relied mainly on land use planning and infrastructure, such as the South San Francisco General Plan land use designations, the Economic Development Element, the One Stop Permit Center, and Redevelopment Agency programs. The City used Redevelopment Agency programs and funds to focus on Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 2 of 8 infrastructure improvements in the East of 101 area, purchase of properties for housing development in downtown, and the purchase of former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) properties for transit- oriented development. Specifically, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency spent over $250 million dollars to improve our roads, build a new water treatment facility, improve parks, provide affordable housing, and augment the local and regional transportation systems. In recent years, the City expanded beyond traditional redevelopment and began to use economic development programs, such as the Career Fairs and education/training programs with Skyline College, to help retain our high -tech industrial base by building training opportunities for local community members. We have also used economic development tools to initiate partnerships with industry leaders (BayBio and BIO), State economic development agencies (Team California and Go -Biz), and educational institutions (San Francisco State University and Skyline College). In 2011, the State of California eliminated redevelopment agencies, leaving cities with fewer tools to promote business attraction and community improvements. In September 2013, the City Council responded to the loss of redevelopment by approving the budget for the City's Economic Development Program and Work Plan, which included a number of economic development activities designed to retain and attract new businesses and companies, and replace the business stimulus tools lost to the demise of redevelopment. The following discussion builds on the foundation created by Council in the September 2013 budget commitment, and focuses on key activities for the balance of the current fiscal year and through the next (FY 2014 -15) fiscal year. DISCUSSION Recommendation: Initiate the South San Francisco Business Cooperation Program This program consists of three elements: 1) Contacting the major businesses and developers to assess how the City's economic development efforts can be tuned to meet their needs, and let them know we are supportive of their business efforts; 2) Providing information on the City's commercial PACE program to assist in financing improvements that will save energy for the businesses and achieve our Climate Action Goals, and providing information on other business support programs such as Employment Training Panel (ETP) assistance, and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (Go -Biz) financial programs; and 3) asking for participation in the City's proposed Sales and Use Tax Program that will retain these taxes locally instead of them being allocated to the County sales tax pool. The sales tax reporting aspect of the program is designed to assist developers and businesses with the coding of their expenditures on new equipment and construction materials as South San Francisco purchases thereby establishing our city as the origin of the expenditure. On March 26th, the City Council adopted an amendment to the contract with MuniServices to implement the Sales and Use Tax Program. This program will be staffed by a combination of existing staff for the business outreach (Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator), contract staff for the explanation and follow through on the PACE program, and the Muni Financial consultants for the sales tax recovery element. Funding for staff will come from the existing budget for the Economic Development Department, and the Muni Financial consultant contract will be funded on a contingent basis from new sales tax proceeds realized by the new reporting procedures. Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 3 of 8 Recommendation: Augment Business Attraction and Retention Programs and Marketing Biotech Industry Outreach The BIO International Convention is the annual conference of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), which represents companies and institutions that research, develop and produce innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental technologies. In 2013, more than 15,000 attendees from 65 countries and 49 states represented start-ups and Fortune 500 companies, regional and national bioscience centers, state and international biotech associations and academic institutions. This year, the Convention will be held in San Diego, which will allow the City to showcase our strengths, locally, as the home to the world's largest biotechnology companies, Amgen and Genentech, and the "hub" of the northern California biotech industry. The City Council has directed staff to make appropriate arrangements to attend the conference and develop a marketing program. In January, the City entered into contract with Gunnink Media to create a marketing plan. On March 190, City Council directed staff to undertake Phase three of the marketing program and on March 27a', the City approved a contract amendment to assist in preparing the BIO Conference marketing program, including creating the appropriate marketing materials and identifying the target segment of attendees. Per City Council's request on April 9u', staff has included the estimated expenses for the conference. Original package Amount Team California / CA Pavilion Sponsorship $ 15,000 Gunnink Media Bio Marketing agreement* $ 6,425 Printing of Brochure and postcard (est) $ 7,000 Travel, Lodging and Meals (3) $ 5,518 TOTAL $ 33,943 * Agreement was limited to researching market and media options and presenting it to Council on March 19. 2014. Add ons Amount Gunnink Media Bio Marketing Amendment* $ 22,100 BIOtech Now package incl Business Forum & Convention materials Upgrade of 3 Exhibitor passes to Full Passes $ $ 17,300 3,000 2 (Additional Council) Conference Registration $ 3,790 Travel, Lodging and Meals (3) $ 5,518 Total $ 51,708 * Amendment included Creative Messaging and Design, creation of a 4 page website tailored to Conference attendees, creation of a virtual brochure and post card, and coordination of BIOtech Now online banners and newsletter. Grand Total $ 85,651 Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 4of8 The Economic & Community Development Department has planned to pay for $70,664 out of promotional, conference and printing budgets. The remaining $14,987 could be paid from a combination of non - departmental and City Manager budgets. Economic Development Webpage Update Over the past few years, ECD staff has participated in several site selection and "Meet the Consultants" conferences. Many site selection consultants have noted that they will look at a city or county webpage for information (demographics, available properties, development fees, and incentives) before contacting staff. In many cases, if the website does not contain site selection data, they will move on to another place for information. In San Mateo County, the cities of Redwood City, Menlo Park and San Mateo have already updated their economic development pages to include specific site selection material. Currently, city staff is meeting to update the City's website. ECD staff will work with the Information Technology Department to create a specific business information page including the following: • Expand the City's Webpage for Economic Development and use city data (economic, demographic and site data) to identify new development projects, site selection and real estate opportunities. • Expand the ECD Webpage to show opportunity sites and vacancies (Commercial Real Estate Directory). • Expand the ECD webpage to show incentives, such as PACE and links to the state Go -Biz Program. • Work with the Social Media coordinator to improve public outreach on economic development by utilizing new communication channels including Facebook, Twitter and other social media to push out new information periodically on opportunities and accomplishments. Downtown Marketing and Business Outreach Staff recommends basing downtown oriented marketing and business solicitation on a market assessment to determine the commercial area's competitive position in the local and regional markets. The assessment of the competitive position would be based on comparing downtown to El Camino Real, other downtowns in San Mateo County, and the specific performance of the north county area, which represents the primary competition for the City and downtown. The methodology for preparing this market assessment includes conducting surveys of major development projects, analyzing construction and absorption data, assembling information provided by the South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, interviewing key brokers and developers, and evaluating secondary source economic data (such as tax revenues provided by MUNI Financial). The assessment of the downtown market, in addition to the general economic conditions in the City, provides a basis from which to calculate the commercial area's capacity for retail expansion. The market assessment would include the following tasks and strategies: • Conduct market research on downtown residents and businesses. Begin to prepare video clips showing downtown sites for web. • Develop quantifiable goals and objectives for downtown revitalization. • Use market research and goals to develop a marketing strategy and action plans to attract new residents, new businesses and downtown visitors. • Implement a retail business attraction program, including broker breakfasts and tours. Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 5 of 8 • Establish ongoing collaborative relationships with local business alliances and brokers to attract retail businesses. • Develop a branding strategy per the attached outline. • Develop and implement strategies to support and develop local arts, culture, and entertainment. Downtown Shuttle or Trolley System Staff recommends that the City investigate funding options and potential partnerships that would provide daily shuttle service for hotel visitors, South San Francisco Conference Center attendees, and employees in the East of 101 area with downtown South San Francisco. Currently, The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance manages the employee shuttle system between the East of 101 area and the BART and Caltrain stations. This shuttle system also links the South San Francisco Conference Center with the two transit centers, but these services bypass our downtown. For visitors, the hotels manage shuttles to San Francisco International Airport and shopping areas in San Francisco, but not to downtown South San Francisco. The "Downtown Dasher" service is the closest transportation system that offers rides between the East of 101 area and downtown. The Dasher service picks up employees in the East of 101 area daily, between 11 am and 2 pm, and drops them off downtown. The service requires that the employee have a taxi voucher from the sponsoring employer and a reservation, which is cumbersome. The City could investigate the feasibility of adopting a free shuttle system or trolley similar to Burlingame to run between East of 101 businesses and hotels to the South San Francisco downtown. The `Burlingame Trolley," managed by participating hotels, provides free shuttle service from the hotels and commercial neighborhoods at Broadway and Burlingame Avenues. The shuttles are funded by the City of Burlingame, Peninsula Joint Powers Board, San Mateo Transit District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, downtown Burlingame Business Association, and the Broadway Improvement District. A similar multi - source financing structure can be explored for a South San Francisco shuttle /trolley. The Public Works Department has applied for a shuttle grant that is community based and runs through some residential areas and downtown. The purpose of the shuttle is to replace the lost routes and the changes SamTrans implemented in January 2014. The "Downtown Trolley" would instead link East of 101 and downtown, although the two would need coordination. Recommendation: New and Continuing Partnerships Bay Area Center for International Trade Development (BACITD) Incubator Staff recommends the City of South San Francisco support the Bay Area Center for International Trade Development (BACITD) `Business and Entrepreneurship Center and Center for International Trade Development" at Skyline College. The Center is designed to help small- and medium -sized enterprises find opportunities in international trade. Using BACITD, the City of South San Francisco would be able to offer our businesses assistance in several forms, such as business improvement grants and loans to qualified merchants, and business planning and consulting assistance. The Business Incubator is being designed to support entrepreneurship through the mentoring, instruction and connection of Skyline College's students to information, resources, expertise and innovation. The incubator will provide the necessary tools to achieve business success and have a positive impact on Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 6 of 8 student learning objectives. The integration of business, education and training with an emphasis on entrepreneurship and competencies required by the new economy, provides new opportunities for workers, small companies and local business districts. The incubator (also known in some areas as startup hubs) will allow Skyline College to institutionalize entrepreneurship programs on campus and will result in connecting the Youth Entrepreneurship Program (YEP), Skyline College certification programs and the Center for International Trade and Development (CITD) to other entrepreneurship opportunities that will leverage both training and resources. By connecting additional programs such as the Community Education Program, San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board and Small Business Development Center, the incubator will facilitate the interconnection between the college and the community. The incubator program provides the opportunity to demonstrate the importance of a positive and sustainable town/gown relationship and its ability to enhance and invigorate the economic vitality of the area. The following business sectors will be targeted: • Biotech firms • Technology firms • Green businesses • Entertainment, social media • Women -owned businesses • Veteran-owned businesses • Youth Employment Program participants • Tourism/hospitality businesses • Other entrepreneurs that are identified by the college and advisory board that would benefit from start-up /incubator services. SBA Assistance for Local Businesses There continues to be a need to help existing businesses remain in business or help entrepreneurs start a business. Many individuals lack the skills to prepare a realistic business plan or test the market properly. Many will use the wrong financial tools (such as a credit card) to start a business. In conjunction with a new SBA office at the Business and Entrepreneurship Center and Center for International Trade Development, the City could support the development of a Small Business Development Center that can provide the following services to our businesses: • Assisting viable small businesses with developing as well as making necessary adjustments to a business plan. • One -to -one counseling to meet individual business needs. • Referrals to other business programs, resources, and websites. • Assist in helping small businesses develop a strong marketing plan. • Provide information on the SBA Loan Programs and other resources. Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 7of8 ChinaSF and China Silicon Valley Programs ChinaSF, a program initiated by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, has identified the City of South San Francisco as a regional partner to create better linkages with East Asia. ChinaSF has two offices in China located in Shanghai and Beijing. If ChinaSF has potential inbound deals, they would reach out to us to see if we can help the company locate in our city. Likewise, if we receive inquiries from companies that are looking for assistance to expand into China's market, ChinaSF will provide them assistance to meet with the appropriate people in China. A similar organization focused on Silicon Valley was established last year and reached out to our city to participate in their activities which are the same as ChinaSF. Staff recommends continued participation in both of these organizations as resources for our businesses and developers. Team California Since 2008, The City of South San Francisco has partnered with Team California to undertake several economic development outreach activities. In recent years, we have sponsored the California Pavilion at the BIO International Conventions. This year, Team California has helped us identify emerging Green Technology companies at the two largest Solar Industry conventions. We have also shared site selection material. Team California makes it possible for economic development organizations to combine their business retention, development and attraction dollars to participate in tradeshows, advertise in targeted publications and provide an internet presence that they would not otherwise be able to achieve. Team California provides cooperative branding that is available for members to customize for their own campaign. Team California organizes its members to coordinate with marketing activities undertaken by the State of California. Team California provides all organizational and administrative support for such activities. Skyline College Skyline College is currently creating curricula to establish a biotech certification program and would like to work with the City to reach out to our companies to help place students in jobs. The City would like Skyline's help promoting career pathways from high school to the workplace with South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) students and teachers to encourage our life sciences companies to offer more internship opportunities to our high school and Skyline College students. Joint Venture Silicon Valley Staff regularly meets with the Silicon Valley EDA (SVEDA) to improve regional cooperation and information exchange. The organization provides support services that can help improve information exchange, collaboration with real estate brokers, marketing at retail conferences, and access to the regional -wide Real Estate Information online. The above programs will be implemented by existing staff as time permits or in response to outside party events. The BIO Conference preparation, website updates and business cooperation program are recommended as top priorities for the balance of this fiscal year. The downtown shuttle investigation and downtown assessment/marketing program could be undertaken in the next fiscal year (FY 2014 -15). Staff Report Subject: Economic Development Programs and Tasks Page 8 of 8 Activities in support of other organizations including the incubator, SBA center, and Skyline College will be ongoing and intermittent. By: I-k Patrick O'Keeffe Economic and Community Development Consultant Attachment: Branding and Marketing Strategy By: Mike Futrell City Manager Branding and Marketing Define Branding — Branding is the process of endowing a product with the power of a brand. The objective is to teach consumers "who" the products is, what it does, and why consumers should care. For branding to be successful, consumers must be convinced there are meaningful and advantageous differences between the product and its competitors. Brand components — name, sign, symbol, design. Branding Management Process • Identifying and establishing brand positioning ( "positioning" is placing and differentiating the product's meaningful and advantageous differences in the consumer's mind). • Planning and implementing brand marketing. • Measuring and interpreting brand performance. • Growing and sustaining brand value. Branding's role in Marketing one of many potential marketing tools available after identifying the products position. Preparing Marketing Plan as necessary first step A marketing plan for the Downtown will help the City understand what the area has to offer, how the surrounding environment affects the area, and what the City can do to satisfy the needs and desires of those it is trying to attract. A comprehensive marketing plan strives to understand the market environment and to plan out physical and non- physical changes to capitalize on opportunities. The marketing plan describes a strategy to position the City as a desirable place to live and run a business. A marketing plan achieves its results by preparing comprehensive market studies, action strategies, marketing strategies and evaluation tools. Specifically, it will assess: • The city's strengths that can serve as a base from which to build on. • Potential growth opportunities. • The city's weaknesses and strategies to improve those weaknesses. • A market niche for the city. • The preferences and amenity needs of target populations and businesses. • Internal and external organizational improvements needed to achieve goals. A marketing plan will help identify the Downtown's and City's advantages compared to other cities and whether these advantages can be converted into brand equity. In the absence of brandable advantages, the plan creates a road map to achieving these advantages and communicating them to the public. Economic Development Strategy City Council Study Session April 16, 2014 s 0, O A HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A. Housing Asset Management Plan B Economic Development Programs Business Outreach and Cooperation Program Bio Conference Attraction and Retention New and Continuing Partnerships it. _ F Economic Development Program L Economic Development Program d Background � Economic Development Status Business Development Status Business Cooperation Program Business Attraction and Retention p Partnerships 2 BACKGROUND ► The City relied mainly on land use planning and infrastructure to attract, support and retain firms r Redevelopment Agency programs and funding focus: Street & sewer upgrades in the East of 101 area Purchase properties in Downtown Purchase the PUC properties for transit oriented development ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STATUS In 201 I,the State of California eliminated redevelopment agencies and tax increment financing In 2013, the State of California adopted "California Competes" to replace redevelopment and enterprise zone programs Many local cities and San Mateo County have adopted economic development programs In September 2013, the City Council authorized a new economic development program 3 BUSINESS ATTRACTION 8, RETENTION B10 CONFERENCE ► Marketing consultant hired ► Joint information with SSF Biotech developers a Participate in California Pavilion ► City Council to speak ,i BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND RETENTION Downtown Marketing Program P Economic Development Webpage and Social Media Upgrade Q Meetings with Trades Groups & Brokers Business Visits and Surveys d Downtown Shuttle /Trolley PARTNERSHIPS P Team California Skyline College for business incubation and workforce development Small Business Development Center BayBio and other Trade Organizations SAMCEDA,WIB and SVEDA for workforce development ChinaSF & China Silicon Valley man � s lit RUING 1"M �,•TK���.�aI�.Y•, 5 As 6 H� il Q ZIFOR� Staff ReDort DATE: April 1b, 2414 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick O'Keeffe, Economic and Community Development Consultant SUBJECT: HOUSING ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction to staff on the Housing Asset Management Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUS S ION The City of South San Francisco is the owner and holder of various affordable housing assets as a result of actions by the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the City itself. In an effort to streamline the management of the City's housing assets and maximize their uses, staff has prepared the attached Housing Asset Management Plan ( "Plan "). As described in the Plan's conclusion, staff is recommending that the City end the practice of owning hard -to- manage, scattered affordable housing sites and instead focus on using its assets to advance the development of higher density housing in the downtown. Enacting the recommendations in this plan will allow the City to achieve various goals including: • Initiating development of new housing development in the downtown, • Eliminating the City's cost and burden of managing affordable housing, • Replacing old affordable housing units with new units, and • Potentially recycling affordable housing funds for future developments. If the City Council supports the strategies outlined in the Plan, staff will immediately begin taking steps to divest the City of the scattered affordable housing sites, and as previously directed by the Council, work with Rotary and Brookwood to prepare agreements for the development of various sites. Staff will seek City Council authorization for the implementation of each action described in the Plan, therefore no formal action to adopt the Plan is necessary. FUNDING The City Council is not approving any formal actions, thus there is no financial implication. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction to staff on the staff recommendations set forth in the Housing Asset Management Plan. Staff Report Subject: Housing Asset Management Plan Page No 2 By: 11 Approved: 4�IZ /7 Patrick O'Keeffe Mike Futrell Economic and mmunity Development City Manager Consultant Attachment: Exhibit A — Housing Asset Management Plan Exhibit B — PowerPoint Presentation MF:PO:AS Affordable Housing Asset Management Plan City of South San Francisco 2014 Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................. ............................... 2 II. Assets ........................................................................................................... ............................... 2 Residential Property Assets ......................................................................... ............................... 2 LoanPortfolio Assets ................................................................................... ............................... 8 CashAssets ................................................................................................... ............................... 9 TotalHousing Assets ..................................................................................... .............................11 III. Current Situation ........................................................................................ .............................12 PropertyManagement .................................................................................. .............................12 TenantIssues ............................................................................................. .............................12 Maintenance.............................................................................................. .............................12 CurrentRevenues ...................................................................................... .............................13 IV. Residential Unit Strategies ......................................................................... .............................13 V. Recommendations for Affordable Residential Properties ........................... .............................15 A. log Longford ............................................................................................. .............................15 B. 38o Alta Vista ............................................................................................ .............................16 C. 714 -718 Linden .......................................................................................... .............................16 D. 339 -341 Commercial ................................................................................ .............................17 E. Miller Avenue ............................................................................................ .............................17 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................... .............................18 Appendix1 ........................................................................................................ .............................19 1 I. Introduction The City of South San Francisco seeks to enhance a thriving city where its residents have the ability to live, work, and participate in the community. A thriving community includes quality housing for residents of all income levels. Currently, the City has an array of housing assets that are underutilized. This Housing Asset Management Plan ( "Plan ") provides strategies to maximize quality affordable housing consistent with the City Council's goals of improving the Downtown. The recent dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies ( "RDA ") by the California Legislature eliminated the City's main tool for developing affordable housing. Without RDA funding the City must be creative, collaborative, and flexible in order to continue creating affordable housing. During the Redevelopment era the City had a robust and sustainable funding source, however now the City faces an era of limited resources and assets. The few resources the City does have must be strategically used to create quality affordable housing. This Plan will 1) catalog the City's current housing assets; 2) identify potential strategies for how the City can better utilize and manage its housing assets; 3) assess the effects, feasibility, and ability to increase affordable housing for each identified strategy and; 4) provide recommendations on the appropriate strategy to implement for each property. II. Assets The City has former RDA assets in the form of real property, outstanding loans and cash. When the RDA was dissolved on January 31, 2011 the City opted to become the Housing Successor Agency. This allowed the City to retain the RDA's housing loan portfolio and real property (the City was not allowed to retain the RDA's $20 million in affordable housing funds which were disbursed to the taxing agencies pursuant to the RDA dissolution statutes). In addition, the City also has cash assets collected from housing developers in the form of in -lieu fees. This section looks at each of these assets and their allowable uses. .esidential Property Assets The City currently owns and manages seven (7) scattered site residential properties ranging from single family homes to multi -unit properties. This section will provide an overview of the properties, their size, purpose of acquisition, purchase price and current estimated value,' and their current uses. With the exception of 109 Longford Avenue, these assets were transferred from the RDA to the City. A. iog Longford — This single family home (3 bedrooms /1 bath) was purchased in 1998 for the purpose of removing a blighted unit. The City rehabilitated the property in 2009 using a wide array of green building techniques, such as solar panels, tank -less water heaters, and recyclable insulation. Since then it has been used as a model "green" home 1 The estimated values of the properties were derived on October 2, 2013 from Zillow.com, an online home and real estate database. 2 to educate contractors, students, and homeowners. While this home has served as an educational tool for the City, the home's technology is no longer cutting edge and is quickly becoming obsolete as a model "green" home. log Longford Avenue Summary Profile: • Property size: 4,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 1998 • Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property — previous owner believed home was unsafe, refused to occupy it and let it fall into disrepair. • Age of Building: 61 years (1952) • Building Sq. Ft.: 1,030 • Purchase Price: $207,000 (funding source: General Fund) • Current Estimated Value: $547,200 • Current Use: Green building model home 3 seem E- Yung Camelery G" ae Pafm t P eve Garden 5�,a* Winston �z�tio x Bsa��o Manor Park Women' L." �'$ �� Hahh a ' Chinese ye Travelers inr P "� Christian � Calvari 5 Cemetery u �rolli� lung San 6L Duval OT glvd Cemetery ❑' Nickel ti{tcktY rur "} 8ivd wir5s o De 0 O� a Hickey j Ft Kaiser Q �e AltghI j r permanence n EleettiC ` Summary Profile: • Property size: 4,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 1998 • Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property — previous owner believed home was unsafe, refused to occupy it and let it fall into disrepair. • Age of Building: 61 years (1952) • Building Sq. Ft.: 1,030 • Purchase Price: $207,000 (funding source: General Fund) • Current Estimated Value: $547,200 • Current Use: Green building model home 3 B. 38o Alta Vista — A single family home (3 bedrooms /2 bathrooms) purchased in 2005. It was purchased by the City because the unit had become a nuisance and social problem for the neighborhood. Due to the size of this home it could be modified to accommodate several more bedrooms or subdivided into 2 separate units. 38o Alta Vista � AI V t S�S+ap Alta MenhaLu ..11 . � la Ista pt \t G Gta� Fiji Jar mal ul Church of Chri91 pt dil Islam of America - Maspd UI Jamie �aye d v t7 U4et'r' get �£ AO Energy 813esign ❑n•Si1e f g• • Inspectio s. Inc pt Summary Profile • Property Size: 9,1oo sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2005 • Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property — previous owner had let house fall into disrepair and had overcrowding conditions with nuisance tenants. • Age of Building: 68 years (1945) • Building Sq. Ft.: 3,828 • Purchase Price: $1,035,000 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value: $1,040,287 • Current Use: rented to city employee at below market rental rates F. �t`a o o y yap p pt P �o Primers I � Ptia�° 6 6autista -9sl i of p p` 0. at` c apt c c� c a L7 f f o g�H a a��p` X X36 A Avalon Park n pt o' P Py a �a � a apt � apt � CA �taa„ a t S�S+ap Alta MenhaLu ..11 . � la Ista pt \t G Gta� Fiji Jar mal ul Church of Chri91 pt dil Islam of America - Maspd UI Jamie �aye d v t7 U4et'r' get �£ AO Energy 813esign ❑n•Si1e f g• • Inspectio s. Inc pt Summary Profile • Property Size: 9,1oo sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2005 • Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property — previous owner had let house fall into disrepair and had overcrowding conditions with nuisance tenants. • Age of Building: 68 years (1945) • Building Sq. Ft.: 3,828 • Purchase Price: $1,035,000 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value: $1,040,287 • Current Use: rented to city employee at below market rental rates F. C. 714 -718 Linden Avenue — This triplex of two bedroom units is located near the City's Downtown core. It was purchased in 2005 for the purpose of preserving the affordability of the units. 714 -718 Linden Avenue Bay Area bus Repair The standBy - Pry RIB a. a. . � ' 7 dos AAQlaigy r Summary Profile • Property Size: 4,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2005 • Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing — City helped owner rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. At expiration of affordable restriction, owner intended to sell property. City acquired property to maintain affordability. • Age of Building: 72 years (1941) • Building Sq. Ft.: 2,856 • Purchase Price: $862,000 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value:$784,433 • Current Use: Affordable housing W D. 339 -341 Commercial Avenue — This property consists of two duplexes with each unit containing two bedrooms. The City purchased the property in 1999 for the purpose of preserving the affordability of the units. 339 -341 Commercial Avenue �_ Heshh Summary Profile • Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 1999 • Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property /create affordable housing units — property had fallen into disrepair and presented an opportunity to create affordable units. • Age of Building: 118 years (1895) • Building Sq. Ft.: 3,874 • Purchase Price: $430,000 (funding source: $107,50o RDA, $322,50o HOME) • Estimated Value: $892,510 • Current Use: Affordable housing R E. 310 -314 Miller Avenue — The Miller Avenue properties consists of three adjacent properties: a triplex with three one- bedroom units (310 Miller), a fourplex with units ranging from one bedroom to three bedrooms (312 Miller), and a 3 bedroom single family home (314 Miller). The estimated value of the combined properties is $1,999,607. These properties were purchased between 2004 and 20o8. The City purchased these units to preserve the affordability in the short-term and for the future development of the property. The City also owns a parking lot adjacent to 314 Miller making this site assemblage more attractive for a new development. 310 -314 Miller Avenue Summary Profiles 310 Miller • Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2005 • Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing — City helped owner rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. City acquired property to maintain affordability. • Age of Building: 1o1 years (1912) • Building Sq. Ft.: Not Available • Purchase Price: $589,000 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value: $700,000 • Current Use: Affordable housing. Propose to enter into one -year lease with San Mateo County Emancipated Youth Program. PI 312 Miller • Property Size: 6,00o sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2004 • Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing — City helped owner rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. Owner intended to sell property putting affordability at risk. City acquired property to maintain affordability. • Age of Building: 106 years (1907) • Building Sq. Ft.: 3,650 • Purchase Price: $715,000 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value: $814556 • Current Use: Affordable housing. Propose to enter into one -year lease with San Mateo County Emancipated Youth Program. 314 Miller Ave • Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft. • Purchase Date: 2008 • Purpose of Acquisition: Parcel assembly for future development. This property sits between City owned properties at 310 -312 Miller Avenue and surface parking lot. Acquisition resulted in the assembly of a 0.56 acre site. • Age of Building: 107 years (1906) • Building Sq. Ft.: 1,456 • Purchase Price: $679950 (funding source: RDA) • Estimated Value: $485,051 • Current Use: Affordable housing. Propose to enter into one -year lease with San Mateo County Emancipated Youth Program. The total estimated value of the City's affordable housing property assets is $4941537• Loan Portfolio Assets The City has two types of housing loans in its portfolio: 1) amortized first time homebuyer loans, and 2) deferred loans to nonprofit housing developers. Amortized First Time Homebuyer Loans The City of South San Francisco has a first time homebuyer loan program that is open to individuals and households who live or work in the City of South San Francisco. In the past, the program provide qualified buyers low- interest loans of up to $100,00o to purchase a Below Market Rate (BMR) homes or a homes on the open market. At the start of the housing crisis in 2008, the City suspended making loans on homes in the open market and only made loans on BMR units. Since the dissolution of redevelopment, the City program has been limited to rolling existing loans from sellers to new homebuyers at existing BMR units. The City is currently not initiating loans that require new funds going into the program. Excluding loan pay offs, the program currently generates approximately $4,000 per month in payments. As a result of past lending activity, the City currently has 22 outstanding first time homebuyer loans. As of January 15, 2014, the value of this portfolio is valued at $1,421,126. This amount is composed from the following fund sources: o $946,412 is from former RDA funds (now the City's Housing Fund 241) o $451,864 is from federal Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG), and o $22,86o is from developer in -lieu fees. Monthly payments received and loan payoffs are deposited into their respective funding sources. Because the monthly cash flows from repayments are limited and loan payoffs are sporadic, the outstanding loan fund balances are not included in the available cash asset discussion below. • Deferred Loans to Nonprofit Developers These loans were made to nonprofit developers to build the City's main affordable housing stock including 636 El Camino, Grand Oak Apartments, Greenridge, Chestnut Creek Senior housing and others. This loan portfolio is estimated at about $25,876,508. The loans were made by the RDA and are now a City asset per the Redevelopment Dissolution Statutes. Unfortunately, the City cannot count on using these funds. First, nonprofit developers only make annual payments on the loans if they have excess cash proceeds after paying for all operating and reserve expenses. Generally the City received total repayments of $0 to $2,000 per year from this source. Second, the loans are not due for 25+ years. In all likelihood when these loans come due they will have to be renewed into new 50 year terms in order to continue the affordability, replacement and maintenance of the properties. The one exception to this that City staff estimates a repayment of up to $1,000,00o from Mid - Peninsula Housing due to construction cost savings at 636 El Camino Real (this was negotiated into the funding contract approved by both parties). When the City receives these funds, they will be deposited into Housing Fund 241 and be available for uses as described below. It is estimated the City will receive these fund in mid -2014. Cash Assets In addition to the City's residential properties, the City has cash assets that are available for creating and /or preserving affordable housing. Although the City has these cash assets, the dissolution of the RDA has left the City with no mechanism for generating new funds. The City has two options on how to invest these limited remaining funds: 1) investing in a small number I of projects with nonprofit housing developers wherein the funds are not repaid, until the funds are exhausted; or 2) invest in mixed - income projects that require re- payment of the City funds that can be recycled to new projects in the future. Currently, the total cash available for affordable housing is $4,333,739• Below is a description of the City's cash assets and how they can be expended. Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205) The City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created as a result of developer agreements and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. If developers were unable to incorporate affordable units into their housing or commercial developments, the City in limited cases accepted in -lieu fees (e.g. Terrabay). In other cases, the City required a housing fee in addition to the affordable units (e.g. Oak Farms). These funds can only be used for the development of new affordable housing. These funds can be used to help residents at any affordable income level — 0% to 120% of area median income (AMI). Funds Available: $1,56,7,2902 Housing Fund (Fund 241) Upon becoming the Successor Agency for the RDA's housing assets on February 1, 2011, the City established the Housing Fund. Revenues from housing rental properties, RDA - funded loan repayments, and interest are deposited into this fund. The fund can be used to develop housing or for any other purposes that advances the creation or preservation of affordable units, including staffing. The funds can be used for any housing related expenses, including new construction, first time homebuyer loans, rehabilitation and staff expenses as long as they are consistent with past RDA law. Currently, these funds are being used for housing related expenses including staff, maintenance and other incidental expenses. Funds can be used to help residents at any affordable income level_ (0% to 120% AMI). Funds Available: $384,917 3 Bonds On February 1, 1999, the City's RDA issued bonds for the purpose of creating affordable housing. Pursuant to HSC Section 34176(g)(2) dissolving redevelopment agencies, the housing successor agency (i.e. the City as successor agency) has the right to retain and expend bond proceeds at its discretion so long as it is in a manner that is consistent with the bond covenants. The bond funds are made available to the City upon 1) the Successor Agency receiving its Finding of Completion, 2) the City committing the bond funds to a project, and 3) the Successor Agency including the obligation in an approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS). 2 Fund balance as of September 17, 2103 3 Fund balance as of September 17, 2103 10 The Successor Agency received its Finding of Completion on May 24, 2013. Staff included the bond fund request in ROPS 13 -14B (January 1 through June 30, 2014) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) authorized the City to draw these funds down. However, the funds are not committed to a project therefore the City cannot draw the funds until it does so. These funds can only be used for the development of new affordable housing. The use of these funds must also be consistent with past RDA law and can be used to help residents at any affordable income level (o% to 120% AMI). Funds Available: $2,381,532 4 Total Housing Assets The total value of the City's housing assets is approximately $36,732,420. However, as described above, the liquidity of these funds and the City's ability to utilize them varies by type. As listed in Table 1 below, the City has approximately $4,233,739 in cash and cash equivalents that the City can immediately utilize for affordable housing purposes. The City also has $5,878,537 in land assets that the City can convert into cash by selling the properties, or in the case of the Miller Avenue properties, have the value contributed towards the development of affordable housing. The total of cash and potential cash assets is approximately $10 million that could be invested in housing projects. The remaining $27,297,644 is composed of amortized and deferred loans that are not readily available for use, or may not be available at all. Table 1 Asset Type Liquid Assets Illiquid Assets Total Potentially Liquid Not Liquid Cash and Cash Equivalents $4,233,739 $4,233,739 Land $4,878,537 $4,878,537 Loans $1,000,000* $26,297,644 $27,297,644 Total $4,233,739 $5,878,537 $26,297644 $36,409,920 *Estimated repayment from Mid - Peninsula Housing from 636 El Camino Real Given the City's current cash and land assets, the City has the potential to utilize these $10 million in assets to increase the City's supply of affordable housing. Options for utilizing these funds and /or developing affordable housing are discussed in Sections V and VI below. 4 Fund balance as of October 2, 2013 11 III. Current Situation With the end of redevelopment, the City is faced with the need to reassess and develop new strategies for managing its housing assets. Some of the main issues affecting the City are an increasing property management burden, limited resources, and the desire to stimulate development in the Downtown. Property Management As mentioned earlier, the City owns and manages all of its residential properties. Given the City Council's new priorities and the need to sell the former RDA's non - housing land assets, the management of the residential properties has become an increased burden on staff and resources. Property management requires staff to collect rent, market and lease vacant units, issue late payment and eviction notices and address various maintenance issues ranging from large scale repairs such as broken sewer lines to minor repairs such as a clogged sink. Due to the demanding nature of property management, i.e. tenant requests /issues and the timing of when these issues occur, staff is frequently on call. As a result, staff at all levels has to be involved in managing the properties. For example, lower level staff typically deals with collecting rents however higher level staff has to approve repairs and issue late payment or eviction notices. This has created a highly ineffective and costly way of managing the properties. It also takes staff away from fulfilling other responsibilities. Finally, the City is faced with difficult tenants and continuous maintenance issues while receiving minimal rent revenues due to the affordable rents being charged. Tenant Issues The City has difficult tenants who routinely pay rent late, which has required staff to spend an exorbitant amount of time addressing the issue. The City inherited these tenants when it acquired the buildings or as a result of tenants selected by North Peninsula Neighborhood Services when it briefly managed the properties for the RDA. Since 2011, staff has had to issue nine (9) Three -Day Notices to Pay or Quit. A Notice to Pay or Quit is a notice whereby if the tenant does not pay within three days the City will proceed with the eviction process. The City has also received twenty -four (24) late payments and evicted one tenant in the last two years. The eviction process is very lengthy and can last up to six months which consumes a significant amount of staff and City Attorney time. In FY 12 -13, HCD5 staff spent a combined 1,349 hours managing the various properties. Maintenance The City is also faced with ongoing and deferred maintenance issues due to the age of its residential properties. For example, all of the City's residential properties are over 50 years old and four of them are over loo years old. Most of the properties have some deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed, as described in Appendix 1. Additionally, the City has experienced unforeseen and /or emergency maintenance issues due to the age of the buildings. Most recently the City had to spend approximately $18o,000 6 to make emergency repairs to the gas and sewer 5 HCD stands for the City's Housing and Community Development Division 6 This amount is not included in the expenses provided in the section below 12 lines at the 310 and 312 Miller Avenue properties. These repairs had to be made immediately to avoid a potentially catastrophic gas explosion. Current Revenues The City's residential properties are not generating enough revenue to keep up with staff costs to manage the properties and address the increasing maintenance needs. In FY 12 -13 the City had $60,575 7 in staff and maintenance expenses while receiving $121,170 in rent revenues. The $60,575 in operating costs does not include repair costs that are described in Appendix 1. Additionally, as shown in Table 2, the properties are operating significantly less than a 5% capitalization rate (the rental industry considers a 5% cap rate the minimum desirable rate of return on investment). Since the properties are intended to be affordable units and are rented at below market rates, there are few options for increasing revenue therefore the City must find a solution to reduce its operating expenses. Table 2 * This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310 -312 Miller IV. Residential Unit Strategies As discussed above, the City's current property management system is inefficient and needs to change in order to reduce resource utilization. Taking into consideration these issues, this section describes potential strategies to overcome these issues while maintaining or increasing the City's affordable housing stock. City staff has identified four strategies for managing the City's housing land assets: 1) divest, 2) transfer to a non - profit, 3) hold, or 4) redevelop (note: the redevelopment option only applies to the Miller Avenue properties). This section will define each strategy and analyze the positive and 7 This does not include the approximate $18o,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310 -312 Miller 13 FY 12 -13 Expenses & Revenues Estimated HCD Net Market Staff Revenue Value CAP Rate Property Hours Expenses Revenues (Rev) -(Ex) (EMV) (Net Rev) /(EMV) log Longford 0.0 387 0 -387 547,200 -0.1% 38o Alta Vista 24.5 1,127 16,800 15,673 1,040,287 1.5% Commercial Ave 298.6 13,848 28,950 15,102 892,510 1.7% Linden Ave 205.4 10,235 25,16o 14,925 784,433 1.9% Miller Ave* 310 Miller Ave 338.5 14,472 9,000 -5,472 700,000 -0.8% 312 Miller Ave 398.0 16,314 19,66o 3,347 814,556 0.4% 314 Miller Ave 84.9 4,192 21,600 17,408 485,051 3.6% Miller Ave Total 821.3 34,977 50,26o 15,283 1,999,607 3.2% All Properties 1,349.8 60,575 121,170 60,595 5,264,037 1.2% * This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310 -312 Miller IV. Residential Unit Strategies As discussed above, the City's current property management system is inefficient and needs to change in order to reduce resource utilization. Taking into consideration these issues, this section describes potential strategies to overcome these issues while maintaining or increasing the City's affordable housing stock. City staff has identified four strategies for managing the City's housing land assets: 1) divest, 2) transfer to a non - profit, 3) hold, or 4) redevelop (note: the redevelopment option only applies to the Miller Avenue properties). This section will define each strategy and analyze the positive and 7 This does not include the approximate $18o,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310 -312 Miller 13 negative implications of each strategy. The next section will identify which strategy can provide the most benefit on a property by property basis. i. Divest: The City would sell its housing land asset(s) at market rate. This option would eliminate the staffing and financial issues the City faces regarding property management and would increase the City's housing cash assets. However the implications of this would be that the City would need to replace the affordable units elsewhere along with providing relocation payments to a few of the current tenants that are eligible for relocation. If the City divests itself of the Miller Avenue properties it will also lose the opportunity to develop new housing on that site. 2. Transfer to a Non - profit: The City would sell its housing land assets to a non -profit organization for a nominal amount and impose affordability restrictions on the properties. This would allow the City to preserve the affordability of the units and relieve the City of its property management burdens. Additionally, since the City would be selling these properties for a nominal amount, the City could impose strict affordability restrictions and require the units be rented to extremely low income (30% of AMI) s to very low income (50% of AMI) tenants. However, this strategy would provide the City with no revenue and it wouldn't increase the City's affordable housing stock. 3. Hold Assets: The City would keep its current housing assets however it would need to make operational changes. For example, the City would need to contract with a third party property management company to oversee the lease up process, rent collection, maintenance, and tenant eligibility screening. This strategy would relieve City staff of its property management burdens and potentially increase the City's net rent revenue by allowing the property manager to increase the affordability income levels of the tenants. Currently the City is only netting 50% of its rent revenues, however, if the City uses a property management company, the City could allow the company to increase the income affordability to 8o% AMI, thus offsetting the property management cost and potentially increasing the City's net revenue. Holding the City's housing land assets, however, does not increase the City's affordable housing stock, generate significant new cash flows, and still leaves the City facing the deferred maintenance and rehabilitation needs of the properties. 4. Redevelopment Pursuant to a series of recent City Council Study Sessions Council has expressed interest in seeing new mixed- income or market rate housing development happen on one or more of these downtown properties. Staff has recommended that the best way to accomplish this is by collaborating with private developers to build mixed - income housing projects that include an affordable housing component. This will allow the City to use the affordable housing monies and avoid expensive replacement housing obligations. These projects would be predominately market rate (8o %) to bring new income into the Downtown to support retail and restaurants. Under this strategy the City would contribute the land and make a financial contribution to the project in return for the developer providing a specified number of affordable units (20 %) within a market- 8 AMI stands for Area Median Income 14 rate housing development. This strategy would relieve the City of the burden of managing scattered affordable housing sites with myriad problems and create a revenue stream for additional future affordable housing development when the projects are sold and the City recoups its investment. Alternatively, the City can work with a non -profit housing developer to build a l00% affordable housing project and invest its funds on a one time basis with no likely return. V. Recommendations for Affordable Residential Properties This section recommends an optimal strategy for each of the City's properties. Each property is discussed in detail below and the information is summarized in Table 3 below. The recommendations are based on the issues the City is currently facing and an analysis of the potential strategies described above. Table 3 Property Transfer to Hold Divest NPO* Assets Redevelopment A. log Longford B. 38o Alta Vista C. 714 -718 Linden D. 339 -341 Commercial E. 310 -314 Miller Avenue Properties *Sell to a Non - profit Organization for a nominal amount A. iog Longford Recommendation: Divest This property is best suited to be sold on the open market for approximately $547,000. As mentioned previously in this report, the home is quickly becoming unusable as a model "green" home due to outdated technology. It is also operating on a deficit due to no rental revenue. The property would be able to generate a high sale price due to its fairly recent remodel and green technology upgrades. Additionally the City wouldn't need to pay any relocation costs or replace this unit elsewhere as the property was never operated as an affordable rental unit. The City would contract with a real estate company to market, show, and sell the property. Due to the limited supply of housing on the market and an increasing demand, the City anticipates that this property would sell quickly. Since the property was purchased with City general funds, part of the proceeds could be deposited into the general fund and part should be deposited into the housing fund since the housing fund paid for the extensive rehabilitation of the property. 15 Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However, when leased to Shelter Network in the past, the house frequently remained vacant for long stretches of time due to the City's requirement that only South San Francisco victims of domestic violence be housed there. B. 38o Alta Vista Recommendation: Divest This property is best suited to be sold on the open market for approximately $1,000,000. The home is very large and underutilized in its current single - family configuration. It is also rented as a low- income unit and generates very little rental revenue. Having been recently remodeled and in a fairly desirable area, the property should sell quickly. There are no relocation issues but the current tenant (a City employee) must be given a go -day notice to vacate. The affordable unit has to be replaced but it can easily be accommodated in an affordable or mixed - income project elsewhere. The replacement unit cost in a larger mix- income development will be approximately $300,000 to $350,000 and will be offset by the estimated sale price of approximately $1,000,000. Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may be transferred (i.e. sold for a nominal amount) to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However, its distance from public transit could be a burden to low- income tenants that would likely rely on public transit. C. 714 -718 Linden Recommendation: Divest A private buyer recently approached the City expressing interest in purchasing the property. The property's resale value is approximately $784,000. Selling the property relieves the City of the property management burden and generates revenue for use in a new affordable or mixed - income housing development. As indicated earlier in this report, the revenue generated from this property is insufficient to fund operating expenses, maintenance and a replacement reserve. However, if the City sells the property it will have to replace three affordable units. The City will also have to relocate three families currently residing there that are eligible for relocation assistance. The City will either have to relocate the families at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 each, or discount the sale price so that the tenants can remain there for 42 months at their current rent. The funds generated by the sale will be sufficient to replace the units in another development and to reimburse the housing fund for relocation costs. 16 Alternative: Transfer to a Nonprofit If the City does not want to replace the units or incur relocation costs, the alternative recommendation is to transfer (i.e. sell for a nominal amount) the property to a nonprofit agency. The City can issue a request for proposals (RFP) to nonprofit agencies offering them the opportunity to take ownership of the property and utilize it to serve their clients. In the RFP the City can stipulate its conditions for transferring the property as well as giving the nonprofit agencies the opportunity to indicate how much they could pay for the property (if anything) and whether they would need the City to finance the acquisition. Selling the property to a nonprofit agency for a nominal amount, however, will not generate sales proceeds that can be leveraged into new affordable units. D. 339-341 Commercial Recommendation: Transfer to NPO This property was largely purchased with Federal HOME funds. Because it was predominantly purchased with HOME funds there is little financial advantage for the City to divest of the property as it would have to repay the HOME program. Additionally, it is not clear whether City (or a subsequent owner) could terminate the affordability restrictions due to the HOME funds. Therefore, the best option for the City is to reduce its management burden by transferring the property (i.e. selling for a nominal amount) to a nonprofit agency that would continue to operate it as affordable housing. Under this scenario, the City can issue an RFP to nonprofit agencies offering them the opportunity to take ownership of the property and utilize it to serve their clients. The nonprofit agency would assume the HOME loan and either repay the City its limited investment or take a second loan against the City's funds. In the RFP the City can stipulate its conditions for transferring the property as well as giving the nonprofit agencies the opportunity to indicate whether they would be able to repay the City its funds and /or establish a repayment schedule (if any). Alternative: None No other alternative is recommended. Continuous ownership by the City is not a financially sound option. E. Miller Avenue Recommendation: Redevelopment The City Council recently considered two proposals to redevelop the Miller Avenue properties. Per Council direction staff is preparing an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Rotary to advance their efforts to construct a 69 -unit, affordable senior project. In the event Rotary withdrew its interest in the property, the best use of this property would still be to identify a 17 developer that would construct a new housing development. No other alternative is recommended. Continuous ownership by the City in its present state underutilizes the properties and is not financially sound. VI. Conclusion The Housing Asset Management Plan is recommending that the City end the practice of owning hard -to- manage, scattered affordable housing sites and instead recapture financial resources by selling various sites and using the Miller Avenue properties to advance the development of higher density housing in the downtown. Combined with cash assets, the sale properties and /or the contribution of land into projects gives the City over $10 million with which to advance its affordable housing mission and to potentially facilitate the market -rate housing in the downtown through mixed - income projects. Finally, the City should attempt to utilize strategies that would leverage the limited supply of affordable housing funds and ensure that these funds are recycled so they can be re- invested again in the future. Enacting the recommendations in this plan will allow the City to achieve various goals including, initiating development of market -rate housing in the downtown, eliminating the City's cost and burden of managing affordable housing, replacing old affordable housing units with new units and potentially recycling affordable housing funds for future developments. If the City Council supports the strategies outlined in this Plan, staff will initiate steps to carry out the strategies contained herein including steps to sell the scattered affordable housing sites and preparing agreements for the development of the Miller Avenue properties. Appendix 1 Property Repairs Needed log Longford No repairs needed 38o Alta Vista New window screens and paint for one exterior wall Fill holes in yard Repair broken fence 339 A Commercial New door bell, window screens, stove fan, and closet door Replace missing kitchen cabinet door 339 B Commercial Not recently inspected 341 A Commercial New screen door and interior painting 341 B Commercial New window screens, interior paint, kitchen fan, and bedroom light fixture Replace missing kitchen cabinet door Remediate mold on bathroom ceiling Repair heater 714 Linden Repair cracked ceiling and damaged wall New interior paint and light covers Remove graffiti from garage door 716 Linden New blinds, refrigerator, door, window screen, and light covers 718 Linden No repairs needed 310 Miller New window screen and refrigerator Fix hard to open windows and damaged ceiling Clean the flooring 310 A Miller Remediate mold in bedroom Fix hard to open windows and repair broken window New stove, porch light, and door bell Entire unit needs to be cleaned 311 Tamarack New stove (unit behind 310 Miller) 312 Miller New interior paint, carpet, and light fixtures Repair damaged wall 312 A Miller New interior paint and carpet 313 A Tamarack No repairs needed (unit behind 312 Miller) 313 B Tamarack Repair leaking toilet (unit behind 312 New kitchen fan and linoleum Miller) 314 Miller Repair broken steps /landing New carpet 19 ' Affordable Housing Asset Management Plan City Council Study Session April 16, 2014 --Agenda--------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- ► Introduction ► Assets ► Residential Property Assets ► Loan Portfolio ► Cash Assets + Current Situation Property Management Residential Unit Strategies ► Recommendations forAffordable Residential Properties Conclusion 4/11/2014 20 1 Introduction Eliminate the City's cost and burden of managing affordable housing ► Make better use of underutilized assets ► Initiating development of new housing development in the downtown Replacing old affordable housing units with new units Residential Property Assets ► Seven properties ► 17 Units (1 -3 BR) ► Scattered sites ► Age of buildings 61 -100+ years ► Value $485,000 to $1,000,000+ ► Total Property Value —approximately $4,800,000 4/11/2014 21 2 109 Lonford Avenue Summary Profile: ► Property size: 4,500 sq. ft. ► Purchase Date: 1998 ► Purchase Price: $207,000 ► Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property ► Current Estimated Value:$547,200 ► Current Use: Green building model home 3-80-Alta-Vista Summary Profile ► Property Size: 9,100 sq. ft. ► Purchase Date: 2005 ► Purchase Price: $1,035,000 ► Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property ► Estimated Value: $1,040,287 ► Current Use: rented to city employee at below market rental rates 4/11/2014 22 3 714 -718 Linden Ave Summary Profile ► Property Size: 4,500 sq. ft. ► Purchase Date: 2005 ► Purchase Price: $862,000 ► Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing ► Estimated Value:$784,433 ► Current Use:Affordabl 339 -341 Commercial-Ave - Summary Profile ► Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft. ► Purchase Date: 1999 ► Purchase Price: $430,000 ► Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property /create affordable housing units ► EstimatedValue: $892,5 10 ► Current Use:Affordable housing 4/11/2014 23 4 310 -314 Miller Avenue Summary Profiles ► Property Size:Total 13,000 s.f. ► Purchase Date: 2004 -2008 ► Purchase Price: $1,983,950 (total all 3) ► Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing — ► Estimated Value: $1,999,607 (total all 3) ► Current Use:Affordable housing. Propose to enter into one -year lease with San Mateo County Emancipated Youth Program. I Loan Portfolio Assets ► Amortized First Time Homebuyer Loans Amortized loans $1,421,126 value as of January 2014 ► Deferred Loans to Nonprofit Developers ► To nonprofit housing developers ► Grand OakApartments, Greenridge, Chestnut Creek Senior, 636 El Camino Chestnut Creek ► No repayments ► $25,876,508 value 4/11/2014 24 5 Cash Assets ► Affordable Housing Trust Fund Developer fees and housing in -lieu fees $1,567,290 ► Housing Fund Revenue from housing assets (including first time homebuyer loans) $384,917 ► Bond Funds Former RDA Housing Bonds Available upon commitment to a project and included in a ROPS $2,381,532 ► Total Cash Available - $4,233,739 Current Situation (Residential Properties) ► Property management - strain on staff time and resources collect rent market and lease vacant units issue late payment and eviction notices ► Tenant issues (Since 201 1) 9 three -Day Notices to Pay or Quit 24 late payments I eviction Maintenance issues Over 30 maintenance calls 4/11/2014 25 Residential Property Strategies ► Divest ► Transfer to Nonprofit Agency (sell for a nominal fee) ► Hold Asset ► Redevelop - -- ------------------------------------- Transfer Hold Property Divest to NPO Assets Redevelop A. 109 Longford A. 380 AltaVista A. 714 -718 Linden A. 339 -341 Commercial A. MillerAvenue Properties 4/11/2014 26 7 Residential Property Strategies 109 Longford Avenue - Divest ► Outdated "green" technology ► No rent revenue VVVI111VV14llVi1111 ► Marketable : 380AItaVista - Divest ► Underutilized ► Drains staff resources ► High Value - $1 M ► Marketable Residential Property Strategies • 714 -718 Linden Avenue — Divest — Isolated — Drains staff resources — High maintenance needs — Difficult tenants — No redevelopment potential — Low rent revenue • 339 -341 Commercial Avenue — Transfer to Nonprofit (RFP) — Isolated — Drains staff resources — High maintenance needs — Difficult tenants — No redevelopment potential — Low rent revenue _ 4/11/2014 27 8 Residential Property Strategies ► Miller Avenue Properties —Redevelop Combine with surface parking lot Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Rotary �xciusrve i�egc�uaung Rign�sr�greenien� wiui 69 unit senior project lc"r x -_ 71„ , " 4/11/2014 28 9 Staff Re-port DATE: April 16, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A JOINT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR TIGER VI GRANT FUNDING OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALTRAIN STATION ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a joint application by the City of South San Francisco and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) for Transportation Investment General Economic Recovery Round 6 (TIGER VI) grant funding of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project (Project). BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION City staff is working with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) to prepare a joint application for Transportation Investment General Economic Recovery Round 6 (TIGER VI) grant funding for the complete Caltrain station relocation and pedestrian tunnel project that has been on hold due to lack of funding. A total of $600 million is being offered nationwide by the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) for multi - modal, multi jurisdictional projects not otherwise eligible for funding through traditional DOT programs. The Project will include final design, revalidation of environmental findings, and construction of a new platform, track, and station improvements as well as a pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing for the relocated SSF Caltrain station. Completion of the Project would overcome current barriers to transit ridership, link two key parts of the South San Francisco community, encourage greater use of Caltrain, BART, and the new ferry service at Oyster Point. Completion of the Project will also create vibrant gathering spaces to support pedestrian activity and local businesses. These improvements are critical to the long -range vitality of not only downtown South San Francisco but the entire region. JPB is paying for an economic consultant to prepare the cost benefit analysis that will address the primary selection criteria of providing long term outcomes that support livability, economic competitiveness, safety, environmental sustainability, and a state of good repair. City staff is providing portions of the narrative pertaining to South San Francisco benefits. Much of the supporting background information has been developed in the Downtown Station Area Plan effort. City staff is also securing letters of support. Staff Report Subject: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A JOINT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR TIGER VI GRANT FUNDING OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALTRAIN STATION ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Page 2 of 3 The TIGER VI application is due April 28, 2014. The City and JPB are looking to submit a grant application for $10,000,000 in TIGER VI grant funds. If awarded the grant, the funds need to meet an obligation deadline of June 2016 and must be spent by September 30, 2021. The proposed schedule for the Project meets the deadlines, with readiness for obligation in September of 2015, and completion of construction by March of 2019. Staff met with the South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on April 2, 2014 to review the Project and TIGER VI grant opportunity. The BPAC recommended submittal of a grant application and BPAC Chair, Teresa Avelar, provided a letter of recommendation (attachment to this staff report). FUNDING The Project has an estimated total cost of $62.5 million. This cost includes previous expenditures from both SSF and the JPB. Funding Source Amount TIGER VI grant funds $10,000,000 FTA funds $ 7,000,000 Local funds (San Mateo County Transportation Authority /JPB /South San Francisco)* $35,600,000 Previous expenditures (San Mateo County Transportation Authority /JPB /South San Francisco) expanded in following table $ 9,900,000 Total Project Cost $62,500,000 *SSF share to be determined The previous expenditures are broken out in the table below. Expenditure Amount Purchase of the Caltrans site (west side) $1,300,000 Remediation of the Caltrans site $ 490,000 Purchase of 296 Airport Boulevard $ 760,000 Purchase from Comfort Suites, Inc. (east side) $ 500,000 Plaza entrance design $ 150,000 JPB (Parking improvements, environmental document, plans, specifications, and estimates) $6,700,000 Total Current Project Expenses $9,900,000 Given the past expenditures for station improvements, the remaining need is approximately $53,500,000 to complete the project. TIGER VI grant funding will help fill the outstanding funding need. CONCLUSION This project will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety within the City. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving submission of this grant application. Staff Report Subject: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A JOINT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR TIGER VI GRANT FUNDING OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALTRAIN STATION ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Page 3 of 3 By -% Brian McMinn Director of Public Works /City Engineer Attachments 2263169.1 Resolution Station Map BPAC Letter of Support Approved: G Mike Futrell City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A JOINT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR TIGER VI GRANT FUNDING OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALTRAIN STATION ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") staff is working with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( "JPB ") to prepare a joint application for Transportation Investment General Economic Recovery Round 6 ( "TIGER VI ") grant funding for the complete Caltrain station relocation and pedestrian tunnel project that has been on hold in need of funding; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project ( "Project ") will include final design, revalidation of environmental findings, and construction of a new platform, track, and station improvements as well as a pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing for the relocated South San Francisco Caltrain Station; and WHEREAS, the City staff estimates it will cost $62,500,000 to implement the Project scope; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to sponsor the implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City and JPB seek a grant in the amount of $10,000,000 from TIGER VI grant funding, and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation ( "DOT ") issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the TIGER VI grant program. on February 25, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco supports and directs staff to submit a joint application by the City and the JPB for the TIGER VI grant funds in the amount of $10,000,000 for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of 2014 by the following vote: -1- AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: -2- City Clerk iF I rT *3 .s 6 y ; P � � 4 Y 0 I a • s t. z I • ! ! Z O 4 U) LLI W U O O H- �a w w � U Z Q Q O z 09 LLJ F- N C) zi w CDF- zn-Z LLI Q m Z Q cn LU � Lw Z Cl d m Q al Z Z 0L�tl W �a� Fay Ldz EM Department of Public Works Engineering Division Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee April 2, 2014 Mr. Anthony Foxx - Secretary of Transportation US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Foxx: CITY COUNCIL 2014 KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., COUNCILMEMBER LIZA NORMANDY, COUNCILMEMBER STEVEN T. MATTAS, INTERIM CITY MANAGER The City of South San Francisco's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) strongly supports the TIGER VI Discretionary Grant application for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project (Project). The existing station is outdated, substandard, and difficult to access. Northbound commuters must step across the southbound tracks and a very narrow platform for boarding and alighting. As a result, southbound train movement, system efficiency, and safety are hindered. Additionally, pedestrians and bikes traveling to and from the downtown area must ascend and descend a steep -and heavily traveled arterial overpass. The proposed new station will be relocated to a more easily accessible location relative to nearby public streets, and it will feature modern and fully separated northbound and southbound platforms. This will eliminate the hold -out rule, which currently requires southbound trains to wait outside the station while northbound trains are present. Of greatest significance, the Project will include a new pedestrian and bicycle underpass. This will tremendously improve commuter safety and access, and will encourage economic growth, reduce vehicular traffic, and increase the quality of life for a large portion of the local community. For these reasons, BPAC fully approves of the Project, and requests that the Department of Transportation award the requested grant money to enable it to proceed. If you require additional information from BPAC, please contact Lawrence Henriquez, Public Works Associate Civil Engineer at (650) 829 -6663. Sincerely, Teresa Avelar Chairperson SSF Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ADDRESS: 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94060 MAILINGS: P.O. BOX 711, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 4-