• We would like the City Government to adhere to the original threshold population level in the original Master Plan of Foster City.  (We need to research on this.) It seems that the threshold population level has varied to suit whatever development goals are being pursued.

• The city government’s website states that the city population may peak at approximately 34,000 residents when it is completely built out. This is an extremely high population threshold level given the size of Foster City.

• The 2000 Census population stood at 28,803 residents.  The City estimates that current population is at 30,000.²  However, it can currently be as high 33,000.³ 
  

(Note: these numbers exclude the transient working population who are non-residents that come in and out of the city to work.). 

• In its current state, Foster City is already a high density area with the preponderance of denser rental units relative to owner-occupied residences.

Notes:
(a)  From the foregoing data, it can be construed that Foster City is an extremely high density area, even surpassing the densities of San Mateo and San Bruno, which  are among the largest towns in the Peninsula.

(b) Compared to Irvine, another planned community in California, the density
of Foster City is 3.5 times bigger.

• Obviously, Foster City has already exceeded the tolerable density limit, yet, the City Government continues to sanction the building of additional towering apartment units.

• In a planned community, development approach should be from an architectural perspective and not from a marketing perspective.  Yet, the last three developments that were allowed in Foster City have so much density that the quality of the buildings have been compromised.  Maximizing the number of units was the end goal.

• In this case, the marketing perspective took precedence over the architectural perspective. The aesthetic quality of the buildings and the community were not serious priorities nor consideration..

• Zoning codes should be meant to enhance a community and preserve the quality of the life of the residents.  However, this goal is compromised when zoning laws are changed with the end of objective to catering to the desires of the developers, instead of adhering strictly to them for the community’s overall benefit.

•  Below are some of the zoning changes which the City Council has adopted in recent years:

        (a) Marlin Cove Complex Rezoning

(allowed for offices, commercial, and taller buildings)

(b) 11-Acre Development Rezoning

(Between City Hall and the Peninsula Jewish Community Center)

Original zoning code did not allow residential units.
The proposed rezoning to mixed used will allow 490 residential units,
and possibly disallow public school use.

(c) Pilgrim-Triton Rezoning

(d)  Chess Hatch Rezoning

This is true for the Marlin Cove Complex and the Miramar and the proposed Triton     Towers which will lord over the nearby residential homes.

• First, these type of buildings do not blend with the architectural ambiance of its surrounding neighbors.

• Second, because of their heights, they could pierce through the surrounding homes resulting in privacy issues.

• Third, because of their density, more traffic and noise came to the neighborhood.
  

In a planned community, an all-pervading objective is to preserve the quality of life of its residents.

The City Council has rationalized their decision to add more residential units to Foster  
City (Mirabella and Pilgrim Triton Projects) because they are pressured by the State
to do so. This argument lacks merit for the following reasons.

• Foster City has already done more than its fair share in providing for housing in the area evinced by its high density compared to the other towns in the San Mateo County.

• The State may put pressure on local communities to increase available housing, but they cannot sanction them. They are no under obligation to follow, especially if it is detrimental to their community. It is not a law.

• The city officials cannot hide under the veil of this argument, because ultimately the responsibility to take care of the community lies in the hands of local officials, not state officials.