Foster City City Council
February 22, 2022

o Limits gatherings to no more than 50 people, outlines social distancing and face covering requirements, allows for social bubbles of no more than 12, and requires businesses to implement a social distancing protocol and written health and safety plans
o Reopened all pickleball and tennis courts, as well as removed reservation system and active monitoring by City staff
o Reopened bocce ball courts and volleyball courts
o Reopened park restrooms at five (5) locations
o More employees to be reintroduced into the workplace; however reopening of all City facilities postponed until further notice
• County Added to State Monitoring List, July 29, 2020
o Shut down of certain industries or activities, unless modified to operate outside
o City temporarily suspends code enforcement actions against businesses such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices that are not currently permitted to provide outdoor operations o Skate park reopened on August 14, 2020
• County Ranked Purple in State’s New Color-Coded Reopening System, August 28, 2020 o Effective August 31, all retail and shopping centers can open at 25% capacity, and all hair salons and barbershops can resume indoor operations • County Ranked Red in State’s New Color -Coded Reopening System, September 22, 2020
o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, closed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, barbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people) o Schools one step closer to reopening (only after two weeks in Tier 2/Red) • CA De partment of Public Health New Guidance on Playgrounds and Outdoor Recreational Facilities, September 28, 2020
o Playgrounds, basketball courts, all park bathrooms, the Fitness Court, and the Skate Park to reopen, with restrictions, on October 8
o Parks staff preparing for reopening of amenities by sanitizing all playgrounds and removing fencing
180

• County Ranked Orange in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, October 27, 2020 o Indoor family entertainment centers, outdoor bars and breweries not o serving food, indoor climbing walls and certain other businesses and activities to open with capacity restrictions
o Dine-in restaurants, movie theaters, places of worship and additional businesses can boost their indoor capacities as well
• Order No. c19-7c (Revised), dated October 29, 2020
o Updated orders for individuals who are close contacts of a positive case (for quarantine) or who have tested positive for COVID -19 (for isolation), along with instructions for home quarantine and home isolation o Specific rules applicable to health care workers and first responders • County Ranked Red in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, November 17, 2020 o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, closed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, barbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 10% capacity)
• County Ranked Purple in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, November 29, 2020 and Limited Stay at Home Order, starting November 30, 2020 o Businesses and activities that may have been operating indoors – including places of worship, movie theaters, gyms and museums – must move outdoors or close.
o Shopping malls and all retail must operate at no more than 25 percent capacity.
o Prohibited residents from leaving their homes to gather with other households from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
• Regional Stay at Home Order, starting December 17, 2020 o Prohibits private gatherings of any size, except for outdoor church services and political demonstrations.
o Restaurants must stop offering in -person dining and can offer only take -out and delivery.
o Many businesses and activities must close, including salons and barbershops. o Retail can remain open at 20 percent capacity.
181

o Nonessential travel and the use of hotels or short -term rentals for leisure is banned.
• County Ranked Purple in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, January 25, 2021 o Businesses and activities that may have been operating indoors – including places of worship, movie theaters, gyms and museums – must move outdoors or close.
o Shopping malls and all retail must operate at no m ore than 25 percent capacity.
• County Ranked Red in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, February 24, 2021 o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, closed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, ba rbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 10% capacity)
• County Ranked Orange in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, March 17, 2021 o Restaurants indoors (max 50% capacity or 200 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail/shopping indoors (open with modifications, closed common areas and reduced capacity in food courts)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 50% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 50% capacity or 200 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters indoors (open with modifications)
o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 25% capacity, indoor pools and climbing walls open)
• CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Travel, April 2, 2021 o CDPH and the CDC recommend delaying travel until persons are fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated travelers should follow CDC travel guidance and are not required to test or quarantine before or after travel unless they have symptoms concerning for COVID-19 disease.
• Governor Gavin Newsom outlines the State’s next step in the COVID -19 pandemic recovery, moving beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and announces that on June 15, California will fully reopen if criteria are met. • CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Gatherings and Live Events, April 15, 2021
182

o For the Orange Tier starting on April 15, outdoor gathering size increases to 50 people.
o For private events or meetings such as receptions or conferences, outdoor gatherings are limited to 100 people.
o Indoor live events or performances are allowed with capacity limits and modifications including physical distancing, advance ticket pu rchases, designated areas for eating and drinking, and attendance limited to in -state visitors.
• CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Use of Face Coverings, May 3, 2021 o For fully vaccinated persons, face coverings are not required outdoors except when attending crowded outdoor events, such as live performances, parades, fairs, festivals, sports events, or other similar settings. o For unvaccinated persons, face coverings are required outdoors any time physical distancing cannot be maintained, including when attending crowded outdoor events, such as live performances, parades, fairs, festivals, sports events, or other similar settings.
o In indoor settings outside of one's home, including public transportation, face coverings continue to be required regardless of vaccination status, except as outlined below.
• County Ranked Yellow in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, May 12, 2021 o Allows expanded capacity at restaurants, gyms, mov ie theaters, indoor businesses and a host of other operations.
o Bars that do not serve food can reopen indoors with a maximum capacity of 25 percent or 100 people, whichever is fewer.
• California officially reopens and moves “ Beyond the Blueprint ,” which ends the the color-coded reopening tier systems and lifts most restrictions on businesses. The County of San Mateo fully aligns with all state COVID -19 health and safety guidelines and has no plans to impose separate guidance.
o Most County of San Mateo offices opened to the public on June 15, 2021. o City of Foster City reopens Council Chambers and begins hybrid in-person and virtual City Council meetings on July 19, 2021.
o City of Foster City reopens City Hall to general public for walk -ins during regular business hours from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, on July 26, 2021.
o City of Foster City reopens Recreation Center and begins offering indoor programs again on August 9, 2021.
• Order No. c19-12, dated August 3, 2021
183

o Directs that face coverings shall be worn, regardless of vaccination status, over the mouth and nose, in all indoor public settings, venues, gatherings, and workplaces, such as, but not limited to: offices, retail stores, restaurants and bars, theaters, fam ily entertainment centers, conference centers and government offices serving the public.
• Governor Gavin Newsom signs Assembly Bill 361 on September 16, 2021 , as the provisions of Executive Order No. N -29-20 (as revised by Executive Order No. N -08- 21), which modifies the requirements for conduct ing meetings via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic, expires on September 30, 2021. • County Health issues criteria for lifting COVID -19 indoor masking requirements to allow organizations to set those requirements independently , when all of the following are achieved, October 7, 2021:
o The rate of COVID-19 transmission reaches the “moderate” or yellow tier and remains there for at least three weeks; AND
o The number of people hospitalized for COVID -19 is low and stable in the judgement of local health officials; AND
o The percent of the total population that is fully vaccinated – two doses of Pfizer or Moderna or one dose of Johnson & Johnson – reaches 80 percent OR eight weeks have passed since a COVID -19 vaccine has been authorized for emergency use by federal and state authorities for 5- to 11-year-olds. • CA Department of Public Health Statewide Mandate on Masks, December 15, 2021 o Requiring masks to be worn in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, until February 15, 2022
• In alignment with the State, San Mateo County will rescind indoor mask requirements effective February 16, 2022 . Unvaccinated individuals will still be required to mask indoors. Everyone, regardless of vaccination status, will be required to mask indoors in high-risk settings, including public transportation, health care settings, congregate settings like correctional facilities and homeless shelters, long-term care facilities, and in K-12 schools and childcare settings.

OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS

TO P ROVIDE ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND

CONTINUITY OF CITY OPERATIONS WITH

MINIMAL DISRUPTION (TO EXTENT

POSSIBLE)
Implement Continuity of Operations/Government (COOP/COG) Plans • Identify essential services; includes public safety, water and wastewater, critical infrastructure maintenance, etc. (Detailed by Department in Separate Document) • Identify essential workers and establish staffing levels necessary to carry out essential functions (Detailed by Department in Separate Document) Ongoing; Changes
with Progress
Establish and coordinate COVID-19 Response Team
• Includes Department Heads and 1-2 Essential Employees from Each Department Ongoing
184

• Centralized Point of Contact with Joint, Multiagency Emergency Operations Center • Check-In Meetings (Transitioned from Weekly, to Biweekly, and to As Needed) • After Action Debrief Meeting on 06/24/20
Establish and coordinate COVID-19 Return to Work Taskforce • Organized by City Manager and Human Resources Departments, and Includes 1 -2 Employees from Each Department
• Developed ‘Employee Return to Work’ Policy as well as Visitor Policy & Protocols • Developed ‘Adaptable Work Schedule Program’
Ongoing

OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS

TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE,

EDUCATE, AND INFORM THE COMMUNITY
Provide reliable information to the community that is uniform and consistent with the County & State guidelines
• Participate in PIO conference calls
• Share information as released by County in an effort to centralize resources • Coordinate messaging with SMC Fire (Member Agencies) for consistency • Create landing page of COVID -19 general information on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/covid19
• Create landing page of COVID-19 available City services online and by appointment on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/citywide-services • Create landin g page of COVID -19 response/programs on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/foster-city-covid-19-response • Create landing page of COVID -19 business resources on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/covid-19-business-resources • Enable alert on top header of City website with latest City update on COVID-19 • Enable spotlight on City website main page directing to COVID-19 landing page Ongoing
Provide messaging that increases public awareness of mandatory precautionary measures and available resources for the community
• Signage –
o City Facilities Closures – Posted at Building Entrances, Gated Park Facilities, Playgrounds, Bathrooms, etc.
o Electronic Board (for Social Distancing) – Placed on Levee Pedway o Chalk Markings (for Social Distancing) – 6 Feet Markers on Levee Pedway o Metal Signage (for Social Distancing) – Posted Along Levee Pedway o City Facilities Requirements – Face Coverings , Social Distancing Guidelines/Floor Markers, Limited Capacity in Common Spaces, etc. • FCTV Bulletin – Updated with COVID-19 Information
• Electronic Marquee – Updated with COVID-19 Information • Press Releases –
Ongoing
185

o March 11, 2020
o March 13, 2020
o March 15, 2020
o March 16, 2020
o April 3, 2020
o April 8, 2020
o April 22, 2020
o April 23, 2020
o April 30, 2020
o May 27, 2020
o June 3, 2020
o October 7, 2020
o June 2, 2021
o June 17, 2021
o July 16, 2021
o July 28, 2021
o October 28, 2021
o January 5, 2022
• Videos/Public Service Announcements –
o Letter from Mayor (Released 03/18/20)
o Video from Mayor (Released 03/26/20)
o Letter from Mayor (Released 03/31/20)
o Joint PSA with SMC Fire Member Agencies (Released on 04/10/20) o COVID-19 Relief Program (Released 05/14/20)
o Summer Safety Message from City Council (Released 06/04/20) o Congratulations to Class of 2020 (Released on 06/09/20) o Visit City Hall Online (Released 07/01/20)
o Submit Permits Online (Released 07/01/20)
o Wear a Mask (Released 08/11/20)
• E-Newsletter/Weekly City Update –
o March 26, 2020
o April 1, 2020
o April 10, 2020
o April 16, 2020
o April 23, 2020
o May 1, 2020
o May 7, 2020
o May 14, 2020
186

o May 21, 2020
o May 28, 2020
o June 4, 2020
o June 11, 2020
o June 18, 2020
o June 25, 2020
o July 1, 2020
o July 9, 2020
o July 16, 2020
o July 23, 2020
o July 30, 2020
o August 6, 2020
o August 13, 2020
o August 20, 2020
o August 27, 2020
o September 3, 2020
o September 10, 2020
o September 17, 2020
o September 24, 2020
o October 1, 2020
o October 8, 2020
o October 15, 2020
o October 22, 2020
o October 29, 2020
o November 5, 2020
o November 12, 2020
o November 19, 2020
o November 26, 2020
o December 3, 2020
o December 10, 2020
o December 16, 2020
o December 31, 2020
o January 7, 2021
o January 15, 2021
o January 21, 2021
o January 28, 2021
o February 4, 2021
o February 11, 2021
187

o February 18, 2021
o February 25, 2021
o March 4, 2021
o March 11, 2021
o March 18, 2021
o March 25, 2021
o April 1, 2021
o April 8, 2021
o April 15, 2021
o April 22, 2021
o April 29, 2021
o May 6, 2021
o May 13, 2021
o May 20, 2021
o May 27, 2021
o June 3, 2021
o June 10, 2021
o June 17, 2021
o June 24, 2021
o July 1, 2021
o July 8, 2021
o July 15, 2021
o July 22, 2021
o July 29, 2021
o August 5, 2021
o August 12, 2021
o August 19, 2021
o August 26, 2021
o September 2, 2021
o September 9, 2021
o September 16, 2021
o September 23, 2021
o September 30, 2021
o October 7, 2021
o October 14, 2021
o October 21, 2021
o October 28, 2021
o November 4, 2021
188

o November 10, 2021
o November 18, 2021
o November 24, 2021
o December 2, 2021
o December 9, 2021
o December 16, 2021
o December 22, 2021
o December 29, 2021
o January 13, 2022
o January 27, 2022
• Recology Billing Mailer –
o June: “We’re in this together, Foster City! Thank you for helping slow the spread of COVID-19. Practice social distancing of at least 6 feet, wear a face covering, and wash your hands frequently. Follow Foster City news and updates at www.fostercity.org/covid19.”
o August: Flyer – “It’s up to all of us, Foster City”
Participate in opportunities for community education whenever possible • City Manager provided COVID-19 update to Rotary Club on 03/25/20 (via Zoom) • Patrol Officers to educate public whenever responding to/enforcing violation reports • Police Chief to host Community Connect/FCPD Virtual Station Tour/Live Q&A event on 04/16/20 (via Facebook Live)
• City Manager and Mayor provided update to Foster City Village on 03/23/21 (via Zoom)
• Partnered with Congresswoman Speier to host a week-long “In America: Remember” exhibit honoring San Mateo County residents who died of COVID-19 from 11/07/21 to 11/14/21
Ongoing

OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS

TO SUPPORT NEEDS OF VULNERABLE/AT-

RISK POPULATIONS, MOBILIZING

COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS,

NON-PROFITS, AND PRIVATE SECTOR
Work in partnership with community-based organizations and/or non-profits to help support needs of at-risk populations
• Volunteers at-Large: Direct all volunteer inquiries to County for centralized deployment system – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WSXH6PZ • Senior Services:
o Rotary Club Senior Meals Program – Generally, first and third Tuesday of the month; however, suspended until further notice as they have a highly social aspect to them.
o Foster City Village – A ctively conducting Meals on Wheels (Mon day-Friday), providing transportation to urgent medical appointments, picking up Ongoing
189

prescriptions, and conducting their “We Care” program where FCV volunteers make phone calls to their members as a friendly, supportive check in o Foster City Village – City Council allocated $5,000 on 04/06/20 to help provide protective supply purchases, gro cery bag deliveries, food distributions, and gasoline cards for volunteer drivers. These measures will help with additional expenses incurred by the Village as they continue operations while protecting our seniors during the pandemic.
o Senior Shopping Hours – Foster City Safeway (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 AM-9:00 AM), Target at Bridgepointe (Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), Lucky Supermarkets (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 AM-9:00 AM), Costco (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), Ranch 99 (every weekday from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), and Trader Joe's (daily from 9:00 AM-10:00 AM)
o Foster City Village – Comfort Care Meal Delivery Program for 20 Weeks (01/28/21 to 06/10/21) includes one weekly meal prepared by rotating Foster City restaurants and hand-delivered by volunteer cadre (including Foster City staff)
• Food Distribution:
o Second Harvest Food Bank – Pre-boxed meals distribution to take place the first and third Friday at 9:00 AM/9:30 AM at the Recreation Center parking lot, in a drive-up fashion
o SMFC School District Food Program – Free meal program, grab and go style breakfast and lunch meals, available for all kids and teens 18 and under at Foster City Elementary School. City Council approved allocation of $10,000 on 05/11/20 to help costs of expanding this program. [ENDED] o Great Plates Program – Delivering meals to older adults who are at heightened risk and are unable to obtain or prepare meals on their own while sheltering in place [ENDED]
o Impossible Market pilot program, not to exceed $5,000, to introduce food & grocery subscription subsidy for 100 financially-impacted Foster City families approved by City Council on 11/02/20 [DISCONTINUED]
• Students/Distance Learning:
o SMFC Education Foundation – City Council approved allocation of $10,000 to help supplement costs of hot spots and internet access to carry out distance learning programs.

Collaborate with the County, SAMCEDA, and Foster City Chamber of Commerce to understand impacts of COVID-19 on businesses and develop financial assistance programs that can offer immediate relief as needed
Ongoing
190

• Issued survey to businesses to better understand e conomic impacts of COVID -19 – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BXH6H86
• Built Business Resources Page on City website that includes latest updates – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/covid-19-business-resources • Built directory of businesses open/available for delivery or pick -up – https://local.fostercity.org/
• Help promote San Mateo County Strong Fund, donation f und to help residents, nonprofit organizations and small businesses – https://www.smcstrong.org/ • Evaluated U.S. Senate Bill S.3548 - Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and an informational report was provided to the City Council on 04/06/20. • Developed Small Businesses Resiliency Grant Program to support operations and help avert layoffs during the COVID-19 public health emergency. $500,000 (allocated for a grant of $10,000 per business for up to 50 businesses ) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Consider options for Moratorium on Commercial Evictions (TBD; County covers unincorporated areas only)
• Participated in Chamber of Commerce “Chamber Cares Initiative” Weekly Meeting re:

COVID-19 Impacts on Non-Profits 06/16/20
• Outdoor dining temporarily allowed for restaurants looking to provide outdoor dining service and suspend ed Code Enforcement a ctions approved by City Council on 07/06/20
• Prepared and distributed approximately (100) Rethink, Reopen, Restart Kits to storefront businesses in shopping centers to support reopening efforts • Outdoor services temporarily allowed for businesses such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices , and suspended Code Enforcement actions approved by City Council on 07/31/20
• Terms of a Revolving Business Loan Program (Approved by City Council on 09/28/20); Establishment of RBLP (Approved by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to defer thereafter on 03/15/21)
• Analysis of waiving or deferring permit fees and business license fees for one year to prioritize commercial spaces for waiving of permit fees (Direction initially provided by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to not pursue further thereafter on 03/15/21) • Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in 191

place order. Additional $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 11/16/20.
• Helped promote Restaurant, Brewery & Winery Relief, relief f und to help sma ll b
usiness impacted by the pandemic – https://www.smcstrong.org/restaurantrelief • Partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to distribute two surveys – Business Needs and Shopper Preferences, which was open between 03/11/21 -03/11/21; findings received and accepted by City Council on 04/19/21
• Small Business Assistance Plan presented to City Council on 05/17/21 and on 06/21/21 • Helped promote living!LOCAL Holiday Marketplace by Chamber of Commerce to highlight local goods and services, and benefitting both shoppers and family -run businesses – https://www.whimlocal.com/event/livinglocal/feed • Helped promote Microfood Business Grant Program to help microfood businesses that have not received assistance from the County COVID -19-relief programs in the past 12 months – https://www.smcstrong.org/archivedapplyforfunding Continue dialogue with hotels to understand impacts of COVID-19 on occupancy and consider use of hotels as alternative care facilities
• Connected Nathan Tsai (owner of Crowne Plaza and Towne Place Suites) with County Manager Mike Callagy regarding 650 rooms available
Ongoing
Address risks of homelessness and/or displacement
• Countywide eviction moratorium ordinance; resolution adopting an Emergency Regulation, Pursuant to Section 8634 of the Government Code and Chapter 2.46 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, establishing a temporary, countywide moratorium on eviction for non -
payment of rent by residential tenants directly
impacted by the COVID -19 pandemic; extended through July 28 , 2020 by Board of Supervisors on 06/23/20
• Temporary countywide eviction moratorium for non-payment of rent by residential tenants directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic through August 31 and extended the time period in which delayed payments shall be made; amendment to Emergency Regulation approved by Board of Supervisors on 08/04/20 • Allocation of $1 million to the San Mateo County Emergency Financial Assistance Program (ERAP) and continued outreach for the state Emergency Rental Assistance Program to help residents impacted by COVID -

19. Eligible applicants include
renters/tenants those who have experi enced financial hardship due to COVID -19, have past due rent or utilities, and have a household income that is not more than 80% of the area median income, as well as property owners/landlords with income - eligible renters. Approved by Board of Supervisors on 06/29/21 Passed on
03/24/20;
06/23/20;
08/04/20
Support mental wellness/wellbeing of the Foster City Community Ongoing 192

• Promote and expand on Virtual Recreation and Resource Center to keep community engaged and active – https://www.fostercity.org/parksrec/page/virtual-recreation- and-resource-center
• Promoted San Mateo County Psychological Association (SMCPA) Virtual Town Halls (04/05/20 and 04/09/20)
• Participated in ‘Thank You Event’ at San Mateo Medical Center with SMC Fire Member Agencies, Public Safety Personnel, City Staff, and Legislative Officials (05/04/20) Build out database for Countywide Community Evacuation Interface to support mass shelter in place and assist with information sharing – https://community.zonehaven.com/ • Assigned liaison to support data needs, provide resources, and update map Ongoing

OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS

TO FOSTER A SAFE WORKPLACE AND

ENABLE THE EMPLOYEE BASE TO

PERFORM
Scale workforce to essential functions only and transition employees to telework/remote to extent possible
• Distributed Teleworking Policy and Form to all employees (March 2020 and December 2020)
• Staffing levels/schedule established on a weekly/monthly basis (dependent on department)
• Provided regular updates to all employees via City Manager and Human Resources (issued 11 internal memos to -date) and Management Team Meeting (on 05/27/20) and All-Hands Meeting (on 05/28/20, 07/29/20, and 12/15/20) • Provided regular updates to City staff via bimonthly City Manager update “The Bulletin” (First and Third Fridays of Each Month); transitioning to monthly updates in 2021
• Shared information on Families First Coronavirus Response Act • Provided tools for all employees to effectively work remotely (with IT Assistance); includes equipment issuance, tele/video conferencing tools such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom, and web -based Employee Resource Page –
https://www.fostercity.org/employees
• Established ‘Return to Work Taskforce ’ and Developed ‘Employee Return to Work’ Policy
• Developed ‘Adaptable Work Schedule Program’
Ongoing
Ensure safety of front-line/essential personnel, i.e. first responders • Ensure personnel are equipped with PPE and are able to minimize in -person i
nteractions whenever possible (reduced access to Police & Fire Departments, alternate teams/shifts, etc.)
• Provide accommodations for quarantining/isolation by coordinating with County EOC Ongoing
193

• Provide resources to COVID -19 testing if needed through https://verily.com/ or https://www.projectbaseline.com/study/covid-19/
• Provide childcare options for front -line/essential personnel, i.e. first responders – https://sanmateo4cs.org/
o Shared survey to gather information and better assess needs jurisdiction – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SMC_COVID19_childcare
• Implemented self-health assessment/screening requirement at entry points; including installation of thermal scanners at City Hall and Police Department • Posted required Social Distancing Protocol and Signage at City facility entrances and share information with all employees
• Informed all employees of Face Covering Requirement; providing supply of masks if necessary
• Departments coordinating with ‘Return to Work Taskforce’ for site- specific modifications/adaptations (including spacing and health/sneeze guards) ; as well as visitor safety protocols
• Acquired donation of ~5,000 cloth face coverings through U.S. Conference of Mayor s
‘
Masks for Mayors Initiative’
• Sanitation station/supplies set up in various locations throughout City facilities • Acquiring COVID-19 at-home/self-test kits through County for public safety personnel

OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS

TO PROVIDE LONG -TERM STRATEGIC
PLANNING IN RESPONSE TO COVID -19

AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CITY

OPERATIONS
Continue to monitor and work with the County to understand trajectory of COVID-19 and how it may impact City operations and needs of the community • Modeling data will be used a basis to prepare for contingencies where needed and to prepare for reopening of economy/transition to normal operations through phased approach
• Assigned representative to County’s Long-Term Strategic Planning Taskforce • Created ‘Return to Work Taskforce’ to develop policy/strategy for reopening City facilities; as well as policy/safety protocols for visitors & members of the public • Created ‘Parks Reopening Taskforce’ to develop policy/strategy for reopening park facilities
• Overview of San Mateo County Recovery Initiative presented to City Council on 10/05/20 and report accepted by Board of Supervisors on 10/06/20 Ongoing
Evaluate and consider additional a ctions that are recommended or may be required dependent on outcome/progression of COVID-19 situation; including (but not limited to):
• Extension of City Facilities Closure (TBD; Based on Public Health Order and Until Further Notice)
Ongoing
194

• Suspend or Freeze Shut -Offs/Disconnection of Water Service for Non -Payment (Currently in Effect)
• Waiver of Credit Card Fees for Online Payment of Utilities Through June 30, 2020 (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20)
• Explore Feasibility of Charging Tier 1 Rates for Water Service (No Longer Pursuing Due to Minor Cost Difference)
• Developed Small Businesses Resiliency Grant Program to support operations and help avert layoffs during the COVID-19 public health emergency. $500,000 (allocated for a grant of $10,0 00 per business for up to 50 businesses) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Consider Options for Moratorium on Commercial E victions (TBD; County covers unincorporated areas only)
• Freeze Hiring/New Recruitments and Filling of Vacant Positions (Currently in Effect) • Initiated Friendly Streets, Foster City Initiative, dedicating approximately a 1.75 mile stretch of road on northbound Beach Park Boulevard for bicyclists and runners. One lane will be barricaded off from cars to allow bicyclists and runners to safely use the designated detour. In parallel with the detour, this stretch of Levee Pedway is reserved for walking only. (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20) [DISCONTINUED] • Expanded Friendly Streets, Foster City Initiative to extend lane closure on Beach Park Boulevard from Teal Street to Gull Avenue ( Approved by City Council on 05/11/20) [DISCONTINUED]
• Allocated $20,000 total ($10,000 each) to the San Mateo- Foster City Elementary School District /Community Education Foundation for its Free Meal Program and Mobile Hotspot/Wi-Fi for Distance Learning (Approved by City Council on 05/11/20) • COVID-19 Recovery Planning Update provided at City Council Vision & Policy Summit (on 06/04/20)
• Outdoor Dining Temporarily Allowed for Restaurants Looking to Provide Outdoor Dining Service and Suspen ded Code Enforcement Actions (Approved by City Council on 07/06/20)
• Prepared and distributed approximately (100) Rethink, Reopen, Restart Kits to storefront businesses in shopping centers to support reopening efforts • Outdoor Services Temporarily Allowed for Businesses (such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices) and Suspended Code Enforcement Actions (Approved by City Council on 07/31/20) 195

• Terms of a Revolving Business Loan Program (Approved by City Council on 09/28/20); Establishment of RBLP (Approved by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to defer thereafter on 03/15/21)
• Analysis of waiving or deferring permit fees and business license fees for on e year to prioritize commercial spaces for waiving of permit fees (Direction initially provided by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to not pursue further thereafter on 03/15/21) • Impossible Market pilot program, not to exceed $5,000, to introduce foo d & grocery subscription subsidy for 100 financially-impacted Foster City families approved by City Council on 11/02/20 [DISCONTINUED]
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. Additional $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 11/16/20.
• Helped promote Restaurant, Brewery & Winery Relief, relief fund to help sma ll b
usiness impacted by the pandemic – https://www.smcstrong.org/restaurantrelief • Partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to distribute two surveys – Business Needs and Shopper Preferences, which was open between 03/11/21 -03/11/21; findings received and accepted by City Council on 04/19/21
• Small Business Assistance Plan presented to City Council on 05/17/21 and on 06/21/21 Monitor revenue impacts , e xplore options for expenditure reductions , and seek financial assistance/opportunities for cost recovery of funds
• Track damage estimates and expenditures related to COVID-19 • Log personnel time on Form 214s in relation to COVID-19 incident response • Submit “Request for Public Assistance” through California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Recovery Section for F ederal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA's) Public Assistance Program (Submitted on 04/02/20) • Seek approval of the “Designation of Applicant's Agent R esolution for Non -State Agencies” for the Purpose of Cost Recovery Eligibility (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20)
• Discussed City financial impacts related to COVID-19 (04/20/20 City Council Meeting) • Discussed p rojected financial impacts of COVID -19 beyond the current fiscal year (05/11/20 Budget Study Session)
• Hired MGT Consulting for consultant services for COVID-19 CARES/FEMA Disaster Cost Recovery (08/24/20)
• Quarterly updates on City’s economic performance and impacts related to COVID-19, including strategies to close long- term structural deficit (09/08/20 City Council Meeting)
Ongoing
196
DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager

FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING INTERIM

GUIDANCE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF AN SB 9 IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE; AND RECEIVING A REPORT ON
SENATE BILL 10 (SB 10)

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council consider the following actions:

1. Receive an Informational Report on Senate Bill 10 (SB 10); and

2. Approve a Resolution Adopting Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) —The California HOME Act and directing the preparation of an SB 9 Implementing Ordinance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed bipartisan legislation intended to expand housing production in California, streamline the process for cities to zone for multi-family housing, and increase residential density in single-family residential zones, all in an effort to help ease California’s housing shortage. SB 9 and SB 10 are part of the “Building Opportunities For All” Senate Housing Package from Senators Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), and 197
Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

SB 9 (Atkins), the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act, allows property owners within a single-family residential zone to build two (2) units on an existing lot and/or to subdivide the existing lot into two (2) parcels, for a total of four (4) units, without discretionary approvals.

The law requires a local agency to ministerially approve the two parcels (duplex) and/or a parcel map for an urban lot split to create two (2) parcels from one (1) single-family residential parcel that meets certain requirements.

SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022.

Specifically, the bill requires approval of the following housing development activities:
Two-unit housing development – Two (2) homes on an eligible single-family residential parcel (whether the proposal adds up to two (2) new housing units or adds one (1) new unit to one (1) existing unit).
Urban lot split - A one-time subdivision of an existing single-family residential parcel into two parcels. This would allow up to four (4) units (unless a jurisdiction decides to allow additional units).

SB 9 supersedes the City’s regulations regarding development standards and subdivision standards in single family residential zoning districts. However, SB 9 does allow cities to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards so long as they do not conflict with the provisions of SB 9. Some cities have adopted an Urgency Ordinance for SB 9 pursuant to Government Code section 65858 either due to the high number of SB 9 applications that were anticipated to be submitted once the law went into effect on January 1, 2022 or due to political pressure. In order to adopt an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the City Council would need to make certain findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that would exist if additional development were approved without the ordinance in place.

So far, the City has received one general SB 9 inquiry from an architect but has not received any formal SB 9 applications yet. Given the average lot size in Foster City, many single-family lots are not really conducive for a lot split.

This does not mean that the City will not receive any SB 9 applications but 198
unlike some other cities that have more than a one-acre minimum lot size (which is conducive for a lot split), it is unlikely that the City will receive multiple SB 9 applications all at the same time. This is evidenced by the low number of ADU permits that the City has issued since the State ADU laws went into effect a few years back.

Staff does not believe there are sufficient facts to support the necessary findings for an Urgency Ordinance but believes there is an alternative approach that can be taken that would provide the City some level of local control until a formal SB 9 ordinance can be drafted and presented to Council. This alternative approach would be to formally adopt interim guidance, through a resolution adopted by the Council, which would specify preferences in areas where the City does have some discretion relating to SB 9 applications. The resolution would be effective immediately upon adoption by the Council. Once the City has adopted this interim guidance, staff will be working with a consultant to draft an ordinance to amend the R-1 Zoning standards as well as adopt objective standards for design review as well as subdivisions to be consistent with the requirements of SB 9. These standards will be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission before they make a recommendation to the City Council for adoption. The guidance document would remain in effect until the City Council adopts a permanent SB 9 ordinance.

Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) creates a voluntary process for local governments to pass ordinances prior to January 1, 2029 to zone any parcel for up to ten (10) residential units if located in transit rich areas and urban infill sites. Since cities can, but are not required to, upzone existing parcels under SB 10, staff recommends that the City Council does not take any action related to SB 10.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS

On March 1, 2021, the City Council, by Minute Order No. 1739 directed staff to send a Letter of Opposition regarding SB 9 which would allow for increased density in single-family residential zones.

On April 5, 2021, the City Council, by Minute Order No. 1750 reviewed the draft Letter of Opposition prepared by City Staff regarding SB 9 and provided direction, as needed to finalize and send the letter. See attached April 5, 2021 Staff Report (Attachment 3) and SB 9 Letter of Opposition (Attachment 4).

On June 21, 2021, the City Council, by Minute Order No. 1790, approved the 199
recommended policy advocacy positions on certain high priority bills including SB 10 and authorized the Mayor or the City Manager to sign letters of support or opposition on behalf of the City Council regarding pending state legislation.

The Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC) has two single-family residential zoning districts, the R-1 Single-Family Residence District and the R-1/PD Single-Family Residence/Planned Development Combining District. Among other permitted uses, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or second units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are also permitted uses in these districts. In other words, a property owner, under current State ADU laws and FCMC Chapter 17.78, can add up to three (3) units – the primary dwelling unit, an ADU and/or a JADU in an R-1 or R-1/PD district. While approval of a new home or an addition to an existing home is currently a discretionary action which requires staff level or Planning Commission level review per FCMC Chapter 17.58, approval of an ADU or a JADU is a ministerial action which only requires a building permit review. Lot Splits in Foster City are subject to FCMC Chapter 16.32, Minor Land Division – Tentative and Final Maps of the Foster City Municipal Code and in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and requires the approval of the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing.

SB 9 requires local jurisdictions to approve up to two (2) units in existing single-family zones, subject only to local objective standards that would permit at least two (2) 800 square feet units per lot in single-family zones and that allow for the division of one (1) existing single-family lot into two (2) lots of at least 1,200 square feet. SB 9 mandates housing developments and urban lot splits be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, subject to certain requirements and conditions. SB 9, by establishing a ministerial review process, exempts such projects from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 9 allows a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards and objective design review standards that do not conflict with the provisions under SB 9.

The Assembly amended SB 9 to allow cities to deny a proposed housing development project if the building official “makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse 200
impact.” Cities that deny an SB 9 project based on this provision may be subject to legal challenges if they do not have a legally defensible cause that demonstrates that the proposed development would impose a public health and safety impact or impact on the physical environment which cannot be mitigated. Another amendment in the bill allows cities to require applicants for lot splits to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years.

Cities cannot impose any additional owner-occupancy requirements on lot splits. See the attached draft SB 9 FAQs prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (Attachment 5).

Foster City has approximately 3,420 R-1 lots and 1,120 R-1/PD lots (total:
4,540 lots), that would be subject to SB 9. Of the 4,540 single-family lots, approximately 378 lots are 8,000 square feet and above. While SB 9 increases the potential number of residential units in single-family neighborhoods, market conditions and other factors are likely to limit the impacts of SB 9. Recent changes that were made to the State ADU laws suggest that only a small percentage of owners may choose to use SB 9. For reference, in the last five (5) years, a similar number of parcels in the City were eligible to build two (2) units in addition to the primary dwelling unit (a full sized ADU of 1,200 square feet or fifty percent of the primary dwelling, whichever is less and a JADU that is no more than 500 square feet).

However, the City has issued an average of only two (2) ADU permits per year in the last five (5) years, and all of those were for one (1) ADU per lot.

In July 2021, UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation published a report (link) on SB 9, concluding that single family homes would continue to be the dominant land use in areas covered by SB 9. Note that this report was published prior to SB 9 amendments in August 2021. This is because single family sales prices are high, many lots have limited buildable area, and construction costs limit what is feasible. Even when the economics are right, many property owners may still choose not to build.

As noted previously, SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j), a local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of SB 9. Because SB 9 contains certain provisions that may be up to a local agency to adopt, staff would like to propose Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations to implement SB 9 that would allow the City to maintain some local control until such time an SB 9 ordinance and objective standards can be prepared. Given the staff time and resources it would take to develop an implementing ordinance as well as 201
objective standards for consideration to the Planning Commission and the City Council, staff recommends that Council adopt an interim document to guide staff in the SB 9 review process until an ordinance is considered by the City Council and directing staff to develop and present to the City Council an SB 9 implementation ordinance.

The requirements of SB 9 that would be contained in an interim guidance document and an implementation ordinance are described below.

Proposed Housing Developments

Proposed Housing Developments Government Code Section 65852.21 provides that a proposed housing development containing no more than two (2) residential units (construction of no more than two (2) new units, or the addition of one (1) new unit to an existing unit) within a single-family residential zone shall be ministerially approved, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:

The parcel must be located within a single-family residential zone within an urbanized area or an urban cluster;
The development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district;
The development is not located in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, earthquake fault zones, hazardous waste sites, high fire hazard severity zones etc.;
The urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of deed- restricted affordable housing (moderate, low, or very low-income housing) and rent-controlled housing;
The development would not require demolition of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years (i.e. rented by any tenant during the prior three (3) years);
The development is not on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e. an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act); and
202
The development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, unless:
oa local ordinance so allows; or
othe site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years;

The City shall require that a rental of any unit created under SB 9 cannot be used for short-term rentals of less than 30 days.

The City may impose on a housing development, objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding:
the construction of up to two (2) units; or
either of the two (2) units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

The City may require off-street parking of up to one (1) space per unit unless the parcel is located within:
one-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor; one-half mile walking distance of major transit stop; or one block of a car share vehicle.

The City may, but is not required to, permit an ADU or a JADU on parcels that use both the authority under Section 65852.21 (SB 9 housing developments) and Section 66411.7 (SB 9 urban lot splits).

The City may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, upon health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.

The City is prohibited from requiring a setback for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In all other circumstances, SB 9 authorizes a setback of up 203
to four (4) feet from the side and rear lot lines.

Proposed Urban Lot Splits

Government Code Section 66411.7 provides that the City shall ministerially approve, without discretionary review or hearing, a parcel map for an urban lot split but only upon a determination that the urban lot split meets all of the following requirements:
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two (2) new parcels of approximately equal lot area and the smaller parcel shall be not less than 40 percent of the lot area proposed for subdivision (50-50 or 40-60 split).
Neither parcel shall be smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless authorized by the local ordinance.
The parcel being subdivided must meet all of the following requirements:
oThe parcel must be located within a single-family residential zone within an urbanized area or an urban cluster;
oThe development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district;
oThe development is not located in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, earthquake fault zones, hazardous waste sites, high fire hazard severity zones etc.;
oThe urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of deed-restricted affordable housing (moderate, low, or very low- income housing) and rent-controlled housing;
oThe urban lot split would not require demolition of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years (i.e., rented by any tenant during the prior three years);
oThe urban lot split is not on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e., an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act);
oThe parcel has not been established through a prior exercise of an urban lot split authorized by SB 9; and
204
oNeither the parcel owner nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously exercised an urban lot split under SB 9 on an adjacent parcel;

The City shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, except as otherwise provided in SB 9.

The City shall require that:
the uses allowed on a lot created pursuant to SB 9 be limited to residential uses; and
an applicant for an urban lot split sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split, but the City is prohibited from imposing additional owner occupancy standards.

The City may impose on an urban lot split, objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding:
the construction of up to two (2) units; or
either of the two (2) units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area

The City may require the following:
easements required for public services and facilities; parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right- of-way, and
off-street parking of up to one (1) space per unit unless the parcel is located within:
oone-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor;
oone-half mile walking distance of major transit stop; or oone block of a car share vehicle.
205
The City may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.

The City is prohibited from requiring a setback for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In all other circumstances, authorizes a setback of up to four (4) feet from the side and rear lot lines.

The City is prohibited from requiring dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements.

SB 9 also extends the limit on the additional map extension period authorized under the State’s Subdivision Map Act that may be provided by ordinance from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or non- substantive changes to the State’s Planning and Zoning Law.

Adoption of this Resolution and an interim SB 9 guidance document are not projects under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n).

SB 9 and Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)

SB 9 overrides local zoning only. It does not address rules or restrictions implemented and adopted by HOAs or included in CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions). Because SB 9 does not contain any provisions for single-family homes in HOAs, it means that HOAs can enforce their CC&Rs including any prohibitions on lot splits or duplexes. This is similar to ADUs, until AB 670 became law, which explicitly subjected HOAs to the State’s ADU laws. In other words, SB 9 does not expressly limit the power of HOAs and therefore, HOAs may choose to exempt themselves from SB 9.

Any such CC&Rs would then be up to each HOA, not the City, to enforce.

SB 9 and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)

Any new units developed under SB 9 will count towards a local agency’s total housing production. Jurisdictions are required to include all SB 9 units and 206
urban lot splits created as a result of SB 9 in their General Plan Annual Progress Reports to the State. Given that the law went into effect only this year, the exact methodology as to how SB 9 units and their affordability levels may be counted for purposes of Housing Elements and RHNA is yet to be determined. HCD is expected to come out with guidance on this in the coming months.

In summary, the following table illustrates the key SB 9 development scenarios that are possible on a single-family lot in Foster City. Local agencies may impose objective development, subdivision and design standards as long as those standards do not physically preclude two (2) 800 square foot units.

SENATE BILL 10 (SB 10)
SB 10 allows, but does not require, cities to pass an ordinance allowing for the zoning of any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in an urban infill or transit-rich sites.

A “transit rich area” means a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel on a high quality bus corridor. A “high quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following criteria:
i. it has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday;
207
ii. it has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday; and
iii. it has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday.

An “urban infill site” is a site that satisfies all of the following:
i. it is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau;
ii. a site in which at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses (parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined); and
iii. a site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.

Adopting a local ordinance or a resolution to amend a general plan consistent with such an ordinance would be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This provides cities, an increased ability to upzone property for housing without the processing delays and litigation risks associated with CEQA. In contrast to SB 9, each individual city or county must affirmatively pass an ordinance authorizing the upzoning under SB 10.

SB 10 does not apply to parcels located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, but this restriction does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. SB 10 prohibits cities from adopting an ordinance that would supersede a voter initiative that designates publicly owned land as open space, as defined in Government Code Section 65560(h), or for park or recreational purposes. SB 10 also requires a two-thirds vote of a City Council to supersede any zoning restriction imposed by local voter initiative.
208
The City currently has Multiple-Family Residence (R-3 & R-4) as well as Commercial Mix (C-M) districts that allow for multiple-family dwellings.

Additionally, the C-M district is only to be used in conjunction with the combining zone PD (planned development). This requirement ensures the provision of adequate parking, to minimize potential conflict between dissimilar uses and to provide maximum flexibility of development. Given that there are existing code provisions that allow multi-family residential as well as state laws that allow for density bonuses for multi-family development, staff does not recommend that the City take any action as it relates to SB 10.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the attached Resolution

CITY COUNCIL VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This action is in alignment with the "Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy" Value/Priority Area.

NEXT STEPS
Based on the Council’s direction, potential next steps include:
SB 9 Implementing Ordinance
SB 9 Objective Zoning/Subdivision/Design Standards
 SB 9 Application Forms and Checklist

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Exhibit A - Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations for SB 9 Projects
Attachment 3: April 5, 2021 City Council Staff Report
Attachment 4: SB 9 Letter of Opposition
Attachment 5: Draft SB 9 FAQs prepared by ABAG
209
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ADOPTING INTERIM GUIDANCE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 – THE CALIFORNIA HOME ACT; AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF AN SB 9

IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) (“SB 9”), entitled the California HOME Act, was signed into law by the Governor on September 19, 2021 and becomes effective on January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 amends Government Code Section 66452.6, and adds two new Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 66411.7; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 requires cities and counties, including charter cities, to provide for the ministerial (“by right”) approval of a housing development containing two (2) residential units of at least 800 square feet in floor area (“duplex”) and a parcel map dividing one (1) existing lot into two (2) parts (“lot split”) within a single-family residential zone for residential use; and WHEREAS, SB 9 eliminates discretionary review and public oversight of proposed subdivisions of one (1) lot into two (2) parcels by removing public notice and hearings by the Planning Commission, by requiring administrative review of the project, and by providing ministerial approval of a lot split; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 exempts projects authorized thereunder from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), by establishing a ministerial review process without discretionary review or a public hearing; and WHEREAS, SB 9 further stipulates that a city or county cannot require a SB 9 duplex project to comply with any standard that would prevent two (2) units of at least 800 square feet each from being built on each resultant lot, and prohibits a local agency from imposing regulations that require dedications of rights-of way or the construction of offsite and onsite improvements for parcels created through a SB 9 lot split; and WHEREAS, in addition to various constraints on SB 9 developments as set forth therein, SB 9 also authorizes cities and counties to enact local SB 9 implementation ordinances and guidelines that are objective and that are not inconsistent with its mandatory provisions.

Accordingly, all such existing objective City standards shall apply to SB 9 projects; and WHEREAS, SB 9 allows two (2) units per lot, and one (1) lot split, for a total of four (4) units and a total of two (2) lots. The City is not required and shall not allow any additional units or structures (such as ADUs), nor any further lot splits; and WHEREAS, due to SB 9’s effective date of January 1, 2022, it is recommended that the City adopt interim guidance rules and regulations to guide City Departments to implement SB 9 until such time as an implementation ordinance and objective standards may be developed, 210
publicly reviewed, considered by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Resolution and implementation of SB 9 Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations are not considered projects under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City:

Section 1. The City Council finds and declares that urban housing developments authorized under SB 9 are a form of state mandated housing that allows for expanded housing options.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the SB 9 Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, for City staff to reference and apply to any applications submitted pursuant to SB 9 and, directs staff to prepare an SB 9 implementation ordinance for consideration and adoption by the City Council.

Section 3. Severability. If any term, provision, or portion of this Resolution or its application to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Resolution shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

Section 4. Taking Effect. The Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations will take immediate effect upon adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 22nd day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
211

EXHIBIT A
INTERIM GUIDANCE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR SB 9 PROJECTS SB 9 went into effect on January 1, 2022. SB 9 Requires ministerial (“by-right”) approval of:
- Two (2) residential units per lot (Two-Unit Developments) - Parcel maps for an urban lot split (Urban Lot Splits) The following summary provide interim guidance rules and regulations while staff develop a permanent Ordinance and Objective Standards to implement SB 9.

General Requirements for Two-Unit Developments & Urban Lot Splits:
- Does not apply in the following areas:
oPrime Farmland
oWetlands
oHazardous Waste Sites
oLands identified for conservation in an adopted plan or under a conservation easement
oHabitat for Protected Species (threatened or endangered) oHistoric Landmarks (Site or Local)
oHistoric Preservation Districts
- May be excluded in the following areas unless subject to compliance with hazard mitigation building codes and measures
oVery High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
oEarthquake Fault Zone
oSpecial Flood Hazard Area
oRegulatory Floodway
Starting January 1, 2022, homeowners interested in adding a residential unit(s) or conducting a lot split under SB 9 can apply for a ministerial permit with the City subject to the criteria below:

Qualifying Criteria

1. Zoning:
The property is zoned single-family residential (i.e. R-1 or R-1/PD only)

2. Existing Rental Housing: The proposed project cannot demolish or alter Housing that restricts rents to persons of moderate, low, or very-low income (deed- restricted housing)
Housing subject to rent control
oThe project site cannot have been withdrawn from the rent controlled rental market within the past fifteen (15) years (subject to the Ellis Act). Housing unit that has been occupied by a tenant within the last three (3) years Attachment 2
212

3. The project does not require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of a structure.

4. Short Term Rental Restrictions:
Rental of any unit created under SB 9 must be for a term longer than 30 days

TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Existing City Objective Zoning and Development Standards, and statutory objective development standards will be enforced, such that:

1. All SB 9 housing developments shall meet the requirements mandated by SB 9 law – Government Code Sections 65852.21(a), (b)(2), (e), (g) and (h)

2. Objective standards do not preclude the construction of up to two (2) units of at least 800 square feet each in floor area.

3. Setbacks – Gov. Code § 65852.21 (b)(2)(B)(ii)
No setbacks are required for existing legal structures or structures constructed in the same location and dimensions of an existing legal structure. A minimum 4-foot setback from the rear and side property lines may be imposed for structures that don’t meet the above criteria.

4. One (1) off-street parking space per unit is required except no off-street parking is required for projects located:
Within a one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code – Gov. Code § 65852.21(c)(1); or
Within one block of a car share.

5. The City shall deny an SB 9 housing development application if the Building Official makes a specific written finding that the development project would have an adverse impact as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is on public health, safety or the environment and for which there is no method to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts – Gov. Code § 65852.21(d).

6. The City shall not permit any ADUs or JADUs on parcels that use both the authority of Gov. Code § 65852.21 (SB 9 housing developments) and § 66411.7 (SB 9 urban lot splits.)

7. Individual units may be attached or detached, provided that the structure(s) meet building code safety requirements and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.

URBAN LOT SPLITS
Existing City Objective Subdivision Standards, and statutory objective development standards will be enforced, such that:

1. All SB 9 Urban Lot Splits shall meet the requirements mandated by SB 9 law – Government Code Sections 66411.7(a), (b), (c)(2), (f), (g), (h), (k) and (l)

2. Objective standards do not preclude the construction of up to two (2) units per lot of at least 800 square feet each in floor area.
213

3. Each new parcel must be at least 1,200 square-feet in size (i.e., parcel being split must be at least 2,400 square-feet in size)
a. Each new parcel may be no smaller than 40% of the original parcel’s size b. Each parcel is limited to residential use.

4. Setbacks – Gov. Code § 66411.7(c)(3)
No setbacks are required for existing legal structures or structures constructed in the same location and dimensions of an existing legal structure. A minimum 4-foot setback from the rear and side property lines may be imposed for structures that don’t meet the above criteria.

5. The City shall deny an SB 9 housing development application if the Building Official makes a specific written finding that the development project would have an adverse impact as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no method to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts – Gov. Code § 66411.7 (d).

6. Each lot created by an SB 9 urban lot split must adjoin the public right-of-way (ROW), or provide access to the public right-of-way, by way of a recorded access easement in favor of the parcel requiring ROW access – Gov. Code § 66411.7(e)(2).

7. One (1) off-street parking space per unit is required except no off-street parking is required for projects located:
Within a one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; or Within one block of a car share – Gov. Code § 66411.7(e)(3).

8. The City shall not permit more than two units of housing, including primary dwelling units, SB 9 housing development units, ADUs, and/or JADUs, on lots created pursuant to the authority of Government Code section 66411.7 (SB 9 urban lot splits) (Gov. Code § 66411.7(j).)

9. The correction of existing legal nonconformities will not be imposed as a condition of approval for any lot split under SB 9.

10. Sequential splitting of a parcel established through a prior SB 9 split is prohibited. Nor can there be a lot split if the owner of the parcel being subdivided (or someone working in concert with that owner) has subdivided an adjacent parcel pursuant to this lot split legislation.

11. Owners must sign an affidavit that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of the lot split approval.

12. A subdivision map may be extended for up to four (4) years with a 24-month extension period.
214
DATE: April 5, 2021
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVE CITY’S LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING SENATE BILL SB 9 (ATKINS)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the draft Letter of Opposition regarding Senate Bill SB 9 (Atkins) prepared by City Staff and provide direction, via Minute Order, as needed to finalize and send the letter.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On March 1, 2021, Staff requested City Council direction on sending a Letter of Opposition regarding Senate Bill SB 9 (Atkins). SB 9 would require a proposed housing development containing two (2) residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements. A similar ‘Duplex’ bill (SB 1120) introduced last year was approved by the State Assembly and was expected to be passed by the State Senate, but it missed the deadline. The State Senate had previously approved a draft of SB 1120 but the Assembly made slight amendments prior to approving it only four minutes before the end of the Legislative Session. This left no time for the bill to appear in its final form before the Senate for approval. Thus, while it seems both the Assembly and Senate supported the bill, it did not pass.

This newly introduced Senate Bill SB 9 specifically would:
 Require a local government to ministerially approve a housing development containing two (2) residential units in single-family residential zones. 215
 Require a local government to allow a developer to convert an existing single- family home into a duplex and then add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and a Junior Accessory dwelling unit (JADU) to the same parcel.  Require a local government to ministerially approve a single-family lot split, creating two lots, and allowing the construction of one single-family home, one ADU, and one JADU on each lot for a total of six units on a parcel originally zoned for one single-family home.

In essence, SB 9 would rezone by state statute single-family residential zones by allowing for the creation of six (6) units and potentially even up to ten (10) units on a single parcel (depending on how ADU laws are interpreted); and further authorizes urban lot splits, without any local discretionary hearing or review, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For additional background information, please refer to the attached March 1, 2021 City Council Staff Report (Attachment 1). During the March 1, 2021 meeting, Staff noted that that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) has submitted a letter (Attachment 2) to Senate President pro Tempore Atkins opposing SB 9.

In their letter, Cal Cities has requested the following amendments be made to SB 9 in order to address their concerns and remove their opposition:
 Clarify that a property owner using SB 9 is limited to constructing two residential units, not two residential units and additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same parcel;
 Require a housing developer to acquire a building permit within one year of a lot split, so that speculators do not sell lots and never build homes;  Allow local governments to require adequate access for police, fire and other public safety vehicles and equipment;
Prohibit developers from using SB 9 in very high fire hazard severity zones;  Allow cities to determine a range of lot sizes suitable for SB 9 development projects;
Ensure HCD provides Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) credit for production of SB 9 units;
 Allow local governments to take into account local conditions such as hillsides, lot dimensions, natural hazards, available infrastructure, etc. when approving or denying housing project applications;
 Allow local governments to continue to determine parking standards; and  Ensure large-scale investors and builders do not exploit SB 9 provision.

Cal Cities issued an action alert asking member cities to weigh in on the measure. Cal Cities also provided a sample letter for member cities to use. During the March 1, 2021 meeting, City Council was generally supportive of sending the letter prepared by Cal 216
Cities and authorized Staff to prepare the letter. At the time, it was staff’s understanding that the bill was scheduled for a March 18 hearing. And so, staff was prepared to bring the item to the City Council at the March 15 City Council meeting.

However, SB 9 was pulled by the Author from its original hearing date of March 18, 2021. This was due to a flurry of early opposition to the bills provisions as well as the ambiguity of the number of total units that could be constructed under the proposal. To date the measure has not been amended or rescheduled for a new hearing. However, our legislative consultant has advised the City that based on information they have obtained from Capitol sources, the bill will be heard in the Senate Housing committee on Thursday, April 15. Moreover, the legislation will be amended to clarify the construction of six units (when combined with current law specific to Accessory Dwelling Units).

According to our legislative consultant, this process of setting bills for hearing and amending measures quickly is common practice in the state legislative process. The State’s legislative process moves quickly and often with little transparency. In theory a sweeping piece of legislation can be introduced and move entirely through the lawmaking process in 72 hours. While such action is rare and is not likely to happen with SB 9, it is entirely possible (and permissible) that the amendments to the measure will not be publicly available until the day that the bill is being voted on by the Senate Housing committee. This is in stark contrast to how deliberate the local process is, including strict Brown Act requirements placed on local government. Due to the fluctuating state legislative calendar, the City would not have the ability to review the amended version of SB 9, provide a detailed analysis, draft a revised position letter, staff report and post the agenda publicly in accordance with the Brown Act prior to the likely April 15 Senate Housing committee meeting date. Traditionally, legislative policy committees require a position letter be submitted on a piece of legislation 5 days in advance of the hearing.

While the proposed amendments in theory would be considerably improved from the possible 10 units that may be constructed under the bill’s current provisions, the proposal could still allow six (6) units. As expressed by City Council and staff, the provision of allowing even six (6) units remains a concern. In additional to all the other concerns outlined in the League’s letter, staff is supportive of the League’s position that the bill should clarify that a property owner using SB 9 is limited to constructing two (2) residential units, not two (2) residential units and additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same parcel.

In order for Foster City to stay engaged in the process, it has been recommended by the City’s legislative consultant that should the City Council choose to adopt an oppose unless amended position to SB 9 (Atkins) that City Council authorize Staff to proceed with amending and submitting updated versions of the attached draft position letter at 217
their discretion. This would ensure that the content in the letter is reflective of the amended version of SB 9 while complying with the letter submittal deadlines of the Senate Housing Committee. If substantive amendments were made that altered the intent of the bill and applicability to Foster City, staff would bring the issue back to City Council for further guidance.

Alternatively, the City Council may wish to simply hold off on taking any formal action now and wait for the amended measure of the bill to become public. The City’s legislative consultant advises that there will be ample time for the City to engage in the process. More specifically, assuming the legislation continues to advance through the entire process, SB 9 will move through the following steps:
 Senate Housing Committee
 Senate Governance and Finance Committee
 Senate Appropriations Committee
 Senate Floor (full vote of the house—no verbal engagement)  Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
 Assembly Local Government Committee
 Assembly Appropriations Committee
 Assembly Floor (full vote of the house—no verbal engagement)  (likely) Senate Concurrence (a full vote of the house to concur any amendments made in the Assembly—no verbal engagement)
 Governor’s Desk for Consideration (no verbal engagement).

Each step in the process the City provides an opportunity for the City to submit written correspondence to express its official position. Moreover, the City can also verbally express its position in all steps in the process except when the measure is being considered by the full body of the Senate, Assembly as well as once the measure is on the Governor’s Desk.

Staff has used the sample letter provided by Cal Cities but has also included the following additional language to express its position on the bill. See Attachment 3.

Foster City is one of the few successful master planned communities within a 4-square mile boundary that was designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, each with access to schools, parks, and neighborhood retail centers. Much of the community character and quality of life in Foster City is based on its unique qualities as a self- contained Master Planned Community. Specifically, the City will be affected by this bill because of the average lot sizes of single-family homes in Foster City which is typically between 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. Given the average lot sizes, the City has ensured that residential development maintains a high quality of design through the local Architectural Design Review process while addressing impacts such as privacy, solar 218
access, noise and other impacts that are associated with smaller lots. Under current State laws, a single-family zoned lot in the state can already have up to three (3) units — an ADU, JADU, and the primary residence. Allowing upzoning of existing single- family neighborhoods is duplicative of the goal of the ADU laws. Despite the city’s local land-use planning policies and zoning regulations, the proposed legislation would affect our intentionally and carefully planned single-family residential neighborhoods with a blanket multi-family zoning causing significant impacts on our established Master Planned Community and its character. The proposed legislation will also have significant implications regarding traffic, parking, and other infrastructure that are not adequate to support this land use intensification for a built-out community such as ours.

One of the key provisions of the City’s Master Planned Community is its Housing Diversity – 37.9% of the City’s housing stock is single-family homes, 18.6% are duplexes & townhomes, 27.8% are apartments and 15.5% are condominiums. SB 9 does not provide exceptions to jurisdictions that currently already provide diverse housing choices and a significant multi-family housing stock.

Furthermore, SB 9 does not apply to existing lots occupied by a tenant in the past three years. The unintended consequence of this provision is that landowners may intentionally keep their units vacant for three (3) years in order to benefit from the bill, affecting the City’s supply of housing stock and exacerbating the housing crisis.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with sending a Letter of Opposition regarding SB

9. CITY COUNCIL VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This action is in alignment with the "Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy" Value/Priority Area.

CONCLUSION
Planning and Zoning laws were established so cities can utilize sound local planning policies to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. In reviewing any type of development, local planning policies take into account the provision of infrastructure, public utility services, including power, water, sewage, traffic etc. to meet the needs of future growth while maintaining the quality of life for its community. It is critical that the City maintain local land use and zoning authority and continues to have the ability to consider local factors and constraints unique to its City in planning for additional development.
219
The City Council has previously expressed its concerns on legislation that seeks to limit or preempt local land use authority. Given this bill’s widespread impact on the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Any additional comments or concerns raised at the April 5 City Council meeting will be included in the draft letter as directed by the City Council.

Given that the bill may undergo further amendments, staff is seeking City Council authorization to modify the language in the position letter prior to sending it. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Atkins, as drafted, or with revisions, opposing SB 9 unless amended prior to the first Senate Housing Committee meeting deadline.

If City Council wishes for staff to send the letter at a later date in the Legislative process as outlined above, staff will send the letter and make any revisions based on the bill amendments prior to any scheduled hearing date deadline.

Attachments:
 Attachment 1 - March 1, 2021 City Council Staff Report  Attachment 2 - Letter dated February 12, 2021 from the League of California Cities Opposing SB 9
 Attachment 3 - Draft Letter from Foster City opposing SB 9 unless Amended  Attachment 4 - Proposed SB 9 Legislation
220
City of Foster City 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404 P: (650) 286-3200 F: (650) 577-0983 E: [email protected]

OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Foster City
April 9, 2021
The Honorable Toni Atkins
President pro Tempore, California State Senate
State Capitol Building, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 9 (ATKINS) INCREASED DENSITY IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED (AS AMENDED 4/5/2021)
Dear Senate President pro Tempore Atkins,
The City of Foster City writes to express an Oppose Unless Amended position on your SB 9, which would require a local government to ministerially approve a housing development containing two residential units in single-family residential zones. Additionally, this measure would require local governments to ministerially approve urban lot splits.

Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry.

While your desire to pursue a housing production proposal is appreciated, unfortunately, SB 9 as currently drafted would not spur much needed housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. State driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements that are certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Foster City is one of the few successful master planned communities within a 4-square mile boundary that was designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, each with access to schools, parks, and neighborhood retail centers. Much of the community character and quality of life in Foster City is based on its unique qualities as a self-contained Master Planned Community. Specifically, the City will be affected by this bill because of the average lot sizes of single-family homes in Foster City which is typically between 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. Given the average lot sizes, the City has ensured that residential development maintains a high quality of design through the local Architectural Design Review process while addressing impacts such as privacy, solar access, noise and other impacts that are associated with smaller lots. Under current State laws, a single-family zoned lot in the state can already have up to three units – an ADU, JADU, and the primary residence.

Attachment 4
221
City of Foster City 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404 P: (650) 286-3200 F: (650) 577-0983 E: [email protected] Allowing upzoning of existing single-family neighborhoods is duplicative of the goal of the ADU laws. Despite the city’s local land-use planning policies and zoning regulations, the proposed legislation would affect our intentionally and carefully planned single-family residential neighborhoods with a blanket multi-family zoning causing significant impacts on our established Master Planned Community and its character. The proposed legislation will also have significant implications regarding traffic, parking, and other infrastructure that are not adequate to support this land use intensification for a built- out community such as ours.

One of the key provisions of the City’s Master Planned Community is its Housing Diversity – 37.9% of the City’s housing stock is single-family homes, 18.6% are duplexes & townhomes, 27.8% are apartments and 15.5% are condominiums. SB 9 does not provide exceptions to jurisdictions that currently already provide diverse housing choices and a significant multi- family housing stock.

Furthermore, SB 9 does not apply to existing lots with developments occupied by a tenant in the past three years. The unintended consequence of this provision is that landowners may intentionally keep their units vacant for three years in order to benefit from the bill, affecting the City’s supply of housing stock and exacerbating the housing crisis.

The City of Foster City requests the following amendments in order to address our concerns and remove our opposition:

Clarify that a property owner using SB 9 is limited to constructing two residential units, not two residential units and additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same parcel; Require a housing developer to acquire a building permit within one year of a lot split, so that speculators do not sell lots and never build homes;
Allow local governments to require adequate access for police, fire and other public safety vehicles and equipment; Prohibit developers from using SB 9 in very high fire hazard severity zones; Allow cities to determine a range of lot sizes suitable for SB 9 development projects; Ensure HCD provides Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) credit for production of SB 9 units; Allow local governments to take into account local conditions such as hillsides, lot dimensions, natural hazards, available infrastructure, etc. when approving or denying housing project applications; Allow local governments to continue to determine parking standards; and Ensure large-scale investors and builders do not exploit SB 9 provisions.

The City of Foster City is committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will continue to work collaboratively with you to spur much needed housing construction. Thank you for considering the above amendments.

For these reasons, the City of Foster City opposes SB 9 (Atkins) unless it is amended to address our concerns.

Should you have any questions regarding Foster City’s position on this bill, please do not hesitate to contact our legislative consultant Dane Hutchings with the Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) at 916-974-9270 or at [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
Sanjay Gehani
Mayor, City of Foster City
cc: Foster City City Council
Senator Josh Becker & Assembly Member Kevin Mullin
Seth Miller, League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email: [email protected]) League of California Cities (via email: [email protected]) 222
Source:abag.ca.gov
Senate Bill 9 – Ministerial Urban Lot Splits & Two-Unit Developments Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
DI
SCLAIMER: This document is intended to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to a particular situation, or future developments may affect the subjects discussed in this FAQ. Seek the advice of your attorney before acting or relying upon the following information.

BASICS

1. When does SB 9 go into effect?
January 1, 2022.

2. W
hat is the definition of an urbanized area or urban cluster? As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, an urbanized area is an area with 50,000 or more persons, and an urban cluster is an area with at least 2,500 people, but less than 50,000 people. Maps of urbanized areas and urban clusters can be found on the official U.S. Census Bureau website.

3. Can you use SB 9 in zones that allow single- family development but are zoned primarily for multi-family or mixed-use development?
No. The language of the statute is clear that it applies only to parcels in single- family residential zones. Since the intent of the legislation was to upzone or densify areas where only single-family development is currently permitted, it would not serve the purposes of the legislation for it to apply in areas where multi-family or denser uses are already permitted. SB 9 also does not apply to a parcel that is currently developed with a single-family home, if that parcel is located in anything other than a single-family residential zone.

4. D
oes SB 9 apply to homeowners' associations (HOAs)?
SB 9 overrides local zoning only. It does not address rules or restrictions implemented and adopted by homeowners' associations or included in CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions).

5. Is a
lot eligible for an SB 9 lot split if it was split before SB 9? Yes. The language of SB 9 only prohibits an applicant from using SB 9 to subdivide a lot if it was previously split using the authority contained in SB 9. Even after using SB 9, the lot could be further split using ordinary procedures under the Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance subject to minimum lot size and other requirements that apply to the parcel.

Attachment 5
223
Source:abag.ca.gov

6. Is the restriction on the demolition of 25% of the exterior walls of the building only applicable to deed-restricted affordable units?
No. This restriction applies to all units unless (1) the city adopts an ordinance allowing for demolition of more than 25% of the exterior walls of an existing structure, or (2) a tenant has not resided on the property in the last three (3) years.

7. How do you verify that existing housing has not been rented in the last 3 years?
SB 9 does not provide an explicit mechanism for determining whether existing housing has been rented in the last three years. Given that, this is an issue that local agencies will want to address in an implementing ordinance or in their application procedures. Some approaches might include:
• In jurisdictions with existing records of rental properties, which may include business licenses, rent control registries, or inspection records, using data from the local records to be cross-referenced upon submission of an SB 9 application;
• Requiring applicants to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury; and/or • Providing that it is a violation of the Municipal Code or allowing a private cause of action if inaccurate information is submitted.

8. When the provisions of SB 9 are unclear, can we seek clarification from the Department of Housing and Community Development?
Unlike other recent state laws, such as SB 35 or SB 330, SB 9 does not include any provisions requiring HCD to issue guidelines for the implementation of SB 9.

Nonetheless, HCD has indicated that it intends to provide a technical assistance (TA) memo on SB 9 implementation. The timeline for when HCD's TA memo will be available is unclear.

INTERSECTION WITH OTHER LAWS

9. How does the state Density Bonus Law apply to the 4-unit scenario? State Density Bonus Law would not be applicable to SB 9 projects. Government Code § 65915(i) defines "housing development project," for the purposes of state density bonus, as "a development project for five or more residential units." SB 9 covers up to four units total on two contiguous lots. Additionally, the urban lot split section states specifically that local agencies are not required to allow more than the maximum of two units on each lot notwithstanding any provision of density bonus law.

10. How do SB 9 urban lot splits relate to the Subdivision Map Act and the fact that the Subdivision Map Act requires general plan conformance? The language in SB 9 overrides any conflicting provisions of the Subdivision Map 224
Source:abag.ca.gov
Act. Specifically, Government Code § 66411.7(b)(2) provides that "[a] local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act…, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section." General Plan and specific plan conformance is not required if it would preclude lot splits mandated by SB9.

11. Do minimum frontage requirements apply to restrict lot subdivision? Minimum frontage requirements continue to apply unless the requirements would physically preclude the lot split or the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each. However, SB 9 does allow local agencies to require the resulting parcels to have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.

12. How does the Permit Streamlining Act apply if these are ministerial actions? SB 8, also effective January 1, 2022, extends the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act to housing projects of one unit or more that require no discretionary approvals. As a consequence, SB 9 projects are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act’s requirements for completeness letters (within 30 days of submittal) and approval deadlines (within 60 days of determining that the project is exempt from CEQA).

QUANTITY/ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

13. SB 9 states that "[a] housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to an existing unit." Why are some people saying that you can add two new units to a parcel with an existing single-family home?
As the question states, Gov. Code § 65852.21(i) provides that a development contains two residential units if "the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit." This could be interpreted to mean that the statute applies to a two-unit proposal even if those units are proposed for a lot already containing a unit. While the urban lot split section (Gov. Code § 66411.7) clearly allows local agencies to limit total development to two units per lot, including existing units, ADUs, and JADUs, the same language is not present in the two-unit development section. The Legislature’s intent regarding a two-unit development on a single lot is not clear. It may be possible for an applicant who only uses the two-unit development provisions, but not the urban lot split provisions, to have more than two units on the lot.

14. Does SB 9 prohibit ADUs with an urban lot split, or can jurisdictions disallow ADUs with an urban lot split?
SB 9 does not prohibit accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. Under SB9 a local agency "shall not be required to approve" more than two units (including ADUs and JADUs) on a lot created via an SB 9 lot split.

Agencies may also prohibit ADUs and JADUs on parcels created by urban lot splits that 225
Source:abag.ca.gov
use the two-unit provision. Given this language, local agencies could choose to limit development on lots created by an urban lot split to two primary units each via adoption of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.

15. Are the two new SB 9 units entitled to an ADU or JADU? If the two new SB 9 units are not located on a lot created via the urban lot split provision, then ADUs and JADUs are allowed as under existing law. If the applicant used both the SB 9 lot split provisions and the SB 9 two-unit development provisions, then a local ordinance can limit total development to two units per lot, including ADUs and JADUs, or could choose to allow only two primary units on each lot.

16. If there is an existing four-unit building on a parcel in a single-family residential zone, can an applicant still add a duplex?
The existing four-unit building would already be a non-conforming use in a single-family zone. Depending on the jurisdiction's non-conforming use policies, the non-conforming structure may need to be removed if the applicant wishes to add a duplex. However, the urban lot split provision (section 66411.7(i)) prohibits requiring correction of nonconforming zoning conditions for urban lot splits. Nonetheless, the agency can require that no more than two units be located on each lot.

17. Does SB 9 allow an applicant to use the duplex entitlements to build a single unit "monster home" and get around non-objective single-family design guidelines? Probably, yes. Section 65852.21(a) states, “A proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing….” Later in the section, in paragraph (i), it also states “[a] housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.” Although it is not clear whether the legislature intended to include single-family home development, the "no more than two units" language in SB 9 could be interpreted to cover development projects proposing to construct one single-family home.

18. Are the new units created via the authority in SB 9 condominiums? Does SB 9 facilitate ministerial condominium conversions? Does SB 9 allow for condominium conversion of existing duplexes?
SB9 does not amend laws regarding condominiums. SB9 does not allow denial of attached units so long as their design and construction allow them to be “separately conveyed,” i.e., sold separately as condominiums may be sold. New units created via the authority in SB 9 may be approved as condominiums if the applicant asks for that approval, but the application would need to meet state and local law concerning 226
Source:abag.ca.gov
condominiums. A jurisdiction's regular condominium conversion process would also continue to apply.

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

19. Can the applicant seek variances from zoning requirements? SB 9 provides that a local agency may apply its objective zoning standards so long as they do not physically preclude the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each with four-foot setbacks (no setbacks are required if the unit is constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure). In that situation, the applicant does not need to apply for a variance.

However, if the applicant desires to construct a larger unit which does not meet the agency’s zoning standards, it could be denied under SB 9, or the applicant could apply for a variance.

20. My understanding is that SB 330 requires only objective design standards for design standards adopted after Jan 1, 2020, is this the same for SB 9? SB 330 would apply to an SB 9 implementing ordinance, so any design standards adopted must be objective.

21. For purposes of a duplex, can jurisdictions adopt an objective standard that says the units have to be within, for example, 10 feet of each other? Yes, a city could adopt this as an objective standard. However, if the standard or requirement would physically preclude the construction of two units or the construction of a unit that is at least 800 square feet, then it cannot be applied to the specific project.

Also note that section 66411.7(k) provides that an urban lots split “shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.”

22. Is there a street frontage or lot width requirement for ministerial lot splits? SB 9 does not contain street frontage or lot width requirements. A local agency may apply an objective frontage or lot width requirement. It must, however, allow lot splits that create lots that are at least 1,200 square feet each where both lots are of approximately equal size. This likely means that the local agency may not be able to apply its minimum lot dimensions or frontage requirements to some urban lot splits.

23. Is the 4-foot setback provision similar to that for ADUs? Yes. A local agency cannot impose a rear or side setback greater than 4 feet, or less if a structure is in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure.

227
Source:abag.ca.gov

24. Does the right of way dedication provision require cities to allow for flag lots, provided they meet the 60-40 split?
The agency may require the parcel to have access to, provide access to, or adjoin a public right of way but must allow the lot split. Where a parcel does not front on a public right of way, the options are to allow a flag lot or to provide access to the public right-of-way via an easement through the other lot.

25. Could a jurisdiction define "sufficient to allow separate conveyance" to require separate HVAC systems and separate water connection to meet Title 24 requirements?
Yes. Title 24 is a state law requirement. Therefore, compliance can be mandated assuming that Title 24 requires separate HVAC systems and water connections for units that are separately conveyed.

26. If a jurisdiction doesn't require "dedications" but a property owner wants to put in some improvements in the right-of-way, could the jurisdiction require that those meet the jurisdiction’s standards for right of way improvements? If an applicant includes improvements to the public right of way in its SB 9 application, the jurisdiction can require that those improvements meet objective agency standards.

27. Does the requirement for one parking space/unit supersede other local minimum parking requirements? For example, if local parking standards require two covered spaces per residential unit and additional parking spaces tied to additional bedrooms.

Yes, SB 9 supersedes local standards. A local agency "may require" off-street parking of up to one space per unit, and "shall not impose" parking requirements where the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, or where there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.

28. Can a jurisdiction impose affordability requirements on units created via SB 9? There is nothing in the statute that would prohibit the imposition of objective affordability requirements. However, agencies should examine the economic feasibility of any affordability requirements to ensure that urban lot splits and two-unit developments remain economically feasible.

29. Can a local jurisdiction impose conditions of approval on an SB 9 project? A jurisdiction may impose standard objective conditions of approval on an SB 9 project.

228
Source:abag.ca.gov

FIRE/INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES

30. Is it true that SB 9 cannot be used in high fire hazard severity zones? No. SB 9 provides that any proposed two-unit development or urban lot split must comply with the requirements of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D), which excludes projects in high or very high fire hazard severity zones, unless either: (1) the site was excluded from the zone by the jurisdiction; or (2) the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures “pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” “Fire hazard mitigation measures” and “state fire mitigation measures” are not defined. A local ordinance could specify which “building standards” apply or reference the appropriate “state fire mitigation measures.”

An agency may also reject SB 9 proposals on a case-by-case basis where the local building official makes a written finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, based on inconsistency with an objective standard, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.

31. X County has some areas that are identified as "urban" or "urban clusters" and could be a qualifying parcel under SB9. However, those areas do not have access to water or sewer connections and may have to expand an existing leach field and utilize other water sources. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that they can build what's allowed under SB9 with a wastewater treatment system and water source that meets Environmental Health Codes, would the County be able to deny them their application?
Yes. In this scenario, the county could deny the application because it would not meet objective standards. The building official could also likely make a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid specific impact.

32. If a jurisdiction has substandard existing sewer infrastructure, can those areas of the jurisdiction be excluded from SB 9 applicability?
The local agency likely could not outright exclude those areas from SB 9 applicability.

However, if projects are proposed in these areas, the local building official could deny the application if it would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, by violating an existing objective standard, with no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.

229
Source:abag.ca.gov

33. Can a jurisdiction prohibit someone from creating a new unit in an existing structure that would be below the Base Flood Elevation? To qualify for ministerial approval, SB 9 provides that an applicant must comply with all the requirements in Government Code §§ 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K). Subparagraphs (G) and (H) exclude development within a flood plain or floodway, respectively, as those sites are determined by maps promulgated by FEMA. However, subparagraphs (G) and (H) also allow development in a flood plain where FEMA has issued a flood plain development permit or meet FEMA criteria and allow development in a floodway where a no-rise certification has been issued or the project otherwise meets FEMA criteria. If these mitigation requirements are met, then it may be possible for the new unit to be built below Base Flood Elevation. Agencies should refer to the text of the statute.

URBAN LOT SPLITS

34. Would the "sufficient to allow separate conveyance" provision allow someone to build an attached duplex but then sell them as two separate lots with their own yard?
"Sufficient to allow separate conveyance" is not defined in the statute. However, “separate conveyance” means that the units can be sold separately. This phrase would seem to require that each unit be built to condominium standards so that they can be sold separately if the local agency approves a condominium application. Agencies may wish to define this in their local ordinances.

35. Should agencies record a deed restriction stating that the lot has been split using SB9 and cannot be split further?
This is not specifically addressed by SB 9. Two possibilities are a recorded deed restriction and a notation on the approved parcel map. It would be good practice for local agencies to include such a requirement in their implementing ordinances.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/HOUSING ELEMENT

36. How do jurisdictions account for SB 9 in Housing Elements? SB 9 requires jurisdictions to report (1) the number of units constructed pursuant to SB 9 and (2) the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits under SB 9 in their annual housing element report. SB 9 itself does not include any reference to housing elements. The HCD TA memo may provide some guidance on how to project SB 9 development in a community’s housing element.

230
Source:abag.ca.gov

37. What can be included in a sites inventory?
There is nothing in SB 9 that prohibits a jurisdiction from using SB 9-eligible parcels in their sites inventory, but there would be limited history to project how many units might be built and what income levels might be served.

38. Could cities use the Terner Center’s findings to project above moderate- and moderate-income housing in their Housing Elements?
This may be a reasonable approach. It is not known if HCD will accept it, however.

231
DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT/ANALYSIS OF THE "OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES" INITIATIVE IN RESPONSE TO A

REQUEST TO AGENDIZE CONSIDERATION OF A

RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the following actions:

1. Receive the informational report/analysis of the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative, otherwise known as the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative; and

2. Provide policy direction as to how it would like to proceed, whether to take no further action or to adopt a resolution expressing support as a body.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although the City recognizes retaining local control is essential for effective long-term planning, growth, and development of the City and preserving the character of the community, City staff finds that there is insufficient information regarding the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative and cannot make a strong recommendation for City Council to make an informed decision to support. In City staff's research, it finds it too early to determine whether supporting this effort would be prudent given uncertainty regarding the scope 232
of the initiative's impact. City Council should be weary of unintended consequences of such a sweeping measure, especially without or the lack of understanding of the initiative's long-term implications at this time.

As such, City staff would recommend that, as a body, the City Council not adopt a resolution of support for the "Our Neighborhood Voices" initiative at this time. This does not preclude each Councilmember from choosing to support or endorse this initiative individually should he or she feel appropriate.

In such case, it is advised that the respective Councilmember provide a clear distinction or disclaimer that it is his or her position solely and not reflective of the City Council or the City of Foster City.

BACKGROUND
The “Our Neighborhood Voices” Initiative, otherwise known as the Brand- Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, aims to restore the authority of local representatives to decide what gets built in communities by amending the State constitution to put local communities in charge of land use and zoning laws. The factsheet attached to this report provides an overview of the initiative, as well as frequently asked questions and answers (Attachment 2).

As it states, the initiative would "enable any State law that directly impacts land use planning and zoning to be overridden by a local law, including density bonus, Housing Element requirements, Housing Accountability Act approval requirements, and certain aspects of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). State land use planning laws that address legitimate statewide interests such as coastal protection and large infrastructure projects will continue to supersede any conflicting local laws." It also argues that such a measure will protect a community’s ability to shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with new housing.

The “Our Neighborhood Voices” Initiative is supported by a statewide grassroots coalition dedicated to preserving a neighborhood voice in city planning. They are working to obtain 1 million valid signatures from California registered voters by late April 2022 in order to qualify for a statewide ballot measure for the November 8, 2022 ballot. If qualified, Californians will then be able to vote on the initiative. The initiative text with its proposed language is attached to this report as Attachment 3.

Vice Mayor Jon Froomin had previously made this request that the City Council consider supporting the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative which aims to restore the authority of local representatives and voices on important 233
local land use policy decisions. At the December 13, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, City Council approved this request and provided direction for staff to conduct further analysis on the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative for their review and consideration. Namely, there was a desire to understand the impact of Senate Bills (SB) 9 & 10, how this initiative would impact those bills, and what value and/or detriment the initiative may pose.

ANALYSIS
The "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative is intended to address concerns over the volume of State laws and to restore regulation of land use issues to local jurisdictions. In the summary provided by from the Attorney General of California, if the initiative qualifies and is approved by voters, it would then amend the California Constitution to provide that local planning and zoning laws prevail over any conflicting State laws, except in certain circumstances related to three areas of statewide concern:

1. the California Coastal Act of 1976;

2. siting of power plants; or

3. development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure projects.

In its current format, the initiative is written broadly. It in effect may reverse the many state legislature’s bills that were passed in recent years, including SB 9 and 10. This may also introduce unintended consequences such as the possibility of certain bills deemed beneficial (towards addressing the affordable housing crisis) being overturned. While Foster City, like many cities, understand the desire to retain local control and preserve the unique character of the community, a varied approach that balances local control objectives alongside regional and State collaboration can exist.

On the same meeting agenda for February 22, 2022, City staff has prepared a separate, detailed report providing information on SB 9 & 10, including consideration of interim guidance rules and regulations in order to implement SB 9. The same information is summarized here:

Senate Bill 9
SB 9 (Atkins), the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act, allows property owners within a single-family residential zone to build two (2) units on an existing lot and/or to subdivide the existing lot into two (2) parcels, for a total of four (4) units. SB 9 mandates these two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits be considered ministerially, without 234
discretionary review or hearing, subject to certain requirements and conditions. SB 9, by establishing a ministerial review process, also exempts such projects from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 9 allows a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with the provisions under SB 9. SB 9 had become effective on January 1, 2022.

SB 9 supersedes the City’s regulations regarding development standards and subdivision standards in single family residential zoning districts. However, SB 9 does allow cities to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards so long as they do not conflict with the provisions of SB 9.

City staff proposed an alternative approach of adopting interim guidance to provide the City some level of local control until a formal SB 9 ordinance can be drafted and presented to City Council. Such guidance would specify preferences in areas where the City does have some discretion relating to SB 9 applications.

Senate Bill 10
Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) creates a voluntary process for local governments to pass ordinances prior to January 1, 2029 to zone any parcel for up to ten (10) residential units if located in transit rich areas and urban infill sites. Since cities can, but are not required to, upzone existing parcels under SB 10, staff recommends that the City Council does not take any action related to SB 10.

Given that there are existing code provisions that allow multi-family residential as well as state laws that allow for density bonuses for multi-family development, staff does not recommend nor find a need that the City take any action as it relates to SB 10.

Endorsements
The initiative has mainly received support from individual elected officials throughout the state of California. Only a few jurisdictions have considered the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative here locally. Currently, there are no San Mateo County municipalities that have formally endorsed this initiative. In Northern California, communities that have expressed their support as a body include the City of Cupertino, Gilroy, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. A complete list of the endorsements for this initiative is available here:
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/endorse/#list.
235
Alternatives
A sample resolution was provided by the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative coalition. This provided the general framework for a resolution of support should City Council decide it would like to move forward with endorsing the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative as a body (Attachment 1). However, as previously indicated, City staff would recommend that, as a body, the City Council not adopt a resolution of support for the "Our Neighborhood Voices" initiative. Each Councilmember may instead choose to support or endorse this initiative individually should he or she feel appropriate.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with consideration of this item.

However, it is important to note that should the City Council choose to support the "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative, as estimated by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, "Fiscal effects of the measure depend on future decisions by the cities and counties and therefore are unknown."

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This item is not directly mentioned within the City Council's Vision and Mission statements, but has the goal of taking efficient actions that enhance neighborhood livability and quality of place for current and future generations.

The Value/Priority Area this item would be aligned with is "Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy" as it seeks to advance City Council’s policies and goals, namely to protect, maintain, and enhance our community character through thoughtful planning and retaining local control.

Attachments:
Attachment 1 - "Our Neighborhood Voices" Support Resolution Attachment 2 - "Our Neighborhood Voices" Factsheet
Attachment 3 - "Our Neighborhood Voices" Initiative Text 236
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE “BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INTITIATIVE” TO AMEND ARTICLE XI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING AND LAND USE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,

AND NOT OF STATE INTEREST

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed , passed, and signed into law a number of bills addressing a range of land use planning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit each city and its residents and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that do not take into account the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these bills do not provide any incentives or requirements for low-income affordable or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose new policies that will incentivize speculation and result in the addition of market-rate or luxury housing, thereby eliminating the opportunity for local jurisdictions to implement effective policies that will create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices; and
WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what parking requirements are appropriate for various neighborhoods; what housing plans and programs are suitable and practical for each community; and what zoning should be allowed for residential properties, rather than having these decisions imposed upon cities without regard for the unique circumstances and needs of each individual community, is a matter of critical importance to the City of Foster City and many other municipalities focused on local zoning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Foster City herby determines that local government entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of their respective communities and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation (including SB 9 and SB 10) that would deprive us of that ability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby resolve as follows:
237
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Foster City is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable housing in the City of Foster City.

SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Foster City supports the Brand- Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative (Attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A) to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside, and to allow local government to participate in solving our affordable housing crisis through solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.

SECTION 3. That the City Council of the City of Foster City incorporates each recital set forth herein above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 22nd day of February 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
238
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Our Neighborhood Voices
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this initiative do?
The “Our Neighborhood Voices” Initiative restores the authority of your local representatives to decide what gets built in your community, on your street and right next door to where you live.

Why should you support this initiative?
Recent state laws let developers tear down the house right next door to you and build a multi-unit, multi-story building and you have no say in the matter. Under these new laws, developers are not required to conduct any environmental review, provide onsite parking, or build affordable housing. These laws give a blank check to developers that lets them do whatever they want to in our neighborhoods without any local input. The Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative is the strongest weapon we have to fight back against these draconian state laws, because it restores our ability to speak out and impact what is happening in our own communities.

If you believe that we should have a voice in our own neighborhoods – join us! Visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com and volunteer today!
Why do we need this initiative?
Amending the state constitution with an initiative to put local communities in charge of land use and zoning laws will send a clear and powerful message that the recent state housing laws that damage our community without providing any affordable housing do not solve our problem – in fact, they are making our affordable housing crisis even worse.

We can’t afford to let developers make billions without paying anything to offset the impact of all this new housing on our communities – sticking all of us with the bill by overstressing our local infrastructure. We can’t afford more gentrification and economic displacement in working class neighborhoods and communities of color.

We can’t afford more traffic gridlock and less parking, since these state housing laws have no funding for roads or transit, and no parking requirements.

Ad Paid for by Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, committee major funding from Reyla Graber
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
ATTACHMENT 2
239
Who is backing ONV?
Our Neighborhood Voices has received significant donations from individuals and organizations, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The initiative is supported by a statewide grassroots coalition of Californians that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents and voters from every part of the political spectrum.

There are five initiative proponents, three of whom are local elected officials, one is an affordable housing advocate, and one is a former city planning commissioner.

Our Neighborhood Voices is building a statewide coalition of community advocates, elected officials, and Californians from all walks of life who agree that it is time to restore our voice on local community decisions.

Don’t we just need to build more housing?
We need to build more housing that is affordable for middle and lower income Californians as an urgent priority. Simply allowing developers to build more housing in a market that is already dominated by investors and lots of expensive, vacant housing units will only produce more expensive housing that very few Californians can afford. That is exactly what is already happening under the current state housing laws that seek to increase housing density in single family communities without requiring anything to be affordable.

What laws will be impacted by the initiative?
The initiative enables any state law that directly impacts land use planning and zoning to be overridden by a local law, including density bonus, Housing Element requirements, Housing Accountability Act approval requirements, and certain aspects of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). State land use planning laws that address legitimate statewide interests such as coastal protection and large infrastructure projects will continue to supersede any conflicting local laws.

What about the environment and housing equity?
The initiative was written to ensure full compliance with all state environmental laws and all fair housing and anti-discrimination laws. The initiative does not conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and in fact it helps local agencies ensure that new development gets sufficient environmental review and protections.

Single family neighborhoods are not inherently discriminatory, and many people of color own and rent homes in these neighborhoods that represent the main means of building wealth for them. Now that BIPOC single family neighborhoods exist, Our Neighborhood Voices finds it ironic and disturbing that there is an effort to undermine and devalue the importance of single family homes. For more details about how the initiative interacts with these laws, please read our land use attorneys’ expert legal opinion, available at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.

Frequently Asked Questions
240
How will the initiative become law?
We have until late April 2022 to obtain 1 million valid signatures from California registered voters to qualify the initiative for the November 8, 2022 ballot. Once we have qualified for the ballot, we need to educate enough Californians to vote for the initiative to restore our collective voice on these important local land use policy decisions.

You can help restore your neighborhood voice by joining us at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
How can I help?
Our Neighborhood Voices is a grassroots effort that will require lots of money and volunteers to succeed. Any donation, large or small, will help, and you can make it online right now at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com/donate. Please make sure to volunteer to collect signatures, endorse the campaign, and spread the word about Our Neighborhood Voices to your friends, relatives and neighbors! If you sign up to receive petitions on the “Action Kit” section of our website you will receive online training and supplies before going out to collect signatures.

Where can I find more information?
Please visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com for more details, and you can also email at [email protected] if you have a detailed question or concern.

How will the initiative affect the relationship between state and local government?
The initiative will help restore a balance of power between our state and local government by putting communities back in charge of local land use decisions, and encouraging our state legislators to remain focused on matters that are truly of statewide concern, like working with local communities to implement real solutions to California’s affordable housing crisis.

Frequently Asked Questions
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
241
November 1, 2021
Initiative 21-0016 (Amdt. 1)
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:

PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE
CONFLICTING STATE LAWS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Provides that city and county land-use and zoning laws (including local housing laws) override all conflicting state laws, except in certain circumstances related to three areas of statewide concern: (1) the California Coastal Act of 1976; (2) siting of power plants; or (3) development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure projects. Prevents state legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter-approved local land-use or zoning initiatives. Prohibits state from changing, granting, or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Fiscal effects of the measure depend on future decisions by the cities and counties and therefore are unknown. (21-0016A1.)
ATTACHMENT 3
242
58277666.v2
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) The circumstances and environmental impacts of local land use decisions vary greatly across the state from locality to locality.
(b) The infrastructure required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, water supply, schools, and sewers varies greatly across the state from locality to locality. (c) Land use decisions made by local officials must balance development with public facilities and services while addressing the economic, environmental, and social needs of the particular communities served by those local officials. (d) Thus, it is in the best interests of the state and local communities for these complex decisions to be made at the local level to ensure that the specific, unique characteristics, constraints, and needs of those communities are properly analyzed and addressed. (e) Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation will reduce or eliminate the availability of low or very low income housing near public transit, resulting in the loss of access by low or very low income persons to public transit, declines in public transit ridership, and increases in vehicle miles travelled.
(f) The State Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon each community of sweeping centralized and rigid state land use rules and zoning regulations that apply across the state without regard to community impacts and, as a result, statewide land use and zoning will do great harm to local communities with differing circumstances and concerns. (g) Community development should not be controlled by state planners, but by local governments that know and can address the needs of, and the impacts upon, local communities.

Local initiatives approved by voters pertaining to land use and zoning restrictions should not be nullified or superseded by the actions of any local or state legislative body. (h) Numerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards have been enacted, and continue to be proposed, that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.
(i) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §§ 12900 – 12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code § 65008), and affirmatively furthering fair housing (Government Code § 8899.50). This constitutional amendment would continue to provide for state control in the coastal zone, the siting of a power plant that can generate more than 50 megawatts of electricity, or the development or construction of water, communication or transportation infrastructure projects which the Legislature declares are matters of statewide concern and are in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this measure, it is the intent that a transportation infrastructure project shall not include a transit-oriented development project that is residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
243
58277666.v2
SECTION 2. Section 4.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a county charter, that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of an unincorporated area of the county shall be deemed a county affair within the meaning of Section 4 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any county shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted and applicable to an unincorporated area within a county, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 4, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a county affair if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, that establishes land use policies or regulates zoning or development standards within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any city shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, to address either a matter of statewide con cern or a municipal affair 244
58277666.v2
if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 7. (a) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. A county or city may not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative pertaining to land use or zoning restrictions. (b) A county or city general plan, specific plan, ordinance or regulation that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws, except for only the following:
(A) A coastal land use plan, ordinance or regulation that conflicts with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute.
(B) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern.
(C) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this subparagraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit- oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use. 245
58277666.v2
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this subdivision are severable. If any provision of this subdivision or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

246
DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors

VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim District Manager

FROM: Louis Sun, Public Works Director

SUBJECT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 455-652) - CLEAN WATER
PROGRAM - UPDATE FOR QUARTER 4 - OCTOBER
THROUGH DECEMBER 2021

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) by Minute Order, receive and accept this progress update on the Clean Water Program (CWP). No further action is required by the Board of Directors.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the progress-to-date of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Master Plan Improvements Project (CIP 455-652) - Clean Water Program for the City of San Mateo/EMID Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for the months of October 2021 through December 2021. The report includes summary information about construction and other project activities over the fourth quarter of the calendar year.

BACKGROUND
The CWP is a comprehensive capital improvement program to rehabilitate the 247
sanitary sewer collection system in the City of San Mateo and the treatment systems at the San Mateo WWTP. EMID has 24.12% ownership of the WWTP. In October 2014, the City of San Mateo retained Jacobs to serve as the Program Manager responsible for overseeing the management of the approximately $1 billion-dollar combined program, including the coordination of the design, construction, and start-up activities of this multi-year project.

To remain apprised of the progress of the portion of the CWP for which EMID is responsible (i.e., WWTP Nutrient Removal and Wet Weather Flow Management Upgrade and Expansion Project (WWTP Expansion Project)), the EMID Board of Directors requested that staff provide updates on a regular basis. The WWTP Expansion Project is being performed using a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery method, whereby the contractor is involved in the project early in the design process and the City benefits from the contractor providing constructability input and insight to inform the design development.

The Program Manager and Construction Manager is Jacobs. The WWTP Expansion Project Design Engineer is HDR. The team for the disinfection improvements portion of the WWTP Expansion Project is Trussell Technologies. HDR is also providing Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC). The CMAR is Sundt (https://www.sundt.com)

ANALYSIS
Construction for the WWTP Expansion Project is comprised of three separate bid packages identified as GMPs (Guaranteed Maximum Price). Construction is progressing well and on schedule overall.

Construction of Package 1 (GMP 1) – Site Preparation, mass excavation, shoring, and dewatering (Agreement with Sundt Construction Inc.), is approximately 85% complete with the construction of some supporting facilities remaining. The timeline for the completion of the remaining scope continues to be constrained by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), due to their lengthy review and approval processes causing potential schedule delays.

The Project Team is actively and diligently coordinating with PG&E to prioritize and complete their work. The City executed a contract change order to extend the final completion date for Package 1 from October 30, 2021 to January 31, 2022. However, PG&E has not completed their work, and therefore the work under Package 1 will not be completed within the current contract completion date. In the next quarter, the City will likely execute a 248
subsequent contract change order to extend the final completion date for Package 1 for the remaining scope after successful completion of PG&E’s work.

Construction of Package 2 (GMP 2) – Foundation Piles (Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Sundt), is approximately 95% complete. All of the approximately 2,000 piles have been installed. Ongoing work includes installation of rebar hooks and minor concrete repairs to the tops of a portion of the installed piles. This work will be transferred to GMP 3 so as not to impact work in the final package and to allow the project team to begin to closeout Package 2. It is anticipated that the work under Package 2 will be completed within the current contract completion date.

Construction Package 3 (GMP 3) – WWTP Facilities (Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with Sundt), work is progressing well and is on schedule.

Some of the major ongoing work includes formwork, rebar, concrete pouring of slabs and walls, yard piping, process mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work at multiple areas of the treatment structure. Construction of the Administration Building is underway. Other ongoing general sitewide work includes potholing to locate utilities and earthwork (excavation, grading, and backfilling). The work under Package 3 is anticipated to be complete by August 2023, followed by retrofit of existing facilities and commissioning of the integrated WWTP by June 2024.

QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION REPORT
Attachment #1 consists of selected portions of the Quarterly Progress Report for October through December 2021 published by the Program Management Team on January 25, 2022, summarizing the budget, schedule, and project activities that have occurred during the fourth quarter of 2021 and activities that are anticipated to occur in the first quarter of 2022 for the following projects:
WWTP Expansion Project (comprised of three separate bid packages GMP-1, GMP-2, and GMP-3),
Immediate Action Projects (IAPs), and
Annual Major Component Projects (AMCs).

Attachment #2 consists of a site plan showing the locations of the various process units being constructed as part of the projects. 249
Attachment #3 includes photographs of construction activities at the site over the past 3 months.

More detailed information including additional photographs and architectural renderings of the completed WWTP Expansion Project as well as real time video of the active construction, are available on the Clean Water Program Project site: https://cleanwaterprogramsanmateo.org/wwtp/.

FINANCING
The Program through the San Mateo-Foster City Public Financing Authority (“PFA”) is obtaining additional financing through the two programs as described below:

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) - The PFA approved the close of the WIFIA loan in November 2020 in the total amount of $277.2 million (San Mateo share is $210.4 million and EMID share is $67.8 million).

The WIFIA loan has excellent rates (1.32% for San Mateo and 1.14% for EMID). The draft Loan Agreement was received during early January 2022 and is currently being reviewed by the PFA. The City/District has until 8/1/25 to start drawing on the WIFIA loan.
2021 Wastewater Revenue Notes, Series A (Estero Municipal Improvement District) - On July 1, 2021, the San Mateo-Foster City Public Financing Authority issued $62.76 million of 2021 Wastewater Revenue Notes, Series A (Estero Municipal Improvement District) to attain a cost savings (from lower interest rates than the WIFIA loan) of approximately $1.1 million for the financing of EMID’s share of WWTP project costs. These notes have a maturity date of 8/1/25 when the City/District will draw on the WIFIA Loan to take out the notes.

State Revolving Fund (SRF) –The technical package was updated and submitted to the State on February 14, 2020, to reflect design changes that have occurred since the initial application submittal in 2017. The PFA is currently negotiating credit and legal terms and conditions with the SRF program and anticipates that those tasks will be completed this fall. The program is potentially eligible for approximately $137 million in SRF low- interest loans, of which EMID would be eligible for approximately $33.7 million.
250

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this update.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This item is in alignment with the “Facilities and Infrastructure Initiative” Value/Priority Area. The key outcome is to continue to make progress towards delivery of a successful WWTP project on time and budget while meeting regulatory requirements, address aging infrastructure needs, and progressing sustainability goals through production of reusable water.

Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report – 4th Quarter Report, October 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021
Attachment 2 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan
Attachment 3 – Construction Photographs
251
Active Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects
46T003 WWTP Nutrient Removal and Wet Weather Flow
Management Upgrade
Project Description:

The WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will replace aging infrastructure, provide capacity for wet weather flows, comply with regulatory requirements, enhance reliability, and produce a higher quality effluent that meets current and future permit requirements and Title 22 recycled water quality. Producing a higher quality effluent will enable the City to develop a water reuse Program.

GMP3 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 9/21/2020
Construction NTP 9/22/2020
Duration (calendar days) 1420
Contracted Completion Date 8/12/2024
Contract Amount $372,488,760.00
Contingency Amount $13,900,000.00
Forecast Completion Date 8/12/2024
Current Contracted Amount $381,525,333.00
Actual Expended $78,872,352.19
Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
 Coordinated with Cal Water and Cal Water’s contractor, West Valley for the construction of the water line exten
sion in 3rd Avenue.
 Coordinated with PG&E to progress review, approvals, and solidify construction schedule for energizing the SEMS and relocation of its utilities from
Detroit Drive.
 Developed a high-level summary project schedule for GMP-3 three-year look-ahead focused on training, and start-up an
d commissioning activities for City’s planning purposes; participated in Sundt's monthly start-up and commissioning planning meeting.
October through December 2021 P A G E 10

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
Project Inside
Project Manager Leswin DCunha
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Construction
GMP1 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 5/6/2019
Construction NTP 6/4/2019
Duration (calendar days) 973
Contracted Completion Date 1/31/2022
Contract Amount $29,650,565.00
Contingency Amount $1,725,000.00
Forecast Completion Date 5/1/2022
Current Contracted Amount $34,159,506.00
Actual Expended $29,715,940.00
GMP2 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 5/4/2019
Construction NTP 5/5/2019
Duration (calendar days) 619
Contracted Completion Date 01/14/2022
Contract Amount $17,105,276.00
Contingency Amount $1,645,000.00
Forecast Completion Date 01/31/2022
Current Contracted Amount $17,963,767.00
Actual Expended $17,146,879.00
Attachment 1
252

 Monthly WWTP update meeting with Foster City management team.  Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
 Title 22 Recycled Water: HDR, Jacobs, City staff and Sundt are negotiating the change order for this additional work
 Interpretive Signage: RHAA working on the scope of services to progress to final design phase.  ESDC: HDR continued review of submittals and RF Is on all three GMPs; development of design change notices; onsite and remote support by Resident Engineer.  HDR, Jacobs, City Staff and Sundt are eval uating the 54-inch pipe lining alternatives.  PG&E: coordinated with PG&E and AT&T to review and finalize the joint trench plans for the relocated utilities.
 Cal Water: coordinated with Cal Water and their cont ractor to begin construction on November 29, 2021, for the water line extension in 3rd Avenue.
Permitting
 BAAQMD ATC: The BAAQMD issued the ATC on November 10, 2021.   SWPPP: Working with Sundt and their sub, Hydr ocompliance, to update both the Construction and Industrial SWPPPs to incorporate the existing WWTP site into Sundt’s CGP. Public Outreach
 PM/CM and the CWP Public Outreach Lead coordi nated on regular project updates to the website, newsletter, social media, etc.
 PM coordinated with Cal Water and the City to determine appropriate public outreach activities in preparation for the construction of the 3rd Avenue fire water main extension. Construction
GMP-1
 Continued electrical installations for the SEMS incl uding PG&E inspections, and completion of punch list items from previous PG&E inspections.
GMP-2
 Continued installation of pile rebar hooks and minor repairs to the piles’ caps.  GMP-3
 Electrical, concrete, and minor mechanical work wa s performed for the new facilities in all areas.  Commissioning meetings were held to continue di scussing start-up activities, including roles and responsibilities.
 Yard piping work in the West Corrido r (yard piping) continued to the headworks.  Continued potholing in the East Corridor to support upcoming yard piping activities in the area.  Continued pricing for several change events. 
 Construction of the Administration Building cont inued with foundation and structural framing work 



October through December 2021 P A G E 11

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
253

Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
 PG&E to advertise and award the relocati on of their utilities from Detroit Drive.  Negotiations for major design changes including Detroit Drive water main loop, membrane permeate piping and standpipe material change, and Title 22 recycled water.  Finalize RHAA’s amendment for final design of WWTP interpretive signage (phase 2).   Finalize HDR’s amendment for additional ESDC servic es including development of process O&M manuals, process training, expanded discipline-specific Resident Engineer services, and related known scope reflected in the contingency budget.
Engineering Design/Services During Construction
 Title 22: Negotiate Sundt’s cost proposal. 
 Interpretive Signage: Upon Notice to Procee d, RHAA to initiate and progress final design.  ESDC: HDR to continue to provide onsite resident engineering services. Permitting
 Review and approve the Sundt t eam’s proposed CGP SWPPP update to incorporate the entire WWTP site (existing and new).
 Record the WWTP Final Parcel Map with the County upon completion of relocating PG&E and AT&T’s utilities from Detroit Drive (spring 2022).
Public Outreach
 Provide project updates to the CWP Public Outreach Lead for monthly newsletter, website, and social media updates.
 Continue as-needed support in response to resident queries via the communication hotline.  Support Cal Water with as-needed public outreach suppor t related to the construction of the 3rd Avenue fire water main extension.
Construction
GMP-1
 SEMS: PG&E activities – pre-paralle l inspection, pull cable, energize SEMS.  Southeast stormwater improvem ents (after completion of SEMS). GMP-2
 Remaining pile rebar hooks and inspections.
 Minor concrete repairs to the tops of a portion of the installed piles. GMP-3
 Concrete in Areas 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 64, and 80. 
 Underground electrical in Areas 51, 56, and 64. 
 Process mechanical in Areas 52, 53, 55, and 56. 
 Potholing and utilities locating in central and north corridors.  Yard piping - backfill the 48- inch MP pipe and t he west corridor from Detroit Drive to the headworks.  Earthwork – excavation, grading, and backfilling.

October through December 2021 P A G E 12

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
254

Risks and Opportunities
 ATC: ATC permit applications for (1) amendment for revised WWTP design, and (2) new application for the emergency generators due to an increase in size, were submitted to the BAAQMD on April 7, 2020. Since then, the City engaged in extensive discussions with the Air District and the City’s consultant, Yorke Engineering, conducted comprehensive health risk assessment (HRA) modeling to meet the Air District’s needs. Revised ATC was requested by August 2020 to no avail. Construction of the WWTP facilities under the GMP-3 agreement proceeded in December 2020 under the original ATC. On January 12, 2021, the City was informed that the New BACT Guideline for Emergency Backup Engines equal to or greater than 1,000 BHP requiring Tier 4 emissions limits will be applicable to the City’s four new emergency engines. The City submitted a waiver request letter to the Air District on February 1. The City continued its efforts and coordination with the Air District over several weeks, however, the City accepted the Air District’s final determination to decline the waiver in its meeting on March 19 and directed the project team to incorporate the design change. The Air District requested updates to the ATC application reflecting the design change to Tier 4 engines, which the Program submitted on May 13. The Air District completed the HRA and posted for public comments on September 16, 2021, due October 18. The revised ATC was obtained on November 10, 2021.
 Cal Water’s New Potable Water Main Extension: Potable water service for fire suppression will be delivered by Cal Water. Cal Water notified the City on May 28, 2020, that final design is complete. Payment of deposit was made in October upon receipt of the invoice, and Cal Water issued the design package on November 10. Design completion took approximately 18 months since application was submitted in October 2018. HDR incorporated the final design for the Detroit Drive loop and Dale Avenue extension that will be executed by Sundt into GMP-3 design documents. The Program coordinated with Cal Water and reached an agreement on the City owning the Detroit Drive loop as a private system to avoid a Public Utility Easement (PUE) to Cal Water for the portion of the loop within the WWTP property. To that effect, Cal Water revised their design and cost estimate (total cost $1.35 million), which was approved by City Council on Jun 21. HDR completed modifications to the Detroit Drive loop design on account of privatization (GMP-3 design change notice 4 and 4.1). This entire infrastructure is desired to be in place by April 2022 as a critical system to support leak testing of the basins. Cal Water construction of the 3 rd Avenue water line extension started on
November 29, 2021 and is anticipated to be completed in early February 2022.  PG&E’s New Primary Service: Received design from PG&E for the new power feed for the WWTP on August 25, 2020 (after approximately 2 years since application was submitted). Construction of the SEMS was completed and “ready for power” in December 2021. PG&E’s construction is scheduled to energize the SEMS on February 4, 2022. The Program is diligently coordinating with PG&E to emphasize that the SEMS is the primary power service for the WWTP and critical infrastructure.  Relocation of PG&E’s Utilities from Detroit Drive: On August 8, 2020, the City sent PG&E a letter informing PG&E of its obligation to remove and relocate any facilities used or maintained under the Franchise Agreement at no expense to the City. In December 2020, the City became aware that PG&E had applied for an encroachment permit to perform the relocation work in which PG&E had inconspicuously submitted a design with a significant portion of the work assigned to the City. The City immediately brought this to PG&E’s attention and on February 19, 2021, formally transmitted design review comments and supporting yard piping plans to assist PG&E to revise its proposed relocation design appropriately. On March 25, 2021, the City’s Special Legal Counsel issued PG&E a letter as notice that failing to relocate the utilities, no later than April 30, 2021, will result in the City pursuing its legal remedies. PG&E issued a response letter acknowledging their responsibility for relocating its utilities from Detroit Drive at its own cost pursuant to their Franchise Agreement with the City. Subsequently, the project team and PG&E coordinated to review and finalize PG&E’s one-line design plan (July 27, 2021). PG&E required Joint Trench design to accommodate AT&T. The Program procured Bellecci & Associates in September to develop the Joint Trench design. In December, PG&E and AT&T approved the Joint Trench plan. PG&E estimates it will take 3 to 4 months to advertise and award this relocation work. However, currently it remains unscheduled with indication from PG&E that construction may start April or May 2022.

October through December P A G E 13

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
255

Financial Status
Overall EAC continue to trend closer to budget. PM and CM team are managing to reduce this gap.

Millions

Budget                    $532.71

Actual Cost to date         $193.08

Estimate at Completion                    $540.15




Schedule Status
Part of re-baseline efforts. Current forecast shows to be completed on time.

October through December 2021 PA G E 14

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
256

46T009 IAP Package II
Project Description:

Replace and repair aging infrastructure at the WWTP by adding screening, flexibility, and redundancy for WWTP solids processes. The project includes: (1) Mechanical bar screen and repair of concrete wall at the IJB; (2) Effluent PS #1 pumping and piping improvements; (3) replace two of the oldest pumps in PS #1; (4) Cake pumping system: add second cake pumping system; and (5) Second cake hopper system: add a second cake hopper, slide gate, access walkway, and platform.

Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
 Coordinated City negotiations with Contractor for  time extension / delays. 
Organized and led design engineer coordination calls to expedite solutions to the sludge cake hopper and sludge cake pump issues.
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
(Various)
 Stantec  ESDC ongoing through remainder of construction period. Permitting
No activities this period.
Public Outreach
No activities this period.
Construction
Immediate Action Projects, Package II (IAP II)
Continued installation of conduits and completing co nnections prior to start-up of new centrifuge. Continued testing and troubleshooting of sludge Cake Pump No. 1.  Coordinated resolution of sludge cake hopper elevation conflict. Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
Continued change management support. 
Engineering Design and Engineering Services During Construction Stantec ESDC ongoing through rema inder of construction period. Continue review of submittals and RFI. 
Permitting
No activities this period. 

October through December 2021 P A G E 19

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
Project Inside
Project Manager Tyler Kirkendall
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Construction
Design Firm Stantec, HDR
IAP II – Contract
Contractor Myers & Sons
Award Date 2/11/2019
Construction NTP 2/19/2019
Duration (calendar days) 472
Contracted Completion Date 1/4/2021
Contract Amount $6,340,000.00
Contingency Amount $634,000.00
Forecast Completion Date 6/30/2022
Current Contracted Amount $6,601,445.15
Actual Expended $6,301,445.44
257

Public Outreach
No activities this period. 
Construction
Immediate Action Projects, Package II (IAP II)
Complete start-up of new centrifuge. 
Complete start-up of sludge Cake Pump No. 1 and inst allation of new cake measurement sensors on sludge cake pump Nos. 1 and 2. (Q4 and Q1 2022).
Complete fix of sludge hopper elevation conflict in 2022.  Risks and Opportunities
Sludge Cake Hopper No. 1 has not su ccessfully completed start-up testing. Contractor working to identify issue affecting Cake Pump No. 1 and requested both design engineer and Vendor assistance in their troubleshooting of Cake Pump No. 1. Design Engineer provided new sludge cake measurement technology selection in DC 8, which was issued to the Contractor in September. Completion of DC 8 will allow the successful start-up of sludge Cake Pump No. 1. Delay to start-up of sludge cake pump system represents significant delay and risk of a delay claim by the Contractor on the project.  The sludge cake hopper was installed at an elevati on that does not match the existing sludge cake hopper and results in conflicts with the City’s existing sludge disposal strategies. The design engineer proposed solutions in an alternatives analysis memorandum, which will be implemented by the Contractor. Elevation conflict represents significant delay on the project and risk of delay claim by the Contractor on the project. Sludge Cake Hopper procured by Contractor did not have jacking points, as identified in the specification.

Contractor has coordinated a fix with the vendor and proposed the solution to the design team. The Vendor and Contractor continue to coordinate solution.
Delays to the project by both the sludge cake hopper and sludge cake pumping system will result in significant delays to the project.

Financial Status
Current update shows a slightly overrun of current budget.

Millions

Budget                    $12.95

Actual Cost to date                  $11.10

Estimate at Completion                    $13.16



Schedule Status
After rebase line, project shows final completion on time. 

October through December 2021 P A G E 20

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
258

October through December 2021 P A G E 21

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
259

46T010 IAP Package III
Project Description:

Upgrade aging infrastructure and increase reliability for the effluent PS at the WWTP. Improvements include perform hydraulic analysis on the effluent PS and flow meters; replace MCCs P1, P2, P3, and P4 in the Main Structure Building; add variable-frequency drives (VFDs) and check valves on stormwater pumps; replace check valves (3) for dry weather pumps; replace MCCs/VFDs (4) and control panels (4) for dry weather pumps; and replace doors (3) and windows (10), repair roof, and add HVAC for the PS.

Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/Jacobs)
Management of design during the 90%, and 100% phases.  Engineering Design/ Services During Construction (HDR)
None reported. 
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/Jacobs)
Continued management of design. 
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
None Reported. 
Risks and Opportunities
The addition of design scope will likely push out the completion date of the 100% design.

Financial Status
With 90% design estimate, project shows an overrun of $10.5 million. The PM is working to generate a CRF to move budget funds after the designer produces an esti mate based on the final design. PM is also working on a CRF to move scope to GMP3, this effect will be reflected into this numbers after CRF is approved.

Millions

Budget        $2.47

Actual Cost to date      $0.92

Estimate at Completion                          $13.03

Schedule Status
Current forecast shows final completion on time.

October through December 2021 P A G E 22

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
Project Inside
Project Manager Daniel Patten
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Engineering
260

October through December 2021 P A G E 23

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
261

46T090 Annual Major Component WWTP
Project Description:

Maintain reliable plant operations to meet regulatory permit requirement and repair and replace critical WWTP infrastructure.

Operations and maintenance team maintain an active list of potential projects that are implemented as funds are available.

Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/ Jacobs)
Ongoing construction management of AMC 6 + 23 
Soliciting bids for design on AMC 37. 
Permitting (Various)
Working with the City Building Division on the Building Permit for AMC 6 + 23  Construction
EPS Inc. is working on AMC 6 + 23. 
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/ Jacobs)
Ongoing construction management of AMC 6 + 23 
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction (Various) Award of design contract for AMC 37. 
Permitting
Completion of Building Permit on AMC 6 + 23. 
Construction
Completion of Building Permit on AMC 6 + 23. 
Continued construction of AMC 6 + 23. 
Risks and Opportunities
AMC 36 Centrifuge Conveyor Replacement is on hold. 

October through December 2021 P A G E 24

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
Project Inside
Project Manager Daniel Patten
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Engineering
262

Financial Status
Project shows EAC underbudget.

Millions

Budget                 $7.34

Actual Cost to date      $0.84

Estimate at Completion        $1.80

Schedule Status
AMC Projects is still on plan. 

.

October through December 2021 P A G E 25

SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

QUARTERLY REPORT
Q4 2021
263

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE PLAN
Attachment 2
264
Construction Work Completed in December 2021
18 December 1, 2021 December 31, 2021
View of Areas 56 ‐ Ongoing Work
Attachment 3
265
Construction Work Completed in December 2021
19 December 1, 2021 December  30, 2021
View of Area 80 – Ongoing Work
266
Construction Work Completed in December 2021
20 December 1, 2021 December  30, 2021
View of Areas 52, 53, 55, and 56 ‐ Ongoing Work
267
Construction Work Completed in December 2021
21 December 1, 2021 December  31, 2021
View of Areas 51 and 64 Ongoing Work
268
DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager

FROM: Louis Sun, Public Works Director
Paul Nagengast, Project Advisor, Regional Government
Services

SUBJECT: LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327-657) FEBRUARY 2022 - GENERAL UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, consider and accept this progress update on the Levee Improvements Project (Project). No further action is required by the City Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will provide a verbal update of the latest Project activities at the City Council meeting. This report provides an update of Project progress and budget impacts with current expenditures detailed in an attached work sheet.

Highlights of Project progress and pictures, since the last City Council update on January 18, 2022, are included in the attached Construction Manager’s Report and listed below:
Construction of the bridge crossing at Baffin Street has been completed. To perform the bridge installation, sheet pile cofferdams were installed in the O’Neill Slough to protect the site from tidal action during construction. On January 29, 2022, during the removal 269
of the sheet pile cofferdam, City of Belmont residents expressed concerns at the rising water level due to restored tidal action observed in the O’Neill Slough due to the partially removed sheet piles. The project team directed the Contractor to replace and reinstall the sheet piles, cutting off the full tidal action to O’Neill Slough to allow Belmont staff time to evaluate.

The implementation of full tidal action is a regulatory permit requirement as a mitigation measure for the Project and the rising water level in the slough is an intended result of the new bridge crossing. Foster City will discuss with the permitting agencies and Belmont officials the impacts of reactivating O’Neill Slough to full tidal action prior to permanently removing the sheet pile cofferdam. City Council will be updated as information becomes available.

The image below shows the portion of the slough that is intended to be restored with tidal action when the bridge crossings have been completed and the cofferdams have been removed.
The Contractor has relocated construction operations out of the southern end of the Project in Phase 1 due to the regulatory permits requiring operations to cease in this area from February 1 to August 31, unless nesting protocol surveys indicate there are no nesting birds in the area and the regulatory agencies concur with the findings. The environmental consultant has commenced the surveys to determine if and where there are any nesting birds. If there are no nesting birds, it is anticipated the Contractor will be able to return to work in applicable portions of Phase 1 in April or May 2022. The Contractor will be concentrating their work along Beach Park Boulevard and north of the San Mateo bridge during the bird nesting season.
270
The Baffin Street bridge has been installed, but additional work is still necessary before the bridge can be safely opened. The Contractor cannot work in this area until September 1 unless bird nesting surveys being completed do not indicate any nesting birds. It is anticipated that Baffin Street bridge may open by Summer 2022. The Contractor has commenced construction operations under the San Mateo bridge in accordance with the encroachment permit received from Caltrans to work in this area.
The Contractor has completed approximately 3.5 miles of the 4.2 miles of the revised concrete cap for the top of installed sheet piles (CCO No. 9 - $110K; and CCO No.10 - $932K) along Beach Park Boulevard and Phase 1 locations near Sea Cloud Park.
Staff continues to monitor the Safe Routes to School plan for Bowditch Middle School and other locations that may be affected by the Project. Coordination by staff with the school personnel provides direct feedback about the dropping off and picking up of students as well as the walking and biking by students to school.

Current Schedule Timeline
Award of Contract: July 20, 2020 Notice to Proceed: September 28, 2020 Phase 1 Bay Trail Closure – Opening: October 2020 – January 2023 Phase 2 Bay Trail Closure – Opening: January 2021 – November 2022 Phase 3 Bay Trail Closure – Opening: April 2021 – January 2023 Project Substantial Completion: August 2023 Project Completion: January 2024

PROJECT BUDGET AND COST/EXPENSES
In summary, the Project continues to be on time and within Budget and expenses continue to trend as anticipated.

Summary of known costs to date:
271
Total Budget/ Bond Measure: Budget = $87M Bond Measure = $90M; GO Bonds Sold = $85M; Additional City reserves for Project if necessary = $10M
Construction Contract: Shimmick: $60.2M; Contingency: $9M Expenditures: Shimmick: $40M; Others: $10M; Total: $50M Change Orders Approved: As of 2/07: CCO No. 1-19 = $4M Change Orders Anticipated: CCO No. 20 in amount $347K for CC consideration on February 22, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal ompacts to the Project are presented to City Council as a separate agenda item with a recommended action to take from City staff.

While there is no fiscal impact associated with this Project update, staff will be recommending to the City Council for approval at the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting the execution of a contract change order in the amount of $347,000. This request is necessary due to changes to specified Project improvements based on the actual field conditions directly adjacent to retaining walls north of the San Mateo bridge. Since the environmental permits do not allow improvements to encroach into wetlands, Allan block retaining wall drains have to be raised to provide for adequate drainage, as required by the manufacturer, to avoid trenching into protected wetlands. A staff report describing the necessary improvements will be presented by staff at the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting.

Staff continues to monitor the level of effort performed by Schaaf & Wheeler as part of their Phase III contract to support the construction phase of the Project (materials and geotechnical testing, shop drawing reviews, environmental review, and permit observations). Previously, Staff had provided information to the City Council indicating the performance of additional out of scope environmental related services (bird surveys, observing the work in environmental sensitive areas, etc.), which have positively benefited the Project completion schedule, but have increased Schaaf & Wheeler’s level of effort beyond what was originally scoped. The City Council was advised that the costs associated with these additional services would be better understood in early 2022 and was dependent upon amount of work completed by the Contractor during 2021. Within the next two months, staff will bring forward to the City Council a recommendation to execute an amendment to the contract with Schaaf & Wheeler to reflect the 272
additional effort expended by the design team to keep the project moving and on schedule.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
The Levee Improvements Project is in alignment with the City Council's adopted Vision and Mission statements, in that it seeks to create a sustainable environment through infrastructure improvements for current and future generations to come. This item is also directly related to the "Facilities and Infrastructure" Value/Priority Area. The key outcome is to make substantial progress toward an improved levee on time and budget to protect the community and critical infrastructure from storms and high tide.

Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Monthly Construction Manager’s Report – January 2022
Attachment 2 - Expenditure Report as of January 31, 2022 Attachment 3 - Memorandum and Communications Metrics – January 2022 Dashboard Report
273
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT
Foster City Levee Improvements Project
City Project No. CIP 301-657
Contractor: Shimmick Construction Co Report Period: January 1-31, 2022 CM: Tanner Pacific, Inc.

Designer: Schaaf & Wheeler
Original Contract
Duration
(Calendar Days):

Days Elapsed: 491 % Elapsed: 40.9%
Substantial Final
Completion Completion
Date: Date:

Original Contract Approved Revised
Contract
Value: CCOs: Value:

Contingency: $9,000,000.00 Remaining
Contingency: $ 5,062,895.16 % Contingency
Used: 44%
Costs Billed to Date: $37,862,558.41 % of Contract
Billed to Date: 59%
$60,218,000.00 $ 3,937,104.84 $64,155,104.84
Contract/Schedule Update
1200 Additional Days
Granted: 0 Calendar Days
Remaining: 709
Notice To Proceed: 9/28/2020 10/2/2023 1/10/2024
Cost Management Update
Attachment 1
274
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT

Work Summary
Recently Completed:
• Floodwall 6 concrete footing placement at ~Sta. 56+34 (Phase III) • Placement of concrete wall section for Floodwall 24 at ~Sta. 94+00 (near SM Bridge) • Clearing and grubbing for Floodwalls 25 and 11 at ~Sta. 100+00 (under SM Bridge) • Subgrade excavation for Floodwall 25 ~ Sta. 100+00 (under SM Bridge) • Mitigation planting work in Phase 1 from approx. Sta. 253+00 – 306+00 (Sea Cloud Park to Baffin St)
• Completion of sheet pile wall concrete cap from ~Sta. 228+42 – 203+05 (Sea Cloud Park to Shorebird Park)
• Installation of sheet pile concrete cap for Floodwall 19 sheet pile section (~ Sta. 306+00 – 311+00 (Baffin Street to Egress Bridge)
• Floodwall 19 LCC placement from ~Sta. 311+00 – 331+00 (Port Royal Park to Egress Bridge) • Floodwall 18 and Floodbreak gate near Baffin St. bridge ~Sta. 306+00. • Demobilization and securing site in preparation for Bird Nesting Restrictions from ~Sta. 202+20 – 343+00 (S. of Shorebird Park to Southern Project Limit)

Upcoming:
• Continued submittals for landscaping, irrigation, and site furnishings • Continued import of materials to staging areas
• Continued construction for concrete floodwalls from ~Sta. 0+00 – Sta. 100+00 (E. 3rd Ave to SM Bridge)
• Concrete footing placement for Floodwall 3 (near Baywinds Park) • Subgrade excavation for Floodwall 2 (near Mariner’s Point Golf Center) • Floodwall 6 stem wall concrete placement at ~Sta. 56+34 (Phase III) • Floodwall 23 concrete footing placement at ~Sta. 63+00 (Phase III) • Lagoon outfall structure work at ~Sta. 70+00 (Phase III) • Construction of Retaining Wall 02 (northwest of the SM Bridge) • Construction of AP-9 pedestrian bridge foundations at ~Sta. 85+00 (northwest of the SM Bridge)
• Completion of Retaining Wall 04 blocks and lightweight concrete fill (northwest of the SM Bridge)
• Completion of sheet pile wall concrete cap along Floodwall 12 (Phase II, Beach Park Blvd) • Continued construction of bay-side paths along Floodwall 12 (Phase II, Beach Park Blvd) • Completion of installation of lightweight concrete fill for levee sections from Sta. 202+20 to Sta. 100+00 (Shorebird Park to SM Bridge)
• Retaining wall construction from Sta. 202+20 to 343+00 (Shorebird Park to Southern Project Limit)
• Installation of sheet pile wall concrete caps in Phase I from ~ Sta. 331+00 to Sta. 343+00 (Egress Bridge to Southern Project Limit)
• Mitigation planting work in Phase I from approx. Sta. 306+00 – 343+00 (Baffin St to Southern Project Limit)
• LCC and gabion basket wall placement on Floodwall 19 from ~ Sta. 306+00 – 331+00 (Baffin Street to Egress Bridge)

275
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT

Monthly Progress Photos

FW 3 subgrade excavation near Mariner’s Point Golf
Center in Phase III
Excavation for FW 25 below the San Mateo Bridge

Lightweight cellular concrete fill placement at FW 19 in Phase I
Hydroseeding/mitigation planting along Phase I

276
Levee Project Approved Budget: 85,000,000.00$
Vendor Name or Expense Consultant Role or Expense Category Base Contract Amount
Contingency Contract
Amendments
Current Contract
Authority
Amount
Total
Expected/Actual
Cost
Invoices Received
and Paid As Of
1/31/22
Contingency
Spent
Contingency
Remaining
Status
Shimmick Construction Construction Contractor 60,218,000.00$ 9,000,000.00$ 69,218,000.00$ 69,218,000.00$ $39,855,328.62 $3,937,104.84 $5,062,895.16 Active Tanner Pacific (TPI) Construction Management and Inspection 6,698,877.00$ 300,000.00$ 491,500.00$ 7,490,377.00$ 7,550,000.00$ $3,093,317.60 $0.00 $300,000.00 Active Schaaf & Wheeler (S&W) - Phase 3 Engineering Consultant 2,600,000.00$ -$ 208,745.00$ 2,808,745.00$ 3,100,000.00$ $1,801,137.71 N/A N/A Active Urban Planning Partners (UPP) Planning Consultant - EIR 340,404.00$ 51,061.00$ 70,099.00$ 461,564.00$ 470,000.00$ $436,823.79 $51,061.00 $0.00 Active Regional Government Services Authority (RGS) Project Advisory Services** 561,600.00$ -$ -$ 561,600.00$ 561,600.00$ $154,755.00 N/A N/A Active Tripepi Smith (TS) Communications / Outreach Consultant 49,000.00$ -$ 61,000.00$ 110,000.00$ 110,000.00$ $93,478.75 N/A N/A Active Tripepi Smith (TS) Communications / Outreach Consultant 127,056.00$ -$ -$ 127,056.00$ 127,056.00$ $35,613.75 N/A N/A Active Huffman-Broadway Group (HBG) Environmental Consultant - Post Construction Environmental Monitoring
275,000.00$ 275,000.00$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Future Contract Wilsey Ham (WH) RUNCO Survey 16,518.00$ -$ -$ 16,518.00$ 17,000.00$ $4,825.00 N/A N/A In Progress Wilsey Ham (WH) On-Call Surveyor 44,946.00$ 4,000.00$ -$ 48,946.00$ 50,000.00$ $8,522.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 In Progress Bender Rosenthal, Inc. (BRI) Property Acquisition Consultant 218,083.00$ 31,000.00$ 249,083.00$ 249,083.00$ $0.00 $0.00 $31,000.00 In Progress Miscellaneous Expenses Other Miscelleneous Expenses 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ $60,112.62 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Communications / Outreach Expenses 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ $23,703.24 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Fees Paid to Other Agencies 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ $166,997.64 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Property Acquistion Cost of acquisition 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ $0.00 In Progress Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP* City Attorney $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $324,562.62 Active TBWB Strategies (TBWB) Public Outreach 29,986.00$ 119,565.00$ 149,551.00$ $141,427.04 $141,427.04 Closed Rutan & Tucker (R&T) Attorney 53,874.86$ 53,874.86$ $53,874.86 $53,874.86 Closed EMC Research, Inc. (EMC) Public Opinion Research 44,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 46,500.00$ $46,500.00 $46,500.00 Closed SCI Consulting (SCI) Public Finance Consultant 110,000.00$ 110,000.00$ $37,168.72 $37,168.72 Closed Kitahata Company + William Euphrat Municipal
Finance, Inc. (KC&WE)
Public Finance Advisory Consultant 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ $24,610.50 $24,610.50 Closed Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth (SYCR) Attorney - Bond Counsel 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Closed Huffman-Broadway Group (HBG) Environmental Consultant 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ $19,980.65 $19,980.65 Closed Schaaf & Wheeler (S&W) - Phase 1 Engineering Consultant 887,644.00$ 887,644.00$ $887,430.58 $887,430.58 Closed Schaaf & Wheeler (S&W) - Phase 2 Engineering Consultant 2,324,286.00$ 529,150.00$ 2,853,436.00$ $2,853,649.42 $2,853,649.42 Closed Miscellaneous (MISC)- Keech Properties LLC Levee Mitigation Credits/Expenses 170,000.00$ 170,000.00$ $170,000.00 $170,000.00 Closed Chrisp Striping for Edgewater 16,764.55$ 3,000.00$ 19,764.55$ $15,818.40 $15,818.40 $3,000.00 Closed 74,626,039.41$ 9,389,061.00$ 86,873,199.17$ $50,324,638.51 *Includes former City Attorney fees
**Assumes 3 years ($187,200 each year) Total Contract Authority Cost: 86,652,659.41$ Levee Project - Budget Cost: 86,873,199.17$ Assuming using all contingencies

ONGOING AND FUTURE

CONTRACTS AND EXPENSESMISCC LOSED CONTRACTS

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CIP 327-657 Levee Improvements Project
Budget and Cost Information
Attachment 2
277
City of Foster City

MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Nentwig, Director, Tripepi Smith
SUBJECT: LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT – COMMUNICATIONS METRICS Tripepi Smith would like to share the attached updated Levee Improvements Project Communications Dashboard Report with the Mayor and Members of the City Council. In the report, you will see that the metrics now reflect our communication efforts through the month of January 2022.

As a reminder, t his report is a summary that our team typically develops at the end of each month. It includes data on website traffic, social media engagement, community forum participation, and the number and rate of project email and hotline contacts. While Tripepi Smith has only been involved in project communications since January 2021, we have pulled numbers (where available) going back to October 2020 to provide a baseline for comparison.

I would like to highlight a few items of note:
• In January, the City gained approximately 82 new followers/subscribers across all social platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor and the Levee E - Newsletter).
• The number of Levee Project inquiries in January 2022 totaled 4, which is the lowest number of inquiries received in a given month. This low number of inquiries is a positive indicator showing a low level of community concern as a result of the project’s proactive communications and engagement.
• The team hosted a project tour with the City of Corte Madera Public Works Director, Plan ning Manager and Senior Civil Engineer in January 2022.

Additionally, a member of the project team conducted a presentation to APWA Silicon Valley. The increase in requests for project tours and presentations is significant to note, as more and more entiti es are looking to Foster City’s Levee Improvements Project as a positive example. As such, we have added a new Attachment 3
278
section to the Communications Dashboard Report to report on the number of project tours and speaking events each month moving forward.

• Top performing posts on Facebook and Twitter for January 2022 included Safety Tip of the Week posts and a pre-construction video showing a high tide.

• The number of website visitors in January 2022 totaled 3,013, compared to 2,110 in December 2021.

• Recreational Water User Facebook Groups did not mention the levee project on social media, likely because the season is coming to an end and the project team has established a positive working relationship with the community. The team has continued communicatio n with Recreational Water User representatives in January 2022 to touch base regarding access. (Additional details about 2022 construction schedule impacts will be available in the first quarter of 2022.)

• There have been no new signatures since August 2021 and an additional signature was removed from the petition in January 2022.

Our team is actively monitoring the metrics to analyze the effectiveness of various types of communication and to align the cadence of our efforts to the community’s interest levels. We believe that the City’s proactive social media communications are leading to fewer people having questions or concerns about the project in general – reflecting positively on overall outreach and engagement efforts.

During the month of January, social media reach and engagement decreased due in part to not posting content to Nextdoor and the holiday season. Throughout the first quarter of 2022, the construction team will continue work with the project team to provide updated information to the Recreational Water User community. Any new information will be updated on the project website and social media, which will likely drive traffic to the project’s channels.

Additionally, the project team plans to host the next Community Update meeting around Spring to provide further project updates and highlight milestones that are completed at that point.

As you review the full report, please feel free to let me know if you have any questi ons. I would be happy to walk you through the report one -on-one if it would be helpful, and we will continue to refine the metrics over time to best meet the project’s needs.

279
1 Levee Project CommunicationsPrepared by: Danielle RodriguezMonthly Dashboard ReportJanuary 2022 FOLLOWERS / SUBSCRIBERSCity FacebookCity TwitterCity Instagram [1]City Nextdoor [2] Levee E-Newsletter Total Audience2020 - November1,804 1,385 - - 8022020 - December1,829 1,392 - - 8022021 - January1,879 1,412 1,350 13,5061,0072021 - February1,919 1,425 1,385 13,7011,0952021 - March2,059 1,431 1,479 13,8311,1082021 - April2,109 1,454 1,510 13,9571,1612021 - May 2,122 1,457 1,514 14,1281,1822021 - June2,135 1,458 1,531 14,1861,1922021 - July2,168 1,473 1,547 14,2931,1952021 - August2,174 1,484 1,565 14,3811,2002021 - September2,400 1,493 1,587 14,4931,2022021 - October2,413 1,512 1,617 14,5951,2002021 - November2,436 1,525 1,634 14,6911,2032021 - December2,445 1,531 1,653 14,7291,2072022 - January [3]2,459 1,535 1,670 14,7661,217

LEVEE COMMUNITY FORUMS
COMMUNITY UPDATE WEBINARS# Webinars# Participants
# Questions Answered via Webinar
PROJECT TOURS/ SPEAKING EVENTS [4]# of EventsDescription2020 - November- - - 2022 - January2 1 Project Tour with the City of Corte Madera, 1 Presentation to APWA Silicon Valley [5]2020 - December- - -2021 - January1 148 202021 - February1 97 452021 - March 1 48 202021 - April 1 28 202021 - June 0 0 02021 - July 0 0 02021 - August1 20 202021 - September0 0 02021 - October0 0 02021 - November0 0 02021 - December0 0 02022 - January0 0 0 NUMBER OF LEVEE EMAILS/CALLSProject Email/Hotline Contacts Avg. Email/Hotline Contacts/Day2020 - November15 0.52020 - December25 0.82021 - January69 2.22021 - February53 1.92021 - March46 1.52021 - April 21 0.72021 - May 22 0.72021 - June 16 0.52021 - July 48 1.52021 - August16 0.52021 - September16 0.52021 - October8 0.22021 - November14 0.42021 - December8 0.22022 - January [6]4 0.1 280
2 NUMBER OF LEVEE PROJECT POSTS [7]City FacebookCity Twitter [8]City Instagram*City Nextdoor2020 - November1 1 0 02020 - December4 4 0 12021 - January8 7 5 22021 - February7 12 7 12021 - March12 21 9 22021 - April 7 20 4 162021 - May 5 8 1 72021 - June 8 13 2 32021 - July 9 17 2 22021 - August9 18 1 12021 - September10 16 0 02021 - October7 9 0 02021 - November10 10 0 12021 - December9 9 0 02022 - January7 9 0 0*During the months October - December 2020 the City did not post levee related items on the City's Instagram page. In January 2021, Tripepi Smith made the first levee related post.

LEVEE POST IMPRESSIONS/REACHCity Facebook - Post ReachCity Twitter - ImpressionsCity Instagram - Impressions [9]City NextdoorTOTAL2020 - November259 399 0 0 658 * The increase of the Nextdoor engagement for December is due to the City posting about the closure of Shorebird Park. 2020 - December1,300 1,391 0 2447* 2,691 This drove many angry comments, which increased the post reach.2021 - January61,00615,949 2161 1922 81,0382021 - February17,492**3,711 2,192 924 6,827 In January 2021, Tripepi Smith boosted three posts with a total spend of $900 for the month. 2021 - March60,1558,753 3,555 2,282 74,745 In February 2021, Tripepi Smiith boosted two posts with a total spend of $433.2021 - April11,8385,543 1,496 10,78929,666 In March 2021, Tripepi Smith boosted four posts with a total spend of $1,100.2021 - May 1,435 2,786 346 5,146 9,713 In April 2021, Tripepi Smith boosted one post with a total spend of $300.2021 - June2,008 3,377 545 2,648 8,578 In May 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.2021 - July8,835 4,643 599 1,715 15,792 In June 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.2021 - August3,349 4,318 340 967 8,974 In July 2021, Tripepi Smith boosted one post with a total spend of $300 to promote the August 5 community update. This boosted post ran through August 4, so metrics for this dashboard and the next will reflect the boosted post numbers. 2021 - September1,808 2,568 0 0 4,3762021 - October3,796 1,257 0 0 5,0532021 - November3,722 1,809 0 1,554 7,085 In August 2021, Tripepi Smith boosted one post with a total spend of $300 to promote the August 5 community update. The post was boosted in late July 2021 and ran through August 4.2021 - December4,441 1,397 0 0 5,8382022 - January869 [10]1,265 0 0 2,134 In September 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.In October 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.In November 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.In December 2021, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.In January 2022, Tripepi Smith did not boost levee project related posts.

LEVEE POST ENGAGEMENT [11]City Facebook - Post EngagementsCity Twitter - EngagementsCity InstagramCity Nextdoor - Thanks & RepliesTOTAL2020 - November13 7 0 0 202020 - December63 90 0 17 1702021 - January3,776 604 2,101 13 6,4942021 - February1,278 142 2,019 3 3,4422021 - March2,801 183 3,291 1 6,2762021 - April1,192 100 1,333 11 2,6362021 - May 65 67 309 2 4432021 - June 87 60 94 13 2542021 - July 875 161 13 4 1,0532021 - August90 122 13 1 2262021 - September46 37 0 0 832021 - October128 52 0 0 1802021 - November284 66 0 4 3542021 - December108 21 0 0 1292022 - January85 61 0 0 146 LEVEE WEBSITE ANALYTICS2020 - November # of Vistors2020 - December # of Vistors2021 - January # of Vistors2021 - February # of Vistors2021 - March # of Vistors2021 - April # of Vistors2021 - May # of Vistors2021 - June # of Vistors2021 - July # of Vistors2021 - August # of Vistors2021 - September # of Vistors2021 - October # of Vistors2021 - November # of Vistors2021 - December # of Vistors2022 - January # of Vistors [12]Average Visits Per DayAverage Visit Length (Minutes)fostercity.org [13]2940 3423 4601- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 281
3 fostercitylevee.org [14]- - - 4,329 9,145 4,501 4,163 4,942 4,926 3,767 2,790 2,637 2,752 2,110 3,013 97 1:51 LEVEE PETITIONPetition Signatures2021 - February2,7192021 - March2,7192021 - April2,7202021 - May 2,7222021 - June2,7222021 - July2,7232021 - August2,7222021 - September2,7222021 - October2,7222021 - November2,7222021 - December2,7222022 - January [15]2,721

TOP LEVEE PROJECT SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS
City FacebookThe top Facebook posts during January for the Levee Project shows residents/followers interact the mostCity TwitterThe top Twitter posts duringJanuary for the Levee Project shows residents/followerswith safety tips, website reminders and pre-construction videos that show why the project is necessary.interact the most with construction alerts and safety tip posts.

City InstagramThe Levee Improvements Project did not post on Instagram in January 2022.

Zencity Insights
Most Popular Topics: Conversation items classified by topic, arranged from highest number of interactions to lowest.Popular Words: The words that appear most frequently across your channels. 282
4 BOOSTED LEVEE PROJECT POSTSTripepi Smith did not boost any levee project-related social media posts in January 2022.

NOTABLE LEVEE PROJECT MEDIA MENTIONSThere were not any notable levee project media mentions in January 2022. Platform Group Post URL- - - -

OTHER NOTABLE LEVEE PROJECT SUPPORT
Social media monitoring Since the beginning of January, Tripepi Smith began monitoring the City's social media sites daily to ensure items relating to the Levee Project are intact and to ensure there is no misinformation being shared. Tripepi Smith has been able to comment back to several followers regarding questions or clarification 283
5 [1] Due to the recent connectivity with Sprout Social, the metrics generator, we were unable to retrieve the followers metrics for previous months. [2] Nextdoor metrics does not archive the previous months members metric. It must be calculated at the first of the month. [3] Follower/subscriber counts continue to rise across all platforms. [4] This is a new section as of January 2022.
[5] The Levee Improvements Project team took the City of Corte Madera's Public Works Director, Planning Manager and Senior Civil Engineer on a tour of the project site.
[6] January 2022 marks the lowest number of project inquiries to date. [7] Number of posts is only relating to the Levee Improvements Project. [8] Due to the character limit on Twitter, some Tweets had to be posted in a thread (series of Tweets about one topic). [9] Instagram Impressions: The number of times your content is displayed, no matter if it was clicked or not. [10] Facebook post reach decreased due to fewer posts published in January 2022. [11] Facebook Engagement: Calculated based on the number of likes, comments, shares, and clicks your posts are generating Instagram Engagement: Anytime a user likes, shares or comments on one of your posts.

Twitter Engagement: Total number of times users interacted with a Tweet (clicks anywhere on the Tweet including Retweets, replies, follows, likes, links, cards, hashtags, embedded media, username, profile photo, or Tweet expansion). [12] Though overall page views on the levee project website has increased in January 2022 due to social media post promotion and additional website updates, such as meeting materials for the Levee Bond Oversight Committee being added to the website. [13] This data was retrieved from the highest trafficked Levee URLs:
/publicworks/project/levee-improvements-project-cip-301-657 /community/page/levee-trail-close-shorebird-park-san-mateo-bridge-early-january /publicworks/page/levee-improvements-project-what-will-improved-levee-look /publicworks/page/levee-improvements-project-latest-construction-updates [14] The new Foster City Levee Project webpage was created in Feb. 2020. There was no data from Oct. - January. However, data will only populate under this new website from Feb. on.
284
6 [15] There have been no new signatures since August 2021 and an additional signature was removed from the petition in January 2022. 285
DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager

FROM: Louis Sun, Public Works Director
Paul Nagengast, Project Advisor, Regional Government
Services

SUBJECT: CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. TWENTY (20) TO THE
AGREEMENT WITH SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION CO. TO

PROVIDE AND CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE REVISIONS FOR

CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS NORTH OF SAN MATEO BRIDGE

FOR THE LEVEE PROTECTION PLANNING AND
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327-657)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20) to the agreement with Shimmick Construction Co., in the amount of $347,422.78 to provide and construct drainage revisions for concrete block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327-657).

Funding is available in approved construction contingencies in the amount of $9,000,000 from the budget established for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327-657).
286

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During construction operations for the concrete block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge (Phase 3), the Contractor advised the City that the standard drainage detail for Allan block walls in the approved Project plans and specifications could not be used to construct the drain for the walls as detailed due to the close proximity of the environmentally sensitive habitat and wetlands adjacent to the walls.

The Contractor was provided a revised drainage detail to install drainage systems as recommended by the manufacturer for the Allan block walls and to comply with the permitting regulatory agency’s requirements to avoid disturbing habitat and wetlands north of the San Mateo Bridge.

In order for the Contractor to construct the revised drainage systems for the block walls, it was necessary for the Contractor to rent smaller equipment and increase the time to import and deliver various materials to construct the underdrains for these walls and avoid the habitat and wetlands.

The contractor has submitted a cost of $347,422.78 to provide the equipment and to deliver and construct the necessary material for the subdrains to meet the block wall manufacturer’s recommendations to ensure the specified structural integrity of the walls.

BACKGROUND
The Project plans specified Allan block walls to be constructed along various lengths and locations of the landward portions of the Project and opposite sheet pile walls installed on the Bay side of the Project. The Project plans provided a typical detailed cross section for drainage and compacted backfill on Sheet C-20 as recommended by the manufacturer.

The embedment depth below existing grade elevations for the concrete blocks is dependent upon the configuration of the land in front (foreground) of the walls. The foreground conditions change rapidly from the San Mateo Bridge to Baywinds Park. Therefore, the embedded depth of the initial layers of block walls varies with the changing land configurations adjacent to the walls.

The Project plans specified a typical detailed cross section for compaction and depth of backfill and the daylighting of drainpipes for walls along the length of the entire Project for typical level and sloping foregrounds of the 287
walls. However, the existing conditions and elevations of the foreground in between the San Mateo Bridge and Baywinds Park change rapidly and required various embedment depth elevations for the first layer of block walls. In addition, there is environmentally sensitive habitat and wetlands adjacent to the foreground of these block walls.

The Contractor advised the City that daylighting the underdrains as depicted in the typical cross section of the Project plans north of the San Mateo Bridge would result in encroaching upon environmentally sensitive habitat and wetlands. The regulatory requirements in the environmental permits for the Project do not allow for disturbing habitat or wetlands in this area.

In order to provide for the walls to be drained as required and avoid encroaching into sensitive habitat and wetlands, it was necessary for the Contractor to raise the drain elevations for the block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge to Baywinds Park. A revised drainage detail was provided to the Contractor to allow the drain elevations to change as required based on field conditions.

Consequently, because of the long length of block walls being constructed north of the San Mateo Bridge, and the rapidly changing foreground conditions within a confined work area with limited access points, it was necessary for the Contractor to alter their means and methods to construct the wall drainage and appurtenant work. The Contractor had to rent smaller equipment and utilize limited access points; which required longer and more trips to provide and compact the backfill and construct the revised drainage for the block walls.

ANALYSIS

The increased cost is necessary for the Contractor to alter their means and methods to provide acceptable compacted backfill and the required drainage for the block walls while adhering to the permitted regulatory requirements regarding sensitive habitat and wetlands is compensable as extra work.

Tanner Pacific, Inc., has reviewed the cost to provide and construct the revised drainage improvements and negotiated the amount from $550,000 to $347,422.78 and finds it reasonable for the work to be completed.

Staff recommends City Council approve Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20) to provide and construct the drainage revisions for the concrete block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge.
288

FISCAL IMPACT

With the execution of Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20), the total contract change orders costs to date are summarized below:

Construction Contingency $ 9,000,000.00 CCO #1-19 - $ 4,156,234.77 Contract Change Order #20 - $ 347,422.78 Total Available Construction Contingency $ 4,496,342.45

Adequate funding has been provided as construction contingencies for this Project from the Project budget (CIP 327-657).

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA

The Levee Improvements Project is in alignment with the City Council's adopted Vision and Mission statements, in that it seeks to create a sustainable environment through infrastructure improvements for current and future generations to come. This item is also directly related to the "Facilities and Infrastructure" Value/Priority Area. The key outcome is to make substantial progress toward an improved levee on time and budget to protect the community and critical infrastructure from storms and high tide.

Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20)
Attachment 3 – Request for Information #116, by Shimmick dated July 9, 2021, and Response by TPI dated July 12, 2021
Attachment 4 – Change Order Request Form (COR #61) from Shimmick dated December 7, 2021
289
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO.

TWENTY (20) TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION CO., IN THE AMOUNT OF $347,422.78 TO PROVIDE AND CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE REVISIONS

FOR CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS NORTH OF SAN MATEO BRIDGE FOR THE LEVEE PROTECTION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327-657)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-76 awarding a contract to Shimmick Construction Co., in the amount of $60,218,000 for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327-657) (Project); and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, a construction contingency in the amount of $9,000,000 was provided for contract change orders during the construction of the Project with contract change orders greater than $250,000 to be approved by City Council; and WHEREAS, Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20) in the amount of $347,422.78 required necessary revisions to the Project standard plan drainage details for block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge to accommodate drainage requirements recommended by the block wall manufacturer; and
WHEREAS, in order for the contractor to construct the manufacturer recommended drainage for the block walls, and to avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and wetlands, the Contractors’ construction means and methods are required to be substantially different than Contractors’ bid to comply with the Project environmental regulatory permits; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the construction contingency amount approved as part of the project budget for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327-657).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City hereby authorizes:

The Mayor to execute Contract Change Order No. Twenty (20) to the agreement with Shimmick Construction Co., in the amount of $347,422.78, to provide and construct drainage revisions for the block walls north of the San Mateo Bridge for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327-657); and 290
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 22nd day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
291

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. TWENTY (20)
DATE: February 22, 2022 CHARGE ACCOUNT: 327-0910-657-4251 PROJECT NAME: FOSTER CITY LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 301-657) TO: SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION, Contractor. You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications of your agreement dated July 20, 2020. All new work herein shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of the plans and specifications, except as specifically modified by this contract change order.

CHANGE REQUESTED BY: Shimmick Construction and the City of Foster City ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 60,218,000.00 NET CHANGES BY PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED CHANGE ORDERS $ 4,156,234.77 CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO CCO NO. 20 $ 64,374,234.77
CHANGES AUTHORIZED BY CCO NO. 20 $ 347,422.78 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 64,721,657.55
Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid are listed below. CCO No. 20 is a result of Revision No. 10 to Drawing Sheet C-20 for drainage connections along Beach Park Blvd. Contractor is directed to:
Construct drainage along retaining walls from Mariner’s Point to the San Mateo Bridge per Revision No.10 to Sheet C-20 (Attachment No. 1)

1. Financial Changes Authorized by Contract Change Order:

BID ITEM
No. DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST CALENDAR
DAYS
COR 61 RW Drainage Changes per Revision No. 10 $347,422.78 0 Total Amount Authorized by Change
Order $347,422.78 0

2. Time Changes Authorized by Contract Change Order: None 292

NET AMOUNT OF CHANGES

REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
$347,422.78
$64,721,657.55
By reason of these changes, zero (0) calendar days extension of time will be allowed.

The Contract completion date remains unchanged by this CCO. Time We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the work proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, to provide all equipment, furnish all materials except as may otherwise be noted above, and to perform all services necessary for the work above specified and to accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above.

SUBMITTED BY: ___________________________________________

JONATHAN TRISTAO DATE

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, TANNER PACIFIC INC
ACCEPTED BY: ___________________________________________

CRAIG ORR DATE

PROJECT MANAGER, SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: ___________________________________________

PAUL NAGENGAST DATE

LEVEE PROJECT ADVISOR, RGSA
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: ___________________________________________

FRANCINE MAGNO DATE

SENIOR ENGINEER, FOSTER CITY
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: ___________________________________________

LOUIS SUN DATE

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, FOSTER CITY
APPROVED: ___________________________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR DATE
ATTEST:

BY: ________________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ________________________________________

BENJAMIN STOCK, CITY ATTORNEY
Attachments: 01: Revision 10 to Drawing Set Sheet C-20 293
SCCI RFI 2019 v1 10.2019
Request for Information
Shimmick Construction Company, Inc.

RFI No.: 00116
Date: 2021-07-09
Project Name: City of Foster City - Foster City Levee
Improvements
Owner Contract No.: CIP 301-657
To: From:

David Tellefsen Will Beckman
City of Foster City Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. 610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
8201 Edgewater Dr, Suite 202
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone:
650-286-3280 Phone: (650) 759-2486
Fax: Fax : 1 (510) 777-5099
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Subject: Status: Response Required By:

Retaining Wall – Alternative Wall
Drainage Backfill Material / Compaction
Requirements
PENDING 2021-07-09
Potential Impact
Drawing Number Drawing Rev. Number Spec Section
C20 32 05 00
RFI Detail:

The retaining wall alternative backfill details call for AB to be installed behind the bottom layers of the MSE wall blocks underneath the drainage system. The AB material calls for large equipment to be able to reach high levels of compaction. The manufacturer prescribes keeping heavy equipment away from the walls in order to avoid damage or displacement of the blocks. SCCI believes it won’t be able to achieve these levels of compaction without utilizing these heavier pieces of equipment.

A) Please advise an acceptable level of compaction for AB that has been installed currently at the retaining wall 9, 40 & 11 in RFQ 18 scope.

B) Also, please advise if using Class1B Permeable ¾” Drain Rock is acceptable as an alternative material for this application going forward as it is able to achieve compaction without the constraining use heavy compaction equipment. If so, please identify the compaction percentage requirement for this material.

Suggestion:

Si
gned: Will Beckman
Prepared By:

Response:

Response Date: 07-09-2021
Attachment 3
294
SOLID DRAIN PIPE PENETRATION THROUTH MSE BLOCK UNIT:·CORE BLOCK AND FILL ANNULAR SPACE W/ GROUT;·CUT BLOCK(S) AND FILL SPACE WITH GROUT; OR·LEAVE FULL BLOCK SPACE EMPTY AND FILL SPACE WITH GROUT OR CONC.·USE HALF-HEIGHT STANDARD BLOCKS AS REQD.IF DAYLIGHT IS TO ADJACENT GUTTERNOTE: CUT INTO BACK OF ADJACENTSDCB WHERE DIRECTED ANDBACKFILL MSE WALLS PER S-DSHEETS. IF SO, USE 4" DIA DRAIN PIPETO CB.% NOTES:1.THIS ALTERNATE DETAIL APPLIES WHERE THE LOWEST MSE WALL SUBDRAIN SHOWN ONSHEETS S-D01, S-D02, S-D03, OR SD-04 CANNOT BE GRAVITY DRAINED TO DAYLIGHT ASDIRECTED IN THE FIELD.2.REFER TO SHEETS S-D01 THROUGH S-D04 FOR MSE WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAINAGE DETAILFOR RETAINING WALLS WHERE GRAVITY DRAINAGE TO DAYLIGHT IS POSSIBLE BASED N FIELDDIRECTION.3.REFER TO SHEETS S-D01 THROUGH S-D04 FOR ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF MSE WALLCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING EXCAVATION LIMITS4.CONTRACTOR MAY PROPOSE ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR WALL SUBDRAINAGE. 

LEVEL FOREGROUND
8" - 12" LAYER OF CLASS 1 TYPE B PERMEABLEMATERIAL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CLASS 2PERMEABLE MATERIAL WITH FILTER FABRIC ABOVE CELLULAR CONCRETE FILL4" DIA PERFORATED PIPETEE TO SOLID PIPE DRAIN AS REQD.

DAYLIGHT LEVEL PIPE TO (E) SLOPE ASDIRECTED IN THE FIELD WHERE DIRECTED,BACKFILL MSE WALL PER S-D SHEETS ANDTERMINATE DRAIN PIPE AT BACK OF ADJACENTSDCB.

SLOPING FOREGROUND
ÄÄ ÄÄ
12" CLASS2 AB LEVELING PADEXTEND PAD VERTICALLY TO UNDERSIDE OFDRAINAGE BLANKET OR AS CONVENIENT FORGEOGRID PLACEMENT SOLID DRAIN PIPE PENETRATION THROUTH MSE BLOCK UNIT:·CORE BLOCK AND FILL ANNULAR SPACE W/ GROUT;·CUT BLOCK(S) AND FILL SPACE WITH GROUT; OR·LEAVE FULL BLOCK SPACE EMPTY AND FILL SPACE WITH GROUT OR CONC.·USE HALF-HEIGHT STANDARD BLOCKS AS REQD. 8" - 12" LAYER OF CLASS 1 TYPE B PERMEABLEMATERIAL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CLASS 2PERMEABLE MATERIAL WITH FILTER FABRIC ABOVE CELLULAR CONCRETE FILL4" DIA PERFORATED PIPETEE TO SOLID PIPE DRAIN AS REQD. 12" CLASS2 AB LEVELING PADEXTEND PAD VERTICALLY TO UNDERSIDE OFDRAINAGE BLANKET OR AS CONVENIENT FORGEOGRID PLACEMENT (E) SD OUTLETCORE HOLE OR PUNCHOUT. FILL ANNULARSPACE WITH NON-SHRINKGROUT.4" PVC DRAIN PIPE

UNIVERSAL OUTLET WITHINTERNAL SPIGOT
(E) SD CURB INLETSEE DETAIL, TYP.

DO NOT CONNECT DRAINTO CATCH BASIN BELOW(E) SD OUTLET INVERT % NOTE:1.CONNECT 4" PVC SUBDRAIN OUTFALL TO SIDE OFCURB INLET AS CONVENIENT. REPAIR ADJACENTCURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK AS REQUIRED. (408) 246-4848SANTA CLARA, CA 950501171 HOMESTEAD ROAD, STE 255CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERSSchaaf WheelerFOSTER CITY LEVEE IMPROVEMENTSCIP 301-657 5%#.'8'4+(+%#6+10
MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC20
#.6'40#6'/5'9#..$#%-(+..#0&&4#+0#)'ÄÄSCALE : NTS
57$&4#+0%100'%6+10615614/&4#+0%#6%*$#5+0ÄÄSCALE : NTS 295
Attachment 4
296
Contractor / Subcontractor
Change Order Cost Quotation Form
Lump Sum
1 Contractor's Labor Total (1) $
2 Contractor's Materials (incl. Sales Tax) Total (2) $
3 Contractor's Equipment (Rented, Leased, and/or OWNED) Total (3) $ Blue Book and/or CRG, including Sales Tax if applicable 4 Contractor's Supplies (incl. Sales Tax) Total (4) $
SUBTOTAL ITEM 1-4
5 Contractor's Mark Up @ 16% Total (5) $
Contractor total direct expenditures up to and including $50,000 6 Contractor's Mark Up @ 13% Total (6) $
Contractor total direct expenditures greater than $50,000 and up to and including $100,000 7 Contractor's Mark Up @ 9% Total (7) $
Contractor total direct expenditures greater than $100,000 SUBTOTAL CONTRACTOR DIRECT EXP. W/MARK UP
8 Subcontractors Total (8) $
9 Contractor's Admin Fee for subs @ 5% Total (9) $
SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTOR DIRECT EXP. W/MARK UP
10 Bonds and Insurance @ 1% Total (10) $
11 Scheduling Costs ($200 Max) Total (11) $
Exclude if not required

GRAND TOTAL
164,883.85
$347,422.78
141,701.95
362,268.06
8,789.76
327,310.15
($17,939.00)

0.00 ($17,939.00)
11,934.59
3,093.71
8,000.00
6,500.00
20,457.91

0.00 297
CBS Position CodeDescription Forecast (T/O) QuantityUnit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost (Forecast)Man-Hours/ UMMan-Hours (Total)Shifts/ UM Shifts (Total) Notes 9 RFQ 026 - RW North of San Mateo R1 1.00Each $309,371.16 $309,371.16 2,230.21 2,230.21 65.36 65.36

9.1 RW01 1.00Each $70,109.30 $70,109.30 401.55 401.55 9.60 9.60

9.1.1 Backfill of MSE Walls 1.00Each $60,925.04 $60,925.04 348.00 348.00 7.25 7.25 - LCC Credit
- Increase in class 1B Material
- Increase of Class II AB levelling pad
- Around 653LF with new MSE backfill

9.1.1.1 Credit on LCC 130.00CY -$46.30 -$6,019.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 653LF*0.67LF (depth)*8LF(width) = 3500Ō^3/27
= 130cy

9.1.1.2 Furnish Class 2 AB 284.00Ton $3.00 $853.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 1.7Tons/cy
Take off - 145cy
Weight of AB =247Tons

Add 15% waste = 284Tons

9.1.1.3 Haul Class 2 AB 45.00HR $125.00 $5,625.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 284/20Ton per truck =15trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 45hrs

9.1.1.4 Place & Compact Class 2 AB 192.00CY $193.03 $37,062.27 1.33 256.00 0.03 5.33

9.1.1.5 Rental of Equipment - Yanmar 1.00MO $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 month rental at $3,750

9.1.1.6 Furnish Class 1B 97.00Ton $38.24 $3,709.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Take off - 60cy

Density - 1.4Tons/cy

84Tons in total
Plus 15% Waste =97 Tons

9.1.1.7 Haul Class 1B 15.00HR $125.00 $1,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 97Ton/20Ton per truck =5trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore15hrs

9.1.1.8 Place & Compact Class 1B 69.00CY $193.03 $13,319.25 1.33 92.00 0.03 1.92

9.1.2 Drainage (out width LOW - RFI#146) 1.00Each $9,184.25 $9,184.25 53.55 53.55 2.35 2.35At 2 locations

9.1.2.1 Furnish 4" PVC Drain Pipe 30.00LF $5.00 $150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 locations of daylight out width LOW,estimated at 15LF each location

9.1.2.2 Excavate for Drain Pipe 18.00CY $97.31 $1,751.61 0.70 12.60 0.04 0.79

9.1.2.3 Install Drain Pipe 30.00LF $58.52 $1,755.69 0.34 10.29 0.02 0.64

9.1.2.4 Furnish Class 2 AB as backfill 36.00Ton $3.00 $108.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.7Tons/cy
Take off - 18cy
Weight of AB = 18x1.7= 31Ton

Add 15% waste =36Ton

9.1.2.5 Haul Class 2 AB 6.00HR $125.00 $750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 36Tons/20Ton per truck =2trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 6hrs

9.1.2.6 Backfill & Compact Drainage 18.00CY $228.61 $4,114.94 1.48 26.67 0.04 0.67

9.1.2.7 Remove and replace temp fencing 2.00Each $276.93 $553.86 2.00 4.00 0.13 0.25

9.2 RW02 1.00Each $138,463.64 $138,463.64 942.72 942.72 28.03 28.03

9.2.1 Backfill of MSE Walls 1.00Each $73,882.71 $73,882.71 565.33 565.33 11.78 11.78 - LCC Credit
- Increase of Class II AB levelling pad
- Around 1793LF with new MSE backfill

9.2.1.1 Credit on LCC 356.00CY -$46.30 -$16,482.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1793LF*0.67LF (depth)*8LF(width) = 9610Ō^3/27
= 356cy

9.2.1.2 Furnish Class 2 AB 541.00Ton $3.00 $1,625.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 126lb/Ō^3 (1.7Tons/cy)
Take off - 7453Ō^3 = 276cy
Weight of AB =276x1.7 = 470 Ton

Add 15% waste = 541 Ton

9.2.1.3 Haul Class 2 AB 81.00HR $125.00 $10,125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 541/20Ton per truck =27 trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 81hrs

9.2.1.4 Place & Compact Class 2 AB 318.00CY $257.38 $81,845.84 1.78 565.33 0.04 11.78

9.2.1.5 Rental of Equipment - Yanmar 1.00MO $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 month rental at $3,750

9.2.1.6 Credit on 179LF of RW02 - Back to standard detail 1.00Each -$7,730.70 -$7,730.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 298

9.2.1.6.1 Reverse credit on 179LF of LCC 36.00CY $46.30 $1,666.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reverse credit on LCC = 179LF*0.67LF (depth)*8LF(width) = 959Ō^3/27 = 36cy

9.2.1.6.2 Credit on 179LF 1.00LS -$9,397.50 -$9,397.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Furnish Class 2 AB+Haul Class 2AB+Place & compact = $93,596.21 for 1793LF

Per LF = $52.20/LF
Ratio to 179LF = $9,397.50

9.2.2 Drainage tie in to SDCB 1.00Each $28,230.94 $28,230.94 163.17 163.17 6.87 6.87 Connect to (E) SDCB at Inv 7.0 near Sta 70+50

Connect to (E) SDCB at Inv 8.3 near Sta 67+50

9.2.2.1 Furnish 4" PVC Drain Pipe 100.00LF $5.00 $500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.2.2.2 Excavate for Drain Pipe 60.00CY $92.68 $5,560.67 0.67 40.00 0.04 2.50

9.2.2.3 Install Drain Pipe 100.00LF $58.52 $5,852.29 0.34 34.29 0.02 2.14

9.2.2.4 Furnish Class 2 AB as backfill 117.00Ton $3.00 $351.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 1.7Tons/cy
Take off - 60cy
Weight of AB = 60x1.7=102Ton

Add 15% waste =117Ton

9.2.2.5 Haul Class 2 AB 18.00HR $125.00 $2,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 117Tons/20Ton per truck =6trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 18hrs

9.2.2.6 Backfill & Compact Drainage 60.00CY $228.61 $13,716.47 1.48 88.89 0.04 2.22

9.2.3 Drainage (out width LOW - RFI#146) 1.00Each $36,350.00 $36,350.00 214.21 214.21 9.39 9.39At 8 locations

9.2.3.1 Furnish 4" PVC Drain Pipe 120.00LF $5.00 $600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 locations of daylight out width LOW,estimated at 15LF each location

9.2.3.2 Excavate for Drain Pipe 72.00CY $97.31 $7,006.44 0.70 50.40 0.04 3.15

9.2.3.3 Install Drain Pipe 120.00LF $58.52 $7,022.74 0.34 41.14 0.02 2.57

9.2.3.4 Furnish Class 2 AB as backfill 140.00Ton $3.00 $420.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 1.7Tons/cy
Take off - 72cy
Weight of AB = 72x1.7 = 122Ton

Add 15% waste =140Ton

9.2.3.5 Haul Class 2 AB 21.00HR $125.00 $2,625.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 140Tons/20Ton per truck =7trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 21hrs

9.2.3.6 Backfill & Compact Drainage 72.00CY $228.61 $16,459.77 1.48 106.67 0.04 2.67

9.2.3.7 Remove and replace temp fencing 1.00Each $2,215.43 $2,215.43 16.00 16.00 1.00 1.00

9.2.3.7.1 Labor 8.00Each $191.93 $1,535.43 2.00 16.00 0.13 1.00

0.1MH/LF, assuming 20LF of fence to be removed and replaced at each location = 2MH

9.2.3.7.2 Fence materials 160.00LF $4.25 $680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials
1 x Fence Post = $14
1LF of fence - $2.76

Every locaƟon needs 2 x fence post and minimal 20LF of fence = $85/locaƟon

9.3 RW04 1.00Each $29,553.62 $29,553.62 170.89 170.89 4.79 4.79350LF x 2 block height (1.33') x 6' (excavation behind blocks) / 27 = 101cy

9.3.1 Backfill of MSE Walls 1.00Each $20,369.36 $20,369.36 117.33 117.33 2.44 2.44 - LCC Credit of 233cy
- No change in class 1B Material
- Increase of Class II AB levelling pad

9.3.1.1 Credit on LCC 80.00CY -$46.30 -$3,704.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400LF*0.67LF (depth)*8LF(width) = 2144Ō^3/27
= 80cy

9.3.1.2 Furnish Class 2 AB 112.00Ton $3.00 $336.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 126lb/Ō^3 (1.7Tons/cy)
Take off - 1521Ō^3 = 57cy
Weight of AB =57x1.7 = 97 Ton

Add 15% waste = 112 Ton

9.3.1.3 Haul Class 2 AB 18.00HR $125.00 $2,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 112/20Ton per truck =6 trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 18hrs

9.3.1.4 Place & Compact Class 2 AB 66.00CY $257.38 $16,986.87 1.78 117.33 0.04 2.44

9.3.1.5 Rental of Equipment - Yanmar 1.00MO $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 month rental at $3,750 299

9.3.2 Drainage (out width LOW - RFI#146) 1.00Each $9,184.25 $9,184.25 53.55 53.55 2.35 2.35At 2 locations day

9.3.2.1 Furnish 4" PVC Drain Pipe 30.00LF $5.00 $150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 locations of daylight out width LOW,estimated at 15LF each location

9.3.2.2 Excavate for Drain Pipe 18.00CY $97.31 $1,751.61 0.70 12.60 0.04 0.79

9.3.2.3 Install Drain Pipe 30.00LF $58.52 $1,755.69 0.34 10.29 0.02 0.64

9.3.2.4 Furnish Class 2 AB as backfill 36.00Ton $3.00 $108.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Density of AB = 1.7Tons/cy
Take off - 18cy
Weight of AB = 18x1.7 = 31Ton

Add 15% waste =36Ton

9.3.2.5 Haul Class 2 AB 6.00HR $125.00 $750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $125/hr per truck
Assume 36Tons/20Ton per truck =2trips
Assume 3hrs per trip, therefore 6hrs

9.3.2.6 Backfill & Compact Drainage 18.00CY $228.61 $4,114.94 1.48 26.67 0.04 0.67 3cy per trip, total 20 trips

1.5 trips/hr; 9 trips/day

9.3.2.7 Remove and replace temp fencing 1.00Each $553.86 $553.86 4.00 4.00 0.25 0.25

9.3.2.7.1 Labor 2.00Each $191.93 $383.86 2.00 4.00 0.13 0.25

0.1MH/LF, assuming 20LF of fence to be removed and replaced at each location = 2MH

9.3.2.7.2 Fence materials 40.00LF $4.25 $170.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials
1 x Fence Post = $14
1LF of fence - $2.76

Every locaƟon needs 2 x fence post and minimal 20LF of fence = $85/locaƟon

9.4 RW39 1.00Each $3,981.28 $3,981.28 26.36 26.36 1.65 1.65

9.4.1 Lateral tie in Drainage 1.00Each $3,981.28 $3,981.28 26.36 26.36 1.65 1.65Parallel tie in connections @ sta 94 & sta 95

9.4.1.1 Furnish 4" PVC Drain Pipe 20.00LF $5.00 $100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Around 20LF tie in connection

9.4.1.2 Excavate for Drain Pipe 15.00CY $180.72 $2,710.82 1.30 19.50 0.08 1.22

9.4.1.3 Install Drain Pipe 20.00LF $58.52 $1,170.46 0.34 6.86 0.02 0.43

9.5 Additional block works 1.00Each $62,127.14 $62,127.14 608.69 608.69 16.29 16.29

9.5.1 Rework of blocks (drain rock movement) 2,487.00LF $3.92 $9,744.35 0.04 99.48 0.00 3.11 Due to change of drain rock location, during placement, this may affect the movement of blocks. Additional crew hours to rework.

Previously, drain rock is at base layer before 1st course of block. No impact to block movement.

Total of 2487LF of new MSE backfill affected
Note: This was renegotiated on 11/23/2021 at agreed cost of $9,744.35.

9.5.2 Placement of Blocks Production Impact 2,487.00LF $20.60 $51,231.21 0.20 497.21 0.00 12.43 Start - Stop (Disruption) of Block Work - contract versus change. i.e. start, stop for LCC Pour in between - change of bid means and method. Does not allow Contractor to build wall all in one go.

SCCI planned production is est. 1MH/LF, factor of 20% is assumed on start stop impact of crew (mob and demob)
Total 2487LF affected with new MSE backfill (RW01, RW02, RW04); 2487MH 20%=497MH

9.5.3 Notch blocks for daylighting 12.00EA $95.96 $1,151.58 1.00 12.00 0.06 0.75 Assume 2MH/locaƟon for block notch

12 locations throughout RW01 (x2), RW02 (x8), RW04 (x2) needed notch

9.6 Labor Escalation 2,378.00HR $2.59 $6,159.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Carpenter - $2.87 (2021);
Cement - $2.45 (2021)
Laborer -$1.95 (2021)
OE-$2.80 (2021)
PD-$2.87(2021);

Average increase = $2.59/MH (2021)

9.7 Drainage Materials 1.00Each $7,500.00 $7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300

9.7.1 Drainage Materials 1.00LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Drainage ST&S is estimated at around $20/LF (from previous estimation RFQ 018), therefore 340LF = $6800

Plus delivery and tax

9.8 Construction Support 1.00Each $14,277.17 $14,277.17 80.00 80.00 5.00 5.00

9.8.1 Traffic control & Flagging 80.00Man-Hours $95.96 $7,677.17 1.00 80.00 0.06 5.00 AddiƟonal AB + Drain Rock Placement = 177hrs /3hrs = 59trips

Assume 6 trips per day/6 truck load per day = 10 days

Traffic control & flagging for 10 days (averagely 4hrs per day for 2 crew)

9.8.2 Street Sweeping 40.00HR $165.00 $6,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AddiƟonal AB + Drain Rock Placement = 177hrs /3hrs = 59trips

Assume 6 trips per day = 10 days

Street sweep - Min. 4hrs per day of hauling = 40hrs

9.9 Credit on Drainage (decrease in drains) 1.00LS -$22,800.00 -$22,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total cost for drainage (out with LOW - RFI#46) = $54,718.50. This is for 12 drainage locaƟons throughout RW01, RW02, RW04.

Cost/locaƟon = $4,560

Credit on 5 less drains = -$22,800
RW01 - 1 less drain
RW02 - 1 less drain
RW04 - 3 less drains
301
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description
144950 A PLUS TREE INC TREE SERVICES
144951 ADVANCED ADBAG PACKAGING INC. BIODEGRABLE DOGGIE BAGS 144952 ALBERT ENTERPRISES LLC MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS & SUPPLIES - VEHICLE

PROGRAM
144953 ALL PURPOSE TRAINING SOLUTIONS MOBILE CRANE OPERATOR TRAINING 144954 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES INC. LAGOON WATER QUALITY TEST 144955 AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORP MYPAYSTUB ONLINE PAYROLL SERVICES - NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2021
144956 ANIMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT, INC. GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
144957 APPLIANCE PARTS DISTRIBUTORS (DBA) REPAIRS SERVICES - 633 COMET DRIVE 144958 AT&T BUSINESS PHONE LINE ACCCOUNT - DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY 2022
144959 AT&T MOBILITY POLICE CARS CELLULAR SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY 2022
144960 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #18 144961 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #9 144962 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #29 144963 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #10 144964 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #15 144965 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #12 144966 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT TO OPERATE FEE - LIFT STATION #1 144967 BAY AREA COMMUNICATION ACCESS SIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
144968 BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES SEWER PROGRAM 144969 BKF ENGINEERS CIP637 - ROAD IMPROVEMENT
144970 BURR PLUMBING & PUMPING INC. GREASE TRAP MAINTENANCE - DECEMBER 2021 144971 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC STREET LIGHTS REPAIRS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL

MAINTENANCE SERVICES
432.00
938.04
164.56
19,324.52
120.00
416.00
435.00
422.00
424.00
382.00
413.00
363.70
350.00
146.25
788.00
567.47
1,480.04
2,254.92
5,815.00
Check Amount
900.00
2,170.00
803.91
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
Check Date
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
302
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description Check AmountCheck Date 144972 CHAO ZHANG PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
144973 CHEMSEARCH ECOFLOW BIOAMP PROGRAM
144974 XI CHEN SYNTHETIC TRUF REBATE
144975 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORM/LAUNDRY SERVICES - JANUARY 2022 144976 CLARK PEST CONTROL PEST AWAY SERVICE FOR PARKS
144977 CONCERN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVICES - JANUARY 2022 TO DECEMBER 2022
144978 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES INC. STREET CLEANING SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 144979 CORE & MAIN LP MISCELLANEOUS IRRIGATION PARTS AND SUPPLIES - PARKS
144980 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC OFF-SITE RECORDS STORAGE 144981 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 144982 CREST/GOOD MANUFACTURING CO. INC PLUMBING SUPPLIES 144983 CSG CONSULTANTS INC. STAFF AUGMENTATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
144984 ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS INC IMPACT FEE STUDY/ANALYSIS SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
144985 EILEEN SHAINE RELEASE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS FOR WRITER

CONTEST TO COMMITTEE DESIGNEE
144986 ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. CIP652 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 144987 EOA, INC. CONSULTING SERVICES - OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2021 144988 EPS INC. PLUMBING SERVICES - JANUARY 2022
144989 ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 144990 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES PARK PROGRAM 144991 FIREMASTER KITCHEN HOOD & DUST SYSTEM
144992 FLYERS ENERGY LLC GAS
144993 FORELAND PARTS INC. AUTO PARTS
144994 FOSTER CITY MARINA CENTER LLC PLAN DEPOSIT REFUND 195.34
1,520.21
3,257.36
6,000.00
269.53
1,696.50
516.45
864.65

61.44 187.00
4,080.67

99.30 712.54
19,981.00
4,800.00
836.74
432.40
1,668.00
3,786.56
8,608.17
9,550.00
186.00
844.00
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
303
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description Check AmountCheck Date 144995 GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INC CAR WASH SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 144996 GOOD CITY CO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
144997 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY AUTO PARTS
144998 HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES INC HIP MANAGEMENT FEE - DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY 2022
144999 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES SEWER PROGRAM 145000 HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS CIP636 - WATER IMPROVEMENT 145001 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC GILEAD INSPECTION SERVICES - OCTOBER 2021 145002 JAMES ECHEVERRIA VISION REIMBURSEMENT - J ECHEVERRIA 145003 JAY'S TOWING SERVICE LLC TOWING SERVICES - JANUARY 2022 145004 JIMMY WONG PARK DEPOSIT REFUND
145005 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES - JANUARY 2022 145006 KELLY HAWKINS VISION REIMBURSEMENT - K HAWKINS
145007 LAW ENFORCEMENT PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS
145008 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEMBERSHIP DUES 2022 145009 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE LEGAL SERVICES - OCTOBER 2021 145010 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 145011 MC MECHANICAL HEATER REPAIRS SERVICES - 398 CHESAPEAKE 145012 MCMASTER-CARR MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES SEWER PROGRAM 145013 MGT OF AMERICA LLC FEMA - COVID-19 DISASTER EVENT COST RECOVERY

SERVICES - CITY
145014 MGT OF AMERICA LLC FEMA - COVID-19 DISASTER EVENT COST RECOVERY

SERVICES - SMC FIRE
145015 MISSION CLOUD SERVICES, INC CALOPPS WEBSITE HOSTING SERVICES: MONITORING &

ALERT RESPONSE, BACKUPS, PATCHING, AND
MAINTENANCE - DECEMBER 2021
145016 MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES - JANUARY 2022 145017 NATIONAL STORMWATER CENTER STORMWATER INSPECTOR COURSE - PUBLIC WORKS 1,548.00 399.58
15,558.90
260.00
67,000.00
112.50
1,500.00
7,350.00

25.33 884.00
1,545.00

95.00 100.00
1,200.00

95.00 3,988.79
2,760.00
4,347.77
200.00
6,760.00
1,715.00
12,841.25
116.87
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
304
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description Check AmountCheck Date 145018 NBC SUPPLY CORP PARKS SAFETY SUPPLIES
145019 NICOLE SAND POST TRAINING - N SAND
145020 NORTH PENINSULA JEWISH CAMPUS LAND PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 145021 NWESTCO LLC UST OPERATOR INSPECTION
145022 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES
145023 PACE GLASS COMPANY WINDOW REPAIRS
145024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ELECTRICITY AND GAS - DECEMBER 2021 145025 PARTNERS IN RECOGNITION VETERANS HONOR PLATES
145026 PENINSULA TELEVISION INC. VIDEO TECHNICIAN SERVICES - OCTOBER 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 2021
145027 PERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM INSURANCE PREMIUM - JANUARY 2022 145028 PIONEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - PLAYFIELDS 145029 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT POSTAGE
145030 PREFERRED ALLIANCE "DOT"COMPLIANCE EXPENSE - DECEMBER 2021 145031 PRIORITY 1 REMOVING ALL EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT FROM OLD PATROL #8
145032 PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP PARK RENTAL FEE REFUND
145033 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY TOWEL/UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY 2022
145034 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE DRINKING WATER
145035 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES (RGS) LEVEE PROJECT SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 145036 RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP, LLP LOBBYING SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 145037 RICOH USA, INC COPIER SERVICES - JANUARY 2022
145038 SFPUC - WATER WATER - DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY 2022 145039 SAN MATEO CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FUEL STORAGE
145040 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO CLETS ACCESS - DECEMBER 2021 145041 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES VEHICLE PROGRAM 145042 SANDRINA SCAGLIOLA CASTRO VISION REIMBURSEMENT - S CASTRO 216.27
246.76
2,969.00
200.00
10,800.00

62.94 224.34
544,606.50
350.35
4,000.00
3,000.00
300.79
134.83
175.00
600.00
221.76
947.97
867.83
190.00
6,950.00

72.15 1,201.57
1,498.50
1,342.20
1,135.32
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
305
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description Check AmountCheck Date 145043 SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING FOSTER CITY LANTERN COVE DESIGN REVIEW SERVICES - JANUARY 2022
145044 SERVICE PRESS INC. BUSINESS CARD - CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT AND

CITY COUNCIL
145045 SHUMS CODA ASSOCIATES, INC GILEAD INSPECTION SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021 145046 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT OFFICE SUPPLIES
145047 STARBURST CONSTRUCTION C&D DEPOSIT REFUND - 957 CRANE AVENUE 145048 CALTRANS - DISTRICT 4 CIP657 - EQUIPMENT STORAGE RENTAL FEE - FEBRUARY 2022
145049 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINTING SERVICES
145050 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WATER SYSTEM ANNUAL PERMIT FEE AND ANNUAL

CONNECTION FEES
145051 SUMMIT AUTO BODY & PAINTING AUTO REPAIR SERVICES 145052 SUPERION, LLC NAVILINE ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION AND TRAKIT ANNUAL

MAINTENANCE SERVICES
145053 T.H.E. OFFICE CITY OFFICE SUPPLIES
145054 T-MOBILE CELLULAR SERVICES - DECEMBER 2021
145055 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINRNG ASSC RADIO EQUIPMENT FEES - JANUARY 2022 145056 THE EDCCO GROUP, INC. WATER PUMP STATION REPAIR
145057 THE HOME DEPOT PRO JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
145058 TIFCO INDUSTRIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES VEHICLE PROGRAM 145059 TOWNE FORD SALES AUTO PARTS
145060 TRACY AVELAR EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT - T AVELAR
145061 TRAFFICCAST INTERNATIONAL INC ANNUAL SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION 145062 TREASURE ISLE HOA SMART CONTROLLER REBATE
145063 TRI-VALLEY MOTO MOTORCYCLE PARTS
145064 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES VEHICLE PROGRAM 145065 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC INTERNET SERVICES JANUARY 2022 145066 VALLEY OIL CO. GAS
2,446.77
743.56
368.51
29,735.57
746.74
869.13
2,456.70
600.00
3,580.00
573.24
891.33
41,278.93
1,097.09
464.13
1,978.00
2,737.65
1,000.00
392.11
1,100.00
38,663.60
164.00
200.00
118.12
1,512.00
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
306
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/8
Report Number 21
Check Number Vendor Name Description Check AmountCheck Date 145067 VAULT ACCESS SOLUTIONS & VAULT LID REPLACEMENT
145068 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
145069 VISA INC. PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
145070 VOIANCE LANGUAGE SERVICES,LLC TRANSLATION SERVICES 145071 WE GO LOGO WORK UNIFORMS - MAINTENANCE STAFF
145072 WILSEY HAM CIP657 - LEVEE PROTECTION
145073 YIMBING CHAN CLASS REFUND - LINE DANCING #1
145074 4LEAF, INC. PLANNING TECHNICIAN SERVICES THROUGH DECEMBER 2021
145075 950 EL CAMINO REAL LP RENT SUBSIDY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT - FEBRUARY THROUGH APRIL 2022
982,347.02
2,530.83

85.47 623.00
2,289.09
8,875.00
1/31/2022 1,933.11
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON JANUARY 31, 2022 1/31/2022 4,572.00
1/31/2022 40.00
1/31/2022 5,700.00
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
1/31/2022
307
Prepared Date 01/31/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/7
Report Number 21A
ACH Date ACH Vendor Name Description
1/31/2022 ACH CAFÉ SAVINI STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 50.00
1/31/2022 ACH CHOLA LLC STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 60.00
1/31/2022 ACH GOBI GROUP INC STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 70.00 1/31/2022 ACH KENTA RAMEN STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 80.00
1/31/2022 ACH OTAKE INC STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 90.00
1/31/2022 ACH PENELOPES COFFEE STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 230.00 1/31/2022 ACH PLAZA GOURMET STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 10.00 1/31/2022 ACH SANDWICH MONKEY STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 40.00 1/31/2022 ACH THE WAREHOUSE BUFFET STAMP REWARD VOUCHERS 20.00 650.00
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
ACH ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED ON JANUARY 31, 2022
Amount
308
Prepared Date 01/25/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/7
Report Number 21B
ACH Date ACH Vendor Name Description
1/25/2022 ACH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM (CalPERS)
2022 REPLACEMENT BENEFIT

CONTRIBUTION - SAMI GHOSSAIN
4,168.56
4,168.56
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
ACH ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED ON JANUARY 25, 2022
Amount
309