Foster City announced its opposition to a proposed state law allowing housing construction on state land over its lack of clarity and local control concerns, with several areas in Foster City potentially affected.
Assembly Bill 309 would create a Social Housing Program that would allow the construction of government-owned social housing on leased state property or excess state-owned property. Social housing would be publicly owned, mixed-income housing. Although the City Council said it supports the intent of AB 309 to build more housing, it expressed opposition to the law unless it is amended to address several concerns raised by city staff.
The city said in a staff report that there is no way for cities to know if state land has been chosen for the program until after a bid has been awarded, how it would apply to vacant buildings, worries about the tight timelines to provide comment and how the state would incorporate city design standards. At an Aug. 21 meeting, several councilmembers cited concern about the loss of potential local control of housing locations and oversight as reasons to write a letter of opposition to state officials, along with concerns the state would approve market-rate housing instead of affordable.
The bill, authored by Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-Milpitas, passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee Friday and is now headed to the Senate floor.
“Social housing is a tool that can help tackle our housing crisis, producing homes that are protected from the for-profit market,” Lee said in a press release. “It accommodates residents of mixed-incomes — publicly backed housing that’s built sustainably and beautifully. Without an over reliance on government subsidies, social housing will complement California’s current efforts to address the housing crisis.”
Councilmember Art Kiesel said he was worried about the diminishing role of the council and the proposal being a one-size-fits-all that doesn’t work for Foster City.
“I have a problem with the state telling us where we are going to put housing. Whether you agree with north of [State Route] 92 or not, I think that’s our decision, not the state’s,” Kiesel said. “That’s where I have a problem with it.”
Recommended for you
The city has three state-owned properties that would fall under the bill through Caltrans. One is the maintenance yard at 380 Foster City Blvd., the maintenance yard adjacent to Bridgeview Park and the wetlands mitigation area between East Third Avenue and Mariners Point Golf Course.
“I want us to have control over what our community looks like,” Councilmember Stacey Jimenez said. “I think we need more housing, and I think we can add it, and it can integrate within our community, but we have to be able to say what it looks like to a certain extent.”
Councilmember Sam Hindi said he supported the intent of AB 309 but had concerns he wanted to see if the units built would be counted toward the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, mandated by the Association of Bay Area Governments to meet state housing law. Cities must plan for the development of additional housing units and lessen constraints, increasing opportunities for housing development. The current RHNA cycle of 2023-2031 calls for 1,896 units to Foster City, a 341% increase from Foster City’s last cycle of 430. The council wanted to ensure that any sites added or housing built would count toward its RHNA numbers, as city staff are still determining if the numbers would count as the law is written. The increase in this cycle is partly due to Foster City being near high-opportunity areas with proximity to jobs.
“I don’t want us to come across as opposing the bill, rather than we want to have clarification and have an amendment to make it workable,” Hindi said.
Wait, so if I read between the lines, Foster City is okay with everyday people being burdened with housing via potentially destroying single-family neighborhoods with multiple units, but they don’t want housing on state-owned land in their city?
It sounds like it's time for a CA State initiative that takes away the power of the State to force each city to build, build, build. The initiative would give the power back to "the people" and the cities. San Mateo, San Carlos, RW City are growing like mice infested attics and it's only going to get worse.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
Wait, so if I read between the lines, Foster City is okay with everyday people being burdened with housing via potentially destroying single-family neighborhoods with multiple units, but they don’t want housing on state-owned land in their city?
It sounds like it's time for a CA State initiative that takes away the power of the State to force each city to build, build, build. The initiative would give the power back to "the people" and the cities. San Mateo, San Carlos, RW City are growing like mice infested attics and it's only going to get worse.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.