Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, August 7, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/88640438054 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City/District Meeting will be held via teleconference in addition to in person. City Councilmembers/District Board and staff will attend in person or via teleconference.

To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404 To Provide Public Comment in Person:

Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a Request to Speak Form. Forms will be accepted until the staff presentation on an agenda item ends, or until the public comment period on non agenda items is closed. For special meetings, public comment is limited to item(s) on the agenda only.

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercityorg.zoom.us/j/88640438054 To dialin via phone:
16699006833 or
16694449171
And enter Webinar ID: 886 4043 8054
To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:

During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dialin attendees. Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment.

Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:

Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda Include the submitter’s full name (Recommended but not required) Written public comments received by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting.

Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AGENDA
Monday, August 07, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4.1. Presentation from the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Regarding Current Fire Department Activities

5. PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.

Information may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the appropriate City staff. FCMC 2.08.240 Addressing the Council. "...Each person desiring to address the Council shall step up to the public rostrum after being recognized to speak by the presiding officer, shall state his/her name and address for the record, state the subject he/she wishes to discuss, state who he/she is representing if he/she represents an organization or other persons and, unless further time is granted by majority vote of the Council, shall limit his/her remarks to three minutes. The City Council may vary the time limit for any speaker, if it deems this necessary." Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people.

6. CITY/EMID CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council/EMID Board of Directors and will be enacted by one motion unless removed by a member of the Council/Board, staff, or public. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a citizen or a Council/Board member so requests.

This section includes minutes, ordinances for adoption, resolutions for adoption, and other business as needed. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately after approval of the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. Vote may be by roll call.

6.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2023

6.2. By Minute Order, Approve a Letter to the Honorable Nancy L. Fineman Judge of the Superior Court in Response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, Dated June 12, 2023, Entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” and find approval of the response exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3)
a) Staff Report

7. REPORTS

7.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) Update on Schematic Design Phase
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept the Report

7.2. Consideration of SB 532 (Weiner) San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges:

Tolls: Transit Operating Expenses
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

8. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

8.1. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Creating Chapter 2.56 “Municipal Elections,” and Adding Section 2.56.030 “Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements” to Chapter 2.56; and Amending Sections 2.08.380 “Term Limits” and 2.08.390 “General Municipal Elections Designated” to Remove Them From Chapter

2.08 “City Council” and Relocating Them to Sections 2.56.010 and 2.56.020 of Chapter 2.56 within Title 2 “Administration and Personnel” of the Foster City Municipal Code
a) Staff Report
b) Action
i) Introduce Ordinance by title only, by motion waive further reading ii) By motion, pass ordinance to second reading

8.2. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Repealing and Replacing Chapter

1.12, “Procedure and Limitations Period for Filing Claims” of the Foster City Municipal Code to Revise the Claim Presentation Timeline and Make Edits to Conform to the Government Claims Act and Delegate Authority to the City Manager to Review, Reject or Settle Certain Claims
a) Staff Report
b) Action
i) Introduce Ordinance by title only, by motion waive further reading ii) By motion, pass ordinance to second reading

9. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

9.1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations Inc. For Expanded Scope of Work for Development of an Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan Including Environmental Review to Allow Additional Data Collection and Activities and Revise the Scope of Services to Specify Only NonLethal Techniques for Population and Habitat Management in the Plan for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $171,005; Authorizing an Additional Appropriation of $122,345; and Authorizing a Contingency in the Amount of $25,652; and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Any Contract Amendments Within the Contingency Amount
a) Staff Report
b) Action Adopt Resolution

10. COMMUNICATIONS

10.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 13, 2023
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

11. CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
City/District Manager and Council/EMID Board Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council/EMID Board requests for scheduling future items.

12. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

Any attendee wishing special accommodations at the meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Department at (650) 2863250 or [email protected] at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. The City has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolving any doubt in favor of accessibility.

That procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation is available at the City Clerk’s Office. All meetings are conducted in a manner consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council or EMID Board regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda packet was distributed will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk Department at City Hall located at 610 Foster City Boulevard during normal business hours and at the meeting.

City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:

LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
REPLAY next day at 1:00 pm (that week only)
REPLAY Saturday at 5:00 pm (only on Saturday the week the actual meeting occurs) City Council meetings on https://www.fostercity.org/community/page/fctvlivestream:

STREAMED LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
City Council meetings ondemand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes

1 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/88640438054 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404 To Provide Public Comment in Person:

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AGENDA
Monday, August 07, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4.1. Presentation from the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Regarding Current Fire Department Activities

5. PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.

6.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2023

7. REPORTS

7.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) Update on Schematic Design Phase
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept the Report

7.2. Consideration of SB 532 (Weiner) San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges:

Tolls: Transit Operating Expenses
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

8. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

8.2. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Repealing and Replacing Chapter

9. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

10. COMMUNICATIONS

10.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 13, 2023
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

12. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:

STREAMED LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
City Council meetings ondemand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes

2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/88640438054 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404 To Provide Public Comment in Person:

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AGENDA
Monday, August 07, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4.1. Presentation from the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Regarding Current Fire Department Activities

5. PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.

6.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2023

7. REPORTS

7.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) Update on Schematic Design Phase
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept the Report

7.2. Consideration of SB 532 (Weiner) San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges:

Tolls: Transit Operating Expenses
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

8. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

8.2. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Repealing and Replacing Chapter

9. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

10. COMMUNICATIONS

10.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 13, 2023
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

12. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:

STREAMED LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
City Council meetings ondemand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes

3 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/88640438054 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404 To Provide Public Comment in Person:

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AGENDA
Monday, August 07, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4.1. Presentation from the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Regarding Current Fire Department Activities

5. PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.

6.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2023

7. REPORTS

7.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) Update on Schematic Design Phase
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept the Report

7.2. Consideration of SB 532 (Weiner) San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges:

Tolls: Transit Operating Expenses
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

8. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

8.2. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Repealing and Replacing Chapter

9. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

10. COMMUNICATIONS

10.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 13, 2023
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

12. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:

STREAMED LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
City Council meetings ondemand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes

4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/88640438054 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404 To Provide Public Comment in Person:

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AGENDA
Monday, August 07, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4.1. Presentation from the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Regarding Current Fire Department Activities

5. PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.

6.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2023

7. REPORTS

7.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) Update on Schematic Design Phase
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept the Report

7.2. Consideration of SB 532 (Weiner) San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges:

Tolls: Transit Operating Expenses
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

8. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

8.2. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Repealing and Replacing Chapter

9. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

10. COMMUNICATIONS

10.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 13, 2023
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

12. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:

STREAMED LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
City Council meetings ondemand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes

5 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 17, 2023

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Regular Meeting of July 17, 2023 of the City Council of the City of Foster City, sitting as said Council and as ex officio the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), was called to order at 6: 30 p.m. by Mayor/President Froomin.

This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.

ROLL CALL

The Communications Director/City Clerk/District Secretary called the roll:

PRESENT:

Councilmembers/ex officio Directors Sam Hindi, Stacy Jimenez, Art Kiesel, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Jon Froomin.

ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager, Denise Bazzano, Assistant City Attorney/District Legal Counsel; Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager; Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director ; Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director; Tracy Avelar, Police Chief; Edmund Suen, Finance Director; Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director; Robert Marshal, Deputy Fire Chief; Prabath Silva, Chief Building Official; Rob Lasky, IT Manager ; Laura Galli, Engineering Manager; Ryan Marquez, Senior Civil Engineer ; Yelena Cappello, Management Analyst; Katherine Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk; Shuli Chen, Video Technician; and Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk/District Secretary.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

PROCLAMATION STANDING UNITED AGAINST HATE.

Richa Awasthi addressed the City Council via email.

Mayor Froomin presented a proclamation Standing United Against Hate to Irene Moff, representing the Peninsula Sinai Congregation, and to Wayne Lee and Steve Okamoto, representing the San Mateo Japanese American Citizens League and both representing the San Mateo County Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

6.1 6.1 Minutes

6 PUBLIC

The following people addressed the City Council via email:

1. Angela Spears regarding the geese population management plan;

2. Lily Rivo regarding the geese population management plan;

3. Evan Adams regarding FCTV and public comment on the Foster City website;

4. Grant Casinger regarding drag races and speeding on Hillsdale Blvd;

5. Barbara Wells regarding drag races and speeding on Hillsdale Blvd;

6. Eric Zhang regarding the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting;

7. Dio Dio regarding the Levee Improvements Project;

8. Hui Liu regarding the Levee Improvements Project;

9. Debby Estey regarding a tennis email list;

10. Karen Epstein regarding the Recreation Center ceramics studio; and

11. Jack Haber regarding quotations for project bids.

The following people addressed the City Council in person:

1. Yvon ne Ryzak regarding the new streetlight on Shell Blvd; and

2. Pam Frisella regarding the nonprofit Foster City Village.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Motion by Vice Mayor/Vice President Sullivan, seconded by Councilmember/Director Kiesel, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, approving the following items on the City/District Consent Calendar:

City/EMID Consent Calendar

1. Minutes of City/EMID Special Meeting of June 20, 2023;

2. City Resolution No. 2023-78, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into Master Services Agreements with 4Leaf, Inc, and West Coast Code Consultants, Inc (WC3) for Professional On- Call Building Services in Amounts Not to Exceed $75,000 Each for Building Inspection and Permit Support Services and Without Limitation for Certain Plan Check Fees That Will Be Payable Directly by the Applicant; Approving the Appropriation of $150,000 to Account No. 001- 0820-424-42-51 for Inspection and Permit Support Services; and Finding Approval of the Agreements Exempt from the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3);”

3. City Resolution No. 2023-79, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Call for Bids for CIP 301-690 Seismic Improvements at the Lagoon Pump Station and Finding the Project Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15301(B);”

4. EMID Resolution No. 3738, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Call for Bids for CIP 405- 660 Water Tanks & Facilities

6.1 6.1 Minutes

7 Improvements Project (2021- 2022) and Finding the Project Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15301(B);”

5. EMID Resolution No. 3739, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Rescinding Resolution No. 3654 Which Declared a Water Shortage Emergency Condition and Authorized the Implementation of Water Conservation Measures as Defined in Section 8.60.050 a, B, C, D, E, F, and L of Chapter 8.60 of the District Code, and Rescinding Resolution No. 3668 Which Established Fines for Violations of Measures Under the Declaration of Water Shortage Emergency and Amended the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023;”

6. Approval to Release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to Establish a List of Qualified Environmental Consultants to Provide Project Based Professional On Call Services for CEQA Reviews for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department (CDD); and Finding Issuance of the RFQ Exempt Under CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

7. Approval to c ancel the September 5, 2023 Regular Meeting of the City Council/Board of Directors of the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District.

ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT

AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CALIFORNIA ROOFING COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,177,871 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF REPLACEMENTS AT CITY BUILDINGS PROJECT (CIP 301-693). CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2023-80. EMID RESOLUTION NO. 3740.

Without objection from the City Council /EMID Board of Directors , Mayor /President Froomin removed this item from the Consent Calendar at the request of Councilmember/Director Jimenez.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember/Director Hindi, seconded by Councilmember/Director Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5- 0-0, adopting City Res olution No. 2023- 80, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Award of a Construction Contract to California Roofing Company, Inc. in the Amount of $1,177,871 for the Construction of the Roof Replacements at City Buildings Project (CIP 301- 693); and an Appropriation in the Amount of $315,000 to CIP 301-693 and Finding the Project Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15301(B )” and EMID Resolution No . 3740, “ A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Im provement District Authorizing the Award of a Construction Contract to California Roofing Company, Inc. in the Amount of $1,177,871 for the Construction of the Roof Replacements at City Buildings Project (CIP 301-693); and an Appropriation in the Amount of $315,000 to CIP 301-693 and Finding the Project Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15301(B).”

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1 6.1 Minutes

8 ESTABLISHING THE FOSTER CITY YOUTH SPORTS FIELD USER GROUP FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2023-81. EMID RESOLUTION NO. 3741.

Parks and Recreation Director Schweigart presented the staff report.

Mayor/President Froomin opened a public hearing to hear and consider comments regarding establishing the Foster City Youth Sports Field User Group Fees for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

No public testimony was received.

Without objection from the City Council /Board of Directors , Mayor /President Froomin closed the public hearing.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Mayor/Vice President Sullivan, seconded by Councilmember/Director Kiesel, and carried unanimously, 5- 0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2023- 81, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Amending the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2023-24 for the Department of Parks and Recreation, Establishing Foster City Youth Sports Field User Group Hourly Fees Effective January 1, 2024” and EMID Resolution No. 37 41, “ A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Amending the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule for FY 2023-24 for the Department of Parks and Recreation, Establishing Foster City Youth Sports Field User Group Hourly Fees Effective January 1, 2024.”

FY 2023-24 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT OF THE CITY/DISTRICT . CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2023-82. EMID RESOLUTION NO. 3742.

Assistant Finance Director Hassan presented the staff report.

Mayor/President Froomin opened a public hearing to hear and consider comments regarding the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget.

No public testimony was received.

Without objection from the City Council /Board of Directors , Mayor /President Froomin closed the public hearing.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember /Director Hindi, seconded by Vice Mayor /Vice President Sullivan, and carried unanimously, 5- 0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2023- 82, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Establishing the Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 Appropriations Limit Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution” and

6.1 6.1 Minutes

9 EMID Resolution No. 3742, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Establishing the Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 Appropriations Limit Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.”

NEW BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF ONE SMALL BUSINESS MEMBER TO A PARTIAL TERM ON THE CITIZENS SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1926.

Communications Director/City Clerk Schaus presented the staff report.

The applicant, Katiya Wright, seeking appointment to the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee was interviewed by the City Council.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Councilmember Kiesel , and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1926, appointing Katiya Wright to a partial term from September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2025 on the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee.

COMMUNICATIONS

CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.

City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on June 15, 2023, June 29, 2023, and July 5, 2023, and ACH were processed on July 5, 2023.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND

REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS

REQUEST TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA BY MAYOR JON FROOMIN

REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS

Evan Adams addressed the City Council in person.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Jimenez, seconded by Councilmember Kiesel, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, to agendize a discussion regarding Campaign Finance Limits.

City/District Manager Chatwin introduced the new Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna.

Councilmember/Director Kiesel stated that he attended the annual Fourth of July celebration and encouraged the public to attend the Summer Concerts at Leo J. Ryan Park, happening every Friday from July 14 to August 18.

6.1 6.1 Minutes

10 Councilmember/Director Jimenez stated she attended the City /County Association of Governments (C/CAG) board meeting on July 13, where they discussed funding opportunities for underserved areas in San Mateo County, specifically on how to connect members of the public with transportation. On July 14, she attended opening night of the Summer Concert series and thanked the Parks and Recreation staff for their work on the event. On July 4, she attended the annual Fourth of July C elebration. On June 26, she attended the Congestion Management Board meeting. On June 23, Foster City hosted the Council of Cities meeting for San Mateo County. She thanked City staff for their efforts and local boat owners and Edgewater Marine who volunteered their time for the event.

Councilmember/Director Hindi stated he attended the annual Fourth of July celebration and recognized the Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Police Department staff for helping with the event. On June 22, he attended the Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) Board meeting where they awarded a contract fo r renewable energy and storage resources , aligning with PCE’s goal to procure 100% of its energy supply from 24/7 renewable energy by 2027.

Vice Mayor/Vice President Sullivan stated that the annual Fourth of July celebration had a great turnout and thanked the local organizations and volunteer s for their time helping with the event.

Mayor/President Froomin stated that on June 23, Foster City hosted the Council of Cities for San Mateo County , where they highlighted the lagoons with boat tours for elected officials and had dinner served by the Foster City Rotary Club. On June 27, he attended the Consolidated F ire Board M eeting where they signed a M emorandum of Understanding for the San Mateo County Firefighters International Association of Firefighters’ Local 2400 Battalion Chiefs Unit, and he attended a second meeting for the board on July 12. July 14 was the first day of the Summer Concerts series with food for sale by the Foster City Rotary Club and the Foster City Lions Club. He encouraged the public to come out to the events.

CLOSED SESSION

Mayor/President Froomin recessed the meeting into Closed Session for:

1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case); and

2. Report out from Closed Session.

Meeting recessed into Closed Session at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:54 p.m.

Assistant City Attorney/District Legal Counsel Bazzano reported that no action was taken in Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT

6.1 6.1 Minutes

11 Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Froomin adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.

6.1 6.1 Minutes

12 4
0 0
DATE: August 7, 2023

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager

FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
James Atkins, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVE THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT: ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING’S PANACEA OR
PREVARICATION?

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: (1) review the draft response letter to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report titled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” (Grand Jury Report) which has been prepared by staff, (2) provide feedback as needed to finalize the response and authorize the Mayor to execute the response for submission prior to the deadline of September 11, 2023; and (3) find approval of the response exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 12, 2023, staff received a Grand Jury Report (Attachment 1) from the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. Every jurisdiction in the County has been asked to submit a response no later than September 11, 2023, and the response must be approved by the governing body at a public hearing.

The Civil Grand Jury requests responses from San Mateo County and all 20 cities’ governing bodies for each and every finding, expressing either the City’s agreement or disagreement (wholly or partially). The City’s response must also address each of the

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

13 4
0 0
Grand Jury’s recommendations by specifically indicating whether each recommended action has been implemented, is planned for implementation, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented.

BACKGROUND
Under the Housing Element State Law (California Government Code Section 65580- 65589.8), local jurisdictions are required to update the Housing Element of their General Plan every eight (8) years to adequately plan for the regional housing needs for residents of all income groups. Housing Elements are required to contain a series of goals, policies, and implementing programs that are intended to promote housing production within a community. These goals, policies, and programs are required to be accompanied by a list of eligible land resources and Sites Inventory identified for planned residential development to accommodate the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance stipulates that a projection of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) expected to be built within the 8-year planning period can also be counted as part of the inventory.

Foster City’s RHNA for the 2023-31 planning period is 1,896 units, including housing for very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income households. Foster City’s Housing Element includes a sites inventory comprising several categories, including pipeline projects, proposed projects, ADUs, previous RHNA Cycle 5 sites, other residential sites, and so on. Based on an average of three (3) ADUs/year in the years 2020-2022, a total of 24 ADUs have been projected in the sites inventory, which is very minimal.

ANALYSIS
The Grand Jury Report contains findings and recommendations relating to how the County of San Mateo and its cities may be misusing the allowance for ADUs to meet their Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-income numbers in the current sixth RHNA housing cycle (RHNA 6), in order to avoid developing multifamily low-income housing. The report notes that besides increasing affordable housing targets by nearly 300 percent, the State has made other significant changes in the ADU laws to address the current housing crunch, including numerous Senate and Assembly bills which were enacted in 2018 and 2020, requiring local jurisdictions to streamline and allow for ease of ADU production to increase housing for all income categories.

The report includes that San Mateo County jurisdictions have almost unanimously adopted Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) 30 (Very Low)-30 (Low)-30 (Moderate)-10 (Above Moderate) percentage formula based on surveys to determine income affordability rather than actual usage of constructed ADUs. It notes that if HCD approves cities and towns' current Housing Elements, San Mateo County may end up with many affordable housing units that exist only on paper because they are counted as affordable units by the State but never made available or occupied by people who need

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

14 4
0 0
affordable housing. Finally, the report states that the cities and towns relying primarily on ADUs to meet their RHNA 6 housing targets do not meet the overall objectives required by HCD and RHNA of:
•Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability •Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns •Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing •Balancing disproportionate household income distributions •Affirmatively furthering fair housing
The Grand Jury made seven (7) findings and six (6) recommendations in its report and has requested responses for each and every finding and recommendation by September 11, 2023.

Staff has prepared a draft response letter for the Council’s review and approval (Attachment 2). With Council direction, staff will complete, have the Mayor sign, and submit the City’s response to the Grand Jury report before the September 11, 2023, deadline as directed by the Grand Jury in its transmittal letter.

CEQA
CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the City’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report may have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with responding to the Grand Jury.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Grand Jury Report
Attachment 2 – Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

15 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

16 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

17 Accessory Dwelling Units:

Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?

Release Date: June 12, 2023
2022-2023 San Mateo County Grand Jury

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

18 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

1 “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” Winston Churchill

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

19 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

2 ISSUE

Are some San Mateo County communities misusing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to avoid the construction of multifamily low-income housing over the next eight years?

SUMMARY

Anointed the “epicenter of America’s housing dysfunction” by Harvard Business Review this year, the San Francisco Bay Area has faced an acute housing shortage at all levels for decades, especially for those who have the least.

And it is no longer news that many of the workers that San Mateo County communities depend upon daily – first responders, teachers, nurses, city employees, gardeners, and housekeepers, to name just a few – cannot afford a decent place to live and raise their families close to their jobs.

To address the issue, the State Legislature in 1969 passed the Housing Element Law, which says all California cities, towns, and counties, every eight years, must plan for the housing needs of all their residents regardless of income, which effectively requires development of affordable housin g. Many changes and additions have been made to the law over the years, most recently eliminating zoning restrictions governing ADUs – small homes or apartments that share a single-family lot of a larger primary residence – and allowing communities to count them as affordable housing in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plans.

At issue:
● Although their intentions have been good, the State has neglected to include any form of regulation to ensure low-income tenants ultimately use these ADUs as planned. ● Because owners often rent their ADUs to family and friends, they can exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.1
● And perhaps most importantly – counting ADUs as affordable housing will likely result in cities issuing permits for fewer deed-restricted low-, very low-, and moderate-income apartments and homes.

Without accountability through oversight and regulations, low-, very low-, and moderate-income housing now planned in some San Mateo County jurisdictions may end up existing solely on p aper and never in operation.

This problem is most acute in Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside, where some residents are up in arms over the State-mandated housing requirements, and the city governments, trying to appease them, are proposing counting on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing targets.

1 Association of Bay Area Governments, “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”, accessed May 27, 2023, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

20 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

3 Assembly Bill 72 (2017) gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) enforcement capability on local government’s land use, planning, and zoning requirements. In the current RHNA-6 (2023-2031) planning cycle, HCD demands that San Mateo County jurisdictions monitor and verify ADU affordability every two years. However, HCD has not specified how to prove the ADUs are rented to very low-, low- or moderate-income households, leaving it to the communities to find a solution.

So far, jurisdictions have yet to do so, even though local independent agencies such as HIP Housing have systems and services in place, which they use to verify affordability of deed-restricted affordable housing, and that could be adapted Countywide to monitor and verify ADUs’ affordability and occupancy in a manner that adheres to fair housing guidelines.

California needs to build 2.5 million homes by 2030 to meet curre nt housing demands, according to the HCD. But the State averages only about 125,000 new homes annually – a shortfall by nearly two-thirds.

ADUs can, indeed, provide affordable housing. And to many citizens of affluent communities, they are an appealing alternative to multi-family, deed-restricted affordable housing projects. However, just because the law makes it possible to count ADUs as affordable housing, it does not exempt cities and towns from credibly planning for badly needed affordable housing.

BACKGROUND

One of the State’s long-standing priorities has been to increase the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments.

HCD – the California Department of Housing and Community Development – focuses on making this happen by working with local jurisdictions to create rental and homeownership opportunities for all Californians, including individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness.

Beginning in 1969, the State mandated that all California cities, towns, and counties must plan for the housing needs of all Californians, regardless of income. They meet this mandate by developing and updating a Housing Element, part of a local jurisdiction’s General Plan, which shows where they will allow new housing and describes the policies and strategies necessary to support building new housing.

The process of updating the Housing Element involves HCD working with various Councils of Governments (COG) to develop a RHNA plan that includes the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), which assigns the number of housing units that each county and city are expected to facilitate being built in the subsequent eight years to accommodate projected growth.

In the case of the Bay Area, this Council of Governments is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which represents all nine Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County and its 20 cities and towns. Components that ABAG considers in determining each Bay Area county’s and city’s allocation of housing units include population, employment potential, proximity to transportation centers, open space, inclusivity, and diversification, all of which are becoming increasingly important to the State, accordi ng to ABAG reports.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

21 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

4 Multiple bills in both houses of the State Legislature have been proposed over the years to change the process and increase the amount of State control over housing development. Particularly significant changes occurred during the 2017 legislative session when senators and assembly members proposed approximately 150 housing bills. That year the Governor ultimately signed a package of 15 bills related to funding for housing, streamlining development approvals, and increasing accountabil ity for meeting the requirements of the Housing Element Law. These included bills that significantly changed the RHNA process, requiring additional outreach and reporting, modifying how to calculate the RHND to reflect unmet housing needs better, increasing the number of topics to be considered in the allocation methodology, and giving HCD, on behalf of the State, the ability to sue individual counties or cities for not meeting requirements.

Updating the Housing Element every eight years is an iterative process involving HCD, the regional COGs, the State Department of Finance (DOF), and local jurisdictions. (See Appendix D.) But the ultimate authority for approval of the RHNA, the RHND, and the associated Housing Elements resides with HCD.

The current approved RHNA plan developed by ABAG is known as RHNA-6, which spans 2023 to 2031.

HCD requires each jurisdiction to submit its completed Housing Element for review and approval by a specific date. For RHNA-6, the due date for San Mateo County and its cities was January 31, 2023.

Before the due date, the jurisdictions were able to send their draft Housing Elements to HCD for preliminary review and comments and make necessary modifications that HCD highlights. Any jurisdiction which fails to meet the deadline for submission of their completed Housing Element is subject to a potential “builders remedy” action that forces a city to allow building projects regardless of whether they meet most of the local zoning restrictions.

Once Housing Elements are approved, HCD monitors the progress of approved RHNA plans by requiring each jurisdiction to report its building permit activities annually. If progress is below expectations, the jurisdiction must develop alternative strategies for review and approval by HCD.

During the RHNA-5 (2015-2023) progress reviews submissions, cities began including ADUs as part of the overall housing inventory in their annual reports because State legislation (Government Code section 65852.150) that became effective in January 2017 stated that ADUs are a valuable form of housing in California, which also "provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in -home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods."

Numerous Senate and Assembly bills were enacted in 2018 and 2020, requiring local jurisdictions to streamline and allow for ease of ADU production to increase housing for all income categories. With these encouragements, ADUs being deemed a viable housing option, and fa cing stringent RHNA-6 requirements of approximately three times more housing units than in the RHNA -5 cycle, a few affluent San Mateo cities have proposed using ADUs to satisfy most of their plans to meet the required number of housing units in the various income categories.

“ADUs are not a panacea, but they’re a good tool in the toolbox,” said a planning consultant working for a San Mateo County city. “Most land on The Peninsula is single-family homes. ADUs are opening land that was not open before. But higher density housing near transit is better.”

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

22 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

5 Added a city manager: “I think they (ADUs) are a piece of the solution, but not all of it. I think ADUs are an important way to provide opportunities for other things – where people want multigenerational living on- site, for caretakers, or other folks – they can reside in an ADU even if they’re not paying rent.”

DISCUSSION

While HCD-approved RHNA Housing Elements do not require the cities and counties to build affordable housing, the jurisdictions must adjust zoning ordinances, issue permits to allow construction of affordable housing, and initiate programs that incentivize such construction.

However, as shown in Chart 1 below, significant portions of San Mateo County's affordable housing in RHNA-5 (2015-2023) plans did not materialize – most likely due to a lack of permit applications.

With RHNA-5’s significantly lower targets, the less-than-expected performance during the RHNA-5 cycle foreshadows the enormous challenge the County’s cities and towns now face in meeting the RHNA-6 goals for the next eight years, which are approximately three times larger, as shown in Chart 2 below.

Chart 1: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Required vs. Permitted

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

23 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

6 Chart 2: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Allocations vs RHNA-6

Besides increasing affordable housing targets by nearly 300 percent, the State has made other significant changes in the ADU laws to address the current housing crunch.

Law Year Impact
AB671 2019 Through Housing Elements, HCD to promote ADUs for affordable rent AB670 2019 Any local covenants and restrictions on new housing are void AB587 2019 Deed-restricted sale of ADU is allowed separately from the main house AB 68 2019 Removes local restrictions on minimum size, requirement of owner occupancy, parking requirements for garage conversion, and any impact fee.

AB 3182 2020 Permitting process within 60 days
SB9 2021 Facilitates lot split and allows more than1 ADU per property AB 345 2021 Allows owners to sell ADUs separately
AB 2221 2023 Pre-specific time permit frame for approval of ADU applications SB 897 2023 Increases the ADU height limit to 18’ and allows retro permitting of previous unauthorized ADUs.

The net effect of these changes was to minimize municipal-level regulations on ADUs – such as parking requirements, property line setbacks, height limits, or the number of ADUs on one property – and make

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

24 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

7 ADUs an acceptable means to meet affordable housing obligations. Given these changes, namely high mandatory targets for affordable housing, enthusiastic support by the State of ADUs as affordable housing, and requiring zero land use rezoning for ADUs, nearly all San Mateo County cities and towns include ADUs in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

The issue, however, is that for every ADU included in a Housing Element – regardless of whether the ADU is built and rented to very low-, low-, or moderate-income tenants – one verifiable, deed-restricted affordable housing unit will not be built in that jurisdiction by a developer.

So, How Did We Get Here?
California cities and counties can now use ADUs to help satisfy their RHNA requirements. But calculating how many ADUs to put into a Housing Element and how to distribute them into each income category, differ from other housing options.

ABAG instructs San Mateo County jurisdictions that the standard method is first to estimate the number of ADUs that homeowners will build in a planning period, which is 2023 through 2031 for RHNA-6.

In its technical memo “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA,” ABAG advises members that the estimate should be based on the average number of ADU building permits issued each year, multiplied by eight, because there are eight years in a housing element cycle.

“Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2019 when State law made it easier to construct the units,” the technical memo explains :

“There is a small amount of flexibility in the calculations,” the memo continues. “If numbers were low in 2019 but were high in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a jurisdiction could potentially use 2020 -2022 as the baseline. This rationale would be bolstered if there was a logical explanation f or the change, e.g., the jurisdiction further loosened regulations in 2020. Projecting a higher number of ADUs than what has been demonstrated through permit approvals in recent years may be possible, but more challenging. A slightly larger number may be warranted if a robust, funded, and clear plan to increase production has been put in place. However, you are strongly encouraged to coordinate with HCD before deviating from the standard methodology.”

Once cities complete their estimate, they must distribute those units into each income category.

To help its members, ABAG analyzed ADU affordability. Using data from a 2020 statewide survey of homeowners who had constructed ADUs in 2018 or 2019, ABAG concluded that the assumptions in the chart below are generally applicable in most jurisdictions. Many Bay Area jurisdictions chose to use these numbers instead of conducting their own affordability analysis.

Percent Income Category
30% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
30% Moderate Income
10% Above Moderate

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

25 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

8 “UC Berkeley Terner Center did a statewide survey of ADU affordability, and they worked with ABAG to adjust it for the Bay Area specifically,” said a San Mateo County planner. “So those (numbers) are based on surveys and data analysis of actual ADUs that have been produced, and the rents that are being offered to tenants. We are just accepting their analysis as is.”

San Mateo County jurisdictions have almost unanimously adopted ABAG’s 30-30-30-10 formula.

However, a 2021 report and recommendations for RHNA-6 prepared by ABAG’s Housing Technical Assistance Team, titled “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,” says that although ADUs are often affordable, jurisdictions should be cautious about relying on them too heavily because of fair housing concerns:

“Many ADUs are affordable to lower and moderate-income households because they are rented to family and friends of the homeowners,” the report states. “If minorities are underrepresented among homeowners, the families and potentially friends of the homeowners will be primarily white. Therefore, relying too heavily on ADUs could inadvertently exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.”

The report also acknowledges that ADUs often do not serve large families, another critical fair housing concern.

And while ADUs accomplish an essential fair housing goal by adding new homes in parts of the municipality that are more likely to be areas of opportunity, the report recommends that jurisdictions with fair housing concerns "may want to use more conservative assumptions based on open market rentals, excluding units made available to family and friends," as summarized below:

Percent Income Category
5% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
50% Moderate Income
15% Above Moderate

So far, 16 San Mateo County cities have chosen the 30-30-30-10 formula, implying there are no fair housing concerns in their jurisdictions.

Only two cities – San Carlos and San Mateo – use ABAG’s more conservative formula of 5-30-50-15 in their plans. One city – Belmont – used its own judgment.2 And one – Colma – does not use ADUs in their plans at all to meet State requirements.

But in all cases, these statistical estimates may not reflect the actual usage of constructed ADUs.

Determining that would require actual verification by each local jurisdiction.

2 City of Belmont, “General Housing Element Draft 2023-2031”, p. 25, accessed May 27, 2023, https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21721/637968613354630000

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

26 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

9 ADUs planned in RHNA-6
(May 11, 2023)
City Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total ADUs Total
RHNA-6
Requirement
Atherton 56 56 56 112 280 348
Belmont 0 0 80 0 80 1785
Brisbane 12 12 12 4 40 1588
Burlingame 50 50 50 17 167 3257
Colma - - - - 0 202
Daly City 151 151 151 50 503 4838
East Palo Alto 35 34 34 12 115 829
Foster City 7 7 7 3 24 1896
Hillsborough 84 84 84 28 280 554
Menlo Park 26 25 26 8 85 2946
Millbrae 34 34 33 11 112 2199
Pacifica 56 56 56 19 187 1892
Portola Valley 28 28 28 8 92 253
Redwood City 152 152 152 50 506 4588
San Bruno 72 72 72 24 240 3165
San Carlos 10 61 102 30 203 2735
San Mateo 22 132 220 66 440 7015
South San
Francisco
113 113 113 38 377 3956
Unincorporated
San Mateo
107 107 107 36 357 2833
Woodside 36 36 36 12 120 328
(This table includes all San Mateo County jurisdictions that have submitted Housing Element plans to HCD for review. As of June 1, 2023, Half Moon Bay and Daly City have not submitted RHNA-6 plans for HCD review.)

Accordingly, if HCD approves cities and towns' current Housing Elements, San Mateo County may end up with many affordable housing units that exist only on paper because they are counted as affordable units by the State but never made available or occupied by people who need affordable housing:

“BMR (below market rate) unit displacement is a legitimate issue,” said a city planning consultant. “RHNA looks at (the number of) units, not the number of people being housed. For the State, they’re all counted the same – an ADU or three-bedroom apartment, five vs. one or two people. In the eyes of the State, they’re all the same.”

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

27 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

10 Finally, the cities and towns relying primarily on ADUs to meet their RHNA-6 housing targets do not meet the overall objectives required by HCD and RHNA of:
● Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability ● Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns ● Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing ● Balancing disproportionate household income distributions ● Affirmatively furthering fair housing

Housing and Community Development Pushes Back
Four San Mateo County municipalities – Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside – rely heavily on ADUs to meet low-income housing requirements in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

May 17, 2023

While HCD does not single out those four cities for their heavy reliance on ADUs to meet their affordable housing needs, throughout the process of submission and review of draft RHNA-6 plans, HCD consistently instructed San Mateo County cities and towns that they must monitor and verify ADU production and affordability at least every two years but has not specified an acceptable process for verifying the affordability level of ADUs as planned.

Should San Mateo County and its cities seek outside help on this issue, there are a handful of independent non-profit agencies and for-profit real estate management companies operating today in the Bay Area that have established systems and processes for monitoring and verifying rented occupied housing for continued affordability and adherence to fair housing guidelines while maintaining tenant a nd owner privacy – which was an issue continually raised by City Managers and other officials during Grand Jury interviews.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ADUs as Percent of RHNA6 Affordable Housing

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

28 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

11 ADU Affordability Monitoring Emphasized in HCD Review Letters to Jurisdictions

Atherton (4-4-23)
Program 3.812 (New Construction of Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units): While the element was revised to include timing of each action, it is unclear how affordability will be established. The program should be revised to clarify actions to establish and track affordability.

East Palo Alto (4-25-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): As noted in the prior review, the element should include a program that commits to frequent monitoring (every other year) for production and affordability, and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) as needed.

Foster City (4-24-23)
Program H-D-4-h (ADU Monitoring): While the program commits to evaluating alternative actions by the end of 2026, it must commit to specific alternative actions and monitor production and affordability of ADUs more than once in the planning period (e.g., every two years).

Hillsborough (1-10-23
This analysis should specifically address whether the ADU strategy to accommodate lower-income households contributes to continued exclusion and disparities in access to opportunity and how the strategy promotes housing choice for a variety of households including lower-income households, and large families.

To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors, and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year), and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if ADU production assumptions are not being achieved.

Millbrae (1-24-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) of production and affordability and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed.

Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

Redwood City (7-8-22)
Programs must be expanded to include incentives to promote the creation and affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Examples include exploring and pursuing funding, modifying development standards and reducing fees beyond State law, increasing awareness, pre-approved plans and homeowner/applicant assistance tools. In addition, given the city’s assumptions for ADUs, the element should include a program to monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., 6 months).

San Bruno (3-29-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the element revised the ADU assumptions, Program 4-P must be revised to commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections.

San Mateo (3-27-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Program 1.4 must commit to also monitoring affordability of the ADU units that are permitted as well as provide additional incentives or identify additional sites if production and affordability assumptions are not met.

County of San Mateo (4-20-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring for production and affordability (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections, by clarifying what ABAG assumptions are utilized.

South San Francisco (3-30-23)
The element should include a commitment to reconcile trends with reported units within the Cities submitted annual progress report. Further, as Stated in the previous review, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met.

Woodside (10-14-22)
Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

29 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

12 In their HCD approved housing plans, Brisbane and Redwood City aren’t definitive about how they will monitor ADU affordability but imply they will use surveys to comply with HCD instructions.

Redwood City plans to collect ADU rental data during its permitting process. And Brisbane says, if available, it will participate in a regional forgivable ADU construction loan program in exchange for limiting rentals of the ADUs to extremely low-income households for 15 years. Brisbane said it is also exploring a possible city forgivable loan program if the regional program doesn’t materialize.

“We can’t force people to report to us or to be honest with us,” said one jurisdiction’s planner.

Another city’s chief planner concluded that a deed restriction – any limitation on a property that affects the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish, such as a requirement to verify a tenant’s income and rent charged – “is the best way to (enforce) affordability.” Alternatively, one city planning official suggested the formation of a Countywide nonprofit to income-qualify and match renters to available ADUs, thereby monitoring and enforcing affordability because the smaller towns and cities don't have the resources to perform that function on their own.

Finally, a fourth city planner offered an alternative view: “We’re not a city hiding behind ADUs. ABAG gave us a formula. We plopped it in. If the State said you can’t count ADUs at all, that would be fine.”

A Long, Long Way to Go
The Superior Court of California requires all San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury investigation reports to be completed and published by June 30 annually.

And although the law required San Mateo County cities and towns to submit their housing plans by January 31, 2023, as of June 1, Daly City has yet to adopt and submit a draft plan to HCD for review and approval.

Meanwhile, plans from Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae and Pacifica are now under HCD review.

So far, HCD has reviewed and rejected plans from 14 jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside, and San Mateo County, which is responsible for unincorporated areas.

As of the publication of this report, only Redwood City and Brisbane had completed the process and received the green light from HCD to proceed.

One reason cited for the delay is most San Mateo County cities and towns don’t have a large enough staff to manage the workload that RHNA planning represents, so they outsource. And many could not find timely help because the consultants were busy preparing RHNA-6 plans for Southern California cities, which were due before San Mateo County municipalities. That caused many communities h ere to fall behind and are now out of compliance with the timing of their Housing Element submissions.

These delays, coupled with citizen objections to multifamily housing in their communities, almost guarantee RHNA-6 disputes will end up in the courts and remain unresolved for many years to come and postpone the building of sorely needed affordable housing indefinitely.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

30 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

13 FINDINGS

F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units.

F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their State - mandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used.

R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used.

R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring.

R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals.

R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements.

R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

31 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

14 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from San Mateo County and all 20 cities’ governing bodies for each and every Finding and Recommendation.

The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides: For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:

(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendat ion, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

(2) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.

(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

METHODOLOGY

The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury used numerous approaches to develop this report.

● Preliminary Research
The Grand Jury studied RHNA-5 historical information and RHNA-6 Housing Elements submitted to HCD by the cities and towns in San Mateo County as they became available.

Before conducting in-depth research, the Grand Jury studied ABAG's reports on RHNA-6 housing allocations, introducing numerous issues and a means to understand how jurisdictions establish housing allocations. Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed a 2021 ABAG report on ADU affordability for RHNA-6 and RHNA-5 annual progress reports to understand history.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

32 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

15 The Grand Jury also reviewed a report on ADUs titled “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California's ADU Owners,” April 22, 2021, Karen Chapple, Dori Ganetsos, Emmanuel Lopez, UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation.

An additional resource for Preliminary Research has been the press. Particularly following the January 31, 2023 deadline for RHNA-6 submissions, nearly 60 articles provided insights and analysis the Grand Jury could not find elsewhere.

For a complete list of sources, see the Bibliography below.

● Survey
After conducting its Preliminary Research, the Grand Jury sent an eight-question survey in October 2022 to the city managers of the 20 San Mateo County cities and towns and the San Mateo County planning and building department responsible for the County's unincorporated areas.

See Appendix A for survey results.

● Interviews
Much of the time spent by the Grand Jury on this investigation was in more than 30 interviews with 21 city managers and planning managers, five heads of nonprofit housing entities in San Mateo County, and executives at ABAG, HCD, and several other government bodies.

● Continued Research
Because RHNA-6 submissions and HCD replies are ongoing, the Grand Jury has continued to monitor the status of RHNA-6 submissions and HCD responses.

This report reflects submissions received prior to the report's due date of June 30, 2023.

GLOSSARY

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a legal and regulatory term for a secondary house or apartment that shares the building lot of a larger primary home. The unit is often used to provide additional income through rent or to house a family member. For example, an elderly parent could live in a small unit and avoid having to move to an assisted living facility. (Source: Investopedia)

Affordable Housing: Very Low Income; Low Income; Moderate Income; Above Moderate Income Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. (Source: www.hud.gov)

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

33 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

16 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Council of Governments (COG) for the nine - county Bay Area. One of California’s earliest COGs, ABAG was founded to protect regional assets from State control. ABAG continues to serve the Bay Area by providing a regional venue for collaboration and problem-solving. ABAG’s work program includes management over key regional assets, such as the San Francisco Estuary and the Bay Trail Project. It also offers a variety of cost-effective member services programs such as Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) Corporation (offering affordable liability, property insurance, claims management, risk management, and bond coverage to 30 municipalities) and financial services (offering tax-exempt capital financing for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing, health care facilities, schools, and other community facilities). ABAG POWER Natural Gas Pool conducts pooled purchasing of natural gas on behalf of 38 local governments and special districts. ABAG is also the COG that allocates the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). (Source: CALCOG)

Below Market Rate (BMR)
A BMR unit is a housing unit that is priced to be affordable to households that are of moderate income or below. These housing units are often built by local government, nonprofits, or as a requirement of the developer (Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance). As a result, these homes have certain deed restrictions recorded on the property, ensuring the home remains affordable for future generations. (Source: County of San Mateo)

California Department of Finance (DOF)
The California Department of Finance is a state cabinet-level agency within the government of California.

The Department of Finance is responsible for preparing, explaining, and administering the state's annual financial plan, which the Governor of California is required under the California Constitution to present by January 10 of each year to the public. The Department of Finance's other duties include analyzing the budgets of proposed laws in the California State Legislature, creating, and monitoring current and future economic forecasts of the state, estimating population demographics and enrollment projections, and maintaining the state's accounting and financial reporting systems.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops housing policy and building codes (i.e., the California Building Standards Code), regulates manufactured homes and mobile home parks, and administers housing finance, economic development, and community development programs. (Source: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd)

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

34 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

17 Council of Governments (COG)
Councils of Governments (COGs) are voluntary associations representing member local governments, mainly cities, and counties, that seek to provide cooperative planning, coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern that cross jurisdictional lines. (Source: WRCOG)

Deed Restrictions
A deed restriction is a term widely used in real estate to refer to any limitation on a property that limits the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish. (Source: CA Realty Training)

General Plan
State law requires every city and county in California to prepare a General Plan for its future growth and development. A General Plan covers land use, transportation, housing, open space, natural resources, and public services. Local General Plans have been mandatory in California since the 1950s. State law also requires the cities and counties to periodically update their General Plans in response to changing conditions. Each General Plan includes maps expressing the community's vision of how and where it will grow and change. The General Plan typically has a time horizon of about 20 years. Once a General Plan is adopted, it is used by the City Council, local commissions, and City Staff as they make day -to-day decisions about the community's future. (Source: City of San Rafael)

Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California's local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their General Plan (also required by the State). General Plans serve as the local government's blueprint for how the city or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing. California's Housing Element Law acknowledges that, for the private market to address Californians' housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests mainly on the effective implementation of local General Plans and, in particular, local Housing Elements. (Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development)

Jurisdiction (city, town, or county)
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; a matter that falls within the court’s jurisdiction
2: a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority: CONTROL
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised (Source: Merriam-Webster)

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Every eight years, ABAG develops the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plan approved by HCD and used to assign each city and county in the Bay Area their fair share of new housing units to build. These housing units are intended to accommodate existing needs and projected growth in the region. The RHNA process is critical because it requires all cities and counties to plan for the region's housing needs, regardless of income, to prepare for future growth and ease the California's acute housing crisis. (Source: ABAG)

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

35 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

18 Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total number of homes each region in California must plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels. They base the number on population projections produced by the California Department of Fina nce and adjustments incorporating the region's current housing needs. The jurisdictions separate the total number of housing units from HCD into four income categories that cover everything from housing for very low - income households to market-rate housing. ABAG is responsible for developing a methodology to allocate a portion of this housing need to every local government in the Bay Area. (Source: ABAG)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Government Agencies

● Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. “U.S Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study”. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/adu.pdf. June 2008

● U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of Terms to Affordable Housing”. https://archives.hud.gov/local/nv/goodstories/2006-04-06glos.cfm. August 18, 2011

● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “ ADU Law Amendments Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/housing-element-memos/docs/Accessory-Dwelling-Unit-Legislation.pdf. May 29, 2018

● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 68”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB68 . 2019-2020

● OpenStates. “California Senate Bill SB 13”. https://openStates.org/ca/bills/20192020/SB13/. 2019- 2020

● 21 Elements. “Second Units and Junior Second Units”. http://www.21elements.com/second-units. 2020

● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Local Agency Accessory Dwelling Units, Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/ADU_TA_Memo_Final_01-10-20.pdf. January 10, 2020

● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Final Regional Housing Need Determination”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/ABAGRHNA-Final060920(r).pdf. June 9, 2020

● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Housing Element Law. Changes from 1969 to the Present”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/rhna_background.pdf. August 1, 2020

● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 3182”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3182 . September 28, 2020

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

36 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

19 ● Southern California Association of Governments. “SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis”. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527. December 1, 2020

● Association of Bay Area Governments. “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units”. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu- affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file. September 8, 2021

● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 345”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345. September 28, 2021

● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA”. https://abag.ca.gov/technical- assistance/using-adus-satisfy-rhna. March 10, 2022

● Auditor of the State of California. “Regional Housing Needs Assessments”. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf. March 17, 2022

● California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf. July 2022

● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 12/Final%20RHNA%20Methodology%20Report%202023-2031_update_11-22.pdf. November 2022

● State of California Department of Justice. “Attorney General Bonta Puts city of Huntington Beach on Notice That Its Proposed Ordinance Violates State Housing Law”. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press- releases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-huntington-beach-notice-its-proposed-ordinance. February 13, 2023

● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development. “RE:

Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element”. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Grand%20Jury%202022%20-%202023/Committees/ADUs/ADU%20- %20research%20materials/Housing%20Elements/Pending?preview=Atherton_HCD_Letter40423.pdf.

April 4, 2023

Grand Jury Reports

● San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhood”. https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2019/second_units.pdf . 2019-2020

Independent Agencies

● UC Berkeley. “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County”. https://smcrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UC-Report-on-ADU- feasability.pdf. January 2017

● Ramsey-Musolf, Darrel. “Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain”. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/2/3/89. September 18, 2018

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

37 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

20 ● AARP. “The ABCs of ADUs”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-guide-web- singles.pdf. 2019

● California YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard). “AB 881”. https://cayimby.org/ab-881/. October 9, 2019

● Center of Community Innovation. “The ADU Scorecard: Grading ADU Ordinances in California”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ADU-Scorecard-InterimReport-200201-

1.pdf. February 1, 2020

● UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. “Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf. April 22, 2021

● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkely. “First Ever Statewide ADU Owner Survey Shows Growth, Room for Improvement”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/cci-adu-survey/. April 22, 2021

● University of California, Berkeley. “California ADU”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/. August 16, 2021

● Colburn, Gregg. Aldern, Clayton. “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/. 2021-2022

● Sumner, Scott. “California housing prices and homelessness”. https://www.econlib.org/california- housing-prices-and-homelessness/. May 23, 2022

● Williams, Paul. “Carving out a Path for Public Developers”. https://housingchronicle.substack.com/p/carving-out-a-path-for-public-developers. July 14, 2022

● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. “ADUs for All: Breaking Down Barriers to Racial and Economic Equity in Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/adu-equity-barriers/. August 4, 2022

● Bertolet, Dan. “Washington Bill Would Boost In-Law Apartments Throughout the State”. https://www.sightline.org/2023/01/21/washington-bill-would-boost-in-law-apartments-throughout-the- State/. January 21, 2021

● Ohanian, Lee. “California’s Failed Soviet-Style Housing Mandates Should End Now”. https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-failed-soviet-style-housing-mandates-should-end-now.

February 7, 2023

● Hamilton, Emily. “Learning from Houston’s Townhouse Reforms”. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/learning-houstons-townhouse-reforms. April 11, 2023

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

38 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

21 APPENDICES

● A: Survey Results
● B: Timeline of Important Legislative Events
● C: ADUs: An American Tradition
● D: Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

39 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

22 APPENDIX A
Survey Results

Who responded to the survey

Survey responses

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

40 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

23 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

41 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

24 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

42 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

25 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

43 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

26 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

44 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

27 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

45 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

28 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

46 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

29 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

47 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

30 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

48 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

31 6.2
Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

49 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

32 APPENDIX B
Timeline of Important Legislative Events

1. 1970 — the Legislature directed HCD to develop guidelines for housing element preparation on one and five year cycles. SB 1489 (Moscone), emphasized housing need, passed in 1971, and ABX 1 of 1971 established more standards. The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), which also assisted communities in providing affordable housing, was created in 1975. The legislation authorized HCD to review local housing elements for conformity to its guidelines.

2. 1976 — Fair-share was added to the guidelines by HCD. The COGs are now given the responsibility by HCD to distribute shares of low-income and moderate-income housing. The local housing element had to include these income requirements — whether or not communities wanted them. HCD also was given responsibility to review local housing elements. Statewide hearings in 1977 brought out a number of positions on housing elements and HCD requirements.

3. Mid 1980’s — AB 2853 (Roos), provided for faster permit processing and higher densities, and allowed the housing element to meet State goals and be reviewed by HCD. COGs would continue to formulate the fair share for each community, but HCD had final approval of the numbers and each community was to revise its Housing Element every five years.

4. 1990s — Cities and counties looked at housing elements, if certified, as providing protection against lawsuits. In addition, this decade also created the concept of regional allocation “sharing burdens of lower- income households among geographic areas,” without mandated goals.

5. 1993 — The Senate Committee on Local Government held hearings on housing element progress and heard concerns that communities were not doing enough and that housing elements were despised by local governments. Bills changed the cycle timeframe, including AB 2172 (Hauser), SB 1703 (Costa) and SC 320 (Committee). Main topics for discussion by the Committee on Housing and Land Use hearings in 1995 were the housing allocations and the Department of Finance (DoF) projections. A common complaint was that the DoF projections were not complete enough for communities to develop appropriate allocations. The COGs projections also were criticized.

6. 1998 — AB 438 (Torlakson), allowing for the creation of sub-RHNA areas, looked at how housing units were counted. 2001 — SB 910 (Dunn) would have included imposing fines on jurisdictions not complying; and would have tied RHNA to transportation planning on a six year cyc le. However, this bill did not pass. 2002 — SB 423 (Torlakson) created a jobs and housing balance incentive program, also known as Workforce Housing Incentive Program. In 2003, at HCD’s request, a working group of stakeholders met to make recommendations, which included:
● Develop more transparency in determining fair shares
● Clarify land inventories of building sites
● Ensure inventories were buildable
● Increase HCD review consistency of local elements
● Explore city self-certification
● Devise better housing element enforcement that would penalize non-compliance.

7. 2004 — AB 2348 (Mullin) clarified the relationship between the land inventory and adequate sites requirement, provided guidance on the content of adequate land inventory, and provided greater development certainty. AB 2158 (Lowenthal) revised the process for determining allocation from just

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

50 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

33 DoF to include transportation planning numbers and created a review process.

8. 2005 — AB 1233 (Jones) assured that unmet need from previous RHNA cycles was added into the next cycle.

9. 2017 Housing Legislative Package
Approximately 150 housing bills were submitted in 2017. Fifteen relating to funding, streamlining and accountability, were signed by the governor. These bills significantly changed how RHNA is conducted, requiring additional outreach and reporting, increasing the number of factors included, and the ability of HCD to sue individual cities for not meeting requirements.

SB 2 (Atkins) Building Homes and Jobs Act is projected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for affordable housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other housing needs via a $75 to $225 recording fee on specified real estate documents.

SB 3 (Beall) Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 places a $4 billion general obligation bond on the November 2018 ballot to fund affordable housing programs and the veterans homeownership program (CalVet).

SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines multifamily housing project approvals, at the request of a developer, in a city that fails to issue building permits for its share of the regional housing need by income category.

SB 35 city approval of a qualifying housing development on a qualifying site is a ministerial act, without need for CEQA review or public hearings.

AB 73 (Chiu) streamlines the housing approval process by allowing jurisdictions to create a housing sustainability district to complete upfront zoning and environmental review in order to receive incentive payments for development projects that are consistent with the ordinance.

SB 167 (Skinner), AB 678 (Bocanegra), and AB 1515 (Daly) are three measures that were amended late in the 2017 legislative session to incorporate changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

The HAA significantly limits the ability of a jurisdiction to deny an affordable or market-rate housing project that is consistent with existing planning and zoning requirements.

AB 1505 (Bloom) allows a jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance that requires a housing development to include a certain percentage of rental units affordable to and occupied by households with extremely low, very low, low or moderate income.

AB 879 (Grayson) expands upon existing law that requires, by April 1 of each year, general law cities and charter cities to send an annual report to their respective city councils, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD that includes information related to implementation of the General Plan.

AB 1397 (Low) makes numerous changes to how a jurisdiction establishes its housing element site inventory.

AB 72 (Santiago) provides HCD broad new authority to find a jurisdiction’s housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that REGIONAL the jurisdiction fails to act in compliance with

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

51 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

34 its housing element and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the attorney general.

10. 2018 — SB 828 (Wiener) changed the way HCD determines each region’s RHND, adding a number of new factors for consideration and accounting for “unmet need” in the existing housing stock by applying “adjustment factors” to a region’s total projected households, not just the incremental housing growth.

11. 2018 — AB 1771 (Bloom) and AB 686 (Santiago) strengthened the mandate for regions and local governments to combat discrimination, overcome historic patterns of segregation, and create equal access to opportunity through housing planning and decision-making, in other words, to “affirmatively further fair housing.” AB 1771 (Bloom) added to RHNA an enhanced focus on racial equity with an explicit mandate that COGs’ housing distribution plans affirmatively further fair housing and required COGs to survey jurisdictions on their fair housing activities, to identify regional barriers to furthering fair housing, and to recommend strategies or actions to overcome those barriers. AB 686 (Santiago) created a mandate that local jurisdictions plan and administer housing and community development programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively further fair housing.

12. 2019 — AB 1486 (Ting) strengthened the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which requires that local agencies provide right of first refusal to affordable housing developers when disposing of surplus land by expanding the scope of land subject to the right of first refusal requirement, updating the mechanics of the surplus land disposal process, extending HCD’s enforcement mandate to include the SLA and establishing financial penalties for violation of the act.

AB 1487 (Chiu), authorized ABAG and MTC to place on the ballot regional housing measures to help fund affordable housing and established 3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION the Bay Area Regional Housing Authority. The 2019-20 State Budget also included significant new resources to support housing planning, including $250 million for local governments and COGs for planning activities. The Bay Area is receiving approximately $50 million in combined funds, split between ABAG and local jurisdictions.

SB 330 (Skinner) made further revisions to the HAA, establishing new criteria for housing approvals at the local level, including prohibiting a local agency from subjecting a project to new ordinances, rules or fees after an application is submitted and limiting the number of hearings on a project to five. The bill also prohibits a local agency from lowering the allowed residential density below that level in effect on January 1, 2018 in high rent, low-vacancy areas, as defined. The bill’s provisions sunset in five years.

AB-881, “Accessory dwelling units,” and AB-68, “Land use: accessory dwelling units”: Makes many of the current restrictions that cities place on ADUs obsolete. It also provides for a streamlin ed process for approvals.

These bills require permits for ADUs added to single-family and multifamily homes to be approved or denied faster. Current law permits these decisions to take 120 days, but this new law requires decisions within 60 days. These approvals or denials must be issued ministerially, so that way, there are fewer potential issues to encounter. Cities and counties may establish minimum and maximum ADU size requirements, but the maximum size cannot be less than 850 square feet for a one -bedroom ADU or 1,000 square feet for more than one bedroom.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

52 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

35 Most importantly, these bills prohibit any lot coverage, minimum lot size, etc. requirements that municipalities have. Cities have enacted these laws to have the effect of making it impossible to bu ild an ADU. Cities cannot require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as part of the approval process.

SB-13 Accessory dwelling units are similar to AB-881 and AB-68 with a couple of significant differences. Before this bill, local agencies could require that the person applying for the ADU occupy either the primary residence or the proposed new structure. This bill exempts from these requirements all proposed ADUs until Jan. 1, 2025. Additionally, this bill removes the impact fee for ADUs sm aller than 750 square feet. Even for ADUs larger than that, the impact fees assessed must correlate with the square footage of the primary residence.

SB-13 makes building ADUs cheaper and also removes an essential regulation. Now, landlords who rent their properties out can apply for an ADU for their rental properties.

AB-670, “Common interest developments: accessory dwelling units,” makes it easier for people within HOA complexes to construct ADUs. Specifically, it prevents banning or unreasonably restricting on single-family lots on the construction of these units. Presently, many HOAs have CCRs ("conditions, covenants and restrictions") that prevent people from building ADUs. HOAs may worry about the uniformity of the properties if one has an ADU on it, or they might be concerned that they don't know who is and who isn't renting from an ADU. Regardless, HOAs now need to have a way for people to construct ADUs if they so choose.

HOAs will likely challenge this bill, at least to some degree, in court, but for now, if you live in an HOA complex with single-family homes, you can construct an ADU.

AB-671, “Accessory dwelling units: incentives," requires that general plans incentivize homeowners in some way to construct these ADUs and make them available for low-to-moderate-income households to rent. While it doesn't specify what these incentives will be, it does require local agencies to think about financial incentives and construct a plan.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

53 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

36 APPENDIX C
ADUs: An American Tradition

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

54 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

37 APPENDIX D
Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process

6.2 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report

55 August 8, 2023

Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2
nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655

Subject: Response of the City of Foster City to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”

Dear Judge Fineman,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report titled, “Accessory Dwelling Units:

Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”. Please find our response to the findings and recommendations of the report below.

Response to Findings:

F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU -related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

Response: The City of Foster City agrees with this finding.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. While the City of Foster City counts ADUs to meet affordable housing commitments in RHNA, it is one of many strategies.

Specifically, the City of Foster City has a total lower income housing RHNA of 819 and ADUs make up only 14 of these.

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

Response: The City of Foster City is not named in this finding and therefore has no comment.

Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. Every year, HCD requires jurisdictions to submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) that includes details regarding its

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

56 housing production and Foster City has been submitting APR annually to HCD. The City has included a program in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring, “The City shall track new ADUs (at single-family and multifamily sites) and collect information on the use and affordability of these units in each Annual Progress Report. Biannually through the projection period (beginning in 2025), if determined that at least 50% units are not meeting a lower-income housing need, the City shall adopt additional incentives to facilitate ADUs.” Another program in the Housing Element that will help in monitoring and verifying ADU production is H-G-2-e, Rental Registry: “Unless a requirement for a State rental registry is adopted, explore a rental registry that tracks information such as rents, utilities, accessibility for disabled per sons, tenant occupancy dates, and landlord contact information in order to improve the information available to landlords, tenants, and decision makers.” The Rental Registry would be for all rental units (including ADUs) to track occupancy, rents etc.

The City of Foster City is planning on supporting a regional ADU monitoring effort through the Association of B ay Area Governments ( ABAG) or 21 Elements , a long-standing collaboration among the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo County.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. Regarding ADU production, every year as part of the process for preparing the APR for HCD, the staff gathers information on housing production, including ADUs. Regarding affordability, the City has included program s in its Housing Element, H -D-4-h: ADU Monitoring and H-G-2-e, Rental Registry (noted in F4) . In addition, San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023, to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. The City of Foster City is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements.

F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units.

Response: The City of Foster City does not agree with this finding. Foster City has only projected 24 ADUs in its sites inventory of 1,896 units which is very minimal and will be able to demonstrate meeting its RHNA-6 obligation for very -low-, low-, and moderate- income housing units through housing production reflected in the future APRs. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low , and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. Theoretically, Foster City can still fully meet its RHNA obligations for every affordability category without a low -income ADU being provided. However, the City of Foster City is planning to implement ADU monitoring and support a regional approach to monitoring ADU affordability.

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

57 Response: The City of Foster City agrees with this finding. HIP is one potential partner agency.

However, it shall be noted that Foster City do not have a high proportion of ADUs in their sites inventory for RHNA-6.

Response to Recommendations:

R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their State-mandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used.

Response: The City of Foster City’s RHNA for cycle 6 is 1,896 units, and only 24 ADUs are projected in the sites inventory, including seven (7) ADUs projected in very -low-, low - and moderate-income categories and three (3) ADU in the above-moderate category. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low , and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

The City of Foster City shares the Civil Grand Jury’s goal to increase ADU affordability monitoring; however, given that the Housing Element does not rely on ADUs (only 2% of the overall number of affordable units and includes a 16% buffer) to meet affordable housing goals, removing ADUs in the Housing Element does not impact the overall affordable housing goals . Additionally, the Housing Element was developed through a rigorous process of multiple years of public input and revisions, and it is simply not reasonable to expect the City to make a major change to our housing policy this late in the process and delaying the certification process. However, the City of Foster City is committed to following state housing law. Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element, H -D-4-h: ADU Monitoring, “The City shall track new ADUs (at single- family and multifamily sites) and collect information on the use and affordability of these units in each Annual Progress Report. Biannually through the projection period (beginning in 2025), if determined that at least 50% units are not meeting a lower -income housing need, the City shall adopt additional incentives to faci litate ADUs.” Foster City will support the development of an effective regional ADU monitoring program which will be operated by 21 Elements or ABAG. In addition, t he City has included numerous programs in its Housing Element for the planning period 2023-3 1 to support the production of ADUs , including an ADU/JADU financial incentive program, preapproved ADU/JADU designs and expedited review, and an amnesty program for existing unapproved ADUs . Thus, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable as discussed above, Foster City has only projected 24 ADUs in its sites inventory of 1,896 units which is very minimal and will be able to demonstrate meeting its RHNA- 6 obligation for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units through housing production reflected in the future APRs. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low, and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. Theoretically, Foster City can still fully meet its RHNA obligations for every affordability category without a low-income ADU being provided.

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

58 R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used.

Response: Part of the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The City of Foster City agrees that it is important to have information regarding the affordability of ADUs. As stated above in R1, Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring. The City will participate in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system. The monitoring is projected to launch in January 2025 and will likely survey people about their plans for their ADU at the time permits are issued. In addition, the City has another program in the Housing Element that will help in monitoring and verifying ADU production is H-G-2-e, Rental Registry: “Unless a requirement for a State rental registry is adopted, explore a rental registry that tracks information such as rents, utilities, accessibility for disabled persons, tenant occupancy dates, and landlord contact information in order to improve the information available to landlords, tenants, and decision makers.” The Rental Registry would be for all rental units (including ADUs) to track occupancy, rents etc. The timeline for expl oring rental registry options is December 2024.

The recommendation regarding developing, adopting and implementing a verification system capable of verifying how newly developed ADUs are being used will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. There are a number of Housing Programs, Goals and Policies that the City has to implement over the cour se of the next 1 -2 years. Timely implementation of these programs is important to achieve housing goals, RHNA targets and affordable housing. As noted above, the City will be participating in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system in addition to exploring a Rental Registry. To develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s ar e being used by February 1, 2024 with limited staff resources is not feasible and will impact the implementation of other important Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs that will be more impactful in meeting affordable housing in Foster City.

Response: This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future.

As discussed above, the City has included a program included in its Housing Element , H-D-4-b, ADU/JADU financial incentive program. Under this program, the City of Foster City will “Provide or partner with another organization to provide a financial incentive program for single- family homeowners to construct an ADU/JADU that is restricted for lower-income households for 10-15 years, with an additional incentive amount for units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities .” The timeframe for implementation of the program is December 2024.

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

59 R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals.

Response: This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future.

As part of the monitoring program referenced in response to R2, the City of Foster City will track the intended use of ADUs. Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element to provide a financial incentive program for single- family homeowners to construct an ADU/JADU that is restricted for lower-income households for 10-15 years. The timeframe for implementation of the program is December 2024.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Foster City agrees with the importance of an accurate distribution formula, given the relatively small size of the City of Foster City , a more meaningful distribution formula can be attained by collecting data on ADUs constructed across all San Mateo County jurisdictions.

The City of Foster City is supporting the creation of an ADU monitoring program through 21 Elements or ABAG which will collect data that can be used to revise the distribution formula based on actual observed income levels.

The UC Berkeley study surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide and aggregated the data to reduce the margin of errors. The margin of error would be too large if the City were to survey only a dozen or couple of dozen households. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city based on the UC Berkeley study. The recommendation of a percentage distribution of 30/30/30/10 had a significant cushion built in to ensure cities did not accidentally underproduce the amount of housing needed. Additionally, given the historically low production of ADUs (average of 3 ADUs per year) in Foster City, there isn’t significant data to help inform the affordability distribution formula. Thus, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.

R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.

Response: The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future.

Foster City has included two programs in its Housing Element, including ADU monitoring, and an ADU/JADU financial incentive program as stated above. Timeframe for implementing these programs is by December 2024.

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

60 Foster City actively participates in 21 Elements, a collaboration amongst 21 San Mateo County jurisdictions to develop, adopt, and implement housing policies and programs in the County.

The City will continue to work on efforts and solutions that boost the production and affordability of ADUs.

This response was approved by the City Council of Foster City at its regular meeting on August 7, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

Jon Froomin
Mayor, City of Foster City

Cc: [email protected]

6.2 Attachment 2 - Draft response to the Grand Jury Report

61 4
1 2
DATE: August 7, 2023

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager

FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: RECREATION CENTER REBUILD PROJECT (CIP 301-678)

PROJECT UPDATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the update on the schematic design phase of the Recreation Center Rebuild Project (“Project”).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the City Council Regular Meeting on May 15, 2023, the City Council confirmed: 1) the preferred conceptual two-story building design and site plan with the parking option that extended the exiting parking lot to the north, 2) confirmed alternates for consideration at end of schematic design, and 3) received an update on the preliminary cost estimate and Project budget for the conceptual design options.

Over the past two months, the project team focused on working with the community, Task Force, Joint Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee on the schematic design phase of the Project to: 1) refine the preferred conceptual site and building design, 2) select the building’s preferred color and materials palette, and 3) solicit input on the development of the Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan.

Additionally, the project team is continuing to refine the building and site schematic design by working with the project management team; conducting technical meetings

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

62 4
1 2
with staff from Parks and Recreation, Planning and Building, and Fire Departments; and completing the CEQA review for the Project in preparation for the Planning Commission Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for September 7, 2023.

At the City Council Regular Meeting on August 7, 2023, staff will provide the City Council an update on the schematic design phase of the Project and the developments that are being integrated into the schematic design which is scheduled to be completed and presented for the City Council’s direction and approval at the City Council Regular Meeting tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2023.

BACKGROUND
At the City Council Regular Meeting on November 21, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (“Group 4”) for professional design, bidding, and construction support services for the Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301-678). Over the past 7 months, Group 4 worked closely with staff to complete the conceptual design phase which included conducting extensive community outreach to solicit feedback on key design layouts and features.

The multilayered public participation in the conceptual design phase included input from over 1,000 community members, as well as from the Project Task Force, Parks and Recreation Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council.

At the City Council Regular Meeting on April 17, 2023, the City Council approved the first contract amendment with Group 4 for Boardwalk Master Planning Services as part of the Project to be completed concurrent with the schematic design for the new Recreation Center.

At the City Council Regular Meeting on May 15, 2023, the City Council confirmed: 1) the preferred conceptual two-story building design and site plan with the parking option that extended the exiting parking lot to the north, 2) confirmed alternates for consideration at end of schematic design, and 3) received an update on the preliminary cost estimate and Project budget for the conceptual design options.

ANALYSIS
Over the past two months, the City completed the second round of community outreach as part of a multilayered public participation plan involving input from over 850 community members who attended various open houses, pop-ups, intercept kiosks at community events, and an online survey. In addition, since the last City Council presentation in May there were two (2) Project Task Force meetings, one (1) Joint Study Session meeting with the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee, multiple project management and technical meetings with staff and department heads, and the second integrated design workshop which involved multiple City department representatives, design and engineering team members, the construction manager, and the construction cost estimator. Staff and the design team

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

63 4
1 2
are currently working on the development of the schematic design documents and the completion of the environmental review documents.

The results of the second round of community outreach are summarized in Exhibits A-C below:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

64 4
1 2
Exhibit C
The Task Force concluded their last meeting in June and provided the design team with input on the exterior color and material palette and helped develop the user experience goals for the new recreation center’s interior spaces. The third and last of the joint study sessions with the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee that was conducted involved reviewing the findings from the second round of community engagement and input from the Task Force on the exterior color and material palettes, and the features and activities for the Recreation Center Waterfront Masterplan.

Overall, the feedback from the groups was consistent with most people favoring the darker exterior materials color palette in Option A but preferred the “wavy” accent panel in Option B. For the Joint Committee, there was a strong desire for a nautical theme to compliment the Recreation Center’s lagoon waterfront.

Exterior Color and Material Palette Summary
Based on the direction from the community, Task Force, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee members, and the project management team, the design team has continued to refine and update the design to reflect their direction. The following renderings (Images 1-5) are based on the input received to date and additional design refinements. The proposed nautical color palette has a rich blue as the base color for the Exterior Insulated Finish System (EIFS) panels, a wave textured warm white composite panel accents the corners of the building creating movement in the facade with the sun’s moving shadows across the face of the material throughout the day, the storefront, window mullions, sun shades, and trellis and roof structure are a warm gray, the metal fascia on the roof is a lighter gray as it transitions to the light colored solar reflecting roof, and the one story Events Wing entry uses a warm wood composite material to identify the special events entry and help the building differentiate between the Program Wing and the Events Wing. The wood-like material is also used on the underside of the deck and the interior trellis providing warmth to the people

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

65 4
1 2
spaces directly adjacent to the building. The sophisticated nautical color palette of the building is beautifully set off within the green context of Leo J. Ryan Park and adjacent lagoon.

Image # 1
Image #2

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

66 4
1 2
Image #3
Image #4

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

67 4
1 2
Image # 5
Source: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc
Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
The priorities expressed from the community to date have included a strong preference for water events, steps into the water, outlook terrace, and a natural edge. Preferred waterfront activities include walking, sitting, outlooking, water activities, kayaking, and accessing the lagoon. Activities that also garnered support included deck lounging, paddle boarding, sunbathing, Duffy boating, paddling, rowing, and open water swimming. The Task Force and the Joint Committee supported the community’s input and their additional feedback included: 1) do not over program or make the uses at the waterfront “too dense” thus causing congestion and conflicts in uses, 2) be sensitive to adding high liability activities, and 3) be sensitive to increasing activities that have other negative impacts such as traffic and sound.

Additional Project Updates
Project Options/Alternatives
Based on the input and direction received from the City Council Regular Meeting on May 15, 2023, the design team is preparing information for the following project options/alternatives to be presented to the City Council during the Schematic Design presentation scheduled for the September 18, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting. a. LEED Gold Additional Features and Cost. The building is currently being designed for LEED Silver.
b. LEED Platinum Additional Features and Cost.

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

68 4
1 2
c. All electric building.
d. Net zero performing building.
e. Including photovoltaics as bid alternate.
f. Amphitheater to boat launch boardwalk/waterfront improvements g. A playground for both programming and public use.
h. Bocce court expansion with the possible addition of a park restroom (Note: A separate CIP fund identified for additional Bocce Courts) Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
The Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan is at 50% completion and was submitted to the City for its review in June. Concept options were shared with the Task Force at their June meeting and the design team is currently developing refined options for presentation and discussion by the Parks and Recreation Committee at their meeting on August 1, 2023. Following this meeting, the design team will develop the recommendations for the Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan to be presented to the City Council as part of the schematic design presentation scheduled for the City Council Regular Meeting on September 18, 2023.

Project Schedule
Due to the unexpected delays with the CEQA review process for the project, the design team anticipates a two-month delay in the start of the project’s construction.

Construction was anticipated to begin in July 2024, but now staff is projecting the start date will be in September 2024. The design team is not anticipating significant cost escalation associated with the delay. In addition, it was anticipated that the City would be without a Recreation Center for two summers of programming, now it will only be one. The goal is to have the new facility ready for programming starting in June 2026, but there are factors that could cause a late summer 2026 opening.

Project Budget
As discussed at the City Council Regular Meeting on May 15, the project is trending 10% higher than the current budget based on several different factors including escalation, unforeseen conditions, and more detailed information being available. This does not include any of the project options/alternatives listed in this report. The City’s Construction Manager, Griffin Structures, is working with the City and the design team to develop a comprehensive project budget and will assist in the project update and schematic design presentation to the City Council on September 18, 2023.

CEQA
This project update is not a subject of the California Environmental Quality Act.

However, the City issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Public Review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Recreation Center Project (File No.

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

69 4
1 2
UP2023-0003/ CIP 301-678). A Planning Commission Public Hearing is currently scheduled for September 7, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
The current agreement with Group 4 contains proposed fees in the amount of $5,558,207 which includes all contract amendments. Additionally, a project contingency in the amount of $650,000 or approximately 12% of the contract amount was approved to pay for additional services to mitigate unforeseen tasks or for additional services that may be required.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

70 FOSTER CITY RECREATION

CENTER REBUILD

SCHEMATIC DESIGN

CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
City of Foster City
City of Foster City | August 7, 2023

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

71 3
TODAY

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

72 4

MEETING SUMMARY
Project Management Meetings (PMT)
 05/18 – PMT #12: Schematic Design Kick-Off
 06/08 – PMT #13
 06/22 – PMT #14
 07/12 – PMT #15
 07/20 – PMT #16
 08/03 – PMT #17
Technical Meetings
 6/1 Building + Planning Tech Mtg #1
 6/27 P+R Tech Mtg #3
 6/22 Planning Tech Mtg #3- TODAY
 7/18- Fire Tech Mtg
 7/24 Food Service Tech Mtg
 8/4 Ceramics Mtg
Integrated Design Workshop (IDW)
 6/29- IDW #2
Jt. Planning Commission +
Park and Recreation Committee
 06/01 Meeting #3
Park and Recreation Committee
 08/01 Waterfront Master Plan- update to P&R
Task Force Meeting
 05/24 – Meeting #5
 06/28 – Meeting #6

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

73 AGENDA
6 1. Work Plan & Schedule Update
 PMT, Technical, + Integrated Design Workshop

2. Project Participation + Input
 Community
 Task Force + Joint Committee

3. Refined Design
 Exterior Color + Material Palette
 Renderings

4. Additional Project Updates
 Project Options/Alternatives
 Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
 Schedule
 Budget
 CEQA

5. Next Steps

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

74 8 Foster City Recreation Center City Council Staff Update 08/07/23 What we have heard so far..

Online Survey
Planning Commission and Parks
+ Recreation Joint Meeting
Off The Grid
Project Task Force
Senior Luncheons
Library Outreach
-
Wildmind Animal Show:

Bay Area Wild
- Summer Kick-Off Party
Movie Night in the Park

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

75 9 Foster City Recreation Center PMT#12 05/18/23
COMMUNITY OUTREACH - Exterior Materials Palette
A B
C
General Comments
• Blues and lighter colors seem to be preferred.
• Community positive reactions to C and lighter,
more “nautical” colors.
• Lots of support for concrete “wavy” accent
panels from B all-around.

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

76 10
Foster City Recreation Center City Council Staff Update 08/07/23 10%
24%
28%
33%
34%
38%
40%
41%
50%
57%
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
MARINA

BOAT DOCK

FLOATING ISLAND

WATERFRONT LOUNGE

OPEN WATER POOL

WATER MOVIE THEATER

NATURAL EDGE

OUTLOOK TERRACE

STEPS INTO THE WATER

WATER EVENT
NUMBER OF VOTES = 103

ONLINE SURVEY JOINT STUDY SESSION OFF THE GRID - OUT-OF-TOWN OFF THE GRID - 18 AND UNDER OFF THE GRID - OVER 18 MOVIE NIGHT - 18 AND OVER MOVIE NIGHT - UNDER 18 MOVIE NIGHT - OUT-OF-TOWN SENIOR LUNCH WILDMIND - RESIDENT WILDMIND - UNDER 18 WILDMIND - OUT-OF-TOWN SUMMER KICK-OFF - RESIDENT SUMMER KICK-OFF - UNDER 18 SUMMER KICK-OFF - OUT-OF-TOWN

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS

WATERFRONT FEATURES

WATER EVENTS
is the top priority
for the community

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

77 11
Foster City Recreation Center City Council Staff Update 08/07/23 3%
17%
20%
22%
28%
28%
29%
30%
41%
43%
43%
63%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
OTHER

SAILING

OPEN WATER SWIMMING

PADDLING AND ROWING

DUFFY BOATING

SUNBATHING

PADDLE BOARDING

DECK LOUNGING

ACCESSING THE LAGOON

KAYAKING

WATER ACTIVITIES

WALKING/SITTING/OUTLOOKING
NUMBER OF VOTES = 103

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS

WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES

WALKING/SITTING/

OUTLOOKING
is the top priority for
the community

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

78 12
Foster City Recreation Center PMT#12 05/18/23
OUTREACH ROUND 2 – TASK FORCE INPUT
General Comments:
• Liked the darker EIFS color in Option A
• Liked the texture of the accent panel in
Option B, but preferred the darker color as
in Option A

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

79 13
TASK FORCE #3- PREFERRED MATERIALS PALETTE OPTION C’

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

80 14
Foster City Recreation Center PMT#12 05/18/23
OUTREACH ROUND 2 – JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING
General Comments:
• Liked EIFS color in A and the accent panel
in Option B,
• Strong desire for nautical theme.
• Wary of high-liability activities.
• Sensitivity toward increasing sound and
traffic effects with increased activity at
waterfront.

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

81 AGENDA
15 1. Work Plan & Schedule Update
 PMT, Technical, + Integrated Design Workshop

2. Project Participation + Input
 Community
 Task Force + Joint Committee

3. Refined Design
 Exterior Color + Material Palette
 Renderings

4. Additional Project Updates
 Project Options/Alternatives
 Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
 Schedule
 Budget
 CEQA

5. Next Steps

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

82 16

LAGOON TERRACE TOWARDS RECREATION CENTER WING

EIFS WOOD-LOOK

PHENOLIC PANEL

PRECAST

CONCRETE PANEL
TAKTL
PANEL

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE WALL
PANELS

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

83 AGENDA
18 1. Work Plan & Schedule Update
 PMT, Technical, + Integrated Design Workshop

2. Project Participation + Input
 Community
 Task Force + Joint Committee

3. Refined Design
 Exterior Color + Material Palette
 Renderings

4. Additional Project Updates
 Project Options/Alternatives
 Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
 Schedule
 Budget
 CEQA

5. Next Steps

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

84 20
Foster City Recreation Center City Council Staff Update 08/07/23

ADDITIONAL PROJECT UPDATES
Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan
• Currently @ 50%
• Task Force + Joint Committee Input received
• Parks and Recreation Committee input August 1, 2023.
• August/ September: Recommendations for the Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan • September 18, 2023: City Council Presentation
Project Schedule
• CEQA review extended current schedule 2 months
• Projecting construction start date will be in September 2024 • not anticipating significant cost escalation associated with the delay • Reduces impact on programming, potentially only loss of 1 summer of programming as opposed to two.

Project Budget
• Like May 15,2023 Council Update Project Budget trending 10% high, based on additional escalation, unforeseen conditions, and scope refinement
CEQA
• City issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Public Review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Recreation Center Project (File No. UP2023-0003/ CIP 301-678).
• Planning Commission Public Hearing is currently scheduled for September 7, 2023.

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

85 21
Foster City Recreation Center City Council Staff Update 08/07/23 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

86 AGENDA
22 NEXT STEPS
Planning Commission
• 09/07 CEQA Public Hearing
City Council Presentation
• 09/18: Schematic Design Presentation

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

87 THANK YOU!

7.1 Attachment 1- Group 4 Presentation Slide Deck

88 4
3 5
DATE: August 7, 2023

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
Dane Hutchings, Managing Director, Renne Public Policy Group DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SB 532 (WEINER) SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA TOLL BRIDGES: TOLLS: TRANSIT OPERATING

EXPENSES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss Senate Bill (SB) 532 and by Minute Order, provide direction to staff on whether to take any action on SB 532, including directing staff to draft a letter in support or in opposition of the bill and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 22, 2023, a group of Bay Area lawmakers led by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced SB 532 (“gut and amend” bill), the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Public Transportation Emergency Act. SB 532 will temporarily raise tolls on seven (7) state-owned bridges in the Bay Area by $1.50 for five (5) years. The increase in bridge tolls, as proposed by SB 532, is expected to generate around $180 million annually over the 5-year period. The bill is sponsored by TransForm, a Bay Area-based transportation advocacy group, and is backed by a group of Bay Area lawmakers, including Senators Cortese and Becker, and Assembly Members Haney, Ting, Lee, Bonta, and Wicks. The bill intends to provide much-needed public transportation funding to prevent service cuts and improve safety, cleanliness, and reliability. Key provisions of this bill are highlighted below:

7.2 7.2 Staff Report

89 4
3 5

1. Continuously appropriates moneys from the toll increase and other specified tolls to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to expend for specified purposes.

2. Requires MTC to provide revenues from the toll increase to toll operators within MTC’s jurisdiction that are experiencing a financial shortfall and operate fixed- route public transit services, including bus, rail, or ferry and do not directly receive most of their revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District.

3. Requires MTC to annually distribute at least 90% of the revenues from the toll increase to these operators in order to avoid service cuts and maintain operations, including safety, security, reliability, or cleanliness services and improvements.

4. Provides that MTC may only allocate these funds to a transit operator after it determines that the funds are necessary to avoid service cuts relative to service levels provided by that transit operator during the 2022-23 fiscal year.

5. Requires MTC to prioritize averting service cuts for transit operators that serve the highest number of transit riders.

6. Requires MTC to annually distribute no more than 10% of the revenues from the toll increase to assist eligible transit riders with restoring or reconfiguring service above levels provided during the 2022-23 fiscal year, or for the purpose of funding initiatives to transform transit service pursuant to the MTC’s adopted Transit Transformation Action Plan, or to make specific safety, reliability, cleanliness, and security improvements.

7. Prohibits the $1.50 toll increase from being reduced without statutory authorization by the Legislature.

8. States legislative intent to enact future legislation to require MTC to study, design, and implement an equity-based program to mitigate the impacts of the $1.50 toll increase within two years of the effective date of this act.

9. Creates a state-local mandate and requires a 2/3 vote.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
During the pandemic, public transit agencies were able to operate on COVID relief funds. However, with the depletion of those funds, Bay Area transit agencies such as BART and Muni have indicated that they will be making major cuts to train and bus schedules as early as Fall 2023. Senator Wiener's SB 532 attempts to address this issue by temporarily raising the toll on the Bay Area's seven (7) state-owned bridges and earmarking these funds for transportation improvements. While the state has total authority to regulate bridge tolls, it has traditionally relegated the function to BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) under limited circumstances and has required BATA to place bridge toll increase measures on the ballot for the seven (7) state-owned bridges in the Bay Area region. SB 532 requires BATA to temporarily raise the toll on the seven (7) state- owned bridges by $1.50 – indexed to inflation – over the 5-year period from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028.

7.2 7.2 Staff Report

90 4
3 5
Bridge Tolls in the Bay Area
In 2017, the Legislature passed SB 595 (Beall) which authorized MTC to go to the voters to approve a toll increase from $5 to $8 for a measure referred to as Regional Measure 3 (RM3). RM3 passed with 54% of the vote in June of 2018. On January 1, 2019, tolls were increased by $1 to $6. Tolls were increased again to $7 in January of 2022, and are set to increase again to $8 in January of 2025. Should SB 532 pass, tolls in the Bay Area will increase to $8.50 in 2024, and in combination with the expected $1 increase due to RM3 in 2025, will be greater than $9.50.

Arguments in Support
Bay Area transit operators are facing substantial operating deficits of $2.5 billion over the next five (5) years. These deficits are primarily caused by a collapse in transit ridership, higher operating costs, and the depletion of federal pandemic emergency relief funding. Although there has been a steep decline in transit ridership due to the pandemic, the author notes that numbers have been steadily recovering, with Muni's ridership increasing by 33% and BART's by nearly 50% over the past year. Despite the progress, concerns over safety, cleanliness, and reliability on public transport make some residents hesitant to return to their pre-pandemic commuting habits. The author notes that the recently enacted budget which included $5.1 billion in new funding for transit operations will not be enough and failure to address the crisis could result in service cuts that will hurt the region’s economy and undermine the state’s climate and housing goals. The bill also recognizes the need for financial equity in its provisions, ensuring that the toll increase primarily benefits lower-income transit riders who might be disproportionately impacted by service cuts.

Arguments in Opposition
The Bay Area Council is urging cities to pass a resolution opposing SB 532. The Bay Area Council working with others were able to secure $5.1 billion from the state budget – including $1.1 billion in new statewide funding – to give transit agencies in the Bay Area and across the state more time to recover ridership and make adjustments to adapt to a post-pandemic and post-remote work world. This was in addition to the $4.4 billion in federal funds delivered to Bay Area transit during the pandemic. They note that these efforts “have staved off facing a “fiscal cliff” from 2025 until at least 2027” for transit agencies.

In an email to the City, the Bay Area Council has noted the following reasons to oppose this toll increase:
•Bay Area residents’ ability to pay for improvements is not limitless, and they deserve a more cost-effective, efficient, seamless, and in some cases safer transit system. Before we can support new taxes, tolls, or fees to support transit, we need to see the agencies do the hard work to make their systems safer, most cost-effective, and more seamless.

7.2 7.2 Staff Report

91 4
3 5
•In a post-pandemic world, those that are still driving a car or pick-up truck across our bridges and paying tolls are statistically lower income, have lower levels of education, and are disproportionately people of color. Post- pandemic, we have a bifurcated society in the Bay Area of those with the luxury to work remotely and those who cannot. Many of these bridge-crossing drivers cannot work from home nor reasonably take transit, and the cost of providing transit to them would be prohibitively expensive. Tolling these already disadvantaged residents more, now, is not the right move. •Tolls are already high, increasing, and are set to be raised again in 2025 for Regional Measure 3 improvements.
•The primary objective of tolls is to pay for bridge maintenance, and BATA had been planning an increase for such maintenance. Raising tolls to pay for transit operations would interfere with those efforts.
•Many workers are already struggling with the high cost of living in the Bay Area, and this toll hike may contribute to forcing more residents to leave the region.
•Toll increases in the past – such as Regional Measure 1, Regional Measure 2 and Regional Measure 3 – were subject to votes of the people, and should continue to be.
•Further taxing commuters will undermine efforts to bring more employees and visitors to struggling downtowns.
•As written, the toll increase funding would almost entirely go to MUNI in San Francisco and BART (for commuters going to San Francisco) and yet the toll payers and toll bridges are throughout the Bay Area, and this seems geographically inequitable.

While there is a long list of supporters of this bill including the Cities of Berkeley, San Francisco, and Oakland, it is unclear at this time where other jurisdictions within the nine bay area counties will land. As of July 5 (the date SB 532 was presented and voted on in Assembly Transportation), the Bay Area Council was the only organization on record in opposition. Foster City is represented by Assemblymember Diane Papan and Senator Josh Becker. While Senator Becker is the Principal Coauthor of SB 532, we cannot confirm Assemblymember Papan’s position on this bill at this time.

Since this bill was a “gut and amend,” this measure will go through several more policy and fiscal committees prior to the end of this year’s legislative session. SB 523 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations committee. Assuming the bill continues to advance, it would then need to be voted on by the full Assembly. From there, the bill would likely be heard in the Senate Transportation committee (because this version of the bill was never heard in the Senate). It would then move to Senate Appropriations and the Senate floor for a concurrence vote prior to heading to the Governor for his consideration. It is important to note that because this measure needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers to advance, SB 523 is not subject to the traditional policy and fiscal deadlines as majority vote legislation. In summary, conversations on specific amendments to broker a deal on SB 532 could go late into the remaining days of the Legislative session (ends September 15). It is also unclear if Governor Newsom will

7.2 7.2 Staff Report

92 4
3 5
sign this legislation. Thus far he has not made a public commitment one way or the other.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy

7.2 7.2 Staff Report

93 4
2 5
DATE: August 7, 2023

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

FROM: Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk DEPARTMENT: Communications/City Clerk
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR ELECTRONIC AND PAPERLESS FILING OF

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION (FPPC) CAMPAIGN

DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance creating a new Chapter 2.56, “Municipal Elections and Electronic Filling,” adding Section 2.56.030 “Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements” to Chapter 2.56; and amending Sections 2.08.380 “Term limits” and 2.08.390 “General municipal elections designated” to remove them from Chapter 2.08 “City Council” and relocating them to Sections 2.56.010 and 2.56.020 of Chapter 2.56 within Title 2 “Administration and Personnel” of the Foster City Municipal Code.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Clerk is the local filing officer for the City of Foster City, and is responsible for receiving, reviewing, and storing campaign disclosure information, as well as making it accessible to the public. To provide a more efficient process, the City Clerk’s Office recently acquired NetFile, an electronic/paperless filing system that accommodates online filing of several types of FPPC forms, including Forms 460, 470, 496, and 497, and meets the requirements of the Secretary of State. In order for the City of Foster City to accept electronically filed statements, the City Council must adopt an ordinance (Attachment 1) approving the use of an online or electronic filing system, which shall include the legislative finding that the online or electronic system will operate securely

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

94 4
2 5
and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. NetFile will also be utilized for electronic/paperless filing for all Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest). Adoption of an ordinance is not required for the use of an electronic filing system for Form 700s.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Political Reform Act recognizes campaigns that spend or raise more than $2,000 as “Controlled Committees.” Under the Act, these committees are obligated to file detailed campaign finance statements, also known as Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 460s. The City Clerk serves as the local filing officer for the City of Foster City, and is responsible for receiving, reviewing, and storing campaign disclosure information, as well as making it accessible to the public. The City Clerk’s office currently accepts paper filings of such documents and staff has been manually redacting and uploading forms to the City website.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2151 also requires cities to post any campaign statement, report, or other document required by the Political Reform Act to its city website within 72 hours of its filing. To provide a more efficient process, the City Clerk’s Office recently acquired NetFile, an electronic/paperless filing system that accommodates online filing of several types of FPPC forms, including Forms 460, 470, 496, and 497, and meets the requirements of the Secretary of State. NetFile will ensure compliance with AB 2151, provide more transparency to the public, and offer an easier way for all filers to complete their required filings.

Government Code Section 84615 allows local government agencies to require an elected and appointed official, candidate, or committee to file FPPC campaign statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with a local filing officer.

In order for the City of Foster City to accept electronically filed statements, the City Council must adopt an ordinance (Attachment 1) approving the use of an online or electronic filing system, which shall include the legislative finding that the online or electronic system will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers.

In terms of security, the NetFile system is a web-based, vendor-hosted application that utilizes “industry best practices” for securing data, using the same data encryption for online filings that is used by banks for online banking. NetFile stores and backs up data at three separate locations, creating the essential safety measures and redundancy that allows for recovery of information in the event of an emergency or disaster.

Implementation of the NetFile system will promote transparency and provide convenience for committees, individuals, and the public. It provides 24-hour filing and viewing accessibility of campaign finance information from any computer, anywhere. In certain instances, the NetFile system will also increase the accuracy of filed campaign statements by prohibiting any filings that may have inadvertently omitted information required under the Political Reform Act. To ensure a smooth transition, NetFile and the City Clerk’s Office will offer extensive training to all filers. There are currently 180 cities

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

95 4
2 5
and 32 counties in California electronically filing Campaign Disclosure Statements through NetFile.

Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700)
The City Clerk is responsible for the annual filing of Form 700s by 87200 Filers (City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Treasurer, and City Attorney) and designated City staff, boards, commissions, and consultants. Form 700s occasionally need amendments or are submitted incomplete or without appropriate schedules attached. With the transition to electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements, staff recommends all future reports and other documents filed on behalf of Statement of Economic Interest filers be filed electronically. The Form 700 electronic filing system incorporates an initial review process that alerts the filer of errors at the time they enter their information, thereby minimizing the need for the City Clerk to request amendments. There are currently 237 cities and 51counties in California using electronic filing systems for Form 700 filings.

The Form 700 component of NetFile does not require an ordinance and is simply an internal procedural change.

Proposed Ordinance
Staff is recommending creating a new Chapter 2.56, “Municipal Elections and Electronic Filing” within Title 2 “Administration and Personnel” of the Foster City Municipal Code so that all provisions relating to council elections can be contained within one chapter.

The proposed ordinance would add Section 2.56.030 “Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements” to allow the electronic filing of an electronic/paperless filing system that accommodates online filing of several types of FPPC forms, including Forms 460, 470, 496, and 497.

The proposed ordinance would also amend Sections 2.08.380 “Term limits” and

2.08.390 “General municipal elections designated” to remove them from Chapter 2.08 “City Council” and move them to the new Chapter 2.56. Sections 2.08.380 and

2.08.390 would be re-numbered as Sections 2.56.010 and 2.56.020 (respectively) within Chapter 2.56.

California Environmental Quality Act
This proposed Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

96 4
2 5
this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of this ordinance. The NetFile system cost in the amount of $4,400 per year was included in the IT budget.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Innovation and Sustainability
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Ordinance

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

97 ORDINANCE NO.____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY CREATING CHAPTER 2.56 “MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTRONIC FILING” AND ADDING SECTION

2.56.030 “ELECTRONIC AND PAPERLESS FILING OF FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS” TO CHAPTER 2.56; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.08.380 “TERM LIMITS” AND 2.08.390 “GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS DESIGNATED” TO REMOVE THEM FROM CHAPTER 2.08 “CITY COUNCIL” AND RELOCATING THEM TO SECTIONS 2.56.010 AND 2.56.020 OF CHAPTER 2.56 WITHIN TITLE 2 “ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL” OF THE

FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 84615 currently provides that a local agency may adopt an ordinance to require an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports, or other documents required by Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act (commencing with Section 84100 of the Government Code), except an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person who receives contributions totaling less than $2,000 and who makes independent expenditures totaling less than $2,000 in a calendar year, to file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with the local filing officer; and WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement with NetFile, Inc., a vendor approved by the California Secretary of State, to provide an online electronic filing system ("System") for campaign disclosure statements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Foster City desires to amend the Foster City Municipal Code to creating a new Chapter 2.56 “Municipal Elections and Electronic Filing”, adding a Section regarding electronic filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements and relocating Sections 2.08.380 “Term limits” and 2.08.390 “General municipal elections designated” from Chapter 2.08 to Chapter 2.56.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES FIND AND ORDAIN as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as findings which are basis for this Ordinance.

Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Foster City finds that the System will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. Specifically: (1) the System will ensure the integrity of the data and includes safeguards against efforts to tamper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert the data; (2) the System will only accept a filing in the standardized record format developed by the Secretary of State and compatible

8.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance

98 with the Secretary of State's system for receiving an online or electronic filing; and (3) the System will be available free of charge to filers and to the public for viewing filings.

Section 3. Amendment. Chapter 2.08, “City Council” of the Foster City Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting Sections 2.08.380 “Term limits” and 2.08.390 “General municipal elections designated” of Chapter 2.08 within Title 2, “Administration and Personnel” in their entirety.

Section 4. Amendment. A new Chapter 2.56, “Municipal Elections and Electronic Filing” is hereby added to the Foster City Municipal Code and Sections 2.56.010, “Term limits” and 2.56.020, “General Municipal Elections Designated” and 2.56.030 “Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements to Chapter 2.56 within Title 2, “Administration and Personnel” is added to read in their entirety as follows:

Chapter 2.56

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTRONIC FILING
Sections:

2.56.010 Term Limits.

2.56.020 General Municipal Elections Designated.

2.56.030 Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements.

Section 2.56.010 Term Limits.

A. No person may hold the office of councilmember for more than two terms in succession. This provision does not prohibit holding the office for more than two terms.

B. “Term of office” as used in this section is defined as a four-year term.

C. For the purpose of determining the number of terms of office only those terms of office occurring after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be counted.

2.56.020 General Municipal Elections Designated.

After January 1, 2018, the general municipal elections of the city shall be consolidated with the statewide election date in accordance with Elections Code Sections 1301, 10000 to 10735, and 14050 to 14057, as amended. The terms for the local elected officials that are scheduled to end in 2017 and 2019 are hereby extended by twelve months. As used in this section, “twelve months” means the period between the day upon which the term of office would otherwise have commenced and the first Tuesday after the second Monday in the twelfth month before or after that day, inclusive.

8.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance

99 2.56.030 Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practice Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements.

A. Definitions. The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
"Candidate" shall mean a candidate, as that phrase is defined in Section 82007 of the Government Code, as may be amended from time to time, for any City elective office for any general, special or recall election.
"Committee" has the meaning set forth in Section 82013 of the Government Code, as may be amended from time to time.
"Contribution" has the meaning set forth in Section 82015 of the Government Code, as may be amended from time to time.
"Electronic filing system" shall mean the electronic online filing and data storage system provided for by the City Clerk for campaign statements, reports, forms, or other documents filed pursuant to Government Code Section 81000 et seq. "Person" has the meaning set forth in Section 82047 of the Government Code, as may be amended from time to time.
“Statements” shall mean any statements, reports, forms or other documents required by Government Code Chapter 4 – Political Reform Act (Section 81000 et seq.), as may be amended from time to time.

B. Any elected officer, candidate, commission, committee, or other person required to file campaign disclosure statements, reports, forms or other documents required by Government Code Chapter 4 (Campaign Disclosure) – Political Reform Act (Section 84100 et seq.) shall file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with the electronic filing system unless exempt from the requirement to file online pursuant to Government Code Section 84615(a) because the officer, candidate, or committee or person receives less than $2,000 in contributions and makes less than $2,000 in expenditures in a calendar year.

C. In any instance in which an original statement, report or other document required by Government Code Chapter 4 (Campaign Disclosure) – Political Reform Act (Section 84100 et seq.) must be filed with the California Secretary of State and a duplicate or copy of that statement, report or other document is required to be filed with the City Clerk, the filer may, but is not required to, file the copy electronically.

D. The electronic filing system shall ensure the integrity of the data transmitted and shall include safeguards against efforts to tamper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert the data.

8.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance

100

E. The electronic filing system shall only accept a filing in the standardized record format that is developed by the California Secretary of State pursuant to Section 84602(a)(2) of the California Government Code and that is compatible with the Secretary of State's system for receiving an online or electronic filing.

F. The electronic filing system shall include a procedure for filers to comply with the requirement that they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury pursuant to Section 81004 of the Government Code.

G. Any elected officer, candidate, committee or person who has electronically filed a statement required by Section 2.56.030(B) using the electronic filing system is not required to file a duplicate copy of that document in paper format with the City Clerk.

H. The City Clerk shall issue an electronic confirmation that notifies the filer that the statement was received, the notification shall include the date and the time that the Statement was received and the method by which the filer may view and print the data received by the City Clerk. The date of filing for a statement filed online shall be the day that it is received by the City Clerk.

I. If the electronic filing system is not capable of accepting a statement due to technical difficulties, an elected officer, candidate, or committee or other person shall timely file that statement required by Section 2.56.030(B) in paper format with the City Clerk, unless otherwise directed by the City Clerk.

J. The electronic filing system shall enable electronic filers to complete and submit statements or other filings free of charge.

K. The electronic filing system shall make all the data filed pursuant to Section

2.56.030(B) available on the City's webpage in an easily understood format that provides the greatest public access. The data shall be made available free of charge and as soon as possible after receipt. The data made available on the City's webpage shall be redacted to remove the street name and building number of the persons or entity representatives listed or any bank account number required to be disclosed by the filer.

L. The City Clerk's office shall maintain, for a period of at least 10 years commencing from the date filed, a secured, official version of each statement filed on the electronic filing system pursuant to Section 2.56.030(B), which shall serve as the official version of that record for purpose of audits and any other legal purpose.

M. The City Clerk is authorized to adopt such administrative policies and procedures as deemed necessary by the City Clerk to implement this Section 2.56.030.” Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause

8.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance

101

or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Environmental Determination. This Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

Section 7. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with the law.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.

Section 9. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.

This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 7th day of August, 2023, and passed and adopted on the __ day of ______, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

8.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance

102

4 3
0 DATE: August 7, 2023

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

FROM: Benjamin Stock, City Attorney
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 1.12

RELATING TO THE PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD

FOR FILING CLAIMS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 1.12, “Procedure and Limitations Period for Filing Claims” of the Foster City Municipal Code to revise the claim presentation timeline and make edits to conform to the Government Claims Act and delegate authority to the City Manager to review, reject or settle certain claims.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Currently, Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 1.12 requires a claim for money or damages filed against the City under the California Government Claims Act (Government Code sections 810-998.3) (“Act”) to be presented not later than one year after the accrual of a claim. Chapter 1.12 also currently requires the City Council to act to approve or deny all claims within forty-five days of the presentment of a claim.

Staff is recommending that the Council amend certain sections within Chapter 1.12 to revise the timeline for presentation of claims to be consistent with the Act and delegate authority to the City Manager to review, reject or settle certain claims.

8.2 8.2 Staff Report

103

4 3
0 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Under the Act, most actions seeking money or damages against a public entity, or a public employee acting within the scope of employment in California, must be preceded by a proper administrative claim (Government Code § 905). Because it applies to tort and non-tort claims, the courts have come to refer to the Act as the Government Claims Act rather than as the Tort Claims Act, a reference used in many older cases.

In 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 534, which is codified in Chapter 1.12 of the Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC), which established the procedures and time limitations for presentment of claims against the City, pursuant to the Act. As part of these procedures, FCMC section 1.12.030 currently requires that all claims against the City shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the claim.

Additionally, section 1.12.060 currently provides that once a claim is filed, the City Council must act to approve or deny a claim within forty-five days of its presentment.

Failure of the City Council to act within the time required is deemed a denial of the claim by operation of law.

There is no language in the current version of FCMC Chapter 1.12 that gives authority to the City Manager to settle or reject any claim. This means that if City staff believes that a case should be settled, it must be presented to the Council for consideration within forty-five days of presentment of the claim. For claims where liability is clear and the dollar value of the claim is low, presenting the claim to the Council causes inefficiencies due to administrative burden and unnecessary costs to the City. As a result, staff has prepared the proposed Ordinance which would allow the City Council to delegate authority to the City Manager to make decisions to settle or reject certain claims.

The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) would revise sections 1.12.020 (Claims required) and 1.12.030 (Presentment of claims) to make conforming changes to be more consistent with the Act. Section 1.12.030 would revise the specified “one year” timeline to instead require that the claim be presented within the time and in the manner prescribed by Part 3 of Division 3.6 of the Act, as may be amended. The Act currently requires a claim for wrongful death, personal injury, or damage to personal property or growing crops must be presented on or before 6 months after the cause of action accrues (Government Code § 911.2(a)). A claim for any other cause of action (including claims based on contract or damage to real property) may be presented as late as one year after the cause of action accrues (Government Code §911.2(a)).

The proposed Ordinance would also amend sections 1.12.050 (Claim prerequisite to suit) and 1.12.060 (City action on claim) to add “or their designee” to specify that the Council may designate someone to review and act on claims.

Finally, the proposed Ordinance would add a new Section 1.12.070 (Authority of City Manager) to specify that the City Council designates and delegates authority to the City Manager to review all claims for sufficiency and to reject any and all claims and

8.2 8.2 Staff Report

104

4 3
0 authorize the City Manager to settle claims for an amount up to and including $25,000, as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. Any settlement for an amount in excess of $25,000 would need to be approved by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this ordinance.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Ordinance (Clean Version)
Attachment 2 – Chapter 1.12 (Redlined Version)

8.2 8.2 Staff Report

105

1 0
5 0
ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 1.12, “PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS” OF

THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE CLAIM PRESENTATION

TIMELINE AND MAKE EDITS TO CONFORM TO THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT

AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW, REJECT OR

SETTLE CERTAIN CLAIMS

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 534, which is codified in Chapter 1.12 of the Foster City Municipal Code, which established the procedures and time limitations for presentation of claims against the City, consistent with California Government Code section 935; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to make various amendments to Chapter 1.12 to revise the claim presentation timeline and make edits to conform to the Government Claims Act and to delegate authority to the City Manager to review, reject or settle certain claims.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as findings which are the basis for the amendment.

Section 2. Repeal and Replace. Chapter 1.12 entitled “Procedure and Limitations Period for Filing Claims” within Title 1 of the Foster City Municipal Code is amended by repealing Chapter 1.12 in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:

Chapter 1.12

PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS
Sections:

1.12.010 Authority.

1.12.020 Claims required.

1.12.030 Presentment of claims.

1.12.040 Form of claim.

1.12.050 Claim prerequisite to suit.

1.12.060 City action on claim.

1.12.070 Authority of City Manager.

8.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance (Clean Version)

106

1 0
5 0

1.12.010 Authority.

This Chapter is enacted pursuant to California Government Code Section 935.

1.12.020 Claims required.

All claims against the City for money, damages or tax or assessment refunds, not otherwise governed by the Government Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 810, et seq., or any other law of the state of California (hereinafter “claims”) shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

1.12.030 Presentment of claims.

All claims against the City for money or damages shall be presented within the time, and in the manner, prescribed by Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the California Government Code, as those provisions now exist or shall hereafter be amended.

Unless otherwise provided by the California Government Code, a claim governed by this section shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. A tax or assessment refund claim shall be deemed to accrue as of the date of payment of the tax or assessment.

1.12.040 Form of claim.

All claims shall be made in writing and verified by a claimant or by the claimant’s guardian, conservator, executor or administrator. No claim may be filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of the class. In addition, all claims shall contain the information required by California Government Code Section 910.

Claims shall be made on a form provided by the City Clerk and shall be filed with the City Clerk.

1.12.050 Claim prerequisite to suit.

All claims shall be presented as provided in this chapter and acted upon by the City Council, or their designee, prior to the filing of any lawsuit or action on such claim, and no lawsuit or action shall be maintained by a person or entity that has not complied with this Chapter.

1.12.060 City action on claim.

The City Council, or their designee, shall act to approve or deny a claim within forty-five days of its presentment as required under this Chapter. Failure of the City Council, or their designee, to act within the time required shall be deemed a denial of the claim.

1.12.070 Authority of City Manager.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 935.4, the City Council designates and delegates authority to the City Manager and their designee to review all claims for sufficiency and to reject any and all claims. The City Council also delegates to the City Manager authority to allow, compromise, or settle claims for an amount up to and including $25,000, as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Council shall have sole authority to allow, compromise, or settle claims for an amount in excess of $25,000.”

8.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance (Clean Version)

107

1 0
5 0
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. Environmental Determination. The Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately.

Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with the law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from the date of adoption.

Section 7. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.

This Ordinance was introduced on the 7th day of August, and passed and adopted on the ___ day of _____________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

8.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance (Clean Version)

108

Chapter 1.12

PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS
Sections:

1.12.010 Authority.

1.12.020 Claims required.

1.12.030 Presentment of claims.

1.12.040 Form of claim.

1.12.050 Claim prerequisite to suit.

1.12.060 City action on claim.

1.12.070 Authority of City Manager.

1.12.010 Authority.

This chapter is enacted pursuant to California Government Code Section 935.

1.12.020 Claims required.

All claims against the city for money, damages or tax or assessment refunds, not otherwise governed by the Tort Government Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 810900, et seq., or any other law of the state of California (hereinafter “claims”) shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

1.12.030 Presentment of claims.

Claims against the city governed by this chapter shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the claim. All claims against the City for money or damages shall be presented within the time, and in the manner, prescribed by Part 3 of Division

3.6 of Title 1 of the California Government Code, as those provisions now exist or shall hereafter be amended. Unless otherwise provided by the California Government Code, a claim governed by this section shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. A tax or assessment refund claim shall be deemed to accrue as of the date of payment of the tax or assessment.

1.12.040 Form of claim.

Claims shall be made on a form provided by the city clerk and shall be filed with the city clerk.

ATTACHMENT 2

8.2 Attachment 2 - Chapter 1.12 (Redlined Version)

109

1.12.050 Claim prerequisite to suit.

All claims shall be presented as provided in this chapter and acted upon by the city council, or their designee, prior to the filing of any lawsuit or action on such claim, and no lawsuit or action shall be maintained by a person or entity that has not complied with this chapter.

1.12.060 City action on claim.

The city council, or their designee, shall act to approve or deny a claim within forty-five days of its presentment as required under this chapter. Failure of the city council, or their designee, to act within the time required shall be deemed a denial of the claim.

1.12.070 Authority of City Manager.

8.2 Attachment 2 - Chapter 1.12 (Redlined Version)

110

4 3
3 DATE: August 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Frank Fanara, Parks Maintenance Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS INC. TO

EXPAND SCOPE OF SERVICES TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL

DATA COLLECTION AND ACTIVITIES AND TO SPECIFY

ONLY NON-LETHAL TECHNIQUES FOR POPULATION AND

HABITAT MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERGRATED CANADA

GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN AND

ASSOCIATED AUTHORIZATIONS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution:

1. Approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. (“Wildlife Innovations”) to expand the scope of services of the current agreement for the development of an Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan, including environmental review (“Plan”) to allow additional data collection and activities and revise the scope of services to specify only non-lethal techniques for population and habitat management in the Plan, for a total revised contract amount not to exceed $171,005;

2. Authorizing an additional appropriation of $122,345;

3. Authorizing a contingency in the amount of $25,652; and

4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute any necessary contract amendments up to the contingency amount.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

111

4 3
3 At the City Council Regular Meeting on February 6, 2023, the City Council approved City Resolution No. 2023-16 authorizing a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Wildlife Innovations for preparation of the Plan with a not to exceed Agreement amount of $48,660 and a 15% contingency in the amount of $7,300.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Wildlife Innovations prepared the Initial Review report, which resulted in the identification of additional data collection and activities that would need to be conducted for the Initial Study (“IS”) in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

As a result of the additional data collection and activities identified in the Initial Review report, an amendment to Task 1b, which is contained in Exhibit A of the Agreement, is necessary to expand the scope of services. Additionally, staff is recommending that the Agreement be amended to specify only non-lethal techniques for population and habitat management in the Plan.

The attached proposed First Amendment to the Agreement is necessary for completion of the Plan and environmental review.

BACKGROUND
For years, the City has tried to control the goose population through numerous mitigation strategies to maintain a sustainable number of geese within the City. Canada Geese are extremely adaptable and have found Foster City to be an ideal environment resulting in an increased population of resident geese. The growing population has resulted in higher concentrations of droppings which contain bacteria that present health hazards, degrade the water quality of the lagoon, and diminish the community’s ability to enjoy the City’s parks, sports fields, and other public amenities.

In response to the ongoing challenges faced by an unmanageable geese population, the City applied and was granted both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) permit (form 37) and the USFWS permit 3-200-13 for Migratory Bird Depredation as one possible tool in addressing population management along with other non-lethal strategies to population management. Upon issuance of the depredation permit on July 25, 2022, City staff consulted with potential vendors and wildlife agencies and determined that performing depredation at that time would be more difficult and potentially less effective as the geese in Foster City were no longer in their molt period.

At the City Council Regular Meeting on September 19, 2022, staff recommended that any depredation efforts be postponed until the next molting season and asked Council for direction in issuing an RFP to identify a consultant to develop a comprehensive Canada Goose Population Management Plan, which was approved by way of Minute Order No. 1878.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

112

4 3
3 At the City Council Regular Meeting on February 6, 2023, the City Council approved City Resolution No. 2023-16, authorizing an Agreement with Wildlife Innovations Inc. for preparation of the Plan with a not to exceed Agreement amount of $48,660 and a 15% contingency in the amount of $7,300 for a total amount of $55,960.

The Agreement provided in Task 1 of the Scope of Services (Exhibit A to the Agreement) that the Consultant would prepare the Plan which included, among other things, general habitat management recommendations to deter Canada Goose and to describe methods that could be used for the capture and removal of the Canada Goose.

The Agreement also provided in Task 1b, that further studies could be necessary after Wildlife Innovations completed the Initial Review report.

ANALYSIS
Wildlife Innovations has provided the Initial Review report (Attachment 4), which indicates that additional data collection and activities are needed to be conducted including habitat mapping, identifying specifies of special interest and biological resources, identifying jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S., delineating the proposed project footprint or boundary, collaborating with agencies and obtaining or modifying existing permits for motorized boat use.

Wildlife Innovations anticipates that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) will be the appropriate level of review for CEQA. If Wildlife Innovations completes the IS and determines that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required pursuant to CEQA, a further amendment to the Agreement will be required to prepare an EIR.

The proposed First Amendment with Wildlife Innovations for the expanded scope of work for Task 1b will be compensated on a time and material basis, ensuring compensation will be rendered only for the services provided. The expanded scope of work for Task 1b would include:
•Preparing the IS in the priority areas and develop a project description which would create the basis of understanding of the components that would be evaluated in the CEQA IS checklist.
•Installation of up to ten (10) cellular-transmission capable cameras within the parks. The cameras will provide quantifiable information about the presence and timing of Canada Geese within the priority areas.
•Habitat Mapping/Assessment for Listed Species and Protected Birds. This task includes a qualified biologist conducting field surveys at each of the priority areas to identify all habitats and vegetation, bird surveys and presence of any wetland features.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

113

4 3
3 •Preparation of the Final IS/MND that will include initiating the twenty (20) day public comment period along with the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) incorporated and will outline the procedures for the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final IS/MND. •Prepare draft response to comments at conclusion of public review period to substantive comments received on the adequacy of the IS/MND. •Additional project management which includes coordinating with the City and additional internal project meetings with the project team and/or the City during preparation of the document.

The proposed First Amendment would also specify that only non-lethal population and habitat management strategies would be incorporated in the Plan. Although City Council had previously directed staff to obtain the USFWS permit 3-200-13 for Migratory Bird Depredation, which was issued on July 25, 2022, that permit expired on July 31, 2023.

Due to timing constraints and administrative burden associated with renewing the USFWS permit, staff is not recommending pursuing a renewal of that permit. Instead, staff is recommending that the Plan include only non-lethal strategies to population and habitat management to allow adequate time to assess their combined effectiveness and understanding a multifaceted and robust approach is necessary for the Plan’s success.

It is anticipated that the Plan and associated environmental review will be completed within six months.

Once the Plan is prepared and the environmental review is completed (including any necessary public review and comment period), the Plan will be brought to the Council for consideration.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Approval of this First Amendment to the Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. is not subject to review under the CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as said approval is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. However, as part of the services that will be provided through this Agreement, Wildlife Innovations will conduct environmental review as part of the preparation of the Plan, in compliance with CEQA.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

114

4 3
3 FISCAL IMPACT
Below is a chart that explains the current contract amount with Wildlife Innovations, the amendment amount, the revised contract amount, and the contingency amounts.

Current Contract Contract
Amendment
Revised
Contract
Development of Plan 31,660 - 31,660
CEQA Review 17,000 122,345 139,345
Contingency 7,300 18,352 25,652
Total 55,960 140,697 196,657
Contingency % 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
To date, the City has paid Wildlife Innovations $5,500 for Task 1a. Staff is requesting authorization of an additional appropriation of $122,345.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Contract Amendment
Attachment 3 – Wildlife Innovations Proposal
Attachment 4 – Initial Review Report

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

115

1 0
5 8
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS, INC. (“WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS”) TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF SERVICES OF THE

CURRENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED CANADA

GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (“PLAN”) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION AND ACTIVITIES

AND REVISE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES TO SPECIFY ONLY NON-LETHAL

TECHNIQUES FOR POPULATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT IN THE PLAN, FOR A TOTAL REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $171,005; AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $122,345; AUTHORIZING A CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,652; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY CONTRACT AMENDMENTS UP TO THE

CONTINGENCY AMOUNT

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022 the City Council of the City of Foster City authorized the issuance of an RFP by Minute Order No. 1878 to establish a list of qualified consulting firms for development of an Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan for the City of Foster City; and
WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by Wildlife Innovations, Inc. most closely aligned to the deliverables desired by the City of Foster City, showed a clear and comprehensive scope of work, and demonstrated the unique understanding and capabilities to meet the City’s expectation for such services; and WHEREAS, hiring a consultant firm with qualified personnel who are experienced in the services required will assist staff in specific areas of technical and biological expertise in developing a Canada Goose Population Management Plan and associated environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations Inc. on February 6, 2023 (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement provided in Task 1b, that further studies could be necessary after Wildlife Innovations Inc., conducted the initial review report prior to completion of the Initial Study required under CEQA; and WHEREAS, following the execution of the Agreement, Wildlife Innovations, Inc. has identified the need to further expand a portion of the scope of work (Task 1b) performing environmental review, including the need to conduct additional data collection and activities that would need to be conducted for the Initial Study, including habitat

9.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution

116

1 0
5 8
mapping, identification of species of special interest and biological resources, identification of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and delineation of the proposed project footprint and other tasks; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the Plan include only non-lethal strategies to population and habitat management to allow adequate time to assess their combined effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. would, among other changes, modify the scope of work identified in Task 1b of Exhibit A of the Agreement to include the additional services, modify the Consultant Fee Schedule to reflect that services relating to Task 1b will be on a time and materials basis, and specify that the Plan include only non-lethal strategies to population and habitat management; and
WHEREAS, the expanded scope of work for Task 1b will be performed on a time and materials basis, ensuring compensation will be rendered only for the services provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby authorize

1. The Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement attached hereto with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for a total Agreement amount not to exceed $171,005.

2. Authorize an additional appropriation of $122,345 for preparation of the Plan.

3. Establishment of a contingency in the amount of $25,652 with authorization given to the City Manager to execute any necessary contract amendments up to the contingency amount in a form approved by the City Attorney.

9.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution

117

1 0
5 8
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 7th day of August, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

9.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution

118

4885-6311-2819 v2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Project: Preparation of Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“F irst Amendment”) is entered into as of this August 7, 2023, by and between the City of Foster City, a public body corporate and politic (“City”) and Wildlife Innovations Inc. (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2023, City and Consultant entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement whereby Consultant agreed to prepare and Integrated Canada Goose Population Plan that would include, among ot her things, the preparation of an Initial Study report to inform the necessary environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), for an amount not to exceed $48,660.00 for the (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement provided that based on the analysis cont ained in the Initial Study there may be additional documents and/or surveys that may be required to complete the Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an Initial Review Report dated May 8, 2023, which recommends that additional field surveys, habitat mapping and a ssessment for Listed Species are needed to inform and support completion of the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sect ion 17 of the Agreement, the Ci t y o f F o s t e r C i t y a n d Consultant desire to amend th e Agreement by among other changes , modifying the scope of work identified in Task 1b of Exhibit A of the Agreement to include the additional services and modify the Consultant Fee Schedule to refle ct that services relating to Ta sk 1b will be on a time and materials basis and to specify that the Pl an include only non-lethal stra tegies to population and habitat management.

TERMS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions and covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The parties agree t hat the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as terms of this Amendment.

2. Amendment. The Agreemen t shall be amended as follows:
a. Exhibit A. Scope of Work. Exhibit A to the Agreement (Scope of Work), Task 1, second paragraph shall be amended to add the following: “The Plan shall include only non- lethal strategies to population and habitat management.”

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

119

4885-6311-2819 v2
b. Exhibit A. Scope of Work. Exhibit A to the Agreement (Scope of Work), Task 1b, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Task 1b set forth in Attachment 1, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference. c. Compensation: Expenses: Payment. Section 3 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services per formed by CONSULTANT as set forth in CONSULTANT’s fee schedule marked Exhibit “B” hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensati on and reimbursement of costs pay able hereunder shall not exceed t he sum One Hundred Seventy-One Thousand and Five Dollars
($171,005). Invoices for amounts in excess of One Hundred Seventy- One Thousand and Five Dollars ($171,005) shall not be paid unl ess the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expense s by the City Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $50,000 or more) evidenced by motion duly made and carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon billing fo llowing completion of each Task identified in the SOW, or as ot herwise stated in EXHIBIT B, and any additional services authorized by the City Manager or their des ignee b y C O N S U L T A N T t o C I T Y , w h i c h b illing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed. Final payment will be made when Services for each task required under this Agreement have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of CIT Y including, wit hout limitati on, CONSULTANT's transmittal of all deliverables to CITY required b y EXHIBIT A.

CITY shall not incur any charges under this Agreement, nor shall any payments become due to CONSULTANT for any payment period on the Project, until CITY receive s all deliverables associated wi th each identified task required under Exhib it A, SCOPE OF WORK, for th e payment period (if any) and reasonably accepts such deliverables as meeting the requirements of this Agreement.

In cases where CONSULTANT has partially completed one or more deliverables due during a payment period, and if CONSULTANT demonstrates diligent progress thereon, then CITY may make a partial

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

120

4885-6311-2819 v2
progress payment based upon percentage completion of the partially completed deliverables and diligent progress but taking into ac count any adverse impacts upon CITY. CITY shall not be liable for, an d CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to, any payment for Services performed before this Agreement's execution.”
d. Exhibit B. Consultant’s Fees. Exhibit B to the Agreement (Consultant’s Fees) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Fees set forth in Attachment 2. All Services for Task 1b shall be compensated on a time and material basis with payment being made in accordance with the terms specified in Attachment 2, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference.

3. Definitions. All definitions i n the Agreement shall apply in this Amendment, unless otherwise stated or as amended herein.

4. Other Provisions Remaining in Full Force and Effect. Except as amended above, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated:

Jon Froomin, Mayor

ATTEST:

Dated:

Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
Dated:

S. Jake Manley, President

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

121

4885-6311-2819 v2
ATTACHMENT 1
Task 1b.

Results from Task 1a shall inform what level of environmental review is required. An Initial Study (“IS”) is a preliminary analysis which is prepared to determine the relative environmental impacts associated with a proposed project. The Consultant shall prepare the IS.

The following SOW will allow for collection of the necessary in formation for baseline conditions, pertaining to biological resources, to support the CEQA process for the proposed Canada Goose Management for Project Foster City, CA. To move forward with CE QA compliance, a habitat assessment is required at each of the proposed project location s. A summary of the tasks that would be completed and associated costs is provided in Table 2.

Table 1. List of Foster City Parks for Habitat Assessment Park Name Acreage
Leo J. Ryan 20.75 acres
Catamaran 5.8 acres
Sea Cloud 23 acres
Marlin 3.1 acres
Gull 3.1 acres
Erckenbrack 3.4 acres
Edge Water 9.5 acres

Task 1b: Initial Study – Prepare Draft Initial Study.

Wildlife Innovations will gather project specific information b ased on the Canadian Goose Management Plan for the specific parks identified in Table 1 and develop the project description.

The project description would create the basis of understanding and components that would be evaluated in the CEQA IS checklist. A draft of the project desc ription would be sent for internal review prior to commencing work on the CEQA IS checklist.

Wildlife Innovations will evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Canadian Goose Project for Foster Cities seven parks using the CEQA IS checklist. All of the topic elements in the CEQA IS checklist would be addressed. Based on our initial revi ew of the project application submitted, it is anticipated that the project impacts can be re duced to less than significant with mitigation.

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

122

4885-6311-2819 v2
However, significant impacts have the potential to arise based on updated technical reports, environmental changes to the project site, or any project descr iption details that may change.

Wildlife Innovations will provide a Draft IS for review.

Task 1b1: Initial Study – Digital Camera Surveillance of CAGO Wildlife Innovations will install up to ten cellular-transmissi on capable cameras on existing light poles and/or trees within the seven Foster City parks identifie d in Table 1. This will provide quantifiable information on presence and timing of Canada Geese within these priority parks.

Information gained will be used to inform completion of the IS checklist and inform Canada Goose Management Plan Development.

Task 1b 2: Initial Study – Habitat Mapping/Assessment for Listed Species and MBTA Protected Birds at each of the seven Foster City parks listed i n Table 1, and a Report will be authored.

A qualified biologist will conduct field surveys at each park. The following biological resources data will be recoded.

1. All habitats and vegetation present will be mapped using an appropriate classification system.

2. Each park will be assessed for the potential for biologicall y sensitive resources (including federally and/or state-listed threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles as well as other locally sensitive species or sensitive habitats).

3. Non-native invasive plants present within the survey area wi ll be recorded.

4. A plant list and wildlife life list will be documented for e ach park

5. At least one bird survey, using the point count methodology will be conducted at each park

6. The presence of wetland features that could be under the jur isdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will also be recorded.

A report will be submitted that summarizes the findings from the listed species habitat assessment at all seven parks. The report will include findings from the field surveys and details on biologically sensitive resources (including federally and/or state-listed th reatened and endangered species, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles as well as other locall y sensitive species or sensitive habitats) to support preparation of the Initial Study for the Foster City Canada Goose Management and Project. Any other technical reports or additional required studies are not covered under this SOW.

Task 1b
3: Prepare Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Wildlife Innovations will prepare the Final IS/MND. After receipt of comments on the Administrative Draft IS, Wildlife Innovations will finalize the IS/MND for sub mittal to initiate the 20- day public comment period. The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP will be incorporated and will outline the procedures for the implementation of mitig ation measures identified in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is assum ed that there will be a maximum of two rounds of City review/comments. If more than two rounds of City review/comments occur this shall require a budget augment.

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

123

4885-6311-2819 v2

Task 1b4: Prepare Responses to Comments
After completion of the public review period, Wildlife Innovati ons will prepare draft responses tosubstantive comments received on the adequacy of th e IS/MND. This will be provided to the City in a Memorandum format for review and incl usion in the project staff report. A stand-alone final IS/MND will not be prepared. Howeve r, if needed, this would be covered under a separate agreement.

The following is an overview of the assumptions for preparation of the IS/MND.

Wildlife Innovations will prepare the Final IS/MND based on the previously mentioned two rounds of review/comments from the City.
 Wildlife Innovations will only prepare responses to comments received on the IS/MND in a memorandum format. A total of up to five comment letters with up to 20 substantive comments are anticipa ted.

If more than 20 substantive comments are received this shall re quire a budget augment.
 Attendance at four internal project meetings is assumed and th e meetings would be held via conference call.

Task 1b5: Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings Project management tasks include coordinating with the City, co ordinating internally with staff, etc. We are assuming up to four internal project meetings with the project team and/or City staff during preparation of the document via conference call (no in person meetings are assumed). If additional meeting s are requested or attendance, Wildlife Innovations would bill for these meetin gs on a time and materials basis with a specified cost not to exceed after c onfirming attendance is required.”

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

124

4885-6311-2819 v2

ATTACHMENT 2
“EXHIBIT B
CONSULTANT’S FEES
Rates and projected number of days for each staff member, while authoring the Plan, for Foster City, CA are as follows:

Task 1: Authoring Integrative CAGO Management Plan
Personnel Daily Rate
Projected #
of Days for
Completion
of Task
Total
PI $1,400.00 0.5 $700.00
PM $1,240.00 5 $6,200.00
Specialist $2,000.00 3 $6,000.00
TOTAL $12,900.00
Table 2. Cost and effort projections for all Optional Tasks 1a-2, described herein.

Task 1a: Initial Review for CEQA Compliance and Initial Review Report Personnel Dail y Rate Pro jected # of Days Total
Specialist $2,000.00 1.25 $2,500.00
Ecologist $1,500.00 2 $3,000.00
TOTAL $5,500.00

Task 1b: Initial Study - Draft IS Document Preparation (Estimated Totals based on projected hours) Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Hours T
o
t
a
l
PM $155.00 24 $3,720.00
Specialist $250.00 188 $47,000.00
Ecologist $187.50 80 $15,000.00
TOTAL $65,720.00

Task 1b1: Initial Study - Digital Camera Surveillance of CAGO (Estimated Totals based on projected hours)
Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Hours T
o
t
a
l
PM $155.00 32 $4,960.00
BIO I $124.38 64 $7,960.00
TOTAL $12,920.00

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

125

4885-6311-2819 v2

Task 1b2: Initial Study - Habitat Mapping/Assessment for Listed Species, Survey for MBTA Protected Birds, and Report(Estimated Totals based on projected hours) Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Hours T
o
t
a
l
PM $155.00 8 $1,240.00
Specialist $250.00 52 $13,000.00
Ecologist $187.50 70 $13,125.00
TOTAL $27,365.00

Task 1b3: Initial Study - Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Preparation(Estimated Totals based on projected hours)
Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Hours T
o
t
a
l
PM $155.00 16 $2,480.00
Specialist $250.00 32 $8,000.00
Ecologist $187.50 24 $4,500.00
TOTAL $14,980.00

Task 1b4: Initial Study - Prepare Responses to Public Comments (Estimated Totals based on projected hours)
Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Hours T
o
t
a
l
PM $155.00 8 $1,240.00
Specialist $250.00 24 $6,000.00
Ecologist $187.50 4 $750.00
TOTAL $7,990.00

Task 1b5: IS/MND - Project Management and Coordination Meetings (Estimated Totals based on projected hours)
Personnel Hourly Rate Projected # of Days T
o
t
a
l
PI $175.00 8 $1,400.00
PM $155.00 24 $3,720.00
Specialist $250.00 21 $5,250.00
TOTAL $10,370.00

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

126

4885-6311-2819 v2

Task 2: Habitat Assessment Surveys and Recommendations
Personnel Dail y Rate Pro jected # of Days Total
PI $1,400.00 1.5 $2,100.00
PM $1,240.00 9 $11,160.00
TOTAL $13,260.00

Total Costs for All Tasks Listed Above
Task Total

1. Authoring Integrative CAGO Management Plan $12,900.00 1a. Initial Review for CEQA Compliance and Initial Review $5,500.00 1b. Prepare an Initial Study/Negative Declarations/Mitigated Declarations (Time and Materials) $139,345.00

2. Habitat Assessment Surveys and Recommendations $13,260.00 TOTAL $171,005

Rates for Additional On-Call Services
Personnel Dail y Rate Pro jected # of Days Total
PI $1,610.00 TBD TBD
PM $1,426.00 TBD TBD
Specialist $2,300.00 TBD TBD
Ecologist $1,725.00 TBD TBD
Wildlife Biologist $1,144.25 TBD TBD

TOTAL TBD

For those additional services or tasks that are not specificall y identified in Tasks 1, 1a, 1b or 2, the Consultant shall first obtain written approval from the Cit y Manager or their designee prior to commencement of the work. For additional tasks that can be com pleted remotely from an office (i.e. writing or additional review of literature or data to support CEQA tasks), the CITY will be billed only for hours expended during completion of the requested tasks at the rates set forth below. For additional field work tasks, those may be billed by the day, or by the half day, and/or bill for travel time.

To determine hourly rates for remote/office-based tasks, Consul tant shall divide the daily rate identified above by 8 hours/day. For example, Daily Rate for PM = $1426. $1426/8hrs = $178.25/hr.

Project Payment Schedule

For Tasks 1, 1a and 2, the CITY will be invoiced by the Consult ant, and deliverables will be submitted to the CITY by the Consultant, upon completion of eac h Milestone identified below.

Upon receipt of deliverables associated with each Milestone, th e CITY will issue payment to the Consultant for services rendered, within 30 days of receiving the invoice from the Consultant.

If additional services beyond the level of effort and associated costs identified within Tables 1 and 2 of Exhibit B, are necessary to complete any task, or are requ ested by the CITY, the CITY will be invoiced by the Consultant monthly, and the CITY will provid e payment for those additional services within 30 days of receiving each invoice from the Consultant.

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

127

4885-6311-2819 v2

For Tasks 1b services, the compensation to be paid to Consultan t for services included in Task 1b shall be paid at the rates for professional services set for th below. For Task 1b services, Consultant shall invoice City for the services rendered every thirty (30) days and the invoices shall sufficiently describe the services and City shall have sixty (60) days to pay the invoices or contest the charges stated therein.

The parties agree that in no event shall the amount the City pa ys to the Consultant for items in Task 1b exceed One Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred F orty-Five Dollars ($139,345.00).

Rate Table

Personnel Hourly Rate Daily Rate
PI $ 175.00 $ 1,400.00
PM $ 155.00 $ 1,240.00
Specialist $ 250.00 $ 2,000.00
Ecologist $ 187.50 $ 1,500.00
BIO I $ 124.38 $ 995.00

9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment

128

THE PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED CANADA GOOSE POPULATION

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
The California Environmental Quality Act: Initial Study Expansion of Scope of Work for PO#: 192188
Submitted by:
11629 Westridge PL
Lakeside, California, 92040
POC: S. Jake Manley
11629 Westridge PL
Lakeside, CA. 92040
(334) 703-2946
[email protected]
DUNS: 081042844
CAGE: 81PJ1
EIN: 82-3456892
June 2023

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

129

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: TRANSMITTAL LETTER ..................................................................... i SECTION II: TASK DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................... 1 SECTION IV: COST ................................................................................................ 3

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

130

i
SECTION I: TRANSMITTAL LETTER
WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS, INC.
11629 Westridge PL.

Lakeside, CA. 92040
Phone: (334) 703-2946
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.wildlifeinnovationsinc.com
S. Jake Manley
President
Wildlife Innovations, INC.

Derek Schweigart
Parks and Recreation Director
650 Shell Boulevard.

Foster City, CA 94404
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Schweigart,
Wildlife Innovations is pleased to submit this proposal to provide the additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) -related services , identified and recommended within the Initial Review Rep ort submitted to Foster City on 8 May. The next tasks will include a formal CEQA Initial Study (IS) Document for the proposed Canad a Goose Project in Foster City, San Mateo County . Per conclusions of Initial Review Report, additional field surveys are needed to inform and support completion of the IS. We will then prepare an IS checklist to support preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Canad a Goose Management Project within Foster City. For the purposes of this SOW, we are assu ming preparation of a MND would be required. If analysis shows that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, a separate Scope of Work (SOW) could be completed upon request by Foster City.

An expansion to the SOW and costs identified within the current agreement between Foster City and Wildlife Innovations (PO#: 192188) is needed to support the recommended services outlined in the Initial Review Report. We have prepared an expanded SOW for Task 1b, which includes and describes these services. Wildlife I nnovations will sub -contract Sohcahtoa LLC, and Endemic Environmental Services (hereafter, collectively referred to as Wildlife Innovations ), as necessary, to assist with some of the specialized services described herein for Foster City. Work will be conducted in coordination with Foster City staff.

A summary of the tasks to be completed, and the associated costs, are provided in Table 2. The estimated additional costs for providing the expanded services for the CEQA IS (Task 1b) are $122,295.00, for a total of $139,295.00. If additional efforts are required beyond the estimates provided herein, and at the request of Foster City, additional services may be provided for the rates for additional services identified herein (Table 2).

Sincerely,
S. Jake Manley Date: ____________
8 June 2023

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

131

1 SECTION II: TASK DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS
A California Envir onmental Quality Act (CEQA)-specific project description will need to be prepared for the IS/MND. In order to get an accurate description, Wildlife Innovations will develop a draft project description. The project description will then be sent to the team for review before proceeding with the analysis.

The following SOW identifies specific project information needs, project assumptions, and cost estimates to prepare the required CEQA documents. In accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1(c)(3), environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA must reflect the independent judgement of the lead agency. The final responsibility for the content and adequacy of the environmental determination lies in the sole discretion of Foster City and its designated representatives.

The following tasks are related to project preparation, development, and project finalization as well as internal project management. Tasks and costs are provided under the assumption that Foster City will assist with the Cultural Resources section of the IS and, if needed, will perform a California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) records search of the project area of potential effects (APE) to identify any previously recorded cultural and historical resources that may lie within or near the project site.

A habitat assessment to support Biological Resources was provided as a separate SOW. The following SOW will allow for collection of the necessary information for baseline conditions , pertaining to biological resources, to support the CEQA process for the proposed Canada Goose Management for Project Foster City, CA. To move forward with CEQA compliance , a habitat assessment is required at each of the proposed project locations. A summary of the tasks that would be completed and associated costs is provided in Table 2.

Wildlife In novations will gather project specific information based on the Canadian Goose Management Plan for the specific parks identified in Table 1 and develop the project description.

The project description would create the basis of understanding and components that would be evaluated in the CEQA IS checklist. A draft of the project description would be sent for internal review prior to commencing work on the CEQA IS checklist.

Wildlife Innovations will evaluate the potential environmental effects of t he Canadian Goose Project for Foster Cities seven parks using the CEQA IS checklist. All of the topic elements in the CEQA IS checklist would be addressed. Based on our initial review of the project application submitted, it is anticipated that the project impacts can be reduced to less than significant with

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

132

2 mitigation.

However, significant impacts have the potential to arise based on updated technical reports, environmental changes to the project site, or any project description details that may change.

Wildlife Innovations will provide a Draft IS for review.

Task b1: Initial Study – Digital Camera Surveillance of CAGO Wildlife Innovations will install up to ten cellular -transmission capable cameras on existing light poles and/or trees within the seven Foster City parks identified in Table 1 . This will provide quantifiable information on presence and timing of Canada Geese within these priority parks.

Information gained will be used to inform completion of the IS checklist and inform Canada Goose Management Plan Development.

Task 1b 2: Initial Study – Habitat Mapping/Assessment for Listed Species and MBTA Protected Birds at each of the seven Foster City parks listed in Table 1, and a Report will be authored.

A qualified biologist will conduct field surveys at each park. The following biological resources data will be recoded.

1. All habitats and vegetation present will be mapped using an appropriate classification system.

2. Each park will be assessed for the potential for biologically sensitive resources (including federally and/or state-listed threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles as well as other locally sensitive species or sensitive habitats).

3. Non-native invasive plants present within the survey area will be recorded.

4. A plant list and wildlife life list will be documented for each park

5. At least one bird survey, using the point count methodology will be conducted at each park

6. The presence of wetland features that could be under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will also be recorded.

A report will be submitted that summarizes the findings from the listed species habitat assessment at all seven parks. The report will include findings from the field surveys and details on biologically sensitive resources (including federally and/or state -listed threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles as well as other locally sensitive species or sensitive habitats) to support preparation of the Initial Study for the Foster City Canada Goose Management and Project. Any other technical reports or additional required studies are not covered under this SOW.

Task 1b3: Prepare Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Wildlife Innovations will prepare the Final IS/MND. After receipt of comments on the Administrative Draft IS, Wildlife Innovations will finalize the IS/MND for submittal to initiate the 20- day public comment period. The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP will be incorporated and will outline the procedures for the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is assumed that there will be a maximum of two rounds of City review/comments. If more than two rounds of City review/comments occur this shall require a budget augment.

Task 1b4: Prepare Responses to Comments
After completion of the public review period, Wildlife Innovations will prepare draft responses to

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

133

3 substantive comments received on the adequacy of the IS/MND. This will be provided to the City in a Memorandum format for review and inclusion in the project staff report. A stand-alone final IS/MND will not be prepared . However, if needed , this would be covered under a separate agreement.

The following is an overview of the assumptions for preparation of the IS/MND. Wildlife Innovations will prepare the Final IS/MND bas ed on the previously mentioned two rounds of review/comments from the City.
• Wildlife Innovations will only prepare responses to comments received on the IS/MND in a memorandum format. A total of up to five comment letters with up to 20 substantive comments are anticipated. If more than 20 substantive comments are received this shall require a budget augment.
• Attendance at four internal project meetings is assumed and the meetings would be held via conference call.

Task 1b5: Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings Project management tasks include coordinating with the City, coordinating internally with staff, etc. We are assuming up to four internal project meetings with the project team and/o r City staff during preparation of the document via conference call (no in person meetings are assumed). If additional meetings are requested or attendance, Wildlife Innovations would bill for these meetings on a time and materials basis with a specified c ost not to exceed after confirming attendance is required.

Additional Assumptions:

Environmental Review for compliance with CEQA will be completed within the projected number of days identified within the Costs table for Task 1b. If additional time or effort s are required to complete the IS/MND for CEQA, additional costs will be billed at the rates identified withi n the cost table for this Task in Section II Table 2).

SECTION IV: COST
Wildlife Innovations will provide all services necessary for completion of Tasks identified herein using different levels of personnel. Estimates of the projected time of involvement for each task are provided per staff level, within Table 1 below. Daily rates include all IDC’s and ODC’s required to complete this project, within the timeframe (s) identified. Costs and personnel time reflected within Table 2 are estimates , but costs will not exceed the total listed for each Task unless approved by the city representative for the project . If additional services or hours are required beyond the estimates provided, at the request of Foster City, additional services or work may be performed at the rates identified within the tables for each respective Task.

Table 2. Rates and projected number of days per staff member for completion of CEQA Task 1b.

Task 1b: Initial Study - Draft IS Document Preparation
Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PM $1,240.00 3 $3,720.00
Specialist $2,000.00 23.5 $47,000.00
Ecologist $1,500.00 10 $15,000.00
TOTAL $65,720.00

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

134

4 Task 1b1: Initial Study - Digital Camera Surveillance of CAGO Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PM $1,240.00 4 $4,960.00
BIO I $995.00 8 $7,960.00
TOTAL $12,920.00
Task 1b2: Initial Study - Habitat Mapping/Assessment for Listed Species, Survey for MBTA Protected Birds, and Report
Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PM $1,240.00 1 $1,240.00
Specialist $2,000.00 6.5 $13,000.00
Ecologist $1,500.00 8.75 $13,125.00
TOTAL $27,365.00
Task 1b3: Initial Study - Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Preparation Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PM $1,240.00 2 $2,480.00
Specialist $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
Ecologist $1,500.00 3 $4,500.00
TOTAL $14,980.00
Task 1b4: Initial Study - Prepare Responses to Public Comments Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PM $1,240.00 1 $1,240.00
Specialist $2,000.00 3 $6,000.00
Ecologist $1,500.00 0.5 $750.00
TOTAL $7,990.00
Task 1b5: IS/MND - Project Management and Coordination Meetings Personnel Daily Rate Projected # of Days Total
PI $1,400.00 1 $1,400.00
PM $1,240.00 3 $3,720.00
Specialist $2,000.00 2.6 $5,200.00
TOTAL $10,320.00

9.1 Attachment 3 - Wildlife Innovations Proposal

135

Initial Review for Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Integrated Canadian Goose
Population Management Plan for Foster City

San Mateo County, California

Prepared for:

Foster City Parks and Recreation Department
Foster City, California

Prepared by:

Wildlife Innovations, Inc
11629 Westridge PL
Lakeside, California, 92040

And:

Sohcahtoa, LLC
2485 Notre Dame Blvd 370-263
Chico, CA

April 2023

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

136

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4 3 Results .................................................................................................................................. 5 4 Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................................. 6 5 References ........................................................................................................................... 7

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

137

2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CAGO Canada Geese
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA
CESA
CNDDB
ESA
IPAC
MBTA
USFWS
USGS
WI

California Environmental Quality Act
California Endangered Species Act
California National Diversity Data Base
Endangered Species Act
Information for Planning and Consultation
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Wildlife Innovations, Inc

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

138

3 1 Introduction

An Initial Review was completed for the proposed Integrated Canadian Goose Population Management Plan for Foster City, CA (proposed Project) (Wildlife Innovations 2022). All existing material and background information provided by Foster Cit y as well as available literature was reviewed as it pertains to the proposed Project and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The increase in Canada geese ( Branda canadensis [CAGO]) populations have become a widespread concern (USFWS 2005). A number of factors such as lack of predators and an increase in suitable habitat has caused an overabundant population of resident CAGO. Over the last few decades, these birds have become a nuisance and have affected several resources in the City of Foster City, CA. For example, Foster City has reported a growing population over the years, and CAGO have been observed in many of the 24 City parks. The excrement they leave on the beaches, playfields, parks, and walkways, creat es a potential public health hazard, and diminish es the community's ability to enjoy outdoor recreational amenities (City of Foster City 2021) .

Furthermore, high levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) have been repeatedly documented during water testing for the Foster City Lagoon and further investigation to find the source of bacteria determined that it originated primarily from water birds (City of Foster City 2022).

Since 2005, Foster City has made a number of efforts to manage CAGO such as: washing fecal matter off surfaces, using strobe lights, fence barriers and dogs to haze birds , treat grass with avian repellent, perform lawn maintenance in occupied habitat and use goose deterrents (City of Foster City 2022). The efficacy of the control efforts over time has not been reported and CAGO population management is needed , especially in the parks that occur along the Foster City Lagoon, where goose excrement could be a source of elevated E. coli levels. Wildlife Innovations Inc. (WI) has been contracted by the City of Foster City to assist with management of CAGO. An Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan for Foster City , California (proposed Project), has identified a number of actions for control and management of C AGO (Wildlife Innovations 2023). As required by CEQA, the potential for environmental effects of the proposed Project is required. An initial review has been completed to support ongoing CAGO management efforts for Foster City and t his report presents the methodology and results of the initial review and provides recommendations for compliance with CEQA and implementation of the proposed Project.

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

139

4 2 Methodology

A number of documents were reviewed including but not limited to:

- Foster City Water Quality Staff Reports and Updates.
- Information on City of Foster Regional Goose Project. - Foster City Meeting Notes.
- Handouts: Foster City Canada Goose Management.
- Letters and Memorandums related to water quality and goose management. - The City of Foster City Permits associated with natural resource management. - Foster City Goose Population Counts.
- Publicly available reports on controlling of nuisance species such as feral pigs and Canadian Goose management.
- Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan for Foster City, California.

As part of the literature review the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online system was accessed to identify federally listed species pr oposed or listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the pot ential to occur in the vicinity of Foster City. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) queries were performed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle using RareFind 5, a computerized inventory from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of California’s rare species and natural habitats that is updated monthly (CDFW 2023). The CNDDB data query includes sensitive species listed under the Endangered Species Act and/or the State of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) that have been documented in the vicinity of Foster City.

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

140

5 3 Results

At this time, the City of Foster City has a valid depredation permit and a migratory bird take permit that covers direct management of CAGO within the city limits and property owned by Foster City. Currently, the City of Foster City is “not authorized to take, capture, harass, or disturb bald eagles or go lden eagles, or species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act found in 50CFR 17, without additional authorization (USFWS 2022). In addition, the City of Foster City is only authorized to take CAGO and is “not authorized to ta ke or release of any migratory birds, nests, or eggs on Federal lands without additional prior written authorization from the applicable Federal agency, or on State lands or other public or private property without prior written permission or permits from the landowner or custodian” (USDA 2021).

The preliminary USFWS IPAC resulted in 22 listed species, 42 migratory birds and no designated critical habitat known to occur or having the potential to occur in the vicinity of Foster City.

Since the proposed Project is located in suitable habitat for a number of sensitive species (federal and state), as well as a number of migratory bird species the potential impacts (direct and indirect) of the proposed Project on these species needs to be addressed.

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

141

4 Conclusions and Next Steps

The City of Foster City has performed a number of activities towards implementing CAGO management. Foster City currently ha s a depredation permit and “take” permit for CAG O; however, because the potential occ urrence of sensitive species and other protected resources (e.g. wetlands and Waters of the U.S.) in the proposed Project vicinity, additional actions will be required for compliance.

The proposed Project is adaptive and has been developed using a Phase approach (Wildlife Innovations 2022). Implementation of Phase 1 (Identifying Priority Parks and Initiation of Surveillance) and Phase II (Assessment of Initial Surveillance Data to Inform Management Options) can begin immediately and does not require any CEQA or additional permits; however, Phase III (Initiate Active Management and Monitoring) will require CEQA and could require other permits.

To be compliant with CEQA an Initial Study (IS) will need to be completed for Phase III . The IS is needed to determine the impacts of the proposed action on species federally listed as threatened or endangered or listed by the State of California as sensitive species. Potential impacts to other resources such as jurisdictional features or other Waters of the U.S. will be also need to be addressed. Results from Phase I and Phase II of the proposed Project will provide the data necessary to complete the project description and proposed action.

Additional data collection and activities would need to be conducted for the IS and implementation of Phase III or the proposed Project and CAGO management including the following:

1. Habitat mapping. A habitat map would be prepared at each of the seven parks. This would require a survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist. A vegetation/habitat map and list of plants, wildlife species would be developed . Non -native invasive plants would also be recorded.

2. Identify species of special interest and biological resources. The potential for special status species such as those listed as threatened or endangered, species protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the MBTA and species considered sensitive by the State of California, County of San Mateo and City of Foster City will be identified.

3. Identify jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

4. Delineate the proposed Project footprint/boundary. The extent or project footprint boundary would be determined to better assess the area of potential impacts (e.g. approximately 500 feet beyond the park boundary).

5. Collaborate with agencies (e.g. USFWS and CDFW). It is recommended that once the City of Foster City has a written project description that the agencies be contacted to discuss the proposed Project and identify general or specific issues or areas of concern.

6. Obtain or modify existing permits for motorized boat use. The City of Foster City does not allow motorized boats in the lagoon. If the proposed Project plans to use motorized boats amendments to existing permits may be required.
.

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

142

5 References

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. CNDDB. RareFind 5. Report generated March 20, 2023.

City of Foster City. 2015. Final Environmental Impact Report. For Foster City General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan. SCH # 2012072003. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group, El Dorado Hills, CA. September.

_______. 2021. Update On Water Quality In The Lagoon And Geese Population Management. To Mayor and Members of the City Council From Peter Pirnejad, City Manager Allen Smith, Public Works Maintenance Manager Frank Fanara, Parks Manager. August 16, 2021.

_______. 2022a. Canada Goose Population Management Plan. ADOPTED: November 1, 2021 (via Minute Order No. 1816). UPDATED: June 3, 2022

_______. 2022b. Canada Goose Population Management Plan Update – Progress On Mitigation Strategies And Permits. To Mayor and Members of the City Council: From. Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director Frank Fanara, Parks Manager. July 18, 2022.

_______. 2023. Notes from 2.28.23 CAGO Population Management Kickoff Meeting.

Environmental and Public Health Engineering Inc. 2022. Foster City Lagoon Monitoring (March 2021 – March 2022). Memorandum To Allen Smith and Greg Baeza City of Foster City. From Bonnie de Berry.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Environmental Impact Statement on Canadian Goose Management.

_______. 2023. Foster City IPAC Report Retrieved
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index (accessed March 19, 2023).

_______. 2022. Depredation Permit MBPER0034048. 2022-07-25 to 2023-07-31. Permitee City of Foster City. Issuing office

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. City of Foster City USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Application or Review.

Wildlife Innovations, Inc. 2023. Integrated Canada Goose Population Management Plan for Foster City, California.

9.1 Attachment 4 - Initial Review Report

143

Prepared Date 7/13/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 1 ends

AAA BUSINESS SUPPLIES & INTERIORS

ACADEMIC CHESS
OFFICE SUPPLIES 595.85
2,721.60
153.00
190.08
970.00
185.98
1,451.23
311.00
179.31
350.00

66.00 INSTRUCTOR FEE: CHESS

ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS LLC

ALEXANDER PULIDO

PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: ALEXANDER PULIDO
LAGOON WATER QUALITY TESTALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES INC.

AMANDA ZULAICA VISION REIMBURSEMENT: AMANDA ZULAICA

MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - PARK PROGRAM
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: ZAHEED DANISH
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT: ANDRA LORENZ

GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION

ANDRA LORENZ
ANIMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT, INC.

ARLENE GONZALES VISION REIMBURSEMENT: ARLENE GONZALES

ADULTS SPORTS SHIRTSASH TEES SCREEN PRINTING
AT&T
481.48
1,598.82
563.98

BUSINESS PHONE LINE ACCOUNT

AT&T MOBILITY CELLULAR SERVICES-POLICE CARS
BARTOS ARCHITECTURE INC CIP693: ROOF REPLACEMENT AT CITY BUILDINGS - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: JUNE 2023
PERMIT TO OPERATE LIFT STATION # 34: 8/1/2023-
8/1/2024

ANNUAL ADMIN FEE - WATER LOSS MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM FY22/23
7,787.50
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149230
149231
149232
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 479.00

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION
AGENCY

BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS
150.00

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS & SUPPLIES - PARKS AND

STREET PROGRAM
1,384.78
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149233
149234
149235
BECKI HANAN VISION REIMBURSEMENT: BECKI HANAN 113.95

67.50BENDER ROSENTHAL INC

BKF ENGINEERS
CIP657: ACQUISITION SERVICES - MAY 2023
CIP695: LIFT STATION 59 EFFLUENT LINE 2,085.30
IMPROVEMENTS - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: MAY 2023
AND CIP710: SHELL BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER -
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: APRIL - MAY 2023
7/13/2023 149236 BMR-LINCOLN CENTRE LP PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 3,145.34

10.1 AP Cognos Check Register FY2024-2

144

Prepared Date 7/13/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 2 ends

Accounting Period 2024/1
Report Number 2
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149237
149238
149239

BRADY INDUSTRIES TRASH BAGS - PARKS PROGRAM
SUMMER CONCERT 8/4/23
1,361.52
1,500.00BRIAN EDADIZ
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES: APRIL 2023; SOLID WASTE

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, WATER AND WASTEWATER

MATTERS
71,389.99
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149240
149241
BURR PLUMBING & PUMPING INC. GREASE TRAP MAINTENANCE 225.00

CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC STREET LIGHT REPAIR AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL

MAINTENANCE
3,813.07
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149242
149243
CAREERS IN GOVERNMENT INC JOB POSTING UPGRADE 115.00

CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP INC CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OUTREACH - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: 4/26/2023-5/25/2023
1,347.50
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149244
149245
149246
149247
149248
149249
CATHOLIC CHARITIES CAMP BUS TRANSPORTATION 2,724.00
2,271.81
153.00

CITY SERVICE PAVING TEMP HYDRANT METER REFUND

PEST AWAY SERVICECLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC
CODE FOR FUN INSTRUCTOR FEE: CODE FOR FUN

MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
3,131.00
117.50CODE PUBLISHING, LLC
CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC CIP660: WATER TANK IMPROVEMENTS AND CIP690:

SEISMIC IMPROVEMENTS - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:

MAY 2023
12,410.75
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149250
149251
149252

COOKING ROUND THE WORLD

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
CSG CONSULTANTS INC.

INSTRUCTOR FEE: COOKING 1,989.00
29,445.00
7,990.00
FY22/23 ANIMAL CARE SHELTER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CIP703: STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT -
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: MAY 2023
LAGOON PUMP ENGINES SERVICES7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149253
149254

CUMMINS SALES & SERVICE
CWEA
18,926.24
200.00CERTIFICATION RENEWAL: BRETT PORTER AND FRANK

SCHOENING
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149255
149256
149257
CYGNET ENTERPRISES INC.

DANIEL WEBER
POND DYE FOR LAGOON MANAGEMENT 5,441.41
168.33
336.00
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: DANIEL WEBER

PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUNDDAVID R GRIEVE

10.1 AP Cognos Check Register FY2024-2

145

Prepared Date 7/13/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 3 ends

Accounting Period 2024/1
Report Number 2
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 5,000.007/13/2023 149258 DEBTBOOK SUBSCRIPTION FOR GASB 96 SBITA APPLICATION

SERVICES
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149259
149260
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SMIP FOR 4/1/23-6/30/23 621.54 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION QUALIFIED APPLICATOR CERTIFICATE RENEWAL: JUAN

CARLOS RUIZ
120.00
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149261
149262
149263
149264
149265
149266
149267
149268
DIAMOND PROPERTIES PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 408.00

84.00DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT

DRACO DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

DUNNIGAN PSYCHOLOGICAL & THREAT

DWF IV CENTURY PLAZA LLC

EARL'S PEST CONTROL
SB 1186 4/1/23-6/30/23
PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 322.50

FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION - POLICE OFFICER

PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND
1,400.00

66.84 PEST CONTROL - 501 PILGRIM 325.00
ELINOR T. BIZE VISION REIMBURSEMENT: ELINOR T. BIZE 200.00 EPS INC. CIP636: WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT - RETENTION

RELEASE
53,755.64
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149269
149270
149271
149272
149273
149274
149275
149276
149277
149278
149279
149280
149281

EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS

FAST TIMES
MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS & IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 511.04
1,800.00
750.00
5,265.00
15,810.00

77.00 SUMMER CONCERT 7/28/23

FIRST CLASS CHARTER INC

FLUORESCO SERVICES LLC
FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

GARRETT GOTTHARDT

GARY WONG
FINAL PAYMENT SENIOR BUS TRIP 7/20/23

SCOREBOARD INSTALLATION AT EDGEWATER PARK
CIP705: EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: GARRETT GOTTHARDT
INSTRUCTOR FEE: PICKLEBALL 882.00
735.00
427.58
200.00
593.25
823.20
295.31

NATHALIE GATTENBERGER

GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INC

GONZALO LARIOS
INSTRUCTOR FEE: ART CLASS
CARWASH SERVICES - JUNE 2023
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: GONZALO LARIOS

AUTO PARTSTHE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
RUEDI GRAF INSTRUCTOR FEE: SOCCER
GRAINGER 50 GAL. ROLLOUT CONTAINER

10.1 AP Cognos Check Register FY2024-2

146

Prepared Date 7/13/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 4 ends

Accounting Period 2024/1
Report Number 2
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149282
149283
149284

GRANICUS LLC AGENDA/MEETING MANAGEMENT
DELL OPTIPLEX 7010 COMPUTER
25,174.80
730.36GRANITE DATA SOLUTIONS

GRANITE ROCK COMPANY MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER AND STREET

PROGRAM
1,828.28
7/13/2023 149285 GROUP 4/ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH CIP678: RECREATION CENTER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: MARCH - MAY
2023
314,138.86
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149286
149287
149288
149289
HANH NGUYEN PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 521.50
285.00HEENA SHARMA-KULKARNI

HERC RENTALS INC
CLASS REFUND: DATA SCIENCE
BRUSH CHIPPER RENTAL FEE 1,375.27
4,278.75HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC. 2023 SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE ANALYSIS - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: MAY2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149290
149291

HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES INC

HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
WORKFORCE HOUSING MANAGEMENT FEES : JUNE
2023 AND REPAIRS AT 501 PILGRIM

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL & SUPPLIES - PARKS,

BUILDING, SEWER, STREETS, & WATER PROGRAMS

ONLINE UTILITY BILLING
4,197.16
7,616.91
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149292
149293
149294
149295
149296
149297
149298
INFOSEND INC. 2,544.41
2,011.95
1,012.50
1,500.00
390.00

INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC

IT'S PERSONNEL

MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - STREET PROGRAM

HR SUPPORT

JD HILL (THE TOUCH OF CLASS BAND)

JATINDER KAUR
SUMMER CONCERT 8/18/23
CLASS REFUND: CAMP BREAKAWAY
CLASS REFUND: CAMP WAYOUTBACKJENNY SANGME JEON 1,020.00 1,878.91JIM KNOX INVESTIGATIONS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION - POLICE OFFICER

RECRUIT
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149299
149300
149301
149302
149303
JUSTIN LEVERS VISION REIMBURSEMENT: JUSTIN LEVERS 200.00 1,716.00
3,477.60
200.00

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
KASSIRER ENTERTAINMENT CO.

KAY KHIN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES
INSTRUCTOR FEE: TENNIS
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: KAY KHIN
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: KEVIN LEEKEVIN LEE 50.00

10.1 AP Cognos Check Register FY2024-2

147

Prepared Date 7/13/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 5 ends

Accounting Period 2024/1
Report Number 2
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
7/13/2023
149304
149305
149306
149307
149308
149309
149310
149311
149312
149313
149314
149315
149316
149317
149318
149319
149320
149321
149322
149323
149324
149325
149326
149327
149328
KURT SCHAFFER VISION REIMBURSEMENT: KURT SCHAFFER

TENNIS COURT SUPPLIES
200.00

L & M DISTRIBUTION INC

LANDO INTERACTIVE INC

LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES

LAVONNE GIMARELLI

MANAB DAS
1,106.92
INSTRUCTOR FEE: LEGO MASTERS ENGINEERING

TRANSLATION SERVICES
11,857.62
202.10
PLANNING DEPOSIT REFUND 408.00
CLASS REFUND: CAMP BREAKAWAY
VISION REIMBURSEMENT: MANUEL GARCIA
INSTRUCTOR FEE: BASKETBALL
SUMMER CONCERT 7/21/23
620.00
MANUEL GARCIA 186.80
MANUEL MINZER 2,002.00
2,000.00

59.09 MARK A NORIEGA

MCMASTER-CARR MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - SEWER PROGRAM

LIGHTING SUPPLIESMETRO LIGHTING PRODUCTS

MF PRODUCTIONS
190.80
SUMMER CONCERT 7/14/23 2,000.00
386.60MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM

MORRIS MOUSSA

LAUNDRY SERVICES
INSTRUCTOR FEE: CERAMICS 3,307.50
2,772.00
121.50

NANOGAN SCIENCE & SERVICES, LLC
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, INC.

NBC SUPPLY CORP
INSTRUCTOR FEE: MAD SCIENCE NASA
PARTICIPANT FEE: JUNE 2023

MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM

SOUNDS SERVICES FOR SUMMER CONCERT SERIES

FUEL SYSTEM OPERATOR INSPECTION

OFFICE SUPPLIES
196.88
NORCAL SOUND CO. 8,310.00
6,022.95
200.31

NWESTCO LLC

OFFICE DEPOT

PACE GLASS COMPANY

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION, INC

PENINSULA POWER WASH

PETERSON
WINDOW REPAIRS 424.38
ELECTRICITY AND GAS 39,267.76
792.74WIDE FORMAT COPIER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE WASHING SERVICES 4,500.00
719.53TRAVEL TIME TO TROUBLESHOOT DIESEL EXHAUST

Foster City City CouncilAugust 7, 2023

Foster City City Council
August 7, 2023