HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-09 e-packetRESOLUTION 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 9, 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
9, 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 the regular meeting held on the 9th day of April, 2014
by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
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
2260594.1
3
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
4
Final
Environmental Impact Report
5
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,
6
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
7
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 (“DEIR”) for the
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment;
8
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 9, 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.
3. 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
9
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 strikeout 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 found in establishments with long or late hours of operation
and in a relatively small building that is less than 5,000 gross 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 delicatessens or specialty food shops. It excludes
establishments which have a sizeable assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables or fresh cut meat.
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, 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.
10
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 area
that sell merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including, but not
limited to department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses clubs and
superstores which emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and
other big box format stores. Large Format Retail uses may include a limited (5,000 square feet or
less) grocery store sales component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores, as defined
by this section.
Superstore. Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that serve as a
one-stop shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a
discounted price. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales.
Superstores typically feature a full-service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 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).
11
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 purpose and intent of this chapter to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or
operation 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 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.
20.430.004 Violation and Enforcement
12
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 P(9) P P
Convenience Market P P(9) P P See Section 20.350.014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P(9) P P
Supermarket P P(9) P P
Limitations:
9. Hours of operation 7 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART
station
13
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
Large Format Retail C - - C
See Section
20.350.022024
Large Format Retail
Off-Price Merchandise C - - C
Second Hand Store C - C C
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
Sales
See sub-classifications below
P P - - -
Convenience Market C C - - -
See Section
20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P - - -
Supermarket P P - - -
14
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 BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Food and Beverage Retail Sales
See Sub-classifications below
P MUP C C
Convenience Market P P - P See Section 20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P(1) - C(1) C(1)
Supermarket P(1) - C(1) -
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 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 20.350.022024
Large Format Retail
Second Hand Store C - - -
Swap Meet C - - C
15
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 TC-R TV-RM TV-RH
Commercial Use
Classifications
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales
See sub-classifications below
P P - -
Convenience Market P C - - See Section 20.350.013014
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.
Uses Permitted ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH
Commercial Use
Classifications
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales
See sub-classifications
P P -
Convenience Market P P - See Section 20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P -
Supermarket P P -
16
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 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the 9th 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:_______________________________________________________________
17
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
18
Planning Commission
Staff Report
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
RECOMMENDATION
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.
19
Staff Report
Subject: Lg. Format Retail/Superstore 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 comment 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:
20
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 found in establishments with long or late hours of operation and in a relatively small building that
is less than 5,000 gross square feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same
21
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 delicatessens or specialty
food shops. It excludes establishments which have a sizeable assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables or
fresh cut meat.
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, 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.
Large Format Retail. Retail establishments over 80,000 square feet in size of sales area that sell
merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including, but not limited to
department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses clubs and superstores which
emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and other big box format stores.
Large Format Retail uses may include a limited (5,000 square feet or less) grocery store sales
component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores, as defined by this section.
Superstore. Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that serve as a one-stop
shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted
price. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically
feature a full-service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 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).
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, a new 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.
22
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.
23
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.
CEQA
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.
24
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 http://ca-
southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=367
b. Final EIR Response to Comments – also available for review at http://ca-
southsanfrancisco.civicplus.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
25
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 comments/questions:
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
26
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--Commissioner 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).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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
http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/media/files/pdf/PPRSCscreen11_2.pdf.
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
http://www.wdxyyhb.ufcw770.org/sites/all/themes/danland/files/BigBoxGrocers.pdf.
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
http://www.econ.psu.edu/~plg15/SuperEmpDist.pdf.
Public Law Research Institute. (2004). California Responses to Supercenter Development.
Prepared for the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Retreived from
http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/Supercenter%20report%202004.pdf.
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 for 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 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1491529.
46
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Large Format Retail/Superstore/
Food & Beverage Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment
January 8, 2013
PREPARED FOR:
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
12010067.01
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
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. iii
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ S-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... S-1
Summary Description of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................... S-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ S-2
Summary of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... S-2
Areas of Controversy ................................................................................................................................ S-3
Issues to be Resolved .............................................................................................................................. S-3
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
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 CEQA-REQUIRED
CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 5-1
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
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
ii City of South San Francisco
7 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1
Appendices
A Notice of Preparation
B NOP Comments
C Environmental Checklist
D Superstore Economic Impact Analysis
E Traffic Memo
F Seifel Memo
Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
Exhibit 2-2 Project Area .................................................................................................................................. 2-3
Exhibit 2-3 Affected Parcels ........................................................................................................................... 2-5
Exhibit 3.2-1 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County .................................................................. 3.2-3
Exhibit 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
Sector ........................................................................................................................................ 3.3-2
Tables
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ S-4
Table 2-1 Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Land Use Regulations for
Commercial and R&D Uses South San Francisco ..................................................................... 2-6
Table 3.1-1 Commercial Trip Rates ............................................................................................................. 3.1-7
Table 3.2-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ............................................................. 3.2-1
Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2010-2012)1 .......................................... 3.2-2
Table 3.2-3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................ 3.2-4
Table 3.2-4 Attainment Status Designations for San Mateo County ........................................................ 3.2-5
Table 3.4-1 General Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 3.4-4
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco iii
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AIA Airport Influence Area
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
CAA Clean Air Act
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
Caltrain commuter train service
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plan
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CMA community market area
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
DEIR Draft environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEIR Final EIR
GHG greenhouse gas
IS Initial Study
JPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board
LOS level of service
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Acronyms/Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
iv City of South San Francisco
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX oxides of nitrogen
parts per billion ppb
parts per million ppm
Plan Bay Area Bay Area 2040 RTP/SCS
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
ROG reactive organic gases
RTAC Regional Targets Advisory Committee
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
s.f. square feet
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SO2 sulfur dioxide
superstore large format retail use or store
TACs toxic air contaminants
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco S-1
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.
Summary Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
S-2 City of South San Francisco
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
Ascent Environmental Summary
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco S-3
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.
Summary Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
S-4 City of South San Francisco
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
3.1 Traffic
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 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. 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.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR
No mitigation is required.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR
3.2 Air Quality
Impact 3.2-1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan. 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 substantially increase or result in any
new impacts beyond those evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR
No mitigation is required.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR
Impact 3.2-2. Short-Term Construction Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10
and PM2.5. 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.
LTS (No new
significant impacts
beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR)
No mitigation is required.
LTS (No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR)
Impact 3.2-3. Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and
PM2.5. 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
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR
No mitigation is required.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR
Ascent Environmental Summary
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco S-5
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
the project would not substantially increase or result in any new
impacts beyond those evaluated in the General Plan EIR
3.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Impact 3.3-1 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Short-
Term Construction and Long-Term Operations. The project does not
foreseeably increase the amount or intensity of development that could
occur under General Plan buildout. The project would not affect any
impact of General Plan buildout with respect to Climate Change and
GHG emissions 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. 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.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR
No mitigation is required.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR
Impact 3.3-2 Consistency with a Plan for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. 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.
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
3.4 Land Use and Planning
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 proposed zoning amendments are consistent with General Plan
policies and principles; therefore, the project would comply with relevant
plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. The proposed project is also consistent with the
density standards and related policies expressed in the General Plan and
General Plan EIR. This impact would be less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Impact 3.4-2: Potential to result in physical deterioration leading to
urban decay. 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
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Summary Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
S-6 City of South San Francisco
Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
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.
5.1 Cumulative Impacts
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.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the
General Plan EIR
No mitigation is required.
No new significant
impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General
Plan EIR
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts
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
NI No mitigation is required. NI
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-1
INTRODUCTION 1
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.
PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS DEIR 1.1
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
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
1-2 City of South San Francisco
(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.
SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1.2
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall 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.
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-3
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
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
1-4 City of South San Francisco
AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1.3
This EIR will be used by the City to ensure it has met its requirements under CEQA before deciding whether
to approve the project.
1.3.1 Lead Agency
The City is the lead agency for CEQA compliance. The City Council has the principal responsibility for
approving and carrying out the project and for ensuring that the requirements of CEQA have been met. After
the EIR public review process is complete, the City Council is the party responsible for certifying that the EIR
adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. The City Council has the authority to
approve, approve with modifications, or reject the project.
1.3.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Under CEQA, a responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has responsibility to
carry out or approve a project (PRC Section 21069). A trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction
by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (PRC Section
21070). The proposed zoning amendment applies only to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and would not require
approval or permit issuance from other agencies or jurisdictions; therefore, there are no responsible or
trustee agencies associated with the project.
CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS 1.4
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
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-5
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
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
1-6 City of South San Francisco
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 for the 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.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DEIR 1.5
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 CEQA Topics: This chapter provides a discussion of potential direct and indirect growth
inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant and irreversible environmental
changes.
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-7
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.
STANDARD TERMINOLOGY 1.6
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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
1-8 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1
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.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 2.2
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.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-2
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-3
Exhibit 2-2 Project Area
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-4 City of South San Francisco
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.
PROPOSED LARGE FORMAT RETAIL/SUPERSTORE/FOOD & BEVERAGE 2.3
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.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-5
Exhibit 2-3 Affected Parcels
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-6 City of South San Francisco
2.3.2 Allowed Uses
Table 2-1 below outlines the various use classifications that are permitted and conditionally permitted within
each of the affected zoning categories. Table 2-1 also identifies which use classifications would be affected
by the proposed zoning amendment.
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
(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 - -
Automobile/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 -
Ascent Environmental Project Description
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-7
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
(FC)
Proposed Amendments
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 P(1) C(1)
Adds new classification and new
description and prohibits use in
East of 101 Area
Supermarket P P P(1) C(1)
Adds new classification and 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
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-8 City of South San Francisco
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
(FC)
Proposed Amendments
Large Format Retail C C P P Modifies description
Off-Price Merchandise C C - -
Second Hand Store C C C -
Swap Meet - - C -
Superstore - - - - Adds new definition and prohibits
use citywide
Research and Development (R&D)* - P P -
Clean Technology - - P -
The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
P permitted uses.
MUP Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner.
C Use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
- Uses that are not permitted.
(#): Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed below:
(1) Prohibited east of 101.
(4) Limited to locations east of South Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway.
(6) Only within hotels and motels.
(8) Restricted to: (a) areas located underneath major utility lines or under elevated freeways; or (b) consistent with General Plan Policy 3.2-1-5, airport-oriented parking
facilities on Produce Avenue that were legally approved prior to 1999.
(9) Hours of operation 7am 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 strikethrough.)
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
found in establishments with long or late hours of operation and in a relatively small building that is less
than 5,000 gross square feet. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as
Ascent Environmental Project Description
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-9
or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include delicatessens or specialty food shops.
It excludes establishments which have a sizeable assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables or fresh cut
meat.
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, 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.
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 area that sell
merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including, but not limited to
department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses clubs and superstores which
emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and other big box format stores.
Large Format Retail uses may include a limited (5,000 square feet or less) grocery store sales
component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores, as defined by this section.
Superstore. Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that serve as a one-stop
shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted price. They
are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically feature a full-
service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 5,000 square feet of the gross floor area, and
could include a delicatessen, baked goods, frozen foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and
prepared food. A superstore may also feature various business centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision
center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s).
3. Prohibit new “Superstore” uses in the City by adding a new chapter prohibiting the opening,
establishment, and/or operation of new superstore uses in the City (SSFMC 20.430 – Prohibition on New
Superstores). This amendment will also require the addition of this chapter title in the Zoning Ordinance
Chapter Index.
Chapter 20.430
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-10 City of South San Francisco
PROHIBITION ON NEW SUPERSTORES
Sections:
20.420.001 Purpose and Intent
20.420.002 Definitions
20.420.003 Superstores Prohibited
20.420.004 Violation and Enforcement
20.420.001 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or operation
of new superstore uses in the City. (Ord. § , 2013)
20.420.002 Definitions
The words and phrases included in this section shall have the following meanings, unless it is clearly
apparent from the context that another meaning is intended:
“Superstore” means retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that serve as one-
stop shopping destination by offering a wide variety of goods and merchandise, often at a discounted
price. They are distinguished by their size, and by the inclusion of grocery sales. Superstores typically feature
a full-service food and beverage retail sales area that exceeds 5,000 square feet of the gross floor area, and
could include a delicatessen, baked goods, frozen foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, dairy, and
prepared food. A superstore may also feature various business centers, such as a bank, pharmacy, vision
center, pet center, photo center, and prepared food outlet(s). (Ord. § , 2013)
20.420.003 Superstores Prohibited
A. Superstores are not a permitted use and are prohibited in all zones throughout the City. No
permit or any other applicable license or entitlement for use, nor any business license, shall be approved or
issued for the establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore within the City.
B. The establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore within the City is declared to be
a public nuisance and may be abated by the City either pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code
or any other available legal remedies, including, but not limited to, declaratory relief and civil injunctions.
(Ord. § , 2013)
20.420.004 Violation and Enforcement
The establishment, maintenance or operation of a superstore in violation of, or in noncompliance
with, any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable provisions of the Zoning Code or South San
Francisco Municipal Code, shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the
South San Francisco Municipal Code. In addition, the City may enforce the violation of this chapter by means
of civil enforcement through a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other
means authorized by the law. (Ord. § , 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 Project Description
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-11
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales
See sub-classifications below
P P(9) P P
Convenience Market P P(9) P P See Section 20.350.014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P(9) P P
Supermarket P P(9) P P
Limitations:
9. Hours of operation 7 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station
b. Table 20.090.002 – Land Use Regulations-Commercial, Office, and Mixed Use Districts: Update the
section reference for the additional regulations that pertain to “Large Format Retail”
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P - P P
Large Format Retail C - - C
See Section
20.350.022024
Large Format Retail
Off-Price Merchandise C - - C
Second Hand Store C - C C
c. Table 20.100.002 – Land Use Regulations-Downtown Districts: Add subclassifications below “Food and
Beverage Retail Sales” to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted, conditionally
permitted or not permitted.
Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales
See sub-classifications below
P P - - -
Convenience Market C C - - -
See Section
20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P - - -
Supermarket P P - - -
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-12 City of South San Francisco
d. Table 20.110.002 – Land Use Regulations-Employment Districts: Add subclassifications below “Food and
Beverage Retail Sales” to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted, conditionally
permitted or not permitted.
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
P MUP C C
Convenience Market P P - P See Section 20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P(1) - C(1) C(1)
Supermarket P(1) - C(1) -
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 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 20.350.022024
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
Sales
See sub-classifications below
P P - -
Convenience Market P C - - See Section 20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P - -
Supermarket P P - -
Ascent Environmental Project Description
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-13
g. Table 20.270.003 – Land Use Regulations-El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-Districts: Add subclassifications
below “Food and Beverage Retail Sales” to further clarify where in the City each of these uses are permitted,
conditionally permitted or not permitted. Clarifying the areas where “Grocery Store” and “Supermarket” uses
are permitted, conditionally permitted, or not permitted.
Uses Permitted ECR/C-MXH ECR/C-MXM ECR/C-RH
Commercial Use
Classifications
Food and Beverage Retail Sales
See sub-classifications
P P -
Convenience Market P P - See Section 20.350.013014
Convenience Market
Grocery Store P P -
Supermarket P P -
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
2-14 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3
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 Analysis Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3-2 City of South San Francisco
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.
Ascent Environmental Traffic and Transportation
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.1-1
TRAFFIC 3.1
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 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 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 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 LOS E 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.
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.
Traffic and Transportation Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.1-2 City of South San Francisco
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, I-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, according to land use
Ascent Environmental Traffic and Transportation
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.1-3
designations, between 1997 and 2020 (expected buildout 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 I-280 would be operating at an acceptable level.
Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan
According to the General Plan EIR, the following Draft General Plan Transportation Element policies and their
related programs would mitigate this potential impact.
Policy 4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growing and emerging
employment areas such as the East of 101 Area.
Policy 4.2-G-2: Improve connections between different parts of the City.
Policy 4.2-G-3: Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of-way to
establish new streets.
Policy 4.2-G-7: Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements.
Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections,
and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
Policy 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
Traffic and Transportation Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.1-4 City of South San Francisco
There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
Policy 4.2-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 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.
Ascent Environmental Traffic and Transportation
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.1-5
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).
Traffic and Transportation Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.1-6 City of South San Francisco
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.
Ascent Environmental Traffic and Transportation
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.1-7
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.1-1. Potential to generate traffic beyond the levels anticipated in the General Plan EIR such that a
potentially new significant environmental effect could result.
The General Plan EIR traffic estimates indicate (General Plan EIR Table 4.3-2) that added development
anticipated to occur under the General Plan will likely generate an additional 87,240 daily trips, for an
approved + General Plan total of 131,730 daily trips. Community Commercial development (1,145,000
square feet) and business commercial development (2,028,000 square feet) combined identified by the
General Plan would generate an estimated 48,960 daily trips, or 37.2 percent of the total expected trip
generation from development added under the approved + General Plan scenario. Therefore, assuming the
zoning amendment would prohibit a superstore of 178,000 square feet (s.f.), which represents the average
size of a typical “supercenter” as indicated by Target and Wal-Mart corporate websites (Seifel 2013), the
superstore would represent only a small segment (5.6 percent) of the Community Commercial and Business
Commercial combined 3,173,000 square footage of development anticipated in the General Plan. The
combined Community Commercial and Business Commercial constitutes less than 7 percent (9,030 trips)
of the total number of approved and added trips identified for buildout by 2020. Trips generated by a
superstore would represent a fraction of that 7 percent. The difference in trip generation between a
superstore and a different commercial use would represent a much smaller fraction of that 7 percent
(assuming that there is any notable difference in trip generation between the two development types).
For the reasons described above under “Methods and Assumptions,” the City cannot reasonably foresee a
specific alternate development type. However, when examining the trip generation rates of the range of
potential representative commercial uses that could be developed in lieu of a superstore, it is useful to note
that a superstore is neither the highest trip generator, nor the lowest trip generator, on a gross “per square
foot” basis. Table 3.1-1 below lists from highest to lowest the “per-square-foot” trip generation rates
representative of the range of commercial uses allowed under the affected zoning. As shown in the table,
the superstore (“Freestanding Discount Superstore”) is close to the middle on the trip generation scale.
Table 3.1-1 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
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
Traffic and Transportation Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.1-8 City of South San Francisco
few of the commercial uses presented in the table 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.
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.2-1
AIR QUALITY 3.2
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 Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects
Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction
of ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight.
ROG emissions result from incomplete
combustion and evaporation of chemical
solvents and fuels; NOX results from the
combustion of fuels
increased respiration and
pulmonary resistance; cough,
pain, shortness of breath, lung
inflammation
permeability of
respiratory epithelia,
possibility of
permanent lung
impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor
vehicle exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue,
nausea, vomiting, death
permanent heart
and brain damage
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.2-2 City of South San Francisco
Table 3.2-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas
turbines, and mobile and stationary
reciprocating internal combustion engines
coughing, difficulty breathing,
vomiting, headache, eye
irritation, chemical pneumonitis
or pulmonary edema; breathing
abnormalities, cough, cyanosis,
chest pain, rapid heartbeat,
death
chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung
function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) coal and oil combustion, steel mills,
refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory
tract, increased asthma
symptoms
Insufficient
evidence linking SO2
exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in
the atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
breathing and respiratory
symptoms, aggravation of
existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases,
premature death
alterations to the
immune system,
carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/developmental
effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects
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
Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2010-2012)1
2010 2011 2012
Ozone
Maximum concentration (1-hr/8-hr avg, ppm) 0.113/0.077 0.076/0.062 0.063/0.055
Number of days state standard exceeded (1-hr/8-hr) 2/0 0/0 0/0
Number of days national standard exceeded (8-hr) 1 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum concentration (μg/m3) 36.5 39.7 34.3
Number of days national standard exceeded (measured2) 1 1 0
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Maximum concentration (μg/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: μg/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 PM10. 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 every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
Source: ARB 2013b
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.2-3
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.
Source: ARB 2013c.
Exhibit 3.2-1 2008 Emissions Inventory for San Mateo County
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are pollutants that have been determined to cause have health effects even at low levels of exposure.
ARB designates substances as TACs based on research, public participation, and scientific peer-review of
epidemiological studies. Once a TAC is identified, ARB then adopts airborne toxics control measures that
include the best available control technology to minimize emissions from sources that emit TACs. Mobile-
source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) in California have been reduced
substantially over the last decade, and will be reduced further through a progression of regulatory measures,
cleaner fuels, more efficient engines, and control technologies.
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The plan area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality in the plan area is
regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the
BAAQMD. Each of these agencies develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with
applicable legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations are
allowed to be more stringent.
The quality of ambient air (and consequently the premise of air quality regulations) is based on
concentrations of several air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
T
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
)
Stationary
Areawide
On-Road Vehicles
Other Mobile
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.2-4 City of South San Francisco
(SO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), 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 Standards1
Standards2,3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – –
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
Carbon monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8-hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) –
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 – Same as Primary Standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine particulate matter
(PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard 24-hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)6
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) – –
3-hour – – 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.025 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) –
Lead7
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.2-5
Table 3.2-3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California National Standards1
Standards2,3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
No
National
Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 7 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer —visibility of 10 mi or
more
Notes: ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; µg/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 PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/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 μg/m3). Equivalent units given in parentheses are based
on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
5 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a
pollutant.
6 The U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for SO2 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 County
Pollutant National Designation State Designation
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Unclassified Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
NO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
SO2 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; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; SO2 = 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 2013a). Attainment status for the CAAQS
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.2-6 City of South San Francisco
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-I-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines.
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.2-7
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-I-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.
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.2-8 City of South San Francisco
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 over time.
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.
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.2-9
As indicated by Table 3.1-1 in Section 3.1 “Traffic,” a superstore is neither the most intense nor least
intense commercial trip generator. By removing the superstore development type from the menu of
development options, the upper and lower ends of trip generation scale remain the same. Removal of
grocery use within the East of 101 Area would remove a trip generator at the higher end of the trip
generation scale. The proposed project would not result in foreseeable additional traffic and associated
mobile-source emissions beyond the development allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,
the proposed project would not affect the conclusions in Section 4.4 (Air Quality) of the General Plan EIR.
As mentioned above, the General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would result
in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, even with the General Plan policies that encourage VMT
reductions and implementation of applicable transportation control measures. This is because the City
estimated that the projected growth rate identified in the 1999 General Plan would generate VMT that would
exceed the assumptions contained in the 1997 Clean Air Plan. It should be noted that the 2010 Clean Air
Plan is based, in part, on the growth projections identified in the City of South San Francisco 1999 General
Plan. Therefore, while the proposed project would not affect the conclusions or the analysis of the General
Plan EIR, the updates to the Clean Air Plan, which bring the Clean Air Plan into consistency with the City’s
General Plan, would likely reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level if evaluated today. Despite a
potentially different conclusion resulting from the updates to the Clean Air Plan, the proposed project
remains within the scope of the General Plan EIR.
In sum, the proposed project would not cause direct physical changes to the environment; any indirect
physical changes caused by the project are within the scope of the adopted General Plan and further,
specific indirect physical changes are not reasonably foreseeable and would require speculation. The project
would not substantially increase or result in any new impacts beyond those evaluated in the General Plan
EIR.
Impact 3.2-2. Short-Term Construction Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5.
The proposed zoning amendment would not directly result in any land development or associated construction
activity. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan’s density standards. (See Section 3.4
“Land Use and Planning” for additional detail regarding density consistency.) The level of construction activity
that would be allowed under the proposed zoning amendments would not exceed the level of development
intensity assumed in the 1999 General Plan EIR. The 1999 General Plan EIR concluded that short-term air-
quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Under the proposed project, no net
increase in construction-generated emissions of ozone precursors or particulate matter would occur above-
and-beyond the levels evaluated in the 1999 General Plan EIR. Consistent with the conclusion of the General
Plan EIR, this impact is less than significant.
Impact 3.2-3. Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5.
The proposed project would not result in any direct land use development or associated long-term
operational emissions of ozone precursors or particulate matter. For the reasons described above under
Impact 3.2-1, although the project would remove one development option (superstores citywide and grocery
east of Hwy 101) allowed under the current zoning, the proposed project would not result in development of
a land use that exceeds the intensity of the land uses currently allowed under the existing General Plan. The
proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan’s density standards. (See Section 3.4 “Land Use
and Planning” for additional detail regarding density consistency.) Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a net increase in regional VMT and associated emissions greater than the levels evaluated in the
City’s General Plan EIR. This impact is within the scope of the air quality analysis completed for the City’s
General Plan EIR, and the project would not substantially increase or result in any new impacts beyond those
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.2-10 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.3-1
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.3
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 (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. The
greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth. Without the greenhouse
effect, Earth would not be able to support life as we know it. CO2 is the most prevalent of all GHG emissions.
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate,
known as global warming or global climate change. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the
past 50 years can be explained without taking into consideration the contribution of GHG emissions from
human activities (IPCC 2007).
GHGs differ from criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants discussed in Section 3.2, which have
mostly localized air quality effects and have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day). GHGs have
long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years), and thus GHGs persist in the atmosphere for
long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe.
According to Cal-Adapt, a climate change scenario planning tool developed by the California Energy
Commission, temperatures in the project area are projected to rise 3-5°F by 2100, with the range based on
low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2013). Cal-Adapt downscales global climate model data to local
and regional resolution under two emissions scenarios; the A-2 scenario represents a business-as-usual
future emissions scenario, and the B-1 scenario represents a lower GHG emissions future. Other anticipated
climate change impacts that may affect the project area include sea level rise, increased frequency of
coastal flooding, water and energy supply variability due to altered precipitation patterns (Cal-Adapt 2013).
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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.3-2 City of South San Francisco
Source: City of South San Francisco 2013
Exhibit 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide Baseline
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its decision in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental
Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05‐1120), issued on April 2, 2007, that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an
air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. This
has led EPA to take actions to begin regulating and monitoring GHG emissions from mobile and stationary
sources.
State
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra
Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea
level. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total GHG emission targets. Specifically,
emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below
the 1990 level by 2050. This Executive Order is binding only on state agencies, and has no force of law for
local governments; however, the signing of S-3-05 sent a clear signal to the California Legislature about the
framework and content for legislation to reduce GHG emissions.
48%
36%
6%
4% 3% 2%
1%
Energy
Transportation
Stationary Sources
Off-road
Solid Waste
Landfill
Water and Wastewater
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.3-3
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).
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.3-4 City of South San Francisco
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
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.3-5
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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.3-6 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.4-1
LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.4
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.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.4-2 City of South San Francisco
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 3.4-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.
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).
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.4-3
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.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.4-4 City of South San Francisco
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.
Table 3.4-1 General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policy Is the Project
Consistent? Consistency Discussion
Policy 2-G-5: Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center,
and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.
Y Economic studies (See Seifel 2012) show that
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.
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.
Y Superstores are typically stand-alone or associated with
other retail development. Superstores do not typically
include mixed uses and are not generally as conducive to
transit as smaller retail uses (shorter walking distance
from stop to door, fewer purchases and bags to carry,
etc.). Prohibiting superstores would not discourage mixed-
use development supported by transit.
Policy 6-G-1: In partnership with business and community groups,
proactively participate in the City’s economic development.
Y A wide range of commercial and retail development types
would be available after implementation of the proposed
project. Prohibiting superstores would not discourage
overall commercial development within the city and would
not adversely affect the City’s partnerships with business
and community groups or the City’s participation in
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.
Y Superstores have been shown to adversely affect other
local grocery retail uses. The Seifel Study (2012) indicated
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.
Policy 6-G-3: Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting
business in South San Francisco.
Y See discussion above for Policy 6-G-2. The proposed
project would not adversely affect the climate for
conducting business.
Policy 6-G-5: Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and Y Economic studies, including the Seifel 2012 report and
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 3.4-5
Table 3.4-1 General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policy Is the Project
Consistent? Consistency Discussion
sound fiscal planning; reserve sites for designated uses rather than
accepting any development.
reports referenced therein, indicate that a superstore may
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.
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.
Y See discussion above for Policy 2-G-7. Prohibiting
superstores would not discourage walkable mixed-use
development supported by transit. It would also not
substantially limit the 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.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
3.4-6 City of South San Francisco
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:
larger chains with discount pricing and little differentiation from superstores;
marginal, declining businesses that will experience intensified declines;
stores lacking a unique market position and no specialized customer base; and
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;
discount product offerings and store characteristics that differentiate them from superstores;
neighborhood convenience;
high customer loyalty; and
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.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 4-1
ALTERNATIVES 4
INTRODUCTION 4.1
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].)
Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
4-2 City of South San Francisco
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES 4.2
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.
Ascent Environmental Alternatives
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 4-3
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS DEIR 4.3
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.
Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
4-4 City of South San Francisco
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 4.4
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
Ascent Environmental Alternatives
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 4-5
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
Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
4-6 City of South San Francisco
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.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 4.5
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
Ascent Environmental Alternatives
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 4-7
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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
4-8 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 5-1
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, GROWTH INDUCEMENT, 5
AND OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.1
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.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 5.2
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);
Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement, Other CEQA-Required Considerations Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
5-2 City of South San Francisco
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 creating jobs 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.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS 5.3
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
Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement, Other CEQA-Required Considerations
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 5-3
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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
5-4 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS 6
LEAD AGENCY 6.1
City of South San Francisco
Susy Kalkin ........................................................................................................................................... Chief Planner
Girard Beaudin, AICP, MCIP, LEED AP ........................................................................................... Principal Planner
PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 6.2
Ascent Environmental
Gary Jakobs, AICP ......................................................................................................................................... Principal
Mike Parker, 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
Lisa Kashiwase ..................................................................................................................................... GIS Specialist
Amber Giffin ............................................................................................................................ Document Production
Gayiety Lane ........................................................................................................................... Document Production
Crane Transportation
Mark D. Crane, P.E. ......................................................................................................... Traffic and Transportation
Seifel Consulting
Libby Seifel .................................................................................................................................. Economics Analysis
List of Preparers Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
6-2 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
City of South San Francisco 7-1
REFERENCES 7
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/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
ARB. 2013b. Air Quality Data Statistics. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.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.baaqmd.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&lng=-122.4375&zoomLevel=10&gridID=9q8ymug9x7ny&tool=
temperature. Accessed December 4, 2013.
References Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Draft EIR
7-2 City of South San Francisco
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 I 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
Appendix B
NOP Comments
Appendix C
Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-1
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)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and
any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
See Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the DEIR.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project’s
surroundings)
N/A (city-wide)
10: Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
See Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of the DEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-2 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-3
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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-4 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-5
C.1 AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-6 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already 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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-7
C.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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
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?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-8 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland together under the term “Agricultural
Land” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21060.1 and 21095 and State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G).
Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local
advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors; conversion of this land is typically not
considered significant under CEQA.
In 2010, DOC estimated that San Mateo County had approximately 54,089 acres of agricultural land, of
which approximately 5,292 acres were identified as Important Farmland and 48,797 acres were identified
as Grazing Land (DOC 2011). None of the farmland is located within the City of South San Francisco, which
is considered to consist of urban and built-up land and other land (DOC 2011). Further, the City of South San
Francisco does not contain any land under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2012).
Forestry Resources
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines defines forestland as land that can support 10 percent native tree
cover and woodland vegetation of any species—including hardwoods—under natural conditions, and that
allows for management of one or more forest resource—including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife,
biodiversity, water quality, recreation—and other public benefits (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
12220[g]).
The City of South San Francisco is primarily used for developed uses (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial). Areas that support large populations of trees are limited to open space areas, including Common
Greens, Bayfront Linear Park, Oyster Point Marina Park, and Sign Hill Park (City of South San Francisco
1999).
Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR 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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-9
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, 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))?
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; General 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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-10 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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
EIR already
addresses
III. Air Quality.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the 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 substantially to an
existing or projected 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)?
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 (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
inhalable particulate matter (PM10), 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-11
(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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. 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
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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-12 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project:
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,
filling, 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?
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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-13
in the area attract a variety of reptile, amphibian, and bird species for breeding and foraging. Some reptile
and amphibian species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoon, skunk, and fox, may use
wetland habitat. The nearshore tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open water, provide habitat
for many species of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals (City of South San Francisco
1999).
South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sigh
Hill currently designated parkland by the City. The purpose of the Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) is to
conserve and enhance as much of the remaining natural habitat on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill as
possible. The plants allow for limited development in strict accordance with the provisions of each HCP,
ensuring enhancement of habitat through the transfer of privately held lands to the public, and through the
provision of funding for conservation and enhancement activities outlined in each HCP (City of South San
Francisco 1999).
Regulations
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C., Section 703-712)
There are over 900 species of birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA
prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or
nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Game.
A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season, which
in San Mateo County is September 1 through January 31, or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior
to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds have
fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird
species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and
tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged.
California Department of Fish and Game
Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads,
“It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise
provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.”
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a
circumference of 48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated
by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or
unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and
Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-14 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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, filling, 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 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 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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-15
C.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
V. Cultural 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 pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-16 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR 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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-17
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 New Significant Impacts; 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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-18 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued 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?
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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-19
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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-20 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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.
Landsliding
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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-21
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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-22 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Science
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s
surface temperature through a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing
to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. The
greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth. Without the greenhouse
effect, Earth would not be able to support life as we know it. CO2 is the most prevalent of all GHG emissions.
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate,
known as global warming or global climate change. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the
past 50 years can be explained without taking into consideration the contribution of GHG emissions from
human activities (IPCC 2007).
GHGs differ from criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants discussed in Section 3.2, which have
mostly localized air quality effects and have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day). GHGs have
long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years), and thus GHGs persist in the atmosphere for
long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe.
According to Cal-Adapt, a climate change scenario planning tool developed by the California Energy
Commission, temperatures in the project area are projected to rise 3-5°F by 2100, with the range based on
low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2013). Cal-Adapt downscales global climate model data to local
and regional resolution under two emissions scenarios; the A-2 scenario represents a business-as-usual
future emissions scenario, and the B-1 scenario represents a lower GHG emissions future. Other anticipated
climate change impacts that may affect the project area include sea level rise, increased frequency of
coastal flooding, water and energy supply variability due to altered precipitation patterns (Cal-Adapt 2013).
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-23
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.
Source: City of South San Francisco 2013
Figure 3.3-1 2005 South San Francisco Community-Wide
Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Consideration of impacts associated with additional greenhouse gas
emissions is discussed in greater detail in the Draft EIR.
48%
36%
6%
4% 3% 2%
1%
Energy
Transportation
Stationary Sources
Off-road
Solid Waste
Landfill
Water and Wastewater
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-24 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact. 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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-25
C.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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
(USTs), permitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous waste (City of South San Francisco 1999).
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-26 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 EIR 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-27
Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and State Water Resources
Control Board. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate
regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, resources, and the environment. The project
eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery
use from the range of uses that could be developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter
the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan.
Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
There would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The City of South San Francisco is
adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport. However, the proposed amendment addresses the types
of commercial uses that are allowed and does not address height, location, or other issues that may be in
conflict with airport land uses. Physical features of structures are regulated by the Zoning Ordinance and the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure safety. The project eliminates superstores from the range of
commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be
developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. Because the proposed amendment
addresses the type of commercial development allowed within the city and does not alter the requirements
for height, location, or other issues that may be in conflict with adopted emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans, the project would not impair implementation or otherwise physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project eliminates superstores from the range
of commercial uses that could be developed in the city and grocery use from the range of uses that could be
developed within the East of 101 Area. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of
commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant
effects would occur and these issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The proposed amendment directs the
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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-28 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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-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?
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-29
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 sites1 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-30 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected, the quality of this water is considered
good. However, contamination may be present in existing or former industrial areas of unconfined waste
disposal, or in the areas of high groundwater levels.
Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a
level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
on- or off-site erosion or siltation?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or off-site flooding?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment would prohibit superstore use citywide. This amendment would not directly result in
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-31
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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-32 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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 EIR 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-33
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. 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; General Plan EIR already 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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-34 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
XI. 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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already 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 Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-35
C.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
XII. Noise. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or in other applicable local, state, 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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting
Noise levels in California are typically measured in dBA, which is the A-weighted sound level of decibels (dB).
This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Decibels are a unit of measurement indicating the relative amplitude or intensity of a sound. Sound levels
are typically regulated by a maximum sound level (Lmax) 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-36 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
San Francisco’s major noise source. In addition, traffic noise along freeways 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
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
7:00 AM–10:00 PM
50
60
R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any
specific plan district 10:00 PM–7:00 AM
7:00 AM–10:00 PM
55
60
C-1, P-C, Gateway, and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any
specific plan district 10:00 PM–7:00 AM
7:00 AM–10:00 PM
60
65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: City of San Francisco Municipal Code
Discussion
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal
standards?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR 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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-37
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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The zoning amendment would affect the
types of potential development within areas designated as commercial. The South San Francisco Noise
Ordinance contains existing and future noise contours associated with SFIA, located south of the city. The
proposed zoning amendment would not alter the location of commercial land uses or otherwise affect
implementation of the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The project eliminates superstores (and
grocery use east of Hwy 101) from the range of commercial uses that could be developed. It does not
otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed consistent with the
General Plan. As discussed above, the project would not cause any direct physical changes; any indirect
physical changes caused by the project are not reasonably foreseeable and therefore would require
speculation. If the amendments are adopted, any physical change would be consistent with and authorized
by the existing General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no new significant effects would
occur that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR and these issues will not be discussed further in the
EIR.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. There are no private airstrips within the
City of South San Francisco. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that
could be developed in the city. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses
that could be developed consistent with the General Plan. As discussed above, the project would not cause
any direct physical changes; any indirect physical changes caused by the project are not reasonably
foreseeable and therefore would require speculation. If the amendments are adopted, any physical change
would be consistent with and authorized by the existing General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, no new significant effects would occur that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-38 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already 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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-39
C.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
XIV. 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.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-40 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 8th grade and one private school
serving students from kindergarten through 12th 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 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. As described
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-41
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 Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-42 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.15 RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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 New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The proposed zoning amendment pertains
to the types of commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. 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 Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-43
C.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
addresses
XVI. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for 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 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 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-44 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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 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 LOS E 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.
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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-45
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The proposed zoning amendment pertains
to the types of commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. The project
would not affect airfields and would not create safety hazards to existing air traffic. The project eliminates
superstores (and grocery use east of Hwy 101) from the range of commercial uses that could be developed.
It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could be developed
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these issues will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The project addresses the types of
commercial uses that would be permissible in the City of South San Francisco. It would not affect roadway
design or promote incompatible uses. There would be no impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Significant Impacts; General Plan EIR already addresses. The zoning amendments concern
permissible commercial facilities in the City of South San Francisco and would not affect existing emergency
access requirements. The project eliminates superstores from the range of commercial uses that could be
developed in the city. It does not otherwise alter the potential use or intensity of commercial uses that could
be developed consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no new significant effects would occur and these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities are discussed in the Draft EIR.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-46 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
C.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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 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?
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 I-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
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-47
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; General Plan EIR already addresses. The proposed amendment would prohibit
superstores in the city and grocery use east of Hwy 10). Parcels affected by the zoning amendment would
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-48 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-49
C.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Significant
Impacts;
General Plan
EIR already
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 restrict the 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
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.)
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, 21095; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic
Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and 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 EIR 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
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South San Francisco
C-50 Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study
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.
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study C-51
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/smt10.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
Appendix E
Traffic Memo
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 1
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
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 LOS E 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.
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 2
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.
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
III. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN EIR CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
& CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the General Plan EIR’s transportation analysis is to develop policies and to
identify major transportation system improvements needed to accommodate the projected growth
afforded by the proposed land uses designations. Therefore, the transportation analysis was
based on the ability of the transportation system to accommodate daily traffic volumes and travel
demand. This level of analysis is sufficient to identify new roadways (and the number of lanes
on those roadways), roadway extensions, new interchanges, and new transit service.
Impact 4.3-a Future Development could cause an increase in traffic beyond
established Level of Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments.
The San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes
LOS standards for principal arterials and their corresponding CMP
LOS standards (in parentheses) are:
US 101 (E)
I-280 (D)
I-380 (C)
State Route 82: El Camino Real (E)
Bayshore Boulevard (E)
Trip Generation
Approximately 44,500 daily trips are projected to be added to South San Francisco’s
transportation system as a result of approved developments. Buildout of the General Plan is
projected to add an additional ± 87,240 daily trips. Business park uses are replacing
warehouse/industrial uses as part of the General Plan land use changes. This will change the
vehicle mix from truck traffic to automobile traffic east of the US 101 freeway.
Approximately 817,000 square feet of community commercial development and 2,028,000
square feet of business commercial development was projected to be added as part of the General
Plan, resulting in 41,910 daily two-way trips, or approximately 48 percent of the total General
Plan added development trip generation.
Surface Street Impacts
Congested conditions are projected to occur at the following locations on the local surface street
system as it currently exists, without the street improvements proposed in the General Plan.
These locations are:
El Camino Real – North of Hickey and south of Westborough Boulevard
Westborough Boulevard – Junipero Serra to W. Orange Avenue
Orange Avenue – Miller Avenue to Sunset Avenue
Oyster Point Boulevard – US 101 to Gateway Boulevard
East Grand Avenue Gateway Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 4
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)
Freeway Segment
Capacity
Base
Projection
(V/C)
SSF General
Plan Added
Traffic
Total
Traffic
V/C
US 101 County Line to
Oyster Point Blvd.
18,400 18,725
(1.02)
1,500 20,225 1.10
I-280, Hickey Blvd. to
Westborough Blvd.
18,400 13,945
(0.76)
300 14,245 0.77
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.
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 5
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
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 6
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 7
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: Trip 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
CTG
December 2013 South San Francisco Superstore Page 8
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.
Appendix F
Seifel Memo
City of South San Francisco Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 1
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 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 2
1. Description of Affected Parcels
As described above, the City is considering Zoning Ordinance amendments that would further
define and/or restrict uses related to food and beverage retail sales. These amendments would
only affect properties that are currently zoned Community Commercial, El Camino Real
Mixed Use, Business Commercial, or Freeway Commercial in South San Francisco.
City staff and Ascent Environmental analyzed what properties would be affected by the proposed
amendments and prepared a map that shows the affected parcels. (See Exhibit 1 at the end of this
report, which is referenced as Exhibit 2.3 in the Draft EIR.) Three major roadways serve as
regional connectors to South San Francisco, intersecting the City from west to east:
• Junipero Serra Freeway, Interstate 280 (US 280) along the west side of the City
• El Camino Real, State Route 82 (El Camino Real) in the center of the City
• Bayshore Freeway, Highway 101 (US 101) 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 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 3
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 of sales area
that sell merchandise and/or bulk goods primarily for individual consumption, including,
but not limited to department stores, home improvement stores, membership warehouses
which emphasize bulk sales to the general public as well as to other businesses, and other
big box format stores. Large Format Retail uses may include a limited (5,000 square feet
or less) grocery store sales component. This use type specifically excludes Superstores,
as defined by this section.
In order to evaluate the effect of the amendments, City staff and its consultant team (EIR team)
analyzed how the proposed modifications would affect future allowable development uses for the
four affected zoning designations (Community Commercial, El Camino Real Mixed Use,
Business Commercial and Freeway Commercial) by reviewing the City’s Zoning Ordinance and
the proposed changes. Table 1 presents a summary of the commercial and R&D uses that are
currently allowed to be developed on the affected parcels and the proposed changes with the
amendment.1
1 R&D uses are included as they represent a likely employment generating use for the Business Commercial and
Freeway Commercial categories. Additional employment related uses are allowed in the Zoning Ordinance, and the
proposed amendments would not modify R&D and other employment related categories.
City of South San Francisco Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 4
As indicated in Table 1, the Zoning Ordinance uses the following designations for each type of
allowable use to indicate whether it is permitted or could be allowed after review and upon
approval by a Chief Planner or the Planning Commission:
• “P” designates permitted uses.
• “MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor
Use Permit by the Chief Planner.
• “C” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
• “(#)” 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 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 5
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. 3 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.5 Thus, while
major retailers currently may prefer certain development types and parcel configurations, their
market preferences will almost certainly change over the lifetime of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Conclusion
Given the broad range of development types that would continue to be allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance taking into account the proposed amendments, it is challenging to forecast specific
development types that would be developed on the affected parcels given the long time horizon
for future development envisioned in the General Plan and accompanying Zoning Ordinance. As
the City of South San Francisco has seen over the past decade, development proposals can change
dramatically over time as market and development conditions shift. Sometimes development is
approved, but the approval is not acted upon before market conditions and the development
climate change.6 Therefore, any attempt to forecast specific development types that would be
2 According to Ernst Young’s review of the risks and opportunities for the retail sector. See
http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Consumer-Products/Turn-risk-and-opportunities-into-results--Retail-sector
3 According to Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014 published by the Urban Land Institute/PWC, pages 58-59. See
http://www.uli.org/research/centers-initiatives/center-for-capital-markets/emerging-trends-in-real-estate/americas/
4 Walmart and Target are the two major US retailers that currently include superstores. According to their corporate
websites, a typical Walmart Supercenter is about 182,000 square feet (http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/our-
business/walmart-us) and a SuperTarget is about 174,000 square feet (http://pressroom.target.com/news/fastfacts).
5 http://pressroom.target.com/news/san-franciscos-second-citytarget-opening-october-2013
6 City staff cited two particular examples of properties where development proposals have changed significantly over
the past 15 years. Home Depot purchased the former Levitz property at 900 Dubuque Avenue and received approvals
in 2005 to build a new Home Depot on the site, but then decided not to build. This property continues to remain
City of South San Francisco Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 6
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 Seifel Consulting Inc.
Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments January 2014 7
Exhibit 1
Location of Affected Parcels by Zoning Designation
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri,
DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013
G12010067 01 002
Legend
City Limits
Affected Parcels
Business Commercial
Community Commercial
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Freeway Commercial
0 1,500 3,000
Feet I
Basemap: ESRI 2013
Affected Parcels
Source: Data received from the City of South San Francisco in 2013
Seifel Consulting Inc.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 --
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and ServicesSee sub-classifications below.
Auto/Vehicle Rental MUP -MUP(1)-
Auto/Vehicle Sales and Leasing MUP -C C
Auto/Vehicle Service and Repair, MajorC ---
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 RecreationSee 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 EstablishmentsSee 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 P(1)C(1)Adds new classification, new description and prohibits
use in East of 101 Area.
Supermarket P P P(1)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 operation 7am 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report
Large Format Retail/Superstore/
Food & Beverage Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment
March 14, 2014
PREPARED FOR:
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... iii
1 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................... 1-1
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
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
ii City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco iii
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AIA Airport Influence Area
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
CAA Clean Air Act
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
Caltrain commuter train service
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plan
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CMA community market area
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
DEIR Draft environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEIR Final EIR
GHG greenhouse gas
IS Initial Study
JPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board
LOS level of service
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Acronyms/Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
iv City of South San Francisco
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX oxides of nitrogen
parts per billion ppb
parts per million ppm
Plan Bay Area Bay Area 2040 RTP/SCS
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
ROG reactive organic gases
RTAC Regional Targets Advisory Committee
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
s.f. square feet
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SO2 sulfur dioxide
superstore large format retail use or store
TACs toxic air contaminants
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
The Draft EIR for the 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
Introduction and List of Commenters Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
1-2 City of South San Francisco
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
Ascent Environmental Introduction and List of Commenters
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 1-3
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 during the 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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
1-4 City of South San Francisco
This page intentionally left blank.
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 2-1
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 through. 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 5
percent 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 OF THE 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 in the Brentwood Shopping Center on Brentwood Drive 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 Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
2-2 City of South San Francisco
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 3-1
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
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
3-2 City of South San Francisco
Ascent Environmental Comments and Responses
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 3-3
Response
California Public Utilities Commission
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.
Comments and Responses Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
3-4 City of South San Francisco
Ascent Environmental Comments and Responses
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
City of South San Francisco 3-5
Comments and Responses Ascent Environmental
Large Format Retail/Superstore/Food & Beverage Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Final EIR
3-6 City of South San Francisco
Response
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
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.