Foster City City Council
July 18, 2022

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 actions 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)
• 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 $10,000 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 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 Ongoing
408

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) • 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) • 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]
• 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 small business 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 06/21/21 409

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 Resolution 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

410

DATE: July 18, 2022

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

VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager

FROM: Edmund Suen, Finance Director
Fiti Rusli, Assistant Finance Director

SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council/District Board hold a public hearing, and then adopt the attached resolutions establishing the appropriations limit for FY 2022-2023.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The original Article XIIIB (Proposition 4), known as the "Gann Limit" Initiative, and its implementing legislation were modified by Proposition 111. Beginning with FY 1990-1991, the law provides the local agency an option to calculate the adjustment factors by the following:
 Inflation – either the percentage change in the California Per Capita Income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the addition of local non-residential new construction.
411
 Population – either the City’s own population growth or the population growth of the entire County.

The adjustments used for FY 2022-2023 are the percentage change in California Per Capita Income and the City’s population growth, both of which were published by the California Department of Finance in May 2022.

Staff has applied the adjustment factors in accordance with Proposition 111 to calculate the FY 2022-2023 limit. Based on the current annual adjustment factors, the City and District are well within the appropriations limit.

BACKGROUND

Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative) was voted upon by the voters in the November 6, 1979 Special Election, which added Article XIIIB to the State Constitution.

Subsequent legislation added Section 7900 et seq. to the Government Code which provided additional interpretation and instructions implementing Proposition 4. The combined effect of the legislation restricts the growth of appropriations enacted by local governments in their annual budgets and subsequent adjustments to basic factors which relate to inflation and population growth. These factors are provided annually by the California Department of Finance.

In June 1990, Proposition 111 was approved by the voters which, among other things, revised the spending limit calculations for state and local governments effective July 1, 1990. The base year for determining an agency’s limit was set as FY 1986-1987. After that, the appropriations limit for an agency is the limit adopted in FY 1986-1987, as subsequently adjusted by the Proposition 111 adjustment factors. Agencies are able to adjust their limit annually by either the change in the California Per Capita Personal Income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the addition of local non-residential new construction. A second adjustment factor is based upon population growth, which is the annual change in population of the City’s own growth or the population growth of the entire County.

ANALYSIS
The growth factors used in the calculation for FY 2022-2023 are as follows:
412
1) Change in California Per Capita Personal Income, January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021: 7.55%
2) Population Growth in Foster City: -0.81%
The resulting combined growth rate is 6.68%, as calculated by multiplying the Change in California Per Capita Personal Income and the Foster City population growth rate.

Using the methodology for calculating the appropriations limit in accordance with Proposition 111, the following chart shows the appropriation bases and the appropriation growth factors to establish the appropriations limit for FY 2022-2023.

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS - FY 2022-2023 (BY

AGENCY)

CITY DISTRICT TOTAL

FY 2021-2022 Appropriations Limit $77,974,453 $73,033,805 $151,008,258

FY 2022 -2023 Growth Factor 6.68% 6.68% 6.68%

FY 2022-2023 Appropriations Limit $83,183,146 $77,912,463 $161,095,609

FY 2022-2023 Appropriations
Subject to Limit
$24,762,180 $23,193,188 $47,955,368

Dollar amount under limit $58,420,966 $54,719,275 $113,140,241

Percentage of limit 29.77% 29.77% 29.77%

The total appropriations subject to the Gann Limit are calculated as the total of all appropriated expenditures in the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds 413
and the City CIP Fund, less all revenue sources that are not considered general tax proceeds (e.g. permits, recreation programs, rental income).

As required by law, the information used to calculate these limits is available in the Financial Services Department, which will allow the public to determine the validity and basis for the appropriations limit recommended for adoption.

Accordingly, the City Council/District Board is requested to hold a public hearing on these limits this evening and, subject to any public testimony received, adopt the attached resolutions to approve the appropriations limit specified herein.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no budget impact on establishing the FY 2022-2023 Appropriations Limit.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA

This item is in alignment with the City Council's Vision Statement for a Sustainable Foster City under the economic sustainability framework.

Attachments:
 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
414
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF

THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, voters of California have approved Propositions 4 and 111 which place various limitations on the appropriations of local government; and WHEREAS, said Article XIIIB of the California Constitution requires the governing body of each agency to adopt an appropriations limitation for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director, pursuant to Article XIIIB and enacted legislation, has duly computed said appropriations limitation for FY 2022-2023 and submitted same to the City Council for review and public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and posted and said public hearing was held on July 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2022-2023 appropriations limit is the percentage change in California Per Capita Personal Income; and WHEREAS, the population adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2022-2023 appropriations limit is the change in population growth for Foster City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Foster City that the amount of $83,183,146 is hereby adopted as the City’s appropriations limitation for FY 2022-2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the Regular Meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
415
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, voters of California have approved Propositions 4 and 111 which place various limitations on the appropriations of local government; and WHEREAS, said Article XIIIB of the California Constitution requires the governing body of each agency to adopt an appropriations limitation for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director, pursuant to Article XIIIB and enacted legislation, has duly computed said appropriations limitation for FY 2022-2023 and submitted same to the District Board for review and public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and posted and said public hearing was held on July 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2022-2023 appropriations limit is the percentage change in California Per capita Personal Income; and WHEREAS, the population adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2022-2023 appropriations limit is the change in population growth for Foster City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District that the amount of $77,912,463 is hereby adopted as the District’s appropriations limitation for FY 2022-2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the Regular Meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
416

DATE: July 18, 2022

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

VIA: Stefan Chatwin, District Manager

FROM: Louis Sun, Public Works Director
Allen Smith, Public Works Maintenance Manager

SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE

DECLARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY AND
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.60, “WATER
CONSERVATION AND RATIONING” OF THE ESTERO

MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CODE, AMENDING

THE MASTER CITY/DISTRICT FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES
SCHEDULE FOR FY 2022-2023 TO INCLUDE SAID FINES AND

ESTABLISHING THE APPEALS BOARD PURSUANT TO
SECTION 8.60.090

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board of Directors hold a public hearing, and then adopt a resolution establishing fines for violations of the Declaration of Water Shortage Emergency and certain provisions of Chapter 8.60, “Water Conservation and Rationing” of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Code, amending the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2022-2023 to include said fines and establishing the Appeals Board pursuant to section 8.60.090.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 6, 2022, the EMID Board adopted Resolution No. 3654 declaring a 417
water shortage emergency and authorizing the implementation of water conservation measures in Section 8.60-.050 A, B, C, D, E, F, and L of the District Code. However, since there was not sufficient time to notice a public hearing, there is currently no enforcement mechanism in place.

Penalties allowed in Section 8.60.070 Sub-section D. and E.1-E.3 of the District Code are appropriate to compel compliance as needed. A public hearing notice has been published and it is recommended that the EMID Board enact fines for violations as follows:

1. A charge of $100 shall be paid prior to reactivating water service;

2. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;

3. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation;

4. A fine not exceeding $500 for a third or any subsequent violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

Finally, an Appeals Board comprised of the District Manager, Finance Director, and the District President or their designees will need to be prepared to convene in response to any appeal of violations.

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2021, May 10, 2021, July 8, 2021, and October 19, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed states of emergency that are ongoing due to extreme and expanding drought conditions statewide. On March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-7-22, which called for all Californians to continue to prioritize voluntary conservation and directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to consider adopting emergency water conservation regulations requiring urban water suppliers to implement, at a minimum, the shortage response actions adopted under section 10632 of the Water Code for a shortage level of up to twenty percent (20%) (Level 2).

On May 24, 2022, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2022-0018, approving the Emergency Regulation (Attachment 2) that requires urban water suppliers, such as EMID, to implement by June 10, 2022, at a minimum, the demand reduction actions identified in its water shortage contingency plan for a shortage level of ten to twenty percent (Level 2). The City/District adopted its water shortage contingency plan in July 2021 as part of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
418

On June 6, 2022, the EMID Board adopted Resolution No. 3654 declaring a water shortage emergency and authorizing the implementation of water conservation measures in Section 8.60-.050 A, B, C, D, E, F, and L of the District Code.

ANALYSIS

Adoption of Resolution No. 3654 established the Level 0, 1, and 2 water demand reduction actions that are required by the SWRCB and additional staff recommended restrictions until the EMID Board determines that the State of Emergency no longer exists.

Since June 5, 2022, staff has been developing and has begun to implement a public information campaign about the new water use restrictions. However, there is currently no enforcement mechanism in place, since there was not sufficient time to notice a public hearing prior to the SWRCB deadline to implement Level 2 demand management actions.

Staff recommends implementing fines as an enforcement mechanism for water conservation. While education and information will continue to be a first priority and preferred action, staff believes that penalties allowed in Section

8.60.070 Sub-section D. and E.1-E.3 of the District Code are appropriate to compel compliance as needed. Recommended fines are as follows:

1. A charge of $100 shall be paid prior to reactivating water service;

2. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;

3. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation;

4. A fine not exceeding $500 for a third or any subsequent violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

These fine amounts are identical to the fines adopted by the EMID Board under the last water emergency declaration in 2014 and currently appear as Reference No. PWWA-07 “Water Conservation Measures Violation” in the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule. They can be activated by amending the City/District Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2022-2023.

With the enforcement in place, it is likely that the Appeals Board will need to 419
be prepared to convene as needed to issue waivers and/or to arbitrate the appeal of violations. Per Section 8.60.090 A of the District Code, “An appeals board shall be established that is comprised of the district manager, finance director and the district president or their designees.” Through the District Manager, the Public Works Director shall request that the Appeals Board convene at such time as there is a decision that requires Appeals Board consideration. The proposed resolution would establish the Appeals Board.

FISCAL IMPACT

The primary cost to EMID is staff time for education and enforcement. There may be some revenue from the collection of fines, but the amount is unknown at this time.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREAS

This item is in alignment with the "Innovation and Sustainability" Value/Priority Area, since it addresses the conservation of water, an essential natural resource.

Attachment:
 Attachment 1 – Resolution
420
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE

DECLARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.60, “WATER CONSERVATION AND RATIONING” OF THE ESTERO

MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CODE, AMENDING THE MASTER CITY/DISTRICT FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES SCHEDULE FOR FY 2022-2023 TO

INCLUDE SAID FINES AND ESTABLISHING THE APPEALS BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 8.60.090

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, May 10, 2021, July 8, 2021, and October 19, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed states of emergency that are ongoing due to extreme and expanding drought conditions statewide; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-7- 22, which called for all Californians to continue to prioritize voluntary conservation and directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to consider adopting emergency water conservation regulations requiring urban water suppliers to implement, at a minimum, the shortage response actions adopted under section 10632 of the Water Code for a shortage level of up to twenty percent (Level 2); and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the SWRCB adopted an Emergency Regulation requiring urban water suppliers to implement, at a minimum, the demand reduction actions identified in their water shortage contingency plans for a shortage level of ten to twenty percent (Level 2); and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) adopted Resolution No. 3654, declaring that a water shortage emergency condition exists and implemented water conservation measures as outlined in Sections 8.60.050 A, B, C, D, E, F and L of the District Code necessary to address the drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, because of the proclaimed state of emergency due to extreme drought conditions of the State of California there is a need to establish methods to identify, discourage and in some cases penalize excessive water use in order to reduce the quantity of discretionary water use to ensure that there is sufficient water for non- discretionary needs; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the Board of Directors establish fines for violations of the water conservation measures in Section 8.60.050 A, B, C, D, E, F, and L of the District Code per Section 8.60.070 Sub-section D. and E.1-E.3 of the District 421
Code and amend the City/District Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2022-2023; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing has been published and posted in accordance with the law and said public hearing was held on July 18, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District that it does hereby:

1.Find and determine that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2.Establish fines per Section 8.60.070 Sub-section D and E.1-E.3 of the District Code as necessary to address the drought conditions as follows:

1. A charge of $100 shall be paid prior to reactivating water service;

2. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;

3. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation; and

4. A fine not exceeding $500 for a third or any subsequent violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

3.Amend the City/District Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2022-2023 to be identified as “Water Conservation” fines as follows:

1.A charge of $100 shall be paid prior to reactivating water service;

2.A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;

3.A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation; and

4.A fine not exceeding $500 for a third or any subsequent violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

4.Establish the Appeals Board identified in District Code 8.60.090, comprised of the District Manager, Finance Director and the District President or their designee, to hear appeals in accordance with the District Code. 422
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
423

DATE: July 18, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Frank Fanara, Parks Manager

SUBJECT: CANADA GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
UPDATE – PROGRESS ON MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND

PERMITS

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the staff report on geese population management and provide policy direction on proposed mitigation strategies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received concerns about the number of Canada geese and the excrement they leave on Foster City beaches, playfields, parks, and walkways, creating a potential public health hazard and diminishing the community's ability to enjoy outdoor recreational amenities. Heavy concentrations of goose droppings contain bacteria that can degrade the water quality of the lagoon and make the City’s beaches unsafe.

In November 2021, the City Council directed staff via Minute Order No. 1816 to move forward with the Foster City Canada Goose Population Management Plan (Attachment 1), which outlines strategies for population reduction and provides a guide for City staff and members of the public to address Canada goose removal if necessary. Together with the City’s Lagoon Management 424
Plan, the City aims to improve the water quality of the lagoon while maintaining a naturally sustainable number of geese, which will reduce the risk to human health, safety, and enjoyment of the City’s parks.

As part of the Canada Goose Population Management Plan, the City began the process of obtaining the necessary permits for depredation of the geese while continuing to deploy other non-lethal geese population mitigation strategies. The City was issued a permit (Form 37) from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for depredation of the geese, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) was prepared to issue permit 3-200-13 Migratory Bird Depredation, but staff delayed finalizing until a contractor was identified to provide the depredation service.

Recently, the City’s applying for a depredation permit gained national attention from multiple media outlets and animal rights groups. As a result of the media coverage, the City began to see an increased volume of phone calls, emails, and sales calls regarding its goose population. The City has received numerous calls from citizens who are in opposition of depredation, which led to protests at both the Recreation Center and City Hall.

This report is an informational update on the progress to-date for the Canada Goose Population Management Plan, more specifically, on the depredation permitting process and staff research into other non-lethal geese population mitigation strategies. Staff is seeking input on these strategies as well as policy direction on the completion of the geese depredation permit process with the USFWS.

BACKGROUND

The Canda goose is an abundant goose found throughout North America. Like most geese, the Canada Goose is normally a migratory species which is often found near freshwater and lagoons. In the early 20th century, overhunting had seriously reduced the population and the species was under threat of extinction. The USDA began to promote a program to help the Canada Goose recover its population. The program was extremely successful and the population in certain areas has grown substantially. Canada geese are extremely adaptable and have found success breeding in urban environments which present few predators and abundant food sources. As a result, large flocks of geese have taken permanent residence in urban environments such as Foster City.

425
For years, the City has tried to maintain a sustainable number of geese as part of the City’s overall strategy to improve the water quality of the lagoon and to maintain safe and enjoyable recreational amenities. Yet, the City’s goose population continues to increase while water quality remains poor. On June 22, 2022, Heal the Bay released its Annual Beach Card and “Beach Bummers” list, and two of the state’s top ten polluted beaches identified are in Foster City (Erckenbrack Park and Marlin Park). This was similar to last year, when three Foster City beaches (Erckenbrack Park, Marlin Park, and Gull Park) were on the list. The beaches landed in the top 10 with grades of (F) based on factors such as fecal indicator bacteria which indicates a presence of a pathogen containing fecal matter in the water. Last year, the City conducted a Lagoon Monitoring Study to find the source of bacteria, and it was determined that it originated primarily from water birds (Attachment 2).

The latest goose population count for the local region (San Mateo to Redwood City) was taken in mid-June with an estimate of 1,081 geese compared to 951 geese in 2021, and 611 in 2020. City staff conducted two independent population counts in the month of June with the latest count of 379 geese in City parks, schools, and neighborhoods. Previous estimates include 323 geese in 2021 and 181 in 2020. The City has experimented with multiple management strategies in an effort to maintain an appropriate goose population with limited success, which are included in the table below.

Method Description Did it Work?
Dog Hazing Dogs were used to
harass and “stalk”
geese making them feel
less secure and
threatened.

Yes. This approach was
temporary and tends to
make geese relocate to
other properties.

Strobe Lights Currently there are two
strobe lights installed at
Ryan Park in an area
where Canada Goose
tend to loiter.

No noticeable
behavioral effects have
been noticed.

Fence Barriers Installation of fencing at
various parks to keep
geese from transitioning
from water to land.

Yes. Fairly effective
during the molting
season. Fencing is
expensive and detracts
from the aesthetics of
426

In 2021 and again in June 2022, staff updated its Canada Goose Management Plan (Attachment 1) which was a condition of the USFWS in issuing a depredation permit. The plan was approved by City Council via Minute Order No. 1800 on August 16, 2021. The management plan outlined numerous methods of controlling the goose population. Depredation of the geese is one of the methods that requires permits from both the USDA and USFWS. Staff worked with the USDA and submitted all required documentation for the permit (Form 37) and was issued the permit in November 2021. Once Form 37 was issued, it allowed staff to apply for Permit 3-200-13 Migratory Bird Depredation with the USFWS which allows for the culling of up to one hundred (100) geese. All documentation has been submitted and USFWS indicated they are prepared to approve the permit, but it has not been issued per staff request. Staff wanted to ensure this was the direction City Council wanted to pursue and that the City had a contractor in place to perform the depredation to avoid having the permit expire before efforts could be completed.

While City staff were working with the USDA during the permitting process, the USDA expressed interest in performing the depredation work. However, recently the City was informed that due to their workload capacity and increased media coverage, the USDA is no longer interested in providing depredation services for the City. As an alternative, USDA referred the City to Wildlife Innovations, Inc., a biological consulting firm that specializes in wildlife and predator management to support the recovery of threatened and endangered species, promote habitat restoration/maintenance, and reduce human/wildlife conflict. Wildlife Innovations has extensive experience working with wildlife all over California and provides a multitude of services including the parks.

Goose Deterrent Liquid geese repellent
that was applied to turf
making it unappealing
for the geese to feed on.

Yes. Results were
mixed and product had
low residual efficacy.

Egg Addling Multiple methods of
making Goose eggs
non-viable which results
in less eggs hatching
during the nesting
season.

Yes. Noticeable
reduction can take
several years due to 20-
year life expectancy of
geese.
427
depredation and relocation.

City staff have been in contact with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. regarding their services as well as researching several other resources that have been provided to staff since the rise in public attention.

ANALYSIS

Soon after the City received news from the USDA that they were not interested in performing depredation services for the City, staff reached out to Wildlife Innovations, Inc. but discovered their services came at a substantially higher cost compared to the estimate that the City received from the USDA for similar services. To date, staff has not identified another company or organization that performs depredation. Meanwhile, City staff began exploring various services and products as well as meeting with wildlife groups from around the country who have offered suggestions on how to live with the geese. Many of the suggestions have already been tried with limited impact on the geese behavior. Other products and services are now being researched by staff for their effectiveness and practicality. Staff has received estimates for several products and is in the process of checking references. Should any of the products or services prove to be effective, they will be added to the mitigation methods that are currently being practiced, and/or if there is a significant investment, staff will return to City Council with a recommendation and request for budget appropriation, if necessary.

Products and Services Currently Being Researched

Product Type of Product/Service Cost Appx.

Fowl Out Radio Controlled Predator -
can be used on land and
water, battery powered with
up to 20 minutes of run time
per battery, made of carbon
fiber.
$6,000.00
Tow And Collect Sweeper for turf areas (No
local vendors direct from
website only).
$7,915.50
428
Bird X Sonic Speaker-4 speaker
configured in a specific
manner that requires power
and wiring to each
speaker. Speakers will play
up to six (6) different goose
distress calls alerting geese
to a type of danger.
$1,779.34
Goosinator Radio Controlled Predator-
can be used on land and
water
$3,897.00
Geese Buster 2 weeks of mitigation using
radio-controlled hawk.

Vendor will come out and
work at various parks with
remote controlled hawk
which geese fear as a
natural predator.
$42,795.00
Hard Shell Labs Hazing the geese 24/7 with
low frequency lasers that will
irritate the geese. This is
new technology that has yet
to be proven. Regional effort
would be most effective with
this product.

Awaiting
Proposal
4 paws goose control Dog Hazing with up to 5
dogs simultaneously.

Awaiting
Proposal
Flock Free Water-based spray that
treats surfaces that have an
irritating effect on birds and
is invisible to humans.
$294.00 per
gallon
Wildlife Innovations Depredation - Culling of
geese for slaughter. This will
remove a significant portion
of the population and provide
a legitimate threat to the
$86,240.00
429
geese. The estimate is for
one season.

Wildlife Innovations Relocation - Trapping the
geese and relocating them to
a state-approved area. Will
require additional permits
and landowner approval. The
estimate is for one season.
$110,880.00
Bay Area Bots Use of an artificial
intelligence robot that would
patrol areas and provide
24/7 hazing of the
geese. The theory is the
constant hazing of the geese
will not allow them to eat or
sleep which will then make
geese look for a more
inviting area.

Pilot Program
Cost Estimate
$40,000.00
per year

Based on the information staff has been able to obtain on the above products and services, staff recommends the following while further research is conducted:

1. Flock Free is a water-based chemical that makes the areas where applied less appealing to geese. Flock Free has an effective residual of 3 weeks. Flock Free is used with a dye that is invisible to humans and which the geese will associate with unappealing food source.

2. Goosinator or Fowl Out are radio-controlled devices that would allow staff to haze the geese on both land and water. Both products operate via a propeller and are battery operated and can travel over most terrain. However, this product would require a significant amount of staff time to operate the radio-controlled device.

In addition, staff is working with startup company Bay Area Bots on a pilot project that would utilize robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technology to introduce a real nuisance and threat to the geese which over time may help to change the geese behavior and affect their grazing and travel patterns. The pilot would be conducted in Leo J. Ryan Park near the Vibe where the geese tend to be located.

430
If any of these strategies result in an effective deterrent, they could be implemented into the Canada Goose Management Plan as additional, non- lethal options.

Policy Question/Next Steps

Staff will continue to implement and research non-lethal strategies in addressing the geese population. Staff is seeking City Council direction on whether to continue to pursue the Migratory Bird Depredation Permit 3-200-13 that is issued by USFWS allowing for the culling or relocation of up to one hundred (100) geese. If the City Council directs staff to move forward with obtaining the permit from USFWS, staff will bring forward for City Council consideration an agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for culling or relocation services if no other vendor is identified.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and accepting this update.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA

The Canada Goose Population Management Plan is consistent with the City Council's Vision and Mission in that it aims to maintain a naturally sustainable level of resident geese in Foster City (and regionally) to minimize the risk to human health, safety, and enjoyment in City parks, thus enhancing the quality of place for current and future generations. Foster City is committed to maintaining a standard of excellence with regards to infrastructure, including streets, lagoon, levee, and parks, which is in alignment with the "Facilities and Infrastructure" Value/Priority Area.

Attachments:
 Attachment 1 - Foster City Canada Goose Population Management Plan (June 2022)
 Attachment 2 - Foster City Lagoon Monitoring Study
431

City of Foster City

CANADA GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Overview
In response to the rising concerns about the number of Canada goose and the excrement they leave on Foster City beaches, playfields, parks, and walkways, creating a potential public health hazard and diminishing the community's ability to safely enjoy outdoor recreational amenities, the Foster City Canada Goose Population Management Plan is a framework by which the City may respond to public safety issues and work towards reducing overpopulation of Canada Goose. This plan provides an update on actions taken to date and identifies the next steps towards mitigating the geese population in Foster City.

The plan outlines strategies for population reduction and also provides a guide for City staff and members of the public to address Canada goose removal if necessary. It should be noted that the purpose of this plan is to be a guiding document and as such, the techniques prescribed will only be implemented as needed.

Background and Past Efforts
Most regional surveys show that Canada goose numbers are either increasing or stable, but overall they are at unprecedented numbers due to overpopulation. In the City of Foster City, the increasing number of Canada Goose has led to increased conflict and concern among human residents.

To keep the goose population at appropriate levels, for many years the City has implemented several management tactics. Some of these techniques have been implemented independently, as well as in conjunction with others, all with varying degrees of success. The chart below provides a summary of measures attempted through the years.

PAST AND CURRENT EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GEESE POPULATION MANAGEMENT Method Description Did it Work?
Dog Hazing Dogs used to harass and 'stalk' geese
making them feel less secure from
predators.

Yes. This approach is temporary and tends
to push geese to other properties.

Strobe
Lights
Currently the City uses two strobe lights
that were strategically placed at Leo J.

Ryan Park.

No. No noticeable effects on the Goose
behavior and bothersome to public.

Egg
Addling
Keeping goose eggs from hatching
curtailing reproduction so fewer geese will
nest at a given site in the future.

Yes. Noticeable reduction in goose
population can take several years as geese
can live for upwards of 20 years.

Fence
Barriers
Installation of various fencing to deter
geese from entering water, limiting their
access.

Yes. Fairly effective, but time -intensive to
install and adjust as geese adapt, and
barriers detract from parks.

Goose
Deterrent
Liquid deterrents applied to lawn areas
that is repulsive to geese.

Yes. Minor effectiveness and mixed results
for a short-term basis, but strong odor.

Attachment 1
432

While control efforts, both in Foster City and throughout the region, have been extraordinary, the regional non- migratory goose populations continue to increase.

Concerns
Canada Goose present an inherent concern in that they may cause damage to City areas as a result of overgrazing turf grass and landscaping, excessive bird- fecal accumulations, aggressive nesting behavior towards the public, and human health and safety hazards (i.e., disease transmission, traffic hazards when geese cross roads).

The majority of complaints with Canada Goose involve accumulations of feces on lawns and walkways at homes, schools, and public parks, compromising the overall quality of life, and hav ing the potential to pose serious health threats due to the presence of disease-causing organisms.

Due to their inefficient digestive systems, grazing habits and molting patterns, geese do pose a risk to human health and safety. Canada Goose and their fecal matter can cause a deterioration in water quality in the City’s surrounding water bodies (i.e., lagoon and beaches).

1.1 General Health and Avian Influenza Risks
Potential health risks posed by the abundant droppings of the Canada goose are a relatively untouched area of study as the urban goose concentrations are a relatively new phenomenon. Locally, high bacteria levels partly attributed to goose droppings have been identified in the Foster City lagoon and beach areas . Since 2017, these findings have resulted in mandatory beach closures after analysis of water samples for beaches at Erckenbrack Park, Marlin Park, and Gull Park.

Due to the fact that it is possible to contract disease from goose fecal matter, there are general recommendations for areas where these droppings may be present.

1. Wash hands, clothes and sports equipment immediately after exposure

2. Small children, pregnant women or immune- compromised individuals should avoid areas with high concentrations of droppings

3. Small children who may put hands in their mouths should not be placed in contact with these areas Currently there is also concern with a potential pandemic threat of avian influenza (otherwise known as bird flu or the H5N1 virus). At present, there appears to be three likely scenarios for bird flu. From best to worst they are:

1. The virus will loose it s virulence and while still spreading be less of a threat to humans and birds. This is hypothetical, based on changes between influenza strains found in the past and current flu outbreaks.

2. The virus will remain as it is and be spread widely by migratory bir ds. Management of bird/bird and bird/human contacts is and will continue to be required to follow the spread of the virus.

3. The virus will mutate and be transmitted human to human. This could produce a worldwide pandemic and would need to be addressed by the development of effective rapid quarantine methods and production of a vaccine.

1.2 Addressing Water Quality Impacts and Sampling
The City of Foster City, as a component of its Lagoon Management Plan, will contract with a lagoon water management company to help understand the best methods to reduce the bacteria levels in the lagoon. This can be achieved by several different methods including: chemical, mechanical, outreach programs, and wildlife population control. Additionally, lagoon water testing otherwise known as the “ Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) Monitoring Program” will continue (at least through March 2022) to provide a baseline data set that will assist in investigating sources of bacteria to Foster City Lagoon and the seasonal variability in such sources. Sampling will also help confirm data collected by County Environmental Health Services (EHS.)

433

Recommendations
The most effective strategy for alleviating resident Canada goose conflicts is an integrated mitigation plan to reduce the overall local population of geese. This involves curtailing reproduction, site aversion, and habitat modification to discourage and/or limit the number of birds in certain areas. Throughout the year an integrated goose program may include a combination of tactics.

2.1 Goals and Measures
The Foster City Canada Goose Population Management Plan is meant to target specific areas, where public health, safety, and property damage are at risk due to increased populations. The City’s goal is to systematically work on these aspects to help address these issues.

Staff has identified three goals for implementing a Canada goose management program.

1. The primary goal is to focus annually on the open, green space and water areas in the City of Foster City to reduce the Canada goose population and address community concerns.

2. The second goal is to evaluate and develop strategies annually that employ both short-term and long-term methods, such as creating physical barriers that deter geese from loafing on property and addling eggs to curtail reproduction.

3. The final goal will be to support other community public and private property owners to develop plans and implement processes of their own to reduce the number of Canada Goose on property not owned by the City of Foster City.

Effective geese management plans generally follow a seasonal timeline, and therefore, the C ity of Foster City will generally implement this plan during the spring, summer, and fall seasons.

2.2 Management Techniques
The options for Canada goose management are varied in type and meeting the goals as outlined will require the implementation of a broad set of techniques. Any one management strategy used alone will likely be ineffective for any significant length of time, since tolerance and habituation will likely occur. As a result, City staff will implement the use of an integrated management approach, where a number of techniques are applied in varying ways at unique times and locations. Staff understands that future reduction plans may require new management strategies that require adjustments or improvements.

2.3 Population Reduction
Nesting Management
Annual nest search and treatment will be conducted in localized areas. The areas to be searched and treated include suitable nesting habitat immediately adjacent to water body areas. Nest searches and treatment protocol will follow methods prescribed by the required U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service permits. Permit conditions will be followed and reporting will be conducted on an annual basis. To facil itate future nest searches, the City of Foster City will continue to collaborate with the neighboring cities in an egg-addling effort.

Over the years, a regional contractor has addled thousands of eggs located at Bair Island, which generally won’t make a noticeable impact in the population until a span of 20 years.

Removal and Disposition
Capture and removal of flightless, mixed age groups of geese during the spring/summer flightless period is an effective way to reduce localized population of geese during the peak golf course and park use time (May - September). The use of contractors to capture and remove for the disposition of geese is a management option for 434

consideration. Goose removal and disposition would need to be conducted according to the regulatory permit conditions.

Selective and occasional lethal removal of geese are also an effective complement to other nonlethal measures .

Lethal removal of geese by means of euthanization is a management option. Such removal and disposit ion would also need to be detailed and conducted according to the regulatory permit conditions. Conditions would include the number of geese and the specific information about the methods to be used in their harvest and disposition.

Habitat Modification and Site Aversion
Site Modifications may include but are not limited to: no mowing areas, increase height of vegetation around ponds and creek banks, planting or promoting shrubs by natural willow colonization, landscape plantings , or added temporary or permanent barriers. The use of temporary snow fence, woven wire, fishing line, etc. that limits Canada goose access to the water areas during the spring, summer, and fall season may be considered. Any fencing that is installed would need to be removed prior to the winter season, and should be established in a manner that prevents geese from entering the fenced off area from the water or from the adjacent property areas. Staff may also expand use of strobe lights in and around water areas as well as stay up to date on all new technologies for goose reduction strategies.

Other techniques that may help with site aversion include liquid deterrents applied to lawn areas or fogging of the geese with a non-harmful chemical that will cause irritation and make the treated areas uninviting. The chemicals are not harmful to pets or other wildlife.

2.4 Public Information and Communication Plan
Informing the public a bout Canada Goose population management activities is an integral part of a successful goose management plan. Information will be shared through community publications, electronic tools, and public meetings. Signage or posted notices may also be developed for certain areas and activities if needed. All persons performing management activities will provide C ity staff with accurate and thorough information about goose management objectives, strategies, and schedules.

To incorporate early, open and ongoing communication, community engagement efforts may include, but is not limited to, the following means:
• City Webpage: A dedicated webpage on the City's website that will provide information regarding geese, past mitigation efforts, frequently asked questions, and a contact/comment form • F actsheet : An informational handout summarizing the public health & safety issue, goals of the Canada Goose Population Management Plan, and where to learn more • B rochure/Signage: Brochure for Parks Maintenance staff to hand out, as well as posted signage throughout parks to discourage members of the public from feeding birds • E ducational Video: An informational video that provides perspectives from different community stakeholders on the public health & safety issue
• C lean -Up Event : A community event that encourages public involvement and provides an educational opportunity for participants; related to Earth Day and sustainability efforts • P ress R eleases: Periodic press releases advising the community of the public health & safety issues, providing notice and progress updates as different mitigation efforts are employed • C ity's e -Newsletter: Sharing of relevant updates through the City's e-Newsletter (as needed) • Social Media: Frequent posts through the City's social media platforms, including Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter (as needed)

435

2.5 Partner Relationships and Permit Requirements
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Canada Goose are protected and are subject to the regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries. In general, state regulations follow federal regulations for the control of Canada Goose. The MBTA prohibits the "take" of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization (through a depredation permit) by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A depredation permit is required to control migratory birds that are causing, or if there exists the potential to cause serious damage. Depredation permits should only be sought after other deterrents have proved unsuccessful. They are intended to provide short -term relief for bird damage until long- term, non-lethal measures can be implemented to eliminate or significantly reduce the problem.

Coordination of all Canada geese population management activities will be communicated with the appropriate regulatory agencies, Parks & Recreation Department, Public Works Department, and the City Manager’s Office.

Population monitoring, permitting, annual reporting for egg addling and/or any other depredation permit, dates/conditions for permits, permit in possession while conducting activities, etc. will be the responsibility of City staff and all contractors employed to implement such services.

Lastly, City staff will explore opportunities for regional collaboration with other jurisdictions along the Peninsula that, too, experience persistent and increasing Canada Goose challenges as the population continues to rise. Foster City and its regional partners are engaged in an ongoing effort to elevate the goose population issue to the San Mateo County Health Department to determine whether the effects of the goose presence in the region constitutes a health emergency, which would expand the mitigation options available.

2.6 Staff Contact Information
Any questions regarding the Foster City Canada Goose Population Management Plan can be directed to:
[email protected]
.

_____________________
ADOPTED: November 1, 2021 (via Minute Order No. 1816)
UPDATED: June 3, 2022 (non-substantive changes)

436
Environmental and Public Health Engineering
1 TO: Allen Smith and Greg Baeza, City of Foster City
FROM: Bonnie de Berry, EOA, Inc.

DATE: September 7, 2021
SUBJECT: Foster City Lagoon Monitoring (March – August, 2021)

1. INTRODUCTION
On June 30, 2020, Heal the Bay published the 2019-2020 Beach Bummer List1, a ranking of the ten most polluted beaches in California based on levels of Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB). Heal the Bay’s data sources include weekly data collected by the County of San Mateo (County) Division of Environmental Health Services (EHS) at public beaches in the County. Erckenbrack Park, a beach on the Foster City Lagoon, appeared on the list for the first time, at number four (4). In response to this ranking, City of Foster City (City) staff contracted with EOA, Inc. (EOA) to assist in a preliminary evaluation of potential sources of FIB to the Foster City Lagoon, with a focus on Erckenbrack Park. On February 24, 2021, EOA, in coordination with City staff, developed the Foster City Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program.

This Technical Memorandum summarizes results from the Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program for the period of March 15 – August 23, 2021. It also includes a discussion on potential FIB sources to the Lagoon and recommends mitigation measures for consideration.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Foster City Lagoon is a man-made system that follows the meandering shape of a historic sough that was once present in the area (Figure 1). It is an essential component of the original 1960 Master Plan for what was to become Foster City. The Lagoon was completed in 1971 and is designed for recreational use and to serve as a drainage detention basin to capture runoff from the 100-year storm event. The water within the lagoon consists of a mixture of water from the San Francisco Bay (via Belmont Slough) and stormwater runoff from the majority of the City (2,313 acres) collected and conveyed through curb inlets, catch basins, and storm drains, i.e., the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4).

The Lagoon holds approximately 424 million gallons of water. Its main channel is about 4.5 miles in length and ranges from 200 to 1,000 feet in width. The average maximum depth is six feet. The water level of the Lagoon is managed by the City. Water is allowed to enter the Lagoon via tidal inflows from Belmont Slough, controlled by a system of motorized slide gates located at the southwest end of the channel (Figure 1). Water levels in the Lagoon are lowered by gravity outflow and pumping to San Francisco Bay. During the winter (November 15 through March 15), water level is maintained at an elevation of 97.75 to 98.25 feet. When a major storm is predicted, water level is lowered to 97.0 feet to provide storage capacity for stormwater runoff. During the summer (March 15 through November 15), 1 https://healthebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Report-2020_web.pdf

MEMORANDUM
Attachment 2
437
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

2 water level is maintained at an elevation of approximately 99.0 feet, which provides for maximum water oriented recreational opportunities and aesthetics.

Throughout the year, Lagoon water is exchanged with Bay water on a weekly or monthly basis. The frequency of water exchange is driven by competing water quality needs. More frequent exchange allows for higher dissolved oxygen, aeration, and reduction of stagnant corners; however, the high nitrogen in Belmont Slough waters can result in increased algae production. Algae is primarily controlled by application of commercial dye, which restricts penetration of light needed for algae growth and results in a pleasing color. On rare occasions (less than one time per year), the City has also used aquatic herbicides to control algae in the Lagoon.

The Foster City Lagoon is a treasured recreational amenity where residents engage in swimming, windsurfing, paddle boarding, kayaking, and electric boating. There are seven parks along its 16.5-mile shoreline, including three with swimming beaches (Erckenbrack Park, Gull Park, and Marlin Park). The majority of the shoreline is owned by private residents and businesses, many of which have private boat docks.

3. SUMMARY OF LAGOON FIB MONITORING PROGRAM
The Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program includes collection of grab samples from the beach at Erckenbrack Park approximately every other week, and analysis of the samples for FIB and genetic markers of FIB.

The primary goal of the Monitoring Program is to begin investigating sources of bacteria to the Foster City Lagoon and the seasonal variability in such sources. A secondary goal is to confirm data collected by County EHS.
• Sample Station. The Erckenbrack Park beach monitoring station is considered representative of the types of conditions that also occur at other beaches within the Foster City Lagoon (i.e., Gull Park beach and Marlin Park beach). However, for reasons unknown, Erckenbrack beach frequently has higher bacteria levels than the other Lagoon beaches. The Lagoon and all three Lagoon beaches are shown in Figure 1.
• Schedule. Samples are collected approximately every other week on Monday mornings, which is when EHS collects their weekly samples that are used for beach warning notifications. City sampling commenced on March 15, 2021. Specific monitoring dates are listed in Table 1. • Parameters. Samples are analyzed for FIB and genetic markers of FIB. o FIB. Samples are analyzed for enterococci using method SM9230D by Cel Analytical, Inc. (Cel Analytical), in San Francisco, CA. Enterococci is the sole indicator now used by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) for the protection of recreational uses from the effects of pathogens in brackish inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries, such as the Foster City Lagoon. For single samples, the State Water Board’s water quality objective (WQO) for enterococci is 110 cfu/100 mL.2 It should be noted that, in addition to enterococci, County EHS also analyzes samples for total coliform and E. coli, and bases beach notifications on these indicators. However, total coliform and E. coli are no longer used by the State Water Board when making decisions about Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) impaired waterbody listings or subsequent development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

2 Colony forming units (cfu)/100 mL is used interchangeably with most probable number of colonies (MPN)/100 mL.
438
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

3 o Genetic Markers. Samples collected by the City at Erckenbrack Park are analyzed by Cel Analytical for host-specific bacteroides using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) techniques to measure DNA. All samples are analyzed for human markers (method HF183), dog markers (DogBac), and goose markers (CGOF1). A small subset of the samples are analyzed for sea gull markers. The qPCR results are provided in units of gene copies per mL (gc/mL), a unit that is not directly comparable to the enterococci results which are reported as MPN/100 mL. Table 1 lists the markers that were targeted during each monitoring event for the period of March 15 through August 23, 2021.

Human sources of fecal contamination pose the greatest potential threat to recreational uses because they are more likely to contain human pathogens. Dog markers were included in the Sampling Design because, along with human sources, dog sources of bacteria are considered to be “controllable” types of sources. Goose sources of bacteria are likely in the Lagoon as goose presence at the beaches is well established. Sea gull markers were included in the Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program due to the proximity of the Lagoon to San Francisco Bay where sea gulls are commonly found. • Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). The Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program includes QA/QC measures and Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) such that all data will be comparable with the California State Water Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Field QA/QC samples include field duplicates and field blanks collected at the frequencies shown in Table 1. Field duplicates are used to estimate sampling and laboratory precision. Field blanks provide an assessment of the sample collection techniques. All samples are collected and analyzed using the methods and protocols specified by SWAMP, and are consistent with those implemented by EHS.

Table 1. Foster City Lagoon Monitoring Events and Parameters. All samples were collected at the Erckenbrack Park beach.

Monitoring
Date (2021)
Analytical Parameters (method)
Field
Duplicate
Field
Blank
Enterococci
(SM9230D)
Human
(HF183)
Dog
(DogBact)
Goose
(CGOF1)
Sea
Gull
Mar 15 X X X X X X X
Mar 29 X X X X
Apr 5 X X X X
Apr 19 X X X X X
May 3 X X X X X X
May 17 X X X X
Jun 7 X X X X X
Jun 21 X X X X
Jul 12 X X X X
Jul 26 X X X X X X X
Aug 9 X X X X
Aug 23 X X X X

439
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

4 4. LAGOON MONITORING RESULTS
This section presents the Lagoon Monitoring Results. Recommendations for control of FIB in the Lagoon are presented in the next section. Analytical laboratory results from the twelve monitoring events are listed in Table 2. Table 2 also includes enterococci results for all three Lagoon beaches provided by County EHS (Erckenbrack Park, Gull Park and Marlin Park). The locations of the three parks are shown in Figure 1. Key observations noted by City staff about potential bacteria sources at the time of sample collection are shown in Table 3.

4.1. Enterococci

4.1.1. Data Results
Enterococci is the sole indicator bacteria now used by the State Water Board for the protection of water contact recreational uses. Three (3) of the twelve (12) samples collected by the City (April 5, June 21, and August 23) had enterococci concentrations above the WQO (i.e., 110 MPN/100 mL), and a fourth sample (March 15) had an enterococci concentration approaching the WQO. This represents an exceedance rate of 25% of the dataset. The County data for Erckenbrack Park beach, which was collected weekly and has 23 data points during the March 15 through August 23 monitoring period, has a WQO exceedance rate of 35%. The WQO exceedance rates for Gull Park and Marlin Park in the County dataset were lower, at 0% and 13% respectively. It is currently unknown why enterococci concentrations are lower at Gull Park and Marlin Park.

There were no obvious seasonal patterns in the City and County datasets for the March 15 through August 23 monitoring period. The samples with high enterococci concentrations were spread evenly throughout monitoring period in the City and County datasets. There is also a lack of an obvious seasonal pattern in enterococci concentrations in the full County dataset which began on March 6, 2017 (Figure 2). Although sampling by the City commenced during the wet season, conditions were remarkably dry throughout the monitoring period. The 2020-2021 wet season was one of the driest on record for most precipitation stations in California, including those in the Bay Area.

Field observations of potential bacteria sources, such as the presence of dogs, people, wildlife, and their feces are presented in Table 3. There is no apparent connection between the number of wildlife or feces observed and the concentration of enterococci.

440
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

5 Table 2. Analytical Results of Foster City Erckenbrack Park Monitoring. County EHS Beach Monitoring Data for all Lagoon beaches shown for comparison. Enterococci values above the WQO (110 MPN/100 mL) are highlighted with bold font.

Foster City FIB Monitoring County Beaches Monitoring
Erckenbrack Park Erckenbrack Gull Park Marlin
Human
(HF183)
Dog
(DogBact)
Goose
(CGOF1)
Sea Gull
(lee sea gull)
Enterococci
(City)
Enterococci
(County)
Relative Percent
Difference
(City vs. County)
Enterococci
(County)
Enterococci
(County)
(gc/mL) (gc/mL) (gc/mL) (gc/mL) (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 mL) (%) (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 mL) State Water Board Water Quality Objective (WQO): 110 110 -- 110 110 3/15/2021 ND ND ND 2135 108 52 70% 10 20
3/22/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 441 -- 20 644
3/29/2021 ND 5.2 DBLOD ND -- 31 20 43% 75 30
4/5/2021 ND 2 DBLOD 19 -- 144 211 38% 10 31
4/12/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 51 -- 20 10
4/19/2021 ND 2 DBLOD 2 DBLOD ND <10 581 193% 20 52
4/26/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 20 -- 41 10
5/3/2021 ND ND ND -- 20 41 69% 72 465
5/10/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 10 -- 62 52
5/17/2021 ND ND ND -- 10 10 0% 10 31
5/24/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 97 -- 30 41
6/1/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 121 -- 20 31
6/7/2021 ND ND 2121 ND 84 20 123% 20 52
6/14/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 275 -- 50 10
6/21/2021 ND ND 172 -- 712 95 153% 41 74
6/28/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 185 -- 97 63
7/5/2021 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
7/12/2021 ND ND ND -- 30 63 71% 52 52
7/19/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 299 -- 31 30
7/26/2021 ND ND ND ND 20 * 52 * 89% 10 31
8/2/2021 -- -- -- -- --S 288 -- 41 52
8/9/2021 ND ND ND -- 50 31 47% 20 41
8/16/2021 -- -- -- -- -- 86 -- 31 10
8/23/2021 ND ND ND -- 121 85 35% <10 241
Percent of samples that exceed WQO (110 MPN/100 mL): 25% 35% -- 0% 13% DBLOD = Detected Blow Limit of Detection (used for PCR analysis only), ND = Not Detected * On 7/26/21, the City and County analyzed samples collected from the same bottle (i.e., a split sample). All other samples were collected in separate bottles. 441
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

6 Figure 1. Foster City Lagoon (image provided by City of Foster City with notations by EOA).

Gull Park
Erckenbrack Park
Marlin Park
Lagoon Inlet
from Belmont
Slough
Lagoon
Outlet to SF
Bay
442
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

7 Figure 2. Enterococci Concentrations Reported by County EHS for Erckenbrack Park Beach, March 6, 2017 – August 23, 2021.

0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
3/1/17
5/31/17
8/30/17
11/29/17
3/1/18
5/31/18
8/30/18
11/29/18
3/1/19
5/31/19
8/30/19
11/29/19
2/29/20
5/30/20
8/29/20
11/28/20
2/28/21
5/30/21
8/29/21
Enterococci (MPN/100 mL)
WQO (110 MPN/100 mL)
Wet Season (Nov - Mar)
Dry Season (Apr - Oct)
443
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

8 Table 3. Field Observations of Potential Bacteria Sources during Monitoring Events at Erckenbrack Park Beach. Dates with enterococci WQO exceedances are highlighted. Dates with detections of species-specific markers of goose, dog, and sea gull are highlighted in the relevant cells. No human markers were detected in this study.

Potential Bacteria Sources
Date
(2021)
Geese
Present
(Individuals)
Goose
Feces
Present
on Beach
Goose
Feces
Present
in Water
Goose Feces
Level of
Contamination
Dogs
Present
(Individuals)
Dog Feces
Present
(# of Waste
Piles)
People
Present
(Individuals)
Other
Animals
Present
Mar 15 5-20 Yes Yes Light No None None Ducks, 15
Seagull, 15
Mar 29 1-5 Yes No NR Yes, 1 None 1-5 Ducks
Apr 5 None No No No Visible Feces No None 1-5 None
Apr 19 None No No No Visible Feces No None None None
May 3 5-20 Yes No NR No 1-5 1-5 Seagulls, 2
May 17 None No No No Visible Feces No None 1-5 None
Jun 7 5-20 Yes Yes Light No None 1-5 Ducks,
Crows
Jun 21 >20 Yes No Light No None None Ducks, 5
Jul 12 None Yes No No Visible Feces No None 1-5 None
Jul 26 5-20 Yes No Light Yes, 2 NR 1-5 NR
Aug 9 None Yes No Light No None None Duck, 5-10
Aug 23 None Yes No Moderate No None None Ducks,
Crows
NR = Not Reported (the field sheet was left blank for this parameter)

4.1.2. City County Comparison
Sample results by the City and County were compared by calculating the Relative Percent Difference (RPD)3. For the Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program an RPD of 100 percent is considered acceptable.

In June 2021, a preliminary review of the data suggested that there was sometimes poor alignment between the enterococci results from City samples and enterococci results at Erckenbrack Park from County samples. In particular, on April 19, the City sample had an enterococci concentration of <10 MPN/100 mL (i.e., the result was below the detection limit); whereas the County reported an enterococci concentration of 581 MPN/100 mL (Table 2). City staff confirmed that all samples were collected in close geographic proximity and near in time to those collected by the County, and the City’s contract laboratory, Cel Analytical, confirmed that both laboratories use the same analytical method (SM9230D). As should be standard with microbial samples collected from brackish water, both laboratories dilute the samples by a factor of ten (10) to reduce potential interference in the analysis caused by high salinity.

In order to investigate whether the differences were caused by laboratory error, the City and Cel Analytical coordinated a split sampling event with the County field crew on July 26, 2021. The split

3 The RPD is calculated by dividing the difference between the two samples by the average of the two samples. 444
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

9 sampling protocol involved collecting a single sample in the field and pouring that sample into two separate bottles for analysis by each lab. The enterococci results for the July 26 split sample were 20 MPN/100 mL and 52 MPN/100 mL for the City and County laboratories, respectively. The enterococci RPD on July 26 was 89%, which is within the expected range for natural variability in the enterococci method.

The RPD between the City and County samples is shown for the full dataset in Table 2. These overall RPD results combined with the findings from the July 26 split sample event highlight the high variability in FIB common to surface waters. In general, large sites, such as Erckenbrack Beach or the Lagoon, should be characterized using the geometric mean of several discrete samples collected at multiple locations (USEPA 2010). However, both the City and County monitoring programs are constrained by limited resources. Bacterial autoaggregation, or the formation of suspended bacterial clumps in the Lagoon, could also help explain the differences between City and County results (Trunk and others 2018). With the exception of the July 26 sample, the City and County collected separate samples from the Lagoon, albeit close in time and proximity. It is possible that clumps of bacteria were present in the Lagoon and were captured in one sample but not the other.

4.2. Human Sources of Bacteria
Human sources of bacteria represent the greatest threat to water contact recreation in the Lagoon because human fecal matter contains a greater number of human pathogens than other fecal sources.

In addition, human sources of FIB (e.g., leakage from the private or municipal sanitary sewer system, discharge from recreational vehicles (RVs), homeless encampments, recreators defecating in the Lagoon, seepage from dumpsters containing human waste) are more controllable than many other FIB sources, such as wildlife, and therefore represent a potential opportunity for FIB reduction in the Lagoon. For this reason, the Lagoon Monitoring Program emphasizes the investigation of human sources of FIB by analyzing all samples for human-specific markers using the HF183 method.

Table 2 shows the results of the human marker analyses. None (0) of the twelve (12) samples collected by the City during the March 15 through August 23 monitoring period had detectable concentrations of human markers. These findings suggest that there were are no sources of human waste present at Erckenbrack Park beach during the monitoring events. Exceedances of the enterococci WQOs in the City and County datasets are likely caused by other sources of FIB.

4.3. Dog Sources of Bacteria
Dog (or canine) sources of bacteria in the Lagoon include wash-off of dog waste from upland areas to the Lagoon or MS4, dogs defecating in the Lagoon, and seepage from dumpsters containing dog waste.

These sources of FIB are generally considered controllable because pet owners could be educated on proper pet waste management and encouraged to do so through incentive programs. All twelve (12) samples were analyzed for dog-specific markers.

Table 2 shows the results of the dog marker analyses. None (0) of the twelve (12) samples had concentrations of the dog marker above the method detection limit (MDL). However, three (3) samples collected early in the monitoring period (March 29, April 5, April 19) had detectable dog marker concentrations below the MDL. These concentrations are flagged in the dataset with “DBLOD” (Detected Below Limit of Dection), a qualifier that is used for PCR analysis only. The flagged results should be interpreted with caution because they are below the threshold that signifies confidence in the data.

Nevertheless, it possible that there was a weak dog waste signal during the March 29, April 5, and April 19 monitoring events. On one of these days, March 29, the City field crew observed one (1) dog at Erckenbrack beach (Table 3). Two (2) dogs were observed on the morning of July 26 and a small number of dog waste piles (i.e., 1 to 5) were observed on May 3; no dog markers were detected on these dates. 445
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results
10 Neither dogs nor dog waste piles were observed during any other monitoring events; however, monitoring occurred on Monday mornings and it is possible that dogs were brought to the beach at other times.

These findings suggest that there is opportunity for the City to control dog waste and potentially reduce the concentration of FIB in the Lagoon. However, full control of dog waste will likely not result in reductions of enterococci in Lagoon beach waters to below the WQO of 110 MPN/100 mL, as evidenced by enterococci WQO exceedances in samples collected by the City on two (2) days when no dog markers were detected.

4.4. Goose Sources of Bacteria
The presence of geese at the Foster City Lagoon beaches, and at other parks in the region, is a well- known problem that occurs year-round. As a result, the City has coordinated with the nearby Cities of Belmont, San Mateo, and Redwood City for the past seven (7) years to cooperatively track and attempt to control the goose population. Despite measures such as dog hazing, strobe lights, and egg addling, the Foster City goose population during the June 2021 census was 323 individual birds, almost double the count from June 2020, and well above the highest number that was observed over the last four (4) years of census records (Hall 2021). The entire region is experiencing growth in the goose population for unknown reasons.

Geese were present during six (6) of the twelve (12) Monday morning monitoring events (Table 3).

Goose feces were observed on the beach at Erckenbrack Park during nine (9) monitoring events and in the water during two (2) events. These observations from the Lagoon Monitoring Program confirm that geese remain an issue at Erckenbrack Park. Furthermore, goose-specific genetic markers were detected in four (4) of the twelve (12) samples (Table 2). Although there was no obvious relationship between goose individual/feces observations and the enterococci concentrations or goose marker detections, these overall findings still suggest that goose waste is an ongoing contributor to FIB in the Lagoon. It is possible that control of goose waste could result in reductions of enterococci in beach waters to below the WQO of 110 MPN/100 mL.

4.5. Sea Gull Sources of Bacteria
Sea gulls are frequent visitors to the Lagoon and invariably contribute to FIB in the Lagoon and to the presence generic bird waste found all around the Lagoon. Although the City is not involved in actions to control sea gull or other non-goose avian/waterfowl populations, they occasionally implement bird waste clean-up actions. For example, on July 19, 2021, the City removed approximately 250 gallons of bird waste from the Lagoon abutment below Shell Bridge. City staff are careful to prevent discharge of bird waste to the Lagoon during these types of clean-up activities. Sea gull markers were included in the Lagoon Monitoring Program due to the proximity of the Lagoon to San Francisco Bay where sea gulls are commonly found and the availability of laboratory methods to detect the marker; however, due to resource limitations, only four (4) of the twelve (12) samples were analyzed for the sea gull marker.

Table 2 shows that sea gull markers were detected in one (1) (March 15) of the four (4) samples analyzed for this constituent. Table 3 shows that sea gull individuals were observed during two (2) of the twelve (12) Monday morning monitoring events, with the most individuals observed on March 15 when the sea gull marker was detected. These findings suggest that sea gull and other avian species (e.g., ducks, crows) contribute FIB to Erckenbrack Park beach. However, unlike geese, these avian wildlife species have not been identified as a nuisance at Lagoon parks, and options for control are likely limited. 446
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

11 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary
The City of Foster City implemented a Lagoon FIB Monitoring Program from March 15 through August 23, 2021. Twelve (12) water samples were collected from the beach at Erckenbrack Park approximately every other week and analyzed for enterococci and several species-specific genetic markers (human, dog, goose, sea gull).
• Enterococci concentrations continue to be of concern in the Lagoon with exceedances of the WQO (i.e., 110 MPN/100 mL) at a rate of 25% in samples collected by the City. More frequent samples collected by County EHS (i.e., weekly) had a WQO exceedance rate of 35% during the monitoring period.
• Human sources of FIB, which would represent the highest threat to recreational use in the Lagoon, are unlikely based on the monitoring results. None (0) of the twelve (12) samples collected by the City had detections of human genetic markers. This finding supports what is already known about potential human FIB sources in the City. There is not a presence of unhoused people in the City. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible for the municipal sanitary sewer system (SSS) to leak into the MS4 because the SSS is below the ground water table. • While human waste could contribute enterococci and other FIB to the Lagoon, there are many other sources of FIB, including wildlife and pets. These other sources of fecal material generally pose less of a threat to the health of swimmers compared to human waste because human viruses are generally unlikely to occur in animal feces (USEPA 2012). o Dog waste occasionally contributes to FIB in the Lagoon and represents a potential opportunity for control. Even a small amount of dog waste can contribute a large amount of enterococci to the environment. The USEPA estimates that the average dog produces about 0.75 pound (340 grams) of waste per day (USEPA 2001). Wright et al. (2009) estimates that each gram of dog waste contains approximately 3.9 x 107 colony forming units of enterococci (i.e., 39 million cfu; cfu is used interchangeably with MPN).

Therefore, one dog could introduce about 13 billion cfu of enterococci to the Lagoon over the course of one day, which could easily result in an exceedance of the WQO of 110 cfu/100 mL in a localized area.
o The primary source of FIB in the Lagoon appears to be wildlife (i.e., waterfowl such as geese, sea gulls, and ducks). Wright et al. (2009) estimates that bird waste contains approximately 3.3 x 105 cfu per gram (i.e., 330,000 cfu/g).

5.2. Recommendations
In order to reduce the amount of dog waste reaching the Lagoon, the City should review their current public outreach program for opportunities to improve messaging to pet owners. Other pet waste management opportunities include installation of dog waste cleanup stations at parks and along dog- walking trails throughout the City, a “pin-the-poo” program that targets repeat offenders, implementation of a pet waste pledge program with incentives, and direct mailers or emails to pet owners.

The City should continue to work with the nearby Cities of Belmont, Redwood City, and San Mateo to implement and improve the ongoing goose population control measures and goose waste cleanup activities.

447
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results
12 5.3. Lagoon Management Considerations
Because FIB in the Lagoon appears to be caused primarily by wildlife populations that are difficult to control, the City should consider Lagoon management actions that create conditions that are favorable to bacteria die-off and/or eliminate/reduce conditions that are favorable to bacteria growth.

Bacteria that enter the Lagoon can continue to grow and increase in concentration through the formation of biofilms. Biofilms form on surfaces such as organic matter (i.e., leaves), structures, and sediments. Biofilms containing enterococci are likely to be found in the sediments on the bottom of the lagoon, in stagnant “corners” of the Lagoon, and on pipe walls in submerged sections of the MS4. Providing more water movement in the Lagoon through more frequent water exchange with Belmont Slough and San Francisco Bay could reduce the formation and growth of biofilms. However, as mentioned above, Belmont slough is relatively high in nutrients; therefore, this measure could result in increased algae growth. It is also possible that inflows from Belmont Slough contain enterococci concentrations above the WQO. Another method of increasing water movement in the Lagoon is the operation of fountains and/or aeration systems. If this measure is adopted, the City should avoid actions that disturb bottom sediments, which could result in resuspension of bacteria.

The City may also want to consider a commercial products advertised for the control of bacteria in lakes and ponds. For example, the City has already met with representatives from Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. to learn about their product, EarthTec, which is a highly biologically active form of copper ion (Cu2+). EarthTec is registered by the USEPA as an algaecide and bactericide for use in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, sedimentation basins, and treatment lagoons.

Representatives report that it can control of E. coli in laboratory studies within one to 8 hours of application depending on the amount used; however, it may be less effective at control of enterococci. It is possible that such a product could help keep enterococci concentrations at Lagoon beaches below the WQO of 110 MPN/100 mL.

Prior to use of a copper-containing chemical, the City should ensure that they are following required regulatory procedures. For example, all requirements in the State General Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides (Order No. 2013-0002-DWQ as amended by Orders 2014- 0078-DWQ, 2015-0029-DWQ and 2016-0073-EXEC) must be followed, including development and implementation of an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (APAP), compliance with applicable receiving water limitations (including those related to copper), and compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements. Adherence to this General Permit may require that the City request a short-term or seasonal exception from meeting copper receiving water limitations.

The copper receiving water limitations in the Aquatic Pesticides General Permit (Order No. 2013-0002-DWQ) are currently based on the California Toxics Rule. The copper limitation is expressed in dissolved concentration. For freshwater (salinity equal to or less than 1 part per thousand (ppt) 95% or more of the time) the copper limitation is dependent on the hardness of the receiving waters. For waters in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 ppt 95% or more of the time, the copper limitation is 3.1 ug/L. For waters in which the salinity is between 1 and 10 ppt, the more stringent limitation applies.
448
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results

13 Isolation of the Lagoon from Belmont Slough and San Francisco Bay, which is the standard Lagoon condition when water exchange activities are not occurring, may be necessary during and after application, until copper concentrations have dropped below the Aquatic Pesticides General Permit copper limitations and/or the copper WQOs for San Francisco Bay. Copper WQOs in the segment of San Francisco Bay to which the Lagoon discharges are 6.0 ug/L (4-day average) and 9.4 ug/L (1-hour average) (SFBRWQCB 2017). Lagoon water containing copper concentrations above the copper WQOs should not be discharged to San Francisco Bay. This could impact the timing of the City’s controlled water exchanges between the Lagoon and the Bay.

If the City decides to conduct a bacteria control pilot study with EarthTec (or a similar product) and/or if they install an aeration device, they should consider monitoring for enterococci at multiple locations in the Lagoon to assess the effectiveness of the treatment.

5.4. Next Steps
The City is continuing to collect samples approximately every other week through September and October. It is recommended that the City continue to implement the Lagoon Monitoring Program through March 2022 with the goal of generating a full year of MST data, including the wet season when stormwater runoff to the Lagoon is likely to occur.

449
Erckenbrack Beach Bacteria Monitoring Results
14 6. REFERENCES
Hall, D. 2021. Update on Water Quality in the Lagoon and Geese Population Management. Letter from the Acting Director of Public Works to the Mayor and Members of the City Council, dated August 16, 2021.

SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2017. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. May 4, 2017.

Trunk, T., Khalil, H.S., and Leo, J.C. 2018. Bacterial autoaggregation. AIMS Microbiology, 4(1): 140-164.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. First Edition. EPA-841-R-00-002.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Sampling and Consideration of Variability (Temporal and Spatial) for Monitoring of Recreational Waters. EPA-823-R-10-005.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Recreational Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water 820-F-12-058.

WESCO (Western Ecological Services Company, Inc.). 1993. Foster City Lagoon Management Plan.

Prepared for City of Foster City. August 17, 1992, revised 1993.

Wright, M.E., Solo-Gabriele, H.M., Elmir, S., and Fleming, L.E. 2009. Microbial load from animal feces at a recreational beach. Marine Pollution Bulletin: 58(11): 1649-1656. 450

DATE: July 18, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council

VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

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

SUBJECT: LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327-657) - JUNE 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 June 20, 2022, are included in the attached Construction Managers Report and listed below:
 Staff is continuing conversations with various regulatory agencies regarding the mitigation requirement to provide full tidal action into O’Neill Slough. Staff will provide a verbal update to City Council when known as to the results of the discussions with the regulatory 451
agencies to determine if muted tidal action can continue until a later date.
 The Baffin Street Bridge is open for pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the Contractor has closed the Egress Bridge location. The contractor is completing operations to place cement for the Egress bridge abutments for the anticipated installation of the precast bridge by end of July or early August 2022. The Mayor and City Council delivered a Project milestone update to the community regarding Baffin Street Bridge opening on June 8, 2022, and the update is available on the Levee Project website.
 The Contractor continues to work within Phase III (San Mateo Bridge to northerly of Mariner’s Point) of the Project. The work includes completion of concrete placement for Floodwalls 3 & 4 near Baywinds Park, embankment fill along E. Third Avenue near Anchor Road, placing concrete for Floodwalls 1 & 2 near Mariner’s Point, excavation for Retaining wall 1 south of Baywinds Park, construction of bay-side paths along Floodwalls 5 & 8, and completion of the Lagoon outfall structure work south of Baywinds Park.
 Progress continues for a new pedestrian bridge with the Contractor completing the demolition and subgrade excavation for the north and south abutments to install the AP-9 bridge at Bayside Towers. The Contractor anticipates completing the bridge abutments for the pedestrian bridge by end of July 2022.
 The Contractor continues construction operations under the San Mateo Bridge in accordance with the encroachment permit received from Caltrans. The Contractor has completed construction for Floodwalls 25, 10, and 11 near the Bridge and Werder Pier.  The Contractor continues to work along Beach Park Boulevard.

Competed and upcoming work along Beach Park Boulevard as part of Phase II includes, but not limited to, trail slope fine grading, erosion control fabric, placement of mulch, ice plant planting, construction of bay side paths and access points, earthen levee near and adjacent to Shorebird Park, streetlight foundations, irrigation and landscaping. The Contractor should be finishing the installation of most of the streetlights by the end of July 2022 but will still need to complete all the streetlight and electrical conductor wiring installations prior to energizing the lights.
 The Contractor has completed approximately 3.8 miles of the 4.2 miles of the revised concrete cap for the top of installed sheet piles (CCO #9; $110K and #10; $932K). The concrete cap along Beach Park Boulevard as part of Phase II of the Project is complete. The 452
concrete cap remaining to be constructed is mainly in Phase III between Baywinds Park and San Mateo Bridge and portions of Phase I. The Contractor has been providing concrete work crews at various retaining and floodwall locations and has not yet completed the concrete cap work.
 The Contractor has been focusing concrete work crews for the completion of the block retaining walls related to CCO #20, which includes retaining walls 2 and 4.
 Significant progress has been made on retaining wall 4 and will be completed following the construction of access point 10 near the San Mateo Bridge next to Bayside Towers parking lot. The Contractor has been providing additional resources to complete the approximately 2,000 linear feet for retaining wall 2.
 Staff will provide an update to the schedule for opening trail portions within Phases I, II, and III, after reviewing the Contractor’s anticipated schedule for reopening trails within the phased work at end of summer 2022. The update will be in accordance with the
requirements of the BCDC permit and will be placed on the Project website.
 Staff continues to monitor the Safe Routes to School plan for Bowditch Middle School and other locations that may be affected by the Project. While the 2021-22 school year has been completed, staff will continue to monitor any summer school programs to provide feedback to school personnel about the dropping off and picking up of students as well as the walking and biking by students to any programs. Staff will be contacting school officials about any proposed changes for the 2022-2023 school year.

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

The Project continues to be on time and within budget and expenses continue 453
to trend as anticipated.

Summary of known costs to date:
 Total Budget/ Bond Measure: Budget = $87M Bond Measure = $90M; Bonds Released = $85M; Additional City reserves for Project if necessary = $10M
 Bid: Shimmick: $60.2M; and $9M contingency for change orders.  Payments: Shimmick: $43M; Others: $12.5M; Total: $55.5M  Change Orders Approved: As of 07/06: CCO #1-23 = $4.7M  Change Orders Anticipated: TBD

FISCAL IMPACT

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

While there are no fiscal impacts requiring City Council approval associated with this Project update, staff will be presenting to City Council for approval at a future City Council meeting a construction contract change order. This Change Order is necessary due to a change in backfill limits and material to facilitate the use of originally specified Lightweight Cellular Concrete (LCC).

Additional cement was necessary to be added to the LCC mixture for higher dry densities in the backfill behind the levee. Staff has been advising City Council about this upcoming change order on several monthly updates. This Change Order has not yet been presented to City Council due to other Project related priorities being addressed by staff. A detailed staff report will be presented by staff at a future City Council meeting.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA

The Levee Improvements Project is in alignment to 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.

454

Attachments:
 Attachment 1 - Monthly Construction Manager's Report - June 2022  Attachment 2 - Expenditure Report as of June 30, 2022  Attachment 3 - Memorandum and Communications Metrics - June 2022 Dashboard Report
455
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT
Foster City Levee Improvements Project
City Project No. CIP 301-657
Contractor: Shimmick Construction Co Report Period: June 1-30, 2022 CM: Tanner Pacific, Inc.

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

Days Elapsed: 641 % Elapsed: 53.4%
Substantial Final
Completion Completion
Date: Date:

Original Contract Approved Revised
Contract
Value: CCOs: Value:

Contingency: $9,000,000.00 Remaining
Contingency: $ 3,865,316.36 % Contingency
Used: 57%
Costs Billed to Date: $44,837,750.47 % of Contract
Billed to Date: 69%
$60,218,000.00 $ 5,134,683.64 $65,352,683.64
Contract/Schedule Update
1200 Additional Days
Granted: 0 Calendar Days
Remaining: 559
Notice To Proceed: 9/28/2020 10/2/2023 1/10/2024
Cost Management Update
Attachment 1
456
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT

Work Summary
Recently Completed:

• Initial concrete placements of Floodwall 1 & 2 near Sta. 11+00 (near Mariner’s Point Golf Center)
• Initial block and LCC placements for Retaining Wall 1 near ~Sta. 50+00 (south of Baywinds Park)
• Lagoon outfall structure headwall work (in-water work) at ~Sta. 70+00 (Phase III) • Slope fine grading, erosion control fabric, and mulch along Beach Park Blvd in Phase II from AP 14 to AP 24 (Bridgeview Park to north of Shorebird Park) • Initial grading at access points for flatwork in Phase II along Beach Park Blvd • Ice plant planting on the levee slopes along Beach Park Blvd in Phase II up to AP 24 (north of Shorebird Park)
• Traffic Detour Switch from Egress Bridge to Baffin St. Bridge • Installation of Egress Bridge Cofferdam structure at AP 42 (Phase I).

Upcoming:

• Continued submittals for landscaping, irrigation, striping, and site furnishings • Continued import of materials to staging areas
• Continued construction for concrete floodwalls from ~Sta. 0+00 – Sta. 45+00 (E. 3rd Ave to Baywinds Park)
• Final rebar and concrete placements of Floodwalls 1 & 2 near Sta. 11+00 (near Mariner’s Point Golf Center)
• Continued construction of bay-side paths along Floodwalls 5 & 8 (Phase III) • Continued construction of Retaining Wall 02 (northwest of the SM Bridge) • Access Point 02 ramp construction (near Baywinds Park) • Demolition and subgrade excavation of the south abutment of the AP-9 pedestrian bridge foundation near Sta 85+00 (northwest of the SM Bridge)
• Rebar and concrete for the AP-9 pedestrian bridge foundations near Sta. 85+00 (northwest of the SM Bridge)
• Completion of Retaining Wall 02 & 04 blocks and lightweight concrete fill adjacent to AP-9 (northwest of the SM Bridge)
• Continued construction of bay-side paths along Floodwall 12 (Phase II, Beach Park Blvd) • Access Point flatwork (concrete ramps and stairs) in Phase II along Beach Park Blvd • Completion of street light foundations along Phase II, Beach Park Blvd • Completion of streetlight installation along Phase II, Beach Park Blvd • Wiring and energizing of streetlights along Phase II, Beach Park Blvd • Access Point 24 Retaining Wall construction completion near Sta. 185+00 (north of Shorebird Park)
• Irrigation installation along Phase I (Shorebird Park to Southern Project Limit) • Landscaping work along Phase I (Shorebird Park to Southern Project Limit) • Access Point flatwork (concrete ramps and stairs) in Phase I (South of Shorebird Park) • Delivery and installation of AP 42 Egress Bridge in Phase I • Sheet pile concrete cap construction on Floodwall 22 (Egress Bridge to Southern Project Limit) 457
MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REPORT

Monthly Progress Photos

Access Point 07 super sack cofferdam removal near
Sta. 70+00 in Phase III
Streetlight erection along Beach Park Blvd in Phase II

Access Point 42 (Egress Bridge) cofferdam
construction near Sta. 331+00 in Phase I
Floodwall 08 sheet pile concrete cap placement near Sta. 95+00 in Phase III

458
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
06/30/22
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$ $42,910,813.20 $4,685,924.18 $4,314,075.82 Active Tanner Pacific (TPI) Construction Management and Inspection 6,698,877.00$ 300,000.00$ 491,500.00$ 7,490,377.00$ 7,550,000.00$ $4,581,926.18 $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$ $2,246,570.39 N/A N/A Active Urban Planning Partners (UPP) Planning Consultant - EIR 340,404.00$ 51,061.00$ 70,099.00$ 461,564.00$ 470,000.00$ $438,387.54 $51,061.00 $0.00 Active Regional Government Services Authority (RGS) Project Advisory Services** 561,600.00$ -$ -$ 561,600.00$ 561,600.00$ $186,507.00 N/A N/A Active Tripepi Smith (TS) Communications / Outreach Consultant 49,000.00$ -$ 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$ $81,250.00 N/A N/A Active Huffman-Broadway Group (HBG) Environmental Consultant - Post Construction Environmental Monitoring
275,000.00$ 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$ $16,668.50 $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$ $18,011.50 $0.00 $31,000.00 In Progress Miscellaneous Expenses Other Miscelleneous Expenses 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ $62,879.87 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Communications / Outreach Expenses 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ $23,703.24 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Fees Paid to Other Agencies 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ $179,997.64 Active Miscellaneous Expenses Property Acquistion Cost of acquisition 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ $0.00 In Progress Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP* City Attorney $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $377,852.62 Active TBWB Strategies (TBWB) Public Outreach 29,986.00$ 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$ $55,488,331.60 *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 EXPENSESMISCCLOSED CONTRACTS

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CIP 327-657 Levee Improvements Project
Budget and Cost Information
Attachment 2
459
City of Foster City

MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Nentwig, Principal, 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 June 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 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 May 2022, the City gained approximately 211 new followers/subscribers across all social platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor and the Levee E - Newsletter).
• The number of Levee Project inquiries decreased to 7 inquiries in June 2022, which was about half the number of inquiries in May 2022. Even though the bike detour changed in June due to the Baffin Bridge reopening, the low number of inquiries shows that communications about the Baffin Bridge reopening were effective.
• Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno and Jonathan Tristao from Tanner Pacific, Inc. coordinated a project tour with Marin County Public Works in June 2022.

Additionally, Tripepi Smith and Public Works Director Louis Sun continued coordinating presentation logistics with the Project Management Institute (PMI) for a meeting that is expected to take place in September 2022.

Attachment 3
460

• Though reach and engagements dropped compared to last month, it’s important to note that there had previously been a spike in engagement due to increased comments regarding community concerns over the City’s Canada Goose mitigation efforts. The City has since posted a Canada Goose Population Management webpage and related communications, driving down overall comments and engagement from months prior.

• In June 2022, the City posted the first levee -related Nextdoor post since March 2022. The post highlighted the Baffin Bridge reopening and earned 943 impressions alone.

• Website visitors have continued to increase. Website visitors in June 2022 totaled 4,942 compared to 4,827 in May 2022. Additionally, average visit length increased from 1:25 to 1:55 in June 2022. This increase is likely due to updated communications regarding project milestones, such as the Baffin Bridge reopening ceremony video that was posted on the homepage of the project website.

• There have been no new levee petition signatures since August 2021.

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 June 2022, the number of project website visitors continued to increase, while the number of inquiries continued to remain low. Approximately 164 people visited the project website per day in June 2022 and there were 7 total inquiries for the month. This shows that project communications, especially regarding major project milestones and updates, continue to be effective.

The construction team will continue work with the project team to provide updated information to the Recreational Water User community once a definitive work schedule is available. Any new information will be updated on the project website and social media, which will likely continue to drive traffic to the project’s channels.

As you review the full report, please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. 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.

461
1 Levee Project CommunicationsPrepared by: Danielle RodriguezMonthly Dashboard ReportJune 2022 FOLLOWERS / SUBSCRIBERSCity FacebookCity TwitterCity Instagram [1]City Nextdoor [2]Levee E-Newsletter Total Audience2020 - November1,8041,385 - - 8022020 - December1,8291,392 - - 8022021 - January1,8791,4121,35013,5061,0072021 - February1,9191,4251,38513,7011,0952021 - March2,0591,4311,47913,8311,1082021 - April2,1091,4541,51013,9571,1612021 - May2,1221,4571,51414,1281,1822021 - June2,1351,4581,53114,1861,1922021 - July2,1681,4731,54714,2931,1952021 - August2,1741,4841,56514,3811,2002021 - September2,4001,4931,58714,4931,2022021 - October2,4131,5121,61714,5951,2002021 - November2,4361,5251,63414,6911,2032021 - December2,4451,5311,65314,7291,2072022 - January2,4591,5351,67014,7661,2172022 - February2,4671,5431,68414,8311,2212022 - March2,4781,5521,70414,8951,2292022 - April2,5001,5761,71514,9811,2332022 - May2,5251,5851,73815,0791,2392022 - June [3]2,5721,5971,78015,1831,245

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- - - 2022 - February5 4 Project Tours with the City of Foster City City Council, 1 Presentation to Hillsdale United Methodist Church [6] 2021 - January1 148 20 2022 - March2 1 Presentation to County Engineers Association, 1 Presentation at 2022 Silicon Valley Women in Engineering Conference [7]2021 - February1 97 45 2022 - April2 1 Presentation at the Ciy's Parks & Recreation Meeting, 1 Presentation at Infraday [8]2021 - March1 48 20 2022 - May1 1 Presentation to Foster City Rotary Club [9]2021 - April1 28 20 2022 - June1 1 Project Tour with Marin County Public Works [10]2021 - June0 0 02021 - July0 0 02021 - August1 20 202021 - September0 0 02021 - October0 0 02021 - November0 0 02021 - December0 0 02022 - January0 0 02022 - February0 0 02022 - March0 0 02022 - April0 0 02022 - May0 0 02022 - June0 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 - April21 0.72021 - May22 0.72021 - June16 0.52021 - July48 1.52021 - August16 0.52021 - September16 0.52021 - October8 0.22021 - November14 0.42021 - December8 0.22022 - January4 0.12022 - February8 0.22022 - March12 0.32022 - April7 0.22022 - May15 0.42022 - June7 [11] 0.2 NUMBER OF LEVEE PROJECT POSTS [12]City FacebookCity Twitter [13]City Instagram*City Nextdoor2020 - November1 1 0 02020 - December4 4 0 12021 - January8 7 5 22021 - February7 12 7 12021 - March12 21 9 22021 - April7 20 4 162021 - May5 8 1 72021 - June8 13 2 32021 - July9 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 02022 - February8 9 0 12022 - March11 11 1 12022 - April8 9 0 02022 - May9 10 0 02022 - June8 9 0 1*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. 462
2 LEVEE POST IMPRESSIONS/REACHCity Facebook - Post ReachCity Twitter - ImpressionsCity Instagram - Impressions [14]City NextdoorTOTAL2020 - November259 399 0 0 6582020 - December1,3001,391 0 2447*2,6912021 - January61,00615,9492161 192281,0382021 - February17,492**3,7112,192 924 6,8272021 - March60,1558,7533,5552,28274,7452021 - April11,8385,5431,49610,78929,6662021 - May1,4352,786 346 5,1469,7132021 - June2,0083,377 545 2,6488,5782021 - July8,8354,643 599 1,71515,7922021 - August3,3494,318 340 967 8,9742021 - September1,8082,568 0 0 4,3762021 - October3,7961,257 0 0 5,0532021 - November3,7221,809 0 1,5547,0852021 - December4,4411,397 0 0 5,8382022 - January869 1,265 0 0 2,1342022 - February2,7011,078 0 1,0624,8412022 - March1,4751,293 355 797 3,9202022 - April6,4401,214 0 0 7,6542022 - May3,0471,529 0 0 4,5762022 - June1,6531,305 [15]0 943 [16]3,901 LEVEE POST ENGAGEMENT [17]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 - May65 67 309 2 4432021 - June87 60 94 13 2542021 - July875 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 1462022 - February159 27 0 2 1882022 - March90 26 6 0 1222022 - April411 34 0 0 4452022 - May395 52 0 0 4472022 - June125 54 [18] 0 3 182 [19] 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 Vistors2022 - February # of Vistors2022 - March # of Vistors2022 - April # of Vistors2022 - May # of Vistors2022 - June # of Vistors [20]Average Visits Per Day [21]Average Visit Length (Minutes) [22]fostercity.org [23]2940 3423 4601- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -fostercitylevee.org [24]- - - 4,3299,145 4,5014,163 4,9424,9263,7672,790 2,6372,7522,1103,0133,0172,6283,5684,8274,942 164 1:25 LEVEE PETITIONPetition Signatures2021 - February2,7192021 - March2,7192021 - April2,7202021 - May2,7222021 - June2,7222021 - July2,7232021 - August2,7222021 - September2,7222021 - October2,7222021 - November2,7222021 - December2,7222022 - January2,7212022 - February2,7212022 - March2,7212022 - April2,7212022 - May2,7212022 - June [25]2,721

TOP LEVEE PROJECT SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS
City FacebookThe top Facebook post during June 2022 for the Levee Project was related to the Baffin Bridge reopening, which was a highly-anticipated milestone for the community.City TwitterThe top Tweets in June 2022 for the Levee Project shows residents/followers interacted the most with a Tweet highlighting the Baffin Bridge reopening. Other top posts contained information promoting the project website and a video of a high tide from February 2020 that highlights the project's importance.Other popular tweets include safety tip reminders and a video of a high tide from Febaruary 2020. The video was also a top post on the City's Facebook.

City InstagramThe Levee Improvements Project did not post on Instagram in May 2022. 463
3 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.

BOOSTED LEVEE PROJECT POSTSTripepi Smith did not boost any levee project-related social media posts in June 2022.

NOTABLE LEVEE PROJECT MEDIA MENTIONSPlatformGroup Post URLSan Mateo Daily Journal- Foster City reopens Baffin Street Bridge https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/foster-city-reopens-baffin-street-bridge/article_b1bfb456-e933-11ec-9653-8f8a5f4c5cc6.htmlSan Mateo Daily Journal- Foster City announces new city manager https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/foster-city-announces-new-city-manager/article_ed39f6fe-edf7-11ec-8995-cb198c65954b.htmlSan Mateo Daily Journal- Foster City budget sound https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/foster-city-budget-sound/article_8111d970-f139-11ec-bc86-ebf1bc2a5479.htmlNorCalCarpenters Magazine- May-June 2022 Edition https://www.norcalcarpenters.org/about/magazine Twitter NorCal Carpenters https://twitter.com/NorCalCarpU/status/1541811616911544320

OTHER NOTABLE LEVEE PROJECT SUPPORT
Social media monitoring Since January 2021, 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. Presentation requestsTripepi Smith continued coordinating with Public Works Director Louis Sun and the Project Management Institute (PMI) on logistics for a presentation/event in September 2022. Meeting logisticsTripepi Smith began coordination with the City to facilitate a community meeting to address flooding concerns in the Belmont area. 464
4 [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] Followers/subscribers 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] The Levee Improvements Project team took the Foster City City Council on four separate project tours in February 2022, which is also where Mayor Awasthi filmed an episode of "The Mayoral Minute." Additionally Public Works Director Louis Sun and Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno gave a presentation to Hillsdale United Methodist Church. [7] The Levee Improvements Project team participated at the 2022 CEAC Spring Conference. Additionally, Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno presented at the 2022 Silicon Valley Women in Engineering Conference in March 2022. [8] Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno provided a levee update at the City's Parks & Recreation meeting and Public Works Director Louis Sun gave a presentation at the Infraday Conference in Los Angeles. [9] Public Works Director Louis Sun and Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno provided a levee update to the Foster City Rotary Club. [10] Senior Civil Engineer Francine Magno and Tanner Pacific, Inc. coordinated a project tour with representatives from Marin County Public Works. [11] The number of project inquiries in June 2022 was about half the number of inquiries from the month prior. Though the bike detour switched in June 2022 due the opening of the Baffin Bridge, the low number of inquiries reflects that signage and project communications regarding the Baffin Bridge reopening were effective. [12] Number of posts is only relating to the Levee Improvements Project. [13] Due to the character limit on Twitter, some Tweets had to be posted in a thread (series of Tweets about one topic). [14] Instagram Impressions: The number of times your content is displayed, no matter if it was clicked or not. [15] Though Twitter impressions dropped slightly in June 2022 to 1,305, the total is still comparable to 1,529 impression in May 2022. It is also important to highlight that May 2022 marked the highest number of impressions since August 2021. [16] The City posted a levee-related post in June 2022 highlighting the reopening of the Baffin Bridge. This was the first levee post published on Nextdoor since March 2022. [17] 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). [18] Similar to Twitter impressions, May 2022 Twitter engagement remains comparable to engagement. from May 2022, which marked the highest number of Twitter engagements since January 2022. [19] Total engagement in June 2022 dropped significantly, largely due to a major decrease in Facebook post engagement. Engagement was also higher in months prior due to many comments from residents regarding concerns over the CIty's efforts to mitigate the Canada Goose population. The City has created an FAQ page and related communications, leading to less comments on posts overall. [20] June 2022 marked the highest number of website visitors since July 2021. This significant increase in traffic is largely due to updated communications on the website, including a video highlighting the Baffin Bridge reopening. [21] Average visits per day in June 2022 increased to about 164 visitors a day compared to approximately 155 website visitors in May 2022. [22] Average visit length increased from 1:25 in May 2022 to 1:53 in June 2022. [23] 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 [24] 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. 465
5 [25] There have been no new signatures since August 2021 and an additional signature was removed from the petition in January 2022. 466

DATE: July 18, 2022

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

VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager

FROM: Julie Paping, Interim Principal Management Analyst

SUBJECT: POLICY FOR REQUESTING TO ADD ITEMS TO A FUTURE AGENDA

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors (City Council), approve the attached resolution adopting a Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the May 2, 2022 City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Froomin requested to agendize a formal policy for Councilmembers/Directors (Councilmembers) to request items be placed on an agenda for future City Council Meetings. His request received support from two other Councilmembers. For City Council’s consideration, staff has drafted a proposed policy for requesting to add items to a future agenda. The City Council may choose to adopt the attached draft policy as written or provide staff with direction for amendments.

BACKGROUND

The City Council adopted a Code of Conduct on November 2, 2020. The Code of Conduct included the following process for requesting to place items 467
on an agenda:

Setting Agendas

1. The City/District Manager determines, in consultation with the Mayor/President, which items are placed on the City Council/ District Board’s meeting agendas and the timing for scheduling such items. An individual City Council/District Board Member’s request for an item to be placed on the agenda will be agendized to ask the full City Council/District Board if time should be spent on preparing a full report on the proposed agenda item.

2. City/District elected and appointed Members should attempt to communicate questions, corrections, and/or clarifications about reports requiring official action to staff prior to meetings; however, this does not preclude Members from asking questions at Meetings.

3. Agenda items for City/District advisory bodies must originate with the City Council/District Board or from City/District staff. The City/District Staff Liaison will consult with the Chair of the advisory body or both Members of City Council Subcommittees to determine which items are placed on the meeting agendas of these groups.

Under the process for setting agendas, if a Councilmember requested an item be placed on an agenda, staff would bring a short staff report summarizing the request and providing basic information related to the request at a future City Council meeting. The full City Council would then vote on whether time should be spent preparing a full report and if the items should appear on a future agenda. Although the initial staff report would be shorter than a typical staff report, significant staff time could still be spent interpreting the request, gathering information including a legal opinion, and writing and reviewing the report.

The Code of Conduct, including the agenda setting process, was rescinded by City Council on December 13, 2021 by Minute Order No. 1823. Since then, there has been no formal process or written policy established clearly defining how Councilmembers may request to add items to an agenda.

Instead, an informal process has been followed. Under the informal process, Councilmembers may request an item be placed on a future agenda during the City/District Managers Report,Council/Board Statements and Requests, and Council Liaison Reports portion of a public meeting. If the request receives informal support from at least two other Councilmembers, the item is placed on a future agenda. However, Councilmembers have raised concern 468
that this process prohibits members of the public from providing input on whether or not items should be agendized as no prior public notice on the request is given.

ANALYSIS

Staff is proposing a policy for requesting to add items to a future agenda that increases clarity in the request being made, reduces the need for staff time and effort in preparing for items which ultimately may or may not receive the support to proceed, and provides members of the public with the opportunity to comment on requests for future agenda items.

Under the proposed draft policy for requesting to add items to a future agenda, Councilmembers would complete a simple form identifying the request. The request would be in the Councilmembers own words; therefore, staff would be less likely to misinterpret the request. The request form would be submitted to the City Clerk at least two days prior to the publishing of the meeting agenda (the Monday before the meeting date). The item would appear on the agenda under the City/District Managers Report, Council/Board Statements and Requests, and Council Liaison Reports item regardless of agenda load, and the form completed by the Councilmember would be posted as an attachment to the agenda. No staff report would accompany the agenda item. During the public meeting, the Councilmember would have an opportunity to state why they believe the item should appear on a future agenda, and members of the public would have the opportunity to comment on the request. Councilmembers could ask questions of staff and/or the Councilmember making the request and provide comment. Public comment would also be taken on the requested agenda items. The City Council would then vote on the item. If the item were to receive majority support, the item would appear on a future meeting agenda, accompanied by a staff report. If the item did not receive majority support, the item would not be agendized at a future meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORTIY AREA

A defined process for requesting to agendize items for future City Council meetings promotes clarity and transparency in City Council requests and 469
provides the public the opportunity to comment on such requests, thus supporting the "City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement" Value/Priority Area.

Attachments:
 Attachment 1 – City Resolution
 Attachment 2 – EMID Resolution
 Attachment 3 – Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda 470
RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ADOPTING

A POLICY FOR REQUESTING TO ADD ITEMS TO A FUTURE AGENDA

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council currently follows an informal process for requesting to add items to a future agenda; and
WHEREAS, a formal policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda promotes clarity and transparency into requests by individual City Councilmembers that result in the use of staff time; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda allows members of the public to comment on such requests from individual City Councilmembers;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby adopt the Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda attached hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
471
RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY FOR REQUESTING TO ADD

ITEMS TO A FUTURE AGENDA

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the EMID Board of Directors currently follows an informal process for requesting to add items to a future agenda; and
WHEREAS, a formal policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda promotes clarity and transparency into requests by individual Directors that result in the use of staff time; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda allows members of the public to comment on such requests from individual Directors;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does hereby adopt the Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda attached hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________

RICHA AWASTHI, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
472
Updated 6/6/2022
Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda

PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish a formal process for requesting to add items to a future agenda and to provide clarity and transparency into requests by individual City Councilmembers/EMID Directors (City Councilmembers) that result in the use of staff time. The policy applies to all City Councilmembers equally and allows the full City Council/District Board (City Council) to determine how to use limited City/District (City) resources.

POLICY
To Make a Request
To request consideration of an item at a future City Council meeting, City Councilmembers shall complete a request form (Appendix A). The form must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than two (2) business days prior to the publication of the meeting agenda. Meeting agendas are typically published the Wednesday prior to the meeting.

The request will automatically appear under City/District Managers Report, Council/Board Statements and Requests, and Council Liaison Reports on the next regular agenda, and the request form will be included as an attachment in the published agenda packet. The request shall be included on the agenda regardless of agenda load. No staff work shall be done for these requests prior to discussion by the entire City Council except that Councilmembers may briefly discuss the matter with staff prior to the meeting.

Initial City Council Consideration of Request
As an agendized item under City/District Managers Report, Council/Board Statements and Requests, and Council Liaison Reports, the City Council may discuss the request and ask questions of staff and/or the Councilmember making the request. Public comment will also be taken on the items. After public comment, the City Council may then, by motion and second, and majority vote supporting the item, direct the City/District Manager to prioritize staff resources to prepare a formal staff report for further City Council consideration and/or action at a future City Council meeting.

If the motion succeeds, the item will be brought to City Council for consideration based on the prioritization noted on the request form, unless otherwise specified in the motion.

If prioritization of the item is omitted on the request form or from the motion, or is otherwise unclear, the City/District Manager will have discretion as to when the item is brought to City Council for consideration.

If the request does not receive sufficient City Council support, the item shall not be agendized for a future meeting. Nothing herein shall preclude a Council/Board member from making the request again at a future date.

ATTACHMENT 3
473
Updated 6/6/2022
This policy does not supersede Municipal Code Section 2.08.070 Meetings – Agenda, which states, “The city clerk (district secretary) shall prepare the agenda of all such matters under the direction of the city/district manager. If the mayor/president or city/district manager determines that a matter is urgent, it may be added to the agenda thereafter.” 474
Updated 6/6/2022

APPENDIX A
Request to Place Item on Future Agenda
FROM:(Insert Name of Councilmember)
RE:(Title of Item)
Description of Request:
(Briefly describe your request. Please be clear so that your fellow Councilmembers, staff, and members of the public understand the request. This information will also provide guidance to staff should the request receive majority support and the item be placed on a future agenda.) How do you believe this item should be prioritized?
(i.e. What date do you believe the item should be brought back for Council consideration?) City Council Vision, Mission, and Value/Priority Area:
(How does this request fit with the City Council Vision and Mission and/or which value/priority area(s) does this request most closely align?)
Attachments (if applicable):

A.

B.

Councilmember Signature
475
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name Description
146017 A-1 TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL, INC. DMV TRAINING - LUIS AVALOS 146018 AKBAR JONES INSTRUCTOR FEE - GREAT VOLLEYBALL
146019 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES INC. LAGOON WATER QUALITY TEST 146020 ANIMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT, INC. GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL 146021 BAY AREA SUNROOMS INC PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146022 BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - PARK PROGRAM 146023 BKF ENGINEERS CIP695:LIFT STATION EFFLUENT LINE IMPROVEMENTS 146024 BUBBLEMANIA AND COMPANY LA LLC BUBBLE SHOW - KOALA/OUTBACK/WAY OUTBACK 146025 C.L. SIGLER & ASSOCIATES PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 146026 CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY INC CIP455-626 - SEWER LIFT STATIONS PHASE 5 146027 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL MTNC INC TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - MARCH 2022 &

VIDEO SYSTEM INSTALLATION
146028 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORM/LAUNDRY SERVICE - MAY 2022 146029 CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC PEST AWAY SERVICE - JUNE 2022 146030 CORE & MAIN LP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM 146031 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC OFF-SITE RECORDS STORAGE 146032 CORY CALL VISION REIMBURSEMENT - CORY CALL
146033 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PUBLIC SAFETY MESSAGE SWITCH SERVICE QUARTERLY BILLING - APRIL - JUNE 2022
146034 CRAIG W. REED SPRING SOFTBALL STATISTIC
146035 CSG CONSULTANTS INC. STAFF AUGMENTATION SERVICES: D531 GILEAD 357 LAKESIDE, D532 GILEAD 324 LAKESIDE, D542 PILGRIM TRITON PHASE C, D552 GILEAD PARK, D549 GILEAD WELL BEING
CENTER
146036 CUMMINS INC CIP947 LAGOON PUMP SERVICE
146037 CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL INC LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR
146038 DAN'S MOBILE PUMP & SPRAYER REPAIR REPAIR FOR BOAT SPRAY RIG 146039 DAVID A. LEVY LAWN BE GONE REBATE
Check Date Check Amount
6/15/2022 2,800.00
6/15/2022 1,304.40
6/15/2022 900.00
6/15/2022 350.00
6/15/2022 1,351.25
6/15/2022 785.28
6/15/2022 614.25
6/15/2022 587.00
6/15/2022 428.00
6/15/2022 2,471.41
6/15/2022 9,186.99
6/15/2022 1,294.97
6/15/2022 806.00
6/15/2022 483.49
6/15/2022 106.07
6/15/2022 200.00
6/15/2022 4,994.75
6/15/2022 200.00
6/15/2022 15,045.00
6/15/2022 4,109.12
6/15/2022 24.19
6/15/2022 687.41
6/15/2022 804.00
476
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146040 ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 146041 ERIC DREESMAN EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT - ERIC DREESMAN 146042 ETHAN ALLISON PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146043 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS & IRRIGATION SUPPLIES -

PARKS MAINTENANCE
146044 FANCY LEONG CAMP REFUND - WAYOUTBACK22-1-7
146045 FARIDA DANISH VISION REIMBURSEMENT - FARIDA DANISH 146046 FEHR & PEERS UP2021-0036:PROFESSIONAL SERVICE - MARCH 26, 2022 - APRIL 29, 2022
146047 FORELAND PARTS INC. AUTO PARTS
146048 FOSTER CITY ISLANDER ADVERTISEMENT - UP2021-0041, CIP697, CIP701, & LEGAL

NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
146049 GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INC CAR WASH SERVICES - MAY 2022 146050 GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES & MATERIALS - PARKS 146051 GP CRANE & HOIST SERVICES CAL/OSHA CRANES SERVICES 146052 RUEDI GRAF INSTRUCTOR FEE - SOCCER
146053 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26462 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER & SEWER PROGRAM 146054 GRIGORIY KESLER PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146055 HARBORSIDE HOA PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146056 TRACY HILL SUMMER CAMP ANIMAL SHOWS - JUNE 23, 2022 146057 HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES INC HIP MANAGEMENT FEE - JUNE 2022 AND WORKFORCE HOUSING MANAGEMENT MAY 2022
146058 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - SEWER, PARKS, STREET &

WATER PROGRAM
146059 IEDA LABOR RELATION SERVICE - JUNE 2022
146060 INFOSEND INC. ONLINE UTILITY BILLING - APRIL AND MAY 2022 146061 JACOB MARZOLF VISION REIMBURSEMENT - JACOB MARZOLF 146062 JATINDER KAUR CLASS REFUND - BREAKAWAY 22-1
6/15/2022 1,710.80
6/15/2022 73.59
6/15/2022 422.00
6/15/2022 1,794.07
6/15/2022 240.00
6/15/2022 200.00
6/15/2022 2,940.00
6/15/2022 121.36
6/15/2022 2,712.75
6/15/2022 463.54
6/15/2022 1,283.26
6/15/2022 424.95
6/15/2022 431.20
6/15/2022 5,587.59
6/15/2022 3,000.00
6/15/2022 38.50
6/15/2022 730.00
6/15/2022 3,360.00
6/15/2022 4,195.80
6/15/2022 3,044.20
6/15/2022 8,278.36
6/15/2022 182.04
6/15/2022 290.00
477
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146063 JULIO CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE JANITORIAL SERVICE - JUNE 2022 146064 KEJIA MA SOLAR REBATE
146065 KEVIN LEE VISION REIMBURSEMENT - KEVIN LEE
146066 KOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. CLASSIFICATION STUDY SERVICES - MAY 2022 146067 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EA2021-0001:PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - MAY 2022 146068 LUCIANO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE REPAIR - BEHIND LUCKY SHOPPING CENTER 146069 LYNDSEY CASTRO VISION REIMBURSEMENT - LYNDSEY CASTRO 146070 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, INC. GARDEN COMPOST AND MULCH 146071 MAZE AND ASSOCIATES AUDIT SERVICES - JUNE 2022
146072 MISSION CLOUD SERVICES, INC CALOPPS SUPPORT SERVICE - JUNE 2022 146073 MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES
146074 MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES INC MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLE PARTS AND LABOR 146075 M3FLYING INCORPORATED PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146076 N. GLANTZ & SON LLC SIGN MAKING MATERIALS
146077 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, INC. PARTICIPANT FEE - MAY 2022 146078 NORBERTO CHAVEZ LAGOON ROOM REFUND
146079 NWESTCO LLC UST OPERATOR INSPECTION
146080 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES
146081 OLIVE LEE-DEACON CLASS REFUND - CERAMICS
146082 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ELECTRICITY AND GAS - MARCH - MAY 2022 146083 PACIFIC NURSERIES PLANT MATERIALS
146084 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION, INC COPIER USAGE CHARGES - APRIL - MAY 2022 & COPIER INK 146085 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT,INC. POLICE BALLISTIC VEST 146086 PERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM INSURANCE PREMIUM - JUNE 2022 146087 PETERSON TRUCKS INC VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
146088 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY TOWEL/UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICE - MAY 2022 6/15/2022 25,088.00
6/15/2022 1,000.00
6/15/2022 200.00
6/15/2022 3,360.00
6/15/2022 1,138.75
6/15/2022 17,500.00
6/15/2022 199.00
6/15/2022 3,617.58
6/15/2022 14,960.00
6/15/2022 2,000.00
6/15/2022 365.64
6/15/2022 390.00
6/15/2022 180.06
6/15/2022 304.77
6/15/2022 99.00
6/15/2022 500.00
6/15/2022 460.00
6/15/2022 755.61
6/15/2022 255.00
6/15/2022 8,555.50
6/15/2022 382.43
6/15/2022 914.13
6/15/2022 1,867.76
6/15/2022 134.83
6/15/2022 999.17
6/15/2022 327.57
478
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146089 PWM RESIDENTIAL VENTURE LP RELOCATION ASSISTANCE - ANA VICTORIA 146090 PWM RESIDENTIAL VENTURES LLC TAX INCREMENT AND UTILITY SUBSIDY 146091 RICOH USA, INC COPIER SERVICES
146092 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC AUTO FLUID WASTE DISPOSAL 146093 SAM HINDI EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT - SAM HINDI
146094 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT RANGE PROGRAM - AMMUNITION SUPPLIES 146095 SFPUC - WATER WATER - MAY 11, 2022 - JUNE 8, 2022 146096 SAN MATEO CO CONTROLLER'S OFFICE SHARED PARKING PENALTY REVENUE - MAY 2022 146097 SAN MATEO CO HEALTH DEPT PORTABLE WATER LAB TEST - MAY 2022 146098 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT SERVICES - MAY 2022 146099 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE & PARKS PROGRAM 146100 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS INC. LOCKS & KEYS - BUILDINGS 146101 SANJAY GEHANI EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT - SANJAY GEHANI 146102 SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIP657:LEVEE PROTECTION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS & D554-BIOMED PHASE 2 PLAN CHECK
146103 SERVICE PRESS INC. BUSINESS CARDS - VUONG PHAN, MARCUS TERRY. HOUTAN

PEZESHKAN, JACK TURNER, JARED RYALS, ISAAC PARHAM,

GABRIEL ADODACA, CLARA LEONG, NOEL PRADO & WILL

HAMILTON
146104 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC CIP657:LEVEE PROTECTION PLAN AND IMPROVEMENT - MAY 2022
146105 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT OFFICE SUPPLIES
146106 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD NPDES AQUATIC WEED PERMIT 146107 SUMMIT AUTO BODY & PAINTING AUTO REPAIR SERVICES 146108 T.H.E. OFFICE CITY OFFICE SUPPLIES
146109 TAEHO OH & KUNRI KIM PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146110 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS & SAFETY SUPPLIES 146111 THIRKETTLE CORPORATION WATER METER PURCHASE
6/15/2022 2,387.00
6/15/2022 254,290.91
6/15/2022 81.60
6/15/2022 1,410.35
6/15/2022 660.36
6/15/2022 1,302.47
6/15/2022 810,532.50
6/15/2022 669.50
6/15/2022 3,360.00
6/15/2022 5,622.90
6/15/2022 717.16
6/15/2022 553.61
6/15/2022 96.33
6/15/2022 124,793.85
6/15/2022 466.77
6/15/2022 1,362,516.28
6/15/2022 748.13
6/15/2022 3,146.00
6/15/2022 2,403.26
6/15/2022 346.59
6/15/2022 180.00
6/15/2022 2,917.78
6/15/2022 11,860.53
479
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146112 THOMAS SARSFIELD INSTRUCTOR FEE - TENNIS
146113 TIFCO INDUSTRIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE PROGRAM 146114 TOWNE FORD SALES AUTO PARTS & SUPPLIES - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 146115 TRIPEPI, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIP657:LEVEE PROTECTION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENT - MAY 2022
146116 TURBO DATA SYSTEM, INC. CITATION PROCESSING - MAY 2022 146117 URBAN FUTURES INC 2020 GO BONDS-CONTINUING DISCLOSURE & ANNUAL DEBT

TRANSPARENCY REPORT
146118 URBAN FUTURES INC 2019 REV BONDS, 2020 WIFIA LOAN AND 2021 REVENUE

NOTES - CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AND ANNUAL DEBT

TRANSPARENCY REPORT, AND MARK-ROOS YEARLY FISCAL

STATUS REPORT
146119 URBAN INSIGHT, INC. CALOPPS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES - MAY 2022 146120 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING - APRIL 2022
146121 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC INTERNET SERVICES - JUNE 2022 146122 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
146123 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) VISION PREMIUM - JUNE 2022 146124 WE GO LOGO STAFF UNIFORMS AND APPAREL
146125 NWN CORPORATION LASER JET TONER CARTRIDGE
146126 WILLIAMS LANDING HOA PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146127 WILSEY HAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CIP657:LEVEE PROTECTION 146128 WILSON YEH EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT - WILSON YEH
146129 XIAOBING XIE PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146130 YAN CAO SMART CONTROLLER REBATE
146131 34TH STREET, INC EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION MEETING FOR MANAGEMENT TRAINING - JUNE 1, 2022
146132 4LEAF, INC. PLANNING TECHNICIAN SERVICES - APRIL 2022 6/15/2022 6,930.00
6/15/2022 71.19
6/15/2022 593.85
6/15/2022 8,196.25
6/15/2022 106.88
6/15/2022 1,675.00
6/15/2022 6,825.00
6/15/2022 2,500.00
6/15/2022 30,656.75
6/15/2022 2,405.36
6/15/2022 2,866.34
6/15/2022 1,197.09
6/15/2022 2,521.15
6/15/2022 260.49
6/15/2022 32.50
6/15/2022 7,438.50
6/15/2022 215.00
6/15/2022 189.00
2,849,521.05
6/15/2022 164.43
6/15/2022 2,500.00
6/15/2022 4,500.00
480
Prepared Date 6/15/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 36
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON JUNE 15, 2022 481
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name Description
146133 AARON SIU VISION REIMBURSEMENT - AARON SIU
146134 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS TEMPERATURE HYDRANT METER & WATER REFUND 146135 ALLIED PROPANE SERVICE, INC. PROPANE TANKS FOR CERAMICS 146136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. 1 FHD 15.6" LAPTOP 146137 ANDREAS GEORGE ZAMENES CHILD'S BAND BALANCE - JULY 4, 2022 146138 ANIMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT, INC. GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL 146139 ASH TEES SCREEN PRINTING ADULTS SPORTS SHIRTS
146140 AT&T BUSINESS PHONE LINE ACCT - MAY - JUNE 2022
146141 AT&T MOBILITY CELLULAR SERVICES - POLICE CARS
146142 BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE, INC. CONES & BARRICADE - PARKS 146143 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION
AGENCY
WATER LOSS CONTROL PROGRAM - APRIL - MAY 2022
& WATER WISE KITS
146144 BENDER ROSENTHAL INC CIP657:ACQUISITION SERVICES - MAY 2022 146145 BILL JACKSON PERMIT FEES REFUND
146146 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL MTNC INC ENCR2022-0026, TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - APRIL 2022
146147 CCS PRESENTATION SYSTEMS ANCHOR AUDIO GO GETTER
146148 CHANPALE LEWIS LAGOON ROOM DEPOSIT REFUND
146149 CHANPALE LEWIS LAGOON ROOM DEPOSIT REFUND
146150 CHEMSEARCH ECO FLOW BIOAMP PROGRAM
146151 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORM/LAUNDRY SERVICE - JUNE 2022 146152 CITY OF BRISBANE 2022 SPRING ACADEMY FEES
146153 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO 6/24/22 MEETING - PATRICK SULLIVAN, RICHA

AWASTHI, & SAM HINDI
146154 CIVICPLUS AGENDA SOFTWARE - 6 MONTH FEE RENEWAL
146155 CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC PEST AWAY SERVICE - JUNE 2022 146156 CODE PUBLISHING, INC. MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
146157 COLLEEN GOTTHARDT VISION REIMBURSEMENT - COLLEN GOTTHARDT Check Date Check Amount
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 2,761.35
6/30/2022 454.31
6/30/2022 2,224.19
6/30/2022 225.00
6/30/2022 350.00
6/30/2022 317.99
6/30/2022 1,438.04
6/30/2022 567.45
6/30/2022 6,708.52
6/30/2022 8,327.42
6/30/2022 4,836.00
6/30/2022 821.74
6/30/2022 3,922.26
6/30/2022 2,734.39
6/30/2022 500.00
6/30/2022 430.00
6/30/2022 1,893.28
6/30/2022 407.08
6/30/2022 2,440.00
6/30/2022 195.00
6/30/2022 7,543.20
6/30/2022 327.00
6/30/2022 775.55
6/30/2022 200.00
482
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146158 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES INC. STREET CLEANING SERVICE - MAY 2022 146159 CORE & MAIN LP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM 146160 CORE1 SECURITY SERVICES DEPOSIT - SECURITY 7/4/2022 146161 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO CRIME LAB FEES - FEBRUARY - JUNE 2022 146162 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS PAVING BREAKER & MARVEL AIR TOOL OIL 146163 CSG CONSULTANTS INC. STAFF AGUMENTATION, D537:FOSTER SQUARE, D542 PILGRAM TRITON PHASE 3, D553, PUE VACATION,
D555, GILEAD B342, D556 GILEAD 344, D549 WELL
BEING CENTER, D552 GILEAD PARK, D554 BIOMED
ILLUMINA PHASE 2, D555 GILEAD 342 LAKESIDE, D556
GILEAD 344 LAKESIDE
146164 CWEA CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - JACOB MARZOLF &

MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL - ALLEN SMITH
146165 CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL INC LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR
146166 ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. CIP652:WASTEWATER TREATMENT 146167 RANDY ENG SYNTHETIC TURF REBATE
146168 EPS INC. CIP636 - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
146169 ERIC DREESMAN VISION REIMBURSEMENT - ERIC DRESSMAN 146170 ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DIST. WATER SERVICES - MAY 2022 146171 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS & IRRIGATION

SUPPLIES - PARKS MAINTENANCE
146172 FELIPE GARCIA VISION REIMBURSEMENT - FELIPE GARCIA 146173 FORELAND PARTS INC. AUTO PARTS
146174 FOSTER CITY ISLANDER RZ2021-0002 ADVERTISEMENT
146175 FRANK SCHOENING VISION REIMBURSEMENT - FRANK SCHOENING 146176 GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES & MATERIALS - PARKS 146177 GOOD CITY CO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - CONSULTING - MAY 2022 146178 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26462 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - STREET PROGRAM 146179 HARSHIL JAVERI LAGOON ROOM DEPOSIT REFUND
6/30/2022 8,923.23
6/30/2022 3,038.23
6/30/2022 2,535.00
6/30/2022 3,070.80
6/30/2022 1,059.35
6/30/2022 18,927.50
6/30/2022 283.00
6/30/2022 82.01
6/30/2022 6,107.40
6/30/2022 2,332.00
6/30/2022 294,405.00
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 88,743.48
6/30/2022 6,237.37
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 399.12
6/30/2022 1,194.44
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 606.21
6/30/2022 12,040.00
6/30/2022 1,738.82
6/30/2022 500.00
483
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146180 HELM INCORPORATED VCM SOFTWARE RENEWAL
146181 HINES, EDM, INC. SCANNING - PERMITS & PLANS
146182 HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES INC WORK FORCE HOUSING MANAGEMENT - JUNE 2022 146183 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - SEWER, PARKS,

STREET, VEHICLE, BUILDING PROGRAMS
146184 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC. ARMADA DIGITAL LOCATOR 146185 INFOSEND INC. WATER QUALITY REPORT
146186 JAMES GERANIOS VISION REIMBURSEMENT - JAMES GERANIOS 146187 JUDY BUGARIN VISION REIMBURSEMENT - JUDY BUGARIN 146188 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES 146189 KIS CONSULTING SERVICES - EXCHANGE SERVER
146190 KOFFLER ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL PUMP#3 DEBRIS REMOVAL 146191 KURT ZANDER VISION REIMBURSEMENT - KURT ZANDER
146192 LADONNA TROTMAN TOP SHELF CLASSIC - JULY 4, 2022 146193 LAW ENFORCEMENT PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS
146194 LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF SM COUNTY LEADERSHIP PROGRAM TUITION - JULIE PAPING 146195 LI ZHOU CLASS REFUND - SUMMER22.T4A
146196 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE LCW-ERC MEMBERSHIP FEES 146197 LOOKSEE SUMMER CAMP PHONE APP-KOALA
146198 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - JUNE 2022 146199 LUIS DIAZ VISION REIMBURSEMENT - LUIS DIAZ
146200 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, INC. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 146201 MANUEL GARCIA VISION REIMBURSEMENT - MANUEL GARCIA 146202 MICHAEL GREENE POST TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT - MICHAEL GREENE 146203 MISSION CLOUD SERVICES, INC CALOPPS SUPPORT SERVICE - MAY 2022 146204 MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES
146205 MITY LITE INC. 42 SUPER STACKER CHAIRS
6/30/2022 800.00
6/30/2022 1,315.10
6/30/2022 1,980.00
6/30/2022 5,968.68
6/30/2022 1,090.48
6/30/2022 368.25
6/30/2022 132.60
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 2,112.00
6/30/2022 5,100.00
6/30/2022 1,440.00
6/30/2022 195.13
6/30/2022 1,000.00
6/30/2022 2,000.00
6/30/2022 2,500.00
6/30/2022 135.00
6/30/2022 6,302.00
6/30/2022 50.00
6/30/2022 28,121.00
6/30/2022 130.09
6/30/2022 5,257.66
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 1,014.39
6/30/2022 1,482.61
6/30/2022 427.27
6/30/2022 7,068.19
484
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146206 MONICA LY VISION REIMBURSEMENT - MONICA LY
146207 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIP INC. MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES SEWER PROGRAM 146208 MUNISERVICES LLC SUTA SERVICES - QUARTER ENDED 12/31/21 146209 N. GLANTZ & SON LLC SIGN MAKING MATERIALS
146210 NANOGAN SCIENCE & SERVICES, LLC PRESCHOOL WORKSHOPS -JULY 2022 146211 NORCAL SOUND CO. SOUND SERVICES - JULY 4, 2022
146212 NWESTCO LLC UST OPERATOR INSPECTION
146213 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES
146214 OGAWA-MUNE INC PLANT MATERIALS
146215 OPEN AIR CINEMA LLC PROJECTOR SCREEN/OPTOMA
146216 OPENGOV, INC. OPENGOV ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION
146217 OSWALD JIMENEZ VISION REIMBURSEMENT - OSWALD JIMENEZ 146218 PACIFIC AUXILIARY FIRE CO FIRE ALARM INSPECTION
146219 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ELECTRICITY AND GAS - MAY 2022 146220 PENINSULA GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR FEE - GYMNASTIC
146221 PENINSULA POWER WASH PRESSURE WASHING SERVICES
146222 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS ASSOC. ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRES 146223 PETERSON MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM
146224 PIONEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - PLAYFIELDS 146225 PITNEY BOWES INC. POSTAGE METER RENTAL
146226 FERGUSON ENT #3325-DBA POLLARDWATER MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM 146227 PRISCILLA SCHAUS VISION REIMBURSEMENT - PRISCILLA SCHAUS 146228 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY TOWEL/UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICE 146229 PYRO SPECTACULARS NORTH, INC. FIREWORKS - 4TH OF JULY 146230 RAUL SALAZAR VISION REIMBURSEMENT - RAUL SALAZAR 146231 RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP, LLP LOBBYING SERVICES - MAY 2022 6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 1,874.30
6/30/2022 338.77
6/30/2022 186.74
6/30/2022 1,375.00
6/30/2022 2,020.00
6/30/2022 250.00
6/30/2022 325.95
6/30/2022 93.18
6/30/2022 6,068.00
6/30/2022 49,900.00
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 1,296.00
6/30/2022 72,985.61
6/30/2022 1,840.00
6/30/2022 3,475.00
6/30/2022 334.00
6/30/2022 212.71
6/30/2022 403.29
6/30/2022 236.25
6/30/2022 649.14
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 156.62
6/30/2022 12,500.00
6/30/2022 200.00
6/30/2022 13,000.00
485
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146232 ROHIT KULKARNI CLASS REFUND - PENINSULA MUSIC
146233 ROXANE W CHIANG PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
146234 RED VINYL C/O SAL CENSOPRANO RED VINYL - JULY 4, 2022 - BALANCE 146235 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES DRINKING WATER QUALITY TESTING 146236 SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE DEPT FIRE PLAN CHECK FEE- MAY 2022 & WORKER'S COMP 146237 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE PROGRAM 146238 SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL DIST. CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM 146239 SARAH PARK FARRAGUT PARK REFUND
146240 SOFTWARE ONE INC. TRUE UP OFFICE365 SUBSCRIPTION 146241 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT OFFICE SUPPLIES
146242 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINTING FEE SERVICE 146243 SUMMIT AUTO BODY & PAINTING AUTO REPAIR SERVICES 146244 T.H.E. OFFICE CITY OFFICE SUPPLIES
146245 TANNER PACIFIC INC CIP657 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT SERVICES - APRIL - MAY 2022
146246 TAP PLASTICS, INC. CLEAR POLYCARBONATE SHEET
146247 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS & SAFETY SUPPLIES 146248 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINRNG ASSC RADIO EQUIPMENT FEES 146249 THAI-CHAU LE VISION REIMBURSEMENT - THAI-CHAU LE 146250 THERESA TAI CLASS REFUND - BREAKAWAY22-2
146251 THERMAL MECHANICAL INC. HVAC SYSTEM REPAIR
146252 THIRKETTLE CORPORATION WATER METERS
146253 TIFCO INDUSTRIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE PROGRAM 146254 TOWNE FORD SALES AUTO PARTS & SUPPLIES-VEHICLE
146255 TRACY AVELAR VISION REIMBURSEMENT - TRACY AVELAR 146256 TYLER STAVROS CONSTRUCTION & DEMO DEPOSIT REFUND 146257 ULISES RENTERIA VISION REIMBURSEMENT - ULISES RENTERIA 6/30/2022 220.00
6/30/2022 176.00
6/30/2022 1,000.00
6/30/2022 1,065.00
6/30/2022 15,727.42
6/30/2022 446.50
6/30/2022 23,394.85
6/30/2022 55.00
6/30/2022 1,828.60
6/30/2022 26.86
6/30/2022 661.00
6/30/2022 1,520.60
6/30/2022 1,047.56
6/30/2022 501,777.83
6/30/2022 374.04
6/30/2022 2,258.46
6/30/2022 1,978.00
6/30/2022 120.00
6/30/2022 950.00
6/30/2022 6,171.82
6/30/2022 4,150.21
6/30/2022 309.10
6/30/2022 80.96
6/30/2022 190.31
6/30/2022 1,000.00
6/30/2022 200.00
486
Prepared Date 6/30/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2022/12
Report Number 37
Check Number Vendor Name DescriptionCheck Date Check Amount 146258 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - FEBRUARY - MAY 2022 146259 VANESSA BRANNON VISION REIMBURSEMENT - VANESSA BRANNON 146260 VANESSA BRANNON EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT - VANESSA BRANNON 146261 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
146262 WE GO LOGO DEPARTMENT APPAREL - PARKS
146263 XINXIN WU SMART CONTROLLER REBATE
146264 ZAHEED DANISH VISION REIMBURSEMENT - ZAHEED DANISH 6/30/2022 10,947.50
6/30/2022 195.99
6/30/2022 155.84
6/30/2022 200.00
1,331,797.47
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON JUNE 30, 2022 6/30/2022 2,117.71
6/30/2022 1,152.52
6/30/2022 164.05
487
Prepared Date 7/5/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2023/1
Report Number 1A
ACH Date ACH Vendor Name Description
7/5/2022 ACH WILLIAM CLARK LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 210.00 7/5/2022 ACH BARBARA SCHUTZ LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 200.00 7/5/2022 ACH DAVID VILLANUEVA LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 200.00 7/5/2022 ACH MOSHE JOSHUA LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 275.00 7/5/2022 ACH GLENN WILSON LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 140.00 7/5/2022 ACH ERIC EGAN LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 210.00 7/5/2022 ACH DOUGLAS ESTILL LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 350.00 7/5/2022 ACH THOMAS LINARI LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 350.00 7/5/2022 ACH MONICA MEDRANO LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 345.00 7/5/2022 ACH JOSEPH PIERUCCI LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 140.00 7/5/2022 ACH BRIAN TIDWELL LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 210.00 7/5/2022 ACH MICHAEL TOWNS LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 350.00 7/5/2022 ACH CHARLES GOODWIN LONGEVITY 6/16/2022-7/15/2022 350.00 3,330.00
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
ACH ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED ON JULY 5, 2022
Amount
488
Prepared Date 7/5/2022 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Accounting Period 2023/1
Report Number 1
Check Number Vendor Name Description
146265 STEVEN ARCHER LONGEVITY 06/16/2022-07/15/2022
140.00
Check Date Check Amount
7/5/2022 140.00
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Edmund Suen, City Treasurer
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON JUNE 3, 2022 489