Board Approves $29M Foster City Purchase Over Community Opposition

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors pushed through its biggest real estate move in years — a $29 million acquisition of a Foster City office building to consolidate social services — despite a parade of residents, business owners, and two city council members who called the process rushed and opaque. The special meeting also confirmed a new HR director and drew advocates pressing for stronger oversight of the Sheriff's Office.

• $29M Foster City office building approved 4-0 to become a consolidated Human Services Agency client center, over objections from seven public speakers
• Foster City council members and residents call the process a failure of transparency, demanding traffic studies and community engagement the county says will come later
• Board President Corzo fires back, saying the city misinformed residents about the timeline and proposes a formal county notification process for future property deals
• Michelle Kuka confirmed as HR Director after 18 years rising through county ranks
• Democratic Party leaders press for a permanent Inspector General for the Sheriff's Office, citing $48M in county liability

---

$29M for a Social Services Hub — and a Fight With Foster City

The board's unanimous vote to buy 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd. in Foster City was never really in doubt. What was in doubt — and what consumed most of a 75-minute special meeting — was whether the county had given Foster City residents any real say in a decision that will reshape a visible stretch of their downtown.

The basics: The county plans to convert the four-story office building into a consolidated Human Services Agency Client Service Center, housing public assistance eligibility, employment services, veteran services, and emergency response coordination under one roof. About 300 county employees would work there, serving roughly 150 clients per day. The seller, DWF IV Century Plaza LLC, listed the property at $49 million; the county is paying $29 million — a $20 million discount.

Why it matters: The county is fleeing an increasingly untenable lease at the Quarry Road site in San Carlos, where County Executive Mike Callagy said rent has surged 57% since 2024. He pegged the annual savings at $3.8 million, with a breakeven period of 7.8 years.

"The rent has gone up 57% since 2024, which is outstanding. To me, it's just unbelievable," said County Executive Mike Callagy. "There's a lack of transportation to the Quarry site in San Carlos. There's certainly not enough parking."

Callagy detailed that 3,665 unduplicated Foster City residents already use these services — roughly a tenth of the city's population — traveling to San Carlos for CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and CalWorks assistance. He said the building was fully occupied until 2015 with similar trip counts and highlighted transit access including SamTrans bus route 251 and a free Hillsdale Connector shuttle to Caltrain.

He also moved to quash a rumor that had taken on a life of its own: "We will not be building a warehouse at this site. It was never the intent of the county to build a warehouse at this site. I saw one next door that we were going to build like an Amazon-style warehouse. We never said that."

Foster City Pushes Back — Hard

Seven public commenters spoke against or sought to delay the purchase. Their complaints centered on three themes: inadequate engagement, missing studies, and economic harm.

Councilmember Susie Niederhofer, speaking personally, called the site one of the most visible in Foster City and argued the board was voting less than 24 hours after the city's first public presentation on the matter. She suggested the county's programs would be better suited in Foster City's industrial warehouse zone north of Highway 92.

Ravi Jagtiani, a Foster City resident, said the county had months to engage but instead sent legal counsel to the city's Planning Commission rather than project representatives. No county supervisors attended city meetings, he said, and he urged a postponement.

Councilmember Phoebe Shinn Venkat, also speaking personally, struck a more measured tone. She acknowledged both opposition and support but asked the board to delay the vote to allow more community engagement, noting that misleading imagery had circulated and caused confusion.

Ying Ji, a Foster City resident, challenged what she called qualitative claims in the county's FAQ that the project would have no material traffic impact, and asked what residents could do to pause the process for proper hearings.

Bill Willis, who owns a dental office with 25,000 patients nearby, questioned the economics: why spend $29 million when only about 8% of those served would be Foster City customers? He raised concerns about the location's lack of rail access and about using public funds for ride services to transport clients.

The Board's Response: We Hear You, But We're Moving Forward

Board President Noelia Corzo delivered the meeting's longest and most pointed remarks. She acknowledged the tension but defended the financial case and pushed back sharply on claims the vote was a surprise, noting the date had been on the calendar and the item had already been delayed from June.

"It's really disappointing to hear a council member come to this meeting and say you're going to approve this item the day after, when it is very clear that this date was already on the books," President Corzo said. "This was not a surprise."

She also reframed the traffic argument. "If you don't want people coming into your city, your businesses are going to struggle because of that. They need customers," she said. "I hear the concerns about traffic. But I also think that economic vitality is tied to people being present and being welcomed."

Corzo proposed creating a formalized county notification process for future property acquisitions — an implicit acknowledgment that this one hadn't gone smoothly. "I think because of what we're seeing, we are going to have to maybe create some formal process where we clearly document and notice," she said, adding that "certain jurisdictions have been misinforming our shared residents about when they were informed."

Supervisor Jackie Speier backed the purchase and suggested the county shouldn't wait for city invitations before engaging. "Maybe our role should be encouraging the city to hold a meeting earlier once we have initiated the letter of intent so that there is ample time to discuss it and so that people are properly informed," she said.

Speier also highlighted the service demand, noting 3,000 Medi-Cal recipients, 612 food stamp recipients, and 388 CalWorks participants living in Foster City who would benefit from closer access.

Supervisor Lisa Gauthier framed the urgency around federal policy: "How do we work together to provide the services that are so greatly needed at this time, when the federal government is pushing back so much on all of our residents who are being impacted by services and need food on the table or assistance or health care?"

Decisions: The resolution passed 4-0 (For: Speier, Mueller, Gauthier, Corzo; Absent: Canepa).

What's next: The county will proceed with escrow and has committed to community engagement on the building's use. Callagy proposed community benefits including continuing the existing farmers market and potentially partnering with Foster City on food vending sites through the county's Catering Connect program. Whether President Corzo's proposed formal notification process takes shape as actual policy — and whether it satisfies Foster City — remains to be seen.

---

Michelle Kuka Confirmed as HR Director

The board unanimously confirmed Michelle Kuka as Director of Human Resources, capping an 18-year career that took her from entry-level to deputy director before a nationwide search landed her the top job.

County Executive Mike Callagy said the search was thorough: "We really did go out and beat the bushes because we always want the very best for the county. And Michelle really distinguished herself through this process as a person that rose to the very top."

He highlighted her expertise in employee and labor relations, policy development, and classification and compensation.

Supervisor Gauthier noted Kuka had been performing dual roles and praised the quality of her team. President Corzo credited Kuka with helping the board navigate difficult situations.

"I have had the pleasure of working with everybody for so many years, and I look forward to continuing to work with them," Director Kuka told the board after the vote.

Decisions: Passed 4-0 (For: Speier, Mueller, Gauthier, Corzo; Absent: Canepa). Kuka now leads workforce management for more than 6,000 county employees.

---

Democratic Party Presses for Sheriff's Inspector General

Two leaders of the San Mateo County Democratic Party used the consent agenda's ICAC appointment as a springboard to push for something bigger: a permanent Inspector General for the Sheriff's Office.

Karen Mackey, chair of the San Mateo County Democratic Party, told the board the party had voted 21-1 in support of an Inspector General — their second resolution on sheriff oversight. She noted that ICAC had presented a similar request to the board nearly a year prior.

Diana Reddy, an elected member of the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee, cited the county's $48 million liability and argued an Inspector General could have prevented those costs. Both supported the appointment of Michelle Vilchez to ICAC but framed it as insufficient without broader structural reform.

The board took no action on the Inspector General request.

---

Minor Items

• Consent agenda approved 4-0 (Canepa absent), covering denial of non-culpable claims and the appointment of Michelle Vilchez to the Independent Civilian Advisory Commission on the Sheriff's Office as an at-large alternate through June 30, 2028.
• Closed session: The board met in closed session on J.H. v. County of San Mateo (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 20-CV-00961-VC). County Executive Callagy reported nothing to disclose.