HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19, 2016 - Planning Commission AgendaPlanning Commission
City of South San Francisco
Regular Meeting Agenda
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, May 19, 2016
WELCOME
If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about
our procedure.
Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject
not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of
application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain
the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the
application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn.
If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon
as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for
the record.
The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time
limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3
minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered
by using additional time.
When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the
Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
Alexander Khalfin, Chairperson
Norm Faria, Vice Chairperson
Carlos Martin, Commissioner
Vacant, Commissioner
Mark Nagales, Commissioner
Aristides “Aris” Ruiz, Commissioner
Alan Wong, Commissioner
Sailesh Mehra, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner
Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
Justine Buena, Clerk
Page 1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016
May 19, 2016Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting
should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 877-8505, five working days before the meeting.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting
will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the
document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing
will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City
Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016
May 19, 2016Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA REVIEW
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.090, 20.110, AND 20.350 TO
CONDITIONALLY PERMIT DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES FOR LIMITED
USES in the FREEWAY COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, AND THE
EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISH
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILTIIES, AND
ADOPTION OF AN INTITAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
Figure 1
Letter from Caltrans 03.29.16
Attachments:
A Resolution Making Findings and Recommending that the City Council Adopt an
Ordinance Amending the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Related to
Drive-Through Facilities Uses Citywide.
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ND16-0005) FOR A CITYWIDE ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES (ZA15-0004)
ISMND_Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Proje...Attachments:
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING
ORDINANCE, RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES USES
CITYWIDE
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016
May 19, 2016Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.36 (“CONDOMINIUMS AND
COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS”) TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF
CONDOMINIUM AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS WITH TWO OR
MORE UNITS.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Presentation regarding Biotech, and the Bio-International Conference. (Alex
Greenwood, Economic and Community Director)
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-317,Version:1
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS
20.090, 20.110, AND 20.350 TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES FOR
LIMITED USES IN THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, AND THE EL
CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILTIIES, AND ADOPTION OF AN INTITAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1.Make findings and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance
amending Chapters 20.090 (“Commercial,Office and Mixed-Use Districts”),20.110 (“Employment
Districts”),and 20.350 (“Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses”)to conditionally permit drive-
through facilities for limited uses in the Freeway Commercial,Business Commercial,and the El Camino
Real Mixed-Use Zoning Districts and establish development standards for drive-through facilities (ZA15
-0004), and
2.Make findings and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Initial Study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND16-0005).
BACKGROUND
Purpose
Drive-through uses are currently prohibited in South San Francisco (“City”).The purpose of this proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendment is to allow flexibility for retail uses that may wish to provide a drive-through
facility as a service to customers,as new development and redevelopment occurs in the City,while still
protecting and enhancing the pedestrian environment.It is envisioned that this flexibility will help to attract
retail facilities to locate in the City,providing additional retail options to City residents and businesses.It will
also allow the City to remain competitive with neighboring cities in terms of attracting and retaining retail uses.
Discussion
Drive-through facilities are defined in Section 20.630.002 of the Zoning Ordinance as:“Facilities designed to
enable persons to receive a service or purchase or consume goods while remaining within a motor vehicle,
typically associated with banks,eating,and drinking establishments,pharmacies,and other commercial uses.”
As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in 2011,the City adopted Section 20.350.017,which
precludes additional drive-in and drive-through facilities throughout the City.
The intent of prohibiting drive-in and drive-through facilities was to combat traffic congestion,improve air
quality by reducing idling vehicles,encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment,and to promote a healthy
lifestyle.The primary intent on prohibiting drive-through facilities was to limit drive-throughs associated with
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-317,Version:1
lifestyle.The primary intent on prohibiting drive-through facilities was to limit drive-throughs associated with
fast-food restaurants; however it was adopted as a wholesale prohibition.
The proposed amendment would conditionally permit drive-through facilities for limited retail uses within the
Business Commercial (BC),Freeway Commercial (FC)and El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)zoning
districts to allow for flexibility as new development and redevelopment occurs.For example,pharmacies have
indicated that they prefer to provide drive-through windows ancillary to new and redeveloped facilities,in order
to provide convenience and a range of options to customers.
The proposed amendment also includes comprehensive development standards for drive-through facilities,to
ensure that any future facilities would not contribute to traffic congestion,degradation of air quality,or the
pedestrian environment.It is important to note that this proposed amendment would not permit drive-through
facilities as ancillary uses to limited-service restaurants (i.e. fast food).
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the zoning districts that would be affected by the proposed amendment.
PROPOSED REVISIONS
The proposed revisions are listed below with a summary explanation. Additions are shown in double-underline
, and deletions in strike-through. The changes are also included as a draft Ordinance Amendment as Attachment
1, Exhibit A.
1.Revise Section 20.090.002 (Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts) as
follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the El Camino
Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) district:
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Use ClassificationCC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P(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 regulations for 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 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a
BART station.10. Drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017
for additional regulations.
2.Revise Section 20.110.002 of the Zoning Ordinance (Land Use Regulations, Employment Districts) as
follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the Business
Commercial (BC) and Freeway Commercial (FC) districts, restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of
Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway):
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use ClassificationBC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P (12)P P (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 fee from any Residential district. 6. Only within hotels and
motels. 7. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1,000 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
approved prior 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 general sales uses are restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of Highway 101
(Bayshore Freeway). Drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section
20.350.017 for additional regulations.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-317,Version:1
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use ClassificationBC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P (12)P P (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 fee from any Residential district. 6. Only within hotels and
motels. 7. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1,000 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
approved prior 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 general sales uses are restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of Highway 101
(Bayshore Freeway). Drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section
20.350.017 for additional regulations.
3. Revise Section 20.350.017 (Drive-in and Drive-Through Facilities) of the Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the term Drive-In, which is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and to establish development
standards for drive-through facilities as follows:
20.350.017 Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities
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.
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 City a 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 Drive-Through Facility uses 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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-317,Version:1
shall serve only one business establishment.
6.A Drive-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
within any parcel, including the 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 within any parcel, including the 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, such as screening or air filtration requirements.
11.A Drive-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.A Conditional 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.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan has a range of policies that are specifically or indirectly related to drive-through facilities,
including policies that permit drive-through facilities,as well as those that discourage and/or prohibit drive-
through facilities.As an overarching policy document,the General Plan seeks to balance many different
community goals,including supporting and providing flexibility to businesses,as well as supporting transit-
oriented development,and enhancing the pedestrian environment.The General Plan also includes policies
related to improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the city.
The Climate Action Plan (CAP)was adopted in 2014,with the purpose of reducing GHGs generated in South
San Francisco.The City has many existing sustainability efforts,which form the basis of the CAP,along with
new programs and strategies design to reduce GHGs.The CAP includes a discussion of these existing
programs,including a discussion of the Zoning Ordinance prohibition to preclude additional drive-through
facilities.It is anticipated that the CAP will be updated on a regular basis (every 5 years)as a way to monitor
and report on GHG reductions,and also to evaluate the success of the implementation strategies it contains.
When the CAP is updated,it will need to be amended to clarify that the prohibition on drive-through facilities
is now more limited in scope. This would not be a substantive change to the content or direction of the CAP.
Staff’s analysis of the General Plan and the CAP indicates that there are many policies that are relevant to drive
-through facilities,from the perspective of supporting a range of auto-oriented and pedestrian uses,as well as
ensuring air quality and a reduction in GHGs.The proposed Zoning Amendment is limited in scope,and
applies only within zoning districts that permit and encourage auto-oriented uses.The proposed development
standards for future drive-through facilities will ensure that these uses are compatible with the pedestrian
environment,while allowing flexibility for future retail uses.Due to the limited scope of the Zoning
Amendment and the comprehensive nature of the development standards,the proposed Zoning Amendment is
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-317,Version:1
Amendment and the comprehensive nature of the development standards,the proposed Zoning Amendment is
consistent with General Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On behalf of the City,WRA Environmental Consultants prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),attached to
this staff report.The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public
review on March 21, 2016.
The review period closed on Wednesday,April 20,2016 and one comment has been received.The Planning
Division received a letter from the State of California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”),dated March
29,2016.The letter expressed concern about adequate stacking capacity of new drive-through facilities along
State Route 82 (El Camino Real).Caltrans also requested that the City inform project proponents that Caltrans
will review their projects to determine whether any Caltrans facilities are impacted.Comments are attached to
this staff report.
The environmental analysis found that although the proposed zoning amendment could have a potential effect
on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the development standards
required for drive-through facilities will mitigate these potential effects.The MND identifies one significant
impact (noise)that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures,
which are thoroughly discussed in the document.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Zoning Amendment provides flexibility for retail uses.This flexibility will help to attract retail
facilities to locate in the City,providing additional retail options to City residents and businesses.It will also
allow the City to remain competitive with neighboring cities in terms of attracting and retaining retail uses.
The proposed Zoning Amendment also provides comprehensive development standards to ensure that drive-
through facilities are designed in a way that do not have negative impacts to the pedestrian environment,or to
the natural resources and qualities of the City.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions:
1.Recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to conditionally
permit drive-through facilities for limited uses in the Freeway Commercial,Business Commercial,and
the El Camino Real Mixed-Use Zoning Districts and establish development standards for drive-through
facilities; and
2.Recommending that the City Council adopt an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Attachments:
1.CEQA Resolution
a.Exhibit A: Draft IS / MND
2.Zoning Text Amendment Resolution
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-317,Version:1
a.Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
3.Comments Received
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-373,Version:1
Resolution
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING ORDINANCE,
RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES USES CITYWIDE.
WHEREAS,in July of 2010,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco adopted a
comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance,which repealed the then-existing Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”),and replaced it with an entirely new Title that,among
other actions,established new zoning districts,revised and reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions,
eliminated inconsistent and outdated provisions,and codified entirely new zoning provisions,including new
land use regulations and development standards; and,
WHEREAS,as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Update,the City adopted Section 20.350.017,which
precludes additional drive-through facilities throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010,the City has identified areas of the
Zoning Ordinance that require refinement,clarification,and/or correction,including revisions to the City’s
Chapter that prohibit drive-through facilities Citywide, as further set forth in the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS,the intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to combat traffic congestion,improve
air quality by reducing idling vehicles,encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment,and to promote healthier
lifestyles; and,
WHEREAS,the primary intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to limit these facilities
associated with fast-food restaurants; and,
WHEREAS,the City wishes to provide flexibility for retail uses as new development and
redevelopment occurs and conditionally permit drive-through facilities subject to development standards in
limited zoning districts throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Zoning Amendment”)to the City’s Zoning
Ordinance,including refinements to Sections 20.090.002,20.110.002,20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance
and ; and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation,circulation,consideration,and
adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”),in which the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded
that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of
the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with CEQA,the City prepared an Initial Study to analyze the potential
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-373,Version:1
WHEREAS,in accordance with CEQA,the City prepared an Initial Study to analyze the potential
impacts of the proposed Zoning Amendment regarding regulations for drive-through facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City determined that the proposed Zoning Amendment would not have a significant
impact on the environment as the proposed development standards required for drive-through facilities would
mitigate any potential environmental impacts; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and,
WHEREAS,the City circulated the Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)
for a 30-day public and agency review period, from March 21, 2016 to April 20, 2016; and,
WHEREAS,Notices of Availability of the Draft IS/MND were published in the South San Francisco
Examiner, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS,on May 19,2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Zoning Amendment,take
public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Zoning Amendment; and,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-Through Facilities
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,prepared by WRA Environmental Consulting;all reports,minutes,and
public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting and any
other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning
Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Resolution is based,includes without limitation,
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”))and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.);the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-Through Facilities
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,prepared by WRA Environmental Consulting;all reports,minutes,
and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting
and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.As evidenced by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Amendment,
the proposed Zoning Amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment as the proposed
development standards required for drive-through facilities would mitigate any potential environmental
impacts.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-373,Version:1
4.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II.Zoning Text Amendment Findings
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Zoning
Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the relevant specific plans, and is
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s overall vision for community development, economic
vitality, and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction without an
overconcentration of drive-through facilities that could contribute to blight as set forth in the General Plan.
None of the new or revised use definitions and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or
impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2.The Zoning Amendment to limit locations and introduce performance standards for drive-through facilities
would protect future land uses in the Business Commercial,El Camino Real Mixed Use,and Freeway
Commercial zoning districts but would not affect any particular subject property.The zoning districts where
Drive-Through Facilities would be conditionally permitted are generally suitable in terms of access,size of
parcel,relationship to similar or related uses,and other considerations as deemed relevant by the Planning
Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are consistent with General Plan policies,
specifically those policies related to maintaining a balanced land use program with appropriate performance
standards to prevent an overconcentration of drive-through facilities.
3.The proposed change in conditionally permitted uses in certain zoning districts will not be detrimental
to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Amendment will introduce performance standards for
drive-through facilities to ensure that any future facilities would not contribute to traffic congestion,
degradation of air quality, or the pedestrian environment.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby amends the following sections of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double
underline indicating addition).Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not
included below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A.Revise Section 20.090.002 (Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts) as
follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the El
Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) district:
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P(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 regulations for 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 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station.
general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-373,Version:1
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P(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 regulations for 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 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station.
general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations.
B.Revise Section 20.110.002 of the Zoning Ordinance (Land Use Regulations, Employment Districts)
as follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the
Business Commercial (BC) and Freeway Commercial (FC) districts, restricted to locations within
1,000 feet east of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway):
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P (12)P P (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 fee from any Residential district. 6. Only within hotels and motels. 7. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within
1,000 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 thatwere legally approved prior 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 general sales uses are restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of
Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). Drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional
regulations.
C.Revise Section 20.350.017 (Drive-in and Drive-Through Facilities) of the Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the term Drive-In, which is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and to establish
development standards for drive-through facilities as follows:
20.350.017 Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities
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.
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 City a 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;
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-373,Version:1
d. Arrival rate of customers;
e. Peak demand hour; and
f. Anticipated vehicular stacking required.
4.Spaces provided for the specific Drive-Through Facility uses 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.A Drive-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
within any parcel, including the 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 within any parcel,including the 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, such as screening or air filtration requirements.
11.A Drive-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.A Conditional 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.
SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South
San Francisco City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sections 20.090.002, 20.110.002, and 20.350.017,
attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-374,Version:1
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND16-0005) FOR A CITYWIDE ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES (ZA15-0004)
WHEREAS,the City prepared a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update in 2010; and,
WHEREAS,as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Update,the City adopted Section 20.350.017,which precludes
additional drive-through facilities throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,the intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to combat traffic congestion,improve air
quality by reducing idling vehicles, encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment, and to promote healthier lifestyles; and,
WHEREAS,the primary intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to limit these facilities associated with
fast-food restaurants; and,
WHEREAS,the City wishes to provide flexibility for retail uses as new development and redevelopment occurs
and conditionally permit drive-through facilities subject to development standards in limited zoning districts throughout
the City; and,
WHEREAS,the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Zoning Amendment”)to the City’s Zoning
Ordinance,including refinements to Sections 20.090.002,20.110.002,20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance
and; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code,sections
21000,et seq.(CEQA),the City prepared the attached Initial Study to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed
Zoning Amendment regarding regulations for drive-through facilities; and,
WHEREAS, City determined that the proposed Zoning Amendment would not have a significant impact
on the environment as the proposed development standards required for drive-through facilities would mitigate
any potential environmental impacts; and the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the City circulated the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)
for a 30-day public and agency review period, from March 21, 2016 to April 20, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, Notices of Availability of the IS/MND were published in the South San Francisco
Examiner, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on May 19,2016 to take public
comment and consider the proposed Zoning Amendment and the associated IS/MND and make a recommendation to the
City Council on the Zoning Amendment and IS/MND; and
WHEREAS,the custodian of the record is the City’s Chief Planner,and the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the proposed Zoning Amendment,as well as other materials comprising the record for these proceedings,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-374,Version:1
Declaration and the proposed Zoning Amendment,as well as other materials comprising the record for these proceedings,
are available and may be reviewed at the offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division,City Hall Annex,315
Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, 94080.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA”)and the
CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General
Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Initial Study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,prepared by WRA
Environmental Consulting,all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s
duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and
§21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The exhibits and attachments,including the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-
Through Facilities for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (attached as Exhibit A)are each incorporated by reference as
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080,and in the
custody of the Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND16-0005)for the Drive-
Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Draft Initial 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:
March 2016
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco i March 2016
Table of Contents
Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
1. Project Title: ................................................................................................................ 1
2. Lead Agency 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco ii March 2016
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. City Boundary Map 7
Figure 2. Zoning Districts: Subject to Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 8
Figure 3. Affected Parcels within the Project Area 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 20.090.002: Land Use Regulations —
Commercial, Office, and Mixed - Use Districts 2
Table 20.110.002: Land Use Regulations — Employment Districts 3
Table 8.32.030 Noise Level Standards 43
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Air Quality Emissions Calculations
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco iii March 2016
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best Management Practice
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish
and Game [CDFG])
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
City City of South San Francisco
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRLF California red-legged frog
CWA Clean Water Act
CWSC California Water Service Company
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
LCP Local Coastal Program
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWPL National Wetland Plant List
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
PCE Primary Constituent Element
PPT Pacific pond turtle
RPW Relatively permanent water
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SFGS San Francisco garter snake
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SFWD San Francisco Water Department
SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District
STOPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco iv March 2016
TNW Traditionally navigable waters
ToB Top of Bank
UCBC Uniform Code for Building Conservation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WRA WRA, Inc.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 1 March 2016
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND
1.Project Title:Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendments Project
2.Lead Agency and Project 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 to the text of Title 20 ZONING (Zoning Ordinance)
of the City of South San Francisco Municipal 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) Zoning Districts. The
proposed project would not alter existing regulations regarding Drive-Through Facilities for
limited service restaurants. No physical changes or alterations to any particular property are
proposed at this time.
The proposed project includes amendments to sections 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:
20.630.002 Definitions
Drive-Through Facilities. Facilities designed to enable persons to receive a service or
purchase goods while remaining within a motor vehicle, typically associated with eating and
drinking establishments, pharmacies, and other commercial uses.
However, the title of section 20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to change and
new development standards have been added.
Proposed additions to the Zoning Ordinance text are identified with double underlined text
whereas deletions to the Zoning Ordinance text are shown with strikethrough text.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 2 March 2016
5.1. Amendments to Section 20.090.002 of the Zoning Ordinance
Changes to the text of SSFMC section 20.090.002 are as follows:
Table 20.090.002
Land Use Regulations—Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use Districts
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P - P P(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 regulations for 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 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART
station.
10. 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 3 March 2016
5.2 Amendments to Section 20.110.002 of the Zoning Ordinance
Changes to the text of SSFMC section 20.110.002 are as follows:
Table 20.110.002
Land Use Regulations—Employment Districts
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P(12) P P(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 approved prior 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 4 March 2016
5.3 Amendments to Section 20.350.017 of 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 or found within the City of South San Francisco (“City”).
Changes to SSFMC section 20.350.017 are as follows:
Drive In and Drive-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 operated in
compliance with the following standards:
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.
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 City a 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 Drive-Through Facility uses 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. A Drive-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 within any parcel, including the parcel upon which it is located.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 5 March 2016
9. No Drive-Through Facility shall block or in any way impede minimum required pedestrian
or bicycle access to, from, or within any parcel, including the 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. A Drive-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. A Conditional 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.
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
• Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments1
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). The Project 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 Project Area 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 War II, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has
become increasingly developed. 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 6 March 2016
7.1 Affected Properties
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) 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)
.
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\LocationMap.mxd
Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri, National GeographicData Source(s): WRA
City Boundary
Detail Area
4
Figure 1. City Boundary Map
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Text Amendments Project City of South San Francisco 0 1 2 San Mateo County, California Miles
Figure 2. Zoning Districts: Subject to Zoning Text Amendments
Drive-through Facilities Zoning Text Amendments ProjectCity of South San FranciscoSan Mateo County, California
.
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\ZoningAreas.mxd
Project Area
Zoning Areas
Business Commercial
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Freeway Commercial
Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: USDA, FSA, NAIP 2014Data Source(s): WRA
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
£¤101
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
B
a
y
S
h
o
r
e
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24219\GIS\ArcMap\AffectedParcels.mxd
Affected Parcels
Project Area
Map Prepared Date: 8/10/2015Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri, DeLormeData Source(s): WRA
1
Figure 3. Affected Parcels within the Project Area
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Text Amendments Project City of South San Francisco 0 0.25 0.5San Mateo County, California Miles
£¤101
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
B
a
y
S
h
o
r
e
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 10 March 2016
This page intentionally left blank
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 11 March 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.
Aesthetics Land Use/Planning
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality X Noise
Biological Resources Population/Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology/Soils Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Utilities / Service Systems
Hydrology/ Water Quality X Mandatory Findings of
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
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 12 March 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 project would not
result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation
measures are required.
“Less than Significant with Mitigation 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 the potential to be significant.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 13 March 2016
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
1
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
1
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
6
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 bounded by hills on two sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to
hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno
Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling,
resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small,
extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to
west. South San Francisco’s industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its
eastern parts. Almost twenty percent of South San Francisco’s land is occupied by industrial
and warehousing uses.
Discussion of Impacts
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinance text 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 14 March 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. Potential future projects resulting from the Zoning
Ordinance text amendments could 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 sources would 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 a photometric analysis to the City demonstrating that all lighting
requirements have been satisfied. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
4
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
2
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
2
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
1
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use??
1,4
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 15 March 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 uses in the 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 Ordinance text amendments do not grant
any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade
agricultural or forestry resources. The City is 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 forestry resources.
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
1, 13
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
1, 13
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
1, 13
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
1, 13
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1, 13
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 16 March 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 (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
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 of the 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 (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the
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 air contaminants (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) No Impact. 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 17 March 2016
b) & c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, which allows for the
permitting of Drive-Through Facilities for non-limited service restaurant uses in 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
the result 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
use projects that could have significant air pollutant emissions.2 The table provides
sizes for restaurants and pharmacies that have both drive-through and non-drive-
through amenities that could produce significant emissions. The differences in the
size thresholds for significance of the two uses are not substantial 3, 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 modeled by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Quality Emissions Calculations are
provided in Appendix A. Several assumptions were made based on the type of
drive-through and the idling times. This assessment assumed that about 100
vehicles per day would use the drive-through facility and the average idling time per
transaction would be three minutes, and that each vehicle would have to wait for
another vehicle to process an entire transaction (six minutes of total idling time per
vehicle). This would equate to 600 minutes of idling per day. ROG and NOx
emissions were computed to be 0.02 pounds per day. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions
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
PM2.5 concentrations would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project allows for the permitting of Drive-Through
Facilities, which would result in idling vehicles. However, vehicles are not
considered an odor source under CEQA, and therefore, there would be no 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 18 March 2016
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1,2,
5
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 5
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
1
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
6
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1, 6
Environmental Setting
Historically, vegetation in South San Francisco included native grasslands, coastal scrub, oak
woodlands, riparian communities, and coastal salt and brackish marshes. Human intervention
and development have altered the landscape, restricting natural vegetation to isolated,
scattered parcels. Currently, South San Francisco’s vegetative communities include annual
grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, mud flats, disturbed grasslands,
and significant stands of trees. Much of the vegetative area is landscaped. Fresh emergent
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 19 March 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
Francisco General Plan 1999).
The vegetative communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including those
under federal and state protection. Species include endangered butterflies on San Bruno
Mountain and Sign Hill, including Mission Blue, Calippe Silverspot, San Bruno Elfin, and Bay
Checkerspot. San Bruno Mountain supports many threatened or endangered plant species,
and the City’s salt marshes provide foraging habitat for seven special status bird species and
may include red-legged frogs. Grassland and scrub habitat in the area attract a variety of
reptile, amphibian, and bird species for breeding and foraging. Some reptile and amphibian
species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes, may use
the wetland habitat. The nearshore tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open water,
provide habitat for many species of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals
(City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999).
South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened
and endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the City limits, and
the portion of Sign Hill 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).
Regulatory Setting
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 703-712)
There are over 900 species of birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds,
parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season
could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is
typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Wildlife. A standard requirement is to
either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season, which in San Mateo
County is September 1st through January 31st, or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior
to tree removal and should nests be found, they are required to be protected in place until the
birds have fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and, based
upon the type of bird species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project
construction (including grading and tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged.
The California Fish and Game Code
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
otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.”
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 20 March 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
a circumference of 48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of
trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to
the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a
stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent
on the others for survival.
Discussion of Impacts
a-d) Less than Significant. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments provide
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 amendments would be subject to applicable
federal, state, and local regulations that protect biological resources. Future projects
would also be subject to project-specific CEQA 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’s General Plan policy provisions (in particular,
Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation), as well as compliance with applicable
existing regulations, including but not limited to the federal 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 Ordinance text amendments do not grant
any entitlements for development. Future development 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 to the Zoning Ordinance text amendments would be required to comply with
the requirements of this ordinance. Furthermore, any future development project
that would implement the amendments would be subject to further CEQA analysis of
project-specific impacts. No state, 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 21 March 2016
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
identified in Section 15064.5?
1,2
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
1,2
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1,2
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
1, 2
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 that characterize the periods of the City’s growth. Queen Anne, Victorian,
Neoclassical, Craftsman, Spanish and Mission Revival, Moderne, as well as contemporary
styles, are all represented in the City’s central neighborhoods.
The City has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand
Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus
Street. In addition, many of the structures in the downtown area along Grand, Linden, Baden,
and Miller avenues were identified as potential historic resources in a comprehensive survey
completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of an architectural period, are of local
historic prominence, or are well-restored examples of vernacular architecture.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 22 March 2016
Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco’s history, no industrial buildings
or sites are currently designated historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native
American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include:
• A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El Camino
Real Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points,
dietary debris, and human burials.
• A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and one small shell midden (CA-SMA-40) located
near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a
significant archaeological resource. South San Francisco’s coastal location, and its rich
history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources likely.
Discussion of Impacts
a-d) Less than Significant. Cultural resources include historic buildings and structures,
historic districts, historic sites, 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 23 March 2016
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
2,10,
15
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault?
2,10
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,10
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
2,10
iv) Landslides? 2,10
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
1
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
2, 10
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property?
2, 10
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
1
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 24 March 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 eighty feet deep. Associated development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement, and
corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction.
Development in the lowland zone often requires engineering solutions to address soil
constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area.
Upland Zone
Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-fill. The cut-and-fill
in some areas has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creek floodplain. The difficulty
in this zone is the varying nature of the fill, which was laid with varying attention to engineering
practices. There is a moderate potential for shrink-swell and/or erosion hazard here.
Hillside Zone
The Hillside Zone includes some slopes of over thirty percent. The native soils of this zone are
characterized as various sandy and gravelly loams with generally high to very high erosion
potential, low strength and stability, and shallow depth. These areas are susceptible to soil
creep and small landslides.
Seismicity
South San Francisco is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United
States. There are approximately thirty known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable
of generating earthquakes; eleven of these are within forty miles of the City. The Peninsula
segment of the San Andreas Fault, the predominant fault system in California, passes through
the westernmost corner of South San Francisco, commonly referred to as the Westborough
area. This area was developed after Interstate 280 was built in the 1970s and contains a large
concentration of townhomes and one of the City’s main concentrations of local-serving
commercial uses.
The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City,
creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. It has generated some
of the largest, most destructive earthquakes in the Bay Area, including the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake (magnitude 8.3) and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 7.1). Most of the
City would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a
rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1
magnitude. Portions of the City with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the
east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Other faults in the region may also
generate earthquakes that affect South San Francisco. While most of South San Francisco is
comprised of flat to gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern and western
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 25 March 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 to liquefaction.
• Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazard,
and low strength. Some of these soils have severe limitations for bearing dwellings
without basements and for local roads. In addition, substantial portions of the south
flank of San Bruno Mountain are classified as a high landslide risk area.
Existing Seismic Risk to Development
Within South San Francisco, earthquake damage to structures can be caused by ground
rupture, near-field effects, liquefaction, landsliding, ground shaking, and possible inundation
from seiche or tsunami. The level of damage in the City resulting from an earthquake will
depend upon the magnitude of the event, the epicenter distance from the City, the response of
geologic materials, and the strength and construction quality of structures.
Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions
in the Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. The most severe hazards are presented by
unreinforced masonry buildings constructed of brick or concrete block. Under strong intensity
ground shaking, many of these structures may be expected to collapse or require demolition.
The City has developed a list of unreinforced masonry buildings to assess their potential to meet
Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) requirements through retrofit.
Other types of buildings that may also be severely damaged are older buildings of steel and
concrete framing that were not designed to resist earthquake vibrations and older reinforced
brick and masonry structures.
Ground Shaking
The distribution of earthquake wave amplification as related to geologic materials has been
mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with input from the U.S.
Geological Survey. Areas subject to extremely high or very high levels of wave amplification
include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the
alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between Orange and South Linden Avenues.
ABAG has also mapped the intensities created by a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the
San Andreas Fault registering 7.1 on the modified mercalli intensity scale in the South San
Francisco area. Only the southeastern and eastern portions of the City, including much of the
area east of U.S. 101, would experience an intensity level VIII (Moderate); damage is expected
to be nonstructural in other areas.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid-like
state because of earthquake ground shaking. Most of the lowland areas of South San
Francisco potentially have liquefaction hazards, with moderate liquefaction potential in the
alluvial fan of Colma Creek and in a narrow strip of land south of Sister Cities Boulevard.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 26 March 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
region having the greatest susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock
units of slope greater than fifteen percent. In South San Francisco, this hazard is primarily
located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near
Skyline Boulevard.
Inundation
Earthquakes can cause tsunami (‘tidal waves’) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water
bodies) in the Bay. As portions of the City are located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are
low-lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at
approximately 4.3 feet (msl) for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500-
year tsunami. Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and infrastructure within the City is not
only a function of the seismic risks outlined above, but also of the form, structural design,
materials, construction quality, and location of the structure. 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 Significant Impact. South San Francisco is located in the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments provide
for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific designs
for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. The Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prohibits construction within fifty feet of an active
fault and requires geologic investigations before development can occur within a
mapped Earthquake Fault Zone that typically extends approximately a quarter mile
from a fault line. Future development would require compliance with this Act and
would therefore reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
a-ii) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 City with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east,
would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Any future projects resulting
from the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would be designed,
engineered, and constructed in conformance with standard engineering practices
and CBC requirements. 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 27 March 2016
a-iii) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously 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 future development resulting from the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text 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 regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant
level.
a-iv) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 fifteen percent. Any future development
resulting from the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would comply with
the CBC as well as the applicable provisions of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
and the SSFMC, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Any future development resulting from the proposed
Zoning Ordinance text amendments would 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 SSFMC and 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 soils or expansive 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 28 March 2016
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
1, 13
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
1,6
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 (CO2) and water vapor but there are also
several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the
earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of
GHGs are generally as follows:
• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.
• N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.
• CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping
livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning
solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.
• HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in 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 CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur
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 CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
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 affected by 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 29 March 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 provides goals, policies, and
programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change adaptation and support the
goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375 4. 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 efforts including 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 Air Quality Guidelines provides a significance
threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of 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 seventeen metric 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 GHG emissions, 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 of fifteen 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, the project 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Prepared by PMC with assistance from
Fehr & Peers. February 13.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 30 March 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.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
1
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
7
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
1, 13
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
1
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
1,12
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 31 March 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 Francisco General Plan 1999).
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 longer being implemented
and, in some cases, the information to be included in the Cortese List does not exist.
Aircraft Safety
The land surrounding the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and under the landing and
departure flight paths is almost entirely developed with urban uses. Portions of the City are
subject to frequent overflight from aircraft departures on Runway 28 and less frequent overflight
from arrivals on Runway 10. Protection against such conditions is essential to airport/land use
safety compatibility. The Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) recognizes and discourages
approval of specific land uses that would pose a potential hazard to aircraft in flight. The Land
Use and Sub Area elements of the General Plan include policies restricting building heights in
the vicinity of SFO in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 height limits (City of
South San Francisco General Plan 1999).
Emergency Services
The San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services provides preparation, training, and
information for various emergency situations, including earthquakes, fire, flooding, landslides, oil
spills, and pandemics. In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan, integrated
with the San Mateo Area/County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (City of South San Francisco
General Plan 1999).
Discussion of Impacts
a-c) Less than Significant Impact. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments
provide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific
designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development that
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 32 March 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 Ordinance text amendments do not provide specific designs for
development or grant any entitlements for development, future project locations 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
development would 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 SFO and
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 Ordinance text amendments
do not provide specific designs for development or grant any entitlements for
development. Future development resulting from 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 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. It also states that no Drive-Through Facility shall
block or in any way impede emergency vehicle access to, from, or within any parcel,
including the parcel upon which it is located. Further, all future improvement projects
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 33 March 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. Theref ore, the proposed project would
not increase the risk of wildfire near an urban area. Future development relating to
the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would occur in highly developed
areas of the City that are not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. Impacts would
be less than significant.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
1
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
1, 2
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
1
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
1
e) Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 34 March 2016
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1, 6
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
2,8,
12
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
1, 6
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
1
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
2,12
Environmental Setting
Water quality is a particular area of concern in the City because of the ease of water pollution
and the effects of pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. Point sources of pollution are
regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
process. Permits are required under NPDES for all publicly operated treatment plants and for
surface-water runoff in urban areas. These permits specify the discharge limits for certain
pollutants and ensure that local industries pretreat the pollutants they discharge into treatment
plants. For the purposes of administering NPDES, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) has jurisdiction over nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) in
California. South San Francisco falls under the authority of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB,
which is responsible for implementing State policy through the preparation of basin plans for
water quality control and the regulation of all activities affecting water quality.
The quality of groundwater and water flowing into Colma Creek and the Bay is most likely to be
affected by nonpoint pollution sources in South San Francisco, simply because they are not as
rigorously regulated as point sources. Development can potentially pose a threat to surface and
groundwater quality through construction sediment, materials used on-site, and related
increases in automobile use.
Surface Water Quality and Pollution
Since the City is largely developed, there is a high proportion of impermeable surface area.
Stormwater and irrigation runoff is collected in the City’s storm system and discharged to Colma
Creek or San Francisco Bay. Colma Creek is particularly susceptible to water quality problems
due to nonpoint sources of pollution. These sources include general pollutants picked up by
runoff from streets, open areas, and urban lands. In most urban areas, nonpoint pollution
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 35 March 2016
includes sediment, oil, debris, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds,
herbicides and pesticides, and fertilizers. Industrial areas may have a variety of other toxic and
hazardous substances as well. Any pollution in Colma Creek affects the immediate habitat and
is ultimately discharged into San Francisco Bay, near sensitive mudflat habitat areas.
In order to control nonpoint source pollution, the City joined the San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) in 1991. STOPPP functions under a Joint
Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality management, as authorized by the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB. The program includes pollutant source identification and water quality
measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges; structural and nonstructural controls for
commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrial facilities; and controls for new
development and construction 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 a number of BMPs aimed at private land owners to control litter, gain compliance from
industrial dischargers, reduce pollutants at commercial sites, minimize construction sediment,
and clean and maintain privately-owned watercourses.
Groundwater Quality and Pollution
Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of transmitting
groundwater, especially in the southwestern portion of the City, which is underlain by a portion
of the San Mateo Groundwater Basin. With the exception of industrial areas or locations with
underground storage tanks where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected,
the quality of this water is considered good. However, contamination may be present in existing
or former industrial areas of unconfined waste disposal, or in the areas of high groundwater
levels.
Discussion of Impacts
a, f) Less than Significant Impact. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments
provide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific
designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development that
would have the 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 degrade downstream water quality and 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 of the permit
application process, projects would be required to submit a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of BMPs to be implemented on
the site both during and after construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 36 March 2016
Post-construction urban stormwater runoff measures would require the City to
implement structural and non-structural BMPs that would mimic or improve
predevelopment quantity and quality runoff conditions from new development and
redevelopment areas. SSFMC section 14.04.180 provides further protection from
erosion with requirements for implementation of BMPs. Continued implementation of
the SSFMC and compliance with state law would minimize potential soil erosion
impacts. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments
provide for future development improvements, it does not include any site-specific
designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development that
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 Ordinance would minimize impacts to groundwater. This impact would be
less than significant.
c, d, e) Less Than Significant. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments provide
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 projects would 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. Any new development would 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 less than significant.
g) No Impact. The proposed zoning text amendments would not directly or indirectly
result in the construction of any housing. There would be no impact.
h) Less than Significant Impact. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments
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 planned at 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 37 March 2016
i, j) Less than Significant Impact. 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 growth within 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.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Physically divide an established
community?
1
b) 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 coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
2, 11
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
San Mateo County is located on the San Francisco Peninsula. San Mateo County is bounded by
San Francisco County to the north, Santa Cruz County to the south, Santa Clara County to the
southeast, Alameda County across the San Francisco Bay to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to
the west. San Mateo County is comprised of approximately 455 square miles of land that is
distributed among twenty incorporated cities, including the City of South San Francisco, and
twenty unincorporated communities.
As a whole, the County is relatively undeveloped. Although located in the San Francisco Bay
Area—one of the most populated urban areas in the nation—just 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 County General Plan 1986).
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 38 March 2016
Project Area
The City of South San Francisco lies north of the City of San Bruno and SFO in a small valley
south of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain; east of Pacifica and the hills of
the Coast Range; and west of the San Francisco Bay.
Regulatory Setting
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 City are 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 City and 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 39 March 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
can achieve the reduction targets outlined in this Plan.5 The CAP’s discussion on the City’s
Sustainability Efforts references SSFMC section 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), the increase 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,
specific plans, and land use regulations to be consistent with the ALUCP.6 Alternatively, local
governments may take steps, provided by law, to overrule part or all of the ALUCP as it relates
to their jurisdiction.7 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
and amended general plans, specific plans, land use ordinances, regulations, and facility master
plans to the airport land use commission for review.8
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. Although the Zoning Ordinance text amendments 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 40 March 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 coastal program, 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 SSFMC section 20.350.017
Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities specifically bans Drive-Through Facilities. The
proposed project would alter this section of the SSFMC to allow Drive-Through
Facilities. Therefore, the project would comply with the SSFMC upon completion.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant physical
environmental impacts, particularly related 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.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
Potentially
Significan
t Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
4
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
4
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) No Impact. The proposed project’s Zoning Ordinance text amendments do not grant
any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect
mineral resources within the City. The Project Area is not in or adjacent to any
important mineral resource areas. According to the Office of Mine Reclamation 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 41 March 2016
would be subject to applicable City regulations and requirements, as well as be
subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts.
XII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
1,2
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
1
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 42 March 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 SSFMC precludes
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 Section 8.32.030 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 City or 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) The noise 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 43 March 2016
Table 8.32.030
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS*
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any
single-family or duplex
residential in a specific plan
district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any
multiple-family residential or
mixed residential/commercial in
any specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 55
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster
Point Marina specific plan
districts or any commercial use
in any specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 60
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
*Source: Adapted from “The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance,” Office of Noise Control,
California Department of Health.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 44 March 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 Impact with 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
distance of three feet from the drive-through speaker9 and 60 dBA Lmax at a
distance of thirty feet from the speaker. Idling vehicles produce noise levels of about
55 to 60 dBA at a distance of thirty feet, but tend to shield the speaker noise.10 This
analysis conservatively assumes that vehicles utilizing a drive-through, combined,
could idle for more than thirty minutes 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 thirty feet.
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 thirty minutes or
more in 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 three feet 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 Measure NOISE-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 three feet 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 45 March 2016
property line or for drive-through aisles proposed within thirty feet of any
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 SSFMC noise limits, reducing the
noise impact to a less-than-significant level. Operations conducted in compliance
with the SSFMC noise limits would not result in a substantial permanent or
temporary increase 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 SSFMC would 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 for substantial
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 46 March 2016
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1
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 Ordinance text amendments do not grant
any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect
population and housing within 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.
The proposed project does not include plans for the development of housing or other
habitable structures, nor does it propose extensions of other infrastructure that would
support such structures. Potential future projects that may result from the Zoning
Ordinance text amendments would not result in substantial population growth, nor
would potential future projects displace existing housing or people.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 47 March 2016
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
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:
Fire protection? 1
Police protection? 1
Schools? 1
Parks? 1
Other public facilities? 1
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-12 public 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 facilities include 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’s Zoning Ordinance text amendments do not grant
any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect
public services within 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.
Given the proposed project would not result in population growth for the City, the
project would not increase demand for public services or require construction of new
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 48 March 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
XV. RECREATION — Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
1
Environmental Setting
There are approximately 320 acres of parks and open space in the City of South San Francisco,
including community, neighborhood, mini- and linear parks, open space, and school land.
Community and recreation centers provide space for many of the classes and services that are
central to South San Francisco’s recreation programs. The City has six community/recreation
buildings, some of which are used for specialized service, such as senior programs at the
Magnolia Center, public meetings at the Municipal Services Building, and Boy and Girls Club
programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation Center. The City also has an indoor public pool at
Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San Francisco High School and El Camino High School
supplement Orange Pool during the summer. A new public gymnasium was constructed in
1998 as part of the Terrabay Project (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999).
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 Ordinance to 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.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 49 March 2016
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
1
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
1
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
1
d) Substantially increase hazards to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
1, 2
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 Peninsula Corridor 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 50 March 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 3 shows 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 51 March 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
of South 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 restaurant uses who 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 52 March 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 Mateo County.
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 within a specified range of
land uses. As site-specific projects are proposed, the Drive-Through facility
locations would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that adequate queuing space is
provided to comply with SSFMC standards 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 text amendments do not authorize
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 53 March 2016
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 City a 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. A Drive-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 within any parcel, including the 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 within any parcel, including the 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. A Drive-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. A Conditional 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 54 March 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.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
— Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
1
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
1
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
1
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1, 14
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 55 March 2016
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
— Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
1
Environmental Setting
Water
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company
Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the City east of Interstate 280. The CWSC
also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these
communities. The Company’s current contract with the San Francisco Water Department
(SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 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 Francisco General Plan 1999).
Wastewater
The South San Francisco Waste Quality Control Plant is located adjacent to San Francisco Bay
on Colma Creek. This facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South
San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. It also provides the dechlorination treatment of
chlorinated effluent for the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and SFO Airport prior to discharging
the treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay. The average dry weather flow through the
facility is nine MGD. Peak wet weather flows can exceed sixty MGD. The City’s Water Quality
Control Plant underwent a $47 million facility upgrade in 2000. Another $45 million was spent in
2004 for additional improvements to the facility including construction of a seven million gallon
effluent storage pond and reconstruction of two large pump stations.11
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed
at the Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS).
Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill,
has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When
the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or
Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill (City of South San Francisco 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 56 March 2016
Discussion of Impacts
a, b, d, e) No Impact. Any future development related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendments would not 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 projects would 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. Although the proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendments provide for future development improvements, they do not include any
site-specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for
development. Generated waste from future development would 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 be properly 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.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
1
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 57 March 2016
XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
b)Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
1
c)Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1
Discussion
a)Less than Significant Impact. 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. Cumulatively considerable 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 Impact with 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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 58 March 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.htm Accessed 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. City of South San Francisco Municipal 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=1 Accessed
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 59 March 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. October 2010.
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 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 60 March 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. October 2010.
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 Francisco General 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 September 2015.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Maps
06081C0043E,06081C0041E Available at:
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=54885012&IFIT=1 Accessed
September 2015.
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 September 2015.
Drive-Through Facilities Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco 61 March 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 – CEQA Lead Agency
Rozalynne Thompson Associate Planner
WRA, Inc. – CEQA and Regulatory Permits Consultant
Justin Semion Principal
Geoff Reilly Senior Associate Environmental Planner
Jonathan Hidalgo Project Manager
Christina Hirt Assistant Environmental Planner
Francis Hourigan GIS Technician
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-375,Version:1
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATED TO
DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES USES CITYWIDE
WHEREAS,in July of 2010,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco adopted a
comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance,which repealed the then-existing Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”),and replaced it with an entirely new Title that,among
other actions,established new zoning districts,revised and reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions,
eliminated inconsistent and outdated provisions,and codified entirely new zoning provisions,including new
land use regulations and development standards; and,
WHEREAS,as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Update,the City adopted Section 20.350.017,which
precludes additional drive-through facilities throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010,the City has identified areas of the
Zoning Ordinance that require refinement,clarification,and/or correction,including revisions to the City’s
Chapter that prohibit drive-through facilities Citywide; and,
WHEREAS,the intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to combat traffic congestion,improve
air quality by reducing idling vehicles,encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment,and to promote healthier
lifestyles; and,
WHEREAS,the primary intent of prohibiting drive-through facilities was to limit these facilities
associated with fast-food restaurants; and,
WHEREAS,the City wishes to provide flexibility for retail uses as new development and
redevelopment occurs and conditionally permit drive-through facilities subject to development standards in
limited zoning districts throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”)to the City’s Zoning
Ordinance,including refinements to Sections 20.090.002,20.110.002,20.350.017 of the Zoning Ordinance
and; and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation,circulation,consideration,and
adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”),in which the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded
that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of
the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with CEQA,the City prepared an Initial Study to analyze the potential
impacts of the proposed Zoning Amendment regarding regulations for drive-through facilities; and,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-375,Version:1
WHEREAS, the City determined that the proposed Zoning Amendment would not have a significant
impact on the environment as the proposed development standards required for drive-through facilities would
mitigate any potential environmental impacts; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and,
WHEREAS,the City circulated the Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)
for a 30-day public and agency review period, from March 21, 2016 to April 20, 2016; and,
WHEREAS,Notices of Availability of the Draft IS/MND were published in the South San Francisco
Examiner, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS,on May 19,2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Zoning Amendment,take
public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Zoning Amendment; and,
WHEREAS,on ________________________,2016 the City Council for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Zoning
Amendment (ZA15-0004) and IS/MND (ND16-0005).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-Through Facilities
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,prepared by WRA Environmental Consulting;all reports,minutes,and
public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting and any
other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the
City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as
described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I.FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above,the City Council for the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A.General Findings.
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Ordinance is based,includes without limitation,
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”))and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.);the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Drive-Through Facilities
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,prepared by WRA Environmental Consulting;all reports,minutes,
and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-375,Version:1
and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 19,2016 meeting
and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.As evidenced by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Amendment,
the proposed Zoning Amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment as the proposed
development standards required for drive-through facilities would mitigate any potential environmental
impacts.
4.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
B.Zoning Amendment Findings
1.The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Zoning
Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the relevant specific plans, and is
consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and protection of
the downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction without an overconcentration of drive
-through facilities that could contribute to blight as set forth in the General Plan. None of the new or
revised use definitions and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or impede achievement
of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2.The Zoning Amendment to allow limited locations and introduce performance standards for drive-through
facilities would protect future land uses in the Business Commercial,El Camino Real Mixed Use,and
Freeway Commercial zoning districts but would not affect any particular subject property.The zoning
districts where drive-through facilities would be conditionally permitted are generally suitable in terms of
access,size of parcel,relationship to similar or related uses,and other considerations as deemed relevant by
the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are consistent with General Plan
policies,specifically those policies related to maintaining a balanced land use program with appropriate
performance standards to prevent an overconcentration of drive-through facilities.
3.The proposed change in conditionally permitted uses in certain zoning districts will not be detrimental
to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Zoning Amendment will introduce performance
standards for drive-through facilities to ensure that any future facilities would not contribute to traffic
congestion, degradation of air quality, or the pedestrian environment.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as
follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition).Sections and
subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below,and shall remain in full force and
effect.
A.Revise Section 20.090.002 (Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts) as
follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the El
Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) district:
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P(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 regulations for 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 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station.
general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-375,Version:1
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P(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 regulations for 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 am to 7 pm weekdays only except within 400 feet of a BART station.
general sales uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations.
B.Revise Section 20.110.002 of the Zoning Ordinance (Land Use Regulations, Employment Districts)
as follows to conditionally permit drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales facilities in the
Business Commercial (BC) and Freeway Commercial (FC) districts, restricted to locations within
1,000 feet east of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway):
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P (12)P P (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 fee from any Residential district. 6. Only within hotels and motels. 7. Must
be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1,000 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 approved prior 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.
ancillary to general sales uses are restricted to locations within 1,000 feet east of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). Drive-through facilities ancillary to general sales
uses are permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. See Section 20.350.017 for additional regulations.
C.Revise Section 20.350.017 (Drive-in and Drive-Through Facilities) of the Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the term Drive-In, which is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and to establish
development standards for drive-through facilities as follows:
20.350.017 Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities
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.
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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-375,Version:1
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 City a 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 Drive-Through Facility uses 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.A Drive-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
within any parcel, including the 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 within any parcel,including the 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, such as screening or air filtration requirements.
11.A Drive-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.A Conditional 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.
SECTION III.SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid or unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-375,Version:1
invalid or unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision
to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To
this end,provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or
phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV.PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be
prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is
scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a
certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk
shall (1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or
otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-315,Version:1
RESOLUTION NO._________
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 19.36 (“CONDOMINIUMS AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS”) TO ALLOW
THE CREATION OF CONDOMINIUM AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS WITH TWO OR
MORE UNITS.
WHEREAS,the City Council has expressed a desire to modify the condominium regulations to provide
flexibility for the construction of new for-sale residential units; and
WHEREAS,reducing the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing
project from five units to two units could facilitate the production of for-sale residential units for the City of
South San Francisco (“City”)without changing any existing zoning designations or density limitations s within
the City; and
WHEREAS,the construction of additional for-sale residential units could help address the significant
demand for housing units within the City; and
WHEREAS,supporting the production of new residential units is consistent with the City’s adopted
Housing Element that identifies Program 1-4D to evaluate Chapter 19.36 and consider reducing minimum unit
requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership; and
WHEREAS,the City has prepared an amendment to Chapter 19.36 of the City’s Municipal Code
regarding regulations for the construction of new condominium and community housing projects; and
WHEREAS,reducing the minimum number of units for condominium and community housing projects
will necessitate a parallel set of procedures whereby projects with four or fewer units will be processed
according to the minor subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code and projects
with five or more units will be processed according to the standard subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter
19.40; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3)of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-315,Version:1
Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS,the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in this Ordinance Amendment,
as they relate to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations are minor in nature,the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared for the
Zoning Ordinance Update,nor do the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections constitute a change in the
project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS,on April 21,2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Ordinance Amendment,
take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Amendment.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and IS/ND,prepared by Dyett and
Bhatia;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
April 21,2016 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and
§21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Resolution is based,includes without limitation,
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”))and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.);the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and IS/ND,prepared by Dyett
and Bhatia;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly
noticed April 21,2016 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code
§21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.The refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in this Ordinance Amendment,as they relate
to Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations,are minor in nature,the adoption of which
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance Update,nor do the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections constitute a change in the
project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
4.The Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-315,Version:1
4.The Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3)of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)because it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance Amendment may have a
significant effect on the environment.The change to the threshold for constructing a condominium or
community housing project will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted
regulations.Moreover,the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies,specifically
those policies related to affordable housing and home ownership.Modifications to the Condominiums and
Community Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change zoning designations or density
limitations in the City and no land use impact is expected.Therefore,the Ordinance Amendment is exempt
from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Public Resources Code.
5.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II.Specific Findings
1.As described in Section II,adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment will include revisions to Title
19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,to reflect minor changes to the Condominiums and
Community Housing Projects regulations (SSFMC 19.36).
2.The proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan because the Ordinance
Amendment would revise an existing housing policy as recommended by the adopted 2015-2023 Housing
Element.Revision of Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations would promote home
ownership and none of the new or revised definitions,tables,figures and land uses will conflict with or
impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
3.The areas of the City impacted by the proposed Ordinance Amendment is suitable for the proposed uses.
The Ordinance Amendment will change the threshold for constructing a condominium or community
housing project,but will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted
regulations.The Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies,specifically those policies
related to affordable housing and home ownership.Modifications to the Condominiums and Community
Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change land use citywide and no land use impact
is expected.
4.The proposed Ordinance Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the
Ordinance Amendment would only clarify existing regulations.More specifically,the Ordinance
Amendment includes a revision to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations to
reduce the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project from five
units to two units.The proposed Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-315,Version:1
units to two units.The proposed Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
convenience,or welfare of the City or land within the City;instead,the Ordinance Amendments will
facilitate the production of for-sale housing units within existing zoning designations and update the
Municipal Code to be consistent with the recommendations of the Housing Element in the General Plan.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as
follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition).Sections and
subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below,and shall remain in full force and
effect.
A.Revise Chapter 19.36 Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations to read as
follows:
1.Revise Section 19.36.030 Procedures Generally to modify the minimum required number of units
for a condominium or community housing project.
19.36.030 Procedures Generally
New Ccondominium projects and new community housing projects shall result in the creation of two five or
more units.,and tThe procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing
project for four or fewer units shall be the minor subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.48,unless the
Developer elects to use the standard subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.40.The procedure to be used
in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for five or more units shall be the
standard subdivision procedure found in Chapter 19.40,in addition to the requirements and procedures set forth
in this chapter.
2.Revise Section 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedures to make it clear that new condominium or
community housing projects with fewer than five units shall utilize the minor subdivision procedures.
19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedure
The minor subdivision procedure set forth in Chapter 19.48 shall be used where:
(a) The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the division abuts upon a
maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the City, or
(b) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of 20 acres or more and has an approved access to a
maintained public street or highway, or
(c) The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which
comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of
the City as to street alignments and widths, or
(d) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a
quarter section. (Ord. 993 § 9 (part), 1985: Ord. 861 § 9.02, 1981)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-315,Version:1
(e) a new condominium or community housing project will result in the creation of four or fewer units.
SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South
San Francisco City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapters 19.32 and 19.36, attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
*******
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco at a special meeting held on the 21st day of April, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Sailesh Mehra
Secretary to the Planning Commission
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
P16-0024
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-315,Version:1
2633689.1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-464,Version:1
Presentation regarding Biotech, and the Bio-International Conference. (Alex Greenwood, Economic and Community Director)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/13/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™