HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 32-2018 (18-116)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Resolution: RES 32 -2018
File Number: 18 -116 Enactment Number: RES 32 -2018
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO
INCREASE THE DENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, in January of 2015, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered and
adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ( DSASP) and associated Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs); and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Sub - District is identified in the DSASP as the area
within one - quarter mile of the Caltrain station that is the most suitable location for the highest intensity
transit- oriented development in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the DSASP contains provisions for increased density beyond the maximum base density
with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by City Council per the "Maximum Density with
Incentives Program ", with the provision of public benefits demonstrated to be above and beyond the
minimum required impact fees and other requirements of a particular project; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption, the City has approved entitlements for seven multi - family
residential projects within the DTC Sub - District resulting in 765 new residential units; and
WHERAS, one of the projects in the DTC Sub - District has been approved for a higher density under the
"Maximum Density with Incentives Program ", resulting in few public benefits being realized in the
Downtown per this program; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to incentivize the development of high- density residential housing adjacent
to transit and realize additional public benefits for Downtown residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City and P1aceWorks, Inc. prepared a 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR in
accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines; and
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 18 -116 Enactment Number: RES 32 -2018
WHEREAS, by separate resolution, the City Council has made findings and approved the 2018
Addendum as the appropriate environmental document; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public
hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the 2018 Addendum, General Plan
Amendment, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018, the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing to
consider approving the Zoning Text Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000,
et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and
updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,
prepared by BMS Design Group, dated February 2015; the draft General Plan Amendments, prepared by
City staff and P1aceWorks Inc; the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments, prepared by
City staff and PlaceWorks Inc.; the 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR, all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council meeting of February 28, 2018; and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2) ( "Record "), the City
of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Resolution is based, includes without
limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq. (CEQA)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.);
the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates
thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as
part of the City Council meeting of February 28, 2018 and any other evidence (within the meaning of
Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3. The refinements, clarifications, and /or corrections set forth in the Zoning Text Amendments, General
Plan Amendments, and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number: 18 -116 Enactment Number: RES 32 -2018
[in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP
EIR, IS /MND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan EIR nor do the refinements,
clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would
require additional environmental review.
4. The 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, Sailesh Mehra.
II. General Plan Amendment Findings
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will modify the Land Use Chapter Table
2.2 -1 ( "Standards for Density and Development Intensity "), and Housing Element Table 4.1 -1 ( "Land
Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015 ") to reflect the increased density in the
Downtown Transit Core Land Use Designation per the Maximum Density with Incentives. These
amendments are intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to implementation of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will require an amendment to other plans that
the City Council has adopted, namely the DSASP, and this is being done in tandem through resolution to
ensure internal consistency with all City adopted documents.
3. The 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR is the appropriate environmental clearance for the
proposed density increase since the changes do not alter any of the previous EIR assumptions and no
new significant impacts are identified.
III. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment Findings
1. The DSASP Amendment will modify development regulations but otherwise keeps the DSASP
entirely intact and consistent with the previously adopted document in 2015. With minor revisions to the
General Plan through the associated General Plan Amendment, the DSASP Amendment will be
consistent with the General Plan.
2. The DSASP Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or
welfare of the City as it makes modifications to the Maximum Density with Incentives Program in the
Downtown Transit Core District, but does not amend any of the other development standards or other
districts within the Plan Area.
3. The DSASP Amendment area is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s) and the
anticipated development since the revision increases the Maximum Density with Incentives Program in
City of South San Francisco Page 3
File Number: 18 -116
Enactment Number. RES 32 -2018
areas that are most accessible to transit, and does not amend any of the other development standards.
SECTION 2 AMENDMENTS
Be it Further Resolved that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this Resolution and adopts the General Plan Amendment attached as Exhibit A, and
adopts the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment attached as Exhibit B. All other sections,
subsections, tables, figures, graphics and text that are not amended by the proposed Amendments
attached shall remain in full force and effect.
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 Pradeep Gupta, seconded by Mark
Addiego, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 3 Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
i.c
City of South San Francisco Page 4
zmoto
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendments
Chapter 2: Land Use Element
1.Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity, pg. 2-7:
Land Use
Designation
Minimum
Required FAR
Residential
Density (Units/
Acre)
Maximum
Permitted FAR
Maximum
Permitted with
Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net
Acre
FAR
(See
Table
2.2)
Downtown Transit
Core
2.0 80.1-100 6.0 120.0
180.00
2.Page 2-18: 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.
Housing Element
1.Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015, pg. 48:
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre (up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive
Program)
Land Use Element Proposed Amendments
2
2-1
LAND USE
This element of the General Plan outlines the framework that has guided land use
decision-making, provides the General Plan land use classification system, and
outlines citywide land use policies. Policies for each of the 14 individual sub-areas
that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-
Areas.
Looking towards the bay from the western hillside. A wide variety of uses cover the city, from single-family residential
neighborhoods in the west side of the city to tall office buildings in the East of 101 area.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-2
2.1 CONSTANCY AND CHANGE
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to
initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order
to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another devel-
opment trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential
development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost
entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is
largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern
portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses
along a few transportation corridors, and multifamily housing clustered in those
same corridors and on hillsides.
The city consists primarily of single-use areas, with industrial facilities and business parks concentrated in the East of 101 area and residential uses in the north
and west areas of the city. The view of San Bruno Mountain provides an aesthetic backdrop for the city.
2: LAND USE
2-3
MAGNITUDE AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING USES
As part of the General Plan preparation process, an existing land use database for
the city was prepared and a land use analysis was performed.
South San Francisco’s City limits encompass 4,298 acres. Single-family residences
are the predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land (net, that is, exclu-
sive of streets, water, and other rights-of-way) in the city. Industrial uses, including
warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, comprise over a quarter of
South San Francisco’s area. The land use analysis also found that:
•Parks and open space occupy over 10 percent of the Planning Area, primarily
concentrated in Sign Hill Park and the California Golf and Country Club;
•Many of South San Francisco’s growing or highest priority land uses currently
occupy relatively little land. Business parks for high-technology research and
development (R&D) and manufacturing use occupy only 173 acres, or 14
percent of the land in the industrial classification. Commercial areas occupy
approximately eight percent. Hotels and motels can be found on only 37 acres,
or ten percent of the land in the commercial use classification.
•Only a handful of sites in South San Francisco—totaling 167 acres, or less than
four percent of land within the Planning Area—are vacant. About half of this
acreage is in Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater) and Sierra Point - two large
sites at the northernmost tip of the city, with substantial soil contamination
and under remediation for the past several years. The majority of the remain-
ing vacant land comprises sites, such as in Westborough, that have steep slopes.
Thus, virtually all growth in the city will result from redevelopment or inten-
sification; and
•Development that is approved or under review includes 1,150 housing units
and 3.4 million square feet of non-residential space.
The new condos on El Camino Real are an intensification
of uses around the South San Francisco Bart Station.
Some older industrial sites in Lindenville are gradually
being converted to offices and business and technology
parks; industrial uses in selected areas of the city will
continue to meet regional needs.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-4
CONSTANCY AND CHANGE
With all land in the east of U.S. 101 area (East of 101 area) and some western
parts of the city unsuitable for residential development because of aircraft opera-
tions at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and established residential
neighborhoods in much of the rest of the city, the General Plan attempts to balance
regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neigh-
borhoods. Development is targeted in centers and corridors to fulfill the City’s ob-
jectives of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality; ensure that established
areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the extraordinary regional invest-
ments in transit represented by extension of BART to the city. Neighborhood-scale
issues such as the character of new development and better linkages between and
within neighborhoods are also explored in this and other plan elements.
2.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK
The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles:
• Conservation of the existing land use character of the city’s residential neigh-
borhoods.
• Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, including through increased
residential opportunities. Policies that promote development standards that
build on Downtown’s traditional urban pattern are identified.
• Integration of land use with planned BART extension, by providing a new
transit-oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, to take
advantage of regional access that will result from extension of BART to the city.
• Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, many of which
fulfill a regional objective and are related to the SFO, can continue and expand.
• Encouragement of mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such
as El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
• Encouragement of a new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/
Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay resi-
dents to convenience shopping.
Vacant site in the foreground is the BART right-of-way in the
city - the San Bruno Residence Inn is in the background. The
General Plan proposes a linear park with a bike path along the
right-of-way as BART will run underground. Sites in the city
near the San Bruno Bart Station are allowed higher development
intensities under the General Plan to support transit ridership.
2: LAND USE
2-5
• Designation of new Business and Technology Park district to provide opportu-
nities for continued evolution of the city’s economy, from manufacturing and
warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology.
• Encouragement of employee serving amenities to provide identity and cater to
the lunchtime and quality of life needs of the growing employment base in the
East of 101 area.
• Provisions of a new live/work overlay district adjacent to downtown to provide a
broader mix of housing opportunities and promote small-business and multime-
dia incubation.
• Designation of a new Business Commercial district, that will include hotels
principally serving airport clientele, and regional commercial uses clustered
along Dubuque Avenue, Oyster Point, South Airport and Gateway boulevards.
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
The principles outlined on the previous page are represented in the General Plan
Diagram (Figure 2-1). The Diagram designates the proposed general location, dis-
tribution, and extent of land uses. As required by State law, land use classifications,
shown as color/graphic patterns, letter designations, or labels the Diagram, specify
a range for housing density and building intensity for each type of designated land
use. These density/intensity standards allow circulation and public facility needs
to be determined; they also reflect the environmental carrying-capacity limitations
established by other elements of the General Plan. The Diagram is a graphic repre-
sentation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted
only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the General Plan.
The legend of the General Plan Diagram abbreviates the land use classifications
described below, which represent an adopted part of the General Plan.
Uses on sites less than two acres in size are generally not depicted on the Diagram.
The interpretation of consistency with the General Plan on sites less than two acres
in size will be done through the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-6
1/4
MileRa di u s
1 /4 M i l e R adius
1 /2 M i le R adius
Encourage developmentsin this area to include
employee-oriented ancillary orcentralized commercial services
Interchange/Inter section Study Area
P r o p osed
Existi n g
Low Density Residential
Medium Densit y R esidential
Hi gh Density Residential
Downtown Low Density R esidential
Downtown Medium Densit y Residential
Downtown Hi gh Density Residential
Downtown Commercial
Communit y Commercial
Business Commercial
Coastal Commercial
e
Mi xed Industr ial
Business and Technology Park
Tr ansportation Center
Pu blic
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Loft Ov erlay District
Existing Regional/Art erial/Collector
Prop osed Street
South SanFranciscoHigh School
SpruceSchool
ParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool
MartinSchool
HillsideSchool
WestboroughMiddle School
SerraVistaSchool(closed)
El CaminoHigh School
PonderosaSchool
SouthwoodSchool
SunshineGardens School
Alta LomaMiddle School
Fox RidgeSchool(closed)
Buri BuriSchool City Hall
Orange MemorialPark
Oyster P oint Marina/Park
Marina
Marina
LosCerritosSchool
C ol m a
San Br uno
P a ci c a
S a n F r a n c is co
I n tern a tio n a l
Ai r po rt
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Hillsi
d
e
Blvd
Ch
e
s
n
u
t
Ave
Grand Ave
Sp
r
u
c
e
Ave
Sister Cities
Blvd
B ays h o re
Blv d
O yster Po int Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
e
n
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
al
Orange
Ave
ElCa
mino
Real
H i c ke y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r ough
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
De
l
Mo
n
t
e
Ave
F elipe
A v e
A l t a Mesa Dr
Arr oyo
Dr
Carter Dr
G reendale Dr
Gal
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegal
Ave
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lta V ista D r
N o rth w o o d D r
Rockw ood
D r
W ild w o o d D r
A
l
i
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
tOrange Ave
H
u
n
ti
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory
Ave
Lo
w
r
i
e
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HW
AY
101
U t a h A v e
Mitchell Ave
East
Grand Ave
EastGrand
Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Way
Gra nd vi e w Dr
Eccles
Ave
For bes
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hillside
Blvd
Schoo
l
St
Armour
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Map
l
e
Ave
Mag
n
o
l
i
a
Ave
Park
Way
Miller Ave
Baden AveCommercial
AveRailroad Ave
Eucalyptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Wil
l
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergr
een
Dr
Crestw
oo
d
Dr
Morning
s
i
d
e
Ave
Miss
i
on
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arling
t
o
n
D r
D u v a l D r
Ser
r
a
Dr
Camaritas
Ave
L
o
m
a
Dr
C u e s t a Dr
P o n d er o sa
R d
Fairw
ay
D
r
A
S
t
B
S
tSouthwoodDr
H a z el w o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
RegionalCommercial
CalT rainStation
San BrunoBARTStation
N oor
A v e Shaw Rd
Ma
p
l
e
Ave
StarliteSt
So.LindenAve
No.Canal Ave
Rya
n
Way
K ing Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
10 Acres
2.5 Acres
W
exford
Ave
SouthSan F ranciscoBART
Figure 2-1
Land Use Diagram
El Camino Real Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Downtown Residential Core
Downtown Transit Core
Downtown Station Area Plan
Transit Oce/R&D Core
Linden Neighborhood Center
Linden Commercial Corridor
Grand Avenue Core
1/4 Mile
R
a
d
i
u
s
StationCaltrain
Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Required FAR Residential Density (units/net acre)Maximum Permitted FAR1 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 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
2: LAND USE
2-7
Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Required FAR Residential Density (units/net acre)Maximum Permitted FAR1 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 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
180
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-8
Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; and Resolutions */-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
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 low-
moderate-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.
2: LAND USE
2-9
DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS
The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use classification.
Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre. Maximum permit-
ted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses.
FAR is a broad measure of building bulk that controls both visual prominence and
traffic generation. It can be clearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zon-
ing Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. FAR
limitations are also shown for some residential land use classifications in order to
relate housing size to lot size; both housing density and FAR standards shall apply
in such instances. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking (if any)
is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However,
parking garages are included in the FAR limitations for residential uses.
The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FAR limitations for
uses with low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low peak-hour
traffic generation, such as a hospital. In addition to density/intensity standards,
some land use classifications stipulate allowable building types (such as single-
family residential) as well.
The density/intensity standards do not imply that development projects will be
approved at the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning regu-
lations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce
development potential within the stated ranges. Airport-related height limits also
restrict development, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition, Figure 2-3 establishes
height limitations in specific areas, including Downtown, the El Camino Real Cor-
ridor, and near BART stations; these limitations shall apply to all uses, and land
use-based height limitations (in the Zoning Ordinance) shall not apply. For areas
outside the ones shown in Figure 2-3, height limitations shall be in accordance
with the use-based limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. These heights
are partly based on a viewshed analysis for the Planning Area, which revealed that
the south face of Sign Hill, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of
Point San Bruno Knoll, are visible from most areas of the city, as shown in Figure
2-4. Gross density standards and assumed averages for residential categories are
listed below.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-10
161 FT
2 1 1 F T261F T311FT361FT
35
040
045
0
50
0
55
0
1 6 1 F T
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
SU
R
F
A
CE
SL
O
P
E
7
:
1
TRAN
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
SURF
ACESLOP
E
7
:
1
150
FT
C O N I C A L S U R F A C E
S L O P E 2 0 :1
He ight Limi t
Figure 2-2
Airport-Related Height Limitations
AP
P
R
OACH
SU
R
F
ACE
SL
O
P
E
4
0
:
1
161 FT
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
al
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Mission
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M e s a Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegal
Ave
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o rt h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h
A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Grand vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
Forbe s
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
o
d
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Mission
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Serra
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u est a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
D
r
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z elw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: S an Ma teo County Ai rport Land Use Plan
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Air port
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
40 0
400
3
00400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
20 0
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
3
0
0
2
0
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
2: LAND USE
2-11
Figure 2-3
Special Area Height Limitations
50 FT
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Mission
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M e s a Dr
A rr oy o
D r
Carter Dr
G reendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegal
Ave
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o r t h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.
S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h
A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
EastGrand
Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Grand vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
Forbes
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
A
ve
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
o
d
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Mission
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u e st a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z e lw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
11/40
MILES
1/2
C olma
San Br uno
Pa cica
Daly
Ci ty
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Pa rk
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
30
0
30
0
3 0 0
400
40 0
400
3
00400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
2 0 0
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
3
0
0
2
00
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
80 FT
50 FT
50 80 FT
50 FT
80/120
FT
80/120 FT Base Height Limit/
Height Limit with Discretionary Approval
Height Limits
Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this map shall be as
indicated here, regardless of the underlying use. For areas outside of the areas
shown on this map, building heights shall be in accordance with the
development regulations for the use in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights
must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently
adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.
50 FT
50 FT
50 FT
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
See Plan for Height Limitations
Downtown Station Area Plan
See Plan for Height Limitations
45 FT
50 FT
50 FT
65 FT
65 FT 85 FT
85 FT
FAA
60 FT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-12
Vi ewpoint
Vi sible from at least one viewpoint
Vi sible from two viewpoints
Vi sible from all viewpoints
Figure 2-4
Viewshed
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o re
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
Sa
nMateo
AveE
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
B
l
v
d
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Airp
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b orough
Bl v d
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
A l t a Mesa
Dr
Arroyo
D r
C
arter
Dr
G r e endale Dr
Gal
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegal
Ave
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o r t h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
Ea s t Grand Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Grand v ie w Dr
Eccle
s
Ave
F o r b e s
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
A
ve
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
od
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Miss
i
o
n
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Serra
Dr
Cam
arita
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
Cues t a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z elw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, derived from USGS Dig ital Elevation Mo del
C olma
San Br uno
Pa cica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Ai rp or t
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign Hill
Pa rk
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2: LAND USE
2-13
Table 2.2-2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Base Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Total Maximum FAR
Maximum Attainable FAR with
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program
Other Specified Design Standards1
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 6.0 8.01
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 3.0 4.01
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 3.0 -
Downtown Residential Core -3.0 3.258
Office -1.0 1.3 0.2 2.5
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 1.5-2.5 3.51
Business Commercial2 -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use3 0.64 2.55 0.5 0.5 3.55
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High
Intensity
0.66 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity
0.66 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
Business & Technology Park -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
Hotels7 -1.2 0.6 0.2 2.0
Costal Commercial2 -
Retail -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
Office -1.0 0.5 0.1 1.6
Hotel -1.6 0.4 0.2 2.2
1 Discretionary; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon conditional use permit approval.
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.
3 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 floor 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.
4 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.
5 Includes residential and substantially above-grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking.
6 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 low-moderate-income households.
7 The Hotel FAR listed for Base, Maximum Attainable FAR with TDM, Other Specified Design Standards, and Total Maximum FAR is applicable for all hotels located in all General Plan designated areas that
permit hotel uses.
8 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects.
Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010,;Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; and Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-14
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The classifications in this section represent adopted City policy. They are meant to
be broad enough to give the City flexibility in implementation, but clear enough
to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. The City’s Zoning
Ordinance contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning
district may be consistent with a single General Plan land use classification.
Residential
Three residential land use classifications are established for areas outside of Down-
town to provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown
residential land use classifications are included later in this section). Densities are
stated as number of housing units per net acre of developable land, excluding
areas subject to physical, environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedi-
cated for creekside greenways or wetlands protection, provided that at least one
housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for residential
use. Development would be required within the density range (both maximum and
minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development standards established in
the Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities.
Second units permitted by local regulation, State-mandated density bonuses for
provision of affordable housing, and a 20 percent density bonus for residential
developments located within a 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART or Cal-
train) station are in addition to densities otherwise permitted.
Assumed average densities listed are used to calculate probable housing unit and
population holding capacity. Neither the averages nor the totals constitute General
Plan policy. Housing types (which are included here for illustrative purposes only,
and do not represent adopted City policy) are shown in Figure 2-5.
Low Density Residential
Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre.
Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square
feet, and smaller lots (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighbor-
hoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review
2: LAND USE
2-15
Lot Size
Dwelling Size
Number of
Floors
Density
(units/net acre)
Ty pical Density
Range for
Housing Type
General Plan
Land Use
Classicatio n
Housing TypeDetached
(front loaded)
Deta ched Zero-
Lot Line
(front loaded)
Deta ched
(front loaded)
Tow nhouse
(rear loaded)
Townhouse
(front loaded)
Residential Over
Parking And
Commercial Podium
6,000 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
2
7
8
Low Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,200 sq. ft.
2
17
18
Medium Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,400 sq. ft.
2
15
16
Medium Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,400 sq. ft.
2
15
12-25
Medium Density
2,000 sq. ft.
1,200 sq. ft.
2.5
22
15-30
Downtown
Medium Density
-
1,200 sq. ft.
2-3 over podium
40
30+
Downtown
High Density
25
60
25
100
25 (50)
100
35
72
60
100
Figure 2-5
Illustrativ e Housing Type s
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-16
requirements. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family
dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit
has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordi-
nance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line developments.
Medium Density Residential
Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre, with a minimum of 2,250
square feet of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public rights-of-
way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling
types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplex-
es, fourplexes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. Multifamily housing
type is not permitted. (Amended by City Council Resolution 148-2000, Adopted
November 21, 2000)
High Density Residential
Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net
acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including
single-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance,
and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate.
This designation within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as it ap-
plies to the 4.5-acre former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
parcel between Mission Road and the Colma Creek canal, allows higher densities
than elsewhere in the city, reflecting the area’s close proximity to the South San
Francisco BART Station. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum
density of 80 units per acre is required. A maximum of 180 units per acre may be
achieved for development meeting specified criteria. (Amended by Resolution 97-
2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Residential
In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated below, the Zoning
Ordinance may establish development standards and parking and other require-
ments for downtown residential development different from residential develop-
ment elsewhere in the City.
2: LAND USE
2-17
Three categories are included and are shown on the General Plan Diagram:
• Downtown Low Density Residential. Single-family (detached or attached) resi-
dential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per net acre.
Multifamily development is not permitted.
• Downtown Medium Density Residential. Residential development at densities
ranging from 15.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is
permitted.
• Downtown High Density Residential. Residential development at densities
ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater than
H-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than H acre, maximum
density shall be 30.0 units per acre.
A maximum of 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with afford-
able 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. Maximum density with all bonuses shall not exceed 50
units per net acre.
Downtown Transit Core
This designation applies to the area that lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute
walk, of the reconfigured Caltrain Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux
Avenue on the north, Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain
tracks on the east, and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west.
The Downtown Transit Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, mixed-use area. Due
to its proximity to the Caltrain Station and the relative abundance of developable
sites, the Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the highest intensi-
ties of new development in the Downtown area. These higher intensities will help
to support transit ridership since residential units will be within a short walk of the
station. High-density housing will also provide the pedestrian activity needed to
support downtown businesses and will increase activity day and night, add street
life and improve safety. As the Downtown Transit Core area evolves, it will en-
hance the image of the Downtown and frame Grand Avenue—the centerpiece of
the Downtown.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-18
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.
Grand Avenue Core
Grand Avenue will remain the historic retail center of the City. The Grand Avenue
district extends from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on the west.
With a few exceptions, the district includes properties directly fronting on Grand
Avenue. At the east end, Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard form an important
gateway to the City and the historic core; at the west end, the district transitions to
the residential Downtown Neighborhood described in the General Plan. Historically
interesting buildings will be retained wherever possible. New mixed-use develop-
ment of underutilized properties will be encouraged but guidelines will limit build-
ing heights directly along Grand Avenue in order to respect the historic character
of some existing buildings and to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off
Grand Avenue, on the rear portions of Grand-facing lots, taller allowable heights
will help accommodate new residential uses and increase development opportuni-
ties.
The Grand Avenue Core allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre and requires a mini-
mum of 14 units per acre. If meeting specified criteria, residential densities can be
up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner sites or site over 1/2
acre in size. Retail is required on the ground floor.
Downtown Residential Core
Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Transit Core areas, the
remaining areas lying between Tamarack Lane and Second Lane are designated
Downtown Residential Core. This designation is intended to encourage somewhat
higher densities than what is currently allowed but will still be compatible in scale
with the remaining Downtown residential districts: Downtown High Density Resi-
dential and Downtown Medium Density Residential. The areas encompassed by
this new designation are within two blocks of the Grand Avenue Core. With new
residential development, these will become more active, pedestrian-oriented streets
with day and night activity which will promote safety. The added residents will be
important to the success of Grand Avenue businesses.
2: LAND USE
2-19
The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units per
acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per acre are
allowed if specific criteria are met and public benefits are provided. Affordable
senrior housing projects may be allowed up to 125 units per acre.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Linden Av-
enue between California Avenue and Ninth Lane. The large zone of residential
uses that lie north of Miller Avenue up to Armour Avenue and west of Maple have
limited neighborhood amenities that can help to meet daily needs; in addition, there
is little public open space available in this area. The current small collection of
retail uses along Linden Avenue between California and Juniper Avenues provide
a starting point for a more robust neighborhood center that will be walkable for the
surrounding residential areas and can be a supplement to the more citywide desti-
nations that will locate along Grand Avenue.
Retail/commercial uses are required at ground level within this zone. The Linden
Neighborhood Center designation allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre with a
minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 80 units per acre are allowed if spe-
cific criteria are met.
Linden Commercial Corridor
The Linden Commercial Corridor includes the properties fronting Linden Avenue
from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Railroad Avenue.
Linden Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location for a variety of
commercial uses and today many of these remain and serve as resources for local
residents and businesses. This designation apples to areas of Linden Avenue south
of Aspen Avenue that do not otherwise fall into the Downtown Residential Core,
Downtown Transit Core, or Grand Avenue Core districts.
Commercial and mixed uses will continue to be allowed and encouraged on prop-
erties within this corridor. While not required, commercial uses will provide op-
portunities for local services for adjoining residential neighborhoods. As with other
mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and streetscape will be en-
couraged to provide additional pedestrian amenities and accessibility especially
for local residents.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-20
Retail use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other requirements
of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.1-40 dwelling
units per acre.
OFFICE
This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, busi-
ness, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or
CalTrain stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall en-
sure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum
Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for
development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), struc-
tured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These
bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discre-
tion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing build-
ings are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or
specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is
stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded.
COMMERCIAL
Transit Office / R&D Core
The Transit Office/R&D area is bounded on the north by East Grand Avenue, on
the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the south by South Airport Boulevard, and on
the west by Industrial Way and the US 101 right-of-way. It is currently a mix of
parking lots and low scale service and light industrial uses. This urban employ-
ment district would be characterized by a walkable street pattern, more like Down-
town than the suburban-style developments that dominate much of the East of 101
area. With the extension of the Caltrain Station and construction of the pedestrian/
bicycle underpass, this area will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an
opportunity for a significant number of workers to easily access downtown ameni-
ties.
Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limitations.
The area would lend itself to corporate office, hotels, and other major facilities due
to its high visibility from US 101 and proximity to San Francisco International
Airport, Downtown San Francisco and the various employment centers on the
2: LAND USE
2-21
Peninsula. Along the extension of Grand Avenue to the east beyond the rail tracks
undercrossing, limited retail and services may be feasible in the long run and to
provide amenities for nearby employees. The allowable development intensity in
the area would be 1.5 to 2.5 floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR up to 3.5 may be al-
lowed if specific criteria are met.
Community Commercial
This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major com-
mercial districts, such as El Camino Real, and regional centers along South Air-
port Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments,
commercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, fi-
nancial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are
permitted. An “R” designation on the General Plan Diagram indicates that the site
is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is
0.5. Office uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors.
Business Commercial
This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor ser-
vice establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administrative, finan-
cial, business, professional, medical and public offices, research and development
facilites, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional com-
mercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropri-
ate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel
district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South
Spruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be per-
mitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development fa-
cilities, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management
(TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. The Gateway Business
Park Master Planb area, comprising several parcels on 22.6 acres at the southeast
corner of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, is permitted to develop
up to a FAR of 1.25Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with in-
creases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria.
The Oyster Point Specific Plan regulates uses and development intensities within
the Specific Plan District. (Amended by City Council Resolution 19, 2010 adopted
February 10, 2010 and Resolution 47-2011, adopted March 23, 2011)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-22
Coastal Commercial
Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public mar-
ketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, research and development facili-
ties, hotel/motel with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. Max-
imum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recreation facilities, research and development facilities,
marinas, and eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels.
All development will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission.
Uses and development intensities at Oyster Point will be regulated by the Oyster
Point Specific/Master Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution 47-2011, ad-
opted March 23, 2011)
MIXED USE
El Camino Real Mixed Use
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development in the South El Camino Real area. Retail and department stores;
eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, busi-
ness, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office
uses are permitted.
The frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets
in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses—uses that are accessible
to the general public and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a
high level of pedestrian activity. Uses that generate pedestrian activity include retail
shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and
entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies,
child care services, libraries, museums and galleries.
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.
The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of housing and substantially above-grade
structured parking shall be 2.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.5 for
development meeting specified criteria.
2: LAND USE
2-23
Residential density is limited to 60 units per acre, with increases to a maximum
of 80 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. For parcels on the
east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Avenue, either
a mix of uses as permitted under this classification or residential use only (up to 40
units per acre) is permitted. (Mixed Use classification -Amended by City Council
Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments;
hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residen-
tial; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted.
The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of
which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are ac-
cessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute
to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants,
bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment,
personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare ser-
vices, libraries, museums, and galleries.
Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real,
Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to be devoted to active uses. The
maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured
parking, shall be 2.0, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.0 for develop-
ment meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall
FAR) is limited to a maximum of 80 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of
110 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria.
(Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments;
hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residen-
tial; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-24
The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of
which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are ac-
cessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute
to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants,
bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment,
personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare ser-
vices, libraries, museums, and galleries.
Within this designation, the maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential
but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 1.5, with increases to a maximum
total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density
(included within the overall FAR) is limited to 40 units per acre, with increases to
a maximum of 60 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria.
(Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for the East of 101
areas north of East Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of East
Grand Avenue in East of 101 and Lindenville.
Business and Technology Park
This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate head-
quarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include
incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing,
marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development
facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancil-
lary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total
FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for de-
velopment meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site
improvement, or specific design standards.
2: LAND USE
2-25
Mixed Industrial
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range
of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution, and service commercial uses. Industries producing substantial amounts
of hazardous waste or odor and other pollutants are not permitted. Unrelated retail
and service commercial uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere
in the city would not be permitted, except for offices, subject to appropriate stan-
dards. Small restaurants and convenience stores would be allowed as ancillary uses,
subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an in-
crease to a total FAR of 0.6 for development seeking an FAR bonus with TDM pro-
gram as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to development standards,
the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential
environmental impacts.
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other facilities
that have a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called out separately
on the General Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining
sites; these facilities may be specifically delineated on the Zoning Map.
PARKS
Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways.
OPEN SPACE
This designation includes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. In-
cluded are sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands,
creekways, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where
otherwise not excluded by noise, aircraft safety or other environmental standards,
residential development is generally permitted at a density not to exceed one hous-
ing unit per 20 acres.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-26
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
El
Camino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
G
e
l
l
e
r
t
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r o u gh
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M esa Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter
D
r
G reendale Dr
Gal
w
ay
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegal
Ave
Appian
W
ay A v alo n D r A lt a V is t a D r
N o rt h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
range Ave
H
u
n
ti
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
Eas
t
Grand
AveHa
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Gran d vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
F o r b e s
Ave
L it tl e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
Ave
Railroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
ood
D
r
Morningsi
d
e
Ave
Miss
i
o
n
Rd
Clay A v e
N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u e s t a Dr
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z e lw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Air port
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign Hill
Pa rk
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
South Airport
Figure 2-6
Planning Sub-Areas
Planning Sub-Area
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
400
400
3
0
0400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
2 0 0
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
40050
0
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
30
0
20
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
2: LAND USE
2-27
2.3 PLANNING SUB-AREAS
Land use information presented in the section that follows is presented by 14 sub-
areas, which have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban
design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. These sub-
areas are shown in Figure 2-6. In some cases, the City’s traditional neighborhood
planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where
adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of devel-
opment, and current activity level. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single
City neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, is divided into
four subareas for presenting planning information. The areas are:
1.Avalon
2.Downtown
3.East of 101 area
4.El Camino Real
5.Gateway
6.Lindenville
7.Orange Park
8.Oyster Point
9.Paradise Valley/Terrabay
10.Sign Hill
11.South Airport
12.Sunshine Gardens
13.Westborough
14.Winston-Serra
Descriptions of these areas and detailed policies for each sub-area are included in
Chapter 3.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-28
2.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
BUILDOUT
Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from application of as-
sumed average densities and intensities for the different land use classifications
to vacant and sites with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities is
described in Table 2.4-1. The time at which full development (“buildout”) will oc-
cur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a certain
use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the des-
ignated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan.
Table 2.4-1 shows by each of the 14 sub-areas described in Section 2.3:
• Projects with current development approvals. This includes about 1,150 hous-
ing units, more than half have been proposed in Terrabay, and about 3.4 mil-
lion square feet of non-residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 million
square feet of space with approvals, and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of
approved space, represent the primary non-residential uses.
• Additional development under the General Plan. This results from application
of average assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sites
and sites/areas with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities.
Potential residential increases include 2,4701 housing units, concentrated
mainly in El Camino Real, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non-
residential development includes 12 million square feet of new space; with an
expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase
will be 8.7 million square feet. About 5.9 million square feet (56 percent) of
this net increase is expected to be in the four East of 101 sub-areas (East of 101
area, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). (Amended by City Council
Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
• Combined approved development and additional development. This reflects
the total of the two above categories, and represents the expected General Plan
buildout. Buildout will result in an increase of 3,620 housing units and 12 mil-
lion square feet of non-residential space to the city’s current inventory of an esti-
mated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space.
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout
57,600
39,100
69,810
78,500
‐
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1997 Buildout
2: LAND USE
2-29
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Approved Development - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon --------------- ---
Downtown -------22,500 ------- --22,500
East of 101 ------------170,000202,800 - --372,800
El Camino
North 18030 ----210 -------147,000 --147,000
South ----110 -110 -------13,0005,000 -18,000
Gateway -------246,000 ---516,000176,000 ----938,000
Lindenville ------------ -- ----
Orange Park 150 -----150 ----600 - -- --600
Oyster Point -------497,500 ---- 40,000128,700150,000 --816,200
Paradise Valley/ Terra Ba 600 -----600 300,000 ---397,000286,000 - 18,000 --1,001,000
Sign Hill ------------------
South Airport -------73,000 ---------73,000
Sunshine Gardens -------- ----------
Westborough -130 -- --130 - ----------
Winston-Serra 60 -----60 - ----------
Total 990160 -- -1101,2601,139,000 ---913,600672,000331,500328,000 --3,389,100
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Approved Development
Additional development under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is
projected for the El Camino Real subarea. Buildout will result in an increase of
1,455 residential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential space. The plan-
ning horizon for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which
exceeds the planning horizon of this General Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows additional de-
velopment in the City if full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan occurs within the General Plan horizon. (Amended by City Council Resolu-
tions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-30
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Additional Development Under the General Plan - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
@
7
un
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
(
n
e
t
)
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
@
1
5
un
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(I
n
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
@
0
.
9
F
A
R
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
C
o
m
m
)
@
0.
5
F
A
R
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
@
0.
3
a
v
g
.
F
A
R
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(I
n
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
O
f
f
i
c
e
@
1
.
2
a
v
g
.
FA
R
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
@
0.
5
a
v
g
.
F
A
R
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
@
0
.
5
5
FA
R
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
@
0
.
3
FA
R
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon - -----------------
Downtown - --1,725 - -1,725 - 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - - -511,78021,250268,8001,185,049 2,117,879
East of 101 - --- - --- 246,00059,000 - - 2,869,000-1,867,000104,500 - -----1,411,500
El Camino ---
North - 10940 --1,035 1,985 - - - - 134,000 - - 145,000 - 294,400 ----573,400
South - --- 730 -730 - - - - - - - - 283,900 -----283,900
Gateway - ------46,0001,018,000 - - - - - - - -----1,064,000
Lindenville - - 70 ---70 126,000281,000 - - 2,307,000 - -1,519,000457,000 - -----1,652,000
Orange Park - 5080 ---130 64,000230,000 - - - - - 31,000 - -----325,000
Oyster Point - ------ -2,095,0001,026,500 - - - -171,000 - - -----2,950,500
Paradise Valley/ Terra Bay - ------- - - - - - - - - ------
Sign Hill 30 - - ---30 - - - - - - - - - ------
South Airport - ------12,000202,000 - - - - 216,000 - - -----430,000
Sunshine Gardens 20 - 380 ---400 - - - - - - - 8,000 - -----8,000
Westborough -40 - ---40 - - - - - - - 71,000 - -----71,000
Winston-Serra 140 - - ---140 - - - - - - - - - ------
Total 1901001,4701,7257301,0355,250248,0004,082,0001,085,500121,0002,441,0002,869,000-3,341,000816,500283,900294,400511,78021,250268,8001,185,04910,887,179
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
* The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Additional Development under the General Plan
2: LAND USE
2-31
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Combined Approved and Additional Development under the General Plan
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan (General Plan Buildout) - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon ------- - - - - - - - - ---
Downtown ---1,725 --1,725 22,500 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - --511,78021,250268,8001,185,049 2,140,379
East of 101 ------- - 246,000 59,000 - - 3,039,000 (1,664,200) 104,500 ------1,784,300
El Camino - -
North 180 40 940 -1,035 -2,195 - - - - 134,000 - - 292,000 - 298,400 ----724,400
South ----840 -840 - - - - - - - 13,000 288,900 -----301,900
Gateway ------- 292,000 1,018,000 - - 516,000 176,000 - - ------2,002,000
Lindenville --70 ---70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - (1,519,000) 457,000 ------1,652,000
Orange Park 150 50 80 ---280 64,000 230,000 - - 600 - - 31,000 ------325,600
Oyster Point ------- 497,500 2,095,000 1,026,500 - - 40,000 (42,300) 150,000 ------3,766,700
Paradise Valley/ Terra Ba 600 -----600 300,000 - - - 397,000 286,000 - 18,000 ------1,001,000
Sign Hill 30 -----30 - - - - - - - - -------
South Airport ------- 85,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - ------503,000
Sunshine Gardens 20 -380 ---400 - - - - - - - 8,000 ------8,000
Westborough -170 ----170 - - - - - - - 71,000 ------71,000
Winston-Serra 200 -----200 - - - - - - - - -------
Total 1,180 260 1,470 1,725 1,875 - 6,510 1,387,000 4,082,000 1,085,500 121,000 3,354,600 3,541,000 (3,009,500) 1,144,500 288,900 298,400 511,780 21,250 268,800 1,185,049 14,280,279
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
* The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout
may or may not occur within the General Plan Horizon.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-32
BUILDOUT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population of approximately
69,810, an increase of 18 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200.
Table 2.4-2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Francis-
co. If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately
increase its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.7
percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will be much slower than
growth experienced by the city over the last ten years. The chart on the following
page shows a graphic depiction of South San Francisco’s historical and projected
population growth as well as its share of the County population. (Amended by City
Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan will accommodate a population
of approximately 4,800. If full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan is to occur within the General Plan horizon, population will increase to
74,600, which would be an increase of 21 percent over the estimated 1998 popu-
lation of 59,200. This would increase the city’s share of the San Mateo County
population from 8.3 percent to 9.3 percent. (Amended by City Council Resolu-
tions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
Table 2.4-2
Buildout Population
1990 1998 1990-1998 Buildout 1990-2020 2010 2035 2010-2035
Population Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
Population Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
South San Francisco
(with El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan)
54,312 59,208 8.3%1.0%74,600 9.3%1.1%
(with Downtown
Station Area Specific
Plan)
63,632 67,880 8%0.33%
San Mateo County 649,623 715,382 100%1.2%798,600 100%0.5%718,451 833,209 100%4%
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
2: LAND USE
2-33
Employment
While non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an
estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 30.1 million square feet at buildout (an
increase of 66 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employ-
ment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 77,900 at buildout (an increase
of 99 percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with
low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960
square feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher inten-
sity office, retail, and other similar uses. This level of employment attainment will
likely take place over a time-period that may extend beyond 20 years. Table 2.4-3
shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories. (Amended
by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010 and 47-2011, ad-
opted March 23, 2011)
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-3
Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout; revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Land Use
Estimated
1997
Employment
Increase to
Buildout
Buildout
Employment
Increased
Employment
with
Downtown
SASP
New Buildout
with
Downtown
SASP
Commercial/ Retail 10,4003,20013,60093614,536
Hotels/ Visitor Services 1,8003,9005,700 5,700
Office + Bus. Park (inc. Medical)5,70029,60035,300 35,300
El Camino Real Mixed Use North (High and M -600600 600
Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 13,400-3,20010,200 2510,225
Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 1,500
Construction and Miscellaneious 2,5001,8004,300 4,300
Others (including at home workers)3,8003,2007,000 7,000
Office/R&D 1,4391,439
Total 39,10038,00078,2002,40080,600
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-34
REVISED BUILDOUT & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
In 2001, the City Council adopted the General Plan Amendment and Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance, which incorporates a revision to the approved
land use buildout in the East of 101 area. The Amendment includes the following
conclusions:
•Total buildout will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million
square feet in 2001 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the
increase in Office and Office/R&D development. The revised East of 101 area
buildout assumes a 0.9 FAR for new Office development.
•The Amendment anticipates that the East of 101 area will support an addi-
tional six million square feet, over the buildout that is projected in the South
San Francisco General Plan (1999). The additional development was based on
the major projects lists (2000-2001), the Gateway and Genentech development
plans, and determining the likely properties that would convert from industrial
to Office/R&D by 2020.
•Employment in the East of 101 area will increase by 2.4 times, from 21,654 to
52,880. This increase is due to both increases in floor space in the East of 101
area and due to Office and Office/R&D uses having a much higher employ-
ment intensity that industrial development. The projected employment is
based on Commercial at 400 square feet/employee, Office/R&D at 450 square
feet/employee, Office at 375 square feet/employee, Hotel at 420 square feet/
employee and Industrial at 955 square feet/employee. (Resolution 98-2001,
Adopted September 26, 2001)
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco was a
company town for the “beef trust” packers on Point San Bruno, improved transpor-
tation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco
into a commuter suburb. Today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the
city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing inter-dependencies.
As Table 2.4-4 shows, the city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than popula-
tion for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were 13,610 more jobs than employed
residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of
2: LAND USE
2-35
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Estimated 1997
Employment
Buildout Buildout (with El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan)
Buildout in 2035 (with
Downtown SASP)
Jobs
Employed Residents
1.4
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.2
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Estimated 1997
Employment
BuildoutBuildout (with El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan)
Buildout in2035 (with
Downtown SASP)
Jobs
Employed Residents
1.4
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.2
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions
97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-4
Jobs/Housing Balance revised to include Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Estimated 1997
Employment Buildout
Buildout (with El
Camino
Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan)
Buildout in 2035
(with Downtown
SASP)
Jobs 39,100 77,900 78,500 82,748
Employed Residents 27,900 35,400 39,300 41,374
Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 2 2
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-36
jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio
in San Mateo County has crept closer to balance.
Given that much of the land in the city—including all of the East of 101 area—
is not suited for residential development, it is unlikely that a balance between
jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job growth in the city will
promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay
Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, and
in the near future BART and ferry service—employment growth in the city will
support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of housing in South San
Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperative to attracting high-
technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential de-
velopment within the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from
job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but
live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development
opportunities on infill sites.
2.5 DETAILED PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
AREA AND SPECIFIC PLANS
In addition to policies articulated in the General Plan, area, specific, and redevel-
opment plans direct planning in certain parts of the city. Figure 2-6 2-7 shows area,
specific, and redevelopment plan areas. These include:
•The East of 101 Area Plan, which applies to all parts of the city east of U.S. 101
and includes a Design Element and policies;
•Specific master plans for key development areas, including Genentech, Oyster
Point, Terrabay, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), Sierra Point; and
•Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest potential for
change, including Gateway, Downtown/Central and the El Camino Real
Corridor.
•El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, adopted 2011 (Amended by
City Council Resolution (97-2011, adopted July 27, 2011)
•Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
2: LAND USE
2-37
Hillsi
d
e
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister Cities
Blvd
B aysh o r e
B lv d
Oyster Po int Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
e
n
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
Hi c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
Gellert
B
l
v
d
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
IN
T
E
R
S
TATE
28
0
DelMon
t
e
Ave
Felipe
Ave
A l t a Mesa
Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter
D
r
Greendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
one g a l
Ave
Appian
Way
A valon
D r
Alta Vista
Dr
N or thw ood
Dr
R ockw ood
D r
W ildw ood
D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory
Ave
Lo
w
r
i
e
Av
e
U
.
S
.
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
U tah
A ve
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
E.G r and
Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Gran d v i e w Dr
Ecc
l
e
s
Ave
Forbes
A v e
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hills
i
d
e
Blvd
Schoo
l
St
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Ma
p
l
e
Ave
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommer
cial
Ave
Railroad
Ave
Eu
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
Ave
Miller
Av
e
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergr
een
D r
Cr
est
w
oo
d
Dr
Morningside
Ave
Missi
on
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
Cu e s t a Dr
P onde
r
osa
Rd
A
S
t
B
S
t
Hazel w ood
D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTE
R
S
TA TE 38
0
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
8
0
King Dr
F
u
t
u
r
e
B
A
R
T
Li
n
e
East of 101
Oyster Po int
Te rra Bay
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Ci ty of South San Fr ancisco
Specic Plan Area
East of 101 Area Plan
Re development Area
Figure 2-7
Specific and Area Plans
and Redevelopment Areas
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San Franc isco
Internat ion al
Airport
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
Califor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
1 0 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
4 0 0
400
3
0
0400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
06
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
70
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
50 0
600
700400
300
30
0
20
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
60
0
500
4 0 0 300
600
500
400
300
200
Gateway
Shearwater
Downtown/
Central
El Camino
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Gateway
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Downtown Station Area Plan
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-38
These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of their geographic
concern. Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to be modified to ensure
consistency with the 1999 General Plan.
PLANS AND PROGRAMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding cities and jurisdic-
tions influence development in South San Francisco as well. By and large, none of
the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physical
impact on South San Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines
a development strategy for its bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco’s
strategies in the East of 101 area, potentially affecting South San Francisco’s fu-
ture development potential. If this development occurs, Brisbane could compete
with South San Francisco for office space or potentially increase traffic in the area;
however, Brisbane still needs to overcome major infrastructure and environmental
constraints before this development is likely to begin. San Bruno is planning for a
mix of office and hotel uses for the West Division property, one-quarter mile south
along El Camino Real, that is currently being used by the U.S. Navy, but will be
vacated soon. Impacts of this are likely to be localized.
San Francisco International Airport has major direct and indirect influences on
South San Francisco’s land use and economic prospects. Airport-imposed height
restrictions and noise limit land use options in some parts of the city (see Figure
2-2). However, a greater impact could stem from airport expansion, fueling growth
in airport-supportive or -dependent uses such as freight forwarding, and the result-
ing demand for housing and other services in South San Francisco.
Noteworthy plans and programs of other agencies that influence or place limita-
tions on development in South San Francisco include:
•The 100-foot strip of bayshore, inland of the mean high tide line, for which the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) establishes policy;
•The area around and including the Terrabay project, which is within the San
Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area; and
•The area constrained by the Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 height
limits, primarily East of 101 area, in Lindenville, and in the Country Club Park
area.
2: LAND USE
2-39
2.6 LAND USE POLICIES
Because land use policies for each of the planning sub-areas are spelled out in
Chapter 3, policies here focus on citywide issues and those of a programmatic
nature.
GUIDING POLICIES
2-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and
protect residents from changes in non-residential areas.
Protection of residential neighborhoods is a General Plan theme. While
some parts of the city are expected to undergo change over time, the Gen-
eral Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are fully
protected from changes elsewhere.
2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for
continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South
San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional
access.
2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased
accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adja-
cent locations.
Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high devel-
opment intensities around transit stations is not just in South San Fran-
cisco’s best interest, but a regional interest as well.
2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service com-
mercial businesses at specific locations.
The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehousing
and distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and seeks to
maintain these as conforming uses in specific locations.
2-G-5 Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a
focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.
2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through
infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or
creating conflicts with industrial operations.
San Bruno residences on the left and South San Francisco
industrial uses on the right share Tanforan Avenue.
Increased buffers between industrial and residential uses
would reduce land use conflicts, including large trucks
parking on residential streets.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-40
2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in
centers where they would support transit, in locations where they
would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack
such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to
foster identity and vitality.
2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new develop-
ment, and to promote alternative transportation modes.
2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas,
and encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential devel-
opments.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
2-I-1 Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations con-
tained in the Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan.
A complete revamping of the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary, includ-
ing:
• Establishment of new base districts;
• Establishment of new overlay districts, including for coastal zones,
environmental protection and review processes, selected mixed-
use areas (such as the Loft Overlay District), and transit-oriented
development centers;
• New development regulations that reflect policy direction contained
throughout the Plan; and
• Minimum and maximum development intensities as stipulated in the
Land Use Classifications.
This policy is especially critical given the limited land available for resi-
dential development. Approval of developments at lower than stipulated
densities should be accomplished by map amendment to the General Plan,
not by providing exemptions from stipulated densities.
2-I-2 Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure
2-3. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by
The Village, a residential development near Downtown.
Permitting ground units in single-family residential areas
would provide additional housing opportunities without
building new housing units.
2: LAND USE
2-41
underlying base district uses.
These are areas that are central from a community perspective or areas
where change is expected. The intent is to provide to achieve unified de-
velopment regardless of underlying uses. For building heights East of 101
area, also see Section 3.5: East of 101 area.
2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to
achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent develop-
ment intensity standards.
While in recent years established development intensities have been con-
straints to achieving prevailing intensities in the region, and even in the
city, necessitating the need for planned developments, intensities estab-
lished in this General Plan reflect development that is appropriate given
both the local and the regional context. This should obviate the need for
planned developments merely as a tool to achieve higher than otherwise
attainable standards.
2-I-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table
2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage.
The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning
Ordinance. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted
September 26, 2001)
The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR
bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved.
2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in
Table 2.2-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted
September 26, 2001)
2-I-5 Examine the potential for establishing performance-based standards
for industrial development to minimize resulting impacts.
These would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quality, and
screening of parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is espe-
cially critical where industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such
as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and downtown neighborhoods near Linden-
ville.
2-I-6 Undertake a comprehensive review of the parking standards and
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-42
establish criteria for reduced parking for mixed-use developments,
for development that meets specified TDM criteria, and Medium- and
High-Density Residential development.
Differing standards could also be established for downtown and specific
transit-centered areas, such as within 1/4-mile of BART and CalTrain, and
ferry terminal.
2-I-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy.
Standards are items that can be mapped or measured and are manda-
tory. Guidelines are suggestions and may also provide the basis for de-
sign review by the Planning Commission and/or the basis for awarding
design bonuses, as established by policy 2-I-4.
Current city efforts in this area are uneven. While the City has residential
design guidelines in place, these do not address issues such as garage
domination of streets, or the introverted or gated nature of some recent
developments. Also, while some other adjacent cities (such as Brisbane)
have design guidelines in place for warehousing and distribution uses,
South San Francisco does not have such guidelines and standards.
Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, instead of
trying to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may prob-
ably be better directed at standards/guidelines focused on specific geo-
graphic areas. These could include:
• Lindenville. A simple strategy would be to extend guidelines for
industrial development that apply to the East of 101 area to Linden-
ville as well;
• Downtown;
• El Camino Real Corridor; and
• The two (South San Francisco and San Bruno) BART station areas.
Policies outlined in Chapter 3 for each of these areas would provide a
starting point.
2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and
Design standards for warehousing and industrial uses
would reduce the adverse impacts of these uses on the
community, such as the presence of trash dumpsters on
Tanforan Avenue, and screening of parking and loading
areas.
2: LAND USE
2-43
design review, improve the community orientation of new develop-
ment.
A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relationship be-
tween residences, streets and shared spaces, and does not require sacrifice
of privacy or amenities. Specific steps could include:
• Not permitting gated developments;
• Allowing sound walls only along freeway and arterial streets, as established in Chapter 4: Transportation; and
• Requiring parking in all non-industrial and business and technol-ogy park areas to be tucked behind buildings.
2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines
that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of
individual neighborhoods.
Examples of urban patterns in South San Francisco that deviate from con-
temporary practice that would not be permitted under current standards
are several and include: Southwood Center, one of the few examples of a
shopping center outside of downtown built to the street edge; residential
developments in downtown built to the street edge which would be pro-
scribed under current standards; and small-lot subdivisions such as in the
“Town of Baden” subdivision, built before the City was incorporated.
Several tools are available to structure the Zoning Ordinance to be respon-
sive to the city’s urban fabric rather than imposing a unified set of stan-
dards, including: community character based districts; special districts
(base or overlay) targeted at areas with unique development characteris-
tics, as well as performance-based standards that allow flexibility. These
options will need to be explored as part of the Zoning Ordinance update
(Policy 2-I-1).
2-I-10 Establish regulations to permit second units in single-family residen-
tial developments in accordance with State law.
Requirements for this are spelled out in California Government Code Sec-
tion 65852.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-44
2-I-11 Undertake a comprehensive update of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Efforts need to be focused primarily in two areas: downtown and El Cami-
no Real Corridor. See also policies for signage for the business areas East
of 101 in Section 3.5: East of 101 area. Unified sign programs should be
required for multi-tenant projects.
2-I-12 Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of childcare
facilities. Efforts should include:
• Permitting childcare centers in all districts;
• Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs (Policy 2-I-5);
• Exploring the feasibility of assisting child care providers and de-velopers to identify and develop potential sites; and
• Preparing a childcare start-up guide.
Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria for family
day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of
the California Health and Safety Code.
2-I-13 As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas
(see Figure 7-2 in Chapter 7), require specific environmental studies
and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological
Resources Conservation.
In addition to ensuring that development is environmentally sensitive, this
would facilitate development review approval by allowing development
to tier off the General Plan environmental review, and not undertake all
encompassing environmental reviews, except where otherwise necessary
or appropriate.
2-I-14 Establish a Geographic Information System (GIS) based land use
planning and information system.
In addition to the more common development tracking system, this system
can be designed to provide clear direction regarding plan implementation.
2-I-15 As part of the General Plan Annual Report, monitor the rate and den-
2: LAND USE
2-45
sity/intensity of residential, commercial, and industrial development,
and site availability for future development.
The monitoring program should include a database linked to the city’s
GIS.
2-I-16 Work with San Mateo County to resolve issues relating to land use
conflicts in the unincorporated “islands”.
Churches and other institutional land uses in the unincorporated Country
Club park subdivision have been creating conflicts with surrounding resi-
dential areas. Parking, noise and traffic within City limits are exacerbated
by the concentration of churches in this small area. Policy 3.6-I-4 stipu-
lates that if this area were to incorporate, it would be as a whole, with in-
frastructure improvements funded by the County or by property owners.
2-I-17 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained
in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow exist-
ing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to
a minimum.
Most of the level properties in the City have been developed. Many of
the remaining vacant properties contain steep slopes which exceed 30
percent grade. Many of these steep slopes are visually prominent and
Residential Land
Use Category
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Maximum
Benchmark Density
(Units/Net Acre)
8
18
30
Comparable
Zoning District
R-1
R-2
R-3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-46
have unstable conditions. Such slopes should, therefore, be substantially
preserved in the natural state.
2-I-18 Senior Citizen housing projects may be allowed to be constructed to
a maximum density of 50 units/acres and off-street parking may be
provided at a ratio lower than that which is otherwise required.
2-I-19 The benchmark density (units per net acre of land) shall be the number
of dwelling units proposed on a specific site for each 43,560 square
feet of raw land exclusive of land allocated for public streets and sub-
merged land. When the average slope of a site is between 20 percent
and 30 percent, the City may reduce the net density of a residential
project up to fifty percent of the benchmark density in order to discour-
age grading and destruction of natural hillside environment.
2-I-20 Initiate a nexus analysis with the intent of creating a revenue source
or improvements to be used to provide new child care facilities and
programs.
2-I-21 Initiate a study to increase provision of public art throughout the com-
munity through imposition of either on-site improvements or in-lieu
fees.
2-I-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant
height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria
contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo
County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San
Francisco International Airport. (Amended by City Council Resolution
19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010)
Housing Element Proposed Amendment
47
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
So
ut
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
4 Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion
regarding affordable housing development.
4.1 Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development,
and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing
market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers
in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land
use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and
development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may
be regulatory constraints.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been
amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014 Housing
Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the 2011 El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use through mixed-use
development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP).
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use
designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development.
Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types,
including opportunities for higher density housing up to 100 dwelling units per acre.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
48
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Downtown Residential Low Density
Downtown Residential Medium Density
Downtown Residential High Density
Downtown Commercial
Transit Village Residential Medium Density
Transit Village Residential High Density
Transit Village Commercial
Transit Village Retail
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Downtown Transit Core
Grand Avenue Core
Downtown Residential Core
Linden Neighborhood Center
Linden Commercial Center
8 du/acre
18 du/acre
30 du/acre
15 du/acre
25 du/acre
40 du/acre
No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
30 du/acre
50 du/acre
30 du/acre
50 du/acre
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives)
100 du/acre
(up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive Program)
60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-
density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the
preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the protection of
“residents from changes in non-residential areas.” Consistent with this policy, the General Plan
Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit
corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing neighborhoods. The City’s
political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family housing development
with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups.
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential,
retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where
they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
Housing Constraints
49
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.” The City has worked
to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the
Transit Village area. The City continues to encourage development of high density housing near
transit with the adoption (February 2015) of the DSASP, partially funded by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). The major goals of the plan are to:
• Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and local
business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the historic
downtown;
• Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or vacant
parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and
• Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with
the East Employment area.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those
policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown
and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are
consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not
considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the adoption of the DSASP in
February 2015, the height limits in downtown have increased to promote higher densities. Policy
2-I-19 limits the allowable density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent
compared to existing land use designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does
work to limit the amount of housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the city
(only parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum
amount of housing development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General
Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18 specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at
a density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and
allows for reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption
of the DSASP, qualifying affordable senior housing will be allowed densities limits in excess of 50
dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 dwelling units per acre.
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,
the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development
of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The General Plan does not constitute an obstacle to housing
development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with
disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional
housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
50
ZONING ORDINANCE
The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and guidelines
support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing Element Update.
Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development, along with existing
development standards.
The City’s main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and RL-
8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple Family
Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed the Transit
Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use District
(ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan – El Camino Real/Chestnut District – includes three
districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/MXH).
There are five districts that correspond to the DSASP area and permit residential development
(DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and Recreation (PR) and Open Space (O-S)
districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are intended for the preservation of open-space
and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas; residential development is not allowed
in these districts.
The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that can be
developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing needs by
permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones. These uses
include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities, mobile homes,
elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses are supported in
Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential Districts, Transit Village
Districts, Downtown Districts, DSASP Districts, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Districts, and the
El Camino Real Mixed Use District.
Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they are
permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit (MUP).
This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its permitting
requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance does not impede housing development and enables development of a wide
range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The Zoning Ordinance is not an obstacle to housing development for
farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons
needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing, and those needing
factory-built housing.
51
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Single-Unit Dwelling
Single Unit
Detached
P P P P - - P P C - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Second
Unit
P P P P - - P P P - - - - - P - - - - - - - -
Single Unit
Semi-
Attached
- C P P - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Single-Unit
Attached
- - P P - MUP1 P P P - - P P P1 C P1 P P - - - - -
Multiple-Unit Residential
Duplex - - P P - MUP1 P P P P1 P1 P P - C - - - - - - - -
Multi Unit - - P1 P C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P P P P P
Senior
Citizen
Residential
C C C MUP C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P - P P P
Elderly and
Long-term
Care
- C C C - - - - - - - C C P1 C C1 C C - - - - -
52
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Domestic
Violence
Shelter
- - P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 - - - - MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - P1 - -
Family Day Care Home
Large P P P P MU
P1
MUP P P P - - P P - P - - - - - P - -
Small P P P P - P P P P - - P P P1 P P1 P P P - P P P
Group
Residential
- - - MUP - MUP - - C P1 P1 - C MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - C - -
Mobile Home
Park
- C C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residential Care Facilities
General - - C C MU
P1
C C C C P1 P1 P P C1 C - C C C1 - C1 - -
Limited P1 P1 P1 P1 - C1 P1 P1 P1 C - - C C1 C1 P1 P P C1 - C1 - -
Senior - - C MUP C1 MUP C C MUP - - C C P1 P1 - C C MUP1 - MUP1 C1 C1
Notes:
1. Subject to additional regulations in Zoning Ordinance.
Housing Constraints
53
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located on
a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system
pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning Ordinance
permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15,
RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and DRM zones.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally
accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical
walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is
sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common
with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit development
types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen residential
developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential development. The
Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30,
RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX,
ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-
unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit,
which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family
dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, and
multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are
occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
Caretaker Unit. A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on the
site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI.
Domestic Violence Shelter. A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with California
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance permits domestic
violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH,
and DRC zones.
Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or
chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are
unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and includes but
is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
54
Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted conditionally in the RL-
5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-
MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a single-
unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and
supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a day. These
facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35,
DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,
and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Small. A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home.
Large. A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the age
of 10 who reside at the home.
Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or
longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other
types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-
term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and Residential Care
Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and TC-R zones, and
conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones.
Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership organization
for its members and not open to the general public that typically provides individual
sleeping quarters together with common dining and living areas. This use type includes
fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student dormitories and similar residential
accommodations.
Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including
development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or own
spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other form of
resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8,
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35 zones.
Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide
permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the
activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without
separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities
that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for- profit institutions,
including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons
with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing).
This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning
Ordinance permits general residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
zones and conditionally permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX,
Housing Constraints
55
DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX, CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones. Limited
residential care facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5,
RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are
conditionally permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones.
Senior residential care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally
permitted in the RM-10, RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM,
ECR/C-RH, LCC and LNC zones.
Residential Care, General. A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the
State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than 6
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining
the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category excludes transitional residential,
foster family homes and any facilities supervised by or under contract with the State
Department of Corrections.
Residential Care, Limited. A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and
provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of
personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of
daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons
employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons
are considered a single-unit residential use.
Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the
resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years
of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to
at time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any
younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in
Health & Safety Code § 1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes
continuing care retirement communities and lifecare communities licensed for residential
care by the State of California.
Second Unit. A dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons that is located on a lot with another primary, single-unit dwelling. A second unit may be
within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a separate structure
on the same lot. Second units are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-
17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, and CMX zones.
Table 4.1-3 below shows the residential development standards for each district, including
minimum and maximum density of units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development
standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs and setbacks, it is
feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district,
while complying with other applicable development standards.
56
56
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RL-1.3 30 40
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 20 10 10 20 32,600 120 (none) 1.3 32,600
RL-5 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 5 8,710
RL-6 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 6 7,260
RL-8 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 8 5,445
RM-10 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 10 4,360
RM-15 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 15 2,904
57
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RM-17.5 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 17.5 2,500
RH-30 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 30 1,452
RH-35 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 35 1,090
DC 60 100 3.0 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 (none) (none)
DMX 50 50 (none) 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 40 (none)
DRL 23 80
0.7 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft., whichever
is great 15 5 0 20 5,000 50 5.1 15 (none)
DRM 35 90 1.25 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 15.1 25 (none)
DRH 50 90 (none) 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
TV-C 25-55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 10,000 (none) (none) 30 1,000
TV-R 55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
TV-RM 23-35 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 30 1,500
TV-RH 45-55 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
58
58
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
ECRMX 80-120 90 2.5-3.5 12 0-10 10 15 20,000 50 (none) 60-80 (none)
CMX 50 50 (none) 10 0-10 10 0-10 15,000 50
1,432; 2,000
on lots
30; 21.8
on lots
less than
10,000 sqft
1,452; 2,000
on lots less
than 10,000
ECR/C-
MXH (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 80 (none)
ECR/C-
MXM (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 40 (none)
ECR/C-
RH (varies) 90 (none) 0-10 10 10 0 20,000 50 80 120 (none)
DTC 85 100 8.0 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 0-10 5,000 50 80 100 (none)
GAC 45-65 100 4.0 (none) 0 (none) 0 5,000 50 14 60 (none)
DRC 65 90 3.25 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 20 5,000 50 40 80 (none)
LCC 50 75 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
LNC 50 90 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 40 60 (none)
O-S 30 25 (none) 20 10 10 0-10 43,560 (none) (none)
1 per 20
acres (none)
Note:
1. Densities expressed are as-of-right. Does not include the maximum density that may be achieved with incentive or bonus programs.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
59
PARKING
Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City’s multi-family parking standard as an
obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following parking
requirements in Table 4.1-4 for residential uses in all zones except Downtown districts, which are
shown in Table 4.1-5.
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 2,500 square feet
and less than 5 bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-unit
Residential Parking:
At least one space must be within a garage.
A carport shall not be substituted for a
required garage except for existing dwellings
on lots adjacent to a lane.
2,500 to 2,999 square feet or
5 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit
3,000 square feet or more or
more than 5 bedrooms
4 spaces per dwelling unit
Second Unit 1 space for each
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-unit
Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be designated for
each unit.
One additional guest parking space must be
provided for every 4 units for projects
greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to
1,100 sq ft
1.8 spaces per unit
Three or more bedrooms
and 1,101 sq ft or larger
2 plus an additional 0.5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
Small Family Day Care None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Large Family Day Care 1 per employee plus an area for loading and unloading children, on or off-site.
(Required spaces and the residential driveway for the primary residential use
may be counted toward meeting these requirements).
Elderly and Long Term Care 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Group Residential 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Mobile Home Park 2 on-site spaces for each dwelling unit. At least one required space must be in
a carport or garage.
Residential Care, Limited None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Residential Care, General 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Residential Care, Senior 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
60
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq ft and less
than 3 bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit
General Requirements for all Single-
unit Residential Parking:
For new construction, required
parking up to 2 spaces must be
within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage
spaces, up to a maximum of two
spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted
for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to
a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq ft or more or more
than 4 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each.
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-
unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1 space minimum, 1.5
spaces maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100
sq ft
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq ft or larger
1.5 spacies minimum, 2
spaces maximum per unit
According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through a
Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking demand
as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking
requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development; if any
portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain station, the number of
required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces
with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction does not apply in the TV or Downtown
districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision
of a shared parking facility can result in a reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking
spaces normally required.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services performed by
the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance
improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city.
In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in
San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the
County, asking that each provide fee information for the following three different developments:
Housing Constraints
61
• Development 1 - Single Family Infill: A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood, with no significant grading or other complicating factors. The two-story
home is 2,400 square feet with a 500 square foot garage, and it has four bedrooms and
three bathrooms.
• Development 2 - Single Family Home Development: A new development consisting of
50 units, each on their own lot, on an 8-acre parcel. There are three models of homes in
the development: Model A (20 units total) is 1,600 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (15 units total)
is 2,000 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage; Model C (15 units) is 2,400 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 4
bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage. All units have HVAC
systems. The project would result in 98,000 total square feet of development, with public
streets and no sprinklers. It is estimated the development would generate 50 peak hour
trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of medium
complexity. It would require significant grading work (10,000 CY), with Type 1
erosion/sediment control. The construction of public streets would cost about $1,300,000
in public improvements (no public landscaping or traffic signal work).
• Development 3 - Multi-family Development: A new development consisting of 96 units
in 16 buildings on 8 acres. There are three models of units in the development: Model A
(28 units) is 1,250 square feet and 2 stories, with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as
a 500 square foot garage; Model B (34 units) is 1,500 square feet and 2 stories, and it has 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (34 units) is
1,750 square feet and 2 stories, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage. All units have HVAC systems. It would result in a total of 145,000
square feet, without sprinklers, and generate 72 peak hour trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of high
complexity. It would require significant grading work (5,000 CY) and Type 1
erosion/sediment control. On the existing public street frontage, $400,000 of frontage
improvements would be required, and $600,000 in private improvements would be
required for construction of new private streets. No public landscaping or traffic signal
work would be involved.
Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 4.1-6. As
shown, planning, construction, and impact fees would be nearly $17,000 per unit for a single
family unit as described above; approximately $390,000 for the development project with 50
single family homes; and approximately $369,000 for the multi-family development project with
96 units.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
62
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
Entitlement Fees
Planned
Development
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost +
$2,000.00 deposit
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$0.00 $1,250.00 +
$800=$2,050
$3,200.00
General Plan
Amendment
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50
Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00
San Mateo
County CEQA
Handling Fee
$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entitlement Fee
Subtotal
$670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50
Construction Fees
CBSC (California
Building Standards
Commission)
$17.00 $637.00 $942.00
Energy PC
Residential In
$0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00
COM – Building
Fee
$0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00
General Plan
Maintenance Fee
$605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00
Microfilm
Commercial or
Residential
$149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35
PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55
Permit Program
Maintenance Fee
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
RES – Building
Permit Fee
$2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge Non-Res
per Fx U
$3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Residential per Fx
$264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16
Housing Constraints
63
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
U
SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80
State-Mandated
Training
$10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Valuation based
Electrical
$351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56
Valuation based
Mechanical
$250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50
Valuation Based
Plumping
$250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50
Waste
Management 1%
Fee – Residential
$19.44 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Fee
Subtotal
$10,260.27 $307,447.51 $394,193.42
Impact Fees
Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00
Public Safety Fee
(Police and Fire)2
$1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00
Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00
Impact Fee Subtotal $7,597.00 $397,190.00 $613,766.00
Total $17,857.27 $704,637.51 $1,007,959.42
Notes:
1. In addition to the above fees, the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and
requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers
have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions.
2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee, calculation assumes Development 1 is Low Density Residential
($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit), and Development 3 is High
Density Residential ($563 per unit).
3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy. The City is currently
considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee; this may result in a
reduced in-lieu fee.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett and Bhatia, 2015.
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found to
be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in
the city.9
9 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
64
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary housing
regulations. The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of
housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including low-
and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing regulations require that all approved
residential development projects with four or more units have a minimum of 20 percent of the
units restricted to and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additionally, the City
requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or
moderate-income households. Development projects must provide affordable units on-site,
although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of
providing affordable units in the City. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an
alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all
residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion
of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale.
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate
homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an
inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a
lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through
higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in
fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee “will always be split between
all players in the development process.”10 Some academics have pointed out that over the long
term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other
homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the
Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the
National Housing Conference. Entitled “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing
Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,” this
study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and
residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston
regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead
to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large
part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of
options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements.
In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities
throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that
inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study
found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing
ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.11
10 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
11 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing
Policy Review 1(3). 2004
Housing Constraints
65
In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco
recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. In order
to ensure maximum flexibility so as not to constrain production, the City’s Zoning Ordinance
allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a means of providing affordable
units in the City. If the City Council finds that new construction of affordable housing units
would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship for a developer, an alternative may be
approved (for example, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of
special needs housing projects or programs). Additionally, under certain circumstances,
developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary
housing projects or in-lieu fees. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State
Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements
due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground:
Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern
California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing
requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible
residential development.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to
establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications.
Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single family housing
development in a single family district and for a multi-family housing development in a multi-
family district.
Single Family Residential Procedure
For single family homes proposed in a residential district (RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-
15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff (required)
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Decision by Chief Planner
6. Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
66
As listed above, approvals for single family development in a single family district do not
generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does, however,
require review by the Design Review Board (DRB), which makes a recommendation to the Chief
Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application.
Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single family
residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential development
of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and general
compatibility with the neighborhood. If the DRB recommends approval of a project and the Chief
Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any action by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given month
are generally heard during the Design review meeting scheduled for the following month.
Depending on the outcome of the Design Review Board meeting and the specific timing when an
application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month), the typical timeframe
for approval of a single family residential unit and issuance of building permits varies between
eight and 18 weeks.
Multi-Family Residential Procedure
For a typical multi-family housing development of 20 or more units proposed in a multi-family
district (RM-30, RM-35, TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, DRC, and ECRMX) steps in the permit
and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Planning Commission Hearing
6. City Council Hearing (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the Design Review Board to
recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial. Design review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures,
colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access,
security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements.
Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to
twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an
application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain
requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow study where
taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses.
Housing Constraints
67
Following the Design review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For smaller
projects not involving an affordable housing agreement or a development agreement, the
Planning Commission is the final decision making body for the development. However, more
typically in South San Francisco, larger scale multi-family housing developments require an
affordable housing agreement and/or utilize a development agreement, requiring action by the
City Council.
In total the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time the
application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is between 18
and 36 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of the design review
process and Planning Commission meeting.
Other Permit Processing Times and Procedures
Listed below are the typical processing times for various types of planning actions. Where
possible, when multiple planning approvals are required for a single project (e.g., a Zoning
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit), both approvals are considered together as part of the
same hearing, such that times listed below are not necessarily additive.
In general, South San Francisco’s processing and permit procedures are reasonable and
comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases
in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra
consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental
review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the
California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in
reviewing the impacts of development projects.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
68
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(straight-forward proposal)
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(complicated proposal)
Permit/Procedure
Ministerial Review 1 2
Conditional Use Permit 6 12
Zoning Amendment 4 12
General Plan Amendment 34 72
Site Plan Review 2 3
Architectural/Design Review 4 12
Tract Maps 24 48
Parcel Maps 24 48
Initial Environmental Study 4 8
Environmental Impact Report 34 72
Specific Plan Amendment 4 12
Specific Plan 8 24
Precise Plan Amendment 6 12
Precise Plan 10 48
Master Plan 96 96
Developments
Single Family Unit 8 18
Second Unit 6 10
Subdivision 48 48
Multi-family less than 20 units 12 20
Multi-family more than 20 units 18 36
PUD 8 36
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
69
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
69
Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014
Subdivision Single Family Home Second Unit Multi-family < 20 Units Multi-family 20+ Unit+
Step 1 Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting
Step 2 Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal
Step 3 Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review
Step 4
Begin Environmental
Review Design Review Board2 Design Review Board2 Begin Environmental Review Begin Environmental Review
Step 5 Planning Commission Building Permit Building Permit Design Review Board Design Review Board
Step 6 City Council
Planning Commission Planning Commission
Step 7
City Council City Council
Step 8 Building Permit Building Permit
Notes:
1. A Use Permit may be required depending on the Zoning District. Use Permits are subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
2. Decisions of the DRB can be appealed to the Chief Planner and then to the Planning Commission.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
70
CODES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ON/OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Codes
(2013). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the
ability to construct housing in the city.
The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction
with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation
of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site
improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting.
Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical of
many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the city.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the City reflect several
efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production, including the
following:
• Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance;
• Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the amount of parking required;
• Comparatively low fees and exactions for San Mateo County;
• Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all
identifiable economic segments of the population;
• Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications; and
• No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing production in
South San Francisco.
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for
persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints
or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing.
STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by
HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are
Housing Constraints
71
necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications, to
facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of
the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the Chief Planner to grant relief from the
Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It
also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to
accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City
affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential
Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts, as well as DRL,
DRM, DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts, without a special use permit and
not subject to any special restrictions.1 These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the
DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The City also permits General
Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally permitted in all multi-family
districts, the ECRMX district, the DTC and DRC districts, and all Downtown districts except the
DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other
special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements.
Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for
a broad definition of family as “one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit
housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members
of a ‘family’ need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel,
club, fraternity or sorority house.” (Section 20.630) This definition of family does not limit the
number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.
Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of
housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing waivers
and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments into front, side,
and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. Section 20.330.111 establishes procedures for
private residential handicap parking, while Chapter 20.510 establishes the rules and procedures
for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure access to housing.
1 A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24-hour
non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or
assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or
persons employed as facility staff. See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
72
BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING
Uniform Building Code. In 2014, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2013 California
Administrative Code and the 2013 California Building Code published by the International
Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implemented the 1997
Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of
housing. The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California
Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish
the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.2
Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and laws
pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons.
Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of
group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are permitted
uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum
distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care Facilities or Group Care Facilities.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts
to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities, including the following:
• Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right;
• Use of a broad definition of family;
• Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures
and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when necessary to
provide reasonable accommodation; and
• Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and
• Implementation of the Uniform Building Code.
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as
land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development.
CONSTRUCTION & LAND COSTS
Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county
and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within
jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density.
2 As a practical matter the City has been following the 2013 California Building Code in evaluating projects, which was
formally adopted in December 2013.
Housing Constraints
73
The following land costs are approximate, and derived from conversations with local developers.3
For a typical multi-family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs add
approximately $90,000 per unit. Land for a single family home often costs $400,000 or more per
lot.
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as
architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes
in San Mateo County, hard costs account of 60-65 percent of the building cost and soft costs
average around 15-20 percent (the remaining 15-20 percent is land costs). For single family
homes, hard costs often are roughly 40 percent of the total cost, soft costs are 20 percent, and land
is 40 percent.
According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit
buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other
environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures, etc. For a larger, multi-unit
building, costs can vary from $185,000/unit to as high as $316,000/unit. The cost per square foot
ranges from $172-$200.
For the least expensive production single family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant land is
around $100,000/lot, and the cost of construction is approximately $145/sf. For more expensive,
custom homes, however, the construction costs can be higher than $435/sf. In general, soft costs
add another approximate third to the subtotal.
MORTGAGE FINANCING
Until mid-2008, home mortgage financing was readily available at attractive rates throughout San
Mateo County and California. Rates vary, but ranged around 6.25 percent to seven percent from
2006-2008 for a 30 year fixed rate loan (HSH Associates Financial Publishers). However, rates
have been as high as ten or 12 percent in the last decade.
As part of the aftermath of the subprime crisis in 2008, interest rates are very low. In San Mateo
County, rates range from 4.0-4.5 percent for a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. One remaining
challenge is that many mortgages in San Mateo County are for more than $417,000, meaning they
qualify as jumbo loans and often have higher interest rates.
The data in the table below is from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and represents
loan applications in 2012 for one- to four-unit properties, as well as manufactured homes, for the
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and metropolitan division (MD) that includes South San
Francisco (MSA/MD: 41884 – San Francisco – San Mateo – Redwood City, CA). More than 65
percent of the loan applications were filed by households earning above a moderate income
(greater than 120 percent of AMI). Moderate income households (80-120 percent of AMI)
represented 18 percent of loan applicants, low income households (50-80 percent of AMI)
represent 12 percent, and very low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI) only 4
percent. Almost 75 percent of all loans were approved and accepted by the applicants, and 10
3 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
74
percent were denied. Above moderate-income households had the highest rates of approval of
any group. Loan approval rates have improved since the subprime crisis.
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012
Income Level
Number of
Loan
Applications
Percentage
of All Loans
Percentage
of Loans
Originated
Percentage
of Loan
Applications
Denied
Percentage
Other1
Less than 50% AMI (Very
Low Income) 700 4% 57% 22% 21%
50-79% AMI (Low Income) 1,968 12% 67% 14% 20%
80-120% AMI (Moderate
Income) 3,017 18% 73% 11% 17%
120%+ 11,381 67% 76% 8% 16%
All 17,066 100% 74% 10% 17%
Notes:
1. Includes loans applications approved but not accepted, loan applications withdrawn, and incomplete files.
Source: HMDA Data, 2012 for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA.
CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Construction loans for new housing are difficult to secure in the current market. In past years,
lenders would provide up to 80 percent of the cost of new construction (loan to value ratio). In
recent years, due to market conditions and government regulations, banks require larger
investments by the builder.
Due to federal and State budget cuts, affordable housing developers have had a much harder time
securing funding. Since 2009, the federal government has cut programs such as Community
Development Block Grant, HOME, and HOPE VI funding by 27-50 percent (ABAG).
Traditionally, these programs have been a large source of affordable housing funds. In addition to
federal cuts, the State dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, leaving San Mateo County with
a loss of $25.5 million in funds for affordable housing.4 However, some funding opportunities
remain from the federal and state governments, such as the federal Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program, which still provides an important source of funding for developers.
PUBLIC OPINION
In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher
density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do
not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. As key to
this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address
concerns and the importance of the City’s policies to protect single family neighborhoods from
significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key
transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition, city officials and developers can work to
4 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Housing Constraints
75
assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new
developments, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density, low-
income, and supportive housing (HUD).5
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints
South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to
accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific
sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there
are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would
preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan.
As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature
and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have
submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts
development. An Environmental Impact Report was published to analyze the proposed
development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which contemplates a 25 percent
build out over a 20-year span.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available
for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity
sites section of this document.
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In
addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles,
and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new
residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant
residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building materials
and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an educational tool
for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to create healthier, more
energy-efficient homes.
At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco must meet the standards
contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and
most recently updated in 2013 with amended standards going into effect in 2014. Energy
5 Ibid.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
76
efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process.
All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit
application is made.
The City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds. As part of
these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including
insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization techniques.
Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for Individuals with
Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo County.
The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014. This
ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and requires
new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building practices to
reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of individual buildings,
the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy
conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New
developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of
passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of
compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for
transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-
contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services.
Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and
other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be
conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these
and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within
South San Francisco.
In addition, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, which supports
these ideas as well. The CAP includes a Program of Reduction Strategies that promote energy
conservation. It also includes implementation tools that will be used by the City to track
greenhouse gas reductions. A Development Review Checklist will be used on a project-by-project
basis to track project-level contributions to the CAP target including energy conservation.
Exhibit B:
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments
Chapter 3, Land Use and Urban Design
1.Page 3-5: 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.
2.Page 3-8: 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
Bonuses 1
Maximum FAR
with Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses 1
Downtown Transit
Core
80 -100 6.0 120.0
180.00
8.0
1 Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density
3.1February 2015
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN3
LAND USE FRAMEWORK
The land use strategy for the Downtown Station Area is focused on encourag-
ing intensification of activity and uses in two key areas—the Downtown and
the Eastern Neighborhood; both are within a 1/2-mile radius of the Caltrain
Station and most of the Eastern Neighborhood is within 1/4-mile of this transit
resource. This intensification strategy will support long-term goals for South
San Francisco, articulated in the 1999 General Plan, of preserving the scale
and character of existing neighborhoods while maintaining and enhancing
the Downtown as the “physical and symbolic center” of the City. It is also
likely to increase transit ridership by bringing new residents and employees
within a short walk of the Caltrain Station.
Fundamental to the long-term success of this strategy are improvements to
the Caltrain Station, specifically extension of the Caltrain Station platforms
to the south and completion of a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, as al-
ready studied and planned but not funded. This improvement is essential to
ensuring convenient access to transit, improving the perception of safety at
the station, and increasing ridership.
Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide
destination that is economically vital, diverse, active,
and that encompasses a variety of uses.
While the Downtown includes a mix of uses including civic, retail, service and
a range of residential types, it is not perceived as the dynamic “go to” desti-
nation for citywide residents and visitors. Increasing the range intensity of
available services and uses, which will increase pedestrian activity and the
perception of safety, are key components of the revitalization effort.
3.2 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Francisco. Changes will not be made to current zoning or allowed land uses
although land owners will still be encouraged to consider some intensifi-
cation of uses where these are appropriate. Better connections and an im-
proved pedestrian environment will link these neighborhoods better with the
Downtown.
LU-7: Retain existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown core.
Guiding Principle 4: Encourage redevelopment of the Eastern Neighborhood
between Gateway Boulevard, the East Grand Avenue
overcrossing and the US 101 corridor as a high intensity
office/R&D district.
The Eastern Neighborhood lies directly adjacent to the Caltrain Station. This
proximity offers an opportunity to locate high-intensity employment uses,
rather than the low-intensity light industrial, service and business commer-
cial uses that currently exist. These higher intensity uses will complement the
already successful biotech-oriented East of 101 area and provide a significant
potential Caltrain user base within a less than five-minute walk of the station.
These workers will also be within a less than five-minute walk of Downtown
Grand Avenue and its restaurants and other amenities.
LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan illustrated in Figure 3.01 shows the new land uses pro-
posed for the plan area, as well as those that will remain unchanged. The
General Plan Land Use Plan will be modified to reflect the new designations.
The Zoning Ordinance will provide a detailed presentation of all uses allowed
in each land use designation and relevant regulations.
The land use pattern illustrated in the Land Use Plan has been designed to
set the framework for accommodating the changes identified as desirable
by the community, that capitalize on the transit resources in the area, and
that balance the desire to protect the historic nature of Grand Avenue while
revitalizing the Downtown.
LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for
development in the plan area that generates quality construction
and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training
opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays area standard
wages for construction so that money in wages and materials used in the
construction of these developments is invested in the local economy.
LU-2: Encourage a mix of uses, activities and amenities throughout the
Downtown to assist in revitalization of the Downtown as a citywide and
regional destination.
LU-3: Require ground level retail or other active ground floor uses in future
development along Grand Avenue and on key intersecting streets—
Linden, Cypress and Maple Avenues—to ensure activity and vitality in
the Downtown.
Guiding Principle 2: Increase development intensities in the Downtown to
grow the resident population and thus support a variety
of commercial and service uses.
Areas for intensification are focused 1) in proximity to the Caltrain Station
and 2) in the areas immediately surrounding Grand Avenue, east of Spruce
Avenue. Opportunities for increased residential densities in particular will
add to the activity and street life of the Downtown and support downtown
businesses.
LU-4: Establish the highest intensity land uses within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain
Station. Here densities up to 120 dwelling units per acre will be
encouraged.
LU-5: Designate a high-density district north and south of Grand Avenue and
in proximity to the station and allow up to 80 dwelling units per acre.
LU-6: Maintain the scale of Grand Avenue itself by slightly lowering allowable
heights along its length to protect its historic character, while
encouraging a mix of uses with retail at the ground level.
Guiding Principle 3: Preserve and enhance the character of existing
downtown neighborhoods while continuing to
encourage modest intensifications of use as currently
allowed.
The residential neighborhoods that surround the Downtown to the north,
west and south are important components of the character of South San
3.3February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHO
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHO
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
0’500 1000’250
N
Figure 3.01: Land Use Plan
3.4 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Downtown
West of US 101, in the Downtown of South San Francisco, the intention of
the plan is to support and encourage intensifications of uses while respect-
ing the historic fabric, especially of Grand Avenue. The Downtown already
includes some restaurants and other services that are citywide attractions,
but there is not a critical mass of activity and of residents or employees to
keep the streets active and to support more amenities and services. South
San Francisco has an opportunity to attract workers who desire a more urban
lifestyle, with proximity to work and to amenities. Proximity to Caltrain and a
bikeable environment will make the Downtown attractive for these users and
will encourage other modes of travel.
Guiding Principle 5: Encourage variety in new housing development.
Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the
Downtown and support a range of amenities and services. Much of today’s
housing in the Downtown is relatively affordable; maintaining and enhancing
the supply of affordable housing will ensure a healthy and diverse downtown
population. Efforts to avoid displacement of existing affordable residential
units will also be required.
LU-8: Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental, family,
and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to
persons with disabilities.
LU-9: Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area,
by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity
sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness,
and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions.
LU-10: Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable
housing and lower-income households and consider programs to
address identified housing needs.
LU-11: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic
development, workforce development, and planning departments to
maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing
and future residents.
Guiding Principle 6: Retain existing residential neighborhoods that surround
the Downtown as currently planned, with no proposed
changes in zoning.
Guiding Principle 7: Focus public investments in the historic core of the City,
along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Spruce
Avenue, and on adjoining streets—the Pedestrian
Priority Zone—to create an attractive pedestrian
environment to support businesses Downtown.
The Pedestrian Priority Zone, which is discussed in more detail later in this
section, will be the focus of the most change in the Downtown in the foresee-
able future. Thus, it should also be the focus of public investments in pedes-
trian improvements as well as new mixed-use and residential development.
Guiding Principle 8: Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities
within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain Station and in areas
proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of
Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses.
Guiding Principle 9: Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and
service uses on Grand Avenue and in the neighborhood
center on Linden between California and Juniper
Avenues. Encourage ground level retail in other areas,
especially in the Downtown Transit Core.
The Downtown includes four sub-areas that will be the focus of change in the
future:
▪Downtown Transit Core
▪Grand Avenue Core
▪Downtown Residential Core
▪Linden Neighborhood Center
3.5February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Downtown Transit Core
This area lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute walk, of the reconfigured Cal-
train Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux Avenue on the north,
Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain tracks on the east,
and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west.
The Downtown Transit Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, mixed-use area.
Due to its proximity to the Caltrain Station and the relative abundance of de-
velopable sites, the Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the
highest intensities of new development in the Downtown area. These higher
intensities will help to support transit ridership since residential units will be
within a short walk of the station. High-density housing will also provide the
pedestrian activity needed to support downtown businesses and will increase
activity day and night, add street life and improve safety. As the Downtown
Transit Core area evolves, it will enhance the image of the Downtown and
frame Grand Avenue—the centerpiece of the Downtown.
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a min-
imum 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.
Grand Avenue Core
Grand Avenue will remain the historic retail center of the City. The Grand Ave-
nue district extends from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on
the west. With a few exceptions, the district includes properties directly front-
ing on Grand Avenue. At the east end, Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard
form an important gateway to the City and the historic core; at the west end,
the district transitions to the residential Downtown Neighborhood described
in the General Plan. Historically interesting buildings will be retained wher-
ever possible. New mixed-use development of underutilized properties will
be encouraged but guidelines will limit building heights directly along Grand
Avenue in order to respect the historic character of some existing buildings
and to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off Grand Avenue, on
the rear portions of Grand-facing lots, taller allowable heights will help ac-
commodate new residential uses and increase development opportunities.
The Grand Avenue Core allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre and requires
a minimum of 14 units per acre. If meeting specified criteria, residential den-
sities can be up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner
sites or site over 1/2 acre in size. Retail is required on the ground floor.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mileradius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTHLANE
EIGHTHLANE
JUNIPERAVE
NINTHLANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDENAVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
EGRANDA
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINEAVENUE
ASPENAVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
NCANALSTREET
SCANALSTREET
MAYFAIRAVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELLA
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE
D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCKAVENUE
SP
R
U
C
E
AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T
.
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
ColmaCree
k
C
a
n
a
l
ColmaCreekCanal
City Hall
HillsidePlaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
1/4-mileradiu
s
1/2-mileradius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTHLANE
EIGHTHLANE
JUNIPERAVE
NINTHLANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDENAVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
EGRANDA
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINEAVENUE
ASPENAVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
NCANALSTREET
SCANALSTREET
MAYFAIRAVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELLA
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE
D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCKAVENUE
SP
R
U
C
E
AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T
.
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
ColmaCree
k
C
a
n
a
l
ColmaCreekCanal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 2505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
3.6 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Downtown Residential Core
Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Transit Core areas, the
remaining areas lying between Tamarack Lane and Second Lane are desig-
nated Downtown Residential Core. This designation is intended to encour-
age somewhat higher densities than what is currently allowed but will still
be compatible in scale with the remaining Downtown residential districts:
Downtown High Density Residential and Downtown Medium Density Res-
idential. The areas encompassed by this new designation are within two
blocks of the Grand Avenue Core. With new residential development, these
will become more active, pedestrian-oriented streets with day and night ac-
tivity which will promote safety. The added residents will be important to the
success of Grand Avenue businesses.
The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units
per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per
acre are allowed with an Incentive Program if specific criteria are met and
public benefits are provided. Affordable Senior Housing projects may be al-
lowed up to 125 units per acre.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Lin-
den Avenue between California Avenue and Ninth Lane. The large zone of
residential uses that lie north of Miller Avenue up to Armour Avenue and west
of Maple have limited neighborhood amenities that can help to meet daily
needs; in addition, there is little public open space available in this area. The
current small collection of retail uses along Linden Avenue between Califor-
nia and Juniper Avenues provide a starting point for a more robust neighbor-
hood center that will be walkable for the surrounding residential areas and
can be a supplement to the more citywide destinations that will locate along
Grand Avenue.
Retail/commercial uses would be required at ground level within this zone.
The Linden Neighborhood Center designation allows up to 60 dwelling units
per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 80 units per acre
are allowed if specific criteria are met.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
3.7February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
Linden Commercial Corridor
The Linden Commercial Corridor includes the properties fronting Linden Av-
enue from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Railroad
Avenue. Linden Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location
for a variety of commercial uses and today many of these remain and serve
as resources for local residents and businesses. This designation applies to
areas of Linden Avenue south of Aspen Avenue that do not otherwise fall into
the Downtown Residential Core, Downtown Transit Core, or Grand Avenue
Core districts.
Commercial and mixed uses will continue to be allowed and encouraged on
properties within this corridor. While not required, commercial uses will pro-
vide opportunities for local services for adjoining residential neighborhoods.
As with other mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and
streetscape will be encouraged to provide additional pedestrian amenities
and accessibility especially for local residents.
Retail use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other require-
ments of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.1-40
dwelling units per acre.
Eastern Neighborhood
The eastern part of the plan area, with proximity to Caltrain, regional high-
ways, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco and Silicon Valley,
and a biotechnology innovation hub anchored by Genentech, is a highly suit-
able location for high-density employment. The location adjoining the Cal-
train Station suggests that a typical, suburban office park pattern, such as
found in other parts of the East of 101 area, would not be optimal here. In-
stead, a more urban, corporate office format such as found in the downtowns
of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Mateo or San Francisco (although at significant-
ly lower densities) would be appropriate. The area provides a number of large
sites suitable for development; the PG&E substation site, however, is likely to
remain and development along its southern extent is likely precluded by the
presence of major overhead power lines.
Guiding Principle 10 Encourage high-density employment.
Guiding Principle 11: Enhance the few existing streets with a more fine-
grained pattern of vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian
routes to allow convenient circulation throughout the
area.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
3.8 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Table 3.01: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
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
Guiding Principle 12: Provide a direct connection from the planned pedestrian
and bicycle underpass of the tracks through the northern
part of the area along Grand Avenue to allow station
drop-off and shuttle pick-ups as well as direct bicycle
and pedestrian access to the station and to Downtown.
Guiding Principle 13: Allow retail uses along Grand Avenue to provide
amenities for the office population and a strong visual
and physical linkage to the Downtown to the west.
Transit Office / R&D Core
The Transit Core Office/R&D District is bounded on the north by East Grand
Avenue, on the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the south by South Airport
Boulevard, and on the west by Industrial Way and the US 101 right-of-way.
It is currently a mix of parking lots and low scale service and light industrial
uses. This urban employment district would be characterized by a walkable
street pattern, more like Downtown than the suburban-style developments
that dominate much of the East of 101 area. With the extension of the Cal-
train Station and construction of the pedestrian/bicycle underpass, this area
will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an opportunity for a sig-
nificant number of workers to easily access downtown amenities.
Land Use Designation Residential
Density
du/net ac
Max FAR Maximum Residential Density
with Discretionary Approval and
Incentive-Based Bonuses 1
Maximum FAR with
Discretionary Approval and
Incentive-based Bonuses 1
Downtown
Downtown Transit Core 80-100 6.0 120 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 14-60 3.0 80/100 2 4.0
Linden Commercial Corridor 20-40 ---
Linden Neighborhood Center 40-60 3.0 80 -
Downtown Residential Core 40-80 3.0 100 3.25 3
Downtown High Density Residential 20-40 ---
Eastern Neighborhood
Transit Office/R&D Core -1.5-2.5 -3.5
Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limita-
tions; see Figure 5.01. The area would lend itself to corporate office, hotels,
and other major facilities due to its high visibility from US 101 and proximi-
ty to San Francisco International Airport, Downtown San Francisco and the
various employment centers on the Peninsula. Along the extension of Grand
Avenue to the east beyond the rail tracks undercrossing, limited retail and
services may be feasible in the long run and to provide amenities for nearby
employees. The allowable development intensity in the area would be 1.5 to
2.5 floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR up to 3.5 may be allowed if specific criteria
are met.
Other Districts
Other land use designations would remain in effect in the Downtown and ar-
eas surrounding the rail tracks and US 101. Residential areas north and south
of the Downtown core would remain as currently planned; existing land use
and zoning designations already allow modest land use intensifications. The
industrial and business commercial areas currently serve a variety of airport
and related uses; it is unlikely that there will be pressure for change in these
areas within the planning horizon.
180
3.9February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Table 3.02: Development Potential
Land Use Existing
Development (sf)
Additional Develop-
ment with Station
Area Plan (sf)
Residential 1,426 1,435
Downtown Commercial 602,643 -
Auto-Serving Commercial 54,664 -
Business Commercial 129,884 511,780
Hotel 285,165 -
Industrial 797,055 21,250
Commercial -268,800
Office/R&D -1,185,049
Institutional 150,142 -
Note: Assumes 25% of properties within the area, primarily those that are vacant
or significantly underutilized, will be developed within the horizon of this plan.
Development Potential
Development potential is determined by applying the land use, density and
intensity assumptions to land within each district. Because parcels are small,
some consolidation of sites will likely be required and this may take time to
occur. In addition, many properties are undoubtedly financially viable as they
currently exist and there will be little or no motivation for many property
owners to take any action.
For purposes of this plan and for use in assessing environmental impacts as-
sociated with the plan, it has been assumed that only 25% of parcels in the
plan area would be developed in the timeframe of this plan, approximately
20 years, and at an average of the allowable densities.
Assuming 25% of existing parcels—most likely those that are vacant or un-
derutilized—within the plan area redevelop over the life of this plan, as many
as 1,400 units of residential uses would be added. Combined with the existing
1,400 units, the plan area would support 2,800 units in proximity to the Cal-
train Station. Up to 1.2 million square feet of new office/R&D uses could be
added in the plan area, representing as many as 2,400 or more jobs added.
Table 3.02 shows the potential development. Several land uses, Transporta-
tion Center and Institutional, are not anticipated to change for purposes of
this estimate.
This Specific Plan provides for significant additional new housing over the
life of the plan and beyond with the highest densities located in immediate
proximity—less than a 1/4-mile walk—to the improved Caltrain Station. Res-
idential densities are respectful of the smaller scale character of Grand Ave-
nue and existing neighborhoods while allowing significant new development
opportunities.
An important component of feasibility, the cost of parking, is discussed in the
Circulation and Parking chapter that follows, but reducing required parking
and providing options for shared parking are anticipated to help ensure feasi-
bility of this scale of residential development in South San Francisco.
LAND USE AND DENSITY / INTENSITY
Table 3.01 displays the relevant standards for each of the land use designa-
tions noted in the preceding sections. These land uses apply to the locations
within the Specific Plan area where changes from existing policy will be ap-
plied in order to achieve the goals of the community and city leadership.
While the proposed intensities of development are greater than those that
occur in the Downtown and East of 101 areas today, they are consistent with
other recent planning efforts in South San Francisco. The El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue Area Plan encourages densities similar to these on sites in
proximity to the BART station. The intensities proposed for the Downtown
and Eastern Neighborhood are appropriate for a vital but reasonably-scaled
Downtown that can capitalize on transit availability and in so doing revitalize
and activate a distinctive downtown area.
3.10 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANEJUNIPER AVENINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CYPRESS AVENUE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINDEN AVENUE CEDAR PL.LINDEN AVENUEBLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
W
A
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
M
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SPRUCE AVENUE
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HAWTHORNE PLACE HICKORY PLACEOLIVE AVENUESCHOOL ST.LERCH AVENUEBEECH AVENUE
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE ARMOUR AVENUE
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AIRPORT BOULEVARD
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE DR
I
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce
School
Church
MartinSchool Cypress & Pine Park
LindenGreen Spot
Linden/HillsideGreen SpotSign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley ParkParadise Valley Pocket Park PG&E Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza Lowe’sHome ImprovementSouth San FranciscoBusiness Center GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOODSIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0250500 1000’
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARYRAILROAD TRACKSLESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR1/2 MILE RADIUS FROM STATIONEXISTING CALTRAIN STATIONPROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGCOLMA CREEK CANALSCHOOLSPARK & RECREATION
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
N
AIRPORT BLVD
SOUTH
MILLER
AVE
GRAND
AVE
SECTION KEY PLAN
draft NOVEMBER 8, 2012
0 125’250’500’
N
Figure 3.02: Location of Street Cross-Sections
URBAN DESIGN
This section on urban design describes the components of the public urban
environment, the streets, sidewalks and other spaces that accommodate
daily movement and activity.
Street Layouts / Cross Sections
In the Downtown area the street pattern is well established and successful.
In the Eastern Neighborhood a new street layout will be required to serve the
employment uses. On all streets there are opportunities to improve access
and pedestrian movement. In several cases, particularly Grand Avenue, there
is the opportunity to significantly redefine the street and its character while
still supporting its traffic-carrying role.
The following pages illustrate existing conditions and proposed street lay-
outs for key downtown streets.
Grand Avenue
Grand Avenue is the “Main Street” of South San Francisco and has been so
since the City’s founding. In the last thirty years streetscape improvements
were made along Grand from Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue, but to-
day these improvements are dated and in need of renovation and/or replace-
ment. The sidewalks are 10 feet in width, a minimum scale for a retail street
that allows little room for sidewalk seating, displays or significant plantings
or furnishings.
In addition, the street is lined with angled parking. While this parking layout
maximizes parking spaces, it does so at the expense of sidewalk width and
also compromises the safety of bicyclists (drivers backing up have difficulty
seeing bicyclists who may be coming up the road).
Guiding Principle 14: Redesign Grand Avenue to accommodate wider
sidewalks and an improved streetscape that will better
support the retail environment of the Downtown.
Guiding Principle 15: Ensure that adequate on-street and off-street parking
remains on Grand Avenue and adjoining streets to
support existing and future retail uses in the Downtown.
As shown in the upper diagram in Figure 3.03, there are 163 existing parking
spaces on Grand Avenue (excluding bus stops and yellow delivery zones) be-
tween Airport Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. The lower diagram illustrates
how converting these angled spaces to parallel parking spaces would result
in the loss of 22 spaces or 13 percent of the total existing today. As discussed
in more detail in the Circulation and Parking section of this document, while
occupancy of parking spaces on Grand Avenue is high at peak times, there is
an ample supply of nearby parking on side streets and in the city’s parking
structure on Miller Avenue, which is only one block from the retail uses on
Grand Avenue.
As shown in Figure 3.04, with a reconfiguration of parking on Grand Avenue
to a parallel configuration, the sidewalks can be widened to 15 feet, which
allows inclusion of seating for cafes or restaurants and provides an ample
3.11February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
Figure 3.03: Grand Avenue Parallel Parking Study
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
Note: This is a feasibility study and not a proposed design. Further technical
drawings and analysis should be undertaken.
3.12 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
walking zone and a roadside planting and furnishings zone. A bicycle lane
can also be added in each direction. This reconfiguration of Grand Avenue
will result in a greater area of the public right-of-way being devoted to pe-
destrians and bicycles. This will result in a more attractive street and a strong
retail environment while still providing visibility to motorists and convenient
on-street parking.
UD-1: Convert angled parking to parallel, ensuring continued provision of bus
stops, street crossings and appropriate curb radii as needed.
UD-2: Widen Grand Avenue sidewalks to at least 15 feet.
UD-3: Prepare and implement new streetscape designs for Grand Avenue
that will include new sidewalk paving, corner widenings (bulb-
outs), crosswalk treatments, new street furnishings (seating, trash
receptacles), and plantings.
UD-4: Reconfigure Grand Avenue roadway with two travel lanes, bicycle lanes,
and parallel parking.
Figure 3.04: Grand Avenue Comparative Cross-Sections: Angled vs. Parallel Parking
Existing conditions on Grand Avenue.
3.13February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.06: Grand Avenue Existing Cross-Section Figure 3.07: Grand Avenue Proposed Cross-Section
Figure 3.05: Grand Avenue with Parallel Parking and Widened Sidewalks
3.14 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Figure 3.08: Airport Boulevard South of Grand Avenue Existing
Figure 3.09: Airport Boulevard South of Grand Avenue with Proposed Turn Restrictions and Median
3.15February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.10: Miller and Baden Avenues Existing
Figure 3.11: Miller and Baden Avenues Proposed
Airport Boulevard
Airport Boulevard is a local and regional-serving street; it carries significant
regional truck and other traffic that is heading to the industrial areas or to
the Airport. The Circulation and Parking section of this document discusses a
key policy which will divert regional traffic, especially truck, from Airport and
other local streets to the freeway and points north or south. With this, certain
improvements can be made to Airport Boulevard. North of Grand Avenue
recent improvements have included a planted median and improved side-
walks. Due to the northbound freeway on-ramp, no crosswalk across Airport
Boulevard is possible north of Grand Avenue.
South of Grand Avenue fewer improvements exist today. The south east-west
crosswalk provides the only connection to East Grand Avenue and will be the
primary connector to the future pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing leading to
the lengthened Caltrain platforms and the Eastern Neighborhood. This cross-
ing needs special improvements to ensure that it is safe and convenient for
pedestrians.
UD-5: Reconfigure Airport Boulevard at and south of Grand Avenue to ensure
safe access across this busy intersection. Improvements will include a
reduction in travel lanes, a widened median supporting a pedestrian
refuge, and removal of the free right turn from Airport Boulevard to
East Grand Avenue coupled with an extended corner and sidewalk for
pedestrian safety.
UD-6: Coordinate timing and extent of improvements at the Airport
Boulevard and Grand Avenue intersection with improvements to Grand
Avenue and the Caltrain Station reconfiguration and pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossing.
Miller and Baden Avenues
Miller and Baden Avenues are important streets in the Downtown, with a mix
of uses, primarily residential, along their lengths. They provide access to the
Downtown and adjoining neighborhoods, but also take traffic west to oth-
er destinations and bring traffic from the west to the regional highway and
roadway network. Neither of these streets have the space to provide dedi-
cated bicycle lanes.
3.16 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Figure 3.12: Linden Avenue Existing
Figure 3.13: Linden Avenue Proposed
Miller Avenue and Baden Avenue west of Maple Avenue have similar condi-
tions and adjoining land uses. Here improvements will be oriented to pro-
viding an attractive pedestrian environment through a consistent use of tree
plantings and lighting.
Baden Avenue east of Maple has a tighter sidewalk configuration on the
south side. Here future development will be required to provide a widened
sidewalk for pedestrian comfort.
UD-7: Provide streetscape improvements on Miller and Baden Avenues
consistent with Figure 3.10 and 3.11, with adequate sidewalks and
appropriate streetscape improvements.
Linden Avenue
Linden Avenue is an important street that links neighborhoods with Grand
Avenue. It also has a scattering of neighborhood serving retail uses between
California and Aspen Avenues. Historic streetlights have already been in-
stalled on Linden, but other amenities are lacking.
Linden Avenue will act as an important connector for the neighborhoods to
the north of Downtown. In addition the neighborhood center already func-
tioning between California and Aspen Avenues can be reinforced with addi-
tional street and streetscape improvements. As discussed later in this chapter
a plaza can be provided on Linden Avenue by applying special paving through
the street cross-section. Periodic closures of the street could accommodate
special events or fairs.
As illustrated in Figures 3.12 and 3.13, the street should have a more con-
sistent streetscape treatment to emphasize its importance and to provide a
more attractive pedestrian environment.
UD-8: Provide pedestrian improvements on Linden Avenue including corner
bulbouts and crosswalk improvements where appropriate. Implement
the Linden Plaza through special paving and removable bollards;
improve streetscape as well.
3.17February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Downtown Lanes
The Downtown of South San Francisco is somewhat unique in having an ex-
tensive network of vehicular and pedestrian lanes. They generally run east-
west parallel to the adjoining streets and act as service alleys. Today, these
lanes are only minimally improved, but in the future could be attractive pe-
destrian walkways in addition to their service-related roles.
UD-9: Where feasible improve lanes in the Downtown, especially in the
pedestrian priority zone, to include special paving, street trees, and
other amenities while continuing to accommodate service and delivery
vehicles where needed.
There are also two pedestrian walkways that run north-south from Miller and
Baden Avenues to Grand Avenue, providing access to the retail uses on Grand
Avenue and reducing the distance a pedestrian is required to walk when ac-
cessing the retail environment from public parking. Additional north-south
walkways providing pedestrian access through the long downtown blocks
would help support the downtown retail businesses.
UD-10: Encourage property owners in the long blocks adjoining Grand Avenue
to provide well-designed north-south pedestrian walkways to facilitate
access to the downtown retail environment.
Examples of pedestrian walkways that can provide access to Grand Avenue destinations.
3.18 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighborhood
The street network that exists today in the Eastern Neighborhood is suitable
only for a light industrial area comprising low scale buildings and truck and
service vehicle traffic. There are only three primary streets in the area exist-
ing today: Sylvester Road, the primary street running north-south, and two
minor private roads, Associated Road and Baker Street. Gateway Boulevard,
a wide arterial, is on the east edge of the neighborhood, and Grand Avenue
lies at the top of Sylvester Road.
Guiding Principle 16: Improve the Eastern Neighborhood street network to
provide better vehicular connections and complete
pedestrian and bicycle access within the neighborhood,
and from the neighborhood to the Caltrain Station and
the Downtown.
East of the Caltrain Station, Grand Avenue will be the “Main Street” of the
Eastern Neighborhood. Providing a convenient connection to the Caltrain
Station and to the Downtown from the Eastern Neighborhood as well as the
employment uses to the east, it can provide retail and convenience services
as well. This street will need to have an appropriate scale and character to be
welcoming to pedestrians.
UD-11: Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a
scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel
lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes, parallel parking, and wide
sidewalks).
UD-12: Create a comfortable pedestrian environment on Grand Avenue by
requiring ground level retail uses along much of the Grand Avenue
facades with minimal setbacks.
Sylvester Road
Sylvester Road will be the primary north-south street serving the develop-
ment in the Eastern Neighborhood. While it will provide an address for many
buildings located in the area and will provide access to parking, it will also be
the pedestrian connection to Grand Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and Down-
town. It will need do be improved to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle
access. In the long run, Sylvester Road should be extended to connect on the
south and/or east to Gateway Boulevard.
SITE PHOTOS
Streets in the Eastern Neighborhood—Grand Avenue (top) and Sylvester Road (bottom)—will
need major improvements to be suitable for this future employment district.
3.19February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
CROSS SECTIONS (MODIFY GRAND AVENUE
Downtown AND AIRPORT?
UD-13: Improve Sylvester Road to accommodate vehicular access to building
and parking while also providing bicycle lanes and minimum 10-foot
sidewalks. Provide improved crosswalks, including corner bulb-outs to
improve pedestrian crossing experience.
Other Eastern Neighborhood Streets
Additional access will be needed in the Eastern Neighborhood. A walkable
pattern of smaller block sizes and narrow streets or pedestrian-oriented
lanes would create a scale of development that would more resemble the
Downtown than the suburban pattern found throughout most of the East of
101 area. This pattern of block sizes and streets will be implemented by prop-
erty owners as individual parcels are developed.
Figure 3.14: Possible Future Configuration of Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighbor-
hood (top) and Existing Conditions (bottom)
3.20 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Pedestrian Environment and Accessibility Improvements
The pedestrian environment includes sidewalks and open spaces that need
to not only be attractive and functional, but that must also be accessible to
persons of all abilities.
Figure 3.15 illustrates the types and locations of improvements needed in the
public environment, and delineates the Pedestrian Priority Zone. This zone
corresponds to the areas where the highest intensities of development will
occur in the future and where the corresponding highest levels of pedestrian
activity can be anticipated and will be encouraged.
Guiding Principle 17: Throughout the Specific Plan area, provide an attractive
public realm that is accessible to persons of all abilities,
including improved sidewalks, streetscapes, pedestrian
crossings, plazas and open spaces.
The Specific Plan area will require public streetscape investments to create
an attractive pedestrian environment, improve the sense of safety and se-
curity, and ensure accessibility to all. Some of these improvements will be
provided through development of individual parcels.
Among the design improvements to be provided are:
▪Increased sidewalk width
▪Pedestrian-scaled lighting
▪Street trees and planting
▪Street furniture and amenities
▪Wayfinding signage
▪Public art
Improvements that will enhance safety and accessibility include:
▪Sidewalk/curb bulb-outs and reduced crosswalk lengths
▪Mid-block crossings where needed
▪Pedestrian refuges
▪ADA compliant curb ramps
▪Traffic calming measures
▪Audible signals
These elements are described in the pages that follow. These elements pro-
vide opportunities for a more attractive streetscape that will support local
businesses by creating opportunities for sidewalk dining, outdoor displays,
and more interesting landscape plantings.
Grand Avenue is the centerpiece of this zone, extending not only through the
Downtown but also across the Caltrain tracks, via the new undercrossing, to
a redefined Eastern Neighborhood Grand Avenue “Main Street”.
Guiding Principle 18: Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, implement
street and intersection improvements to create a
safe, attractive, and accessible environment for all
pedestrians.
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvement such as corner bulb-outs, bollards, ramps and
amenities provide a higher degree of safety and accessibility by shortening
the street crossing distance and allowing wheelchair access. The added space
can accommodate plantings or other amenities.
UD-14 Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone ensure that intersection
improvements such as handicap ramps, corner bulb-outs, and improved
street crosswalks are made, with the intersections noted in Figure
3.15 receiving particular priority. Figure 3.16 illustrates how a typical
intersection along Grand Avenue might be improved.
UD-15 Coordinate improvements for pedestrian access on either side of
the Caltrain Station with improvements to the station itself, such as
extending the station platforms south and the pedestrian and bicycle
undercrossing.
UD-16 Corner extensions or bulb-outs are encouraged; these act to reduce the
distance between the sidewalk on either side of a crossing, making it
easier for the disabled or elderly to cross safely. These corner extensions
must include ramps and can also include street furnishings.
UD-17 Larger curb extensions can provide areas for additional street furnishings
or bus stops and shelters if buses operate by stopping in the travel lane.
UD-18 Consider use of special paving that can be used to delineate the
crosswalks for visibility; different materials will visually or with a
different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.
3.21February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.15: Pedestrian Improvement Priority Locations
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
0’500 1000’250
N 1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
3.22 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Figure 3.16: Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue Illustrative Intersection Improvements
BRICK PAVING IN CROSSWALKS
PROPOSED STREET TREES TO FILL IN STREETSCAPE
EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING
EXISTING STREET TREE (TYP)—PROTECT
SIDEWALK BULB-OUT (TYP)
BICYCLE LANE BOTH DIREC-TIONS
VEHICLE TRAVEL LANES
PROPOSED STREET TREE (TYP)
WIDENED SIDEWALK ON
GRAND AVENUE (TYP.)
PARALLEL PARKING BOTH
SIDES OF STREET
ADA RAMP—SEE SEPARATE
DRAWING FOR DETAILS
EXISTING DOUBLE ACORN STREET LIGHT
BUS STOP
GRAND AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
3.23February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
UD-19 Decorative elements can be added at intersections to also add safety.
Bollards, special paving and special lighting can all add to pedestrian
safety.
Significant intersection improvements will be required at Grand Avenue and
Airport Boulevard to provide access to the undercrossing and station plat-
forms. As shown in Figure 3.17, a wide median should be added at the inter-
section just south of Grand Avenue. This median would serve as a pedestrian
refuge on this heavily traveled street. In order to accommodate this medi-
an, the left turn lane currently providing westbound access to Grand Avenue
from Airport Boulevard would be eliminated.
On the right edge of Airport Boulevard at Grand Avenue, the currently exist-
ing free right turn lane providing access to the elevated East Grand Avenue
overcrossing would be restored to a tighter turn by extending the curb some-
what into the roadway. This will act to slow traffic making this right turn onto
East Grand Avenue.
UD-20 Continue to encourage Caltrain to prioritize implementation of station
improvements and an undercrossing to provide optimized access to the
station.
UD-21 Provide intersection improvements on the south side of Airport
Boulevard and Grand Avenue to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing of
this busy intersection. Improvements would include:
▪Lane modifications on Airport Boulevard to eliminate a left turn
onto Grand Avenue, creating space for a wide median to act as a
pedestrian refuge and gateway design improvement. This will also
serve to direct visitors to more readily find the downtown parking
garage by turning left onto Miller Avenue.
▪Lane modifications on Airport Boulevard to slow traffic turning right
onto East Grand Avenue and to extend the curb into the street right-
of-way to shorten the crossing distance.
▪Crosswalk improvements such as special paving and special signage
and lighting to highlight this important pedestrian crossing and
improve safety.
The pedestrian crossing at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard (looking west) is uninviting and lacking in any amenities.
3.24 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Caltrain Station Access
Improved access to the Caltrain Station is very important. This Specific Plan
fully endorses plans already developed for the reconfiguration of the station
that would include:
▪Extending the station platforms to the south to make them more readily
accessible from the alignment of Grand Avenue.
▪Construction of a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks
that will provide access from both sides of the tracks and US 101 to the
station platform, and in the process will reconnect the two sides of the
corridor for convenient pedestrian and bicycle access.
Guiding Principle 19: Continue to work with Caltrain to ensure implementation
of the redesigned station and pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossing. This improvement is essential to the long
term revitalization of Downtown South San Francisco.
The design of the undercrossing must result in a convenient connection that
feels and is safe and comfortable for users of all abilities and ages.
UD-22 Design of the undercrossing must pay particular attention to
visibility and safety. The width of the undercrossing must be
generous to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to have separated,
distinct rights-of-way. The height of the space must be generous.
UD-23 The undercrossing must also be wide enough and of a configuration
that allows visibility through the entire undercrossing to a lighted
outdoor space at the other end. All areas of the undercrossing must
be visible to anyone approaching the space.
UD-24 Lighting inside the undercrossing must be sufficient to light all
areas, with no significant shadows, and to provide a comfortable
visual transition from outside to inside.
UD-25 Murals and other art installations can be used to create visual
interest and add lighting to the undercrossing entries and extent.
Example of an attractive pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing in Palo Alto.
3.25February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.17: Airport Blvd and Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements and Caltrain Station Plaza
0’20 40’10
N
BRICK PAVING IN CROSSWALKS
FREE RIGHT TURN LANE REMOVED
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLAZA
EXISTING MEDIAN WITH PROPOSED
TREES AND PLANTING
PROPOSED STREET TREE
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
EXISTING STREET TREE (TYP)—PROTECT
BICYCLE LANE BOTH DIRECTIONS
PROPOSED BUS SHELTER
WIDENED PLANTED MEDIAN
WITH PROPOSED TREES
WIDENED SIDEWALK ON GRAND
AVENUE (TYP.)
EXISTING DOUBLE ACORN STREET LIGHT
GRAND AVE
EAST GRAND AVE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
PROPOSED STREET TREES TO FILL IN STREETSCAPE
EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING
VEHICULAR + BIKE SHARROW
SIDEWALK BULB-OUT (TYP)
WIDENED PLANTED MEDIANWITH PROPOSED TREES
ADA RAMP—SEE SEPARATE DRAWING FOR DETAILS
101
3.26 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Public Open Space
The plan area has limited publicly-owned properties that offer sites for new
plazas, open space or parks. In both the Downtown and in the Eastern Neigh-
borhood there are innovative ways to provide important and needed public
space. There are several opportunities in the Downtown to provide new open
space.
Guiding Principle 20: Provide new open spaces within the Downtown to
accommodate special events or recurring activities such
as farmers markets.
City Hall Plaza
City Hall is the single most iconic building in the Downtown. It occupies a
dramatic site that is little changed from its origin. The park-like space that
surrounds the building slopes gently to Grand Avenue, with stairs leading
from the sidewalk to the front entrance to the building. City Hall provides a
dramatic centerpiece for a new City Hall Plaza.
Guiding Principle 21: Redesign the street block fronting City Hall to allow it to
function occasionally as a special event public plaza.
City Hall Plaza can be a special, flexible space that can be used for a variety of
events and activities. While it would function at most times as a normal block
along Grand Avenue, on special occasions the block could be closed tempo-
rarily to traffic and parking in order to host a special event.
The space would be created by taking the sidewalks and roadway between
Maple and Walnut Avenues and repaving with a similar treatment across the
entire width, creating in effect a large flexible space. Other modifications
might include wall seating at the front edge of the City Hall green park space,
special seating, and special lighting.
UD-26 Create a design concept for a public plaza in front of City Hall which
incorporates the existing roadway as well as adjoining sidewalks while
retaining travel lanes and on-street parking.
UD-27 Allow for occasional closures of the block for special occasions and
events, while ensuring access is maintained to businesses that occupy
the south side of Grand Avenue on the block between Maple and Walnut
Avenues.
UD-28 Provide flexibility for a wide range of activities and gatherings when
the block is closed to traffic, while still allowing for everyday use of the
green park spaces adjoining City Hall.
UD-29 Design of the plaza should be complementary to and consistent with
the design concept for the entire length of Grand Avenue, utilizing a
consistent material palette.
City Hall building facing Grand Avenue.
3.27February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
0’1000 2000’500
N
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
L
I
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
Martin
School
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Paradise Valley Pocket Park
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome
Improvement
South San Francisco
Business
Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
L
I
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
Martin
School
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Paradise Valley Pocket Park
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome
Improvement
South San Francisco
Business
Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3.18: Downtown Special Plaza Areas
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERStreet paving creates special area for neighborhood events.
CITY HALL PLAZAStreet and adjacent plaza create central gathering spaces for community events and everyday
casual use.
GATEWAY STREET PLAZAAccent paving and gateway wel-
come visits to the Grand Avenue
retail district.
CALTRAIN PLAZA WEST
Proposed plaza entry to relocat-
ed Caltrain Station and pedestri-
an/bicycle tunnel.
CALTRAIN PLAZA EAST
East entry plaza, drop-off area,
and transit and shuttle connec-tions.
3.28 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Figure 3.19: Caltrain Plaza
0’20 40’10
N BENCHES
EAST GRAND AVE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
TREE BUFFER
ACCENT TREES
GENEROUS, OPEN PLAZA
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FOR
WAYFINDING AND SAFETY
WAYFINDING AND INFORMA-
TION SIGNAGE AND/OR KIOSK
Caltrain Plaza
The plaza at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue that will
lead to the Caltrain Station pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing is an op-
portunity to provide a public open space that not only can offer downtown
residents and businesses a gathering space, but is an opportunity to enhance
the gateway experience to South San Francisco. The plaza should account for
bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to
the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard
to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pe-
destrians.
Guiding Principle 22: Create a vibrant, safe plaza to serve residents, visitors
and Downtown businesses.
UD-30 The plaza should be generous in width to provide a safe, pleasant
environment.
UD-31 The area should be well-lit to create safe access to the station and
Downtown.
UD-32 The plaza should include deciduous trees that create shade in summer
and allow sun to warm the plaza in winter.
UD-33 Site amenities, such as benches and trash receptacles should be
provided. Consideration should be given to deter unwanted loitering.
UD-34 Materials and site furnishings should be consistent with those used
in the redesign of Grand Avenue to maintain a uniform look to the
Downtown.
3.29February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.20: Caltrain Plaza (looking west)
3.30 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Linden Neighborhood Plaza
The Linden Avenue neighborhood center, north of Downtown on Linden Av-
enue, is an opportunity area that can provide public open space and neigh-
borhood services within walking distance of home or from the businesses
along Linden Avenue.
Similar to City Hall Plaza, the Linden Neighborhood Plaza should include
streetscape improvements and accent paving to indicate a special place.
While it would function at most times as a street, on special occasions the
block could be closed temporarily to traffic and parking to expand the usable
area and provide a central gathering space for special events such as farmers’
markets, food trucks, or arts, music or cultural festivals.
It would be desirable to also provide a usable outdoor green space such as a
pocket park in proximity to the Linden Neighborhood Plaza as an additional
community amenity.
Guiding Principle 23: Create a central neighborhood center that provides a
safe, outdoor space for special, local events.
UD-35 Create a design concept for a public plaza on Linden Avenue between
Aspen and Pine Street which incorporates the existing roadway as
well as adjoining sidewalks while retaining travel lanes and on-street
parking.
UD-36 Allow for occasional closures of the block for special occasions and
events while ensuring access is maintained to businesses.
UD-37 The plaza should provide flexibility for a wide range of activities and
gatherings.
UD-38 Design of the plaza should be consistent with any new adjoining pocket
park, using material palettes that are consistent and compatible.
UD-39 The plaza design should include lighting to create a special, safe place.
UD-40 Accent trees should be included in the design to indicate a unique place.
Streets convert to public space for vibrant, pedestrian-friendly events.
3.31February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.21: Linden Neighborhood Center and Plaza
3.32 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Eastern Neighborhood Open Spaces
Two types of open space will be possible east of US 101 in the Eastern Neigh-
borhood: open space provided on private properties but accessible to the
general public, and linear public open space that can be provided along the
abandoned rail corridor.
In the Eastern Neighborhood, property owners or developers will be imple-
menting a new pattern of streets, sidewalks, and landscaped areas within the
new employment center. Zoning and guidelines for this area will require a
significant set-aside for publicly-accessible open space.
Guiding Principle 24: Ensure new development in the Eastern Neighborhood
provides a significant amount of publicly-accessible
open space within the development concepts for new
office, R&D, or supporting uses.
UD-41 Establish an urban development pattern with streets and lanes, with
moderate setbacks.
UD-42 Require provision of generous sidewalks.
UD-43 Screen any surface parking or service areas that are visible from
sidewalks with plantings and adequate setbacks.
UD-44 Provide open space adjoining new development to be clearly accessible
to the public at all daylight hours, not gated or fenced.
In addition to publicly-accessible open space that can be provided through
incentives or zoning with new development, the existing rail spur that cross-
es the Eastern Neighborhood in the south near the intersection of Gateway
Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard may provide an opportunity for a lin-
ear park, pedestrian way and bicycle facilities. This east/west connection can
link to several existing and planned bicycle facilities east of 101 to connect to
the Bay. This open space also creates a pleasant buffer and publicly accessible
outdoor areas that can be enjoyed by the increased population in the Eastern
Neighborhood.
Open space in the Eastern Neighborhood could take the form of informal parks
along the railroad spur or more urban plazas associated with new development.
3.33February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.22: Eastern Neighborhood Looking West
3.34 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Clockwise from top left: sidewalk bulb-out accommodates bicycle parking,
art is integrated into the pedestrian realm, existing mid-block crossings
on Grand Avenue, ornamental tree grates provide protection for the trees
and create an accessible surface, accent paving creates interesting design
features in an urban sidewalk, the existing clock in downtown creates a
signature meeting place.
3.35February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Streetscape
Streets throughout the Specific Plan area, particularly those within the Pe-
destrian Priority Zone, will be improved over time with improved sidewalks,
crossings and streetscape.
Key streetscape elements to be considered include:
▪ Street trees ▪ Ground plane planting
▪Paving ▪ Tree grates
▪Benches ▪ Trash and other receptacles
▪Bicycle racks ▪ Light standards
▪Public art
Guiding Principle 25: Improve the public realm of sidewalks and adjoining
open spaces throughout the Specific Plan plan area and
particularly within the Pedestrian Priority Zone to create
an attractive pedestrian environment.
Guiding Principle 26: Create a street tree plan that responds to the streetscape
definition plan to create unique neighborhood streets
defined by street tree type.
UD-45 Create a street tree plan for the Downtown that complements existing
healthy trees with additional trees. Consider utilizing special trees
in particular locations or in special corridors with seasonal color, or
distinctive bark and/or foliage.
UD-46 Provide improvements commensurate with the future level of
pedestrian activity and consistent with the goals of the Pedestrian
Master Plan and Climate Action Plan objectives; on streets adjacent to
Grand Avenue, provide a high level of improvement, including the full
complement of streetscape furnishings.
UD-47 Include accent paving at public plaza spaces, and as a design component
to the Grand Avenue improvements.
UD-48 Consider implementing a public art program to encourage public art in
the Downtown area.
UD-49 Implement a street tree plan for Linden Avenue that includes one type
of tree within the Downtown Pedestrian Priority Zone and the Linden
Neighborhood Center, with a second tree type along the rest of Linden
Avenue. This will create special, accent areas along Linden Avenue.
UD-50 Implement accent trees at Downtown gateway areas on Grand Avenue
at Spruce and Cypress Avenues to create special entry areas.
UD-51 Establish a family of site furnishings to be used throughout the
Downtown area to reinforce a sense of place.
UD-52: “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively
manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide
visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking,
and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide
information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with
attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated
times to encourage these modes of travel.
Sidewalk Amenities
Widened sidewalks provide space for an enhanced public environment with
sidewalk dining, shop displays, seating, plantings, and signage. In the case
of South San Francisco, historic markers could be included to highlight the
role of the Downtown in the City’s development and local history. Extended
curbs and bulb-outs create additional space in the pedestrian environment
and space for amenities for other modes of travel, such as transit and bicycle.
Expanded sidewalks provide areas for bicycle parking and bus shelters with
seating. Bicycle parking on the sidewalk would include bike racks, whereas
additional, more secure parking, such as bike lockers should be located at the
Downtown parking garage and Caltrain Station.
3.36 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Streetscape examples, various Bay Area locations, showing sidewalk amenities, dining, and other streetscape improvements.
3.37February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Street Lighting
Lighting is a particularly important element to provide safety and security
throughout the plan area. Lighting within the Pedestrian Priority Zone should
be at a pedestrian scale and spaced at a distance that provides full coverage
of sidewalks and other pedestrian areas. The existing light fixtures on Grand
Avenue and Linden Avenue are historic in nature and should be preserved in
future improvements. Additional pedestrian-scaled lighting should be added
in appropriate areas to ensure safety and comfort. Pedestrian lighting should
also be considered throughout the Pedestrian Priority Zone and the design of
the fixtures and the light source should complement new development, pro-
vide unique character to the neighborhood streets, and be energy efficient. It
is encouraged that a fixture be specified for the rest of the Pedestrian Priority
Zone that is complementary to the future of South San Francisco and does
not harken back to historic days, but celebrates the unique neighborhoods in
Downtown.
Gateway lighting should occur at the entrances to the Downtown. Special
lighting should highlight Grand and Linden Avenues. The entire Pedestrian
Priority Zone which will be the location of many area retail services and ame-
nities should also be well lighted. Provision of adequate, appropriate lighting
throughout the Specific Plan area is very important to creating an active and
safe environment that will be suitable for the new development proposed in
this Specific Plan.
Guiding Principle 27: Provide suitable lighting throughout the plan area,
with a particular focus on the Downtown, to create a
comfortable environment that is suited to a wide array
of land uses and retail activities.
Figure 3.23 illustrates a concept for lighting throughout the Specific Plan
area. It includes four lighting types or conditions:
▪Gateway lighting
▪Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue lighting
▪Pedestrian street lighting
▪Special plaza lighting Top: Existing double acorn light on Grand Avenue, single acorn at regular spacing on the
Embarcadero in San Francisco. Bottom: Accent lighting across an Emeryville street creates a
special plaza for evening events.
3.38 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
LIGHTING
draft November 15, 2012
GATEWAY LIGHTING
GRAND AVE + LINDEN AVE LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN STREET LIGHTING
PROPOSED PLAZA LIGHTING
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGc
N
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
c
c
c
Figure 3.23: Conceptual Lighting Plan
LIGHTING
draft November 15, 2012
GATEWAY LIGHTING
GRAND AVE + LINDEN AVE LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN STREET LIGHTING
PROPOSED PLAZA LIGHTING
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGc
N
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
c
c
c
0’500 1000’250
N
3.39February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Lighting plans and specifications should be prepared in coordination with the
redesign of Grand Avenue to ensure a compatible and complimentary sys-
tem.
UD-52 Provide special gateway lighting at either end of Grand Avenue to
signify arrival at these key entries to the historic Downtown. Gateway
lighting may be provided in conjunction with other gateway elements
such as pylons.
UD-53 The double acorn light fixture utilized on Grand Avenue is appropriate
for this historic Downtown. This fixture should be maintained here and
on Linden Avenue, the major cross street to Grand Avenue.
UD-54 Throughout the Pedestrian Priority Zone pedestrian-scaled light
fixtures should be provided to assure adequate light levels. Consider
using a single acorn style to complement the fixtures on Grand and
Linden Avenues.
UD-55 Pedestrian light fixtures should typically be 12-14 feet in height.
All fixtures should be designed to focus light onto sidewalks and to
minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or
into the night sky in general.
UD-56 The plazas at City Hall and the Caltrain Station should all be distinguished
with special lighting which may include dramatic lighting of important
structures or accent lighting of special art or design elements.
UD-57 Seasonal and special event lighting can be used at City Hall, on building
facades, along pedestrian walkways, or across intersections or blocks in
order to celebrate holidays or city events.