South San Francisco delays new 480-unit housing growth | Native Information

South San Francisco City Council last week failed to approve a 480-unit housing estate, citing concerns about wages paid to builders and plans to use gas-fired water heaters in place of electric alternatives.

The lengthy approval process, which began in 2018, will be postponed until at least December 8th, at which point the point will be submitted to the Council again. Council members expressed the hope that the developer, the Hanover company, would give in to calls for union workers to be hired and for more environmentally friendly electrical appliances to be included.

“This project has been going for three years and another two weeks won’t really hurt,” said Councilor Buenaflor Nicolas. “We have to give the opportunity to negotiate and work together more.”

The delay comes amid a controversial time for housing projects as state laws have been passed in recent years aimed at getting cities to approve more housing in response to sometimes clogged local pipelines for new developments and rising rents. Developers have increasingly relied on such laws to get their approval – sometimes through litigation.

The proposed developments would consist of two seven-story buildings for 100 Produce Ave. and 124 Airport Blvd. with a total area of ​​743,700 square meters. The first two floors of the building would be multi-storey car parks with 560 spaces.

The location is half a mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and one mile from a BART station.

The seventh public hearing on the development took place at last week’s session, but for the first time before the city council. The planning commission previously called for numerous changes, ranging from design changes to the facade of the building to the use of systems in the surrounding landscape design, to concerns about traffic management and the demand for more cost-effective units.

The development is said to include 60 units below market price, with 40 units affordable for those earning 80% of the region’s median income and 20 units affordable for those with the region’s median income. Units in these categories suitable for a household of two would cost approximately $ 2,927 and $ 2,992 per month, respectively.

The affordability of the units does not meet the city’s requirement that 15% of the units are for those earning 50% and 80% of the median income of the area, but since the development was submitted before the requirement became effective, it is optional.

For the same reason, the settlement is also exempt from the city’s natural gas ban on new residential buildings that came into force at the beginning of the year. The developer noted that all other devices will be electric and the use of electric water heaters has not been fully written off.

“We will get cost estimates and offers for both projects and for the same price we will be completely electric,” said Scott Udal, development partner at Hanover. “I’m not leaning towards anything electrical, I am leaning towards the uncertainty and I am leaning towards the costs that would potentially rock this project.”

Udal said he was concerned about the increase in the cost of the project as the financial incentive to build homes on the site has decreased since the project was submitted to biotech and other industries in the area.

He went on to point out that Senate Bill 330, a federal law that came into force last year requiring cities not to delay projects, was inapplicable because the project was brought before the law. City Attorney Sky Woodruff stated that the law would not apply due to the project requiring zoning changes. But, said Udal, “this law was passed for a reason, and that is, housing projects are taking too long to get approved and facing too many hurdles, and we’ve cleared hurdles on this project.”

“Up until three to four days ago it felt like collaboration, and I worry that if we don’t move forward now, what is coming won’t be collaborative,” he said.

However, Councilor James Coleman said that despite several meetings with the developer in which he urged the use of electric water heaters and union work, and expressed concern about the below-market amount, he saw “very minimal” changes to the plan as a result.

“Climate change is real and action is required now; action was required yesterday,” Coleman said. “If these apartments are to be built, it has to be done in a sustainable way.”

Councilor Eddie Flores said he would also like to see the building be fully electric and said he was concerned that families in the community would be affected by the lack of union work.

“We definitely want something positive for the community at all levels,” he said. “I would like to see a little more time for the negotiations to proceed. Let’s talk it out. “

Addiego noted that the water heaters didn’t worry him as much as other council members, adding that the new homes are likely to prevent long commutes for those employed in South San Francisco – a net gain for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Sometimes you try to be perfect when it comes to natural gas, but we have to be a little bit sensible about how it affects us,” he said. “Architecture and design and what that entails is a project that I would not like to see get rid of, but the Achilles’ heel is the work situation.”