CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 2022
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL AND FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The duly called and noticed special meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Foster City (City), sitting as said Council and Planning Commission of March 2, 2022 was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Awasthi
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, as amended through Order N-08-21, the meeting was held as a teleconference meeting.
ROLL CALL
The Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Recording Secretary called the roll:
PRESENT: Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Jon Froomin, Sanjay Gehani, Sam Hindi, Patrick Sullivan and Mayor/President Richa Awasthi.
Planning Commissioners Evan Adams, Charlie Bronitsky, Nicolas Haddad, Ravi Jagtiani, and Chair Rick Wykoff
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Miller, Interim City/District Manager, Denise Bazzano, Assistant Attorney; Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager; Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director; Leslie Carmichael, Planning Consultant; Rob Lasky; IT Manager; Shuli Chen, Video Technician; and Yelena Cappello, Deputy City Clerk/ Deputy Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC
The following people addressed the City Council and Planning Commission via email:
1. Helen Collins;
2. Mary DeLong;
3. Eva Hess;
4. G.H. Dababo;
5. Kalisha Webster, representing Housing Choices;
6. Amit Saini; and
7. Colin Gould.
The following people addressed the City Council and Planning Commission via teleconference:
1. Mary DeLong;
2. Don Carlson;
3. Colin Gould;
4. Mike Dunham, representing Peninsula for Everyone;
5. Kalisha Webster, representing Housing Choices;
6. Vijay Dodd;
7. Seema Patel; and
8. Charles du Mee.
STUDY SESSION
Mayor Awasthi recessed the meeting into study session for Joint City Council & Planning Commission study session to discuss the Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 Planning Period, Including: Potential Housing Sites for Up to 1,896 New Housing Units Between 2023-2031; and Potential Policy and Program Options for Further Study to Address Future Housing Needs.
Community Development Director Subhashini and Consulting Planner Carmichael presented the staff report and facilitated the discussion.
The following people addressed the City Council and Planning Commissioner via teleconference
1. Charles du Mee;
2. Colin Gould;
3. G.H. Dababo; and
4. Jordan Grimes.
Discussion ensued.
Meeting recessed into study session at 6:56 p.m. and reconvened at 11:02 p.m.
RECESS. The Mayor/President recessed the meeting from 9:18 p.m. to 9:23 p.m.
Planning Commissioner Bronitsky left at 10:25 p.m. due to connectivity issues.
By Consensus of the City Council and Planning Commission, Minute Order No. 1841 was adopted, receiving and accepting the report.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection from the City Council and Planning Commission, Mayor Awasthi adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
From: HELEN COLLINS
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: HELEN COLLINS; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Apartments for Seniors immediately
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 5:30:58 AM
Hello
Foster City has two Senior Housing apartment complexes, Metro Center and Alma Point.
Both waitlists are closed
and have been for 10 to 6 years respectively
Seniors who live in Metro pay 30% of their social security income for rent, Alma Point charges 50% of seniors meager social security check.
The only options FC Seniors have now is to apply for BMR apartments and hope to get selected from the lottery.
The lottery has a priority list but does not give any benefit to FC Seniors who love Foster City and call Foster City their home.
The BMR apartments charge about $1600 a month for a one bedroom.
Seniors can not afford this rent even if they
are selected to apply.
Come on Foster City, we can do better for our Senior population.
It has been suggested that Seniors look in other cities to live, however, if they do that they are placed on the bottom of that cities waitlist, the lowest tier.
I suggest that FC put Senior Citizens as a priority on the lottery for BMR units so they can possibly continue to live in Foster City and charge 30-50% of their monthly social security especially those displaced by the ending of BMR at one of the complexes in FC.
I’ve been on BMR for 25 years and would love to remain in Foster City since it’s my home.
Hopefully. My information is correct but I’m sure you will see Seniors are unable to afford the high rents.
Seniors
who are alone and struggling.
It’s very stressful.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns .
Helen C
Sent from my iPhone
H.
From: Mary Delong
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Comments from Kids Connection for the May 2nd meeting Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:02:55 PM
Dear Members of the Committee,
I am the Executive Director (and owner) of Kids Connection which is located at 1998/1970 Beach Park Blvd in Foster City.
I noticed that the building at 1291 E. Hillsdale is up for discussion at tonight's meeting.
I also currently lease 2 spaces (units 207 & 209) in that building. So my comments are as a tenant as well as a neighbor of one of the buildings under consideration.
I have a 5 year lease, with
an option to renew for an additional 5 years at the 1291 space. Thus I have the option to continue to use the space through 2029. We actively use that space, and are sincerely hoping to for years to come. So thus, I plan to use it throughout the full option, and would expect to wish to renew after that. Additionally, I have spoken to the landlord multiple
times about potential expansion opportunities to use more of the space going forward.
It is the building directly next to our school, and thus is it the ideal spot for us to have additional space as allowable. Currently we use it for administrative space, but are open about using it for more as improvements are made.
Additionally, the impact of a major housing construction project immediately
next to our
school would be significant.
We have elementary and preschool students who would have their learning interrupted by noise, debris, dust, parking limitations and all of the things that would come with a project of this nature.
It is our sincerest hope that for both of these reasons noted above, that the site at 1291 E. Hillsdale not be part of the future housing plans.
As the committee is planning for the future, we would also like to include consideration of allowing Kids Connection Elementary (1998 Beach Park Blvd.) to expand the allowable lot coverage. The last couple of years have been monumental in education, as we all know.
As a
private elementary school, the demand for what we offer has grown significantly. If we were able to just square off the building (adding the size of 1 classroom to our footprint) we could increase our offerings to our students, the majority of which reside in Foster City.
I want to thank the committee for listening to our input and I welcome the opportunity to provide additional information and answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Mary DeLong
Executive Director
Kids Connection
1998 Beach Park Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
Office: 650.578.6691
Direct: 650.542.7863
Fax: 866.306.8855
Meeting: https://calendly.com/mdelong
Follow us on Facebook | Instagram
From: Eva Hess
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Joint Council - Planning Commission Meeting: 3/2/2022 Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:53:37 PM
Foster City has the highest density in our area (see figure 2 chart) https://www.towncharts.com/.../Foster-City-city-CA...
Foster City politicians claim that the reason they refused to challenge the State Housing Mandates and are trying to cram 1,896 more units into our over-built city is to create affordable housing. If this is true, then why is the Planning Commission proposing that the Council:
1. Lower the percentage of affordable units?*
2. Allow developers to pay a fee instead of providing affordable housing?** * It looks like the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) *Reduces* the percentage of affordable units from 20% to 15%.
The City's response to a resident's comments from the meeting: "The AHO allows the developer to provide 15% Below Market Rate Units (4% Extremely Low, 4% Very Low and 7%Low units) whereas the City’s standard policy would require the developer to provide 20%Below Market Rate units (10% Very Low, 5% Low and 5% Moderate)."
~See Public Comments, page 29~
https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx...
** It appears our Planning Commission is asking the Council to allow developers to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing. Is the fee low = favorable to developers? https://www.fostercity.org/.../2022-03-07_ahoz-iz-fee_cc...
City politicians 'Talk' about affordable housing, but your *Actions* say: "We work for developers."
Eva Hess
Alden Crossing
From: G. Dababo
To: Foster City Public Comment; Marlene Subhashini
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: 1601 Beach Park Blvd. Site
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:13:58 PM
Hello and Good Afternoon;
My name is G. H. Dababo. I represent the owners of 1601 Beach Park Blvd., the former church facility. We agree and support staff recommendation on the site selection as a potential location for housing.
We are happy to help.
G. H. Dababo
From: Kalisha Webster
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: Jan Stokley; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public Comment for Discussion on the Preparation of the Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 Planning Period
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:00:46 PM
Attachments: Foster City Public Comment 3.2.22.pdf
Please find attached Housing Choices submission for public comment for tonight's joint Planning Commission and City Council Housing Element study session.
Thank you,
We have moved! Please note the new office address!
This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521. This e-mail is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
March 2, 2022
Re: Public Comment on Discussion on the Preparation of the Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 Planning Period
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
On behalf of Housing Choices, I am submitting public comments on potential programs and policies that the city can adopt to meet the housing needs of Foster City residents with developmental disabilities as required by the Department of Housing & Community Development
Housing Choices provides housing retention and navigation services for San Mateo County residents with developmental and other disabilities who require supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center in order to live independently. While the main component of increasing accessibility for a person with a developmental disability is supportive services another major barrier to housing access for a person with a developmental disability is cost.
Foster City has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create policy, zoning, program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing in coordination with the supportive services available from the Golden Gate Regional Center. Currently, only 2 of the nearly 100 adults with developmental disabilities living in Foster City have been able to transition into independent living. The City’s lack of progress in meeting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities since the last Housing Element demonstrates the need for policies and programs that specifically incentivize inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an
effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 25 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for Foster City residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this growing special needs population.
● Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the Inclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Meet City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in high-cost Foster City. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive request for proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of Foster City residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of extremely low income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Offer Developers Additional Alternatives Under the Inclusionary Ordinance. Most adults with developmental disabilities and other special needs groups on fixed incomes, are unable to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Lower Income units currently required under the city’s inclusionary ordinance. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing an alternative means of compliance with the city’s BMR program if deeper levels of affordability are targeted, such as by allowing a lower percentage of units to be set aside if they are affordable to Extremely Low Income households. This same alternative can be extended to projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. Such a menu would address a broader range of Foster City housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. ● Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have reduced parking needs because they rarely have a driver's license or own a car. This may also be true of other categories of people with disabilities. The City should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction should be considered for physically accessible units required to be included in affordable housing. ● Local Density Bonus Concessions. The state density bonus law incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like San Mateo County, with the highest Area Median Income in the state, these incentives reward the targeting of income levels that effectively exclude the many people with disabilities and seniors living on fixed incomes well below the Very Low Income target. Above and beyond the density bonus guidelines mandated by state law, the City should provide additional concessions and incentives to enable affordable housing developers to address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, including for example, projects with a percentage of extremely low-income units and/or projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in San Mateo County (i.e. Golden Gate Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities and others) but rarely take this step.
Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, may rely on housing navigation services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.
● Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints, a growing body of San Mateo County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of housing discrimination and severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Currently Foster City offers its residents exceptional employment, educational and social opportunities but the severe shortfall of Extremely Low Income units means that Black, Indigenous and People of Color--particularly those with disabilities--are too often excluded from enjoying those community assets. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that will overcome such disparities. Policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in Foster City and decrease displacement and homelessnessness for the most at-risk Daly City residents Sincerely,
Kalish
We ste
Kalisha Webster, Housing Advocate
email: [email protected]
From: Amit Saini
To: Foster City Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Marlene Subhashini; Priscilla Schaus; Kevin Miller; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh Subject: Feedback on housing element plan
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:39:49 PM
Dear Councilmembers & Planning Commission-
Thank you for your service to our city.
You have before you some of the most important changes that Foster City will undergo since its founding.
Rather than comment on the choice of specific sites, I urge the council & planning commission to form some guidelines and principles on how each site should be evaluated and scored, which includes variables such as:
1. Proximity to exists, larger-sized roads or transit
2. Ability to eliminate parking minimums from certain sites (each unit = 2 cars on our streets)
3. Potential to establish park & ride facilities near a logically arranged group of sites
4. Potential to run city shuttles
5. Potential to establish more retail, downtown-type facilities near grouped sites
6. Impact on mitigating middle school overcrowding (Bowditch is running at 1100+ students - larger than a HS)
7. Impact of neighborhood disruption
I believe it will be a mistake to look at each site in isolation in an attempt to maximize usage.
This will not only lead to unplanned traffic but also a deterioration in resident quality of life.
Rather, consider groupings and find creative ways to link these groupings that do not involve driving. In this process, we may find ways to add amenities that are currently missing in Foster City.
Finally, please encourage staff to work with visualization specialists that can produce 3D renderings of the proposed changes. It is very hard to imagine a future Foster city on a 2-D colored map. ArcGIS City Engine is a good software that is frequently used for this purpose.
Regards,
Amit Saini
1050 Hatteras
From: Colin Gould
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Re: re Housing Element Update 3/2/2022
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 6:45:05 PM
PS I read the agenda and realized I was too late after 4pm deadline :) , so I attended and spoke on the zoom, thank you!
Didn't want to duplicate.
Below was my updated text.
Thank you so much!
I wanted to comment on the Housing Element update map, specifically about #4 Edgewater Place Shopping Center.
Please vote NO for housing here.
This is a successful, well-used center with many varied businesses and restaurants, very low vacancy, that is a key resource for neighborhood residents.
Removing businesses to add housing here makes no sense, and would hurt not just the small businesses that are succeeding there,
but also residents who have come to count on them, especially within walking distance. No others are close.
Previously Chevys and Martial Arts tried to push housing redevelopment for this center, and rightfully, it was rejected.
Please reject any housing here again... it does NOT make sense.
Similarly, #2 Beach Park Plaza, has recently reached success with many restaurants and small businesses, just finished remodeling,
and makes no sense to redevelop as the only shopping center in that neighborhood.
Both are not currently zoned for residential, and are part of Foster City's neighborhood- focussed development plan model (which I LOVE!), keeping parks and shopping resources close to residents. I walk to Lucky's for groceries at least half the time vs driving, my bank is there, eat at restaurants, and frequently patronize restaurants at Beach Park Plaza.
IF this is made mixed-use, with housing above (all retained) businesses, that may be acceptable, but should not impact or hurt the existing businesses and their patrons.
Colin Gould, neighborhood 6 / Halsey/Farragut
On 3/2/2022 6:23 PM, Colin Gould wrote:
I wanted to comment on the Housing Element update map, specifically about #4 Edgewater Place Shopping Center.
Please vote NO for housing here.
This is a successful, well-used center with many varied businesses and restaurants, very low vacancy, that is a key resource for neighborhood residents.
Removing businesses to add housing here makes no sense, and would hurt not just the small businesses that are succeeding there,
but also residents who have come to count on them, especially within walking distance. No others are close.
Previously Chevys and Martial Arts tried to push housing redevelopment for this center, and rightfully, it was rejected.
Please reject any housing here again... it does NOT make sense.
Colin Gould, neighborhood 6 / Halsey/Farragut