Oyster Point housing plan stirs division

The housing proposed in an expansive development comprised of 2.25 million square feet could fuel traffic congestion, violate the city’s zoning code and ultimately impede on the continual growth of the city’s trademark industry, said association CEO Sara Radcliffe.

“East of Highway 101 really lacks what it takes to support housing, particularly at this immense size,” said Radcliffe, whose organization includes member companies such as Genentech, Amgen, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson and more.

The developer disagrees and claims the project’s residential component could actually go far to ease some of the issues Radcliffe raised by putting homes near a thriving job center.

“We are really surprised they are against this,” said Clara Tang, executive vice president of Oyster Point Development, which recently broke ground on the initial phase of construction to ultimately be spread across 81 acres.

Plans include 1,191 rental and for-sale residences spanning in size between studios and three-bedroom units, as well as about 1.5 million square feet of research and development space for biotechnology companies. South San Francisco officials are also weighing proposals for hotel designs to offer as many as 350 rooms, plus community gathering space and additional amenities.

The project is a revised version of a commercial development first approved by South San Francisco officials in 2011, which lay stagnant for years prior to recently being purchased and rejuvenated by Tang’s company last year. If built, it would mark the first batch of residential development in the area east of Highway 101 in South San Francisco.

Noting the regional affordability crisis driven by the imbalance between available housing and job opportunities, Radcliffe said the association broadly favors residential development, so long as the homes are built in the right place.

But considering Oyster Point’s relative isolation from public transportation hubs such as the city’s Caltrain or BART station, Radcliffe expressed fears those living in the proposed units would further clog the area’s already frequently congested streets.

Such a development could make the area less desirable, and in the worst-case scenario, drive companies away from South San Francisco and toward other cities seeking to lure the often attractive employers, she said.

Furthering concerns regarding limited infrastructure, Radcliffe suggested municipal services such as the local police and fire departments as well as the school system may not be able to accommodate the influx of new residents.

“The issue is that we are not against housing — far from it. But rather housing in this area where everyone agrees that the infrastructure is not yet there,” Radcliffe said.

Tang downplayed such concerns, and said development plans include a comprehensive approach to improving the existing infrastructure to better serve the anticipated uptick in demand.

“There is a lot of work that will be put into beautifying this place to transform the amenities of Oyster Point because right now it is so underutilized,” she said, noting the first phase of work is designed to improve streets, utilities and protect against sea level rise, among other efforts.

Furthermore, she suggested building homes near the Bayshore could be an asset for local companies seeking to recruit and attract workers who otherwise may struggle to find suitable housing.

To that end, she said a variety of life sciences companies have expressed their support for the housing proposal, while advocating for workers who would appreciate the chance to live close to work.

Tang also dismissed concerns over residents compounding traffic problems because so many of the biotech employees would be able to walk or bike and others would be doing a reverse commute.

“It’s a short and sweet commute if you live there,” she said.

But the association’s issues span beyond infrastructure, said Radcliffe, pointing to the city’s zoning regulations written roughly two decades ago which largely preserved the city’s eastern portion for biotechnology growth. She said the association opposes the Oyster Point Development specifically, and similar developments in the area generally.

“That’s been very important to the growth of the life sciences sector,” said Radcliffe. “To know there is a part of the region that is really devoted to what we think is an incredible part of the Bay Area economy.”

Tang acknowledged the plan has been effective over the years, but questioned whether it may be best suited to address future needs.

“It’s time to make that correction or change to make residential possible in that area to really follow the trend and keep South San Francisco a competitive place for biotechnology companies,” she said, noting housing near biotechnology campuses is common in other life science hubs such as Boston or San Diego.

Mayor Pradeep Gupta too pointed to the precedent of similar developments in other communities as an example of the effectiveness in adding housing while cutting down on congestion.

“I’m in favor of that proposal because we need housing and we need housing near the new developments coming in so they don’t overload the highway,” he said.

He was quick to note though he keeps an open mind to the concerns raised by the association, and said he expects to further discuss them in the coming weeks as the proposal works through the planning process early next year.

“I have to see what kind of issues the [California Life Sciences Association] or other companies in the biotech cluster might bring up and I will be paying close attention to them and, if they are valid, I’ll make choices which are compatible with what they tell us,” he said.

Tang said she is hopeful the housing proposal will make it before the City Council by next March, when officials will ultimately determine the project’s fate — as well as perhaps the future of the region.

“If the housing proposal is not approved by the council in the coming year, we still have the right to develop 2.25 million square feet of research and development space,” she said. “Can you imagine how much more traffic or infrastructure burden that will create?”

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105