South City housing development proposed

The proposal is located in the southeastern portion of the city, where councilmembers recently approved amending zoning code to make way for construction of a new neighborhood transitioning toward downtown.

Mayor Mark Addiego expressed his support for the plans, which he considered thoughtfully developed.

“This is above and beyond what we see from so many others,” said Addiego, to representatives from The Hanover Company, which is proposing to redevelop the site currently occupied by commercial tenants.

Plans call for constructing a couple seven-story buildings at adjacent properties across San Mateo Avenue from each other. The 2.5-acre site at 124 Airport Blvd. is slated to house 294 units and 341 parking spaces, while the 1.5-acre site at 100 Produce Ave. is targeted for 186 units and 219 parking spaces. Of the 480 units, 48 will be set aside at an affordable rate for those considered low income according to the area median income.

Vice Mayor Mark Nagales pushed the developer to consider offering additional affordable units, but the developer declined. He also questioned whether a segment of the below-market units could be offered at a higher level of affordability, and was rebuffed as well.

Citing upheaval in the housing industry brought by the pandemic, representatives from The Hanover Company said changing the unit pricing at this late stage in the planning could destabilize the project financing.

Nagales said he understood those concerns, but warned the developers they may face additional pushback against the plans as the development continues working its way through the public planning process. No decision was made at the meeting, and it will face later examination by the Planning Commission.

Planning Commission Chair JulieAnn Murphy encouraged the developers to assure that those living in the affordable units do not face additional expense to get a parking space.

“If you charge them additional rent for parking spaces, it takes that rent out of the affordability range. So be aware of that and be careful of it,” she said.

Planning Commissioner Sam Shihadeh also raised some concerns regarding the development as well — citing fears that the uptick in residential building could lead to safety issues and conflict with existing uses in the largely commercial area.

“I think that area will be overwhelmed with all these additional units,” said Shihadeh, who urged the developer to make safety improvements to the nearby intersection, with hopes that it becomes less dangerous for future residents and pedestrians.

Addiego concurred, noting the area is a popular outlet for trucks and commercial vehicles accessing nearby Highway 101 as well as workers walking from BART to their jobs supporting the airport.

“It’s not safe now. It’s a concern. So we have got to get our staff to work on that to develop a better plan for pedestrians,” he said.

He also questioned the developer’s plans to build a swimming pool in the courtyard of the larger residential building.

“I haven’t seen a pool as part of a South San Francisco project in a long time,” he said. The developer acknowledged the amenity is uncommon in South City’s climate, but said it can be a perk useful in attracting potential tenants.

“It is definitely an amenity that people are drawn to because there is no other project in South San Francisco that has one,” said Addiego.

Beyond detailed observations and reservations though, Addiego led his colleagues in praising the plans most considered near to fully formed.

“We look forward to this project,” he said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com