CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2022
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Regular Meeting of March 7, 2022 of the City Council of the City of Foster City, sitting as said Council and as ex officio the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor/President Richa Awasthi.
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, as amended through Order N-08-21, the meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.
ROLL CALL
The Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Recording Secretary called the roll:
PRESENT: Councilmembers/ex officio Directors Jon Froomin, Sanjay Gehani, Sam Hindi, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Richa Awasthi.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Miller, Interim City/District Manager, Benjamin Stock, City Attorney/District Legal Counsel; Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager; Edmund Suen, Finance Director; Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director; Maria Saguisag-Sid, Human Resources Director; Tracy Avelar, Police Chief; Louis Sun, Public Works Director; Rob Lasky, IT Manager; Leslie Carmichael, Consulting Planner; Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager; Justin Lai, Associate Civil Engineer; Dusty Landwehr, Recreation Coordinator; Shuli Chen, Video Technician and Yelena Cappello, Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Recording Secretary.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MARCH 2022 AS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH.
Mayor Awasthi presented the proclamation recognizing March 2022 as Women’s History Month to Margaret Lukens and Kathy Wheeler representing the League of Women Voters, and Nirmala Bandra and Candra Williams, representing the San Mateo County Commission on the Status of Women.
PUBLIC
Eva Hess addressed the City Council in person regarding housing.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Awasthi took “Youth Advisory Committee's 2021 Year End Report, Review of Mission Statement, and Goals for 2022” out of agenda order.
REPORTS
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S 2021 YEAR END REPORT, REVIEW OF MISSION STATEMENT, AND GOALS FOR 2022. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1842.
Youth Advisory Committee Chair Sophia Gomes presented the Youth Advisory Committee’s 2021 Year End Report, Review of Mission Statement, and Goals for 2022.
Motion by Councilmember Gehani, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1842, receiving and accepting the Youth Advisory Committee's 2021 Year End Report, Review of Mission Statement, and Goals for 2022.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Councilmember/Director Hindi, seconded by Councilmember/Director Gehani, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, approving the following items on the City/District Consent Calendar:
City/EMID Consent Calendar
1. Minutes of Special Meeting of February 17, 2022;
2. Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 22, 2022; and
3. City Resolution No. 2022-20, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Call for Bids for the New Traffic Signals at Various Locations Project (CIP 301-681).”
PUBLIC HEARING
BELOW MARKET RATE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM (RZ2021-0004), AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT (RZ2019-0001), ZONING
OF SEVEN APARTMENT PROPERTIES WITHIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT (RZ2020-0001), AND ESTABLISHING RATES FOR A BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2022-21.
Mayor Awasthi opened a public hearing to hear and consider public comments regarding Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program (RZ2021-0004), Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District (RZ2019-0001), Zoning of Seven Apartment Properties Within Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District (RZ2020-0001), and Establishing Rates for a Below Market Rate Housing In-Lieu Fee.
Community Development Director Subhashini and Consultant Planner Carmichael presented the staff report.
The following people addressed the City Council via email:
1. Connie Vial;
2. Charles and Linda du Mee, 18 Coral Lane;
3. Terry Kao, 110 Williams Lane;
4. Ran Lin, 465 Chesapeake Avenue;
5. Shreya Reddy;
6. Meggan and James Swenson;
7. Grace Castillo, 26 Port Royal Avenue;
8. Aileen Catanzarita, 412 Chesapeake Avenue;
9. Yue Wu; and
10. Kalisha Webster, representing Housing Choices.
The following people addressed the City Council in person:
1. Lorne Needle, 14 Lyme Lane;
2. Don Carlson, 288 Boothbay Avenue; and
3. Jack Bearden.
The following people addressed the City Council via teleconference:
1. Charles du Mee;
2. Shreya Reddy (SR); and
3. Prakash.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Awasthi closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried by roll call vote, 4-1-0, Councilmember Gehani voted “no”, to introduce “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding a New Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code Relating to Inclusionary Housing” by title and waive further reading with amendments to add to the end of section
17.90.040.A “as applicable to the demolished units.”
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried by roll call vote, 4-1-0, Councilmember Gehani voted “no”, to pass ordinance to second reading.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to reconsider “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding a New Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code Relating to Inclusionary Housing.”
Motion by Councilmember Sullivan, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to introduce “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding a New Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code Relating to Inclusionary Housing” by title and waive further reading with amendments to add to the end of section 17.90.040.A “as applicable to the demolished units”; remove section 17.90.080.A. providing for payment of below market rate housing in lieu fee as an alternative for developments over 10 units or more; and any conforming changes to recitals, findings and ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember Gehani, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to pass ordinance to second reading.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Hindi, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to introduce “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding a New Chapter 17.92, Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District, to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code” by title and waive further reading with amendments to add “or (ii) in a residential development project that will require the demolition of dwelling units, the number of dwelling units demolished, provided the residential development project will create at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished and otherwise complies with the requirements of California Government Code Section 666300 (d), as applicable to the demolished units” to end of section
17.92.040.B; change the 15% inclusionary option to a requirement by deleting language “may instead choose to” in section 17.92.040.A and replacing it with “shall”; and any conforming changes to recitals, findings and ordinance.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Gehani, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to pass ordinance to second reading.
Motion by Councilmember Sullivan, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried by roll call vote, 4-1-0, Councilmember Gehani voted “no” to introduce “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Amending the Foster City Zoning Map to Zone Certain Properties Within the Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District” by title and waive further reading.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried by roll call vote, 4-1-0, Councilmember Gehani voted “no” to pass ordinance to second reading.
Motion by Councilmember Gehani, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, to adopt City Resolution No. 2022-21 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to Adopt a Fee for Below Market Rate Housing In-Lieu Fees.”
RECESS. The Mayor/President recessed the meeting from 9:05 pm – 9:10 pm.
REPORTS
RECREATION CENTER PROJECT UPDATE - NEXT STEPS. MINUTE ORDER NO.1843.
Interim City Manager Miller and Public Works Director Sun presented the staff report.
Susan Lessin addressed the City Council via teleconference.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1843, directing staff to:
1. Confirm the City Council’s intent to adopt a resolution appropriating Transfer Outs of $36 million from the Capital Asset Acquisition and Replacement Fund (CAAR Fund 326) and $19 million from General Fund reserves to City CIP Fund 301 for the Recreation Center Replacement Project (CIP 301-678) and increasing the CIP 301-678 expenditure budget by $55 million as part of the Annual Budget;
2. Proceed with the Request for Proposals process for design services, construction management services, construction inspection services, and materials testing; and
3. Proceed with the request for additional staffing of two positions to support the project, which will be submitted for City Council review at the Budget Study Session Meeting on May 9, 2022, and will ultimately be approved concurrently with adoption of the City budget.
REPORT ON GENERAL FUND REVENUE ENHANCEMENT BALLOT MEASURES.
MINUTE ORDER NO. 1844.
Finance Director Suen presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Gehani, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1844, receiving and accepting the report on General Fund Revenue Enhancement Ballot Measures.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BUDGET FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY 2021- 2022 FOR THE WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND (FUND 139). CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2022-22.
Community Development Director Subhashini and Consulting Planner Carmichael presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried by roll call vote, 4-0-1, Councilmember Sullivan abstained, adopting City Resolution No. 2022- 22, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Providing Direction and Approving Revenues and Expenditures Budget for the Remainder of FY 2021-2022 for the Workforce Housing Fund (Fund 139)” with amendments to proceed with item 1 and 5 as presented in the resolution, proceeding with redesignating 5 moderate income Below Market Rate Units to 2 very low income units and 3 low income units, and using funds from the from the Capital Asset Acquisition and Replacement Fund (CAARF) to complete the purchase of the Workforce Housing Apartments approved by Resolution No. 2019-
72. COMMUNICATIONS
CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.
City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 5, 2022 and February 15, 2022; ACH were Processed on January 27, 2022, February 5, 2022 and February 15, 2022.
COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS, COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS,
AND CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS
Councilmember/Director Sullivan stated he participated in the One Day Homeless Count and Survey for San Mateo County. On February 24, he joined a tour of the Levee Project, and on March 4, he attended Leadership training.
Councilmember/Director Gehani stated he attended the Council of Cities meeting on February 25 with Vice Mayor Froomin and Councilmember Hindi.
Vice Mayor/Vice President Froomin welcomed the public back to in person meetings.
Mayor/President Awasthi stated she joined the Levee Project tour on February 28 and thanked Public Works Director Sun and Senior Engineer Magno for the informative tour.
She stated she participated in the Read Aloud at Beach Park Elementary School and said it was a great experience.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor/President Awasthi recessed the meeting into Closed Session for:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)):
High Level Training Center LLC (aka Gold Medal Martial Arts), U.S. Bankruptcy Court California Northern Bankruptcy Court – Case number: 21-30452;
2. Public Employee Appointment (Government Code §54957) Title: City Manager; and
3. Report Out from Closed Session.
Meeting recessed into Closed Session at 11:06 p.m. and reconvened at 11:40 p.m.
City Attorney Stock reported that no action was taken in Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Awasthi adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
From: Connie Vial
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: Connie Vial; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Redevelopment of Lantern Cove apartments
Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 2:27:50 PM
Foster City council Members:
I am strongly oppose to the redevelopment of Lantern Cove apartments and to add this project to the AHO housing district.
Thanks for your consideration and for listening to the concerns of Foster City residents.
Kindest regards,
Connie Vial, GRI
Broker/Owner
Vial Properties
[email protected]
Office:
650-578-0885
Cell & text: 650-799-0918
Website: www.vialproperties.com
CalBRE: #00833411
Thank you for referring your family and friends!
Sent from my iPad
From: Charles du Mee
To: Sanjay Gehani-Councilmember; Richa Awasthi-Mayor; Jon Froomin-Vice Mayor; Sam Hindi-Councilmember; Patrick Sullivan-Councilmember; Foster City Public Comment; Yelena Cappello; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Lantern Cove re-Development – NO!
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:48:17 AM
To the FC Mayor and Council Members,
Regarding the proposal for the re-development of Lantern Cove Apartments.
We have written to you before. We are homeowners next door to the Lantern Cove Apartments. While we understand the need for an increase in affordable housing, Lantern Cove is not the right place for expansion. New housing should be near to an entrance/exit to Foster City, so the increase in traffic can be absorbed. Lantern Cove is about as far from an
exit/entrance to Foster City as possible. This would increase the traffic and affect safety not
just in this neighborhood, but in all neighborhoods between here and an entrance/exit to Foster City.
This would include Port Royal Avenue, Beach Park Blvd., Polaris Ave. behind Foster City School and Boothbay Ave., among others, where there are a lot of children and cyclists.
There seem to be far better locations for this in Foster City, such as near the Mariners Point Golf Center, almost empty office space on the corner of Edgewater/Metro Center Blvd., the corner of Foster City Blvd. and Metro Center Blvd., E. 3 rd Ave and Lincoln Center Drive, New
Foster City Park/Bridgeview Park off Beach Park Blvd., and a lot of parking lots that could be converted off Foster City Blvd. in front of City Hall to the PJCC, which is near facilities, shopping and public transportation, to name a few. There are other open areas, such as by Sea Cloud Park, but which also maybe too far from an entrance/exit to Foster City.
A novel idea: The open area by the Foster City Sign trail: You could design buildings in the shape of FOSTER CITY – 10 buildings - which could be seen from space!
We, and all of our neighbors, are strongly opposed to expansion at the Lantern Cove location.
Thank you for your service to the City of Foster City.
Sincerely,
Charles and Linda du Mée
18 Coral Lane
Foster City, CA 94404
From: Terry Kao
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public - Terry Kao / 110 Williams Lane, Foster City, CA 94404 Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:53:33 AM
We live near Lantern Cove, as a homeowner in the Williams Landing community, and are strongly opposed to redeveloping it, and to adding it to the AHO housing district.
We don't want high-rise apartments or a 300-car garage. This will create too much traffic on a two-lane road, Port Royal. As a parent, it will create safety risks for our kids. It will hurt property values, and force many of our Lantern Cove neighbors to lose their homes. The city's AHO housing district already includes 5 other developments that are more appropriate for this, and are closer to the freeways and major avenues.
Vote 'NO' on March 7 to adding Lantern Cove to the AHO housing district, and vote 'NO' on any application to redevelop Lantern Cove.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry Kao
110 Williams Ln
Foster City, CA 94404
From: Ran Lin
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:40:59 PM
We live near Lantern Cove in Foster City. We strongly oppose the redevelopment of Lantern Cove and adding Lantern Cove to the AHO housing district.
Please vote 'NO' on March 7th to adding lantern cove to the AHO housing district and vote NO on any applications to redevelop Lantern Cove!
Thank you
Sincerely,
Ran
465
Chesapeake Ave, Foster City, CA 94404
From: Shreya Reddy
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:13:34 PM
Dear council member,
Please vote NO to stop greedy developers leeching off our apartment and leaving us stranded without homes.
Thank you,
A resident of lantern cove
From: Meggan Craviotto
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: James Swenson; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Stop Redevelopment of Lantern Cove- VOTE NO!
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:06:07 AM
To Whom it May Concern-
I hope you all are doing well.
My husband and I wanted to email you expressing my concerns on the Redevelopment of Lantern Cove.
We have lived in Lantern Cove for 2 years now, and absolutely love the safe environment and the quietness we have. Its a small community with friendly neighbors, and couldn't ask for more.
The last thing we want added to our community is high rise apartments with a 300 car parking garage, along with adding it to the AHO housing district! This will just create
a HUGE mess in the quiet community. This will create to much traffic on a two lane road (Port Royal) and create more dangers/risks for the kids in the neighborhood riding their bikes and playing outside.
Safety comes first in this quiet neighbor, this is
why we moved here.
We are VERY OPPOSED to the Redevelopment of Lantern Cove, we VOTE NO. We would highly recommend you reconsidering this.
Sincerely,
Meggan and James Swenson
2 year Lantern Cove residents
From: Grace Castillo
To: Richa Awasthi-Mayor; Jon Froomin-Vice Mayor; Sanjay Gehani-Councilmember; Sam Hindi-Councilmember; Patrick Sullivan-Councilmember; Foster City Public Comment Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 3:57:45 PM
Dear City Council Members,
We live in front of Lantern Cove, and are strongly opposed to redeveloping it, and to adding Lantern Cove to the AHO housing district.
We don't want high rise apartment or a 300 car garage. This will create too much traffic on a two lane road, Port Royal. It will create safety risks for our kids. It will hurt property values, and force many of our Lantern Cove neighbors to lose their homes.
The city's AHO housing district already includes 5 other developments that are more appropriate for this, and are closer to the freeways and major avenues.
Please Vote 'NO' on March 7 to adding Lantern Cove to the AHO housing district, and vote 'NO' on any application to redeveloped Lantern Cove.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Castillo
26 Port Royal Avenue, Foster City resident
From: Aileen Catanzarita
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: Richa Awasthi-Mayor; Jon Froomin-Vice Mayor; Sanjay Gehani-Councilmember; Sam Hindi-Councilmember; Patrick Sullivan-Councilmember; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh Subject: Public Comment for 3/7/22 City Council Meeting Date: Sunday, March 6, 2022 3:44:42 PM
Aileen Catanzarita
412 Chesapeake Ave, FC CA 94404
1 Consideration of Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program (RZ2021-0004), Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District (RZ2019-0001), Zoning of Seven Apartment Properties Within Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District (RZ2020-0001), and Establishing Rates for a Below Market Rate Housing In-Lieu Fee
Here are reasons to Vote NO on the redevelopment of the Lantern Cove property on Port Royal Avenue:
Smart Growth:
One goal of the Foster City Climate Action Plan is TL1: Implement Smart Growth Development. That requires asking if the developer’s proposal accommodates growth that will lead to high quality of life for current Foster City residents. The problem is when the density is not well organized or planned and that is the issue with Lantern Cove. HOW Foster City grows matters.
Affordable Housing:
We should be talking about affordable living. If your rent is low but you must spend a disproportionately large share of your time and income on transportation, then your living situation is not affordable.
Greed:
The redevelopment of Lantern Cove apartments project in our neighborhood is about greed. Equity Residential has admitted they are looking for a deal so they can develop the sites they already own. All private developers’ goals are to make profits and their success is tied to maximizing investor return. This takes priority over delivering what is best for the community.
Lantern Cove Proposal Considerations:
TRAFFIC & SAFETY: Poorly managed growth results in congested roads and cut-thru traffic which jeopardizes the safety of neighborhood streets. Our roads were not meant to handle excessive volumes of traffic. The American dream has become the American nightmare for many stressed out people who commute to and from Foster City. Lantern Cove neighborhood walk score is 21. We must drive to work, school, big box stores and to dine in neighboring cities.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION & PARKING: As a mother who has fought to get buses for our teens to get to and from high school, I can tell you that Foster City public transportation infrastructure is not there to support residents. It is laughable to non-existent. Our realistic transportation option is a car. And yet, Equity Residential is lowering the ratio of per unit parking spaces at Lantern Cove. How do they justify that? There will be spillover parking onto
residential streets
MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY & EXIT ROUTES: If the apartment project is approved our city council would not ensure safe living conditions because we will exceed maximum occupancy in Neighborhood 8 (Bays). Foster City is an island. In emergency planning, OSHA and fire codes state the number of exit routes must be adequate. Current Foster City residents have the right to a safe city where, if need be, we can evacuate promptly through our three options. Have you seen the people trying to leave Sea Cloud park on AYSO’s opening day?
SCHOOLS: Foster City schools are already overcrowded.
Foster City’s infrastructure cannot support this greedy and hazardous redevelopment idea.
This proposal does not meet YOUR goal of Smart Growth Development. Vote NO to redeveloping Lantern Cove Apartments.
From: Yue Wu
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public
Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 10:55:57 AM
I have been a resident and owner of a property in Foster City for more than 5 years. Our families always love the neighborhood here. I am writing to you to VOTE NO on the
Redevelopment of Lantern Cove project. Please help us protect the neighborhood and offer children a peaceful place.
Thank you!
Yue Wu
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 City Council Agenda Item 7.1.
Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 3:57:41 PM
Attachments: Foster City Public Comment 3.7.22.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached written comments for City Council Agenda Item 7.1 for tonight's meeting.
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 7, 2022
Re: Public Comment on BELOW MARKET RATE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM (RZ2021-0004), AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT (RZ2019-0001), ZONING OF SEVEN APARTMENT PROPERTIES WITHIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT (RZ2020-0001), AND
ESTABLISHING RATES FOR A BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE Dear Mayor Awasthi and Member of the City Council,
On behalf of Housing Choices, I am submitting public comments on the proposed Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program and Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District.
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.
We appreciate the work that went into developing the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. We support the proposed requirement for 20% BMR rental units under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance but the staff report does not seem to provide enough evidence to justify their recommendation to only apply this ordinance to “net new” units. While developers may be required to replace protected units for low and very low income renters, without knowing the number of replacement units which will be income restricted it is possible that the effect of this ordinance would be that less than 20% of total units in a rental project will be BMR. Even with the 20% inclusionary requirement it will be extremely difficult for the city to meet their increased RHNA for Cycle 6. The city should further study this issue to ensure that the maximum number of inclusionary units are being developed in each project. We also ask that you consider adding language to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which requires that BMR units are similar to market rate units in square footage, bedroom count and design/amenities so that they are indistinguishable from market rate units.
We also support the proposed goal of incentivizing more units being developed at deeper levels of affordability under the revised Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District. This is an extremely important goal considering that according to the staff report to the Planning Commission on February 3, 2022, 35% of Extremely Cost-Burdened households in Foster City are Extremely Low Income. However, it is not clear what would incentivize developers to take advantage of this Combining District. While the BMR requirement under the Affordable Housing Overlay is lower than the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, under State Density Bonus Law developers would receive greater density bonus and more incentives/concessions by meeting the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance than if they were to take advantage of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. Because the high cost of constructing deeply affordable units is the greatest barrier to inclusion of these units in housing plans, the proposal could be made stronger by allowing greater density and/or allowing additional cost saving incentives or concessions beyond the State Density Bonus Law if developers target deeper levels of affordability. We strongly encourage the city to find ways to strengthen the Affordable Housing Overlay targeting of Extremely Low Income units as these households, which include people on fixed incomes such as seniors and people with disabilities, are at the greatest risk of homelessness or displacement from the community than any other income category.
Sincerely,
Kalish
We ste
Kalisha Webster, Housing Advocate
email: [email protected]
Inclusionary Ordinance &
Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone
City of Foster City
March 7, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1 March 7, 2022 City Council Meeting
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
City Council is requested to take four actions on implementation of policies in the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element:
1. H-E-2: Require inclusionary 20% of new units, excluding density bonus uni
ts, be affordable – new FCM Chapter 17.90
2. H-D-2-b & c: Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining D
istrict to adjust the percentage of below market rate units – new FCM Chapter 17.92
3. H-D-2-c: Rezone selected housing sites with the AHO – Zoni ng Map amendment for 7 apartment properties
4. Resolution establ ishing a BMR In-lieu fees
Purpose
Implement programs from current adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element:
• Provide objective standards to implement existing 20% inclusionary housi
ng requirement (define percentage of Below Market Rate housing in new developments)
• Provide an alternative set of inclusionary percentages with the AHO to prov
ide lower levels of affordability
• Apply the AHO to specific apartment properties
• Establish BMR in-li eu fees
No changes in allowed density are proposed
No development project is being considered as part of tonight's agenda Potential Consequences of No Action
• HCD may revoke the City's Housing Element due to non-com pliance • Loss of State funds
• Loss of permitting authority – can include loss of ability to require any discretionary approval except for subdivision
• Financial penalties
• Court can compel the City to complete the rezoning and/or impose other sanc
tions
• Carry over units to next Housing Element (RHNA 6)
Foster City History of Inclusionary Housing
• 15% requirement for development in Community Development Agency (R
edevelopment Agency) beginning in 1980s
• 20% inclusionary policy in 2001 Housing Element
• Current practice – Br eak down of affordability levels/specifics negotiated on case-by-case basis
• BMR units integrated with market rate units except for senior apartments • State law now requires objective standards
Existing Inclusionary Housing
Development Ownership
or Rental
No. of BMR Units
(VL + L + M)
% of BMR Units
Foster’s Landing R 74 15%
Metro Sr. Apts. R 60 100%
Marlin Cove R 84 30%
Miramar R 48 30%
Plaza R 60 20%
100 Grand R 33 20%
Triton R 48 20%
Alma Point R 66 100%
Existing Unit Purchase R 6 NA
Emerald Bay O 7 15%
Need for Below Market Rate Housing
• Cities are required to plan for housing affordable to all economic segm
ents of the community in the Housing Element
• Data shows housing is not affordable for about 1/3 of existing Foster City households:
• 34% of all households are cost burdened (pay >30% of income on housi
ng)
• Households are earning less than AMI and cost burdened = need for 2,950
more affordable units
• Rents have increased about 33% in past decade
• To purchase a typical home, a household would need to earn about $300,000
Income Levels
Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low 38,400 43,850 49,350 54,800 59,200
Very Low 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700
Low 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100
Median 104,700 119,700 134,650 149,600 161,550
Moderate 125,650 143,600 161,550 179,500 193,850
Income Limits for San Mateo County: 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Income Levels of Example Occupations
Occupation Per
Hour
Annual Income Income Limit for
Category
Extremely Low Income
<30% AMI
Grocery Store
Clerkor Barista $15 $29,000 $38,400
Extremely Low Income
<30% AMI
Hair Stylist
or Administrative Assistant $20 $38,000 $38,400
Very Low Income
31%-50% AMI
Medical Assistant
or Preschool Teacher $27 $52,000 $63,950
Low Income
51%-80% AMI
School
Administrator or
Social Worker
$45 $86,000 $102,450
Sources: HCD 2021 Income Limits; 21 Elements
Cost Burdened Households
57%
31%
12%
Owners
Source: HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018 50%
35%
15%
Renters
Not Cost Burdened
Cost Burdened 30%-50%
Extremely Cost Burdened >50%
Need for Below Market Rate Housing
Income Group Column A:
0%-30% of Income
used for housing
Column B:
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
Column C:
50%+ of Income
used for Housing
Column B+C:
Units Needed to Address Cost
Burdened & Extremely Cost
Burdened > Median Income
0%-30% of AMI 160 80 705 785
31%-50% of AMI 295 220 415 635
51%-80% of AMI 415 435 380 815
81%-100% of AMI 280 570 145 715
>100% of AMI 7,380 1,060 65 0
Total 8,530 2,365 2,010 2,950
Source: HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018 Cost Burden by Income Level for Occupied Housing Units: Foster City (2014-2018) Need for Below Market Rate Housing: Workers
24.4% of jobs in Foster City pay less than $40,000/year Source: Census on the Map
Standards for Inclusionary Requirements
• Existing Inclusionary Policy doesn’t include objective standards • Objective standards will implement and codify the City’s Inc
lusionary policy which has been in effect for many years • Address housing needs
• Provide clear expectations
• More consistency
• Not unduly constrain the economic feasibility of housing Economic Analysis for Rental
• Analysis by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
• Analyzed yield on cost t o determine economic feasibility • Modeled 35 units/acre and 60 units/acre
• Cost to produce a unit, including land: $733,397-$743,673 • Fi
nancial feasibility: yield on cost of 4.2% or greater
Rental Inclusionary Scenarios
No. Scenarios
(EL-VL-L-M)
EL
30%
AMI
VL
50%
AMI
L
80%
AMI
M
110%
AMI
Total
Inclusionary
Yield on
Cost
1. 0-0-0-0 0 4.5%
2. 0-10-10-0 10% 10% 20% 4.2%
3. 10-10-0-0 10% 10% 20% 3.8%-3.9%
4. 0-10-5-5 10% 5% 5% 20% 4.2%
5. 0-7-7-6 7% 7% 6% 20% 4.2%-4.3%
6. 5-5-5-5 5% 5% 5% 5% 20% 4.1%-4.2%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Note: Green indicates Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation Economic Analysis for Ownership
• Analyzed prof it margin to determine economic feasibility • Modeled 17 units/acre and 35 units/acre
• Cost to produce a unit, including land: $872,753-$1,162, 884 • Financial feasibility: Profit margin of 14% for townhouses or 16% for
condominiums
Ownership Inclusionary Scenarios
No. Scenarios
(EL-VL-L-M)
EL
30%
AMI
VL
50%
AMI
L
80%
AMI
M
110%
AMI
Total
Inclusionary
Profit
Margin
1. 0-0-0-0 0 17%-20%
2. 0-0-0-20 20% 20% 12%-14%
3. 0-0-0-15 15% 15%% 14%-15%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Note: Green indicates Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation Inclusionary Percentages
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Recommended Inclusionary Percentages
Foster City
Inclusionary Percentages in Neighboring Cities
Major Components of Inclusionary Ordinance
Chapter 17.90. Inclusionary Requirements
• New vs. Net New: Net New
• Exemptions: ADUs, 1-4 units, others per State Law
• 5-9 units: on-site (or) in-lieu fee
• 10+ units: on-site, alternatives with findings
• Term: 99 years for rentals, 45 years for ownership
• Alternatives: with findings
New vs. Net New
Existing: 100 units
Proposed: 160 units
Existing to remain: 50 units
Replacement: 50 units
Must replace % of VL & L income*
Subject to Inclusionary: 60 net new units
60 x 20% = 12 below market rate
Example: Inclusionary Calculations for Redevelopment of 100 units to 160 units *
Displacement
• Existing Housing Element policy requires relocation plan • Existing State law protections against tenant dis placement:
• No Net Loss
• For lower income households (<80% of AMI):
• Units rented by lower income tenants w/in past 5 years must be replaced and r
estricted to lower income levels to match
• If incomes not known; replace at citywide proportion (14.7% VL; 9.7% L) • Relocation benefits
• Right of first refusal for a comparable unit in the new development at an aff
ordable rent or affordable housing cost
• Existing occupants allowed to occupy until 6 months prior to construction • Any existing occupants required to leave shall be allowed to return at prior rent
al rate if demolition does not proceed
Exemptions
Section Recommendation
17.90.030.C • Developments of 4 or fewer units
• ADUs
• Repair/replacement of building damaged or destroyed
by fire or other calamity construction if obtain BP
within 2 years and commence construction within 1
year after BP
• Projects under a Development Agreement or other
entitlement
Inclusionary Requirements: Code Sections &
Recommendations
5-9 UNITS
17.90.030.A • Provide 20% on-site inclusionary units – or • Pay in-lieu fee
10+ UNITS
17.90.030.B • Provide 20% on-site inclusionary units – or • Request an alternative subject to findings
Rounding Provision
17.90.040.A.3 • Round up 0.50 or more to require one additional unit • Pay pro-rated fractional fee for <0.50 unit
Terms of Affordability
17.90.060.C.1 • Ownership: 45 years, restarts with each sale
17.90.060.C.2 • Rental: 99 years
• At City’s discretion, no less than 55 years if necessary to obtain financing Alternatives: In-Lieu Fee
Section Recommendation
17.90.080.A Subject to findings:
• Fee is adequate to cover cost of units at another
location based on an affordability gap analysis
• Project location doesn’t have sufficient land area for on-site units
• There are adequate locations in the City that are
available and there are funds in sufficient amount and
timing to finance acquisition
• Purposes of the Chapter would be better served
• Fee would be paid upon first building permit
Alternatives: Off-Site Construction
Section Recommendation
17.90.080.B Subject to findings:
• Off-site location is within City and suitable
• Off-site location has necessary infrastructure
• Off-site BMR units are in addition to any BMR units otherwise required
• Construction of off-site units has not commenced before approval of the on-site project and won’t contribute to residential segregation by income level
• Off-site units would provide at least same quantity and affordability levels; any off-site rentals to satisfy for-sale requirements would be at rental affordability levels
• Would comply with all other parts of the Chapter
• The purposes of the Chapter would be better served
Alternatives: Conversion
Section Recommendation
17.90.080.C Subject to findings:
• Same findings as for off-site construction
• Off-site BMR units are in addition to any replacement units otherwise required
Alternatives: On-Site Clustering
Section Recommendation
17.90.080.D Subject to findings:
• Clustering is necessary to access and secure financing • Construction will occur concurrently with market rate units
• Clustering will not contribute to residential segregation by income level
• The purposes of the Chapter would be better served
Alternatives: Donation of Land
Section Recommendation
17.90.080.E Subject to findings:
• Land is within the City, owned or under contract by
Developer, suitable for development
• Land has necessary infrastructure
• Fair market value of the land equals or exceeds the
value of the on-site BMR unit otherwise required
• Land is not contaminated
• The purposes of the Chapter would be better served
Waiver of Requirements
Section Recommendation
17.90.090 • Developer may apply for reduction,
adjustment, or waiver
• City can approve if application of the
regulations would effectuate an
unconstitutional impact
In-Lieu Fee and Fractional Fee Amounts
Section Recommendation
17.90.100 • Fees to be established by City Council Resolution • Fees go to Affordable Housing Fund
• Restricted to affordable housing purposes
• City Council may adopt guidelines for expenditures
In-Lieu Fee and Fractional Fee Amounts
RENTAL
Scenario In-Lieu Fee per
Affordable Unit
In-Lieu Fee per Market
Rate Unit
In-Lieu Fee per Market-Rate
Square Foot
10% Very Low;
5 % Low;
5% Moderate
$376,582 $75,316 $75.32
OWNERSHIP
Scenario In-Lieu Fee per
Affordable Unit
In-Lieu Fee per Market
Rate Unit
In-Lieu Fee per Market-Rate
Square Foot
20% Moderate
(110% AMI) $417,741 $83,548 $48.21
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
• Does not change all owable General Plan densities
• Does not off er additional densities or waiver incentives beyond those offered by State Density Bonus Law
Provisions
• Implements an exi sting Housing Element Policy
• Alternative to standard 20% BMR inclusionary to provide 15% BMR but at lower affordability levels (no moderate) • Applies to selected existing rental apartment
devel
opments
Rental Inclusionary Scenarios
No. Scenarios
(EL-VL-L-M)
EL
30% AMI
VL
50% AMI
L
80% AMI
M
110% AMI
Total
Inclusionary
Yield on
Cost
1. 4-4-7-0 4% 4% 7% 15% 4.2%
2. 5-5-5-0 5% 5% 5% 15% 4.1%-4.2%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Note: Green indicates Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation Rental Inclusionary Percentages Comparison
Standard
Inclusionary
AHO
Extremely Low 4%
Very Low 10% 4%
Low 5% 7%
Moderate 5% -
Above-Moderate - -
Total 20% 15%
RHNA 6
Requirements
Total 1,896 Units
27%
16%
16%
41%
100%
AHO Criteria for Sites in 2015-2023 Housing Element
• Size – larger sites have more flexibility to adjust building m
assing away from neighbors
• Adjacent uses – properti es bordering major streets or lagoons have more flexibility to adjust building massing away from neighbors
• Existing Density – low er existing density developments have more potential under existing General Plan designation of Apartment Residential that allows up to 35 units/acre • Age – older developments more likely to need to make
rei
nvestment
AHO Properties
Existing
Apartment
Development
Address Units Acres Density
units/acre
General Plan
units/acre
Beach Cove 605-1021 Catamaran St. 416 18.7 22.25 35
Franciscan 888 Foster City Blvd. 122 6.4 19.06 35
Sand Cove 707-939 Shell Blvd. 158 8.77 19.16 35
The Lagoons 611-899 Bounty Dr. 176 9.64 18.26 35
Shadow Cove 1019-1087 Foster City Blvd. 164 7.9 20.84 35 Lantern Cove 244 Rock Harbor Lane 244 16.8 13.81 35
Schooner Bay Timberhead Lane, etc. 312 24.8 12.58 35
AHO Sites
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
City Council is asked to take four actions on implementation of policies in the 2015-2023 Housing Element:
H-E-2: Require inclusionary 20% of new units, excluding density bonus uni
ts, be affordable – new Chapter 17.90
H-D-2-b & c: Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining D
istrict to adjust the percentage of below market rate units – new Chapter 17.92
H-D-2-c: Rezone selected housing sites with the AHO – Zoni ng Map amendment for seven (7) apartment properties
Adopt resolution est ablishing In-lieu fee for Below Market Rate housing Recommended Actions
Move to introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance adding Chapter
17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program including the edits recommended by staff on 2/3/22, to Title 17, Zoning of the Foster City Municipal Code.
Move to introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance adding Chapter
17.92, Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District, to Title 17, Zoning of the Foster City Municipal Code.
Move to introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance amendi ng the Foster City Zoning Map to zone certain properties within the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District.
Adopt Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to adopt a fee for BMR i n-
lieu fees
Inclusionary Ordinance &
Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone
City of Foster City
March 7, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Workforce Housing
Apartments
City of Foster City
March 7, 2022
C ITY COUNCIL
MEETING
Item 9.1 March 7, 2022 City Council meeting
Workforce Housing: Actions Requested
• Redesignate some BMR & Workforce units to VL and L
• Reserve one (1) Workforce unit for potential Police Dept use • Hold application and lottery for remaining seven (7) Workforce units
• Use CAARF to complete purchase
• Allocation of net income to CAARF/Affordable Housing Fund • Adopt revenues and expenditures budget for FY 2021 -22 BMR and Workforce Units
• 22 Units total
• 14 BMR Units – rents and income restricted:
• Very Low @ 50% AMI: 2 units
• Low @ 80% AMI: 2 units
• Moderate @ 120% AMI: 10 units
• 8 Workforce Units – rents restricted (not income restricted) • 130% of AMI
• Intent: recruitment and retention tool
BMR and Workforce Units
1 bedroom 1+den 2 bedroom Total
BMR Units
Very low 1 1 2
Low 1 1 2
Moderate 5 5 10
Subtotal BMR Units 7 7 14
Workforce Units 2 4 2 8
Total Units 9 4 9 22
Income Levels
Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely low 38,400 43,850 49,350 54,800 59,200
Very low 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700
Low 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100
Median 104,700 119,700 134,650 149,600 161,550
Moderate 125,650 143,600 161,550 179,500 193,850
Income Limits for San Mateo County: 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Preference Categories
14 BMR Units
1. Income qualified employees of the City of
Foster City (Disaster Service Workers)
2. Income qualified classroom teachers
employed by SMFC School District,
SMUHSD or the San Mateo Community
College District
3. Income qualified persons who live and
work in Foster City
4. Income qualified persons who live in Foster
City
5. Income qualified persons who work in
Foster City
6. All others who are income qualified
8 Workforce Units
1. Persons who work for the Foster City Police
Department, City of Foster City Fire Department
(now SMC Fire) or are otherwise considered by
the City of Foster City to be a first responder to
emergencies
2. Employees of the City of Foster City (Disaster
Service Workers)
3. Classroom teachers employed by SMFC School
District, SMUHSD or the San Mateo Community
College District
4. Persons who live and work in Foster City
5. Persons who live in Foster City
6. Persons who work in Foster City
7. All others who are income qualified
Considerations
• HHAV advertised & received 180 applications for 14 BMR Units • Applications for 14 BMR units:
• 80% very low income
• 16% low income
• 3% moderate (no applications for 1 -bedroom moderate) • Vacant moderate costs: $33,600-$39,600/unit/year
• Use of one (1) workforce unit for Police Department
• State law requires on-site management unit: HHAV employee Applications Received for BMR Units
Preference Category Income Category/Unit Type
Very Low Low Moderate T otal T otal
1-BR 2-BR 1-BR 2-BR 1-BR 2-BR 1-BR 2-BR
1. City employees 0 4 2 1 0 1 2 6 8
2. Classroom teachers 3 2 0 2 0 1 3 5 8
3. Live & work in FC 19 12 2 6 0 2 21 20 41
4. Live in FC 16 17 2 6 0 2 18 25 43
5. Work in FC 4 4 1 2 0 0 5 6 11
6. All others 23 40 2 4 0 0 25 44 69
T otal 65 79 9 21 0 6 74 106 180
Potential Police Department Use
• One 2-bedroom Workforce unit
• For sleep or rest following extended working hours, a court appearance or other work -related activities making it difficult for personnel to return to their home to sleep • In process of ascertaining potential tax implications • Are reviewing other cities’ use of similar facilities Recommended Change in Mix
Existing Recommended
1 BR 1+den 2 BR Total 1 BR 1+den 2 BR Total
Very low 1 1 2 3 1 4
Low 1 1 2 4 1 5
Moderate 5 5 10 5 5
Subtotal BMR Units 7 7 14 7 7 14
WF – VL 1 2 1 4
WF – L 1 2 3
WF 2 4 2 8 1 1
Subtotal WF Units 2 4 2 8 2 4 2 8
Total 9 4 9 22 9 4 9 22
Net Income for First Operational Year
Original Unit
Mix
Proposed Unit Mix
(With Rent for Police
Department unit)
Proposed Unit Mix
(Without rent for Police
Department unit)
Income $813,611 $728,363 $689,915
Expenditures
(including reserve
contribution)
$316,524 $316,258 $316,140
Net Income $497,087 $412,105 $373,775
Assumes 5% vacancy for first year; 3% vacancy for subsequent years Use of Net Income
• Options:
• 100% to CAARF until paid off (17-19 years to repay CAARF); then AHF • 50% CAARF/50% AHF (34-38 years to repay CAARF) (Staff recommendation)
• Other: Council direction
• Considerations:
• Existing revenue into AHF is not predictable:
• Commercial linkage fee
• In-Lieu inclusionary fees from 5-9 unit developments (if approved) • Fractional inclusionary fees (if approved)
• Some potential housing programs in Housing Element require funding Potential Uses of AHF
• Incentives for ADUs committed to very low- or low-income • Support the creation of a countywide nonprofit to increase ADU production • Provide incentives to homeowners to rent to low-income households • Low-interest rehabilitation loans for very low- and low-income homeowners
• Fee waivers for affordable housing
• Funding for supportive housing
• Programs to assist residents with disabilities make home accessibility improvements
• Staffing resources to implement affordable housing programs/policies and monitor existing inclusionary BMR units
Actions Requested
Adopt the attached Resolution:
• Redesignate five (5) moderate BMR units to VL and L
• Redesignate seven (7) Workforce units to VL and L
• Reserve one (1) Workforce unit for potential Police Dept use • Hold application and lottery for seven (7) Workforce units • Use CAARF to complete purchase
• Divide net income to repay CAARF and Affordable Housing Fund • Adopt revenues and expenditures budget for FY 2021-22 Workforce Housing
Apartments
City of Foster City
March 7, 2022
C ITY COUNCIL
MEETING