The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrive Through Regulations ISMND DraftInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Rozalynne Thompson,Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 WRA Contact: Jonathan Hidalgo [email protected] Date: March2016 Table of Contents Background..........................................................................................................................1 1.Project Title:................................................................................................................1 2.LeadAgency and Project Applicant:............................................................................1 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:...........................................................................1 4.Project Location:..........................................................................................................1 5.Description of Project:..................................................................................................1 6. Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits.....................................................5 7. Project Location..............................................................................................................5 8. General Plan Designation and Zoning District.................................................................6 Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................12 I.AESTHETICS.............................................................................................................13 II.AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................14 III.AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................15 IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................18 V.CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................21 VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS..............................................................................................23 VII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................................28 VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..............................................................30 IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................33 X.LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................................37 XI.MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................40 XII.NOISE........................................................................................................................41 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................46 XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES...................................................................................................47 XV.RECREATION............................................................................................................48 XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...................................................................................48 XVII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................54 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.........................................................56 CITED SUPPORTING Information Sources......................................................................58 Setting References.............................................................................................................60 Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San FranciscoMarch 2016 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.City Boundary Map7 Figure 2. Zoning Districts: Subject to Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments8 Figure 3. Affected Parcels within the Project Area9 LIST OF TABLES Table20.090.002: LandUseRegulations — Commercial, Office,andMixed -UseDistricts2 Table20.110.002: LandUseRegulations —EmploymentDistricts3 Table 8.32.030NoiseLevelStandards43 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Air Quality Emissions Calculations Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San FranciscoiiMarch 2016 LIST OF ACRONYMS ANDABBREVIATIONS ABAGAssociation of Bay Area Governments ALUCAirport Land Use Commission BAAQMDBay Area Air Quality Management District BMPBest Management Practice C/CAGCity/County Association of Governments CaltransCalifornia Department of Transportation CBCCalifornia Building Code CCCCalifornia Coastal Commission CCRCalifornia Code of Regulations CDFWCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) CEQACalifornia Environmental Quality Act CESACalifornia Endangered Species Act CFRCode of Federal Regulations CMACongestion Management Agency CMPCongestion Management Program CNDDBCalifornia Natural Diversity Database CityCity of South San Francisco CorpsUnited StatesArmy Corps of Engineers CRLFCalifornia red-legged frog CWAClean Water Act CWSCCalifornia Water Service Company EPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency ESHAEnvironmentally Sensitive Habitat Area FESAFederal Endangered Species Act GHGGreenhouse Gas HCPHabitat Conservation Plan LCPLocal Coastal Program MBTAMigratory Bird Treaty Act MTCMetropolitan Transportation Commission NPDESNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWINational Wetlands Inventory NWPLNational Wetland Plant List OHWMOrdinary High Water Mark PCEPrimary Constituent Element PPTPacific pond turtle RPWRelatively permanent water RWQCBRegional Water Quality Control Board SamTransSan Mateo County Transit District SCSSoil Conservation Service SFGSSan Francisco garter snake SFOSan Francisco International Airport SFWDSan Francisco Water Department SSFUSDSouth San Francisco Unified School District STOPPPStormwater Pollution Prevention Program SWISSolid Waste Information System SWMPStormwater Management Plan SWPPPStorm Water Pollution Prevention Control Plan SWRCBState Water Resources Control Board Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San FranciscoiiiMarch 2016 TNWTraditionally navigable waters ToBTop of Bank UCBCUniform Code for Building Conservation USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture USFWSUnited StatesFish and Wildlife Service USTUnderground Storage Tank WBWGWestern Bat Working Group WRAWRA, Inc. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San FranciscoivMarch 2016 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND 1.Project Title: Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project 2.LeadAgencyandProject Applicant: City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Rozalynne Thompson (650)829-6630 [email protected] 4.Project Location: South San Francisco, CA 5.Description of Project: The proposed project includes amendments tothe text ofTitle 20 ZONING(Zoning Ordinance) of the Cityof South San FranciscoMunicipal Code (SSFMC)to allow for the permitting of Drive- Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses in the Freeway Commercial (FC),the Business Commercial (BC), and the El Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) ZoningDistricts. The proposed project would not alter existing regulations regarding rive-hroughacilitiesfor limitedservice restaurants. No physical changes or alterations to any particular property are proposedat this time. The proposed project includes amendments tosections 20.090.002, 20.110.002, 20.630.002, and 20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance, as summarized below. There are no proposed changes to the following definition of “Drive-Through Facilities” in section 20.630.002: 20.630.002Definitions Drive-Through Facilities. Facilities designed to enable persons to receive a service or purchasegoodswhile remaining within a motorvehicle,typicallyassociatedwitheatingand drinking establishments, pharmacies,andother commercialuses. However, the title ofsection 20.350.017 oftheZoning Ordinance is proposed to change and new development standards have beenadded. Proposedadditions tothe ZoningOrdinancetext are identified with double underlined text whereas deletions tothe ZoningOrdinancetext are shown with strikethroughtext. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning OrdinanceAmendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San FranciscoMarch 2016 1 5.1.Amendments to Section 20.090.002of the Zoning Ordinance Changes to the text of SSFMCsection 20.090.002 are as follows: Table20.090.002 LandUseRegulations—Commercial,Office,andMixed-UseDistricts Use ClassificationCCBPOCMXECRMXAdditional Regulations See sub-classifications below Retail Sales General Sales P-PP(10) Limitations: 1.Permitted if existing. New units not allowed. 2.Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of a Use Permit. 3.Residential use on ground floor limited to 50 percent of ground floor area. 4.Subject to state licensing requirements. 5.Subject to site evaluation based on prior use. 6.Maximum of 10 vehicles stored on-site with minor maintenance in enclosed structure only. 7.Must be located entirely within a building. 8.These uses shall be developed in accordance with the development standards and supplemental regulationsfor the M1 District except the maximum FAR is .4 with an increase up to .6 for development that provides specified off-site improvements, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. These uses are not subject to the development standards or supplemental regulations of the BPO District. 9.Hours of operation 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station. 10.Drive-through facilities ancillary to non-limited service restaurant usesare permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco2March 2016 5.2 Amendments to Section 20.110.002of the Zoning Ordinance Changes to the text of SSFMCsection 20.110.002 are as follows: Table20.110.002 LandUseRegulations—EmploymentDistricts Use ClassificationBCBTPFCMIAdditional Regulations Retail Sales See sub-classifications below General Sales P(12)PP(12) P Limitations : 1.Prohibited east of 101. 2.Subject to state licensing requirements. 3.Only in conjunction with research facility. 4.Limited to locations east of South Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway. 5.Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any Residential district. 6.Only within hotels and motels. 7.Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1000 feet of SFO. 8.Restricted to: (a) areas located underneath major utility lines or under elevated freeways; or (b) consistent with General Plan Policy 3.2-I-5, airport-oriented parking facilities on Produce Avenue that were legally approvedprior to 1999. 9.Tasting rooms require Minor Use Permit approval. 10.In accordance with General Plan Policy 3.5-I-11 and Resolution 84-97, legally approved freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing, and distribution uses that existing in 1997 (or were approved prior to July 10, 2000 with a Use Permit) are considered conforming uses and may convert to other industrial uses including wholesale, warehouse, and distribution uses, and may expand within parcel boundaries as they existed at the time Resolution 84-97 was adopted, subject to meeting the current development standards (Municipal Code); however, said uses may not expand, convert to, re-convert to, or establish a freight forwarding use. 11.Only within enclosed buildings and south of Grand Avenue. 12.Drive-through facilities ancillary to non-limited service restaurant uses are restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). Drive-through facilities ancillary to non-limited service restaurant uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco3March 2016 5.3Amendments to Section 20.350.017of the Zoning Ordinance The changes to section 20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance include eliminating “Drive-in” and adding development standards for drive-through facilities. The use “Drive-in”is not a use defined in the Zoning Ordinance orfound within the City of South San Francisco(“City”). Changes to SSFMCsection 20.350.017 are as follows: Drive InandDrive-Through Facilities are prohibited within the City of South San Francisco. Existing, nonconforming facilities are subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.320 (“Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots”).shall be located, developed, and operatedin compliance with the following standards: 1.Each drive-throughlane shall be separated from the circulation routes necessary for ingress or egress from the property, oraccess to any parking stall. 2.Each drive-through lane shall be striped, marked, or otherwise distinctly delineated. 3.The vehicle stacking capacity of the Drive-Through Facility and the design and location of the ordering and pickup facilities will be determined by the City, based on appropriate traffic engineering and planning data.The applicant shall submit to the Citya Traffic Study addressing the following issues: a. Nature of the product or service being offered; b. Method by which the order is processed; c. Time required to serve a typical customer; d. Arrival rate of customers; e. Peak demand hour;and f. Anticipated vehicular stacking required. 4.Spaces provided for the specificDrive-Through Facilityuseslisted above shall be clearly designated through signs, colored lines, etc., all of which must be approved by the City. 5.ADrive-Through Facility may occur only in conjunction with a permitted business establishment and shall serve only one business establishment. 6.ADrive-Through Facility must be located on the same parcel as the business establishment it serves. 7.No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede vehicular access to, from, or within any parcel, including the parcel upon which it is located. 8.No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede emergency vehicle access to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco4March 2016 9.No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede minimum required pedestrian or bicycleaccess to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located,or to a transit facility. 10.In its review of individual applications for Drive-Through Facilities, the reviewing body may find additional requirements necessary and may impose such requirements through design review and/or by special conditions of approval. 11.ADrive-Through Facility shall not be utilized for vehicular parking, loading/unloading, pedestrian service, or any purpose other than the temporary queuing of customer vehicles. 12.AConditional Use Permitshall be required for all Drive-ThroughFacilities. Where the applicant is not the owner of the lot upon which the Drive-Through Facility is proposed, the application shall be signed by the property owner or designated representative. 6.Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits The information contained in this Initial Study will be used by the City of South San Francisco (the CEQA Lead Agency) as it considers whether or not to approve the proposed project. If the project is approved, the Initial Study would be used by the City and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with various approvals and permits. These actions include, but may not be limited to, the following approvals by the agencies indicated: City of South San Francisco 1 Zoning OrdinanceText Amendments 7.Project Location The City, including two unincorporated islands (Project Area), is located in northern San Mateo County, on the San Francisco Peninsula (see Figure 1, City Boundary Map and Figure 2, Zoning Districts: Subject to Zoning Text Amendments).TheProject Area is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as unincorporated portions of the county.The project area is served by Highway U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain, as well as a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)station. In addition, the ProjectArea is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport(SFO). The City includes 9.6 square miles within the corporate boundaries and two unincorporated islands. The City, which was incorporated in 1908, encompasses a collection of compact neighborhoods,including an active and walkable downtown.Its population has tripled since World WarII, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasinglydeveloped. East of U.S. 101 is an office and industrial area, where many of the City’s biotechnology businesses are located,as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay. 1 The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and, therefore, would not require a General Plan Amendment(s). Please see the Land Use Discussion of this Initial Study for further information on General Plan consistency. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco5March 2016 7.1 Affected Properties The proposedZoningOrdinancetext amendmentspertain to the properties that are within the Business Commercial (BC), Freeway Commercial (FC), andEl Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) districts.Figure 3 shows parcels directly affected by the proposed zoning changes. Surrounding land uses widely vary, as the affected zones run along major corridors within the City. Uses surrounding these zones include,but are not limited to,residential uses at varying densities, retail and service commercial, offices, public and civic facilities, industrial, schools, and parks. 8.General Plan Designation and Zoning District General Plan Designation: Business Commercial (BC) El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning Designation: Business Commercial (BC) Freeway Commercial (FC) El Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco6March 2016 Detail Area City Boundary . Figure 1. City Boundary Map DriveThrough Facilities Zoning Text Amendments Project City of South San Francisco Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015 0124 Map Prepared By: fhourigan San Mateo County, California Miles Base Source: Esri, National Geographic Data Source(s): WRA Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\LocationMap.mxd £ ¤ 101 Project Area Zoning Areas Business Commercial El Camino Real Mixed Use Freeway Commercial . Figure 2. Zoning Districts: Subject to Zoning Text Amendment Drive-through Facilities Zoning Text Amendments Project City of South San Francisco Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015 00.250.51 Map Prepared By: fhourigan San Mateo County, California Miles Base Source: USDA, FSA, NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\ZoningAreas.mxd £ ¤ 101 Affected Parcels Project Area . Figure 3. Affected Parcels within the Project Area Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Text Amendments Project City of South San Francisco Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015 00.250.51 Map Prepared By: fhourigan San Mateo County, California Miles Base Source: Esri, DeLorme Data Source(s): WRA Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\AffectedParcels. This page intentionally left blank Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco10March 2016 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. AestheticsLand Use/Planning Agricultureand Forestry Mineral Resources Resources X Air QualityNoise Biological ResourcesPopulation/Housing Cultural ResourcesPublic Services Geology/SoilsRecreation Greenhouse Gas EmissionsTransportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Utilities/ Service Systems Materials Mandatory Findings of X Hydrology/Water Quality Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the 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 project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the 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 analyzedin 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 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:_____________ Name and Title: ________________________________ Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco11March 2016 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST This section describes the existing environmental conditions in and near the Project Area and evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The cited sources are identified at the end of this section. Each of the environmental categories was fully evaluated, and one of the following four determinations was made for each checklist question: “No Impact” means that no impact to the resource would occur as a result of implementing the project. “Less than Significant Impact” means that implementation of the projectwould not result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation measures are required. “Less thanSignificant withMitigation Incorporated” means that the incorporation of one or more mitigation measures is necessary to reduce the impact from potentially significant to less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” means that there is either substantial evidence that a project-related effect may be significant, or, due to a lack of existing information, could have thepotential to be significant. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco12March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No I.AESTHETICS —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1 scenic vista? 1 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 1 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or 6 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, U.S.380 to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east,provide the City with distinctive edges.The City is boundedby 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 Cityis 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, especiallyin its eastern parts. Almost twentypercent of South San Francisco’s land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. Discussion of Impacts a-c)No Impact.The proposed project’sZoning Ordinancetext amendments do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment or adversely affect visual resources. The text amendments would allow for Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses.These accessory (appurtenant) structures would not change the visual character of a commercial use. Furthermore, any future development project Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco13March 2016 that would implement the amendments would be subject to applicable City regulations and requirements, as well as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. d)Less Than Significant Impact. Potentialfuture projects resulting from the Zoning Ordinance text amendmentscould result in an increase in light intensity adjacent to the site, although the impact on surrounding properties would be expected to be less than significant. New lighting sourceswould be required to meet the performance standards set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010(G), which have been designed to require lighting that does not produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Potential projects would be required to submit aphotometric analysis to the City demonstratingthat alllighting requirements have been satisfied.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than II.AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY Significant Mitigation Significant No RESOURCES —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 4 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 2 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 2 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 1 conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing 1,4 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?? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco14March 2016 Environmental Setting According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map (2012), the Project Area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.The proposed project includes revisions to Title 20 – Zoning of the City’s Municipal Code to allow for the permitting of Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant usesinthe Freeway Commercial (FC), the Business Commercial (BC), and El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)zoning districts. The Williamson Act of 1965 allows local governments to enter into contract agreements with local landowners with the purpose of trying to limit specific parcels of land to agricultural or other related open space uses. The Project Area does not contain any state designated agricultural lands or open space. The Project Area is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Discussion of Impacts a-e)No Impact.The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinancetext amendments do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade agriculturalorforestryresources.The Cityis built out and contains no important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land subject to a Williamson Act contract.Similarly, the City does not contain any forestland or timberland or any land zoned for such uses. The proposed project does not include any development proposals or requests to rezone land or that would result in the conversion of agricultural or forestland to another use. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on agriculture or forestryresources. III.AIR QUALITY —Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less than applicable air quality management or air Significant pollution control district may be relied Potentially with Less than upon to make the following Significant Mitigation Significant No determinations. Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 1,13 the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or 1,13 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,13 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 1,13 pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,13 substantial number of people? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco15March 2016 Environmental Setting The project is located in the northern portion of San Mateo County within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM ),and fine particulate matter (PM). 102.5 High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant ofthe Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of ten micrometers or less (PM) and fine particulate matter where particles have a 10 diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less(PM). Elevated concentrations of PMand PMare the 2.5102.5 result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. Toxic aircontaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. Discussion of Impacts a)NoImpact.The most recent applicable clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan that was adopted by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in September 2010. The proposed project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since the project would have emissions well below the BAAQMD thresholds (see b) & c) below) and would not interfere with implementation of any of the plan measures. In addition, the project does not require any General Plan amendments that would change land use planning in such a manner that region-wide emissions would be affected. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco16March 2016 b) &c)Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project, which allows for the permitting of Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant usesin the Freeway Commercial (FC), and the Business Commercial (BC), and El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)zoning districts, would result in very minor increases to air pollutant emissions. Increased emissions from Drive-Through Facilities are mostly theresult of vehicles idling rather than parking. The types of facilities that could be affected by the proposed project would be non-restaurant commercial uses. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines published in 2011 provide the size of land 2 use projectsthat could have significant air pollutant emissions.The table provides sizes for restaurants and pharmacies that have both drive-throughand non-drive- throughamenitiesthat could produce significant emissions. The differences in the 3 sizethresholds for significanceof the two uses are not substantial, indicating that the majority of the emissions are from vehicle travel and not from vehicles idling. To further investigate this effect, emissions from vehicles idling at a drive-through were modeledby Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Quality Emissions Calculations are provided in Appendix A.Several assumptions were made based on the type of drive-throughand the idling times. This assessment assumed that about 100 vehicles per day would use the drive-throughfacility and the average idling time per transaction would be threeminutes,and that each vehicle would have to wait for another vehicle to process an entire transaction (sixminutes of total idling time per vehicle). This would equate to 600 minutes of idling per day. ROG and NOx emissions were computed to be0.02poundsper day. PMand PMemissions 102.5 would be even lower. As a result, the proposed project would not result in significant emissions. d)Less Than Significant Impact.As indicated in b) &c) above, the project would have minor emissions of air pollutants. Vehicles emitting high levels of TACs (e.g., diesel trucks) are not anticipated to be attracted by the proposed project. As a result, substantial air pollutant emissions that could lead to adverse community risk impacts in terms of increased cancer risk, non-cancer hazards,or an increase in annual PMconcentrations would be less than significant. 2.5 e)NoImpact. The proposed project allows for the permitting of Drive-Through Facilities,which would result in idling vehicles. However, vehicles are not considered an odor sourceunder CEQA, andtherefore, there would beno odors associated with the proposed project. 2 See Table 3-1, pp.3-2 and 3-3,of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011. 3 The screening size of a pharmacy with drive through is only 2 percent different than that of one without a drive-through facility. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco17March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —Would Significant Mitigation Significant No the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2, directly or through habitat modifications, 5 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effecton any 1, 5 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on 1 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 1 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 wildlifenursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or 6 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1,6 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 anddevelopment 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 Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco18March 2016 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 FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). 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 threatenedor endangeredplant species, and the City’s salt marshes provide foraging habitat for seven special status bird species and may include red-legged frogs. Grassland and scrub habitat in the area attract a variety of reptile,amphibian, and bird species for breeding and foraging. Some reptile and amphibian species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes, may use thewetland habitat. The nearshore tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open water, provide habitatfor many species of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals (City of South San FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). 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 Citylimits, and the portion of SignHill currently designated parkland by the City.The purpose of the City’s 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). RegulatorySetting Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sections703-712) There are over 900 species of birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTAprohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribedby 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 ornestlings or nest abandonment.The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Wildlife.A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season, whichin San Mateo stst County is September 1through 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 havefledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and,based upon the type of birdspecies identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading andtree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged. TheCalifornia Fish and GameCode Nesting birds are protected by California 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 otherwiseprovided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco19March 2016 South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 –Protected Trees South San Francisco Municipal Code section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with acircumference of 48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designatedby the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location orunusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks andRecreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival. Discussion of Impacts a-d)Less than Significant.Although the Zoning Ordinancetext amendmentsprovide for development improvements in the future, it does not include any site specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development.Any future project that would implement amendmentswould be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations that protect biologicalresources. Future projects would also be subject to project-specificCEQA analysis of project-level impacts. The proposed amendments include only minor changes and additions that would allow small accessory structures within highly urbanized areas of the City. Continued implementation of the City’sGeneral Plan policy provisions (in particular, Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation), as well as compliance with applicable existing regulations, including but not limited to thefederal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, would ensure impacts to biological resources in the City would be less than significant. e, f)No Impact.The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinancetext amendments do not grant any entitlements for development. Futuredevelopment projects would be required to be consistent with local policies and ordinances. The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30) applies to any tree designated as a Protected Tree on property within the City.Any facilities that would include be subject tothe Zoning Ordinancetextamendments wouldbe required to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. Furthermore, any future development project that would implement the amendments would be subject tofurther CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts.Nostate, regional, or federal habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been adopted for the project site. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco20March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than V.CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would Significant Mitigation Significant No the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2 the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2 the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including 1,2 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 centuries.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 Planning Commission oversees the protection of these resources. Historical Resources South San Francisco’s older buildings display a wide range of architectural styles, emblematic of the shifting styles thatcharacterize 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 Cityhas 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 ofthe structures in the downtownareaalong Grand, Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were identified as potentialhistoric resources in a comprehensive survey completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of anarchitectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well-restored examples of vernaculararchitecture. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco21March 2016 Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco’s history, no industrial buildings or sites arecurrently designated historic resources. Archaeological Resources Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native Americanvillage 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 CorridorRedevelopment 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) located near the south slope of SanBruno 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 ofadditional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. Discussion of Impacts a-d)Less than Significant.Cultural resources include historic buildings and structures, historic districts, historicsites, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and other prehistoric and historic objects and artifacts. Construction of future development under the proposed amendment could have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources.However, General Plan Policy 7.5-I-4 requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources, and Policy 7.5-I-5 requires preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that resources are uncovered. In addition, section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered that requires consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and appropriate Native Americans, if appropriate, to ensure proper handling of the remains.Finally, any future development projects that would implement the amendments would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project- specific impacts. The proposed amendments only allow for small accessory structures to existing or future uses.The amendments do not include any changes that could directly impact cultural resources. This impact would be less than significant. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco22March 2016 Lessthan Significant Potentially with Less than VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the Significant Mitigation Significant No project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Expose people or structures to potential 2,10, substantial adverse effects, including the 15 risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake 2,10 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? ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?2,10 iii)Seismic-related ground failure, 2,10 including liquefaction? iv)Landslides?2,10 b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the 1 loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that 2, 10 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 2, 10 in Table18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantialrisks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately 1 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco23March 2016 Environmental Setting 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 eightyfeet deep. Associated development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the lowland zone often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area. Upland Zone Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-fill. The cut-and-fill in some areas has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creekfloodplain. 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 thirtypercent. 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 thirtyknown faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes;eleven of these are within fortymiles 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 commercialuses. 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 1989Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 7.1). Most of the Citywould 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 Citywith 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 Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco24March 2016 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 ground shaking, and are subject toliquefaction. 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 possibleinundation from seiche or tsunami. The level of damage in the Cityresulting from an earthquake will depend upon the magnitude of the event, the epicenter distance from the City, the response of geologic materials, and the strength and construction quality of structures. Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions in the Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. The most severe hazards are presented by unreinforced masonry buildings constructed of brick or concrete block. Under strong intensity ground shaking, many of these structures may be expected to collapse or require demolition. The City has developed a list of unreinforced masonry buildings toassess 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 SouthLinden 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 ofland south of Sister Cities Boulevard. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco25March 2016 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. Landslides 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 regionhaving the greatest susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than fifteenpercent. 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 Cityare located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are low-lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (msl) for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500- year tsunami. Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and infrastructure within the Cityis 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. New construction in South San Francisco is required to meet the requirements of the California Building Code (CBS), and buildings of special occupancy are required by the State to meet more stringent design requirements. Discussion of Impacts a-i)Less Than SignificantImpact. South San Francisco is located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Although the Zoning Ordinancetext amendments provide for future development improvements, it doesnot include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prohibits construction within fiftyfeet of an active fault and requires geologic investigations before development can occur within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone that typically extends approximatelya quarter mile from a fault line.Future development would requirecompliance with this Act and would therefore reduce potential impacts to aless-than-significantlevel. a-ii)Less Than SignificantImpact.The San Andreas Fault Zone, one of the most seismically active faults in the world, runs through the westernmost corner of the City. During a major seismic event on the San Andreas Fault, there is the potential for strong ground shaking that could expose persons and property to undue risks. Portions of the Citywith unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Any futureprojects resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendmentswould be designed, engineered,and constructed in conformance with standard engineering practices andCBCrequirements. Compliance with California seismic design requirements would ensure the project site would not expose persons or property to strong seismic ground shaking hazards. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco26March 2016 a-iii)Less Than SignificantImpact.Aspreviously discussed, most of the lowlands in South San Francisco have the potential for liquefaction hazards and a moderate liquefaction potential in two areas of the City. There is also the potential for lateral spreading. However, any futuredevelopment resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendments must adhere to the CBC and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize risks. SSFMC Section 20.170.004(Seismic and Geologic Hazard Areas) also requires a soils engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards.Compliance with applicable regulationswould reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. a-iv)Less Than SignificantImpact.As previously stated, 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 fifteenpercent.Any future development resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendments would complywith the CBC as well as the applicable provisions of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act andthe SSFMC,which would reduceimpacts to aless-than-significantlevel. b)Less than SignificantImpact. Any future development resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendmentswould be required to comply with the erosion control requirements stipulated in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. These requirements include the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Plan (SWPPP) that contains Best Management Practices (BMPs)designed to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from construction sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c, d)Less than Significant Impact. The design-controllable aspects of protection from seismic ground motion and soil or slope instability are governed by existing regulations of the State of California (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 2) or the City of South San Francisco (South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20. These regulations require a soils engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards.Mandatory compliance with the SSFMCand NPDES General Construction Permit requirements as well as the requirements of the City’s Special Environmental Studies Overlay would minimize geologic hazards as well. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to unstable soilsorexpansive soils. e)No Impact.The project does not involve construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco27March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than VII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, 1, 13 either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or 1,6 regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO) and water vapor but there are also 2 several others, most importantly methane (CH), nitrous oxide (NO), hydrofluorocarbons 42 (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF). These are released into the 6 earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows: COand NO are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. 22 NOis associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. 2 CHis commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping 4 livestock) and landfill operations. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their productionhas been stopped by international treaty. HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCsin refrigeration and cooling. PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing. Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CObeing assigned a value of 1 and sulfur 2 hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger with a GWP of 23,900. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of COequivalents (COe). 22 An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California could be adversely affectedby the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco28March 2016 animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution. The City recently adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) that providesgoals, policies, and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change adaptation and support the 4 goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375.In preparation of the CAP, the City completed a Government Operations Emissions Inventory, a community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and adopted a Bicycle Master Plan. The project will build on both recent and current planning effortsincluding the Community Based Transportation Plan, the Downtown Station Area Plan and the El Camino Real Specific Plans.The plan estimated South San Francisco’s 2005 baseline annual emission inventory at 548,600 metric tons of CO2e. The CAP targets emission from all sources except stationary sources and direct emissions from landfills, because those emissions are regulated by BAAQMD and CARB. The CAP’s target is to reduce GHG emissions to 15 percent below the 2005 baseline by 2020. The CAP projects that the combination of State actions and GHG reduction measures in the CAP will reduce GHG emissions in the community to meet the goal by 2020. Local actions will contribute about 40 percent of the reduction in 2020. The 2011 version of the BAAQMD CEQA AirQuality Guidelinesprovides a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per yearof greenhouse gases, measured as CO2e, that are used to judge the significance of a projects impact. Discussion of Impacts a)Less Than Significant Impact.Greenhouse gases emitted by idling vehicles were computed, as described above under III b) &c)for Air Quality(also see Appendix A). Under reasonable worst-case daily assumptions that would occur every day of the year, in terms of traffic generation and idling times, emissions of greenhouse gases would be seventeenmetric tons per year. This would be well below the significance thresholds of 1,100 metric tons per year that BAAQMD proposed as a significance threshold in their 2011 version of the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. b)Less Than Significant Impact.While the proposed project would result in a slight, but insignificant, increase in GHGemissions, it would not interfere or conflict with plans or policies pertaining to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.Chapter 4 of the City’s CAP presents the GHG reduction strategy. This strategy would target GHG emission reductions offifteen percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Along with State reduction measures, a reduction of 116,310 metric tons is forecast for 2020 and a reduction of 190,340 metric tons is forecast for 2030. These forecasts exceed the plan’s GHG reduction goal. An increase of seventeen metric tons of GHG per year resulting from the proposed project would not affect the City’s CAP strategy. In addition, these emissions will decrease over future years, as state and federal programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions from automobiles become increasingly more effective. Therefore, theproject would not conflict with any of these strategies. Municipal Code Section 20.350.017,Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities, 4 City of South San Francisco. 2016. . Prepared by PMC with assistance from City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Fehr & Peers. February 13. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco29March 2016 specifically bans Drive-Through Facilities.The proposed project would alter this section of the Municipal Code to allow Drive-Through Facilities. Therefore, any development subsequent to the project would comply with the Municipal Code upon completion. Impacts would be less than significant. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Significant Mitigation Significant No MATERIALS —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Create a significant hazard to the public or 1 the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or 1 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle 1 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 7 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 1, 13 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 1 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically 1 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a 1,12 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? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco30March 2016 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 FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). 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 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 longerbeingimplemented 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 entirelydeveloped with urban uses. Portions of the City 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 restrictingbuilding heights in the vicinity of SFO in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 height limits (City of South San FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). Emergency Services The San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services providespreparation, 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(City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Discussion of Impacts a-c)Less than Significant Impact.Although theZoning Ordinancetextamendments providefor future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for developmentthat would have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. Future development resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would require small amounts of hazardous materials during construction activities for equipment maintenance (e.g., fuel and solvents) and re-paving the roads. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to the construction phase and would comply with applicable local, state, and federal standards associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would not be stored or used, such as for equipment maintenance, where they could affect nearby land uses. Any Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco31March 2016 future operational use would be subject to applicable state and federal regulations and would not emit or handle hazardous emissions or materials that could affect an existing or proposed school. Although some hazardous materials would be used during construction, given required compliance with applicable state and federal regulations regarding the transport, use and storage of hazardous materials, a spill or accident would have a low potential to affect people at schools. Any spills will be cleaned up immediately, and all wastes and used spill control materials will be properly disposed of at approved disposal facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. d)Less than Significant Impact.According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2015) Envirostor database of hazardous materials release sites, there are numerous hazardous materials release sites in the City. Because the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendments do not provide specific designs for development or grant any entitlements for development, future projectlocations are not known at this time, it cannot be determined if they would be constructed on or near a known hazardous release site.However, any future development project would be subject to future environmental review, which would include a search of appropriate databases to determine whether the site is a listed hazardous materials site and the status of the site at the time improvements are proposed(e.g., whether further evaluation or cleanup action is required or if the case is closed). If developmentwould be proposed to occur on a listed hazardous materials site, the project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous materials, which would ensure there would be minimal risk of significant hazard to the public or the environment. e)Less than Significant Impact. The City is located immediately north of SFOand within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of SFO(C/CAG 2012), all but the northern and western portions of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B.Within Area B, real estate disclosures are required and the ALUC must review proposed land use policy actions and land development proposals. If specific improvement projects would be located within Area B of the airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan, they would be required to comply with any applicable safety and compatibility policies of the Land Use Compatibility Plan. f)No Impact.There are no private airstrips in the City. There would be no impact. g)Less than Significant Impact.The proposed Zoning Ordinancetextamendments do not provide specific designs for development or grant any entitlements for development. Future development resultingfrom the proposed text amendments could require temporary road closures during construction phases.However, any closures would be short-term, and alternative routes would be provided as necessary.It is unlikely that these actions would significantly interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Section 20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance,as proposed to be amended,requires that noDrive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede vehicular access to, from, or within any parcel, including the parcel upon which it is located. It also states that noDrive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede emergency vehicle access to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located.Further, all future improvement projects Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco32March 2016 could be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. h)Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat map, most of the City is subject to a moderate threat of wildland fires, with some portions residing in the high and very high threat categories.However, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments do not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. Therefore, the proposedproject would not increase the risk of wildfire near an urban area.Future development relating to the proposed Zoning Ordinancetext amendments would occur in highly developed areas of the Citythat are not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands.Impacts would be less than significant. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER Significant Mitigation Significant No QUALITY —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Violate anywater quality standards or 1 waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater 1, 2 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage 1 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 erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage 1 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 flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water that 1 would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco33March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER Significant Mitigation Significant No QUALITY —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource f)Otherwise substantially degrade water 1, 6 quality? 2,8, g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal 12 Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 1, 6 structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a 1 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or 2,12 mudflow? Environmental Setting Water quality is a particular area of concern in the Citybecause of the ease of water pollution and the effectsof pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. Point sources of pollution are regulated through the NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Permits are required under NPDES for allpublicly operated treatment plants and for surface-water runoff in urban areas. These permits specify thedischarge limits for certain pollutants and ensure that local industries pretreat the pollutants they dischargeinto 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 SanFrancisco falls under the authority of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for implementingState policy through the preparation of basin plans for water quality control and the regulation of all activitiesaffecting water quality. The quality of groundwater and water flowing into Colma Creek and the Bay is most likely tobe affected bynonpoint pollution sources in South San Francisco, simply because they are not as rigorously regulated aspoint sources.Development can potentially pose a threat to surface and groundwater quality throughconstruction sediment, materials used on-site, and related increases in automobile use. Surface Water Quality and Pollution Since the Cityis largely developed, there is a high proportion of impermeable surface area. Stormwater andirrigation 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.Thesesources include general pollutants picked up by runoff from streets, open areas, and urbanlands.In mosturban areas, nonpoint pollution Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco34March 2016 includes sediment, oil, debris, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, volatile organiccompounds, 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 ultimatelydischarged into San Francisco Bay,near sensitive mudflat habitat areas. In order to control nonpoint source pollution, the City joined the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater PollutionPrevention Program (STOPPP) in 1991. STOPPP functions under a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit forstormwater quality management, as authorized by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The program includespollutant source identification and water quality measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges;structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrialfacilities; and controls for new development and construction sites 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 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 anumber 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-ownedwatercourses. 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 MateoGroundwater Basin.With the exception of industrial areas or locations with underground storage tanks where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected, the qualityof this water is consideredgood. However, contamination may be present in existing or former industrial areas of unconfined wastedisposal, or in the areas of high groundwater levels. Discussion of Impacts a, f)Less than Significant Impact.Although the Zoning Ordinancetextamendments providefor future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for developmentthat would havethe potential to degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.The amendments would allow for Drive- Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses.These accessory (appurtenant) structures could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could potentially degradedownstream water qualityand groundwater quality.They could also result in soil erosion and sedimentation and result in pollutants entering stormwater runoff during rain events (i.e., fuels, oil, solvents, paints, trash).While the proposed project could potentially degrade water quality, compliance with all applicable permits, BMPs, and state laws would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities would be required to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which BMPs would be implemented to control stormwater during construction. As part ofthe permit application process, projects would berequired to submita stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), whichwould include a list of BMPs to be implemented on the site both during and afterconstruction to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco35March 2016 Post-construction urban stormwater runoff measures would require the City to implement structural and non-structural BMPs that would mimic or improve predevelopmentquantity and quality runoff conditions from new development and redevelopment areas.SSFMC section14.04.180 provides further protection from erosion with requirements forimplementation of BMPs. Continued implementation of the SSFMC and compliance with state lawwould minimize potential soil erosion impacts.This impact would be less than significant. b)Less Than SignificantImpact. Although theZoning Ordinancetextamendments providefor future development improvements, it doesnot include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for developmentthat would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.The City is largely developed with urban uses and redevelopment in the planning area would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces that would interfere with groundwater recharge. The amendments would allow for Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses and would not directly utilize groundwater. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinancewould minimize impacts to groundwater. This impact would be less than significant. c,d,e)Less Than Significant.Although the Zoning Ordinancetextamendmentsprovide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development.The proposed text amendments would allow for Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses.These accessory (appurtenant) structures could alter drainage patterns and runoff rates, resulting in flooding and/or exceedance of the drainage system capacity;however, these projectswould be located in currently developed areas. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized development and takes into account the high ratioof impervious surfaces in the area. Any new developmentwould be required to be designed to comply with NPDES permit and SWPPP regulations,including measures addressing erosion, siltation, flooding,and other pollutants, therefore, impacts would be lessthan significant. g) No Impact. The proposed zoning text amendments wouldnot directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing. There would be no impact. h) Less than SignificantImpact.Although the Zoning Ordinancetextamendments provide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development,future development projects could include structures. Because specific improvement projects are not plannedat this time, the precise location of these improvements cannot be determined. Should improvements be proposed for development within a special flood hazard area, they would require issuance of a development permit by the City and would be subject to the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC, which is intended to promote the public safety and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco36March 2016 i,j)Less than SignificantImpact.Earthquakes can cause tsunamis(tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the San Francisco Bay. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the San Francisco Bay, and the hillsides within San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, the City is subject to risk of inundation from tsunami, seiche, and mudflow. However, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing or other habitable structures and would not result in population growthwithin the City.Therefore, the project would not increase exposure of persons to the risk of inundation from tsunami, seiche, or mudflow. This impact would be less than significant. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than X.LAND USE AND PLANNING –Would Significant Mitigation Significant No the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Physically divide an established 1 community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 2, 11 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the 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 1 conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Environmental Setting Regional Setting San MateoCounty is located on the San Francisco Peninsula. San Mateo County is boundedby San FranciscoCounty to the north, SantaCruz County to the south, Santa Clara County to the southeast, Alameda Countyacross the San Francisco Bay to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. San Mateo County is comprisedof approximately 455 square miles of land that is distributed among twenty incorporated cities, including theCity of South San Francisco, and twenty unincorporated communities. As a whole, the Countyis relatively undeveloped. Although located in the San Francisco Bay Area—one of themost populated urban areas in the nation—just twenty percent of the County is urbanized, while the other eighty percent is used for agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, or general open space(San Mateo CountyGeneral Plan1986). Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco37March 2016 Project Area The City of South San Francisco lies north of the City of San Bruno and SFOin a smallvalley south of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain; east of Pacifica and the hills of theCoast Range; and west of the San Francisco Bay. RegulatorySetting City of South San Francisco General Plan GUIDING POLICIES 2-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Protection of residential neighborhoods is a General Plan theme. While some parts of the Cityare expected to undergo change over time, the General Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are fully protected from changes elsewhere. 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the Cityand adjacent locations. Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high development intensities around transit stations is not just in South San Francisco’s best interest, but a regional interest as well. 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations. The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehousing and distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and seeks to maintain these as conforming uses in specific locations. 2-G-5 Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. 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. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential developments. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco38March 2016 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan For discretionary projects seeking to use CEQA streamlining provisions, the City may require measures in the Climate Action Plan(CAP)as mandatory conditions of approval or as mitigation identified in a Mitigated Negative Declaration or in an Environmental Impact Report, as appropriate, on a project-by-project basis. This approach allows the City to ensure that new development can benefit from CEQA streamlining provisions while also ensuring that the City 5 can achieve the reduction targets outlined in this Plan.The CAP’s discussion on the City’s Sustainability Effortsreferences SSFMCsection 20.350.017 Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities,which specifically bans Drive-Through Facilities. The ban is intended to encourage a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The elimination of this ban would result in an incentive for vehicle use, but would not impact pedestrian access. As discussed in Section III (Air Quality) and Section VII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), theincrease in idling vehicles would remain below the emissions thresholds provided in the CAP. The proposed project would alter this section of the SSFMC. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Section 1.2.3–RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS California law requires that, after an airport land use commission has adopted its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), affected local governments must update their general plans, 6 specific plans, and land use regulations to be consistent with the ALUCP.Alternatively, local governments may take steps, provided by law, to overrule part or all of the ALUCP as it relates 7 to their jurisdiction. If the local government fails to take either action, then it must submit all land use development actions or facility master plans within the airport influence area to the airport land use commission for review. Even if the local government has amended its plans to be consistent with the ALUCP or has overruled the ALUCP, it must still submit proposed new andamended general plans, specific plans, land use ordinances, regulations, and facility master 8 plans to the airport land use commission for review. Discussion of Impacts a)No Impact.Although the Zoning Ordinancetextamendments provide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. The proposed amendments would allow for Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses. These accessory (appurtenant) structures would not alter 5 See City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan, Chapter 6. 6 See California Government Code section 65302.3. 7 The overrule process involves four mandatory steps: (1) the local agency must provide the local Airport Land Use Commission and the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings within 45 days prior to any decision to overrule the commission; (2) the holding of a public hearing; (3) the adoption of findings that the local government’s plans are consistent with the purposes of the State airport compatibility statute and that they provide for the orderly development of the airport; and (4) approval of the overrule action by a two-thirds majority of the governing body of the local government (see California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011, pp. 5-15, et seq.). 8 See California Public Utilities Code, Section 21676.5(a). Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco39March 2016 connections to existing neighborhoods in any manner. The project would not physically divide an established community.No impact would occur. b)Less than Significant Impact.A proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastalprogram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project is subject to several local policies, plans, and regulations, as described above. These proposed project actions would not conflict with the City of South San Francisco General Plan or any other applicable plans or policies. Currently SSFMCsection 20.350.017 Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilitiesspecifically bans Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed project would alter this section ofthe SSFMCto allow Drive-Through Facilities. Therefore, the project would comply with the SSFMCupon completion. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant physical environmental impacts, particularlyrelated to greenhouse gases or air quality. Impacts would be less than significant. c)No Impact.The project site is in an urban built-up state, and therefore, is not subject to the provisions of any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans.No impacts in this regard would occur. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XI.MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the SignificanMitigation Significant No project: t ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Result in the loss of availability of a 4 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 4 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion of Impacts a, b)No Impact.The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinancetextamendments do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect mineral resources within the City. The Project Areais not in or adjacent to any important mineral resource areas. According to the Office of MineReclamation AB 3098 list there are no mines operating within the City of South San Francisco. The implementation of the proposed project would not preclude future excavation of oil or minerals should such extraction become viable.As such, there would be no loss of availability of known mineral resources and no impact to mineral resources. Furthermore, any future development project that would implement the amendments Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco40March 2016 would be subject to applicable Cityregulations and requirements, as well as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No XII.NOISE —Would the project result in: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Exposure of persons to orgeneration of 1,2 noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of 1 excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in 1 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic 1 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land 1 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 1 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Setting Existing Noise Environment Sensitive receptors located near the Project Area are exposed to ambient noise levels from a variety of sources.The ambient noise environment results primarily from traffic along U.S. Highway 101, El Camino Real (SR 82), and Spruce Avenue, aircraft operations associated with SFO, and noise-producing commercial and industrial land uses. City of South San Francisco General Plan Figures 9-1 and 9-2 show the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Noise Contours for the City.A review of these data show that ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area are typically 65 to 75 dBA CNEL at locations near U.S.Highway 101, 60 to 65 dBA CNEL at locations near El Camino Real, and approximately 60 dBA CNEL at locations along Spruce Avenue. Aircraft operations produce CNEL noise levels ranging from 60 to 70 Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco41March 2016 dBA throughout the southernmost portion of the City. Regulatory Criteria The City of South San Francisco establishes noise regulations in Chapter 8.32 of the SSFMC. The maximum permissible sound levels contained in section 8.32.030 would be applicable to noise levels generated by Drive-Through Facilities.Section 8.32.080 of the SSFMCprecludes the commercial operation of sound-amplifying equipment between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes permitted on Sundays or legal holidays.This analysis assumes that commercial operation of sound-amplifying equipment would comply with the allowable hours of operation specified in the SSFMC. SSFMC Section8.32.030 Maximum permissible sound levels. (a)It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the Cityor allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed: (1)The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; (2)The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; (3)Thenoise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; (4)The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5)The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time. (b)If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in Table 8.32.030, then the ambient shall be the base noise level standard for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of this section. In such cases, the noise levels for purposes of subsections (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section shall be increased in five dB increments above the ambient. (c) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level standard shall be that applicable to the lower noise zone plus five dB. (d)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no person shall willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco42March 2016 Table 8.32.030 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS* Land Use CategoryTime PeriodNoise Level (dB) R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any 10 p.m.—7 a.m.50 single-family or duplex 7 a.m.—10 p.m.60 residential in a specific plan district R-3 and D-C zones or any 10 p.m.—7 a.m.55 multiple-family residential or 7 a.m.—10 p.m.60 mixed residential/commercial in any specific plan district C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster 10 p.m.—7 a.m.60 Point Marina specific plan 7 a.m.—10 p.m.65 districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district M-1, P-1Anytime70 *Source: Adapted from “The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance,” Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco43March 2016 SSFMC Section 8.32.080 Amplified sound—Regulations. The commercial and noncommercial use of sound-amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations: (a)The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human speech, or both. (b)The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. No operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall occur only between the hours of ten a.m. and eight p.m. Discussion of Impacts a,c)Less than Significant Impactwith Mitigation Incorporated.Noise produced by drive-through operations primarily consists of intermittent maximum noise level events, such as voices amplified by the drive-through speaker system, and fairly continuous sounds such as those produced by idling vehicles. Noise measurements made by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. indicate that typical drive-through operations produce maximum instantaneous noise levels of approximately 75 dBA Lmax at a 9 distance of threefeet from the drive-through speakerand 60 dBA Lmax at a distance of thirtyfeet from the speaker. Idling vehicles produce noise levels of about 10 55 to 60 dBA at a distance of thirtyfeet, but tend to shield the speaker noise. This analysis conservatively assumes that vehicles utilizing a drive-through, combined, could idle for more than thirtyminutes in any hour. Therefore, L50 noise levels resulting from typical drive-through operations would be expected to range from 55 to 60 dBA L50 at a distance of thirtyfeet. The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code(Section 8.32.030)establishes 80 dBA Lmax as the maximum allowable noise level during the daytime period and 60 dBA L50 as the maximum allowable noise level for sounds lasting thirtyminutes or morein any hour. Lmax noise levels attributable to drive-through operations would be expected to exceed the 80 dBA Lmax noise level limit as measured at any noise- sensitive residential property line if the drive-through speaker were to be located within threefeet of the residential property line. The 60 dBA L50 noise limit could potentially be exceeded if the drive-through aisle were to be located within thirty feet of any residential property line. Mitigation MeasureNOISE-1: 1)Project-specific acoustical analyses shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant for Drive-Through Facility projects where sound amplification systems are proposed within threefeet of any residential 9 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Evaluation of Drive-Up Banking Speaker Box Noise, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank in Woodland, California, January 18, 2011. 10 Illingworth &Rodkin, Inc., Environmental Noise Study, McDonald’s Restaurant Remodel –3224 Jefferson Street, Napa, December 22, 2009. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco44March 2016 property line or for drive-through aisles proposed within thirtyfeet ofany residential property line. Site planning alternatives including setbacks and physical controls such as noise barriers, or some combination of the two, shall be incorporated into the final design of the project in order to achieve compliance with the daytime noise level limits established in the SSFMC. The project-specific acoustical analysis shall be submitted to the City and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The implementation of this measure during final project design would ensure that operational noise levels would comply with the SSFMCnoise limits, reducing the noise impact to a less-than-significant level.Operations conducted in compliance with the SSFMCnoise limits would not result in a substantial permanent or temporaryincrease in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the project area.The ambient noise environment in the project area is elevated due to traffic along the U.S.Highway 101, El Camino Real, and Spruce Avenue corridors, aircraft operations associated with SFO, and noise-producing commercial and industrial land uses in and around the project area. Given the elevated ambient noise environment in the project vicinity (60 to 75 dBA CNEL), drive-through operations conducted during the daytime and in compliance with the daytime noise limits as presented in the SSFMCwould not be expected to result in a substantial noise increase above the existing ambient noise environment. b,d)No Impact.No physical changes or alterations to any particular property are proposed at this time.As such, there would not be a potential for exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration as a result of temporary construction activities.Similarly, there is no potential forsubstantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to temporary construction activities. e, f)No Impact.The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to aircraft. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco45March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XIII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Induce substantial population growth in an 1 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 1 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbersof people 1 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 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Discussion of Impacts a, b,c)No Impact.The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinancetext amendments do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect population and housingwithin the City. Furthermore, any future development project that would implement the amendments would be subject to applicable City regulations and requirements, as well as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Theproposedproject does not include plans for the development of housing or other habitable structures, nor does it propose extensions ofother infrastructurethat would support such structures.Potential future projects that may result from the Zoning Ordinancetext amendments would not result in substantialpopulation growth, nor would potential future projects displace existing housing or people. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco46March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES —Would the Significant Mitigation Significant No project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: 1 Fire protection? 1 Police protection? 1 Schools? 1 Parks? 1 Other public facilities? Environmental Setting The City of South San Francisco Fire Department provides full response, preparedness, and prevention services. The Department also provides fire suppression, fire prevention and education, and hazardous material control. The City is served by five fire stations.Law enforcement services in South San Francisco are provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Department, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. Police services also include the South San Francisco Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.) Team and a K-9 Unit. The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) provides K-12public educational services to the community. The SSFUSD operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools,and three high schools. Of these, all but three elementary schools are located within the City. Other public facilitiesinclude the South San Francisco Public Library, which has two branches, the Main Library and the Grand Avenue Branch. Discussion of Impact a)No Impact.The proposed project’sZoning Ordinancetextamendments do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect public serviceswithin the City. Furthermore, any future development project that would implement the amendments would be subject to applicable Cityregulations and requirements, as well as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Given the proposed project would not result in population growth for the City, the project wouldnotincreasedemand for public services or require construction of new Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco47March 2016 governmental facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, where the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No XV.RECREATION —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood 1 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 1 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which 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 FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). No parks or recreational facilities are located in the project site.The potential future project sites are all zoned for commercial development throughout the City. Discussion of Impacts a, b)No Impact. Given the proposed project would not permanently increase the existing residential or employment population in the City, the project would not affect recreational facilities or increase the use of nearby recreational facilities. The purpose of the project is to update the Zoning Ordinanceto allow for the permitting of Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses and it does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.No Impacts would occur. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco48March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1 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 1 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, 1 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards to a 1 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access?1 f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1, 2 programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Regulatory Setting The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic signals. The freeways, ramps and State routes (such as El Camino Real) are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).The transit service providers have jurisdiction over their services.These include the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) fixed-route bus service and the PeninsulaCorridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) commuter rail service (Caltrain). There are several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs affecting South San Francisco, including The San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which is the regional clearinghouse for both state and federal funds for transportation improvements. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco49March 2016 Environmental Setting The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments pertain to the properties that are within the Business Commercial (BC), Freeway Commercial (FC), and El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) zoning districts. Figure 3shows parcels directly affected by the proposed zoning changes. Surrounding land uses vary widely, as the affected zones run along major corridors within the City. Uses surrounding these zones include but are not limited to residential at varying densities, retail and service commercial, offices, public and civic facilities, industrial, schools, and parks. The major transportation corridors affected by this proposed amendment are as follows: U.S. 101 Freeway U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project Area and extends from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the study area, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Oyster Point Boulevard. Northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue.Southbound off-ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard, and at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). In 2010, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 232,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 220,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 216,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. El Camino Real El Camino Real is a four-lane divided north-south arterial road that runs parallel to the U.S 101 Freeway.The roadway mostly serves commercial uses within the study area. Gateway Boulevard Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.In the project vicinity,the two north-and southbound travel lanes are separated by a raised, landscaped median. All major intersections are signalized, while some minor driveway intersections are stop sign controlled and limited to right turns in/right turns out by the raised median.No on-street parking is allowed on the east or west sides of the street in the Project Area. East Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six through-travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four through-travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco50March 2016 Airport Boulevard Airport Boulevard is a four-to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the U.S.101 freeway.This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue.In the City’s General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major arterial. South Airport Boulevard South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway extending between the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection on the north (near the U.S.101 freeway) to the San Bruno Avenue East/North McDonnell Road intersection in the south.Most ofSouth Airport Boulevard runs parallel to the east side of the U.S.101 freeway. South Spruce Avenue South Spruce Avenue is a two-lane minor arterial extending between El Camino Real and Railroad Avenue. Northeast of Railroad Avenue, it becomes Spruce Avenue. Northeast of Hillside Boulevard, it becomes North Spruce Street reaching a terminus at Randolph Avenue. Discussion of Impacts a, b)Less than Significant Impact.The Zoning Ordinance text amendments would not be expected to directly result in new construction and as such, would not directly result in the generation of vehicle trips. The amendments would be consistent with General Plan policies and programs, and would offer an additional convenience to customers of non-limited restaurantuseswho prefer to remain in their vehicle while their order is processed. This would not be expected to reduce vehicle trips, but would reduce on-site parking demand for customers choosing not to park and enter commercial properties to process their order. Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance text amendments would not result in any new development potential beyond that previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The amendments would encourage and facilitate the permitted range of business services, adding drive-through convenience for customers for a range of land uses, such as pharmacies and other non-limited service restaurant uses (within 1,000 feet east of Highway 101). This could especially benefit disabled drivers, or drivers with small children, who find it difficult to exit their vehicle to enter business establishments, allowing them to process their order while remaining in their vehicle. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is administered by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The following Level of Service (LOS)standards were selected for the roadway segments. If the existing (1990/91) level of service was F, then the standard was set to be LOS F. If the existing or future level of service was or will be E, then the standard was set to be LOS E. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco51March 2016 The standard for roadway segments near the San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Alameda County borders, with one exception, was set to be LOS E to be consistent with the recommendations in those counties' 1991 CMPs. (This standard would apply unless those roadway segments were already operating at LOS F.) On SR 82 (El Camino Real), the standard was set to be LOS E. For the remaining roadway segments, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the LOS projected for the year 2000. The roadway segment Level of Service Standards adopted by the C/CAG to monitor attainment of the CMP support the following objective: The LOS Standards established for San Mateo County vary by roadway segment. By adopting LOS standards based on geographic differences, the C/CAG signaled that it intends to use the CMP process to prevent future congestion levels in San Mateo County from getting worse than currently anticipated. At the same time, the variations in LOS standards by geographic area conform to current land use plans and development differences between the Coastside and Bayside, between older downtowns near CalTrain stations and other areas of San MateoCounty. As future projects are proposed, the City will determine if a traffic impact analysis is required as part of the City’s standard environmental review process and determine potential future impacts to CMP facilities. The proposed project would allow drive-through services withina specified range of land uses. As site-specific projects are proposed,theDrive-Through facility locations would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that adequate queuing space is provided to comply with SSFMCstandards and specific additional standards, discussed in item d), below. The impact of the proposed amendments on the roadway system would be less than significant. c)No Impact.The proposed Zoning Ordinance textamendments do notauthorize construction or development that would otherwise conflict with limits established in the General Plan Land Use Element.The proposed amendments are focused on permitted and conditionally permitted uses and do not authorize any construction that would result in the need to redirect or otherwise alter air traffic patterns. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would not result in substantial population growth that could significantly increase air traffic.No impact would result. d)Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments do not involve the construction of any roadway and would have no effect on the City’s street design standards. Site design standards pertaining to Drive-Through Facilities would be as follows: 1. Each drive-through lane shall be separated from the circulation routes necessary for ingress or egress from the property, or access to any parking stall. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco52March 2016 2. Each drive-through lane shall be striped, marked, or otherwisedistinctly delineated. 3. The vehicle stacking capacity of the Drive-Through Facility and the design and location of the ordering and pickup facilities will be determined by the City, based on appropriate traffic engineering and planning data.The applicant shall submit to the Citya Traffic Study addressing the following issues: a. Nature of the product or service being offered; b. Method by which the order is processed; c. Time required to serve a typical customer; d. Arrival rate of customers; e. Peak demand hour;and f. Anticipated vehicular stacking required. 4. Spaces provided for the specific uses as listed above shall be clearly designated through signs, colored lines, etc., all of which must be approved by the City. 5. A Drive-Through Facility may occur only in conjunction with a permitted business establishment and shall serve only one business establishment. 6. ADrive-Through Facility must be located on the same parcel as the business establishment it serves. 7. No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede vehicular access to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located. 8. No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede emergency vehicle access to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located. 9.No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede minimum required pedestrian or bicycle access to, from, or withinany parcel, includingthe parcel upon which it is located. 10.In its review of individual applications for Drive-Through Facilities, the reviewing body may find additional requirements necessary and may impose such requirements through design review and/or by special conditions of approval. 11.ADrive-Through Facility shall not be utilized for vehicular parking, loading/unloading, pedestrian service, or any purpose other than the temporary queuing of customer vehicles. 12.AConditional Use Permit shall be required for all Drive-Through Facilities. Where the applicant is not the owner of the lot upon which the Drive-Through Facility is proposed, the application shall be signed by the property owner or designated representative. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco53March 2016 e)Less than Significant Impact.The project does not involve any road construction or any development activity and thus will not obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the City. New developments would be required to comply with all applicable Fire Code and ordinance requirements for construction and access to the affected site. Individual projects would be reviewed by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department to determine any specific fire requirements applicable to the proposed development. As seen in the site design standards listed above, site design standard 8 would directly address emergency vehicle access. f)No Impact.The proposed code amendments have no direct effect on any local or regional policies involving support of alternative transportation. No negative impacts on alternative transportation policies would occur. Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XVII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant No —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Exceed wastewater treatment 1 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of 1 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 1 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 1 serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the 1 wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that ithas 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 1,14 permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco54March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially with Less than XVII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant No —Would the project: ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource g)Comply with federal, state, and local 1 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 Cityeast of Interstate 280.The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocationamong these communities. The Company’s current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 million gallons per day (MGD).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 FranciscoGeneral Plan1999). Wastewater The South San Francisco Waste Quality Control Plant is located adjacent to San Francisco Bay on ColmaCreek. This facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, SanBruno, and Colma. It also provides the dechlorination treatment of chlorinated effluent for the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and SFOAirportprior to discharging the treated wastewaterinto San Francisco Bay. The average dry weather flow through the facility is nineMGD.Peak wet weather flows can exceed sixtyMGD. TheCity’s Water Quality Control Plant underwent a $47 millionfacility upgrade in 2000. Another $45 million was spent in 2004 for additional improvements to the facilityincluding construction of a sevenmillion gallon 11 effluent storage pond and reconstruction of two large pumpstations. Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at theScavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot berecycled 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 LosTrancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon willbe expanded further or Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). 11 City of South San Francisco. 2016. http://www.ssf.net/506/Water-Quality-Control-Plant Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco55March 2016 Discussion of Impacts a,b,d, e)NoImpact.Any future development related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments wouldnot accommodate population growth and therefore would have no impact related to exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and would not require construction related to new or existing facilities. As previously mentioned, there are two water supplies that service South San Francisco. Any future development related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would not create an increased demand for potable water.Therefore, there are no impacts to water supply. c) Less Than Significant Impact.As mentioned in Section IX (Hydrology and Water Quality), above,future development could alter drainage patterns and runoff rates, resulting in flooding and/or exceedance of the drainage system capacity, however, these projectswould be located in currently developed areas. The existing storm drainage system in the Project Area is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. Therefore, impacts to storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant. f, g)Less than Significant Impact.AlthoughtheproposedZoning Ordinance text amendmentsprovide for future development improvements,they donot include any site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development.Generated wastefrom future developmentwould be required to be properly disposed or recycled in a nearby landfill or approved disposal facility with capacity to receive the waste. Any materials used during construction would be required to beproperly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The California Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) indicates solid waste from the City of South San Francisco is landfilled at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located near Half Moon Bay. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Less than Significant Potentially withLess than XVIII. MANDATORYFINDINGS OF Significant Mitigation Significant No SIGNIFICANCE ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource a)Does the project have the potential to 1 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population todrop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco56March 2016 Less than Significant Potentially withLess than XVIII.MANDATORYFINDINGS OF Significant Mitigation Significant No SIGNIFICANCE ImpactIncorporatedImpactImpactSource b)Does the project have impacts that are 1 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 1 effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a)Less than SignificantImpact.The Project Area is a highly urbanized area of the City and would not impact fish or wildlife species’ habitats. All future development would be subject to applicable regulations to reduce threats to animal and plant communities. The Project Area does not contain any resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by, the State Historical Resource Commission and does not contain a resource included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey. Additionally, the project site does not contain any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. b)Less Than Significant Impact.Cumulativelyconsiderable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. The analysis within this Initial Study demonstrates that the project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impacts. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with construction, the project’s impacts are project-specific in nature. Consequently, the project will create a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to all environmental issues. c)Less Than Significant Impactwith Mitigation Incorporated.As presented in the analysis in Section XII (Noise), above,any potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant after mitigation. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco57March 2016 CITED SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 1.Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental/technical specialists evaluating the project, based on a review of existing conditions and project details, including standard construction measures 2.City of South San Francisco General Plan,1999,and amendments through 2015. 3.California Department of Transportation,2012.California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ index.htmAccessed September 2015. 4.California Department of Conservation,2010.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: San Mateo County Important Farmland 2010. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/smt10.pdf. Accessed September, 2015. 5.Federal and State Species Conservation Data a.)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,2014. Laws/Treaties/Regulations. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/permits/ltr/ltr.html. Accessed September 2015. b.)California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. Environmental Review and Permitting. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental- Review. Accessed September 2015. 6.Cityof South San FranciscoMunicipal Code, 2015. 7.Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2011. Envirostor. Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed September 2015. 8.Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011.Flood Insurance Rate Maps 06081C0043E,06081C0041E Available at: http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=54885012&IFIT=1Accessed September 2015. 9.San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.2016. Storm Water Program. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/. Accessed September 2015. 10.Geology and Soils Data. a.)California Department of Conservation, 2010.Geologic Map of California. Available at:http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. Accessed September 2015. b.)Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),2014.Hazard Mapping. Earthquake and Hazards Program. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones,Accessed May 2015. 11.City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 2012. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco58March 2016 12.Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat Map, 2003 13.Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. a.)Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010a. Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD, Planning Rules and Research Division, Plans. October2010. b.)Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010b. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, San Francisco, CA. February 2010. 14.California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle), 2015.Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Listing. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/List?COUNTY=San+Mat eo. Accessed September 2015. 15.California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, 2013. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco59March 2016 SETTING REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Earthquake and Hazards Program. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones,Accessed May 2015. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010a. Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD, Planning Rules and Research Division, Plans. October2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010b. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, San Francisco, CA. February 2010. City/County Association of Governments(C/CAG). 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. California Department of Conservation. 2010. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: San Mateo County Important Farmland 2010. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/smt10.pdf. Accessed September, 2015. California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle), 2015. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Listing. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/List?COUNTY=San+Mat eo. Accessed September 2015. California Department of Transportation. 2011.California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm Accessed September 2015. City of South San FranciscoGeneral Plan,1999. City of South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Available at: http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/6186. Accessed September 2015. City of South San Francisco.South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2014. City of South San Francisco. Water Quality Control Plant. 2016. Available at: http://www.ssf.net/506/Water-Quality-Control-Plant. Accessed: September 2015. Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2011. EnviroStor database: South San Francisco. Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public. Accessed September2015. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Maps 06081C0043E,06081C0041E Available at: http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=54885012&IFIT=1Accessed September2015. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical advisory: CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Sacramento, CA. Available at:http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. June 19, 2008. Accessed September2015. Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco60March 2016 [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2011. GeoTracker GAMA (Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment).Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama. Accessed September 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed September 2015. City of South San Francisco–CEQALeadAgency Rozalynne ThompsonAssociate Planner WRA, Inc. – CEQA and Regulatory Permits Consultant Justin SemionPrincipal Geoff ReillySenior Associate Environmental Planner Jonathan Hidalgo Project Manager Christina HirtAssistant Environmental Planner Francis HouriganGIS Technician Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ProjectInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco61March 2016