Formal plans have been filed for a seven-story apartment complex at 1919 O’Farrell Street in San Mateo, San Mateo County. The proposal will bring 87 apartments at the end of a cul-de-sac between 20th Avenue and Highway 92. San Mateo-based Sierra Investments is listed as the project owner and applicant.
1919 O’Farrell Street aerial overview, rendering by Design & Architecture
1919 O’Farrell Street vehicular view from Highway 92, rendering by Design & Architecture
The 74-foot-tall structure is expected to yield around 126,500 square feet, including 69,630 square feet of housing, 39,570 square feet for the podium garage, and 2,590 square feet of amenities. Of the 87 rental units, there will be 11 affordable homes, including eight very-low-income units and three low-income units. Unit sizes will vary, with 48 one-bedrooms and 39 two-bedrooms. Parking will be included for 93 cars and over 90 bicycles.
Design and Architecture is overseeing the project. Illustrations show a busy collage-like facade with a mix of materials, articulation, and private balconies. The structure includes a full-height mural overlooking the cul-de-sac. Facade materials will include stucco, metal siding, brick veneer, wood-like panels, and precast cement.
1919 O’Farrell Street site plan, illustration by Design & Architecture
1919 O’Farrell Street, image via Google Street View
The 0.7-acre property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac off West 20th Avenue, across from San Mateo City Hall and in a neighborhood dominated by single-family houses. The estimated cost and timeline for construction have not yet been shared.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
I love it. more traffic and congestion for 20th avenue, alameda and el camino… The continued ruination of San Mateo continues.
Yeah, no one ever thinks of that. Only $$$. Sad but true.
LOL. NIMBYs are so stupid. They oppose all construction in the most Pavlovian and anti-progress manner.
Not a NIMBY nor stupid as you say. usually it’s the people on the wrong side of the issue who resort to name calling. All this new housing going up in San Mateo. Where are the new schools being built? where is the new hospital going to be built? Where is the new infrastructure that we need to support all this new housing. When is El Camino Real and 92 being widened to take on all this new traffic? And 20th Avenue, can it sustain all this new traffic. We shall see.
Damn… if only they had taken transit into consideration when electrifying the train line that offers 10-20-minute headways.
‘New Schools’
LOL. The birth rate has fallen 25% in the last decade. Most schools don’t even have enough children. New density actually prevents schools from shutting down.
‘Traffic’. BART and Caltrain are still at just 40-45% of pre-Covid ridership levels.
Your mind is stuck in 1995. You are 31 years behind the times.
If only El Camino didn’t suck in the first place, we wouldn’t have to worry about redevelopment.
I guess any housing is good. This is 100% auto dependant. Zero people will walk or ride transit here and there is no bike lane
If there was some plan to build a bridge over 92 for pedestrians and bikes it would be better but it’s CA so impossible in any cost effective way to do this
That’s one of the things that sucks about California cities. They block most development projects and don’t build any infrastructure. There’s no seriousness to their approach to traffic capacity, school capacity, or neighborhood amenities. Practically the whole state’s infrastructure is based on visions that were 1950 or 1960, but have barely been updated an iota since.
They approve one or two small-scale developments once in a blue moon, then the city takes all the credit for the developer’s work and outlayed investments even though the city didn’t build anything except bureaucratic processes and fee structures. (“Berkeley is doing a great job building housing!”)
Elections come and go, the same group of people stays in power, and nothing ever changes except the cost of living, taxes, and traffic.
I like the look of this development — good choice of location, a decent built form, and it fills a need in the market. I’d prefer if there were more multi-bedroom units and the garage was underground instead of at street level (why are we still building podium garages in some of the most land value municipalities in the world?) but overall it’s good. But I really don’t like the narratives and processes around it.
Good project. It replaces that low-density wastage that is there presently.