HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Ordinance Update Negative Declaration
South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance and Map Update
Initial Study and
Draft Negative Declaration
Prepared for
The City of South San Francisco
By
U:ttJIJ1\ ::1'1111: ull/"" "":n"al::P:I-u:n;l"n,:
December 17, 2009
This page intentionallY left blank
1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Initial Study / Negative Declaration.................................................................................. 1- 1
1.2 Pro j e ct In form a ti 0 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 - 3
1.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.................................................................... 1-5
1.4 Lead Agency's Determination........................................................................................... .1-6
2 Project Description . ................................. ................................. ................... 2-1
2.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Project D e scription ............................................................................................................. 2-1
3 Environmental Checklist................................ .............................................. 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................... ..........3 - 2
3.2 Agri cultural Reso ur ces. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-4
3.3 Air Q uali ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 5
3.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 3 -1 0
3. 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 3 -12
3.6 Ge 0 logy an d S oils .............................................................................................................. 3 -14
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................. 3 -17
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................. 3- 23
3. 9 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................................... 3 - 26
3.10 Land Use and Planning..................................................................................................... 3 - 30
3.11 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................3-31
3 .12 Noise .............................................................................................................................. ........ 32
3.13 Population and Housing................................................................................................... 3- 34
3.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 3 - 3 5
3 . 15 Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3 7
3.16 Transportation and Traffic............................................................................................... 3- 38
3 .17 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................ 3 -40
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................... 3-42
This page intentionallY left blank.
i i
1
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with State law, the City of South San Francisco ("City") proposes to adopt a Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map ("Update") to implement the City's General Plan. The Public Review
Draft Zoning Ordinance Update and Zoning Map may be viewed and printed by going to the
City's web site at http://www.ssf.net/zoningupdate. A copy of the Public Review Draft Zoning
Ordinance Update and Zoning Map, as well as this Initial Study / Negative Declaration, and the
environmental documents upon which this IS/ND relies, may also be obtained at the City's
Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315
Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080. Copies of the document may also be
viewed at the Office of the City Clerk and the Grand Avenue Library. For additional information,
please call the Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, at
650.877.8535, or e-mail [email protected].
1.1 INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., as amended.
Pursuant to State law this Initial Study / Negative Declaration will be made available to the State
Clearinghouse and the public for a 30 day review period prior to the Lead Agency considering
adoption of this document.
Pursuant to Section 15074 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) when considering
adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration the Lead Agency is bound
by the following:
A. Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making
body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration
before making its recommendation.
B. Prior to approving a project the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the whole of the record
before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 1 -1
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
on the environment and that a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration
reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis.
C. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency
shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
D. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency
shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate significant
environmental impacts
E. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for
a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a
comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two
nautical miles of a public use airport, without first considering whether the project will
result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons
residing or working in the project area.
In the case of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission is the advisory body. The decision
making body is the City Council.
LEAD AGENCy/CONTACT
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study / Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco.
During the 30-day comment period, please mail comments on this Initial Study / Negative
Declaration to the project manager for the Lead Agency at the following address:
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division
P.O. Box 711/315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(650) 877-8535
PAGE 1 -2
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
(mailing)
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(pf?ysica~
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
650.877.8535
PROJECT LOCATION
City of South San Francisco (Entire City)
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
(mailing)
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(pf?ysica~
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all General Plan Designations
ZONING
City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all Zoning Districts
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 1 -3
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
See Chapter 2 (project Description) and the Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance Update and
Zoning Map.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
See Chapter 2 (Environmental Setting).
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE ApPROVAL IS REQUIRED
None.
PAGE 1 -4
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Factors marked with a filled in block (X) have been determined to be potentially affected by the
Project and are evaluated in the following Initial Study, which involve at least one impact that has
initially been identified as potentially significant, as indicated in the Environmental Checklist
(Chapter 3) and the related discussion that follows.
D Aesthetics D Hazards and Hazardous Materials D Public Services
D Agriculture Resources D Hydrology and Water Quality D Recreation
D Air Quality D Land Use and Planning D Transportation
D Biological Resources D Mineral Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Cultural Resources D Noise D Cumulative Impacts
D Geology and Soils D Population and Housing
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 1 -5
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.4 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION
On the basis of the evaluation in this Initial Study:
y'" I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made
by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Susy IZalkin
Chief Planner
Date
PAGE 1 -6
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of South San Francisco, including two unincorporated islands ("Planning Area"), is located
in northern San Mateo County, on the San Francisco Peninsula (see Figure 2.1-1, Regional
Location). The Planning Area is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and
San Bruno, as well as unincorporated portions of the county. The Planning Area is served by
Highway 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain, as well as a BART station, which opened
in June 2003. In addition, the Planning Area is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport.
The Planning Area 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
the Second World War, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has
become increasing 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. The City is known as the birthplace of the biotechnology industry.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City is undertaking comprehensive revisions to Title 20 - Zoning of the City's Municipal Code
and the Zoning Map in order to bring them into compliance with its General Plan, last
comprehensively updated in 1999. The current version of the Zoning Ordinance was adopted by
the City in 1986. The Zoning Ordinance has been amended several times since 1986, but has not
been comprehensively updated until this time.
On October 13,1999, the City adopted a revised General Plan for the City of South San Francisco
to bring the Plan into conformance with current State law, ensure internal consistency, respond to
issues raised by City residents, and outline the specific goals, policies and action programs for the
City for the next 20 years. The General Plan:
. Outlines a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic development
and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community;
. Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this v1S1on to be
accomplished;
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects
are in harmony with Plan policies and standards;
. Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects
that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical
environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and
. Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing
programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and
redevelopment and specific plans.1
In October, 1999 the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
General Plan update, following public review and comment on the Draft EIR. The EIR was
prepared as a Program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and, as such, was intended to serve as the environmental document for a series of actions
that the Plan contemplated, including amending the Zoning Ordinance to bring it into compliance
with the Plan. CEQA provides for using a Program EIR to ensure consideration of cumulative
impacts, avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy issues, and allow early identification and
evaluation of program wide mitigation measures.
In 2001, the City Council certified a Supplemental EIR that was prepared to evaluate the impacts of
amending the General Plan to implement the East of 101 traffic study and adopting a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. The General Plan had identified the need
to conduct a traffic study in the East of 101 area in order to update traffic projections, identify
specific street improvements, and provide a fee structure to fund transportation improvements.
The General Plan also required adoption of a TDM program that would impose requirements for
trip reduction measures as well as provide land use intensity bonuses to developers who agree to
implement TDM measures that achieve even greater use of alternative transportation modes.
The General Plan EIR, the Supplemental EIR for the East of 101 traffic study and TDM ordinance,
serve as the baseline environmental documents for evaluating the need for further environmental
analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes.
The purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Update project are to:
. Implement the policies of, and ensure consistency with, the adopted General Plan;
. Clarify, and streamline where possible, the processes, standards and discretionary review
criteria for approvals;
. Update provisions for consistency with relevant federal and State law; and
. Ensure that the Zoning Ordinances are easier to read and use.
1 City of South San Francisco, General Plan, October 1999
PAGE 2-2
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I, ~,.~',~ j~ ~ ~~~~:~~i~~ ::'~,
,':; ,.
'"," ') "~..~' ,:~ ~"",. r;::~;,~,:~~~>
: : < ~:', ~:.:.,.~ >~,o, ""V'~, ~"" _~ ;, '. _".' .... .~ "v,,=,,(
.' . ="-----~. -' . ~ <' " ') '~:- /.'~ '{~
.,_"'".~"",:-, ~ / '. I' - ,~,. ,~.^/ ~" ~ ~~iI>""'~~ ':!:.~~
:"-:' -Y::::::::~' ^...~ :;-:s-,,,=""~ .3S.I....' " ';::';;::::':]~i~~iid~':::: ~~~ '~.' ,. '.
, 1/ ':J.:::< ~~~!~~:: :.~ f 1<,:", ,: ., . ~~, '. '/~~,. \-_~ ' ~ i--;-
" 'D"-;;~~:"-~~7:;~>:'~' ;:':.., ->'3:: ~"i \ ^' .,~, ;~~~, ~:,~,-
'c~'" '"" . .' 'z; >' · h~_ ,
" .~ ~~'" " '" '~ <~, ~~- .,; .,"-;-: ~",~",~~","~~~~ -' ,
/-~; ,[ V '.1Ii ~~'>>.
,~ .\ .. ,^~,~_~. .......>: " :.,;,_ .?"I>KC ";--. ?:~
- ~ - .- ;:,; ~, -' - ,. ;f ~ ~t " · " ' ..<~;
" "h ?.......: ,\ ''''-: 3X~ -::~':
\'" ~:<~ ~ ~~';~ ' ~,:,;, ~I>; , :---, x ~, , ; "~' / : ::::~
.... ",' "..' ) ,,,~I,ft,
< ".. .:' ,t, ~^>:::2~1~: ~:t~~ ,'l, ' ;,.. ~ ~~~~':, \ '> "
:<..; ---. .~0:\.0 ~ ~::::::::'=:'< -......:- ~ , ....
, <; " n'. . ~:,~ ','0"i'i" ~~"" "",:)- :"',1
::.~ .. ...~ -::- ........
::- /~i/
;.. ~'~~,
~
;PfA~. .,
\<...:,~
:,~'
......-:.-":-"i".
. .", 0', g, ,'~~_U ",~ :~,.
-:::=- '.J ~ s..~ ~..,.
...... >:::;"'~A ~~ ~ ~ ,~.' - :=:::::~ Ie.
-:. - " :-=, -~H ~~). ~ ~ I t { ,
;; ~ U ~.~ ,~ ~~ ,~ I~;' ,. '
_-"1: ~' ~, ':'h F-::-... ~, ,. h,
. ~:) ~ ~ -~ ~:( ~' Y. -;:. -
\ ~,i!.:' :~,' _ r:, J <; ~- '_' ;,.'''~ '
i.;~~', ~ ~~ ~ ~", ~~'
~, C ~~~~ 5f: ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~' ^:
~ ~:2i~~ , w :(? ~; .~~~~~
;, :~ ~ ~".".~"" ., '." . '.",
........ :<
~
\:-'
~~~~?~I~-"~I
....,~:ii :E.
;-., 'J '~~',/
, ." '\' ,.; ~:i > '" -l '-:; :+11"< "..,
, : :' ~'( :.;,.i)"''', .~_ ",J... ,
'~,~, . ~
:~: )~- ,~~-: :-:~h
"/. . '''x
~ ::-.: I ...-
'. ,,_: q J,;~ ; ~~,
,",,--;."y.:~.~ ~ ~ I~,_l, Wt>:::::: -.~~/
~~I , V. ~ '~-..:,'
. ~ ~; ~<~ .':;;~: ::.~'j
~ ~< F , Ll' . ..~ ''':'~ ...~{ i~
-=-1. !IIiIIf1 ^.i'. I If
" ',:" t., >:,,;_~y
\ ;;~~~h
,: - __ ,,:' ~~ "::~:;:~ _fi,
, ';-~"i.. / <;,.-~ . ,0.;: :::~~
':.\:-;>' i
{~"" ~~~~:- 'Y"" .":,,'..
~~, t- ,~::~\~;
'h _~~_ -:;
'~, y) ,.,y~~ ~,
.:,.. :-...."I'=::-..
(~',' ~::-;
/ ~ :-::;:
.)
~v 1 ~ a 11.+. ~;J. "
,tif, ",'-' " 0, ..:-- · ~. "~. .,,'
~ ..... ---;::" ~ t,
,,,,' ... ",' :,t" ", ";~;l.~ t;\ .- ~~~;~~ )~~~~~(:~,;>: ,
(..u ''Ii tA\,"" "~'\'ioI;" . ..-:-" ',...' \i ~ -,
'. ~ l' ,"", ',: :, "'. 'Y':~",:;' ,'., ~';. :>: ",- -~<'~i~".':< .:
, '1 :::~"",r<. .. " !.r.." ~"~".~, ''''j' ; -'I,
.,. ,\:: ':',.' . < " y ,,-' ~.:" ,~~?~'";~~~ ~:~~', -:' :::
-{
k
r
~
, "
~ I:
v~ V
.." '='
"
t<..
<~, _ "lfCi
-~':'
\01
r
i
'v '~?ait
;m.~
t
,:,
~
~W:
~.~:dta,~fr:~.15
~ -I~ ~:.rl':'tr. '
ti..H(I\fti!!l;.rl<:-:....~~7-,
.a~.:_,~n
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To make environmental review as efficient as possible, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish
policies and procedures for relying on previously certified EIRs, and focusing the environmental
analysis of subsequent projects. This process, known as "tiering" allows for
"the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental
impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program, or ordinance followed by
narrower or site-specific environmental impacts reports which incorporate by
reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which
concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or
(b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior
environmental impact report." (pub. Resources Code, ~ 21068.5.)
CEQA also allows a lead agency to tier a negative declaration from a previously prepared EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15152.) Specific provisions in CEQA also provide for tiering from an EIR
prepared for a General Plan. (pub. Resources Code, ~ 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15183.)
Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, in evaluating the potential
environmental effects of this Update, the City prepared an initial study to determine whether the
Update could have any significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the General
Plan EIRs. The initial study that follows includes analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse
gas emissions, which were not evaluated in the previous General Plan EIRs. The initial study that
follows, and the accompanying analyses, demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence that the
Update may have significant impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the General Plan
EIRs or that the Update may have significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. This is
largely due to the fact that as an implementing ordinance for the General Plan, the Update does not
propose any specific development projects, nor does it contemplate any land uses or development
intestates or standards that have nor already been considered and adopted pursuant to the General
Plan and General Plan EIRs. Accordingly, since the impacts of this Update have already been
examined at a sufficient level of detail and either mitigated or avoided as part of the General Plan
EIRs, or can be mitigated or avoided through compliance with the General Plan policies, the City
has prepared a negative declaration for the proposed Update. In accordance with CEQA, this
negative declaration tiers from the General Plan EIRs, all of which are available for review at the
City's Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, City Hall Annex,
315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080.
The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Map include updating land use and zoning
designations to reflect General Plan policies and the Land Use Diagram that the City adopted in
1999 (and has been subsequently amended), adding development standards to address issues that
commonly arise in development applications, and revising provisions that are outdated or not in
conformance with federal or State law. All the proposed changes are based on policies of the
already adopted and approved General Plan. There are no proposed changes to land use
designations or zoning designations that would result in increased density, increased population
potential or major infrastructure upgrades that were not included in the General Plan or evaluated in
the General Plan EIRs.
PAGE 2-4
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ORGANIZATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
The Zoning Ordinance Update is organized into six parts, as follows:
Division I: General Provisions establishes the overall organization and applicability of the
regulations. This series also establishes the purpose of the ordinance, the authority for its
establishment, and rules for construction of language and for measurements such as height, lot
width, and floor area, that are applicable throughout the ordinance.
Division II: Base and Overlay Districts specifies the land uses permitted or conditionally
permitted in each set of base districts: Residential; Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use Districts;
Downtown; Employment; Public and Semi-public, Parks and Open Space, and Planned
Development and each overlay district: Loft, Hillside, and Special Environmental Studies. This
division also includes special requirements or limitations, if any, that are applicable to specific uses.
Base district regulations also include development standards to control the size, height, bulk,
location, and appearance of structures, as well as lot dimensions.
Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts includes existing provisions for specific and area
plan districts, reorganized so their format is consistent with other districts.
Division IV: Regulations Applying to Some or All Districts contains general standards that
apply to multiple zoning districts, such as regulations for parking and loading, signs, lighting,
landscaping, screening, and wireless telecommunications facilities. This division also includes a
chapter devoted to standards for specific land uses, such as automotive repair, personal storage
facilities and temporary uses.
Division V: Administration and Permits establishes the decision-making authority for different
types of permits, as well as application processes, required findings, rules for hearings, public
notification, and appeals, and procedures for enforcement of the ordinance.
Division VI: General Terms contains two chapters. The f1tst defines all land use classifications; the
second defines terms that appear throughout the ordinance.
MAJOR PROVISIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is based upon the City's land use policies in the General Plan, but
also provides a new organizing framework. Major provisions are described below.
Use Classifications. Use classifications describe groups of similar uses (Residential, Public and
Semi-Public, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation, Communication, and Utilities) that are
regulated by the classification title. Rather than attempt to list all uses that might be permitted, the
classifications provide for an administrative determination of the most logical category. The land use
classifications have been updated to reflect modern businesses, industries and community service
types; to reflect the particularities of existing and desired uses in South San Francisco; and to be
consistent across the Ordinance.
Districts. Zoning districts have been updated to be consistent with the General Plan. The ordinance
has 21 base districts, as shown below. These districts are indicated on the Zoning Map by the Short
Name/Map Symbol.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 2-5
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RL
Low Density
Residential
RM
Medium Density
Residential
RH
High Density
Residential
Community Commercial
CC
Community Commercial
Business and
Professional Office
BPO
CMX
Commercial Mixed-Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Office and Public
Business Commercial/
Medium Density
Residential
DC
Downtown Core
Downtown Commercial
DMX
Downtown Mixed-Use
DRL
Downtown Residential
Low
DRM
Downtown Residential
Medium
DRH
Downtown Residential
High
Business Commercial
BC
Business Commercial
BTP
Business Technology
Park
FC
Freeway Commercial
MI
Mixed Industrial
Downtown Commercial/
Downtown High Density
Residential
Downtown Low Density
Residential
Downtown Medium Density
Residential
Downtown High Density
Residential
Business Technology Park
and Coastal Commercial
Business Commercial and
Regional Commercial
Mixed Industrial
PAGE 2-6
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Purpose Statements. The revised Ordinance includes a purpose statement for each base district.
Purpose statements, which are derived from General Plan policies, help to clarify the distinctions
between districts by eXplaining the intent of the districts and provide an essential link between
General Plan policies and use regulations and standards.
Graphics. Graphics are used throughout the ordinance to strengthen written provisions and to
provide visual examples of both lawful and unlawful development, helping to clarify regulations that
are often subject to competing or incorrect interpretations.
Parking Requirements. Parking ratios are revised to correspond to the updated set of land use
classifications. Parking reductions are allowed if justified by a parking demand study. Parking facility
design standards have been included to incorporate sustainable and low impact development
practices. Specific bicycle parking requirements, and size and location standards for short- and long-
term bicycle parking facilities are included.
Non-conforming Uses and Structures. Provisions in the ordinance allow nonconforming uses
and structures to continue and expand, in instances where they are benign and will fit into the
neighborhood, subject to specific findings and/or approval of a use permit. The intent of these
regulations is to allow the City flexibility in treating nonconforming uses and structures.
Enforcement. New provisions have been added that allow the City to record a notice of violation
against a property in the County Recorder's office. This would not only ensure that new owners
receive legal notice of zoning problems, but could also be an obstacle to securing financing, which
should provide an additional incentive for correcting zoning violations.
PAGE 2-8
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page intentionallY left blank.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 2-9
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental
impacts and mitigation measures in support of the City of South San Francisco's determination
regarding the appropriateness of a Negative Declaration as the environmental review process for the
Proj ect.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. These
potential impacts are based on the Environmental Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
and each checklist item is followed by a detailed discussion and, if necessary, mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The level of significance is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the project's
potential for significant impacts. The following levels of impact significance are described in this
initial study:
No Impact - Impact does not apply to the projects like the one involved.
Less than Significant Impact - Impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the
environment and would not require mitigation.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation - Impact may result in a substantial or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment; the incorporation of mitigation measures would
reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Potentially Significant Impact - Impact may result in a substantial or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment.
Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-1
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.
AESTHETICS - Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
~
~
~
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
~
DISCUSSION
a) and c) Scenic Vistas and Visual Character
Future development under the proposed Update could affect scenic views of Sign Hill Park
and San Bruno Mountain and the existing visual character of the City. (Less than
Significant)
The proposed Update is aimed at improving the eXisting aesthetic value of the development
throughout the City. Development standards address massing, scale, articulation, and bulk of
buildings to ensure harmony with the scale and character of surrounding development. Height
limitations are consistent with those established in the General Plan. The new Hillside Overlay
District includes standards that will protect scenic views as well as prevailing character of hillside
residential neighborhoods. The new regulations promote the orderly development of hillside areas
by relating development to the topography to reduce the need for grading and cut and fill operations
that would disfigure or scar the natural terrain or remove existing vegetation. Compliance with the
standards contained in the Update would ensure that impacts on the City's scenic views of Sign Hill
and San Bruno Mountain, and the City's visual character will be less than significant.
b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes
Future development under the proposed Update could affect scenic resources within a State
Scenic Highway. (Less than Significant)
Portions of the City are visible from Highway 280, a State designated scenic highway. As discussed
above, the proposed Update is aimed at improving the existing aesthetic value of the development
throughout the City. Development standards address massing, scale, articulation, and bulk of
buildings to ensure harmony with the scale and character of surrounding development. Height
limitations are consistent with those established in the General Plan. Compliance with the standards
PAGE 3-2
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
contained in the Update would ensure that any impacts on the scenic resources within view of the
State Scenic Highway will be less than significant.
d) Light or Glare
Future development under the proposed Update could result in increased light and glare.
(Less than Significant)
The City is highly developed and has a number of existing light sources. The proposed Update
would allow new development, which may increase nighttime light. Nighttime lighting impacts are
significant when they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is
typically related to the use of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper
positioning or orientation. The Update includes general standards for lighting as well as standards
that control outdoor artificial light, which would reduce potentially significant long-term light and
glare impacts to less than significant levels.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-3
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
./
./
./
DISCUSSION
a - c) Farmland Impacts
Future development under the proposed Update would not affect agriculture or farmland.
(No Impact)
The City does not contain any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide
Importance. The City of South San Francisco does not zone any parcels for agricultural use and no
parcels are classified Williamson Act contract lands. Therefore, the Update would have no impact on
agricultural resources.
PAGE 3-4
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
../
../
../
../
../
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
New development under the proposed Update would be inconsistent with the Clean Air
Plan if it resulted in an increase in population or vehicle trips that exceeded the levels
assumed in the Clean Air Plan. (Less than Significant)
At the time of its adoption, the South San Francisco General Plan was found to be inconsistent with
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan because the rate of
increase of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) under the Plan was projected to exceed the rate of increase
in population. The EIR on the 1999 General Plan concluded that daily VMT was expected to
increase from approximately 2.3 million under existing conditions to approximately 3.1 million in
2020 under the proposed General Plan Update, an approximate 37 percent increase. Because the
rate of increase in VMT (37 percent from 1999 to 2020) would exceed the rate of increase in
population (14 percent from 1999 to 2020), the proposed General Plan Update would not be
consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. This was found to be a significant adverse cumulative
effect of the 1999 General Plan.
Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (December 1999), in jurisdictions where the General Plan
is not consistent with the CAP, assessment of the cumulative impact of projects requires
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-5
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
comparison of the rate of increase in population and VMT with the population and VMT
assumptions in the CAP.2 This comparison is provided below.
i) Population
The 2020 General Plan build-out population is 67,400, which is below ABAG's 2003 projection of
70,000 that was used in the Clean Air Plan.3 The Update does not propose any changes to the land
uses or levels of development that were identified in the current General Plan or evaluated in the
General Plan EIRs. The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development
that are allowed under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not
does not include any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current
General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific
development projects. Thus, population growth under the implementation of the proposed zoning
changes is anticipated to remain lower than ABAG's 2003 population projections and the
population assumptions in the Clean Air Plan.
ii) VMT
As mentioned above, the EIR that the City certified when it adopted the General Plan determined
that implementation of the current General Plan would result in a significant cumulative air quality
impact related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan. The Update does not propose changes to the
land uses or levels of development that are allowed under the current General Plan or evaluated in
the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include any development that was not accounted for
in the preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the
Update propose any specific development projects. The revised ordinance includes standards and
requirements to implement the General Plan including measures to ensure that air quality impacts
will not exceed those identified in the General Plan EIRs. The project review process required by
the revised ordinance includes the application of criteria to ensure that projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
ill) Clean Air Plan Transportation Measures
The 1988 California Clean Air Act, Section 40919(d) requires regions to implement "transportation
control measures to substantially reduce the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles
traveled." Consistent with this requirement, a primary goal of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy is
to reduce the number of trips and vehicle miles Bay Area residents travel in single-occupant vehicles
through the implementation of 19 Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). Table 3.3-1 identifies
those TCMs that local governments should implement through local plans to be considered in
conformance with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The BAAQMD recommends that local plans that do
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, December 1999, p. 20.
3 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Pr~jections 2003, 2003.
California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources
http://energyahnanac.ca.gov / overview/energy _sources.html, 2008.
of
Energy.
PAGE 3-6
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
not demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement these TCMs be considered inconsistent with the
regional air quality plan and therefore have a significant impact.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-7
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 3.3-1: TCMs IN THE BAY AREA OZONE STRATEGY TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
1. Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs
2. Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities
3. Improve Arterial Traffic Management
4. Local Clean Air Plans, Policies and Programs
5. Conduct Demonstration Projects
6. Pedestrian Travel
7. Promote Traffic Calming Measures
Source: BAAQMD, 2006.
The Transportation Element and the Air Quality section in the Open Space and Conservation
Element of the South San Francisco General Plan contain several policies that serve to reduce trips
through employer-based programs, improve pedestrian and bicycle access and facilities, improve
arterial traffic management to provide for the smooth and efficient flow of traffic, and promote
traffic calming measures to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. The TDM ordinance
that the City adopted in 2001 would further reduce trips according the Supplemental EIR prepared
for the ordinance and the East of 101 traffic plan. The proposed Update implements these policies
by specifying standards for bicycle parking, pedestrian access, transit facilities, and trip reduction.
Therefore, the proposed Update is considered to be consistent with the TCMs in the Bay Area 2005
Ozone Strategy and this impact is less than significant.
b, c) Air Quality Standards
The proposed Update could violate an air quality standard, contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. (Less than
Significant)
As previously discussed, the impacts of the proposed Update will be less than significant in regards
to inconsistency with Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, impacts on air quality standards will
be less than significant.
d and e) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants and Creation of Odors
The proposed Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations and new development under the proposed Update would create odors
affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant)
The 1999 DEIR found that over the long-term, development under the General Plan could lead to
emissions of ozone and precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM-10 largely due to increases in vehicle-
miles-traveled (VMT). The EIR concluded, however, that policies and programs incorporated in the
Plan, including adoption of a TDM ordinance, would reduce this impact to less than significant
PAGE 3-8
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
levels. The Supplemental EIR found no new significant impacts and resulted in further reductions
when compared to the General Plan. The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or
levels of development that are allowed under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General
Plan EIRs and does not does not include any development that was not accounted for in the
preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the
Update propose any specific development projects. The Updated ordinance retains the TDM
provisions, includes buffering and separation requirements between industrial and residential uses,
incentives for changes to nonconforming uses, and includes additional standards and requirements
to implement the General Plan. Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that
the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such
requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant
level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-9
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
IV.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
DISCUSSION
a.. b.. c and d) Species.. Habitats.. Wetlands.. and Wildlife Corridors
Future development under the proposed Update would not affect candidate, sensitive, or
special-status plant or animal species and future development under the proposed Update
could affect federally protected wetlands or migratory wildlife corridors. (No Impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan,
PAGE 3-1 0
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
including establishing a Special Environmental Studies Overlay District to implement Habitat and
Biological Resources Conservation policies. Review of future projects will continue be carried out to
ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a no
impact level.
e.. f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Plans
The Update would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. (No Impact)
The Update will not change nor conflict with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance or with the San
Bruno Mountain Habitat and Sign Hill Conservation Plans. The Update does not propose changes
to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed under the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include any development that was not
accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs.
Nor does the Update propose any specific development projects. The Update includes standards
and requirements to implement the current General Plan. The regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
do not supersede any other regulations or requirements adopted or imposed by the City, the State of
California, or any federal agency that has jurisdiction by law over uses and development. Review of
future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General
Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts
associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE3-11
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
v.
CUl rURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
915064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 915064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
~
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a.. b.. c.. and d) Cultural Resources
Future development under the proposed Update has the potential to adversely affect cultural
resources. (Less than Significant)
Despite its rich history, the City has relatively few designated historic resources. Local, state, and
national historic resources are accorded special protection against alteration and demolition under
the City's Municipal Code and State and federal law. Historic resources in the City of South San
Francisco include: the potential Downtown Historical Commercial District, which is composed of
late 19th and early-mid 20th century commercial buildings; the national historic landmark, Sign Hill;
and many local landmarks, including several homes, commercial, and industrial buildings.
Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native
American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. l<r1own resources include: a
Native American archaeological village containing household items, projectile points, dietary debris,
and human burials, located within the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area; and a large shell
mound and two small shell middens near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. 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.
The City of South San Francisco has a Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission
designates historic resources; reviews applications for altering or demolishing historic resources;
disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and areas deemed worthy of
preservation; and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for encouraging and
achieving historical or architectural preservation. Procedures to identify and designate cultural
resources are outlined in Chapter 2.58 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
PAGE 3-1 2
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The Open Space and Conservation Chapter in the City's General Plan contains policies to conserve
historic, cultural and archeological resources and ensure the protection of known resources. The
Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed under
the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include any
development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated
in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development projects. The
Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan. It also includes
provisions that incorporate the City's historic preservation process into the development review
procedures that the zoning ordinance establishes. Review of future projects will continue be carried
out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less
than significant level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-1 3
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a) Seismic Hazards
Implementation of the proposed Update would expose people or structures to the rupture of
a known earthquake fault, to seismic hazards such as ground shaking or liquefaction or to
landslides. (Less than Significant)
The City is subject to earthquakes from seismic activity generated both on nearby and distant fault
systems. There are approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of
generating earthquakes. The Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, the major fault system in
California, passes through the westernmost corner of South San Francisco and is considered a
source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City. The City could also be affected by activity in
PAGE 3-14
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
the San Gregorio Fault Zone, a major right oblique slip fault; the closest location of the fault is
approximately 7 miles west of the City. The San Gregorio Fault is located primarily offshore but
crosses promontories to the west of the City at Pillar Point and Pescadero Point. The fault has been
active, although there has not been a known large magnitude surface faulting earthquake on the San
Gregorio Fault. In addition to these potentially active fault traces, there are several fault traces within
City limits that are considered to be potentially inactive. They are the Serra, Coyote Point/Hillside,
and San Bruno Fault Zones.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prohibits construction within 50 feet of an active
fault and requires geologic investigations before development can occur within a mapped
Earthquake Fault Zone that typically extends about a quarter mile from a fault line. Ground rupture,
with associated displacement and ground cracking, high levels of ground shaking, liquefaction, and
landslides are all possible hazards that would accompany a rupture in the area. Under the State
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the State Division of Mines and Geology has also identified parts of
the City outside of the Earthquake Fault Zones that are susceptible to non-surface fault rupture
earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.
The General Plan EIRs concluded that impacts associated with seismic-related ground shaking and
liquefaction were less than significant due to mandatory compliance with the building codes and
construction standards established in the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of
South San Francisco Municipal Code, and policies contained in the City of South San Francisco
General Plan including requirements of the Special Environmental Studies Overlay designation.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the General Plan policies
intended to reduce seismic hazards. The Special Environmental Studies Overlay District imposes
additional requirements for soils and geologic reports and recommendations for hazard mitigation
on development proposals in seismic and geologic hazard areas. The Update also provides for the
establishment of a new Hillside (HS) Overlay District that will help to minimize personal injury and
property damage from landslides, erosion and other geologic hazards by adding new requirements
for excavation and grading, and by reducing the development capacity of hillside areas.
b.. c.. d) Geologic Hazards
Implementation of the proposed Update would expose people or structures to geologic
hazards, including expansive soils and erosion. (Less than Significant)
Due to the variability of soils in the City, it is possible that future development could be subject to
soil expansion and settlement. Soils containing a high percentage of clays are generally most
susceptible to expansion.
If not properly engineered, loose, soft, soils composed of sand, silt, and clay have the potential to
settle after a building or other load is placed on the surface. Differential settlement of loose soils
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-1 5
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
would be a concern in areas that have not previously supported structures and where new structures
would place loads heavier than the soils could tolerate.
Erosion hazards would be highest during construction activ1ties. Construction activ1ties such as
excavation, backfilling, grading, and demolition can remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas
of loose soil that, if not properly stabilized during construction, can be subject to soil loss and
erosion by wind and stormwater runoff.
As required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, subdivision applications must be
accompanied by a preliminary soils report and grading permit applications must be accompanied by
a soils engineering report. The Update includes a Special Environmental Studies Overlay District to
implement Health and Safety policies in the General Plan related to geologic hazards. Furthermore,
as discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality, proposed projects would be required to comply with
NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. Project applicants would be required to prepare
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the discharge of pollutants,
including silt and sediment, during construction. The SWPPP would need to include measures to
control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain sediment on-site during construction.
Mandatory compliance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and NPDES General
Construction Permit requirements as well as the requirements of the Special Environmental Studies
Overlay would reduce impacts to geologic hazards to less than significant levels. The Update
provides for the establishment of a new Hillside (HS) Overlay District that will help to minimize
personal injury and property damage from landslides, erosion and other geologic hazards by adding
new requirements for excavation and grading, and by reducing the development capacity of hillside
areas.
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Implementation of the Update would not involve construction of septic systems in soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems. (No impact)
The City is currently served by the City's municipal sewer system and future projects will continue to
be required to be hooked to the City's system. Therefore, there would be no impact on soils due to
septic systems.
PAGE 3-16
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmentallmpact1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the
project:
a) Result in a substantial increase in per capita
energy consumption in the city, compared to
existing conditions?
b) Result in the need for additional energy
infrastructure or facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) On a cumulative basis, increase per capita ,/'
GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly?
d) Conflict with goals, objectives, policies, or ,/'
regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1 Preliminary Draft CEQA Guidelines Amendments for GHG emissions, developed by OPR for public workshop and
approval in January 2009, as updated and announced on April 13, 2009
,/'
,/'
DISCUSSION
a through d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the proposed Update could contribute to global climate change if it
resulted in a substantial increase in total energy consumption or per capita greenhouse gas
emissions or conflicted with a plan or regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Global climate change (GCC) is currently one of the most important and widely debated scientific,
economic, and political issues in the United States. The anticipated impacts of climate change on
California range from water shortages to inundation from sea level rise.
Gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases
playa critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Part of the solar radiation that
enters Earth's atmosphere from space is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The Earth reflects this
radiation back toward space, but GHGs absorb some of the radiation. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.
GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated
with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.4 Land
use distribution and the circulation facilities connecting land uses have a major effect on the number
of vehicle miles traveled and as a result, on the amount of GHG emissions.
California Energy Commission (CEC). California's
http://energyahnanac.ca.gov / overview/energy _sources.html, 2008.
Major
Sources
of
Energy.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-1 7
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The State of California alone produces about 20/0 of the entire world's GHG emissions, with major
emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (410/0), industry (230/0),
electricity production (200/0), and agricultural and forestry (80/0). The State of California is
implementing measures that will drastically reduce GHG emissions with the hope of thereby
delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California
communities.
There are several State mandates that will significantly reduce GHG emissions by 2020. Assembly
Bill (AB) 1493 (pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5
requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005,
regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, light-
duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The
regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in the 2009 or later model year.
In September 2004, pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions
from new motor vehicles. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is
established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer fleet average
emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006
and set near-term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid-term emission
standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB
intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain further reductions in the 2017 to 2020
timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in
its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (October 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission
reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EP A granted a waiver that
allows California to implement these standards.
The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce California's
GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, and by 2020, Pavley
Phase 2 would reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Without Pavley rules, both state and regional CO2 emissions would increase steadily between now
and 2035 as VMT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO2 emissions are projected
to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO2 emissions compared to
current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO2 emissions per
VMT. The regulations would reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle
fleet by 12.60/0 statewide and 22.90/0 in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006.
In addition to implementation of the Pavley rules, which apply to vehicle emissions, there are other
State actions that will result in reduced emissions associated with the generation and use of energy.
SB 1078 (Sher) requires electricity providers to increase their purchases of renewable energy
resources by 1 % a year until they have attained a portfolio of 200/0 renewable resources by 2010.
Executive Order S-20-04 imposes a similar requirement on State agencies requiring a reduction in
electricity use in State buildings and other actions to reduce energy use by 200/0 by 2015 including
increasing energy efficiency standards in the California Building Code.
PAGE 3-1 8
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 400/0 of the GHG emissions, followed by industrial
and commercial sources (340/0), electricity and co-generation (150/0), residential fuel usage (70/0), off-
road equipment (30/0), and agriculture and farming (10/0).5 As shown in Table 3.7-1, the
transportation sector is also the largest contributor to GHG emissions in South San Francisco. In
2005, transportation generated 460/0 of the approximately 526,766 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (C02e) emitted in the City. Emissions from cars traveling on State highways, such as EI
Camino Real, generated almost twice as much emissions as cars traveling on City roads. This reflects
the regional nature of trip making in South San Francisco and through-traffic through the City. The
commercial/industrial sector accounts for approximately 350/0 of emissions, while the residential
sector accounts for 130/0 of total emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage are higher than
emissions from electricity usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. The waste sector
accounts for 60/0 of total emissions.
TABLE 3.7-1: 2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
2005 GHG
Emissions
(C02e)
GHG Emissions
(% C02e)
Sector1
Residential 70,059 13%
Electricity 22,258 4%
Natural Gas 47,801 9%
Commercial/Industrial 185,240 35%
Electricity 80, 723 15%
Natural Gas 104,517 20%
Transportation 240,257 46%
City Roads (Non -
Highway) 87,406 17%
State Highways 152,851 29%
Waste2 31,210 6%
Solid Waste 31,210 6%
Total 526,766 100%
GHG Emissions Per
Capita 8.5
1. Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments,
prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6,
2007.
2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed:
F
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of Bqy Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December
2008.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-1 9
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The EIR on the 1999 General Plan concluded that daily VMT was expected to increase from
approximately 2.3 million under existing conditions to approximately 3.1 million in 2020 under the
proposed General Plan Update, an approximate 370/0 increase. This increase is significantly greater
that the projected 140/0 increase in population during the same period. Despite this increase, as
shown in Table 3.7-2, emissions per capita are projected to decrease due to fuel efficiency standards.
This analysis incorporates fuel efficiency estimates that the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission developed, which assume implementation of fuel efficiency regulations mandated by
the Pavley bill as well as other improvements in technology. With these changes, annual BTU
consumption for transportation is projected to decrease from 8,080 in 2005 to 7,731 in 2020, a
reduction from 0.131 per capita in 2005 to 0.115 in 2020.
The analysis of electricity and natural gas consumption uses a business-as-usual methodology to
project future demand, with electricity and natural gas use increasing at the same rate as the
population. The projections do not account for improvements in energy efficiency, which are
difficult to quantify; therefore, these results may be considered a worst case scenario for electricity
and natural gas use. Since energy is projected to grow at the same rate as the population, per capita
energy use remains constant for electricity and natural gas. Despite the business-as-usual approach
reflected in the projections in Table 3.7-2, it is expected that energy efficiency will improve in the
future, for instance through the application of California's Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6), which outlines improved site planning
and building design as well as energy conservation measures. Table 3.7-2 shows electricity, natural
gas, and transportation energy use in annual BTUs and per capita BTUs. Annual BTUs decrease
when compared to existing conditions largely due to the application of State regulations.
TABLE 3.7-2: ANNUAL BTU USE AND BTU PER CAPITA PROJECTIONS
2005 Annual
BTUs
(billions)
2020 Annual BTUs
(billions)
Electricity 1,661
Natural Gas 2,912
Transportation1 3,508
Total BTU 8,080
Per Capita 0.131
1,814
3,181
2,736
7,731
0.115
1. Transportation BTU estimates assume Pavley 1 and 2.
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; DIZS, 2009, MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009.
Future emissions are estimated to increase to 605,311 metric tons of C02e in 2020 under a business-
as-usual scenario, absent policy changes. This is an increase of approximately 1 % per year. Table 3.7-
3 shows the increases in each sector. Per capita emissions will also increase from 8.5 metric tons of
C02e in 2005 to 9.0 metric tons of C02e in 2020 under a business-as-usual scenario.
A total reduction of 97,345 metric tons C02e can be attributed to California's Renewables Portfolio
Standard, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, and Pavley 1 and 2 when considering the proposed
Amendment. Table 3.7-3 also shows the estimated emissions reductions that result from these
PAGE 3-20
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
standards for each sector. Reduction factors for each standard were based on GHG reductions
attributed to each standard in the Climate Change Scoping Plan, developed by ARB pursuant to AB
32.6
TABLE 3.7-3: 2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS OF COzE)
2020
Emissions 2020 Emissions
Business as State with State
Sector 20051 Usua13r4 Manda tes5 Mandates
Residential 70,059 76,531 -8,024 68,508
Commercial/Industr 185,240 202,353 -29,100 173,253
ial
Transportation 240,257 292,334 -60,221 232,113
Waste2 31,210 34,093 - 34,093
Total 526,766 605,311 -97,345 507,967
Emissions
8.5 9.0 7.5
per Capita
1. Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop,
December 6, 2007.
2. EPA WARM Model, online. May 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm Form.html
3. Forecast for residential and commercial/ industrial based on annual growth rate of
population 2005 and 2020.
4. Forecast for Transportation based on annual rate of increase of peak hour VMT
between 2005 and 2030. Peak hour VMT data provided by DKS Associates.
5. Reductions for residential and commercial/ industrial reflect electricity savings, based
on Senate Bill 1078. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon
fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phases 1 and 2 and Executive Order S-
01-07.
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; DIZS Associates, 2009.
Even if implementation of the General Plan does not increase the generation of GHGs, the
emissions from future development in South San Francisco together with the emissions from
projected development of residential and employment land uses in the entire region and the State of
California could have a cumulatively significant impact on GHG emissions. The scientific
community has acknowledged the detrimental effects of GHG emissions on ecosystems and human
communities caused by the cumulative GHG emissions from human activities across the globe and
over many decades. Furthermore, as GHG emissions accelerate global climate change, any emissions
in addition to what exists today in the atmosphere can generally be considered to contribute
somewhat to this significant cumulative impact. Although GHG emissions are, therefore, by their
very nature a significant cumulative impact, because of emission reductions that would result from
California Air Resources Board (ARB). Climate Change S coping Plan, December 2008.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-21
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
State regulations, total emissions and emissions per capita from development under the General
Plan will be lower than existing levels resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact.
At present, the City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to
reduce GHG emissions, although many of the City's policies and ordinances-such as one of the
region's most aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs-achieve the same
objective. The City is completing an emissions survey that will provide a basis for formally
developing such tools. Although the General Plan did not specify policies and programs designed to
reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan's policies will contribute to this objective by promoting
development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. Further, the Update carries forward South San
Francisco's current TDM Ordinance, which requires that non-residential development generating
more than 100 daily trips must incorporate measures to ensure that at least 280/0 of all trips are made
through alternative mode use. As an incentive to implement programs that will further reduce
vehicle trips, the TDM provisions provide a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the
General Plan when 300/0 to 450/0 of all trips involve alternative mode use, depending on the type of
development and requested FAR. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts
associated with this issue to a no impact level.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. Land use associated with the Update would not consume more energy nor generate more
vehicle trips (and more miles traveled) than those that could be generated under the existing General
Plan. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, including those that help the City contribute to
regional air quality improvement efforts. The regulations of the Zoning Ordinance do not supersede
any other regulations or requirements adopted or imposed by the City, the State of California, or any
federal agency that has jurisdiction by law over uses and development.
PAGE 3-22
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
VII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project
area?
D For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a through h) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Future land uses proposed by the proposed Update would not result in impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials. (No Impact)
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-23
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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 material
sites include manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking
underground storage tanks (USTs), permitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous wastes. Most
hazardous materials concentrations are located in the East of 101 area; however there are 114 know
sites with leaking USTs within the City as identified by the Cortese List, published in December
1994.
Airport
The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San
Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in
December 1996. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses
in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo
County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards,
policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions.
The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be
completed in final draft form in 2010. The updated plan will include the 2008 FAA-accepted Noise
Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of
the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram
of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces.
The City is located just north of the San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo
County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development
within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit and within
certain CNEL ranges. The CLUP, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,
establishes a 211-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction.
Emergency Response
In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan, integrated with the San Mateo Area/
County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The City's plan is in compliance with existing law.
Fire
Many areas of open space within the City pose a substantial risk of f1te hazard to surrounding
resources. Topographic, climatic, and land use conditions create f1te hazards, along with
accumulations of unmaintained vegetation and poor access to public infrastructure. Sign Hill, the
Hillside School area, and the area along Dundee Drive have the highest fire risk due to a
combination of fuel characteristics, infrastructure, and adjacent uses.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
PAGE 3-24
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update does include standards and requirements to implement the current General
Plan, including height, noise, and use limitations associated with the airport. Review of future
projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan
goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts
associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-25
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ./
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ./
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ./
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ./
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
D Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ./
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard ./
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area ./
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ./
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ./
DISCUSSION
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
PAGE 3-26
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Future development under the proposed Update would result in the violation of water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Less than Significant)
Under the NPDES storm water permit, future development is required to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff. Proposed developments would also be required to implement BMPs as
part of its storm water management program. Additionally, adherence to federal, state, and local
laws would ensure that less than significant impacts will occur.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
Future development under the proposed Update would not deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (No impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
c.. d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion.. Siltation Effects.. and Runoff
Future development under the proposed Update would substantially alter the eXIstIng
drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation
or runoff resulting in flooding. (Less than Significant)
The City is currently served by municipal storm sewers. The majority of the area within the City is
developed with impervious surfaces including buildings, parking lots, and associated walkways and
driveways. Future development is required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer
and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction
of future development.
Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality
Control Division conducts routine inspections to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the
approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop
Work Order. Plans for future development would as a matter of law include erosion control
measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. These regulations
would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
e.. f) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity /Increase Polluted Runoff
Future development under the proposed Update would substantially create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-27
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or degrade water quality.
(Less than Significant)
Future development is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an
Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the
commencement of any grading or construction of future development. The SWPPP is required to
include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from
entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. Future development would be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator.
Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all
contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conducts
routine inspections to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs
would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for future
development would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and
debris from entering the storm drain system. These regulations would ensure that impacts would be
less than significant.
g.. h.. i) Flood Hazards
Future development under the proposed Update would expose people and structures to
flooding hazards. (Less than Significant)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Proposed developments would also be subject to the
City's flood damage prevention ordinance, Chapter 15.56 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to
a less than significant impact level.
j) Tsunami Hazards
Future development under the proposed Update would not expose people and structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. (No Impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
PAGE 3-28
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-29
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the Project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a) Division of an Established Community
The proposed Update would not divide an established community. (No Impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Furthermore, the Update includes development
standard to address the scale, massing, and compatibility of residential infill as well as transitional
standards to address the residential/nonresidential interface. Adherence to such requirements would
reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
b) and c) Conflicts with Plans
The proposed Update does not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project or applicable habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plans. (No Impact)
The Zoning Ordinance will not change nor conflict with the San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill
Habitat Conservation Plans. The regulations of the Zoning Ordinance do not supersede any other
regulations or requirements adopted or imposed by the City, the State of California, or any federal
agency that has jurisdiction by law over uses and development. There will be no impact with regard
to local policies and ordinances and habitat conservation plans.
PAGE 3-30
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
./
./
DISCUSSION
a - b) Mineral Resources
Future development under the proposed Update would not affect mineral resources. (No
Impact)
The CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors San Francisco and San Mateo Counties
map classifies the opportunity sites as MRZ- 1, which constitutes an area "where adequate
information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little
likelihood exists for their presence." According to the CGS maps, the nearest mineral deposit
classified areas are Sector NN, which is less than 1 mile north of Downtown South San Francisco,
and Sector X, which is approximately 1 mile north of Downtown South San Francisco.7
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
7 California Geological Survey, Special Report 146 - Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterry
Bqy Area, Part II: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas South San Francisco Bqy Production-Consumption Region, Plates 2.42, and
2.3.1983.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-31
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.12 NOISE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
XI.
NOISE - Would the Project:
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
D 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?
~
~
~
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a) Consistency with Plans.. Ordinances.. and Applicable Standards
Implementation of the proposed Update would not result in the 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. (No Impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
The regulations of the Zoning Ordinance do not supersede any other regulations or requirements
adopted or imposed by the City, the State of California, or any federal agency that has jurisdiction by
law over uses and development. Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that
the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such
requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
PAGE 3-32
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) and d) Short-term Increase in Ambient Noise Levels or Exposure to Groundborne Vibration or
Noise Levels.
New development under the proposed Ordinance would not expose existing noise-sensitive
uses to construction-related temporary increases in ambient noise. (Less than Significant)
Ambient noise levels near areas of new development may temporarily increase due to construction
activities. Proposed development would be required to comply with the limitations on construction
activity and associated noise standards included in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code.
Construction-related n01se and vibration is considered a short-term impact associated with
demolition, site preparation, grading, and other construction-related activities.
Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related impacts
would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient
noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant,
albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. However, compliance with the limitations on
construction activity and associated noise standards established in included in Title 8 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code will ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant.
c.. e.. and f) Increase in Ambient Noise Levels and Exposure to Excessive Transportation-related
Noise Levels
The proposed Update would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels above existing levels or result in development of noise-sensitive receptors in close
proximity to major sources of transportation noise, including airports. (No Impact)
The current General Plan was subject to Airport Land Use Commission review for consistency with
the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The Update does not propose
changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed under the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include any development that was not
accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs.
Nor does the Update propose any specific development projects. The Update includes standards
and requirements to implement the current General Plan. Review of future projects will continue be
carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and
policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue
to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-33
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure )?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
~
~
~
DISCUSSION
a) b) and c) Population Growth and Displacement of Housing or People
Implementation of the proposed Update would not induce substantial population growth or
displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living in the area. (No
Impact)
The US Census American Communities Survey estimates the current population of South San
Francisco to be 61,311.8 The 2020 General Plan build-out population is 67,400, which is lower than
the population that ABAG projected and represents an annual growth rate of less than 1 0/0. Based
on 2003 ABAG Projections, population in South San Francisco was projected to be 70,000 in 2020.9
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
8 US Census Bureau, 2006-08 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,
http:// factfinder.census.gov / servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet? _program = ACS&_submenuld =&_lang=en&_ts=
9 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Pr~jections 2003, 2003.
PAGE 3-34
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
XIII.
PUBLIC SERVICES -
a) Would the Project 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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
./
./
./
./
./
DISCUSSION
a) Public Services
Future development under the proposed Update would not require fire and protection
services that exceed current staffing and facilities or increase the demand for schools, parks,
or other public facilities. (No Impact)
Fire Services
The City of South San Francisco Fire Department provides full response, preparedness, and
prevention services. The Department also provides f1te suppression, f1te prevention and education,
and hazardous material control. The Fire Department is staffed by 85 members.10 The City is served
by five f1te stations. Fire stations are located at 201 Baden Avenue (Central), 249 Harbor Way
(Station 62), 33 Arroyo Drive (Station 63), 2350 Galway (Station 64), and 1151 South San Francisco
Drive (Station 65). Central Station and Station 63 are staffed with both an engine company and an
ambulance. Each engine company is staffed with three people and each ambulance has two
di 11
parame cs.
Police Services
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
10 South San Francisco Website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=416. Accessed November 30, 2009.
11 South San Francisco Website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=448. Accessed November 30, 2009.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-35
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
serv1ces also include the South San Francisco Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics
(S.W.A.T.) Team, which provides police response to critical life-threatening situations, and a 1<9
Unit, which has the capabilities to search for narcotics and track both suspects and lost children.
The Police Department is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, immediately north of the City. As of 2008, the
Department had a total of 116 employees with 79 sworn officers and 37 police units. The current
ratio of officers is 1.25 per 1,000 residents.12
Schools
The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) provides 1<-12 educational services to
the community. The SSFUSD operates 10 elementary schools, three middle schools and three high
schools. Of these, all but three elementary schools are located within the City. In 2007-2008,
enrollment in the SSFUSD was approximately 9,297 students13. The estimated total capacity for the
District is approximately 11,115 students.14
Parks
According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the City maintains 319.7 acres of parks and
open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use. This includes 70 acres of developed
parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2
acres of school lands.
Other Public Facilities
The South San Francisco Public Library has two branches, the Main Library and the Grand Avenue
Branch. The Main Library is located on West Orange Avenue and Westborough. The Grand Avenue
Branch is located in Downtown.
The General Plan projected a build-out population of 67,400. Based on current estimates the
population is anticipated to increase at less than 1 % a year. The Update does not propose changes
to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed under the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include any development that was not
accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs.
Nor does the Update propose any specific development projects. The Update includes standards
and requirements to implement the current General Plan including regulations to ensure that
services will be adequate to accommodate the anticipated modest growth in population. Review of
future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General
Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts
associated with this issue to a no impact level.
12 MVE & Partners and Lamphier Gregory, City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific Plan
Existing Setting Memorandum, November 2008.
13 Facsimile from Dale Lee, Executive Assistant, Educational Services, South San Francisco Unified School District,
March 4, 2009.
14 City of South San Francisco, General Plan, October 1999, p. 190.
PAGE 3-36
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.15 RECREATION
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV.
RECREATION -
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
~
~
DISCUSSION
a.. b) Recreation
Implementation of the Update would not result in an increase in the use of existing parks
and recreation facilities and could increase the need for additional parks and recreation
facilities. (No Impact)
In 1999, South San Francisco had 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000
residents, for public use. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland (community, neighborhood,
mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall
amount of parkland appeared adequate to meet the community's needs, closer analysis revealed that
only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school parks and open space, was available per
1,000 residents. The General Plan addressed the deficiencies in park and recreational opportunities
by establishing a level of service standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 new residents and
one-half acre of parkland per 1,000 employees. Since the adoption of the 1999 General Plan, the
City has developed 16.4 acres of parkland, increasing the total amount of developed parkland
acreage to 86.4. This increases the amount of developed parkland, excluding school parks and open
space, available per 1,000 residents from 1.2 to 1.4.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-37
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially Less Th an Less Th an
Significant Significant Significant No
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
xv.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC - Would the
Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections )?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
D Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
v"
v"
v"
v"
v"
v"
v"
DISCUSSION
a through g) Transportation
Implementation of the Update would not result in transportation and traffic related impacts.
(No Impact)
The 1999 General Plan DEIR found that the General Plan would result in one significant traffic
impact because future development could cause an increase in traffic beyond established Level of
Service (LOS) standards on the CMP Routes of Regional Significance. The CMP establishes LOS E
as the standard for Highway 101. The East of 101 traffic study and implementation of the TDM
program required by the General Plan were intended to mitigate the significant impact identified in
the Transportation section of the 1999 DEIR, and to comply with General Plan Policy 4.2-G-8,
which sets a standard of LOS D where feasible. In 2001, the Supplemental EIR prepared for the
East of 101 study and the TDM ordinance concluded that the street improvements proposed in the
PAGE 3-38
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
East of 101 study would improve LOS at 13 of 17 intersections evaluated in the EIR and that
impacts would be further mitigated by implementation of the General Plan's transportation policies
and programs.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan
and retains the TDM ordinance the City adopted pursuant to the General Plan. Review of future
projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan
goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts
associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-39
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water ./
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ./
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ./
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ./
treatment provider, 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?
D Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ./
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ./
regulations related to solid waste?
No
Impact
./
DISCUSSION
a through g) Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the Update would not result in utilities and service systems related
impacts. (No Impact)
Water Supply
Potable water is provided for the city by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) and the
Westborough County Water District (WCWD). The CWSC serves the portion of the city east of 1-
280, which represents a majority of the city's area, while the WCWD serves the portion west of 1-
280.
PAGE 3-40
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Wastewater
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water
Quality Control Plant (wQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San
Francisco Bay.
Storm Drainage
The City is served by municipal storm sewers. Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system,
is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly
southeasterly direction through the center of the City.
Solid Waste
Solid waste in South San Francisco is processed at the South San Francisco 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. In 2001,
Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, obtained a revised solid waste
facility permit for Ox Mountain to increase the permitted disposal acreage from 173 acres to 191
acres and to change the closure date of the facility from 2018 to 2023.
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE- INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 3-41
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-
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?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a Project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past Projects, the effects of
other current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects.)
c) Does the Project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
y'"
y'"
y'"
DISCUSSION
a.. b.. and c) Mandatory Findings of Significance (No Impact)
The Update does not propose changes to the land uses or levels of development that are allowed
under the current General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIRs and does not does not include
any development that was not accounted for in the preparation of the current General Plan or
evaluated in the General Plan EIRs. Nor does the Update propose any specific development
projects. The Update includes standards and requirements to implement the current General Plan.
Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with
all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Adherence to such requirements would reduce
potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level.
PAGE 3-42
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION