Foster City housing proposal moves forward

The 70 townhomes will be sold at market rates and the 22 workforce units will all be affordable to a variety of income levels, with priority given to first responders and other city employees. The developer will also finish building a half-complete park located on site as part of the project. Phase C is the last major development in the Pilgrim Triton Master Plan area located south of State Route 92 near Costco.

Foster City previously entitled Sares Regis to construct largely offices on the site, but the developer later said offices no longer pencil out and is proposing housing instead.

During the meeting, staff mentioned a few updates to the development agreement. The city will now have the option to purchase the workforce housing building sooner than previously negotiated — 90 days after the use permit is approved, said Planner Leslie Carmichael. And language in the agreement has been tightened up to require Sares Regis to build the affordable units as quickly as possible. 

Community Development Director Curtis Banks said construction on the townhomes and workforce units must start concurrently — or workforce first — then the developer has 18 months to finish building the workforce units. Sares Regis can also construct 35 of the 70 townhomes — but no more — before completing the workforce housing building. 

Commissioners in support of the latest proposal cited the need for housing and the burdensome state of traffic in the region as reasons for their vote.

At the previous Planning Commission meeting, city staff presented findings from a variety of surveys that suggest the office entitlement would generate thousands more daily and peak hour car trips than the latest 92-unit proposal.

“If we did not do this project then what will we do with the property?” asked Vice Chair Ollie Pattum. “The need is mostly housing. We have office space that’s abundant and there’s a whole lot of office space not filled at this time.”

But Dyckman argued that this proposal is not the best use of the site, even if housing is the primary goal.

“If we’re really interested in increasing housing, there are other avenues, including condominiums where they can own a property and you could get more of them on the site and therefore relieve more housing issues if that were the issue,” he said. “I would’ve loved to see other possibilities.” 

He doubted the 70 townhomes — which he said will be priced between $1.5 million and $1.8 million — will “make a dent to our housing problems” and suggested alternative developments that also include office space. He opposed the proposal, in part, because it eschews office space, particularly for small businesses.

“The less supply we have [for offices] the higher the rents are going to be for businesses,” he said.

Wykoff opposed the development for similar reasons, and instead suggested incubator businesses or a live/work scenario for the site. 

“In summary, my view is what does city planning mean?” Wykoff asked. “To me, is it in the here and now or does it relate to looking at the city’s future? I happen to think it relates to looking out for the future of the city, so from that perspective I have serious concerns about changing the land use and amending the development plan.”

He also called the switch from an office-dominated proposal to a residential one with workforce housing a “disingenuous offer.”

But Commissioner Paul Williams didn’t see it that way.

“Zoning changes occur in many cities for a variety of different reasons and we do see it go both ways [from office to residential and vice versa],” he said. “It’s not an uncommon thing and cities need to do that to keep pace with the development and marketplace and economic conditions. 

“Does the development meet our general plan expectations and does it meet our land use and circulation element?” He continued. “And not to say the office doesn’t comply, because it clearly does, but the property also complies under a residential use. It’s not for me to decide what use is there, it’s for me to make sure that it meets the general plan or land use and circulation element, and clearly where we’re at today that use does comply.”

The council will vote on the proposal Sept. 17.

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ex. 102