SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Adopted
October 1999
For Table of Contents click " Show/ Hide Navigation Pane"
( divided square icon next to printer on Command Bar above this frame)
DYET T & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Prepared by
With technical assistance from
Sedway Group/ Naomi Porat, Real Estate and Urban Economists
Environmental Science Associates, Environmental Consultants
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Transportation Planners and Engineers
Fehr & Peers, Inc., Transportation Planners
Charles M. Salter Associates, Noise Consultants
City Council
James L. Datzman, Mayor
Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor
Eugene R. Mullin
Joseph A. Fernekes
John R. Penna
Planning Commission
Judith Honan, Chairperson
Eugene Sim, Vice Chairperson
Marc C. Teglia
Julie Baldocchi
William Romero
Michael Meloni
Joseph D’Angelo
City Staff
Michael A. Wilson, City Manager
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic
and Community Development
Thomas C. Sparks, Senior Planner
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
Michael Lappen, Consulting Planner
Jim Harnish, Former Chief Planner ( until June 1999)
October 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 136- 99
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GP- 99- 61
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1999, September 22, 1999, and October 13, 1999,
the City Council held duly noticed study session and public hearing to consider the
General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government
Code, over a two- year period, the City has facilitated public participation in the preparation
of the General Plan Update by conducting City Council and Planning Commission Public
hearings, study sessions, workshops, and joint City Council/ Planning Commission study
sessions; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided the City Council, the
Planning Commission, and the public with background information, including Land Use
and Circulation diagrams, Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, Alternative
Sketch Plans Report, the Draft South San Francisco General Plan, the South San Francisco
General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR) and other Policy Documents; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared and implemented a public participation
program that informed the public of the on- going general plan update, obtained public
input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies, provided the
public with opportunities to evaluate alternative plans and to participate in choosing the
preferred alternative, informed decision makers of public opinions, and worked towards
community consensus; and
WHEREAS, Section 65300, et seq. of the State Planning and Zoning Law ( Division
1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) require every city to adopt a comprehensive,
longterm general plan for the physical development of the City which bears a reasonable
relationship to the planning and development of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco, has updated its General Plan in
accordance with the State Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update consists of the mandatory and optional
elements each containing goals and policies. The elements in the General Plan Update
are Land Use, Planning Sub- Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Services,
Economic Development, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise;
and
WHEREAS, the Noise Element is consistent with the guidelines established by
the Office of Noise Control in the California Department of Health Services; and
WHEREAS, Section 65302( g) et seq. of the State Planning and Zoning Law
( Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires a city a adopt a Safety
Element to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects
of a seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche,
and dam failure, slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence,
liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified in Chapter 7.8 of the Public Resources
Code.
WHEREAS, the Safety Element was submitted to the Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology review of the General Plan policies and the South San
Francisco Draft EIR. The Division of Mines commented to the City in a letter dated
August 20, 1999. The City considered the Division's findings and responded to the
Division's findings in the Final EIR, distributed on September 30, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element Update will be prepared in approximately
May 2000 following adoption of the Regional Housing Needs Distribution by the Executive
Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG); and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and certified
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, July 1, 1999, August 12, 1999, September 2, 1999, and
September 16, 1999, the Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions and
public hearings to consider the Draft General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the General Plan Update to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1999 and October 13, 1999, the City Council held
duly noticed public hearings on the General Plan update as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City
Council does hereby find that:
The General Plan and elements, including the Exhibit A ( Draft South San
Francisco General Plan) as modified by Exhibit B dated October 13, 1999 attached hereto
comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the
City of South San Francisco.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council hereby
adopts to the General Plan Update, GP- 99- 061, as set forth in Exhibit A as mod) fied by
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
* * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a Regular meeting held on the 13th
day of October, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Eugene R. Mullin and John R. Penna,
Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsumoto, and Mayor James L. Datzman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Evolution of South San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.3 General Plan Challenges and Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 General Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Plan Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1.6 Related Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.7 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 2: Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Constancy and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2 Land Use Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 Planning Sub- Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.4 General Plan Buildout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.5 Detailed Plans and Coordination with Other Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . 53
2.6 Land Use Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
3.1 Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
3.2 Lindenville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
3.3 South Spruce Corridor/ San Bruno BART Station Area. . . . . . . . . . .82
3.4 El Camino Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.5 East of 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
3.6 Avalon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.7 Orange Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.8 Paradise Valley/ Terrabay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.9 Sign Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.10 Sunshine Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.11 Westborough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.12 Winston- Serra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Chapter 4: Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.1 Travel Characteristics and Regional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.2 Street Network, Classification, and Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.3 Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
4.4 Transit and Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities, and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
5.1 Parks, Recreation and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.2 Educational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
5.3 Public Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Chapter 6: Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.1 Economic Development and the City’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.2 Land Use Balance: Need and General Plan Provision . . . . . . . . . . . 203
6.3 Economic Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.1 Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.2 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.3 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
7.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
iii
Chapter 8: Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246
8.2 Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
8.3 Waste Management and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
8.4 Fire Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
8.5 Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
8.6 Emergency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Chapter 9: Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
9.1 Noise Measurement and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
9.2 Noise Sources and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
9.3 Noise Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282
Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1.1- 1 Correspondence Between Required General Plan Elements
and Chapters in the South San Francisco General Plan . . . . . . . . .19
2.2- 1 Standards for Density and Development Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2- 2 Standards for Density and Development Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4- 1 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Approved Development . . 48
2.4- 1 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Additional Development
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4- 1 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Combined Approved and
Additional Development Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
2.4- 2 Buildout Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.4- 3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997- Buildout . 51
2.4- 4 Jobs/ Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1- 1 Downtown: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.1- 2 Permitted Intensities/ Densities and Uses in Downtown . . . . . . . . 72
3.2- 1 Lindenville: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.4- 1 El Camino Real: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.5- 1 East of 101: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.5- 2 East of 101: Existing and Projected Building Area and
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.7- 1 Orange Park: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.8- 1 Paradise Valley/ Terrabay: Development, Population, and
Employment Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .119
v
3.9- 1 Sign Hill: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
3.10- 1 Sunshine Gardens: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
3.11- 1 Westborough: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.12- 1 Winston- Serra: Development, Population, and Employment
Under the General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.1- 1 Modal Shares of South San Francisco Residents and
Employees and North San Mateo County Employees . . . . . . . . . 137
4.1- 2 South San Francisco Residents and Workers . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 138
4.2- 1 Traffic Level of Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.2- 2 Roadway Segment Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144- 146
4.3- 1 Bikeway Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.1- 1 Existing Parks and Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176- 177
5.1- 2 Park Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
5.1- 3 New Park Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
5.1- 4 Proposed Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
5.2- 1 Current School Enrollment and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
5.2- 2 Current and Projected School Enrollment at Buildout . . . . . . . . 191
5.3- 1 Historical Water Use in South San Francisco ( MGD) . . . . . . . . . 193
5.3- 2 Water Users by Type and Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
5.3- 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
5.3- 4 Average Wastewater Flows, 1998- Buildout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
vi
6.1- 1 Fiscal Impact of Various Land Uses, Per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
6.2- 1 Land Use Need by Use and General Plan Provision . . . . . . . . . . . 204
7.1- 1 Non- Native Invasive Plant Species that Should be
Evaluated in Assessments of Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
8.4- 1 Summary of Fire Hazard Reduction Recommendations . . . . . . . 266
9.2- 1 Land Use Criteria for Noise- Impacted Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280
9.2- 21 Aircraft Noise Projections, 1990- 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1- 1 Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1- 2 Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1- 3 Evolution of South San Francisco’s Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1- 4 Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
1- 5 Digital Terrain Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2- 1 Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
2- 2 Airport Related Height Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
2- 3 Special Area Height Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
2- 4 Viewshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
2- 5 Illustrative Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2- 6 Planning Sub- Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2- 7 Specific and Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3- 1 Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3- 2 Lindenville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3- 3 South Spruce Corridor/ San Bruno BART Station Area . . . . . . . .84
3- 4 El Camino Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
3- 5 East of 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3- 6 Avalon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3- 7 Orange Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3- 8 Paradise Valley/ Terrabay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3- 9 Sign Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3- 10 Sunshine Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3- 11 Westborough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
viii
3- 12 Winston Serra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4- 1 Street Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4- 2 Major Street Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4- 3 Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4- 4 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements . . . . . . . . . . 167
4- 5 Caltrain/ Multimodal Station Preferred Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4- 6 Airport Light Rail System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
5- 1 Schools, Parks and Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
5- 2 Existing and Buildout Parkland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7- 1 General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources . . . . . . . 225
7- 2 Special Environmental Study Required for
Development Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7- 3 Designated Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
8- 1 Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
8- 2 General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands . . . . . . . . . . 253
8- 3 General Plan Policies for Flood Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
8- 4 Fire Hazard Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
9- 1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
9- 2 Projected Road and Rail Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
9- 3 Potential Infill Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours . . . . 288
1
INTRODUCTION AND
OVERVIEW
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council
that serves several purposes. It:
• Outlines a vision for South San Francisco’s long- range physical and economic
development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the
community;
• Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this
vision to be accomplished;
• Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and
public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards;
• Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to
design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and
enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and
• Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and
implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements
Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans.
The General Plan articulates a vision for the City, but it is not merely a compendi-um
of ideas and wish lists. Plan policies focus on what is concrete and achievable
and set forth actions to be undertaken by the City – broad objectives such as “ qual-ity
of life” and “ community character” are meaningful only if translated into
actions that are tangible and can be implemented. Because of legal requirements
that a variety of City actions be consistent with the General Plan, regular on- going
1
2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
use of the Plan is essential. The Plan is both general and long- range; there will be
circumstances and instances when detailed studies are necessary before Plan poli-cies
can be implemented.
The updated South San Francisco General Plan has been a result a community
effort. Its major policy directions has been defined through close involvement of
the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and commissions, resi-dents,
and the business community, in all phases of the General Plan process.
REGIONAL LOCATION
South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in
northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay plain and the north-ern
foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major trans-portation
corridors and hubs, including U. S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280,
the Union Pacific Railroad, ( formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) and the San
Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark. The regional
location of the City is shown in Figure 1- 1.
PLANNING BOUNDARIES
State law requires that each city adopt a general plan “ for the physical development
of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which ... bears relation
to its planning.” The Planning Area for the General Plan includes all land within
City limits, and unincorporated “ islands” surrounded by the city. Inclusion of
unincorporated land in the Planning Area does not mean that the City is contem-plating
annexation; these sites are included in the report for analysis purposes only.
Figure 1- 2 shows the General Plan Planning Area. San Francisco Bay to the east
and San Bruno Mountain to the north provide strong natural boundaries. The
cities of Brisbane, Daly City, Colma, Pacifica, and San Bruno adjoin South San
Francisco.
The South San Francisco Urban Design Charette brought
together a number of design professionals and community
leaders who spent a day addressing specific urban design
issues and community concerns in the Downtown.
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
3
1.2 EVOLUTION OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The modern history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000- acre
Rancho Buri Buri was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. 1
In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the Rancho and founded the town
of Baden, named for Lux’s native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden area
was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations.
The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco’s evolution.
The Gustavus Swift meat packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888,
was the City’s first industrial development. Swift organized a “ beef trust” with other
Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a community of stock-yards
and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development
of an industrial town.
In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased
3,400 acres on the former site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the
town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses intentionally took advan-tage
of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing
winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas
and over the Bay.
COMMUNITY GROWTH
Industry and community growth have been closely intertwined throughout South
San Francisco’s history. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad ( SPRR)
line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904- 1907 expanded opportunities for
goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage
of the city’s abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of
housing and services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation,
allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial future and provide the ser-vices
needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September
19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries.
1 Information on South San Francisco’s history is primarily drawn from Kaufman, Linda, South San Francisco: A
History ( 1976) and Joseph A. Blum, “ South City: The Town That Could” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and
Chronicle, September 4, 1983.
4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
San
Francisco
Oakland
Sausalito
Emeryville
Alameda
San Leandro
Belvedere
Tiburon
Piedmont
Brisbane
Daly
City
San Bruno
Millbrae Burlingame
San Mateo
Redwood City
Belmont
San Carlos
Palo Alto
Menlo
Park
Atherton
East
Palo
Alto
Half Moon Bay
El Granada
Foster City
Hillsborough
Moss Beach
Montara
Linda Mar
Pacifica
Newark
Union
City
San Lorenzo
Hayward
Castro
Valley
Orinda
Moraga
Berkeley Walnut
Creek
Lafayette
S a n F r a n c i s co Bay
MARIN
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN
MATEO
SANTA
CLARA
ALAMEDA
CONTRA
COSTA
280
1
101
101
1
280
101
280
82
35 380
82
92
92
35
1
84
84
238
92
880
580
580
880
185
61
13
980
24
13
123
80
80
Figure 1- 1
Regional Location
0 4
MILES
8
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
5
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
King Dr
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Av
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
Utah Ave
Future BART Line
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
Ci ty
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
Figure 1- 5
Planning Area
Planning Area
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
400
400
500
400
500
600
600
600
600
400
500
700
700
700
200
100
100
100
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500
600
700
400
300
300
200
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400
300
600
500
400
300
200
6
Industries continued to locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and
1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U. S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some
of the city’s major establishments whose products helped build California’s mod-ern
transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also
emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to
the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more
attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point
for the entire Peninsula.
Downtown and Civic Development
Grand Avenue has always been the spine of the city’s commercial core, extending
west from the industrial areas, and had almost reached El Camino Real by the time
incorporation occurred. With Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south
limiting expansion, the oldest part of the city was developed with a strong east-west
orientation, reinforced by a directional grid pattern of 950 by 300 foot blocks.
The rail spur along Railroad Avenue formed the City’s southern boundary. The
city’s growth over time, from just before incorporation in 1908 until the present, is
shown in Figure 1- 3.
In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco’s civic improvements
kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-
acre Orange Memorial Park was developed in 1925.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Grand Avenue – 1906 ( above) and 1997 ( below). While the
street no longer has railroad tracks, its scale has changed
remarkably little over the last 90 years.
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
7
1 9 6 0 1 9 9 7
1 9 0 8 1 9 2 8
A single- use pattern was established early, with industries to the east and homes
and businesses to the west. The east- west grid reflects the limits imposed by San
Bruno Mountain/ Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south.
Industrial growth during and after the Second World War helped fuel
unprecedented expansion. Fill and drainage projects opened many areas for
development. Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the City’s western boundary.
Industrial expansion occured on Pt. San Bruno as the steel industry located in
South San Francisco. The city grid evolved to conform to topography and pre-existing
roadways. Marshland continued to limit southern expansion.
Infill development continued along the Bayshore Freeway and El Camino Real.
Interstate 280 opened up the Westborough area for development. Bay fill continued
at the airport, Oyster Point and Sierra Point. Remaining unincorporated “ pockets”
are the only opportunities for future expansion.
S a n
F r a n c i s c o
B a y
San Bruno Mountain
Sa n B ru n o Mo u n tai n
S a n
F r a n c i s c o
B a y
S a n B r u n o Mounta i n
S a n
F r a n c i s c o
B a y
Urbanized Land
Source: South San Francisco Public Library Local History Collection; Dyett & Bhatia
S a n
F r a n c i s c o
B a y
San Bruno Mountain
Figure 1- 3
Evolution of South San Francisco’s Form
8
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Figure 1- 4
Elevation
( Feet)
< 25
25- 100
100- 200
200- 300
300- 400
400- 500
500- 600
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia; Environmental Science Associates
Lowland Zone
Upland Zone
Hillside Zone
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
Ci ty
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
300
200
200
200
300
300
400
400
500
500
400
300
300
400
300
400
500
500
500
500
300
400
600
600
600
200
100
100
100
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
9
Figure 1- 5
Digital Terrain Model
S a n B r u n o M o u n t a i n
10
Residential Development and Hillside Growth
Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend
north around and along the slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the intro-duction
of a curvilinear street form. Industries expanded to the south and west,
taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets
west of the rail right- of- way. The city’s elevation ranges from sub- zero in East of
101 to nearly 600 feet in the Westborough subarea, as shown in Figure 1- 4. A dig-ital
terrain model of the city is shown in Figure 1- 5.
The growth of South San Francisco’s steel and, later, shipbuilding industries
through the 1920s and World War II helped spur residential growth. Between 1940
and 1960, South San Francisco’s population increased more than six- fold from
6,290 to 39,418.2 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco’s existing housing units
were constructed between 1940 and 1959.3
Government- built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was devel-oped
during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South
Spruce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The area is still known as Lindenville after
the largest government development. Demolition of the housing in the late 1950s
paved the way for redevelopment of the area with warehouses, light industry, and
single- family housing in the Mayfair Village subdivision.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Looking west from Point San Bruno Knoll. The industrial
and business parks in South San Francisco are concentrated
in the eastern portion of the city, with residential uses in the
western and downtown areas. Sign Hill and high rises on
land formerly devoted to industrial uses can be seen to the
right.
2 City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Transportation and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986.
3 1990 U. S. Census.
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
11
POST- WAR TRANSFORMATION
By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present
level of urbanization between U. S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the
residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and El Camino Real were complete. Except
at the city’s northwestern corner, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city’s west-ern
edge, and Hillside Boulevard/ Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary.
During this decade, the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas
usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attract-ing
light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a
600- acre industrial park adjacent to the newly- developed Oyster Point Marina.
This industrial park was South San Francisco’s first industrial development to
incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provi-sions,
and featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking, and consistent landscaping and
building design. The park heralded South San Francisco’s industrial future.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been
making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and
other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, devel-opment,
and biotechnology. Because the city’s industrial base has continued to
evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an
important role in South San Francisco’s future.
With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s
has stemmed from internal change rather than outright expansion. Infill develop-ment
occurred along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U. S. 101. Major expan-sion
did occur in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area, enabled respec-tively
by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points.
The city has recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi- use development
at Terrabay on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Future opportunities for
growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands.
12
1.3 GENERAL PLAN CHALLENGES AND THEMES
LOOKING AHEAD: THE CHALLENGES
Many significant changes in and around South San Francisco are anticipated in the
coming years, representing both challenges and opportunities. These include a
major expansion of the San Francisco International Airport ( SFO) with doubling
of passenger traffic over the next ten years and extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit
( BART) to SFO with stations in South San Francisco, and in San Bruno directly
adjacent to the City. With demand for land exceeding availability, establishment of
priorities will be essential to achieving community development objectives.
GENERAL PLAN THEMES
The unique challenges and opportunities the City faces are reflected in General
Plan’s nine themes, which provide the basis for detailed policies included in the
Plan elements:
1. Neighborhood- oriented Development. The General Plan envisions South San
Francisco as a community of strong neighborhoods. While the City’s com-mercial
and industrial areas continue to evolve, the Plan seeks to ensure that
the City’s established neighborhoods, which encompass almost 75 percent of
the area west of U. S. 101, are protected from the impacts of changes else
where.
A guiding premise of the Plan is that activities and facilities used on a frequent
basis, such as stores and parks, should be easily accessible to residents. Land
uses are designated to ensure balanced neighborhood development with a mix
of uses, and provision of parks, stores, and offices in neighborhoods that
presently lack them. The Plan seeks to ensure that infill development in the
residential areas will be of appropriate scale and character, and restricts larger
outlets to appropriate sites in community and regional centers.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Protection of established neighborhoods from the impacts of
changes occurring in other areas of the city is a General
Plan theme.
Genentech, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, is head-quartered
in the East of 101 area along the bayshore,
attracting additional high- technology firms to the area.
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
13
2. Economic Development and Diversification. The evolution of South San
Francisco’s economy, from manufacturing to warehousing and distribution
and now high technology and biotechnology, is an opportunity for the City to
strengthen its economic base. Continued economic development is vital to
accomplishing many of the General Plan’s objectives as well as linking eco-nomic
development and land use planning; its importance is underscored by
the inclusion of an Economic Development Element in the General Plan. The
element articulates the City’s role in economic development and outlines poli-cies
to implement these strategies. In addition to ensuring that adequate sites
are available for commercial and industrial expansion, the strategies build on
existing clusters of high- technology and service industries, and capitalize on
SFO expansion and the BART extension. The Plan also promotes a new
work/ live district. In addition, targeted policies for specific areas are included
in Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas.
3. Increased Connectivity and Accessibility. Freeways, railroads, and major arteri-als
divide the city into four major segments – west of Junipero Serra
( Westborough), between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real, between El
Camino Real and U. S. 101, and the area east of U. S. 101. Connections between
these different city segments are extremely limited, and the connecting road-way
segments are major points of congestion. Integration of the different parts
of the city is a theme that is reflected in several Plan policies. Roadway
improvements and new streets are also proposed to link different neighbor-hoods.
In addition, Plan proposals seek to improve residents’ access to every-day
commercial needs, and to parks and the shoreline.
4. Redevelopment of Older Industrial Areas. The city’s continued status as a goods
transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to SFO, but echoing its
role as the central distribution point for the Peninsula in the 1920s and 1930s,
is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy
industry, east of U. S. 101. In contrast, Lindenville, which lies south of down-town,
emerged through piecemeal transition from residential to industrial use
late in the city’s history.
As high- technology businesses have moved into many of these older industri-al
areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use
Industrial site near the San Bruno BART Station. The
General Plan proposes a transition of the area near the sta-tion
to a high- intensity, mixed- use center.
14
and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of busi-ness
centers— smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facil-ities
such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways,
and higher landscape standards— are much different from those of warehous-ing
and industrial areas. The General Plan outlines a cohesive strategy that
protects selected industrial areas and policies to guide transformation of oth-ers.
5. Land Use/ Transportation Correlation and Promotion of Transit. Land uses,
mixes, and development intensities in the General Plan have been designed to
capitalize on major regional transit improvements underway, and to promote
alternative forms of transit. High- intensity, mixed- use districts are proposed
near BART stations, and land use incentives are offered for the provision of
specific transit- oriented amenities. Improved connections between residential
and employment centers and transit hubs are also proposed.
6. Reinforcement of Downtown as the City’s Center. The General Plan seeks to
reinforce Downtown’s identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of
the city. Plan strategies include increased residential development to increase
downtown’s population base, better connections with Lindenville and other
surrounding neighborhoods, and ensuring that commercial uses outside
downtown do not compete with Downtown.
7. Enhancement of Community Character. The General Plan includes specific
urban design policies are included for areas, such as Lindenville and the East
of 101 area, that are undergoing change. Strategies are offered for providing a
cohesive image and identity for key corridors, such as El Camino Real.
8. Coordinated Shoreline Development and Increased Accessibility. South San
Francisco’s four- mile long shoreline along the San Francisco Bay is a tremen-dous
resource. The General Plan seeks to increase shoreline accessibility
through physical improvements and location of activities near the water.
9. Performance- based Standards for Services to Ensure Sustainability. Standards for
capital facilities and public services, such as streets, parks , storm drainage, and
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Downtown South San Francisco. The General Plan seeks to
reinforce Downtown’s identity and role as the city’s center.
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
15
fire safety, are established to ensure that growth does no to exceed carrying
capacity. To maintain the quality of public services for residents, development
would be required to meet specific standards established by the plan. In addi-tion,
the Annual Report on the General Plan will include progress made
towards implementing the General Plan policies.
Colma Creek in the East of 101 area. Protection and
enhancement of the city’s natural resources is a General
Plan theme.
16
1.4 GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
State law requires each California city and county to prepare a general plan. A gen-eral
plan is defined as “ a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical
development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in
the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” State requirements
call for general plans that “ comprise an integrated, internally consistent and com-patible
statement of policies for the adopting agency.”
A city’s general plan has been described as its constitution for development – the
framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and
facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must be made. California’s tra-dition
of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the state’s
cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans.
While they allow considerable flexibility, State planning laws do establish some
requirements for the issues that general plans must address. The California
Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their
adoption and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions
establish three overall guidelines for general plans.
• The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects.
First, the general plan must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must
apply throughout the entire incorporated area and it should include other
areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the general
plan must address the full range of issues that affects the city’s physical devel-opment.
• The General Plan Must Be Internally Consistent. This requirement means that
the General Plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each
other without conflict.“ Horizontal” consistency applies as much to figures and
diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis as well
as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State
law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the gen-eral
plan must resolve conflicts among the provisions of each element.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
17
• The General Plan Must Be Long- range. Because anticipated development will
affect the city and the people who live or work there for years to come, State law
requires every general plan to take a long- term perspective.
1.5 PLAN ORGANIZATION
GENERAL PLAN STRUCTURE
The South San Francisco General Plan is organized into nine chapters:
1. Introduction and Overview. This includes General Plan themes, requirements
for Plan monitoring, review, and amendments.
2. Land Use. This chapter provides the physical framework for development in
the Planning Area. It establishes policies related to location and intensity of
development, and citywide land use policies.
3. Planning Sub- Areas. This chapter includes detailed policies for each one of the
14 sub- areas that the Planning Area is divided into.
4. Transportation. This Element includes policies, programs, and standards to
enhance capacity and circulation. It identifies future improvements and
addresses alternative transportation systems and parking.
5. Parks, Public Facilities, and Services. The chapter outlines the policies and stan-dards
relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facili-ties.
6. Economic Development. Although not required by State law, this Element out-lines
the City’s economic development objectives and serves to ensure that eco-nomic
decision- making is integrated with other aspects of the city’s develop-ment.
7. Open Space and Conservation. This chapter outlines policies relating to habitat
and biological resources, water quality, air quality, and historic and cultural
resources conservation.
8. Health and Safety. This chapter addresses the risks posed by geologic and seis-mic
hazards, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire.
18
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
19
9. Noise. This required Element promotes a comprehensive, long- range program
of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout the city.
Arrangement of Required General Plan Elements
The General Plan includes six of the seven elements required by State law ( Land
Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety) and other elements
that address local concerns and regional requirements. The Housing Element is a
separately published volume. The State- required mandatory elements are included
in the General Plan, as outlined in Table 1- 1.
ORGANIZATION OF THE ELEMENTS; POLICY STRUCTURE
Each chapter or element of the General Plan includes brief background informa-tion
to establish the context for policies in the Element. This background material
is neither a comprehensive statement of existing conditions nor does it contain any
adopted information. Readers interested in a comprehensive understanding of
issues related to a particular topic should refer to South San Francisco General
Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ( September 1997). This background
information is followed by two sets of policies:
• Guiding policies are the City's statements of its goals and philosophy.
• Implementing policies represent commitments to specific actions. They may
refer to existing programs or call for establishment of new ones.
Together, the guiding and implementing policies articulate a vision for South San
Francisco that the General Plan seeks to achieve. They also provide protection for
the city’s resources by establishing planning requirements, programs, standards,
and criteria for project review.
Explanatory material accompanies some policies. This explanatory material pro-vides
background information or is intended to guide Plan implementation. The
use of “ should” or “ would” indicates that a statement is advisory, not binding;
details will need to be resolved in Plan implementation. Where the same topic is
addressed in more than one chapter, sections and policies are cross- referred, typi-cally
in italics for easy reference.
Table 1.1- 1
Correspondence Between Required General Plan
Elements and Chapters in the South San Francisco
General Plan
Required Element Where Included in the General Plan
Land Use Chapter 2: Land Use
Circulation Chapter 4: Transportation
Conservation Chapter 7: Open Space and
Environmental
Conservation
Open Space Chapter 7: Open Space and
Environmental
Conservation
Safety Chapter 8: Health and Safety
Noise Chapter 9: Noise
20
Policy Numbering System
Policies in the General Plan are organized using a two- part numbering system. The
first part refers to the section and the second the order in which the policy appears
in the chapter, with a letter designation to distinguish guiding policies from imple-menting
policies. For example, the first guiding policy in Section 3.2 is numbered
3.2- G. 1 and the first implementing policy is 3.2- I. 1. In Chapter 2: Land Use,
Chapter 6: Economic Development, and Chapter 9: Noise, the policies are all num-bered
with the chapter number. Thus, each policy in the Plan has a unique num-ber.
1.6 RELATED STUDIES
As part of the General Plan preparation, several technical studies were conducted
to document environmental conditions, and analyze prospects for economic
development, community character and growth, and development alternatives.
Studies prepared include:
• Existing Conditions and Planning Issues; September 1997;
• Fiscal Evaluation of Land Uses; January 1998;
• Sketch Plans; February 1998;
• Draft Environmental Impact Report; June 1999; and
• Final Environmental Impact Report; September 1999.
While these background studies and environmental documents have guided Plan
preparation, they do not represent adopted City policy.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
21
1.7 THE PLANNING PROCESS
The City’s planning process includes monitoring and updating the General Plan
and preparing specific plans, resource management plans, and neighborhood and
special plans. A General Plan Annual Report will provide an overview of the status
of the General Plan and its implementation programs.
AMENDMENTSTO THE GENERAL PLAN
As the City’s constitution for development, the General Plan is the heart of the
planning process. It is intended to be a living document and, as such, will be sub-ject
to more site- specific and comprehensive amendments over time. Amendments
also may be needed from time to time to conform to State or federal law passed
since adoption, and to eliminate or modify policies that may become obsolete or
unrealistic due to changed conditions ( such as completion of a task or project,
development on a site, or adoption of an ordinance or plan).
State law limits the number of times a city can amend its general plan. Generally,
no jurisdiction can amend any mandatory element of its general plan more than
four times in one year, although each amendment may include more than one
change to the general plan. This restriction, however, does not apply to amend-ments
to:
• Optional elements ( such as the Planning Sub- Areas or Economic
Development chapters of the South San Francisco General Plan);
• Allow development of affordable housing;
• Comply with a court decision; or
• Comply with an applicable airport land use plan.
22
Process for General Plan Amendments
City- initiated Amendments
The number of City initiated amendments will be limited to four in any one year,
per State law, although more than one change to the General Plan may be made as
part of the amendment. The City may initiate amendments more frequently if so
needed in the public interest or to comply with a new law or a court- ordered
change.
SPECIFIC, AREA, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
The General Plan includes policies for each of the planning sub- areas in Chapter
3: Planning Sub- areas. To provide additional direction for some of these areas, the
City may prepare detailed area or specific plans. Such plans may accommodate
development on infill sites and also provide for the gradual elimination of incom-patible
uses. Requirements for specific plans are spelled out in the State
Government Code. Neighborhood and special area plans would be tailored to
individual areas and may not necessarily address all of the topics required by State
law for specific plans. All specific plans, neighborhood and area plans, and rede-velopment
plans will need to be consistent with the General Plan.
ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN REPORT
The California Government Code requires that an annual report be submitted to
the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implemen-tation.
This report also is to be submitted to the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research and the Department of Housing and Community Development by July 1
each year. It must include an analysis of the progress in meeting the City’s share of
regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to
maintenance, improvement, and development of affordable housing. Finally, the
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
23
Annual Report should include a summary of all General Plan amendments adopt-ed
during the preceding year and an outline of upcoming projects and General
Plan issues to be addressed in the coming year, along with a work program and
budget.
The Annual Report will be prepared by City staff during the early stages of the bud-get
process and submitted for review to the City Council. Public comments on the
Annual Report may be submitted in writing to the Community and Economic
Development Department. The City Council also will hear public comments on
the Annual Report at duly- noticed public hearings.
24
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
25
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. 2
Looking towards the bay from the western hillside. A wide variety of uses cover the city, from sin-gle-
family residential neighborhoods in the west side of the city to tall office buildings in the East
of 101 area.
26
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
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 develop-ment
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 southeast-ern
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 con-centrated
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
27
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 per-cent
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 intensi-fication;
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 con-tinue
to meet regional needs.
28
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
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 operations at
the San Francisco International Airport ( SFO) and established residential neigh-borhoods
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
objectives of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality; ensure that estab-lished
areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the extraordinary regional
investments 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.
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
29
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 tran-sit-
oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, to take advan-tage
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 ful-fill
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
residents to convenience shopping.
• 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.
30
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
• 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, speci-fy
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 lim-itations
established by other elements of the General Plan. The Diagram is a graph-ic
representation 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.
2: LAND USE
31
Interchange/ Intersection Study Area
Proposed
Existing
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Downtown Low Density Residential
Downtown Medium Density Residential
Downtown High Density Residential
Downtown Commercial
Community Commercial
Business Commercial
Coastal Commercial
Office
Mixed Industrial
Business and Technology Park
Transportation Center
Public
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Loft Overlay District
Existing Regional/ Arterial/ Collector
Proposed Street
South San
Francisco
High School
Spruce
School
Parkway
Heights
Middle
School
Martin
School
Hillside
School
Westborough
Middle School
Serra
Vista
School
( closed)
El Camino
High School
Ponderosa
School
Southwood
School
Sunshine
Gardens
School
Alta Loma
Middle School
Fox Ridge
School
( closed)
Buri Buri
School City Hall
Orange Memorial
Park
Oyster Point Marina/ Park
Marina
Marina
Los
Cerritos
School
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San Franci sco
International
Airpor t
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
1/ 4 Mile Radius
1/ 4 Mile Radius
1/ 4 Mile Radius
1/ 2 Mile Radius
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles AveForbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta
Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway Dr
A St
B St
Southwood
Dr
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
Regional
Commercial
Caltrain
Station
CalTrain
Station
San Bruno
BART
Station
Noor Ave
Shaw Rd
Maple Ave
Starlite
St
So. Linden Ave
No. Canal Ave
Ryan Way
King Dr
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
10 Acres
2.5 Acres
Wexford Ave
Encourage developments
in this area to include
employee- oriented ancillary or
centralized commercial services
South
San Francisco
BART
Station
Figure 2- 1
Land Use Diagram
32
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Table 2.2- 1
Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Residential Density Maximum Permitted Maximum Permitted with Incentives and Bonuses
( Units/ net acres) FARl
Units/ Net FAR
Acre ( 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 Commercial4 - 3.0 - -
Downtown Residential
Low Density 5.1- 15.0 0.7 15.0 -
Medium Density 15.1- 25.0 1.25 31.3 -
High Density 25.1- 40.0 - 50.03 -
Office - 1.0 - 2.55
Commercial
Community Commercial - 0.5 - -
Business Commercial - 0.5 - 1.05
( Hotel) - 1.2 - 2.0
Coastal Commercial - - - -
Industrial
Business and Technology Park - 0.5 - 1.06
Mixed Industrial - 0.4 - 0.67
1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non- residential development.
2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within 1/ 4- mile of a fixed- guideway transit ( Caltrain, 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 Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only and are subject to a use permit.
5 Required parking must be structured.
6 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking.
7 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution.
2: LAND USE
33
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
Zoning 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 park-ing
( 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 reg-ulations
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
Corridor, 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.
34
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
161 FT
211 FT
261 FT
311 FT
361 FT
350
400
450
500
550
161 FT
TRANSITIONAL
SURFACE
SLOPE 7: 1
TRANSITIONAL
SURFACE
SLOPE 7: 1
150 FT
CONICAL SURFACE
SLOPE 20: 1
Height Limit
Figure 2- 2
Airport- Related Height Limitations
APPROACH
SURFACE
SLOPE 40: 1
161 FT
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa
Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand
Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park
Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta
Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
400
400
500
400
500
600
600
600
600
400
500
700
700
700
200
100
100
100
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500
600
700
400
300
300
200
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400
300
600
500
400
300
200
2: LAND USE
35
Figure 2- 3
Special Area Height Limitations
50 FT Height Limit
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa
Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand
Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park
Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta
Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
400
400
500
400
500
600
600
600
600
400
500
700
700
700
200
100
100
100
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
500
600
700
400
300
300
200
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400
300
600
500
400
300
200
80 FT
50 FT
50 FT
50 FT 80 FT
60 FT
50 FT
50 FT
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
and/ or as indicated in Figure 2- 2: Airport- Related Height Limitations.
36
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Viewpoint
Visible from at least one viewpoint
Visible from two viewpoints
Visible from all viewpoints
Figure 2- 4
Viewshed
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange
Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert
Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand
Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, derived from USGS Digital Elevation Model
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2: LAND USE
37
Table 2.2- 2
Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Base Floor Incentive- based FAR Bonuses Available Total
Designation Area Ratio Maximum
( FAR) FAR
Specified Transportation Demand Structured Parking1 Off- site Improvments Other Specified
Management ( TDM) standards Design Standards2
Office 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 2.5
Business Commercial 0.5 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 1.0
Business and Technology Park 0.5 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 1.0
Hotels 1.2 0.4 - 0.2 0.2 2.0
Mixed Industrial 0.4 - - 0.2 - 0.6
1 At least 80% of the parking must be structured.
2 Discretionary; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon review by Planning Commission.
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
Downtown 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 dedicated for creekside greenways or wetlands protection, provided that at
least one housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for res-idential
use. Development would be required within the density range ( both max-imum
and minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development standards
established in the Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities.
38
Lot Size
Dwelling Size
Number of
Floors
Density
( units/ net acre)
Typical Density
Range for
Housing Type
General Plan
Land Use
Classification
Housing Type Detached
( front loaded)
Detached Zero-
Lot Line
( front loaded)
Detached
( front loaded)
Townhouse
( 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
Illustrative Housing Types
2: LAND USE
39
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
Caltrain) 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
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
Ordinance may include a separate district for estate- type or zero- lot- line develop-ments.
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, triplexes,
fourplexes, and townhouses. Multifamily housing type is not permitted.
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 sin-gle-
family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance,
and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate.
40
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Commercial
This designation provides for a wide range of uses in commercial core of down-town,
including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial
recreation, entertainment establishments and theaters, financial, business and per-sonal
services, hotels, educational and social services, and government offices.
Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only, and subject to
a use permit. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for all uses and mixes ( residential
and non- residential) is 3.0; the Zoning Ordinance may or may not establish max-imum
residential densities or minimum housing unit size for mixed- use develop-ments.
The Zoning Ordinance may also specify specific areas where retail or eating
and drinking establishments would be required uses at the ground level.
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.
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 ½ -
acre ( 21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than ½ acre, maximum den-sity
shall be 30.0 units per acre.
2: LAND USE
41
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 res-idents,
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.
OFFICE
This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business,
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
ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maxi-mum
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),
structured parking, off- site improvement, or specific design standards criteria.
These bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2- 2. The Planning Commission, at its
discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing
buildings are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured park-ing
or specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums ( with incentives,
is stipulated in Table 2.2- 2) shall not be exceeded.
COMMERCIAL
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 Airport
Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, com-mercial
recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, financial,
business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permit-ted.
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.
42
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Business Commercial
This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor service
establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administrative, financial,
business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor- oriented and region-al
commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related ser-vices
are permitted subject to appropriate 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 permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such
as research and development establishments with low employment intensity, or for
development meeting specific transportation demand management ( TDM), off-site
improvement, or specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel develop-ments
shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development
meeting specified criteria.
Coastal Commercial
Business/ professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public mar-ketplace,
personal/ repair services, limited retail, hotel/ motel with a coastal orien-tation,
recreational facilities, and marinas. Maximum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recre-ation
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.
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 print-ing,
marinas, shoreline- oriented recreation, and offices, and research and develop-
2: LAND USE
43
ment facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as
ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape stan-dards.
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 with low
employment intensity, or for development meeting specific transportation demand
management ( TDM), off- site improvement, or specific design standards.
Mixed Industrial
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide
range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, stor-age
and distribution, and service commercial uses. Industries producing substan-tial
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 standards. 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 increase to a total FAR of 0.6 for development undertaking or par-ticipating
in off- site improvements as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addi-tion
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 separate-ly
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.
44
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
OPEN SPACE
This designation includes sites with environmental and/ or safety constraints.
Included 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.
2: LAND USE
45
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.
46
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa
Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter
Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian
Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand
Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta
Dr
Ponderosa Rd
Fairway
Dr
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
South Airport
Figure 2- 6
Planning Sub- Areas
Planning Sub- Area
Paradise Valley/
Terrabay
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
400
400
500
400
500
600
600
600
600
400
500
700
700
700
200
100
100
100
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500
600
700
400
300
300
200
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400
300
600
500
400
300
200
2: LAND USE
47
2.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
BUILDOUT
Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from application of
assumed 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
occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a cer-tain
use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/ redeveloped with the
designated 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 1,630 housing units, concentrated main-ly
in El Camino Real, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non- resi-dential
development includes 8.9 million square feet of new space; with an
expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase will
be 5.6 million square feet. About 3.1 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).
• 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 increase of 2,780 housing units and 9.0 million
square feet of non- residential space to the city’s current inventory of an estimated
19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non- residential space.
Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Population Employment
1997 Buildout
57,600
67,400
39,100
71,400
48
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Table 2.4- 1
Land Use Changes and Intensification; Approved Development
Residential ( housing units) Non- Residential ( floor area in square feet)
Subarea Low Med High Down- Total Business Business Coastal Down- Office Bus/ Industrial Comm- Total
Density Density Density town Resi- Comm Comm Comm town Tech unity Non-dential
( Hotels) ( Offices/ Comm Park Comm residential
Comm)
Avalon - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Downtown - - - - - 22,500 - - - - - - 22,500 -
East of 101 - - - - - - - - - 170,000 202,800 - - 372,800
El Camino 180 30 - - 210 - - - - - - - 160,000 160,000
Gateway - - - - - 246,000 - - - 516,000 176,000 - - 938,000
Lindenville - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Orange Park 150 - - - 150 - - - - 600 - - - 600
Oyster Point - - - - - 497,500 - - - - 40,000 128,700 150,000 816,200
Paradise 600 - - - 600 300,000 - - - 397,000 286,000 - 18,000 1,001,000
Valley/ Terrabay
Sign Hill - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
South Airport - - - - - 73,000 - - - - - - - 73,000
Sunshine - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gardens
Westborough - 130 - - 130 - - - - - - - - -
Winston- Serra 60 - - - 60 - - - - - - - - -
Total 990 160 - - 1,150 1,139,000 - - - 913,600 672,000 331,500 328,000 3,384,100
2: LAND USE
49
Table 2.4- 1
Land Use Changes and Intensification; Additional Development Under the General Plan
Residential ( housing units) Non- Residential ( floor area in square feet)
Subarea Low Med High Down- Total Business Business Coastal Down- Office Bus/ Industrial Comm- Total
Density Density Density town Residen- Comm Comm Comm town @ 1.2 Tech Park @ 0.55 unity Non-
@ 7 @ 15 @ 28 Resid tial ( Hotels) ( Offices/ @ 0.3 Comm avg. @ 0.5 FAR Comm residential
units/ units/ units/ ( Inten- @ 0.9 Comm) avg. FAR ( intensif- FAR avg, FAR @
acre acre acre sificat- FAR @ 0.5 ication) 0.3 FAR
ion) FAR
Avalon - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Downtown - - - 290 290 - 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - 131,000
East of 101 - - - - - - 246,000 59,000 - - 2,869,000 ( 1,867,000) 104,500 1,411,500
El Camino - 10 520 - 530 - - - - 134,000 - - 145,000 279,000
Gateway - - - - - 46,000 71,000 - - - - - - 117,000
Lindenville - - 70 - 70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - ( 1,519,000) 457,000 1,652,000
Orange Park - 50 80 - 130 64,000 230,000 - - - - - 31,000 325,000
Oyster Point - - - - - 249,000 988,000 105,000 - - - ( 171,000) - 1,171,000
Paradise Valley/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Terrabay
Sign Hill 30 - - - 30 - - - - - - - - -
South Airport - - - - - 12,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - 430,000
Sunshine 20 - 380 - 400 - - - - - - - 8,000 8,000
Gardens
Westborough - 40 - - 40 - - - - - - - 71,000 71,000
Winston- Serra 140 - - - 140 - - - - - - - - -
Total 190 100 10,500 290 1,630 497,000 2,028,000 164.000 121,000 2,441,000 2,869,000 ( 3,341,000) 816,500 5,595,500
50
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Table 2.4- 1
Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan ( General Plan Buildout)
Residential ( housing units) Non- Residential ( floor area in square feet)
Subarea Low Med High Down- Total Business Business Coastal Down- Office Bus/ Industrial Comm- Total
Density Density Density town Residen- Comm Comm Comm town Tech unity Non-tial
( Hotels) ( Offices/ Comm Park Comm residential
Comm)
Avalon - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Downtown - - - 290 290 22,500 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - 153,500
East of 101 - - - - - - 246,000 59,000 - - 3,039,000 ( 1,664,200) 104,500 1,784,300
El Camino 180 40 520 - 740 - - - - 134,000 - - 305,000 439,000
Gateway - - - - - 292,000 71,000 - - 516,000 176,000 - - 1,055,000
Lindenville - - 70 - 70 216,000 281,000 - - 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 - - - - - 746,500 988,000 105,000 - - 40,000 ( 42,300) 150,000 1,987,200
Paradise Valley/ 600 - - - 600 300,000 - - - 397,000 286,000 - 18,000 1,001,000
Terrabay
Sign Hill 30 - - - 30 - - - - - - - - -
South Airport - - - - - 85,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - 503,000
Sunshine 20 - 380 - 400 - - - - - - - 8,000 8,000
Gardens
Westborough - 170 - - 170 - - - - - - - 71,000 71,000
Winston- Serra 200 - - - 200 - - - - - - - - -
Total 1,180 260 1,050 290 2,780 1,636,000 2,028,000 164,000 121,000 3,354,600 3,541,000 ( 3,009,500) 1,144,500 8,979,600
2: LAND USE
51
BUILDOUT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population of approximate-ly
67,400, an increase of 14 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200.
Table 2.4- 2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Francisco.
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 8.4 per-cent.
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.
Employment
While non- residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an
estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 24.6 million square feet at buildout
( an increase of 31 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an
employment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 71,400 at buildout ( an
Table 2.4- 2
Buildout Population
1990 1998 1990- 1998 Buildout 1990- 2020
Population Population Share Annual Population Share Annual
of Growth of Growth
County Rate County Rate
South 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,400 8.4% 0.6%
San
Franciso
San Mateo 649,623 715,382 100% 1.2% 798,600a 100% 0.5%
County
a) Projected year 2020 population for San Mateo County
Source: US Census; ABAG Projections ‘ 98; Department of Finance; Dyett & Bhatia
Table 2.4- 3
Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use,
1997- Buildout
Land Estimated Increase Buildout
Use 1997 to Employment
Employment1 Buildout
Commercial/ 10,400 3,100 13,500
Retail
Hotels/ 1,800 3,900 5,700
Visitor
Services
Office and 5,700 23,500 29,200
Business
Park
( inc. Medical)
Warehouse/ 13,400 ( 3,200) 10,200
Mixed
Industrial
Public and 1,500 - 1,500
Schools
Construction 2,500 1,800 4,300
and
Miscellaneous
Others 3,800 3,200 7,000
( including at
home
workers)
Total 39,100 32,300 71,400
1 1997 estimate by Dyett & Bhatia.
Table 2.4- 4
Jobs/ Housing Balance
Estimated 1997 Buildout
Employment1
Jobs 39,100 71,400
Employed Residents 27,900 32,352
Jobs/ Employed Residents 1.4 2.2
1 Using information from Claritas Inc. ( for the Planning Area) collected
as part of the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues
Report. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, there
were 41,500 jobs in the South San Francisco Sphere of Influence in
1995.
52
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
increase of 83 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 intensity 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 cat-egories.
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 trans-portation
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 population 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 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 pro-mote
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 development with-in
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.
Employed Residents Jobs
Jobs/ Employed Residents Balance; 1997 and
Buildout
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1997 Buildout
1.4
2.2
2: LAND USE
53
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 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.
These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of their geographic con-cern.
Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to modified to ensure con-sistency
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 strate-gies
in the East of 101 area, potentially affecting South San Francisco’s future devel-opment
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 con-straints
before this development is likely to begin. San Bruno is planning for a mix
54
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Hillside Blvd
Chesnut Ave
Grand Ave
Spruce Ave
Sister Cities Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
Blvd
South Airport Blvd
Linden Ave
San Mateo Ave
El Camino Real
Orange Ave
El Camino Real
Hickey Blvd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Skyline Blvd
Gellert
Blvd
Callan Blvd
Airport Blvd
Mission Rd
Westborough Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
Del Monte Ave
Felipe Ave
Alta Mesa Dr
Arroyo Dr
Carter
Dr
Greendale Dr
Galway
Dr
Shannon Dr
Donegal Ave
Appian Way
Avalon Dr
Alta Vista Dr
Northwood Dr
Rockwood Dr
Wildwood Dr
Alida Way
West Orange Ave
Huntington Ave
Victory Ave
Lowrie Ave
U. S. HIGHWAY 101
Utah Ave
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
E. Grand Ave
East Grand Ave
Harbor Way
Grandview
Dr
Eccles Ave
Forbes
Ave
Littlefield
Ave
Hillside Blvd
School St
Armour Ave
Linden Ave
Maple Ave
Magnolia Ave
Park
Way
Miller Ave
Baden Ave
Commercial Ave
Railroad Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Miller Ave
Willow Ave
Holly Ave
Evergreen Dr
Crestwood Dr
Morningside Ave
Mission Rd
Clay Ave
Newman Dr
Longford Dr
Arlington Dr
Duval Dr
Serra Dr
Camaritas Ave
Loma Dr
Cuesta
Dr
Ponderosa Rd
A St
B St
Hazelwood Dr
Rosewood
Valverde Dr
INTERSTATE 380
INTERSTATE 280
King Dr
Future BART Line
East of 101
Oyster Point
Terra Bay
0 1/ 4 1
MILES
1/ 2
Source: City of South San Francisco
Specific Plan Area
East of 101 Area Plan
Redevelopment Area
Figure 2- 7
Specific and Area Plans
and Redevelopment Areas
Colma
San Bruno
Pacifica
Daly
City
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign Hill
Park
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
300400
400
400
300
400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300
400
200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
400
400
500
400
500
600
600
600
600
400
500
700
700
700
200
100
100
100
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500
600
700
400
300
300
200
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400
300
600
500
400
300
200
Gateway
Shearwater
Downtown/
Central
El Camino
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Gateway
2: LAND USE
55
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
56
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
area.
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 General Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighbor-hoods
are fully protected from changes elsewhere.
2- G- 2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for con-tinued
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 accessi-bility
that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations.
Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high
development intensities around transit stations is not just in South San
Francisco’s best interest, but a regional interest as well.
2- G- 4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial
businesses at specific locations.
The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehous-ing
and distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and
2: LAND USE
57
seeks to maintain these as conforming uses in specific locations.
2- G- 5 Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a focus
of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.
2- G- 6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill
and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating
conflicts with industrial operations.
2- G- 7 Encourage mixed- use residential, retail, and office development in centers
where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide
increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.
2- G- 8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development,
and to promote alternative transportation modes.
2- G- 9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and
encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non- residential developments.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
2- I- 1 Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations contained
in the Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan.
A complete revamping of the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary,
including:
• 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 con-tained
throughout the Plan; and
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 park-ing
on residential streets.
58
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
• Minimum and maximum development intensities as stipulated in
the Land Use Classifications.
This policy is especially critical given the limited land available for res-idential
development. Approval of developments at lower than stipu-lated
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 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
development 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 development
intensity standards.
While in recent years established development intensities have been
constraints to achieving prevailing intensities in the region, and even
in the city, necessitating the need for planned developments, intensities
established in this General Plan reflect development that is appropri-ate
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 Examine the potential for establishing specific criteria to implement devel-opment
intensity bonus standards, as established in Table 2.2- 3.
Elements of this include Transportation Demand Management
( TDM) standards, off- site improvements, and design standards to be
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
59
elaborated upon in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, incentives to
promote structured parking for the Office district should also be estab-lished.
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
Lindenville.
2- I- 6 Undertake a comprehensive review of the parking standards and 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 specif-ic
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
design review by the Planning Commission and/ or the basis for award-ing
design bonuses, as established by policy 2- I- 4.
Current city efforts in this area are uneven. While the City has residen-tial
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 dis-tribution
uses, South San Francisco does not have such guidelines and
standards.
60
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, instead of
trying to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may
probably be better directed at standards/ guidelines focused on specific
geographic 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
Lindenville 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
review, improve the community orientation of new development.
A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relationship
between 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 char