HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 31-2018 (18-115)File Number: 18 -115
City of South San Francisco
City Council
Resolution: RES 31 -2018
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Enactment Number: RES 31 -2018
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND A DETERMINATION
THAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY WITH INCENTIVES IN THE DOWNTOWN
TRANSIT CORE SUB - DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION
AREA PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AND
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
ARE FULLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS AS DESCRIBED IN THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THAT THE 2018 ADDENDUM IS THE APPROPRIATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
( "DSASP ") in February 2015, to guide and facilitate future growth and transit - oriented development on
properties within a one -half mile radius of the reconfigured and improved Caltrain Station, with a focus
on revitalizing Downtown as a vibrant destination; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the City's consultant, P1aceWorks, Inc., have prepared amendments to the
South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Text Amendments ") to amend the Maximum Density
with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core ( "DTC ") Sub - District of the DSASP from 120 dwelling
units /acre to 180 dwelling units /acre, to encourage additional multi - family development adjacent to
transit and community benefits in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance requires amendments to the
South San Francisco General Plan ( "General Plan Amendments "), and the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan ( "DSASP Amendments ") to ensure consistency between the revised Zoning Ordinance and
all other governing documents; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was conducted, which
concluded that the environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised density are fully
within the scope of the environmental analysis conducted in the 2015 Environmental Impact Report
(` EIR" ), such that the Zoning Text Amendment does not meet the criteria under California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a
subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, City staff and P1aceWorks, Inc. prepared an
City of South San Francisco page 1
File Number., 18 -115
Enactment Number. RES 31 -2018
addendum to the 2015 EIR for the Project ( "2018 Addendum ") (Exhibit A), which along with the 2015
EIR (Exhibit B) is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended by resolution that the City Council
make a determination that the 2018 DSASP EIR Addendum is the appropriate environmental document
for the proposed density increase in the DTC sub - district at a public hearing on February 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2018, at which
time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Zoning Text Amendment as well as
the environmental analysis, prior to the City Council making its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all
reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes
without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and
the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco
General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code;
2015 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed February 28, 2018 meeting; and
any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
The Exhibit A (2018 Addendum) and Exhibit B (2015 EIR) attached to this resolution are incorporated
by reference and set forth fully herein.
The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager.
B. CEQA Findings
The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the 2018
Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis, along with the
previously certified 2015 EIR.
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number: 18 -115
Enactment Number: RES 31 -2018
Upon consideration of the 2018 Addendum, the City Council finds that the proposed Project will not
result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further
environmental review through preparation of a subsequent EIR.
The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as
compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2015 EIR. Further, the City Council finds that
there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe
significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new or
additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that per CEQA Guidelines section 15162 the Project does not
require any further CEQA review, and that the 2018 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes
the findings contained in this resolution, and determines that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for approval of the Zoning Text Amendment and no further environmental
review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 2/28/2018, a motion was made by Mark Addiego, seconded by Pradeep
Gupta, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 3 Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
No: 2 Mayor No andy, and MayorJRrAem Matsumoto
by
City of South San Francisco Page 3
January 2018 | Addendum to Environmental Impact Report
SCH #201310200
DRAFT
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
Addendum
City of South San Francisco
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
Contact: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco |
Economic & Community Development Department
PO Box 711 | South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
(650) 877-8535
[email protected]
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Terri McCracken, Associate Principal
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
January 2018 Page 1
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 3
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................. 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 PROPOSED CHANGES .............................................................................................................................. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 16
3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 25
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 29
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 31
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 34
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 35
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................................................................... 37
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 38
3.12 NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 42
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 43
3.15 RECREATION........................................................................................................................................... 44
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................. 45
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 49
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 50
4. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................... 53
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Table of Contents
Page 2 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2018 Page 3
1. Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the
State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et. seq.), recognizes that between
the date an environmental document is completed and the date the project is fully implemented, one or
more of the following changes may occur: 1) the project may change; 2) the environmental setting in
which the project is located may change; 3) laws, regulations, or policies may change in ways that impact
the environment; and/or 4) previously unknown information can arise. Before proceeding with a project,
CEQA requires the lead agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether or not they affect the
conclusions in the environmental document.
This document is an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2013102001, certified on January 28, 2015. The
project analyzed in the 2015 EIR and adopted by the City of South San Francisco was the DSASP. Together
the DSASP and the 2015 EIR are considered the “Approved Project” and the “Certified EIR,” respectively.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the proposed modifications to the text and
buildout potential of the Approved Project, herein referred to as the Modified Project as required
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Modified Project does not
increase development potential beyond the boundaries analyzed in the Certified EIR. Pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San South San Francisco is the lead agency
charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency
determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1. Introduction
Page 4 PlaceWorks
New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative
declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration.
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the
previous EIR.
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 1 are present, the lead agency must determine
whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or
additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR
is the appropriate environmental clearance for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes
proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a
subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166
of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Modified Project.
This Addendum relies on the attached environmental analysis, which addresses environmental checklist
issues section by section. The checklist includes findings as to the physical environmental impact of the
Modified Project in comparison with the findings of the Certified EIR.
1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs.
January 2018 Page 5
2. Project Description
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
South San Francisco is a city approximately 30 square miles in size on the San Francisco Peninsula. The city
lies at the northern end of San Mateo County, just 9 miles south of San Francisco. South San Francisco is
bordered by the cities of Brisbane, Colma, and Daly City to the north, Pacifica to the west, San Bruno and
the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the west. The city
is accessed by U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), Interstate 280, and State Route 82 (El Camino Real), all which
function as major north/south regional connectors.
2.2 STUDY AREA
The study area is the same area covered by the DSASP, which is defined by an approximate 0.5-mile radius
around the Downtown Caltrain station. The study area is located slightly north of the Airport Boulevard
and Grand Avenue intersection and below the US-101-elevated segment and the Grand Avenue overpass.
The study area excludes lower-density/hillside residential areas in the north and west where no change is
proposed or appropriate, and excludes areas east of US-101 where newer commercial uses suggest no
change is likely during the time period covered by the DSASP. The study area boundary includes the South
San Francisco Caltrain station and the majority of commercial and civic development in the City’s
Downtown neighborhood. A portion of the study area extends east of US-101, directly adjacent to the
Caltrain station, but excludes the majority of the existing office and industrial development east of US-
101. The study area is generally bound by Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue to the north, Gateway
Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue and Canal Street to the south, and Spruce
Avenue and Maple Avenue to the west.
2.3 BACKGROUND
2.3.1 Planning Process Leading to Approved Project
On January 28, 2015, the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisco DSASP to guide the
City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown, particularly the area
surrounding the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station. The process of preparing the DSASP occurred over a
30-month timeframe, starting in February 2012, with a draft made public in Summer 2014, and with
Planning Commission and Council consideration in Fall 2014. The DSASP was the result of a community-
based vision for the Downtown area of the City, centered on the South San Francisco Caltrain Station to
achieve an important City and regional goal of supporting transit ridership as part of a sustainable future.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 6 PlaceWorks
The DSASP was prepared to guide future development in the portions of the City of South San Francisco
that lie within a 0.5-mile radius of the Caltrain Station. The DSASP identified sub-districts and established
the parameters for future development in each sub-district. The DSASP serves as a blueprint for future
change and improvements in the Downtown and adjoining areas. The Certified EIR contains an
assessment of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementing the DSASP (Approved
Project).
2.3.2 Planning Process Leading to Proposed Modified Project
Under the Approved Project, the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) is the zoning sub-district close to the
Caltrain Station that was established to accommodate high density transit-oriented development (TOD).
Currently, the DTC allows for a maximum base density of 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and includes
a Maximum Density with Incentives Program of 120 du/ac and a maximum height of 85 feet. There have
been eight large-scale residential projects that have been entitled since the Approved Project (i.e., DSASP)
was adopted, five were in the DTC district, and three are located in other districts. Of the five projects in
the DTC, only one project applicant has opted to use the Maximum Density with Incentives Program, two
project applicants opted to use the State Density Bonus with affordable housing, and the remaining two
project applicants opted not to apply for any density bonus, and proposed projects consistent with the
maximum base density. Because this entitlement pattern has resulted in few community benefits, a
zoning change was necessary to maximize the benefits, and encourage additional residential TOD. At a
Housing Standing Committee meeting on May 1, 2017, committee members supported making changes
to the Approved Project that would result in an increase in density in the DTC per the Maximum Density
with Incentives Program.
Under the proposed Modified Project, the Maximum Density with Incentives allowance would increase to
180 du/ac within the DTC as a way to realize additional residential units in locations that are most
accessible to transit and amenities within the Downtown, and to gain additional community benefits for
South San Francisco residents.
2.4 PROPOSED CHANGES
2.4.1 Summary of Proposed Changes
The proposed Modified Project consists of the following revisions to the Approved Project, which are
described in more detail below. In summary, the proposed Modified Project consists of changing the
density in the Downtown Core from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac and associated text and buildout potential
revisions. The proposed changes to the Approved Project, which constitute the Modified Project, are
shown below in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 7
2.4.1.1 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 20.280.004-1: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-DISTRICTS
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Maximum FAR with Incentive
Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Residential Density (units per acre;
included within FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with Incentive
Program. Does not include
density bonuses allowed per
Chapter 20.390 Bonus
Residential Density
120
180 (A)
80 (A) / 100
(2)(A)
100 (A) / 125
(1)(A) n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1 For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2 For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
2.4.1.2 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN
If the density change in the Municipal Code is adopted, the following changes will be required to be made
to the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Housing Element.
Land Use Element
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per
acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development
meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 8 PlaceWorks
TABLE 2.2-1 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Minimum
Required
FAR
Residential
Density
(unit/net acre)
Maximum
Permitted
FAR
Maximum Permitted with Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net Acre FAR (See Table 2.2-2)
Residential2,3
Low Density - up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 -
Medium Density - 8.1 – 18.0 1.0 22.5 -
High Density - 18.1 – 30.0 - 37.5 -
Downtown
Downtown Residential -
Low Density - 5.1 – 15.0 0.7 15.0 -
Medium Density - 15.1 – 25.0 1.25 31.3 -
High Density - 20.1 – 40.0 - 50.03 -
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 80.1 – 100.0 6.0 120.0 180.0 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 14.1 - 60.0 3.0 80.0/100.0 4.0
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 40.1 - 60.0 3.0 80.0 -
Downtown Residential Core - 40.1 - 80.0 3.0 100.0/125.04 3.254
Office - - 1.0 - 2.55
Commercial
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 - 1.5 - 2.5 - 3.5
Community Commercial - - 0.5 - -
Business Commercial6 - - 0.5 - 1.05
Hotel - - 1.2 - 2.0
Coastal Commercial6 - - - - -
Retail - - 0.5 - 1.0
Office - - 1.0 - 1.6
Hotel - - 1.6 - 2.2
Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use7 0.68 up to 60.09 2.510 up to 80.09 3.510
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
High Intensity 0.611 up to 80 2.0 up to 110 up to 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity 0.611 up to 40 1.5 up to 60 up to 2.5
Industrial
Business and Technology Park - - 0.5 - 1.012
Mixed Industrial - - 0.4 - 0.613
Business Commercial6 - - 0.5 - 10.86
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 9
TABLE 2.2-1 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Minimum
Required
FAR
Residential
Density
(unit/net acre)
Maximum
Permitted
FAR
Maximum Permitted with Incentives and
Bonuses
Notes:
1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non-residential development, except for El Camino Real Mixed Use.
2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ¼-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (CalTrain or BART station or City-designated ferry
terminal).
3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing
that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
4 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects.
5 Required parking must be structured.
6 See Table 2.2-2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.
7 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not
permitted at ground level along El Camino Real except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to
conditional use permit approval.
8 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a
minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are
restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households.
9 Included within FAR limit.
10 Includes residential and substantially above grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking.
11 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30%
of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or lowmoderate-income households.
12 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking.
13 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution
Housing Element
TABLE 4.1-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
El Camino Real Mixed Use
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and
incentives)
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre
(up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive Program)
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 10 PlaceWorks
TABLE 4.1-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
2.4.1.3 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
If the density change in the Municipal Code is adopted, the following changes will be required to be made
to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per
acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development
meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
TABLE 3.01 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Residential
Density
du/net ac
Max FAR
Maximum Residential
Density with Discretionary
Approval and Incentive-
Based Bonuses1
Maximum FAR with
Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses1
Downtown
Downtown Transit Core 80 - 100 6.0 120 180 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 14 - 60 3.0 80/1002 4.0
Linden Commercial Corridor 20 - 40 - - -
Linden Neighborhood Center 40 - 60 3.0 80 -
Downtown Residential Core 40 - 80 3.0 100 3.253
Downtown High Density Residential 20 - 40 - - -
Eastern Neighborhood
Transit Office/R&D Core - 1.5 - 2.5 - 3.5
Notes
1 Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density
2 Corner properties/sites greater than 1/2 acre
3 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 11
2.4.1.4 BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The Certified EIR included an evaluation of a total of 2,861 residential units2 in the DSASP area and
roughly half of those units (1,426) units existed in the study area at the time of the preparation of the
Certified EIR. This left a remaining 1,435 units to be built within the DSASP. Since certification of the EIR,
765 units have been entitled and/or constructed. This leaves a total of 670 additional units that could be
built within the study area under the Certified EIR.
The City prepared a preliminary analysis to evaluate which sites in the DTC have the potential to develop
at the 180 du/ac density. The analysis indicted that there are four potential sites within the DTC district
that are not currently entitled and are large enough to accommodate this type of development (see
Figure 1). These sites are speculative; they were identified because they had one or more of the following
characteristics and were adjacent to other such lots so could be acquired to result in a development site
of an appropriate size to develop at such a density:
Vacant lots
Surface parking lots
1-story buildings
Note that three of the four sites that have been identified with potential to redevelop at 180 du/ac would
require consolidation of multiple adjacent parcels, which may currently be under separate ownership.
There are other sites that are greater than 10,000 square feet, however they are less likely to redevelop at
a density of 180 du/ac due to their dimensions and size limitations. However, for a conservative analysis,
the maximum density across the four sites will be analyzed.
2 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No.
2013102001, certified on January 28, 2015, page 4.5-11.
TAMARACK LN
MAPLE AVE
E G R A N D A V E
CYPRESS AVE
AIRPORT BLVD
MILLER AVE
LUX AVE
CALIFORNIA AVE
S LINDEN AVE
GRAND AVE
RAILROAD AVE
2ND LN
BADEN AVE
1ST LN
COMMERCIAL AVE
3RD LN
6TH LN
4TH LN
VILLAGE WY
VILLAGE WY
Figure 1
Development Possibilities in Downtown Transit Core
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.
2. Project Description
C I T Y O F S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O
D O W N T O W N S T A T I O N A R E A S P E C I F I C P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
0 200 400100
Feet
Downtown Transit Core
Parcels > 10,000 s.f.
Parcels Already
Developed/Entitled
Likely to Redevelop
Parcels > 10,000 s.f.33101
SITE 3
0.9 acres
SITE 4
0.6 acres
SITE 2
0.74 acres
SITE 1
0.92 acres
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 13
Table 1 below shows the development potential of each of these four development sites and compares it
to the number of units the site would accommodate without a zoning change. Rather than compare 120
du/ac to the increased 180 du/ac, this analysis takes a conservative (largest development potential)
approach and compares the maximum density that is currently being pursued by the majority of recent
downtown development applications, which is 100 du/ac. Therefore, the maximum number of units
would increase by a total of 252 units across the four sites, assuming the maximum density of 180 du/ac.
It is important to note that the development potential was analyzed assuming a higher density, but all
other current development standards remain the same (including height and floor area ratio).
TABLE 1 OPPORTUNITY SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
Sites Maximum
Density*
Maximum Density
With Rezone
Acreage Dwelling Units
w/o Rezone
Dwelling Units
with Rezone
Difference
Site 1 100 180 0.92 92 165 73
Site 2 100 180 0.74 74 133 59
Site 3 100 180 0.90 90 162 72
Site 4 100 180 0.60 60 108 48
Total 316 568 252
Notes:
*This is the maximum density allowed in the DTC without the Incentive Program.
This higher density could only be achieved on larger development sites. It is assumed that only sites with a
minimum area of 10,000 square feet and with a minimum dimension of 170 feet in one direction would
be able to reach the 180 du/ac maximum. Because the Type V wood construction over podium parking is
the most feasible construction method, a project including 5 stories of residential units above a 2-story
parking podium is the best way to achieve 180 du/ac given the existing parking and height requirements.
With the proposed density increase of 180 du/ac within the DTC, there is an increase of development
potential for 252 additional units on the four identified sites. The density increase would not increase the
1,435-unit DSASP development cap and the 670 units remaining to be built in the DSASP would remain
the same with the approval of the addendum. Future development in the DSASP that propose additional
residential development beyond the 1,435-unit DSASP development cap would require separate
environmental review, when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of an Exemption,
Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development
permits. Subsequent environmental review may be tiered from the DSASP EIR, but the DSASP EIR and this
addendum are not intended to address residential development beyond the 1,435-unit cap.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2018 Page 15
3. Environmental Analysis
As detailed in Section 2.4, Proposed Changes, the Modified Project would predominantly consist of
increased density in the Downtown Core from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac and associated text and buildout
potential revisions.
CEQA identifies and analyzes the significant effects on the environment, where “significant effect on the
environment” means a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical
condition (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The proposed changes under the Modified Project, which
does not increase the development potential evaluated under the Certified EIR, are analyzed below.
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
x
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 16 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project would increase the maximum density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP
planning area. Because there is no change in the height or FAR , implementing this proposed change would
not result in building heights beyond what is established in the Approved Project. General Plan
Implementing Policy 3.1-I-4 establishes a height overlay zones in the Municipal Code that do not maintain
separate height requirements tied to underlying land uses. The increased density and unchanged FAR
policy would not result in changed building heights. General Plan Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3 aims to promote
infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites. The increase in residential
density would satisfy the General Plan policy goal of intensification and would better utilize sites in the
DTC. Additionally, the Certified EIR found that aesthetic-related impacts of the DSASP would be less than
significant. The increase in residential density in the Downtown Transit Core of the DSASP would result in
changes at the policy level and does not include specific development proposals. For this reason, and due
to the project location (not in the viewshed of a scenic highway) and because no height increases would
occur, the proposed increase to density on the four designated sites in the DSASP under the Modified
Project have no impact on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway nor would it result
in new sources of light and glare beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Accordingly, the
Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing
impacts.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
3.2.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 17
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
x
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
x
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
x
Comments:
The Certified EIR concluded that the DSASP would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources.
The Modified Project would propose policy changes that would result in increased maximum residential
density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area that would not result in additional development
beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. However, given that the City has no important farmland or
forestland, none of the proposed changes are applicable to agriculture or forest resources. Thus, no
impacts would occur.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 18 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
x
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
x
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)?
x
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project will increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district
within the DSASP planning area that was evaluated in the Certified EIR at a lower maximum density. The
proposed density increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the
Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain at 1,435 units. Accordingly, the proposed
changes from the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to air quality.
Because the proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR, additional criteria air pollutant emissions due to construction and operation
are not expected. The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would
increase the density at the four sites and does not include specific development proposals. The proposed
Modified Project would not directly result in any criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the proposed
project could change the distribution of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), at particular
intersections, but would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations because the
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 19
traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed the threshold 44,000 vehicles per hour.3
Additionally, as mentioned above, the Certified EIR is a programmatic document and does not assess
environmental impacts on a project-level. However, like the development potential of the Approved
Project, any applicable future developments would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and
as applicable would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.2-1 Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be
quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are
anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air
pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the start
of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project
emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed
areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed
areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce
the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch
compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines May 2017, Page 3-3,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January
4, 2018.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 20 PlaceWorks
9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.
10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent
PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for
reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as
particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural
Coatings).
12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.
13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification
standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM4.2-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific
Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational
mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to
below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified
prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been
identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited
to, any of the following:
1. Increase on-street parking fees.
2. Daily parking charge for employees.
3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to
commute.
4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees.
5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting.
6. Provide a ridesharing program.
MM4.2-3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that would
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 21
introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use listed in
ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care
centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other
facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been
completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If
a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to
reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor shall be sited
in another location.
TABLE 4.4.2-1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-
Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with
100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating
transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300
hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating
residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and
maintenance rail yard.
Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation
approaches.
Ports
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily
impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses
of health risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.
Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For
operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with three or
more machines consult with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry
cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a
facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation
is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005).
These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation
needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as
much as 80% with the recommended separation.
The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 22 PlaceWorks
TABLE 4.4.2-1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in.
These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not
designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists.
The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to the available health risk data.
Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new
sensitive land uses.
This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known
problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions.
MM4.2-4 Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to approval
of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not subject to a
BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The land uses listed in
ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced above as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered potentially significant
sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in close proximity to a
sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for the use in Table 1-1
of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors include day care centers,
schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that
may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air
quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and
approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially
significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the
potential health risk to below a significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another
location.
MM4.2-6 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source of
odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to
minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents
should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices
recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable, and
may include the following:
Vapor Recovery Systems
Injection of masking odorants into process streams
Thermal oxidation
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 23
Carbon absorption
Scrubbers
Catalytic oxidation
MM4.4-2 Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee
Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco TDM
Ordinance such that a minimum of 39 percent of all employees are included. The South San
Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100 average
trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive -alone peak hour requirement with fees
assessed for noncompliance.
MM4.4-3 Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure would
implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking by 10
percent. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable with
implementation of mitigation measures. It should be noted that this programmatic significant and
unavoidable conclusion does not prevent a finding of less than significant at the project level for
future development under the DSASP.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 24 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
x
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?
x
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?
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
x
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project is a policy change to increase the maximum residential density within the
DTC sub-district of the DSASP. The proposed Modified Project would not change the study area
boundaries and would not change the size or extent of disturbed areas. As with the Approved Project, no
biological resources would be impacted by the proposed Modified Project. Accordingly, no impacts would
occur.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 25
3.5 CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
x
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
x
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 26 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American Tribe, and
that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
• A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of the
Public Resource Code Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance to a
California Native American tribe.
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project is a policy change that would not change the scale or location of overall
ground disturbing activities that could occur as a result of future projects in the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP. Thus, the Modified Project would not adversely impact historical, tribal and non-tribal
archaeological resources, or paleontological resources, as well as tribal and non-tribal human remains
beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For this reason and because the proposed density
increases are limited to sites already evaluated in the Certified EIR, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 27
The proposed Modified Project has the potential to increase maximum residential density within the DTC
sub-district of the DSASP planning area that was evaluated in the Certified EIR at a lower density. The
proposed density increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the
Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the proposed
changes from the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to cultural or tribal cultural resources.
Because the proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR, demolition of potentially historic buildings, and the discovery of buried tribal
and non-tribal archeological resources, and paleontological resources is not expected. The proposed
Modified Project does not include specific development proposals. Thus, the proposed Modified Project
would not directly result in impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. However, like the
development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments in the DSASP project
area would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable would require the same
mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.3-1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect
buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource
professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and
the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an
updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to
determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the
proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report
or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the development
area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on
historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South
San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental documentation
(e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project site shall
reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or
memorandum.
MM4.3-2 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 28 PlaceWorks
archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the development
area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on archaeological
resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical report or
memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The project
applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on
archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects under the
Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would therefore not be
required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the
appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities.
Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply
with mitigation measure MM4.3-3.
MM4.3-3 If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth-disturbing
activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-disturbing
activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco shall be
notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the significance
of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City.
MM4.3-4 Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing
activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness
training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-approved
cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological resources that
may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the protocols to
be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication protocols; and the
laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the associated penalties for
breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved archaeological resources
consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation contractors to provide
comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss excavation and grading
plans.
MM4.3-5 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to
determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 29
report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the development area
and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing impacts to a less-than-
significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The technical report or
memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The project applicant shall be
responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on paleontological
resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects
that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain a
paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate
construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Projects that
would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation
measure MM4.3-6.
MM4.3-6 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be
identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet
of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain
a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant
resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined
adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City. In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of South San Francisco staff shall
determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of
the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies and land use assumptions, and
other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.,
monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted.
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 30 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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.
x
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? x
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?
x
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?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The proposed policy revisions would increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of
the DSASP planning area and would not introduce new adverse physical impacts related to seismic ground
shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, or expansive soils compared to the Approved
Project. The Certified EIR concluded that, there would be a less-than-significant impact on geology and
soils as a result of implementation of the Approved Project. Like the Approved Project, the proposed
revisions under the Modified Project do not allow for additional density or amend land use designations in
geologically sensitive areas and future development would be required to comply with State and local
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 31
regulations to minimize geology and soil related hazards. Because the Modified Project includes the sites
evaluated in the Certified EIR, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a
substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.7.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
x
Comments:
The proposed revisions would increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP planning area from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac, but would not generate additional units beyond what
was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Accordingly, the proposed changes from the Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing greenhouse gas emissions
impacts.
The proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was analyzed in
the Certified EIR; therefore, additional GHG emissions from construction or operational activities,
including stationary and mobile sources are not expected. The proposed Modified Project does not
include specific development proposals. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not directly generate
greenhouse gas emissions. However, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any
applicable future developments would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable
would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 32 PlaceWorks
MM4.4-1 All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most
recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD.
Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may include, but are
not limited to:
Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at
least
15 percent of the fleet
Using local building materials of at least 10 percent
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials
Note that above best management practices are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District will post updates to this list at www.baaqmd.gov.
MM4.4-4 Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land
uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In
support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60
electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential
units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles.
MM4.4-5 Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles And Equipment (2.2). In support of this
measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all
lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This
requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential
units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment.
MM4.4-6 Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan
Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply
with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent.
MM4.4-7 Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum, 322,000
square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall address heat
island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologies identified in the voluntary
CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new development to plant trees
in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used to maximize building
shading.
MM4.4-8 Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy-
Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational
information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 33
information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save energy,
such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies.
MM4.4-9 Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development
within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of 35,000 square
feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205 residential units are
equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75 dwelling units is
offset by solar panel rays associated with the new residential development.
MM4.4-10 Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per capita
water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water
consumption may include, but are not limited to:
Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects
Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 a.m. and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to
be included in the energy information saving package)
Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors
Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants
Installing drip irrigation systems
Reducing impervious surfaces
Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 34 PlaceWorks
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
x
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?
x
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
x
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?
x
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?
x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
x
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 35
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
Comments:
The proposed policy revisions would increase the residential density within the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP planning area and would not increase risks related to hazards or hazardous materials relative to the
Approved Project. Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to land use
designations that would have the potential to result in a new or greater impact related to hazards or
hazardous materials from that evaluated in the Certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the future
development allowed under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with State and
local regulations related to minimizing the effects of hazards and the release of hazardous materials.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of
the existing impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 36 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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)??
x
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?
x
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?
x
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems?
x
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? x
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
x
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
x
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?
x
j) Expose people or structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 37
Comments:
The policy changes of the proposed Modified Project would not generate additional units beyond what
was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain at 1,435 units;
therefore, additional impacts to water quality during construction with the clearing and grading of sites
resulting in the release of sediments, oil and grease, and other chemicals to receiving water bodies are
not expected. Additionally, the four identified infill sites with the potential for increased density under the
proposed Modified Project are located in already built-out areas of the city. Therefore, like the Approved
Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would occur in areas already
covered with impervious surfaces and no additional runoff potential would occur. Like the Approved
Project, the future development allowed under the proposed Modified Project would be required to
comply with State and local regulations related to minimizing the effects of water pollutants and hazards
associated with hydrology and flooding. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
increased development that could have a potential adverse impact on the hydrology and water quality of
the project area. The increase in residential density within the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area
would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts with
respect to hydrology and water quality.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.10.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? x
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?
x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 38 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The proposed increase in residential density within the DTC sub-district in the DSASP would occur on sites
that are already developed, and are zoned for residential development at a lower density (maximum of
120 du/ac compared to 180 du/ac). Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not involve
any structures, land use designations, or other features (e.g., freeways, railroad tracks) that would
physically divide an established community. The type of anticipated development associated with the
proposed Modified Project would be restricted to the existing urbanized environment where residential
uses are currently allowed. Additionally, the proposed Modified Project does not include any land use or
zoning changes that would re-designate land uses or zoning districts to another type of use. Therefore,
there would be no impacts regarding conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan that is applicable to the study area. Therefore, like the Approved Project, the proposed
Modified Project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, the proposed changes
to the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the
existing impacts related to land use and planning.
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.11.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
a value to the region and the residents
of the state?
x
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?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 39
Comments:
The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would have no impact on mineral resources in the
City of South San Francisco. The Modified Project would propose policy changes that would result in
increased residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area that would not result in
additional development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed changes to the
residential density in the DTC of the DSASP would not expand the project boundary beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no new impacts to mineral resources would occur.
3.12 NOISE
3.12.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project result in:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
x
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
x
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?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 40 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project proposes a policy change that would increase the maximum residential
density from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac in the DTC of the DSASP planning area. The proposed density
increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the
residential development cap would remain. Therefore, the proposed changes from the Modified Project
would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts in relation
to noise.
The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would not increase
development potential. The proposed Modified Project does not include specific development proposals.
Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not directly generate noise from construction and operation.
However, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments
would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable would require the same
mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.6-1 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for
nonresidential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project
demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the
exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise
Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the
selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers.
MM4.6-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of
building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA
CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction
measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a
higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the
City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 41
ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be
implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to
separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of
noise barriers on site.
MM4.6-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of building
permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that interior
noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL:
Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise
contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and 70 dBA
Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial
development
Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system
Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate
calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for
the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acoustical
analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air
conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed.
Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and railroad
crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that interior noise
levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in Noise Ordinance
Section 8.32.040.
MM4.6-4 Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the
construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of
construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants
within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and
duration of vibration generating construction activities.
b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site
receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.
MM4.6-5 Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive
uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-
sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings
where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 42 PlaceWorks
155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a
qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines
prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-
specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for
Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and
approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.13.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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)?
x
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project would result in the addition of new units that would result in additional
population growth in the DTC of the DSASP; however, no housing units or people would be displaced as a
result of the Modified Project. The Modified Project would increase the maximum residential density from
120 du/ac to 180 du/ac within the DTC; however, the proposed density increase would not generate
additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the residential development cap
would remain at 1,435 units. Accordingly, the proposed changes from the Modified Project would not
result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to
population and housing.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 43
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
3.14.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed 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:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Fire protection? x
b) Police protection? x
c) Schools? x
d) Parks? x
e) Other public facilities? x
Comments:
The proposed increased maximum residential density in the DSASP’s DTC sub-district would not create
new development potential or other growth inducing opportunities to result in additional impacts to
public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries. The Certified EIR
determined that the General Plan includes policies and strategies that ensure adequate provision of public
services. Therefore, no new demands for fire, police, school, parks, and libraries would result from the
changes. No impact would occur.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 44 PlaceWorks
3.15 RECREATION
3.15.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The Modified Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. The proposed Modified Project is a policy revision that would increase the
maximum residential density within the DTC sub-district, but would not change the residential
development cap established in the Certified EIR. The proposed changes would not create new
development potential or other growth inducing opportunities to result in additional impacts to the
existing recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 45
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
3.16.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
x
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?
x
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
x
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 46 PlaceWorks
Comments:
Like the Approved Project, because no increases in height are proposed as part of the Modified Project,
no changes change in air traffic patterns would occur. Similarly, like the Approved Project, the proposed
increases in density under the Modified Project do not include design features such as sharp curves or
dangerous intersections or incompatible uses that would increase hazards in the study area. Emergency
vehicles would continue to be able to use the roadways surrounding the project site and through the
project site, maintaining existing emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no
impacts related to air traffic, design hazards, or emergency vehicle access.
The proposed increase in residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area would not
create additional units and would not create a substantial amount of traffic beyond what was evaluated in
the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed changes under the Modified Project would not result in more
vehicular, transit, and external and internal walk/bike trips and additional impacts to the circulation
system than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would not increase
development potential in the DSASP area, as the residential cap that was assumed in the Certified EIR
would still be in place. The Modified Project could potentially achieve the buildout potential at a faster
rate than development under the Approved Project due to higher density development; thus, the
proposed Modified Project would not directly increase overall vehicular trips. Increasing residential
density for certain sites in the DTC area could shift traffic patterns; however, the proposed Modified
Project does not include specific development proposals and, as stated above, the Certified EIR and the
2014 traffic study prepared for the DSASP EIR 4 are programmatic documents that analyze the DSASP
planning area as a whole rather than on a site-specific or project-level.
Future development proposals under the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project may be
subject to site-specific traffic impact analysis. Pursuant to General Plan Policy 2-I-8, the City is required to
develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic impacts of individual developments.
Currently, the City does not have an adopted level of service calculation method or a traffic analysis
procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are
identified and that developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system improvement costs.
Future development proposals under the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project may also be
subject to development impact fees to pay for improvements that can be demonstrated to serve new
residents and businesses (from new development). These fees may be combined with other funding
sources to fund a project that serves both new and existing residents or businesses. All of the required
City fees have existing nexus studies pursuant to State law; however, if new major improvement projects
4 Fehr & Peers, South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR Transportation Analysis assumptions (February 14 2014).
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 47
are added to the anticipated uses of the fee, the nexus studies would be required to be updated to
allocate costs among new and existing development.
Additionally, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments
under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as
applicable would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.10-1 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in
the PM peak hour.
MM4.10-2 Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and
retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-3 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right
shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to
reallocate green time.
MM4.10-4 Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and
optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
MM4.10-5 Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to
include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic
signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
MM4.10-6 Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes.
MM4.10-7 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the
intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the PM
peak hour.
MM4.10-8 Add a second off-ramp lane from northbound US-101 at Grand Avenue/Poletti Way to
increase capacity of the off-ramp to serve future demand.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 48 PlaceWorks
MM4.10-9 Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way.
MM4.10-10 A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to
better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve
operations at this intersection.
MM4.10-11 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. This
would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.
MM4.10-12 Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane,
southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand
Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-13 Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right
shared lane.
MM4.10-14 Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand
Avenue/Linden Avenue.
MM4.10-15 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane,
and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport
Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at the
intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
MM4.10-16 Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue.
MM4.10-17 Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
MM4.10-18 Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic
signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-19 Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left
shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101 NB/So.
Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 49
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.17.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Exceed waste water treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
x
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or waste water treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
x
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?
x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
x
e) Result in a determination by the waste
water 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?
x
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
x
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 50 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. The proposed Modified Project would increase
the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area and would not
generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Because there is no new
development potential beyond what was already analyzed by the Certified EIR, the proposed increased
residential density in the DTC would not require or result in construction or expansion of any public
utilities beyond those required for the Approved Project. Therefore, demands on public utilities or other
infrastructure would not change measurably, no impact would occur, and the conclusion of the Certified
EIR would not change.
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
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.)
x
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
x
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 51
Comments:
The proposed increased residential density in the DTC of the DSASP under the proposed Modified Project
with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings
would not change from the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would not increase the
Approved Project’s development density and boundaries. As discussed throughout this Addendum, the
proposed changes to the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts.
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 52 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2018 Page 53
4. List of Preparers
City of South San Francisco
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
PlaceWorks
Bruce Brubaker, Principal
Rosie Dudley, Senior Associate
Pranjali Deokule, Project Urban Designer
Terri McCracken, Associate Principal
Jessica Setiawan, Associate
Nicole Vermillion, Associate Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Fernando Sotelo, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer
Bob Mantey, Manager, Noise, Vibration & Acoustics
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4. List of Preparers
Page 54 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit B
Link to Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR and Appendices:
http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/198023/Page1.aspx