Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, March 18, 2024 (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/82592136594 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:

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/82592136594 To dialin via phone:
16694449171 or
14086380968
And enter Webinar ID: 825 9213 6594
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, March 18, 2024 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 Jon Froomin, Sam Hindi, Art Kiesel, Stacy Jimenez, and Mayor/President Patrick Sullivan

4. 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.

5. 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.

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2024

5.2. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Agreement for Property Management Services with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures (HHAV), Inc. in the Amount of $122,660 to Cover Additional Cost for Major Repairs for the Exiting Unit Purchase Program Property Located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and Find the Project Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(B)(3)
a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

5.3. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Opposing a Potential November 2024 Ballot Measure: The California Business Roundtable “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” and Find the Action Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(B)(3)
a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

6. REPORTS

6.1. Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301678) – Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report and Provide Policy Direction

6.2. Informational Report on Electrical Capacity Study Prepared for the Purposes of Potential Reach Codes Adoption
a) Staff Report
b) Action – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report and Provide Policy Direction

7. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

7.1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing a Pilot Program for CommunityDesigned Utility Box Art and Appropriating $8,218.02 in Fiscal Year 20232024 from the Community Benefit Fund Account No. 005011041134251 to Offset the Costs for the Pilot Program and Find the Project Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(B)(3) a) Staff Report
b) Action – Adopt Resolution

8. COMMUNICATIONS

8.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 28, 2024
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9. 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.

9.1. Request to Place an Item on a Future Agenda by Mayor Patrick Sullivan Regarding Establishing a New Policy on Agendizing an Item for Council Meeting

10. 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/82592136594 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, March 18, 2024 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 Jon Froomin, Sam Hindi, Art Kiesel, Stacy Jimenez, and Mayor/President Patrick Sullivan

4. 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.

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2024

6. REPORTS

7. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

8. COMMUNICATIONS

8.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 28, 2024
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9.1. Request to Place an Item on a Future Agenda by Mayor Patrick Sullivan Regarding Establishing a New Policy on Agendizing an Item for Council Meeting

10. 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/82592136594 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, March 18, 2024 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 Jon Froomin, Sam Hindi, Art Kiesel, Stacy Jimenez, and Mayor/President Patrick Sullivan

4. 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.

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2024

6. REPORTS

7. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

8. COMMUNICATIONS

8.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 28, 2024
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9.1. Request to Place an Item on a Future Agenda by Mayor Patrick Sullivan Regarding Establishing a New Policy on Agendizing an Item for Council Meeting

10. 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/82592136594 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, March 18, 2024 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 Jon Froomin, Sam Hindi, Art Kiesel, Stacy Jimenez, and Mayor/President Patrick Sullivan

4. 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.

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2024

6. REPORTS

7. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

8. COMMUNICATIONS

8.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 28, 2024
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9.1. Request to Place an Item on a Future Agenda by Mayor Patrick Sullivan Regarding Establishing a New Policy on Agendizing an Item for Council Meeting

10. 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/82592136594 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, March 18, 2024 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 Jon Froomin, Sam Hindi, Art Kiesel, Stacy Jimenez, and Mayor/President Patrick Sullivan

4. 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.

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2024

6. REPORTS

7. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION

8. COMMUNICATIONS

8.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 28, 2024
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9.1. Request to Place an Item on a Future Agenda by Mayor Patrick Sullivan Regarding Establishing a New Policy on Agendizing an Item for Council Meeting

10. 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 MARCH 4, 2024

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Regular Meeting of March 4, 2024 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 Sullivan.

This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.

ROLL CALL

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

PRESENT:

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

ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager; Benjamin Stock, City Attorney/District Legal Counsel ; Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager; Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director; Edmund Suen, Finance Director; Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director ; Diane Pitman, Administrative Services Director; Cory Call, Police Captain; Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director; Helen Gannon, Associate Planner; Rob Lasky, IT Manager; Katherine Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk; Shuli Chen, Video Technician; and Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Motion by Councilmember/Director Froomin, 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. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024; and

2. City Resolution No. 2024-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number One

5.1 5.1 Minutes

6 to the Agreement with San Mateo Resource Conservation District Dated August 22, 2022, for the Compost Broker Program ; and Find Contract Amendment Number One Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3)”.

REPORTS

AUDIT COMMITTEE 2023 YEAR END REPORT, REVIEW OF MISSION STATEMENT, AND GOALS FOR 2024. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1964.

Finance Director Suen introduced Audit Committee member, Audie Chang, who presented the 2023 Year End Report, Review of Mission Statement, and Goals for 2024.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Councilmember Froomin, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1964, to receive and accept the Audit Committee 2023 Year End Report, Review of Mission Statement, and Goals for 2024.

GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR) AND HOUSING ELEMENT APR FOR 2023, AND FINDING THAT ACTIVITY COVERED BY CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (B)(3) COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1965.

Community Development Director Mangalam and Associate Planner Gannon presented the staff report.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Mayor Jimenez, seconded by Councilmember Froomin, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1965, to receive and accept the General Plan Annual Progress Report (APR) and Housing Element APR for 2023, and finding that activity covered by CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3) Common Sense Exemption.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT . MINUTE ORDER NO. 1966.

Assistant City Manager Subhashini presented the staff report.

Evan Adams addressed the City Council via teleconference.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Councilmember Froomin , and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 1966, to receive and accept the report on the California Business Roundtable’s (CBRT) Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and direct staff to draft a resolution in opposition of the measure to

5.1 5.1 Minutes

7 present at a future meeting and find the action exempt under CEQAS pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION

ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.60, “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR ELECTIVE CITY OFFICES” TO TITLE 2, “ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL” OF

THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CITY ELECTIVE OFFICES.

City Attorney Stock presented the staff report.

Shilpi Goel addressed the City Council via email.

Evan Adams addressed the City Council via teleconference.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Froomin, seconded by Vice Mayor Jimenez , and by roll call vote, 2-3-0, the motion failed, Councilmember Hindi, Councilmember Kiesel, and Mayor Sullivan voted “no”, to introduce the ordinance by title and waiver further reading of, “ An Ordinance of the City of Foster City, California, Adding a New Chapter 2.60, “Campaign Contribution Limits for Elective City Offices” to Title 2, “Administration and Personnel” of the Foster City Municipal Code with the following revisions:

1. Establish a campaign contribution limit of $1,000;

2. Omit the automatic 3% increase of the contribution limit on January 1 of every odd- numbered year; and

3. Provide candidates with 72 hours to correct statements (if error exists) or otherwise correcting any identified violations by returning the amount of the donation that exceeds the maximum amount.

COMMUNICATIONS

CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.

City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on February 14, 2024.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND

REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS

REQUEST TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA BY COUNCILMEMBER JON FROOMIN REGARDING FLAVORED TOBACCO REVISION.

Salim Qaru addressed the City Council in person.

5.1 5.1 Minutes

8 Blythe Young , Community Advoc acy Director for the American Heart Association, addressed the City Council via teleconference.

Discussion ensued.

There was consensus by the City Council to agendize repealing Section 8.11.020, “Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products Prohibited” subsection (E) of Title 8, “Health and Safety” of the Foster City Municipal Code.

Councilmember/Director Hindi reported he attended the Levee Improvements Project Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on February 21 and thanked past councilmembers and City staff for their work on the project. He attended the Foster City Little League Opening Day at Sea Cloud Park on March 2. On February 22, he attended the Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) board meeting where they approved a three- year contract for $26 million to implement turnkey electrification installation services for single-family homes.

Councilmember/Director Froomin reported that he attended a South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) board meeting on February 22.

Vice Mayor/Vice President Jimenez reported she attended the Women’s Power Breakfast event hosted by Assemblymember Papan in celebration of Women’s History Month on March 1.

Mayor/President Sullivan reported he attended the Chamber of Commerce Small Business Council meeting on February 21. He praised the efforts and dedication of City staff and all those involved with the completion of the Levee Improvement s Project. He congratulated Councilmember/Director Hindi for his reappointment as a representative for the San Mateo County City Selection Committee to serve on the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) board. On February 22, he attended the Airport Land Use Committee meeting. On February 23, he attended the Co uncil of Cities meeting at Half Moon Bay. He also attended the Foster City Little League Opening Day on March 2 at Sea Cloud Park.

CLOSED SESSION

Mayor/President Sullivan 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) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case);

2. Report Out from Closed Session.

Meeting recessed into Closed Session at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m.

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

5.1 5.1 Minutes

9 ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Sullivan adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

5.1 5.1 Minutes

10 DATE: March 18, 2024

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

FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
Nori Jabba, Housing Coordinator
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EXISTING

AGREEMENT WITH HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES

FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR EXISTING
UNIT PURCHASE PROGRAM PROPERTY AT 833 AND 835

COMET DRIVE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Contract Amendment No. 1 to the existing agreement for property management services with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures (HHAV), Inc. in the amount of $122,660 to cover additional cost for major repairs for the Existing Unit Purchase Program property located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2008, the City has owned six (6) units, including a duplex at 833 and 835 Comet Drive as part of the six-unit Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP). The six (6) units are managed by HHAV. The current agreement with HHAV, dated February 24, 2021, provides for a combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs not to exceed the sum of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000).

On February 05, 2024, the City Council approved a supplemental appropriation of $131,460 for substantial repairs to 833 and 835 Comet Drive due to water intrusion and

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

11 associated temporary relocation expenses (Attachment 3). Thus, it is necessary to increase the agreement amount to provide payments for major repairs in the amount of $122,660 (after deducting $8,800 for temporary relocation assistance from the supplemental appropriation amount). The combined total of compensation and reimbursement cost would be $167,660 (Original Agreement of $45,000 + Contract Amendment No.1 of $122,660).

BACKGROUND
As noted earlier, the six (6) EUPP units are managed by HHAV. The units at 833 and 835 Comet Drive need major repairs due to water intrusion requiring the following work to be performed:
•Improvement of the drainage systems by a licensed landscaping company. •Replacement of the corroded sewer lines by a licensed plumber. •Restoration of the foundation crawlspace and installation of waterproof liners and sump pump systems by a general contractor with expertise in crawlspace restoration.

The existing Agreement for Professional Services for Property Management and Leasing with HHAV, dated February 24, 2021, Section C.3. states:
“invoices in excess of $45,000 shall not be paid unless 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 expenses by the City Manager (for contacts 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 has been executed.”
Therefore, staff is requesting an increase of the contract amount to include the cost of substantial repairs in the amount of $122,660 for the EUPP property located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive so that the City can reimburse HHAV for the costs of the repair.

CEQA
The proposed action would not result in physical changes to the environment other than minor trenching and installation of piping and would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of Contract Amendment No. 1 for Professional Services Agreement for Property Management and Leasing is $122,660. The supplemental appropriation was approved by the City Council on February 5, 2024.

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

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

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Contract Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures
Attachment 3 – February 5, 2024 City Council Staff Report Attachment 4 – 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

13 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES WITH HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES (HHAV), INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,660 TO COVER ADDITIONAL

COST FOR MAJOR REPAIRS FOR THE EXISTING UNIT PURCHASE PROGRAM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 833 AND 835 COMET DRIVE AND FIND THE PROJECT

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, since 2008, the city has owned six (6) units, including a duplex at 833 and 835 Comet Drive as part of the six-unit Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP); and WHEREAS, all six (6) units are managed by HHAV, Inc.; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2021, the City of Foster City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures, Inc. for Property Management and Leasing services in an amount not-to-exceed $45,000 for the EUPP funded through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund 122-0832; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Foster City approved by Resolution 2024-4 on February 5, 2024, Supplemental Appropriation of $131,460 from General Fund 001 to Account 122-0832-463-42-87 for substantial repairs for the EUPP properties located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and temporary relocation assistance expenses for tenants during the repairs; and
WHEREAS, the Contract Amendment No.1 allows for additional cost for the substantial repairs for 833 and 835 Comet Drive in the amount of $122,660; and WHEREAS, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement costs would be $167,660 (Original Agreement of $45,000 + Contract Amendment No. 1 of $122,660).

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

Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $122,660 and amending Exhibit B with Exhibit B-1 to the existing contract with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures, Inc. for Property Management and Leasing services, dated February 24, 2021, for the Existing Unit Purchase Program.

5.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution

14 PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PATRICK SULLIVAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

5.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution

15 ORIGINAL

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. ONE (1)
DATE: MARCH 18, 2024
ACCOUNT NUMBERS: 122-0832-463-4281, 122-0832-463-4284, 122-0832- 463-4285, AND 122-0832-463-4287 OF THE

MODERATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING FUND
PROJECT NAME: AMENDMENT TO PROFESSSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND

LEASING
TO: HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES, INC.

CHANGE REQUESTED BY: CITY OF FOSTER CITY STAFF
Based on mutual agreement, HIP Housing Affordable Ventures, Inc. and City of Foster City agree to amend the original Agreement dated February 24, 2021 (“Agreement”) pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement to for specified amounts, which are identified as follows:

ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT $45,000.00
AMOUNT EXPENDED TO DATE $11,008.83
AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. ONE (1) $122,660.00
REVISED TOTAL AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT $167,660.00
The increased Agreement maximum is needed for substantial repairs (excluding temporary relocation assistance) costs for 833 and 835 Comet Drive totaling $122,660. The supplemental appropriation for repairs was approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 2024-4 on February 5, 2024.

Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and provisions in the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

We, the undersigned consultant, have given careful consideration to the amendment proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, to submit all invoices and fees necessary for the work above specified pursuant to the Agreement, as amended herein

5.2 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures - Updated 3-14-24

16 CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated: _________________________________ Patrick Sullivan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________ Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock, City Attorney

HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES
INC
Dated:

Kate Comfort Harr, Executive Director

5.2 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures - Updated 3-14-24

17 EXHIBIT B-1
CONSULTANT’S FEE SCHEDULE
Revised March 18, 2024
Agent's Fees. As compensation for Agent's services hereunder, Owner shall pay to Agent (a) a management fee equal to $230.00 per unit per month, paid monthly in arrears; and (b) a leasing fee equal to $1,000.00 paid from the initial rental payment; and (c) a rehab administration and supervision fee equal to 10% of the value of initial rehab work conducted immediately after initial acquisition of the Property to prepare the Property for tenancy. For services which are not enumerated in this Agreement, Agent and Owner shall mutually agree upon any additional fee to be paid to Agent. Services which are not included in this Agreement include management and supervision services relating to fire restoration or major rehabilitation. The total amount of compensation to be paid under this contract shall be less than $167,660.

5.2 Attachment 2 - Contract Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures - Updated 3-14-24

18 DATE: February 5, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Department
Nori Jabba, Housing Coordinator
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR

SUBSTANTIAL REPAIRS AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION

EXPENSES FOR EXISTING UNIT PURCHASE PROGRAM
PROPERTY AT 833 AND 835 COMET DRIVE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a supplemental appropriation of $131,460 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF Fund 122) to account 122-0832-463-42-87 for substantial repairs for the Existing Unit Purchase Program property located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and associated temporary relocation expenses and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303(d).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2008, the city has owned six (6) units, including a duplex at 833 and 835 Comet Drive as part of the six-unit Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP). All the six (6) units are managed by HIP Housing Affordable Ventures (HHAV). The units at 833 and 835 Comet Drive needs major repairs due to water intrusion requiring the following work to be performed:
 Improvement of the drainage systems by a licensed landscaping company

6.4 6.4 Staff Report
55 5.2
Attachment 3 - February 5, 2024 City Council Staff Report

19 Replacement of the corroded sewer lines by a licensed plumber Restoration of the foundation crawlspace and installation of waterproof liners and sump pump systems by a general contractor with expertise in crawlspace restoration

There is a budget of $25,000 for contingency major repairs in the fund 122-0832-463- 42-87. However, upon evaluating the estimates related to the repairs and potential temporary relocation costs of the tenants, staff realized that there are not enough funds and thus, requesting a supplemental appropriation of $131,460 from the LMIHF Fund 122 to account 122-0832-463-42-87 for substantial repairs and associated relocation expenses of the tenants.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In September 2023, Staff received a complaint from the tenant of 833 Comet Drive regarding water intrusion. Since then, Staff have been evaluating the situation at the unit on an ongoing basis. Based on numerous inspections conducted by Staff, including the Chief Building Official (CBO), and building inspector(s), and HHAV team, it has been determined that the water intrusion is from both the water table and groundwater seepage into the crawlspace due to inadequate rainwater drainage. The inspections also determined that the water intrusion was not present at the adjacent unit at 835 Comet Drive, except at the exterior entrance to the crawlspace. However, the subject property is a duplex, and the crawl space is common to both the units. The city staff and HHAV team recommended installation of a sump pump system, sewer replacement, and drainage improvements for the subject property.

Meanwhile, HHAV has undertaken intermediate mitigation work, including installation of downspout extensions on both 833 and 835 Comet Drive for directing rainwater away from the house and foundation. It shall also be noted that the building inspector also inspected other EUPP units and determined that the duplex units at 631/633 Comet Drive, and 398 Chesapeake already have sump pump systems in the crawlspace.

The estimated cost of substantial repairs for 833 and 835 Comet Drive is summarized below.

Table 1. Estimated Project Cost – Water Intrusion Mitigation of 833 and 835 Comet Drive

Project Description Estimated Cost
1 Improvement of the drainage systems by a licensed
landscaping company and plumber – trenching and piping
to redirect groundwater, water; replacement of gutters, installation of additional downspouts
$20,000
2 Replacement of the corroded cast-iron sewer lines by a licensed plumber
$40,000

6.4 6.4 Staff Report

56 5.2
Attachment 3 - February 5, 2024 City Council Staff Report

20 3 Restoration of the foundation crawlspace, installation of a waterproof liner, and installation of a sump pump system by a general contractor with expertise in crawlspace
restoration for each unit; ventilation upgrades and
replacement of corroded ventilation and duct materials
$20,000
4 Repair and/or replacement of walls/ceilings, and flooring if needed due to water damage.
$20,000
5 Installation of three (3) de-humidifiers in 833 Comet $750.00 6 Potential temporary relocation assistance for tenants of 833 Comet (two people) and 835 Comet (four people)
$8,800
Total Estimated Cost of Repairs $109,550
7 Contingency (20%) $21,910
Total Estimated Project Cost $131,460

HHAV is securing additional quotes to confirm costs. At this time, the amounts included in Table 1 are the best estimates of the work needed. Staff has added a 20% contingency to the project estimate in the event of unforeseen additional repairs deemed necessary.

However, if the cost of work is higher than the Total Estimated Project Cost in Table 1, Staff will come back to the Council for further direction.

Timeline
The project is anticipated to take place as soon as possible in February 2024 and will take approximately four (4) to five (5) weeks depending on contractor scheduling. The timeline consists of approximately five (5) days for sewer replacement, five (5) days for crawlspace restoration and sump pump installation; three (3) days for landscaping and drainage improvements; three (3) to ten (10) days for interior restoration work. Some of the work may be able to be completed concurrently by different contractors. Temporary relocation of tenants may be needed for certain portions of the project, to minimize disruption to tenants, and to ensure the work is completed more quickly.

The cost of temporary relocation assistance for the tenants is based on approximately $1,100 per week per room at an extended stay motel. The budget for potential temporary relocation anticipates up to four (4) weeks for 833 Comet (one room; two people) and up to two (2) weeks for 835 Comet (two rooms; four people). As mentioned above, there is $25,000 in FY 2023-24 for EUPP major repairs for all six (6) units. Staff used part of these funds for temporary relocation of the tenants of 833 Comet from December 21, 2023, to January 31, 2023, as staff was evaluating the unit to determine the scope of necessary repairs.

On January 18, 2024, Staff applied for a County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grant for funds for the upgrades to maintain the EUPP properties at 833 and 835 Comet Drive in good condition and prepare the units for eventual transition to supportive housing. The grant application requested funding for upgrades including interior and exterior painting, kitchen remodeling, bathroom upgrades, electrical work, and other

6.4 6.4 Staff Report

57 5.2
Attachment 3 - February 5, 2024 City Council Staff Report

21 repairs and upgrades. However, funding for the grant, if awarded, will not be available until July 1, 2024. Due to the timing of grant funding and the need to perform the emergency repair work immediately, staff did not include the emergency repair work in the grant application.

In the past, repairs were done to the unit at 833 Comet including the following:

In 2008, following the acquisition of the property, the City hired a contractor to replace the foundation stem walls due to cracks.
In 2015, HHAV repaired a water leak in the bathroom and completed reconstruction of walls in living room. Also in 2015, HHAV installed a condensation sensor and de-humidifier as well as a fan in the bathroom. HHAV also replaced flooring throughout the unit. During that time, the tenants were relocated temporarily to complete repairs.
In 2021, HHAV completed plumbing repairs in the bathroom.

Staff is requesting a supplemental appropriation of $131,460 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to account 122-0832-463-42-87 for substantial repairs for the EUPP property located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and associated temporary relocation expenses of the tenants.

California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed action would not result in a significant change to the environment because the work entails minor trenching and installation of piping and would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) [New Construction or Conversion of Small Facilities]. Section 15303(d) applies to “Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.”

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is requesting a supplemental appropriation of $131,460 from the LMIHF Fund 122 to account 122-0832-463-42-87 for substantial repairs for the EUPP property located at 833 and 835 Comet Drive and associated temporary relocation expenses.

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

Attachment 1 – Resolution

6.4 6.4 Staff Report

58 5.2
Attachment 3 - February 5, 2024 City Council Staff Report

22 1 Updated 2/28/2019

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND LEASING

This Agreement is made and entered into as of th e 24th day of February 2021 by and between the City of Foster City hereinafter called "CITY" and HIP Housing Affordable Ventures, INC. hereinafter called "CONSULTANT".

RECITALS

This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

A. That CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide professional services in the CITY;

B. That CONSULTANT is qualified to provide such services to the CITY and;

C. That the CITY has elected to engage the services of CONSULTANT upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth.

1. Services. The service s to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall inc lude those services set forth in Exhibit A, which is, by this reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.

Performance of the work specified i n said Exhibit A is hereby made an obligation of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, subject to any changes that may be made subsequently hereto upon the mutual written agreement of the said parties.

Where in conflict, the terms of this Agreement supersede a nd prevail over any terms set forth in Exhibit A.

2. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year commencing on the date of this Agreement, and terminating on the first anniversary of the commencement date. This Agreement, i f not extended in writing by Owner and Agent prior to the termination date, shall be deemed a month to month agreement terminable by either party upon 30 days written notice. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) abov e, either party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice not less than ten (10) days prior to the effective date of termination, which date shall be included in said n otice. In the event of such termination, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered, and reimburse CONTRACTOR for costs and expenses incurred, to the date of termination, calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3. In ascertain ing the services actually rendered to the date of termination, consideration shall be given both to completed work and work in process of completion. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a limitation upon the right of CITY to terminate this Agreement f or cause, or DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

23 2 Updated 2/28/2019
otherwise to exercise such rights or pursue such remedies as may accrue to CITY hereunder.

3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment . CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder in an amount based upon CONSULTANT’s hourly rates during t he time of the performance of said services. A copy of CONSULTANT’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONSULTANT’s fee schedule marked Exhibit “B” her eof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum forty- five thousand dollars ($45,000). Invoices for amount s in exc ess of forty- five thousand dollars ($45,000) shall not be paid unless the performan ce of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expense s in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by the City Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $50,000 or more) evidenced by motion duly made a nd carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and e xpenses hereunder shall be payable upon monthly billing therefor by CONSULTANT to CITY, which billing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed.

4. Additional Services . In the event CITY desires the performance of additional services not otherwise included within the servi ces described in Exhibit A, such services shall be authorized in advance of the performance thereof by the City Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $ 50,000 or more) by motion dul y made and carried. Such amendment to thi s Agreement shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maximum compensation a nd reimbursement of costs and expenses payable there for, t he time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services. Except to the extent modified by written amendment, all other terms an d conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in each such amendment.

5. Records. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain accurate recor ds of all time expended and costs and expenses incurred relating to services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. Said records shall be available to CITY for review and copying during regular business hours at CONSULTANT’s place of business or as other wise agre ed upon by the parties.

6. Authorization. This Agreement becomes effective when endorsed by both parties in the space provided below.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

24 3 Updated 2/28/2019

7. Reliance on Profess ional Skill of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT represents that it has the necessary professional skills t o perform the services required and the CITY shall rely on such skills of the CONSULTANT to do and pe rform the work. In performing services hereunder CONSULTANT shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consu lting ser vices similar to those to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder.

8. Documents. All documents, plans, drawings, renderings, and other papers, or copies thereof, as finally rendered, prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, sh all, upon preparation and delivery to CITY, become the property of CITY.

9. Relationship of Parties . It is u nderstood that the relationship of CONSULTANT to the CITY is that of an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of CONSULTANT are its agents or employees and not agents or employees of the CITY.

10. Schedule. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A; provid ed, that CITY shall grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of such serv ices occa sioned by governmental reviews of CONSULTANT’s work product or other unavoidable delays; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay shall not include strik es, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, CONSULTANT’s officers or employees.

CONSULTANT acknowledges the importance to CITY of CITY’s Project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule.

11. Indemnity. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save ha rmless CITY and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, wh ich may be brought against, o r suffered or sust ained by, City of Foster City or Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees or agents caused by, or a lleged to have been caused by, the negligence, intentional tortuous act or omission, or willful misconduc t of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, subcontractors or agents in the performance of any services or work pursuant to this Agreement.

The duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall include the duty to defend as set f orth in Section 2778 of the California Ci vil Code; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement Di strict, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees and agents against any res ponsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

25 4 Updated 2/28/2019

CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall su rvive the termination or completion of this Agr eement for the full period of time allowed by law.

The defense and indemnification obligations of this agreement are undertaken in addition to, and sh all not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained within this Agreement.

12. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall acquire and maintain Workers’ Compensation, employer’s liability, commercial general liability, owned and non -owned and hired auto mobile liability, and professional liability insurance coverage relating to CONSULTANT’s services to be p erformed hereunder covering CITY’s risks in form subject to the approval of the City Attorney and/or CITY’s Risk Manager. The minimum amounts of covera ge corresponding to the aforesaid categories of insurance per insurable event, shall be as follows:

Insurance Category Minimum Limits

Workers’ Compensation statutory minimum

Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease

Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage (coverage
required to the extent applic able to
CONSULTANT’s vehicle usage in
performing services hereunder)

1Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate

It shall be a re quirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specifie d minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits sh all be available to the CITY as an Additional I nsured. Furthermore, the requirements fo r coverage and limits shall be the greater of either (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agr eement or (2) the broader

1 Note: Professional liability insurance coverage is not required if the CONSU LTANT is not providing a service regulated by the state. (Examples of service providers regulated by the state are insurance agents, professional engi neers, doctors, certif ied publi c a ccountants, lawyers, etc.) Please check and initial the following if p rofessional liability is NOT required for this agreement.  Recommended ______ [Project Manager]  Approved _______[Risk Manager]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

26 5 Updated 2/28/2019
coverage and maximum limits of c overage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named Insured.

CONSULTANT agrees t o include with all subcontractors in their subcontracts the same requirements and provisions of this agreement including the indemnity and insurance requiremen ts to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Subcontractors hi red by CONSULTANT shall agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under this Agreement and its a ccompanying documents. Subcontractors shall fu rther agree to include these same provisi ons with any sub - subcontractors. A copy of the indemnity and insurance provisions of this Agreement will be f urnished to the Subcontractor upon request.

CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide a val id certificate of insurance and the requi red endor sements included in the subcontract agreement and will provide proof of compliance to the CITY prior to commencement of any work by the subcontractor.

Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, CON SULTANT shall furnish CITY, on the form i ncluded a s Exhibit D or similar form, with certificates and copies of information or declaration pages of the insurance required hereunder to be included as Exhibit C h ereto. With respect to evidence of commercial general liability and automobile liabilit y insurance coverage, CONSULTANT must also include in Exhibit C the following original endorsements:

(a) Precluding cancellation or reduction in per occurrence limits before the expiration of thirty (30) days (10 d ays for nonpayment) after CITY shall have received written notification of cancellation in coverage or reduction in per occurrence limits by first class mail;

(b) Naming the City of Foster City and Estero Mun icipal Improvement District, its Council, offic ers, boards, commissions, employees, and agents, as additional insureds; and

(c) Providing that CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insu rance with respect to City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, officer s, boards, commissions, employees, and ag ents, and any insurance or self - insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its Council, officers, boards, commis sions, employees, or agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT’s insurance and not contributory with it.

CONSULTANT and its insurer may not seek co ntribution from CITY’s insurance or self-insurance.

The limits of insurance required in this agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or exc ess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insuranc e shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non -contributory basis for the benefit of CITY, to the extent required by this Agreement, DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

27 6 Updated 2/28/2019
before the CITY’s insurance or self -insurance may be called upon to protect CITY as a named Insured.

All sel f-insured retentions (SIR) must be disclosed to CITY for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability coverage. Policies containing and SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that t he SIR may be satisfied by either the nam ed CONSULTANT/Named Insured or CITY.

CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insuran ce policy and endorsements. Failure to exercise this righ t shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.

Any and all Subcontractors shall agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under this Agreement. Subcontractors shall furt her agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including t he indemn ity and insurance requirements, in any agreement with sub-subcontractors to the extent that they appl y to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the indemnity and insurance provisions of this Agreement shall be furnished to any subc ontractor upon request.

CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amou nt allowed by law and shall maintain in surance for a minimum of five (5) years following completion of th is project or service.

In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the CITY at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and t he cost will be paid by CONSULTANT.

13. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONSULTANT certifies that he is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONSULTANT certifies that he will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are em ployed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall i nclude, b ut not be limited to the following: employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection f or training, including apprenticeship. T he CONSULTANT shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabili ties Act (Public Law 101 -336) which DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

28 7 Updated 2/28/2019
prohibits discriminati on on the basis of disability by public entitie s. The CONSULTANT agrees to post in cons picuous p laces available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

15. Notice. All notices required by this Agreeme nt shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in wr iting, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of Foster City
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404-2299
Attention: Marlene Subhashini

CONSULTANT: HIP Housing Affordable Ventures INC
800 S Claremont St #210
San Mateo, CA 94402
Steven McDonald, Vice President
(650) 348-6660
[email protected]

16. Non-Assignment. This Agreeme nt is not assignable either in whole or in part.

17. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modif ied only by written agreement signed by both parties.

18. Validity. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of a ny other provision of this Agreement.

19. Governing Law . This Agreement shall be gover ned by th e laws of the State of California and any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California. In the event of li tigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreem ent, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

20. Mediation. Should any dis pute arise out of this Agreemen t, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution w ith the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and mak ing a good faith attempt to rea ch a mediated resolution. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be pai d equally by t he partie s. If a mediated settlement is reached neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and ea ch party shall bear its own leg al costs.

21. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT may serve other clients, but none who are active within the City of Foster City or who conduct business that DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

29 8 Updated 2/28/2019
would place CONSULTANT in a "conflict of interest" as that term is defined in State law.

22. Entire Agreement . This Agreement, including Exhibit s A, B C, and D , comprises the entire Agreement.

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

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

Dated: _________________________________ Peter Pirnejad, City Manager

ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________ Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Dated:

Jean B. Savaree, City Attorney

HIP HOUSING AFFORDABLE VENTURES
INC

Dated:

Steven McDonald, Vice President
DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF 3/5/2021 | 3:30 PM PST
3/9/2021 | 4:27 PM PST
3/9/2021 | 10:35 PM PST
3/10/2021 | 8:49 AM PST

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

30 9 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
FOR

EXISTING UNIT PURCHASE PROGRAM

1. Services to be Performed b y Agent. Agent shall lease, operate, maintain, manage and repair the Properties. Attached as Exhibit E is a list of the Properties as of the date of this Agreement. Perform all usual and customary management functions to facilitate the effici ent operation of the Propertie s f or the purposes described in this Agreement. Agent shall perform these duties with due diligence. W ithout limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agent shall do all of the following:

A. Leasing. Agent shall advertise in the Foster City Islander and/or other media as determined in consultation with Owner when a vacancy occurs , select qualified tenants and lease the Properties in accordance with the Leasing Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit F. The Leasing Guidelines may be changed from time to time by mutual a greement. Agent shall develop the forms of lease application and lease agreement to be used for the Properties, which forms shall be subject to the prior approval of Owner. Agent shall enter into the leases as agen t on behalf of Owner. A copy o f t he l ease application and f ully-executed l ease, a long with the certification of income verification and household s ize on a Tenant Income Certificatio n (TIC) form provided by Agent shall be sent to Owner within 15 days after execution of the lease.

Agent shall maintain individual tenant files containing a copy of the lease, verification of income form, notices and all correspondence with the tenant. All tenant files shall be maintained a minimum of 4 years after the tenant has vacated the Property.

B. Collection of Rent. Agent shall ensure that all rents and any other moneys payable under the leases are paid by the tenants of the Properties in a timely manner. Agent shall require that rents and any other moneys payable under the leases are paid directly t o the Owner. On the 6th day of each month Owner shall notify Agent and Agent's designated Property Management Company when rent has not been received. Notification may be by email, letter or fax as determined by the owner.

C. Enforcement of Leases. Agent shall secure full compliance by each tenant with the terms of its lease. Upon default by a tenant, Agent shall pursue legal remedies in accorda nce with applicable California law for recovery of the leased premises. For this purpose, Agent is authorized to sign and serve in the name of the Owner s uch notices as are appropriate, to institute and prosecute actions to evict tenants and to recover possession of the Property in the name of the Owner, to recover rents and other sum s due and when expedient to se ttle, compromise and release such actions or suits or reinstate such tenancies. Agent shall keep Owner informed of such warnings and/or actions a nd shall follow any instructions of Owner as Owner may reasonably prescribe for t he conduct of any such action. Agent may n ot pursue monetary damages against a tenant without the prior written consent of Owner.

D. Maintenance and Re pair. Agent shall main tain the Properties in good condition and repair at all times. Agent shall quickl y repair or cause to be repaired any item brought to its attention by Owner or a tenant or that is observed by the Agent.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

31 10 Updated 2/28/2019
Agent shall perform site inspections at the end of the first month of tenancy and annually thereafter to ascertain the condition of th e Properties. For this purpose, and as limited in this paragraph, Agent is authorized to make or cause to be ma de and supervise repairs, alterations, landscaping and decorating on the Properties. Agent may enter into service contracts with unaffiliated third parties for the performance of services hereunder, provided each contract shall be terminable by Owner upon 30 days written notice. Front yard landscaping shall be maintained by a landscaping firm hired by Agent. Any single expenditure in excess of $300 and cumulative expenditures in excess of $500 per Property shall require the prior written consent of Owner. Owner's prior consent shall not be necessary with respect to monthly or recurring operating charges and emergency repairs that are necessary, in the opinion of the Agent, to p rotect the Properties from damage, to prevent bodily harm or property damage, to avoid the suspension of services, to avoid penalties or fines and to maintain the services required under the lease to be provided to the tenant. Agent shall obtain three bids for any work which exceeds $10,000 and shall submit the bids to the Owner for approval. Agent shall work diligently to complete all repairs in a timely manner and in particular when a Property is vacant so the Property can b e promptly leased to another t enant. Excep t under unusual circumstances, the Properties should be vacant no more than 30 days.

Agent shall notify Owner whenever a Property will be vacant more than 30 days. Upon acquisition of a Property by Owner and upon t he vacancy of a Property follo wing the termination of a tenancy, Agent shall promptly inspect the Property and determine a course of action to perform all necessary repairs and improvements. Agent shall notify Owner of the course of action and unless Owner objects within 10 days from r eceipt of Agent's notice, Agent may proceed to perform the repairs and impro vements. At the direction of the Owner, inspections, repairs and improvements may be performed by employees of the City of Foster City.

E. Taxes and Assessments. Taxes and assess ments shall be paid directly by Owner and not by Agent. Agent shall promptly deliver to Owner notices relating to taxes and assessments received by Agent.

F. Employees. Agent shall hire, discharge and supervise all employees required for the operation and maintenance of the Properties. All employees performing work (other than th e City employees specifically designated by Owner to perform inspection and repair work) shall be employees of Agent and not Owner. Agent shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning worker's compensation, social security, unemployment insurance, hours of labor, wages, working conditions and all other rules and regulations governing employees.

G. Annual Bud get. No later than March 1 of each year, Agent shall deliver to Owner a proposed budget for the following fiscal year (July 1 -June 30), for all major operating and other expenses including (i) repairs and maintenance of building components that in Agent’s estimation exceed $1,000 ; (ii) cleaning following the termination o f a lease; (iii) landscaping; (iv) capital expendit ures such as roof repairs and replacements; and (v) any other costs and expenses relating to the Properties.

Owner shall accept or reject the proposed budget withi n 30 days after its receipt. I f Owner rejects, Owner and Agent shall meet in good faith to re solve their differences.

Once the budget is agreed upon, Agent shall perform its services in accordance with the budget. If additional properties are added, Agent shall modify the budget accordingly

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

32 11 Updated 2/28/2019

2. Accounts.

A. Disbursements. Owner will make disbursements from the Operating Account to pay all expenses of the Properties which are the obligations of Owner and are authorized to be incurred by Agent under the terms of this Agreement, including Agent's Fees as described above in paragraph 4.

B. Security Deposits. Security deposits collected by Agent shall be submitted to Owner. Security deposits shaII be returned to tenants pursuant to the terms of the leases and in strict accordance with California law.

3. Records. Agent shall establish and maintain a comprehensive system of, tenant and property records and work order log for the Properties separate and apart from any other properties Agent owns or man ages. The work order log shall be submitted to Owner on the first of each month or upon request. All records shall be the property of Owner and shall be available for examination at reasonable hours by any authorized representative of Owner. For each expen diture, Agent shall have invoices submitted directly to the Owner for payment with the property address on each invoice.

4. Reports.

A. Monthly. At the end of the first month of a tenancy, Agen t shall perform a site visit and inspection. Following the inspection, Agent shall send a written report of the inspection to the Owner.

B. Annually. On March 1 of each calendar year, Agent shall provide Owner with the following reports:

(i) A certification of the income of each current resident as of the date of the last inco me certification, the current rent charged each resident and the amount of any utilities included in the rent. Owner may specify the format for this report.

(ii) An inspection report, including a list of any materi al physical defects in the Properties, including a description of any major repair or maintenance work to be performed in the following year.

(iii) A statement regarding the general management of the Properties, including information about tenant relations, communications from tenants, the physical condition of the Properti es and any o ther information deemed relevant by Agent or requested by Owner.

(iv) A list of the expiration dates of each lease.

5. Fidelity Bond. Agent will furnish, at Agent' s expense, a fidelity bond in the amount of $20, 000, to protect the Owner agai nst misapplication of funds from the Properties by Agent and its employees.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

33 12 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT B

CONSULTANT’S FEE SCHEDULE

Agent's Fees. As compensation for Agent's services hereunder, Owner shall pay to Agent (a) a management fee eq ual to $ 230.00 per unit per mo nth, paid monthly in arrears; and (b) a leasing fee equal to $1,000.00 paid from the initial rental payment; and (c) a rehab admi nistration and supervision fee equal to 10% of the value of initial rehab work conducted immediately after initial acquisition of the Property to prepare the Property for tenancy. For services which are not enumerated in this Agreement, Agent and Owner sha ll mutually agree upon any additional fee to be paid to Agent. Services which are not included in this Agreement include management and supervision services relating to fire restoration or major rehabilitation. The total amount of compensation to be paid under this contract shall be less than $45,000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

34 13 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE FORMS

CONSULTANT shall pr ovide, in addition to the Certificates of Insurance, original Endorsement affecting the coverages specified in Section 12 - INSURANCE of the Agreement on the attached form. No substitute form will be accepted.

ATTACHED

1. Insurance Coverage Form

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

35 14 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT D
This INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM modifies or documents insurance provided under the following:

Named Insured: Effective Work Date(s):

Description of Work/Locations/Vehicles:

ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (CITY) 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404
Attention: _________________________________
Contract Administrator
Endorsement and Certificates of Insurance Required
The Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, offici als, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to damages and defense of clai ms arising from: (Chec k all that apply)
Insurer Policy
No.

General Liability : (a) act ivities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured, (b) products and completed o perations of the Named Insured, (c) premises owned, leased occupied or used by the Named Insured, and/or (d) permits issued for operations performed by the Named Insured. { Note:

MEETS OR EXCEEDS ISO Form # CG 20 10 11 85}

Auto Liabil ity: the own ership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Named Insured, regardless of whether liability is attributable to the Named Insured or a combination of the Named Insured and the Addi tional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Other:

Certificates of Insurance Required (no endorsement ne eded) (Check all that apply)
Insurer Policy
No.

Workers Compensat ion: work pe rformed by employees of the Named Insured while those e mployees are engaged i n work under the simultaneous directions and control of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured.

Professional Liability:

PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTORY: This insurance is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of Additional Insureds.

SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST: The insurance afforded by this policy ap plies separately to each insur ed who is se eking coverage or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limit of liability.

PROVISIONS REGARDING THE INSURED' S DUTIES AFTER ACCIDENT OR LOSS : Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.

CANCELLATION NOTICE. The insurance afforded by this policy shall not be suspend ed, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior writt en notice (ten (10) da ys if canceled due to non -payment) by regular mail return receipt requested has been given to the Additional Insured. Such notice shall be addressed as shown above.

WAIVER OF SU BROGATION: The insurer(s) named above agree to waive al l rights of subrogatio n against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteer s a nd employees for losses paid under the terms of thi s policy which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the CITY.

Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of the Policy other than as above stated.

SIGNATURE OF INSURER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER

I, ______________________________________________________________(print/type name), warra nt that I have authori ty to bind the above-named insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company.

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (original signature required)

ORGANIZATION: TITLE:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE: ( ) DATE ISSUED:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

36 15 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT E

PROPERTIES

1. Five bedroom house at 833 Gull Avenue, Foster City.

2. Duplex at 631/633 Comet Drive, Foster City (two bedroom unit and three bedroom unit).

3. Duplex at 833/835 Comet Drive., Foster City (two bedroom unit and three bedroom unit).

4. Single family house at 398 Chesapeake Avenue, Foster City (three bedroom unit).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

37 16 Updated 2/28/2019

EXHIBIT F

LEASE GUIDELINES

1. Eligible Households (Priorities as de termined by Community Development Agency Minute Order No. 18 and Resolution No. 2020-24):

A. First priority: Very low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) who are currently living in a Below Market Rate deed restricted unit i n Foster City, and have been so for at least twelve (12) months, whose unit is subject to termination of affordability restrictions within three (3) years;

B. Second priority: Low income tenants (as defined in Cal ifornia Health and Safety Code Section 50105) who are currently living in a Below Market Rate deed restricted unit in Foster City, and have been so for at least twelve (12) months, whose unit is subject to termination of affordability restrictions within three (3) years;

C. Third priority: Very l ow income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) living and working in Foster City.

D. Fourth priority: Low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) living and working in Foster City.

E. Fifth Priority: Very low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) living in Foster City.

F. Sixth Priority: Low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) living in Foster City.

G. Seventh Priority: Very low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) who are employees of the City of Foster City.

H. Eighth Priority: Low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) who are employees of the City of Foster City.

I. Ninth Priority: Very low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) who are classroom teachers employed by the San Mateo-Foster City School District, the San Mateo Union High School District or the San Mateo County Community College District.

J. Tenth Priority: Low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) who are class room teachers employed by the San Mateo-Foster City School District, the San Mateo Union High School District or the San Mateo County Community College District.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

38 17 Updated 2/28/2019
K. Eleventh Priority: Very low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) who work in Foster City.

L. Twelfth Priority: Low income tenants (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) who work in Foster City.

M. Thirteenth Priority: Very low income tenants (as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50105) – all others who are income qualified.

N. Fourteenth Priority: Low income tenants (as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) – all others who are income qualified

2. Household Size. The Owner's program is designed for larger households.

Minimum household size for two -bedroom units shall be three (3) people. Minimum household size for three -bedroom units shall be five (5) people. Minimum household size for a five -bedroom units shall be six (6) peopl e. Tenants not meeting this requirement must be approved by Owner.

3. Affordable Rent. Tenants will pay "affordable rent" as such term is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50053.

4. Verification of Income and Household Size. Agent shall ve rify the household size and in come of each tenant and shall certify both on the form attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. Upon renewal of each lease, but in any event no less frequently than once a year, Agent shall reverify household size and th e income of each tenant and adjust the rental amount if necessary. Recertification shall be on the form attached as Exhibit B-1 or a form as agreed by Agent and Owner. If the household size or income level changes so tenant no longer qualifies for the occu pancy of the Property, the lease may not be renewed.

5. Lease Terms. Lease terms shall be month-to-month.

6. Security Deposit. A security deposit in the amount of one months rent shall be obtained. This requirement may be waived or a payment schedule may be arranged on a case by case basis.

7. Notice of Vacan t Units. Notice shall be sent to the Owner as soon as Agent knows a tenant will be vacating the Property.

8. Standard Lease Form. The standard lease form shall contain a detailed description of the types of activ ity which will be cause for im mediate evic tion (e.g., criminal activity, nonpayment of rent) or warnings (e.g., failure to maintain the Property, causing a nuisance in the n eighborhood). Agent shall develop a standard procedure for notifying tenants of defaults under the lease.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 944C7081-CA27-4DB2-B2A6-6419D278DBBF

5.2 Attachment 4 - 2021 Agreement with HIP Housing Affordable Ventures

39 DATE: March 18, 2024

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

FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING A POTENTIAL NOVEMBER 2024
BALLOT MEASURE: THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE “TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT”

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) opposing a potential November 2024 statewide ballot measure: The California Business Roundtable’s (CBRT) Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and find the action exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“CBRT measure”), is an initiative proposed for the November 2024 State Ballot. Sponsored by CBRT, the measure proposes significant new tax and fee limitations on both state and local governments, reversing numerous court decisions, and retroactively voiding any state or local laws, decisions, or administrative actions in conflict with its provisions enacted after January 1, 2022. If passed, the measure would greatly limit the ability of voters and state and local governments to raise revenues to provide government services and fund critical infrastructure projects. The measure would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. The League of California Cities (Cal Cities), along with a broad coalition of local agencies and other partners, strongly oppose this initiative.

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

40 Staff presented this item to the City Council on March 4, 2024. The City Council, by Minute Order No. 1966, directed staff to prepare a Resolution in opposition of the measure.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In 2018, a proposed constitutional initiative, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” was circulated to qualify for the November 2018 Ballot. This initiative was supported by the CBRT and would have significantly impacted local revenue authority. The initiative was withdrawn due to strong opposition from Cal Cities, and other coalition partners. On January 4, 2022, the CBRT filed the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" (Initiative No. 21-0042A1). On February 1, 2023, the Secretary of State certified that Initiative #1935 – a measure that would amend the California Constitution to change the rules for how the state and local governments can impose taxes, fees, and other charges is eligible to appear on the ballot at the November 5, 2024, Statewide General Election.

The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by CBRT. The CBRT is a non-partisan organization comprised of the senior executive leadership of the major employers throughout the state (and considered to be the lobbying arm of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California).

The City of Foster City relies on the use of fees, taxes, and other charges to provide vital core services to the community, including infrastructure and public safety services. The proposed CBRT measure would create detrimental fiscal implications for the City, potentially impacting core services to the community, which would negatively impact the quality of life of Foster City residents and businesses.

For a complete background/analysis, please refer to the March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report (Attachment 2). Upon Council approval, staff will email a copy of the adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

Link to the full text of the ballot initiative: Initiative 21-0042

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

41 California Environmental Quality Act
This proposed action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and, constitutes an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Passage of the CBRT measure would have a significant fiscal impact to the City.

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

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

42 1
8 5
6 RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY OPPOSING A POTENTIAL NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT MEASURE: THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE “TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT” AND FIND THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(b)(3)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is spending tens of millions of dollars to promote a deceptive ballot measure currently eligible for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, which could force residents and taxpayers to pay more to maintain services; and WHEREAS, the measure threatens billions of dollars every year in local government funding for services like fire and emergency response, law enforcement, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and
WHEREAS, the measure is an attack on voters’ rights, containing undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures to fund services, provisions that retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters, and provisions that prevent voters from passing advisory measures that provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure contains intentionally restrictive language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments – costing taxpayers many millions and stopping investments in vital local services; and WHEREAS, the measure would make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure is opposed by hundreds of local governments, teachers, firefighters, working families, and local elected officials.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City hereby opposes the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative No. 21-0042A1) sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) on the grounds that this measure would significantly impact the ability of local communities to adequately fund services.

5.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution

43 1
8 5
6 PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PATRICK SULLIVAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

5.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution

44 DATE: March 4, 2024

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

FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE “TAXPAYER
PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT”

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept a report on the California Business Roundtable’s (CBRT) Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and by Minute Order, direct staff to draft a letter in opposition of the measure and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter and find the action exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“CBRT measure”), is an initiative (Initiative #1935) proposed for the November 2024 State Ballot. Sponsored by CBRT, the measure proposes significant new tax and fee limitations on both state and local governments, reversing numerous court decisions, and retroactively voiding any state or local laws, decisions, or administrative actions in conflict with its provisions enacted after January 1, 2022. If passed, the measure would greatly limit the ability of voters and state and local governments to raise revenues to provide government services and fund critical infrastructure projects. The measure would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) estimates the amount

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

45 of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year, including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local agencies and other partners, strongly oppose this initiative.

Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by State statute and Constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010). The CBRT measure is the most consequential proposal that would further limit the ability of the state and local governments to enact, modify, or expand taxes, assessments, fees, and property-related charges. If passed by voters in 2024, the CBRT measure would put billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with impacts to related core public services. The measure could have significant negative impacts on the City operations and core service delivery.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In 2018, a proposed constitutional initiative, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” was circulated to qualify for the November 2018 Ballot. This initiative was supported by the CBRT and would have significantly impacted local revenue authority. The initiative was withdrawn due to strong opposition from Cal Cities, and other coalition partners. On January 4, 2022, the CBRT filed the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" (Initiative No. 21-0042A1). On February 1, 2023, the Secretary of State certified that initiative #1935 – a measure that would amend the California Constitution to change the rules for how the state and local governments can impose taxes, fees, and other charges is eligible to appear on the ballot at the November 5, 2024, Statewide General Election.

If passed by the voters, key impacts of the initiative would include the following major provisions, among others:

Fees and Charges
▪Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing evidence.”
▪Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

46 Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property. ▪Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.

Taxes
▪Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
▪Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. ▪Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent. ▪Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service)
▪New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. ▪City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. ▪All state taxes require majority voter approval.

Fines and Penalties
▪May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

In September 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom joined the State Legislature and former President pro Tempore of the California State Senate John Burton to file an emergency petition for writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court, asking the court to conduct preelection review of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative #1935) and prevent the measure from being placed on the November 2024 Ballot. The California Supreme Court did grant a hearing to rule on the petition filed by Newsom, and Burton to withhold the CBRT measure from the ballot. The petition makes two legal arguments as to why the measure should not appear on the November 2024 Ballot. First, it argues that the measure is an invalid revision of the State Constitution — which cannot be accomplished by initiative — rather than an amendment, which can. This is because the measure strips the Legislature and the Executive branch of important powers — requiring voter approval of all taxes, and requiring legislative action on all fees, even such things as a fee for a replacement driver’s license. The second claim is that the measure would impair essential governmental powers; here, the power to impose taxes, delegate fee-making procedures to the Executive branch, and for that branch to fully administer financial aspects of government programs. The matter will likely be set for argument in March or April and a decision is likely by the June ballot-printing deadline. While it is uncertain whether the Court

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

47 will agree with the claims made by the plaintiffs, it is a positive development that the case will be deliberated.

As part of the broader CBRT discussion, it is important to note that ACA 13 (Ward) is also appearing on the ballot in November. While two standalone propositions, should ACA 13 pass with a simple 50%+1 majority vote, it would make it incredibly difficult for CBRT to take effect. This is because, the CBRT measure (which only requires a simple 50%+1 majority to pass) would require a two-thirds vote threshold to modify. ACA 13 states that in cases such as this, a ballot measure must secure the vote threshold that the proposition is seeking to raise. In other words, if ACA 13 were to pass, CBRT would not take effect unless it garnered a two-thirds vote. Additionally, ACA 13 permits a local governing body, at any election, to hold an advisory vote concerning any issue of governance for the purpose of allowing voters within the jurisdiction to voice their opinions on the issue.

It also provides that an advisory question is approved only if a majority of the votes cast on the question are in favor, and that the results of the advisory vote are not controlling on the local governing body.

ACA 13 is backed by local government associations, including Cal Cities, and labor organizations and is in response to the CBRT ballot measure. If ACA 13 is approved by voters, it would mark the first time that any state ballot measure would require more than a simple majority vote to be approved. Specifically, state ballot measures that: (1) are initiative measures (the term “initiative” refers exclusively to a proposed law that qualifies for the ballot through the collection of voters’ signatures on an initiative petition); (2) propose to amend the State Constitution; and (3) propose to increase the vote required for voters to approve a state or local ballot measure, would be subject to a voter approval threshold that is greater than a simple majority vote.

Link to the full text of the ballot initiative: Initiative 21-0042

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This proposed action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and, constitutes an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

48 FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report. However, passage of the CBRT measure would put City revenues and future budgets at risk.

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

Attachment 1 - The Taxpayer Protection & Government Accountability Act Economic Development Analysis prepared by CALED
Attachment 2 - ACA 13 Memo prepared by RPPG

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

49 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 1, 04.26.22 The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act1 The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Act),2 is an initiative proposed for the state ballot sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.3 The measure, which is currently “on the street” collecting signatures, proposes significant new tax and fee limitations on both state and local governments, reversing numerous court decisions, and retroactively voiding any state or local laws, decisions, or administrative actions in conflict with its provisions enacted after January 1, 2022. • Text of measure: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/21-0042A1 (Taxes).pdf • Legislative Analyst Fiscal Analysis: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2021-042 • Attorney General’s Title and Summary: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/Title and Summary (21-0042A1).pdf Effects on State laws and regulatory activities: 1) Requires that every levy, charge, or exaction of any kind “imposed” by “state law” which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax or a new or higher “exempt charge,4”must be subject to new and more rigorous approval requirements. 2) Defines “imposed” as to “adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend.” 3) Defines “extend” to “include, but is not limited to, any of the following related to a tax or an exempt charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.” 4) Defines “state law” as including, but not limited to, “any state statute, state regulation, state executive order, state resolution, state ruling, state opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation5 adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government.6 State Taxes: 1) Increases the limitations on the Legislature to enact a new or higher tax. Existing law requires a two-thirds vote in each legislative house and the Governor’s signature. The Act requires state voters to approve all new or higher state taxes by majority vote. 2) Requires any tax (or any future changes to the use of the tax) to be submitted to the voters (either by the Legislature or by voter initiative) to include, both within the text of the measure and in the title and summary and ballot label, the following information: a. Duration of the tax b. Estimate of annual expected revenue c. Legal, binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue can be spent d. If the revenue can be spent for general purposes, the phrase “unrestricted general revenue purposes” must be included in a separate stand-alone section 1 Analysis prepared 4/20/2022 for the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) by Dan Carrigg, Daniel Carrigg Consulting, [email protected] 2 This proposed initiative is referred to as 21-0042A1 by the Attorney General and Legislative Analyst’s Office. The Secretary of State reports that it surpassed 25% of required signatures as of March 16, 2022. 3 The proponents of this measure filed a similar measure in 2018, which included a provision requiring all local taxes to be subject to a two-thirds vote. While the measure secured sufficient signatures to be placed on the ballot, it was ultimately pulled from the ballot by the sponsors as part of a legislative agreement to adopt legislation which imposed a 12-year ban on local taxes on soda. 4 The term “exempt charge” is likely unfamiliar to many. The bottom line with this measure is that it deems everything a tax, unless it falls into one of the categories of “exempt charges,” as defined in this Act. 5 The full breadth of the implications of these terms is difficult to contemplate. 6 Does not include actions taken by UC, CSU or community colleges.

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Taxpayer Protection & Government Accountability Act Economic Development Analysis

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

50 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 2, 04.26.22 State “Exempt Charges:” 3) Shifts all authority for “imposing” enacting and approving new or higher state “exempt charges” (covers fees, levies, exactions and all other charges not deemed “taxes”) from state agencies to the Legislature. Requires these exempt charges to be approved by majority vote approval of both legislative houses and Governor’s signature. 4) Defines “exempt charges” by making various changes to existing definitions in the Constitution that describe various charges that are not considered taxes, as follows: a. Deletes entirely a definition that provides that a tax does not include “a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.7” b. Substantively narrows a second definition in the Constitution that describes a permitted charge imposed for “a specific government service or product provided” directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.” By requiring costs not exceed “actual” rather than “reasonable” costs this measure will reduce revenue and increase costs for documentation.8 c. Requires that a charge for the entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of state property both be “reasonable” and not exceed “actual” costs.9” d. Deletes reference to “other monetary charge” from the exception in the Constitution for fines and penalties imposed by a Court or the State, as a result of a violation of law. Instead, the Act requires that interest for nonpayment of fines and penalties may be collected, and that fines and penalties levied by the state must be via “a state administrative enforcement agency10 pursuant to adjudicatory due process.11” e. Adds two new categories of “exempt charge” to include i. a levy, charge or exaction collected from local units of government, health care providers or health care service plans related to reimbursement rates or payments under the State Medi-Cal Program. ii. a levy, charge or exaction collected for the promotion of California Tourism, under the California Tourism Marketing Act.12 f. Defines “actual cost” as: i. “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged by the government is not used for any other purpose other than reimbursing that cost.” ii. “(ii) the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue, including but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds, received to provide such service or product.”13 7 This deletion represents a major change in the law which previously gave clarity on a Constitutional test to determine the validity of various fees and charges were not “taxes.” It is unclear the full scope of activities the elimination of this general definition could apply to, and will open up new areas for legal disputes. 8 The effect of this change will be to require state agencies to keep a detailed and precise accounting of all costs because any charge cannot exceed the “actual” costs. This is a major change that will spark debates over minute details associated with calculating the cost of a state charge. An identical provision is also applied to local governments. 9 The injection of the term “reasonable” related to charges related to the rental or use of state property could limit amounts that the state can charge companies seeking to drill, mine or otherwise extract resources from state public lands. Opponents allege that this provision would reduce the ability of local governments to collect franchise fees from oil, utility, gas suppliers, cable companies, and other corporations that seek to use public property. 10 It is unclear which “state administrative enforcement agency” is being referred to here. Is this an existing agency, or is there an expectation that a new agency would be created? 11 This “adjudicatory due process” is not defined. Corporations facing fines for violation of law may use disputes over the meaning of this term to delay or attempt to avoid payment. 12 Such targeted exemptions raises the question over what programs or activities are being left out and now considered “taxes.” In addition, under this measure, any new or higher charges from these “exempted” entities would still require legislative approval. 13 Such a detailed definition will not only significantly expand the workload of state agencies to rigorously document and account for every possible penny of costs, it will likely foster a new industry of private accountants and litigators to argue over and contest every item. In some cases, a government service or product could be cancelled to avoid the excessive costs, arguments and litigation associated with attempting to offer it.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

51 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 3, 04.26.22 Increased burden of proof: Increases the legal burden of proof for the state to establish that any levy, charge or exaction is not a tax, from the existing “preponderance of evidence” standard to a higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.14” Under this Act, the state must prove both that the charge is reasonable and does not exceed the actual cost, which is more restrictive than the current standard (which this Act deletes).15 Retroactive repeal: Declares null and void any tax or exempt charge not adopted in compliance with the Act after January 1, 2022, and prior to the effective date of the Act, unless reenacted (consistent with this Act) within 12 months of the effective date of the Act. Poison Pills: Declares that the provisions of this measure should it receive, more affirmative votes shall supersede over any conflicting measure on the same ballot.16 Also, provides for the appointment of special counsel paid for by the state if the Attorney General declines to defend the Act against legal challenges. Effects on Local Government: 1) Expands the existing definition of “local government” to include an elector pursuant to Article II of the California Constitution, the initiative power.17 2) Prohibits an advisory measure (that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will, would, or should be used for a specific purpose) from being placed on the ballot in conjunction for approval of a local general tax. 3) Declares that every levy, charge or exaction imposed by “local law” of any kind is either a “tax” or an “exempt charge.” Defines “tax” to mean every levy, charge or exaction imposed by a local law, that is not an “exempt charge.” 4) Requires any local ”exempt charge” to be imposed or increased by local ordinance.18 Prohibits any “exempt charge” from being imposed by local initiative. 5) Prohibits any (city or county) charter amendments which would impose, extend or increase a tax or an exempt charge from being submitted to or approved by the voters. 6) Prohibits property tax surcharges based on the value of property.19 7) Declares retroactively void any local tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, and before the effective date of the Act, that is not in compliance with it, unless it is reenacted in compliance with this Act within 12 months. 8) Increases the legal burden of proof for the local government to establish that any levy, charge or exaction is not a tax, from the existing “preponderance of evidence” standard to a higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”20 14 Preponderance of the Evidence In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome. Clear and Convincing Evidence This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 15 Current standard being deleted includes the following phrasing: “amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs…and bear a fair and reasonable to the payors…burdens on, or benefits received from the governmental activity.” 16 Specifically references the Housing Affordability and Tax Cut Act of 2022 (which proposed a property tax surcharge) as conflicting with this measure. It is not clear if this measure is collecting signatures; it is not listed, among other proposed initiatives, by the Secretary of State as collecting 25% of needed signatures. 17 This change is designed to counter recent Court decisions, beginning with Upland, which held that the two-thirds vote requirement applicable to local special taxes only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the local legislative body, and not by voter initiative. Under this Act, local voter initiatives would be subject to the same approval thresholds (majority approval for general taxes and two-thirds approval for special taxes) as those placed on the ballot by legislative bodies. 18 This would require all manner of local fees to be imposed by the legislative body, rather than a local city/county department or agency. 19 Clarifies in this limitation that it does not affect taxes levied as part of a community facilities district levied as authorized by statute on December 31, 2021. 20 See footnote #14 on impact of similar changes applied to the state.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

52 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 4, 04.26.22 9) Adds a definition of “local law” into the Constitution described as “including, but not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation, ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.”21 10) Defines, exempt charge as follows: a. Repeals entirely the definition that provides that a tax does not include “a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.22” b. Makes other similar changes and limitations to local government authority (not repeated here for brevity) that are detailed in comment 4, subdivisions (b) through (d), which apply to state activities. See page #2 and 3 of this analysis. c. Adds new categories of “exempt charge” applicable to local government, to include: i. Prohibits any levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles travelled that may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.23 ii. Defines as “exempt charges,” assessments imposed on a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. iii. Defines as an “exempt charge,” a charge imposed for a specific “health care service”24 provided directly to the payor and not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. 11) Uses the same definitions of “Actual cost,” “Extend,” and “Impose” as this Act applies to state activities. See page #1 of this analysis. 12) Requires the ballot labels associated with approval of a local tax must include the type and amount or rate of the tax, its duration and its use. If it is for general purposes, the phrase “for general government use” is required. This Act also prohibits local advisory measures. 13) Requires all proceeds from the taxation of property by the state or local governments to be apportioned according to law to the districts within the county.25 14) Grandfathers non ad-valorem taxes approved by a two-thirds qualified electors for community facilities districts created consistent with statute in effect on December 31, 2021. Comments: 1) Sponsors and Supporters: The sponsors and supporters of this measure which include the California Business Roundtable, California Business Properties Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association offer multiple arguments in favor of this measure in the findings and declarations of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act including the following: a. Californians are overtaxed, paying the nation’s highest income, sales tax, and gasoline tax. Still state lawmakers continue to introduce new tax proposals totaling more than $234 billion in 2021. b. Californians pay billions more in hidden fees, in the price they pay for products, food, services, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenues from fees have more than doubled. c. These fees and taxes are pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. 21 This Act requires all of these actions that are interpreted to be a “tax” or an “exempt charge” to be subject to approval either by the voters (if a tax) or by the legislative body (if an exempt charge). 22 One of the likely impacts of deleting this “general” definition in the Constitution, and then having only a list of specific exemptions (tourism marketing, health care service, etc.) is that any activity that is not specifically listed an ”exempt charge” will be determined to be a tax. 23 This is a major change of benefit to property developers in rural and suburban settings designed to blunt state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through recognizing the relationship between sprawling development patterns without sufficient access to transit and increased reliance on private vehicles. 24 Defined by cross reference to include clinics, out patients, and health facilities as listed in Chapters 1, 1.3 and 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. 25 This is an effort by the proponents to counter prior efforts by the advocates for a split-roll property tax to levy and then distribute a state tax on properties valued over certain amounts.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

53 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 5, 04.26.22 d. California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised, including by approving Propositions 13 (1978), 62 (1986), 218 (1996), and 26 (2010). Contrary to voter’s intent, these measures have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers and the courts, making it necessary to pass another measure to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions. e. Court decisions proposed to be reversed by this measure include: Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v Orange County LAFCO, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir. Supporters Materials: https://naiopsv.org/wp-content/uploads/Taxpayer-Information-Packet-2-24-22.pdf 2) Opponents: An opposition coalition has formed which include the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Jobs, AFSCME, SEIU California, and the CA State Association of Laborers. Key arguments they make against the measure include: a. Gives wealthy corporations a major loophole to avoid paying their fair share, forcing local residents and taxpayers to pay more. b. Allows corporations to dodge enforcement when they violate environmental, health, public safety and other laws, by making it more difficult to issue fines and levies on violators. c. Jeopardizes vital local and state services, and puts billions of dollars used for funding state and local infrastructure and services at risk. Could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services for the homeless, mental health services and more. d. Opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost taxpayers and hurt our communities. e. Undermines voter rights, transparency and vital services, by retroactively canceling measures that were approved by local voters, limiting voter input on advisory measures, and make it more difficult for local and state voters to pass measures to improve local services and infrastructure. Opponents Materials: https://www.calcities.org/detail-pages/news/2022/03/30/opposition-mounts-to-wealthy-corporation-backed-ballot-measure-threatening-voter-rights-and-local-services 3) Reversing Multiple Court Decisions: The intent language in this Act state’s that its intent includes reversing the following CA Supreme Court and CA Appellate decisions decided over the last decade – on topics ranging from plastic bags, Cap and Trade emissions, annexations and cannabis taxes approved by local voters: a. Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017): The CA Supreme Court held that citizen initiatives which proposed a tax could be adopted with a majority vote. b. Chamber of Commerce v Air Resources Board (2017): The CA Supreme Court upheld an appellate decision affirming the ability of the State Air Resources Board to adopt the Cap and Trade emissions reduction program. c. Schmeer v. Los Angeles County (2013): CA 2nd District Court of Appeals upheld a Los Angeles County ordinance banning the sale of plastic bags and authorizing grocers to collect 10-cents per paper bag to offset their costs and encourage use of reusable bags. d. Johnson v County of Mendocino (2018): CA 1st District Court of Appeals upheld a county ordinance imposing a tax on commercial cannabis via majority vote, with an accompanying advisory measure. e. Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v Orange County LAFCO (2012): CA Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by property owners in territory annexed into a city who alleged that they shouldn’t have to pay the same taxes as other city residents without a 2/3rds vote.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

54 California Association for Local Economic Development Pg. 6, 04.26.22 f. Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir (2020): The CA Supreme Court rejected a contention that local water rates and other utility charges could be challenged by referendum.26 4) Disruptive Changes to State and Local Governance: This Act proposes disruptive changes to the powers, authority and process of state and local governments and the people’s power over the initiative. By enacting new legal hurdles, definitions and criteria, these changes will make it more difficult for the state and local agencies to raise revenues, and slow administrative enforcement and regulatory activities. 5) Economic Development Considerations: Economic Development is the creation of wealth from which community benefits are realized. It is more than a jobs program, it’s an investment in growing your economy and enhancing the prosperity and quality of life for all residents. As such, economic development implementation is rooted in maintaining a thriving local economy which also benefits the prosperity and quality of life of residents. Given the multiple provisions in this measure, the sponsors are obviously frustrated by actions of the Legislature, state and local tax levels, regulatory activities, a series of Court decisions, and recent voter actions they disagree with. At the same time, local leaders are elected and accountable to voters, and need to retain the flexibility to govern, which includes raising revenues for services and adopting and enforcing regulations. CALED members should consider whether this measure effectively furthers their community’s economic development goals. ### Some Recent Press Coverage: January 23, Daily Breeze, OP-ED Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: https://www.dailybreeze.com/2022/01/23/the-fight-to-limit-taxation-continues/ February 22, Sacramento Bee https://www.sacbee.com/article258549943.html March 2, LA Times Editorial: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-02/california-taxpayer-protection-and-government-accountability-act March 16, Sacramento Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2022/03/16/california-roundtable-ballot-measure-taxes.html CONTACT: The California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) is the voice of economic development practitioners and stakeholders. With more than 800 members, CALED is one of the largest economic development organizations in the country. We believe that through partnership and collaboration with local economic developers, the state of California can leverage the energy of California’s economic development network to create positive impacts that benefit our businesses and residents. http://caled.org or (916) 448-8252 26 It does not appear that this Act alters this Court decision. There is no mention of the power of referendum in the measure.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

55 1

September 5, 2023

To: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
City of Foster City

From: Dane Hutchings
Managing Director
Renne Public Policy Group

RE: Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 (Ward, 2023): Voting thresholds [As amended on August 17, 2023]

ACA 13 is a proposed constitutional amendment that began moving in the Legislature in mid-August.

This measure is backed by local government associations, including the League of California Cities, and labor organizations and is in response to the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) ballot measure that would be placed on the November, 2024 ballot to require new and stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 13
If passed by the voters, it would require that an initiative measure that increases the voter approval requirement to adopt any state or local measure must receive a proportion of votes in favor of the initiative that is equal to or greater than the highest voter approval requirement imposed by the initiative for the adoption of a state or local measure. For example, if the measure includes a two -thirds vote threshold for future changes, then that enacting ballot measure would need to receive two-thirds of the vote to be approved. Add itionally, ACA 13 permits a local governing body, at any election, to hold an advisory vote concerning any issue of governance for the purpose of allowing voters within the jurisdiction to voice their opinions on the issue. It also provides that an advisory question is approved only if a majority of the votes cast on the question are in favor, and that the results of the advisory vote are not controlling on the local governing body.

Of note, t he provisions of this measure related to the vote requirement f or initiative constitutional amendments apply only to initiatives that seek to make it more difficult for voters to take a specified action by approving a ballot measure. It does not affect the vote requirement for initiative constitutional amendments that seek only to make it harder for a governmental body to approve a specified action by increasing the vote by which that body must approve an action.

The amendment is coauthored by Speaker Robert Rivas and lawmakers are aiming to put t he measure before voters on the March 5, 2024 ballot. Due to being a constitutional amendment and requiring two - thirds of both houses of the Legislature to pass, it is not subject to normal deadlines. I f passed by the Legislature, constitutional amendments do not go to the Governor and instead are referred to the Secretary of State for placement on the ballot. ACA 13 was amended on September 1 and is currently in the Assembly awaiting a Floor vote.

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

56 2

Background + CBRT Ballot Initiative Impacting Local Government Under existing law, any state ballot measure can be approved by a simple majority vote of the electorate, regardless of the changes to state law made by the measure. By contrast, some local ballot measures are subject to higher vote requirements. For instance, a local measure that is placed on the ballot by a local governing body and that proposes a special tax (a tax for which the proceeds will be used for a specifi c purpose) requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

If ACA 13 is approved by voters, it would mark the first time that any state ballot measure would require more than a simple majority vote to be approved. Specifically, state ballot measures that (1) are initiative measures (the term “initiative” refers exclusively to a proposed law that qualifies for the ballot through the collection of voters’ signatures on an initiative petition), (2) propose to amend the state constitution, and (3) propose to increase the vote required for voters to approve a state or local ballot measure, would be subject to a voter approval threshold that is greater than a simple majority vote.

On February 1, 2023, the Secretary of State certified that initiative #1935 (the CB RT ballot measure)—a measure that would amend the California Constitution to change the rules for how the state and local governments can impose taxes, fees, and other charges —is eligible to appear on the ballot at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.

Among other provisions, initiative #1935 requires that any local special tax submitted by citizen initiative be approved by a two -thirds vote of the electorate to take effect, rather than the current majority vote threshold. Recent case law suggests that local special taxes that are proposed by a local initiative measure can be approved by a majority vote of the electorate. By contrast, local special taxes that are placed on the ballot by a local governmental body must be approved by a two -thirds vote of the electorate (this would remain the same under the CBRT proposal).

Additionally, initiative #1935 prohibits an advisory measure from appearing on the same ballot as a local measure that proposes a general tax if the advisory measure would indic ate that the revenue from the general tax will, could, or should be used for a specific purpose.

If ACA 13 were applied to the voter’s consideration of initiative #1935, it appears that initiative #1935 would need to be approved by two -thirds of the vote rs in order to take effect. However, while ACA 13 likely would affect the vote requirement for initiative #1935, its effects are not limited to that initiative.

Rather, the provisions of this measure would apply to any initiative constitutional amendment t hat appears on the ballot in the future and that proposes to increase the vote requirement for a state or local ballot measure.

Below we have provided a list of those registered in support and opposition of the measure as of August 17, 2023, which is the most recent public list available at this time.

Support
Alliance San Diego
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Asian Pacific Environmental Network
California Calls
California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, a Project of Tides Advocacy California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

57 3

California Green New Deal Coalition
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Council of Service Employees International Union California Teachers Association
Catalyst California
Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy City of San Diego
Communities for A New California
Community Coalition
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Courage California
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Innercity Struggle
League of California Cities
Million Voters Project
Oakland Rising
San Francisco Rising
Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education
Working Partnerships USA

Opposition
California Business Roundtable
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

####

5.3 Attachment 2 - March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Staff Report

58 DATE: March 18, 2024
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
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: RECREATION CENTER REBUILD PROJECT (CIP 301-678) –

RECREATION CENTER BOARDWALK AND WATERFRONT

MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the report on the Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan (Master Plan), as part of the Recreation Center Rebuild Project (Project) and provide direction on the preferred option to be incorporated into the City’s Parks Master Plan project that will begin in May 2024.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the Project’s first round of community engagement, the design team including Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (Group 4) and City staff received input from members of the Project Task Force, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Committee and City Council that indicated a strong desire to integrate the new Recreation Center with the Leo J. Ryan Park boardwalk and waterfront along the lagoon frontage. As a result, at the regular City Council meeting on April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution approving contract Amendment No. 1 with Group 4 in the amount not-to-exceed $74,250 to provide boardwalk master planning services for the Project. The work was to be completed during the schematic design phase for the Project and include the development of two conceptual design alternatives.

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

59 The Project Task Force, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee helped to identify a range of waterfront features and activities which were included in the Project’s second community survey to determine the community’s preferences for the Master Plan. Informed by this input, several concepts were developed to show how these features and activities could be integrated into and transform the project site.

These concepts were further developed into preferred elements which are included in the Master Plan.

The Master Plan includes two variations for the City Council to consider which improves the connectivity of the highly used waterfront boardwalk, adds waterfront terraces that promote user engagement and socialization alongside the new Recreation Center, includes a signature southerly terminus and overlook for the popular boardwalk and expanded people-powered watercraft facilities at the boat shed. The Master Plan also includes a variation which further expands the waterfront terraces and further expands facilities at the boat shed and boat launch for both man-powered and electric watercraft.

Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the report on the Master Plan and provide feedback on the preferred options which will be incorporated into the City’s Parks System Master Plan project that will begin in May 2024. Any recommended improvements will be considered and prioritized with other City Park improvements as part of this process.

BACKGROUND
At the City Council regular meeting on November 21, 2022, the City Council awarded an agreement with Group 4 for professional design, bidding, and construction support services for the Project.

On March 2, 2023, Group 4 and City Staff presented to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee joint meeting. During the presentation, Group 4 received feedback on conceptual design layouts and features for the new Recreation Center and site plan. A common theme that developed from input from Planning Commissioners, Parks and Recreation Committee and community members was a desire to include the Leo J. Ryan boardwalk and waterfront in the planning for the new recreation center. There was much interest in connecting both the park and recreation center users with the City’s beautiful waterfront lagoon.

On March 6, 2023, Group 4 presented to the City Council the current conceptual designs and survey results regarding design features and priorities. During the meeting, City Council members directed staff to explore ways to improve the boardwalk area within the project area that would complement the overall Project. This item was listed in Group 4’s original agreement as an optional task that could be performed but was not included in the agreement’s budget.

At the regular City Council meeting on April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution approving Contract Amendment No. 1 with Group 4 in the amount not-to-

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

60 exceed $74,250 to provide boardwalk master planning services for the Project and appropriate the amount of $74,250 from Fund 301 to the existing Project budget 301- 0910-678-4251 to fund the additional services. This work was completed during the schematic design phase for the new recreation center. The project scope for master planning services included the development of two conceptual design alternatives for the City’s review and direction which captures an overall design concept for the waterfront documenting in written and graphic form the layout and character of the project. The concepts were shared with the public during the community engagement phase of the Project. The image below includes a side-by-side rendering of the existing boardwalk waterfront and one with potential expanded use (Image 1).

IMAGE 1 – Sections of Existing Waterfront & Example Idea for Increased Activation Based on the feedback received during the schematic design phase for the Project, the design team identified a range of waterfront features and activities that would take advantage of the Foster City’s unique waterway and Leo J. Ryan Park’s lagoon frontage. Staff and the design team included these waterfront features and activities in the second community survey for the Project to help determine the community’s preferences. The features that received the most support included water events, steps and terraces into the water and natural planted edges. The most desired activities were walking/sitting/overlooking, kayaking, accessing the lagoon by “dipping your toe into the water” and deck lounging. Images 2 and 3 provide a summary of the survey data that was received.

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

61 IMAGE 2
IMAGE 3

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

62 The design team used this input to develop two Recreation Center Waterfront Master Plan concepts that were presented to the Parks and Recreation Committee at their regular meeting on August 1, 2023. The concepts were well received by the committee with committee members providing general feedback. Committee members were enthusiastic about the prospect of completing the continuous waterfront walkway around the lagoon side of the amphitheater stage which would be better for walkers and runners on the boardwalk path and avoid cutting through potential programming.

ANALYSIS
The Master Plan began with an analysis of the current use of the waterfront along the Recreation Center. Current use includes strolling, jogging, and bicycling on the boardwalk and sitting and picnicking overlooking the water. The lagoon is widely used by people enjoying man-powered watercraft such as kayaks, dragon boats, windsurfers, stand up paddle boards, and pedal boats, as well as electric watercraft such as Duffy Boats. Others lagoon users also sail or swim in the lagoon. The lagoon also hosts special events such as Dragon Boat races, Crew Rowing regattas, the Water Lantern Festival, and the Rubber Ducky Race. Some residents along the waterways use Duffy Boats to boat to the Recreation Center and adjacent events, and a portion of the lagoon edge includes cleats for tying up Duffy Boats.

The Master Plan was informed by other waterfront cities both regionally and globally on features and activities that Foster City could take advantage of for its unique waterway and the Leo J. Ryan Park’s lagoon frontage. These include sculptural terraces for sitting and lounging that extend into the water from adjacent walkways, planting interspersed along the paved waterfront edge, sunbathing on waterside decks or sandy terrace "beaches," swimming in pools placed within the waterway, larger docks for more man-powered and electric watercraft, and piers for a more immersive experience of the water. In certain cases, these waterfront activities are supported by adjacent clubhouses or recreation centers. Additional special events include parades of boats with holiday lighting, movie nights facing boaters on the water, and swimming races including triathlons.

Master Plan Concepts
To show how these features and activities could be integrated into and transform the project site, the Master Plan explored several plan and section concepts. Concepts ranged from adding:
1) Floating boat dock
2) Overlook at the terminus of the boardwalk
3) Floating "beach" or pool deck
4) Terracing with seating and vegetation into the Lagoon 5) Marina for Duffy boats

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

63 All the concepts strengthened the well-used and beloved waterfront boardwalk, by completing a continuous multiuse path inland of the amphitheater and completing the continuous waterfront walkway around the lagoon side of the amphitheater stage.

Master Plan Preferred Plan
After presenting the initial concept explorations to the Recreation Center Task Force, Planning Commissioners, Parks & Recreation Committee members and the public, the design team refined the preferred elements into the Master Plan shown in this report (See Attachment 1). The attached slide deck includes images contained in the staff report as well as others that show greater details and perspective. The Master Plan strengthens the connectivity of the well-used and beloved waterfront boardwalk, by completing a continuous multiuse path inland of the amphitheater and completing a continuous dockside path including around the lagoon side of the amphitheater stage.

The Master Plan also adds waterfront terraces for socializing and lingering alongside the Recreation Center, a signature southerly terminus and overlook for the popular boardwalk and expanded people-powered watercraft facilities at the boat shed. In terms of details, the Master Plan increases the length of the waterfront where Duffy boats can be tied up, adds seating and picnic clusters, and upgrades the waterfront lights to more efficient LED lighting. The Master Plan also includes a variation which further expands the waterfront terraces and further expands facilities at the boat shed and boat launch for both man-powered and electric watercraft.

There are two proposed variations to the Master Plan. The first variation includes improved water terraces, a boardwalk overlook, and a boat shed dock. The existing conditions and variation renderings are shown in Images 4-7.

Master Plan – Water Terraces + Boardwalk Overlook + Boat Shed Dock IMAGE 4 – Boardwalk and Waterfront Existing Conditions

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

64 IMAGE 5 – Master Plan: Water Terraces + Boardwalk Overlook + Boat Shed Dock IMAGE 6 – Enlargement: Water Terraces

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

65 IMAGE 7 – Enlargement: Boardwalk Overlook + Boat Shed Dock The second variation includes “grand” water terraces, a boardwalk terminus, and a watercraft dock.

Master Plan Variation – Grand Water Terraces + Boardwalk Terminus + Watercraft Dock
IMAGE 8 – MP Variation: Grand Water Terraces + Boardwalk Terminus + Watercraft Dock

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

66 IMAGE 9 – Enlargement: Grand Water Terraces
IMAGE 10 – Enlargement: Boardwalk Terminus + Watercraft Dock

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

67 Project Budget Estimate
The order of magnitude costs for the concept level budgets for the Master Plan and the two Master Plan variations are $8.7 million and $10.7 million respectively. The project cost captures design, construction, and owner's contingency (but not escalation) for the Master Plan components. The following is a cost estimate breakdown for the four Master Plan components with higher estimates for the Master Plan variation.

Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Budget Estimate
Component MP Variation # 1 MP Variation # 2
Boardwalk Connectivity $ 1,900,000 $ 2,200,000
Water Terraces $ 2,200,000 $ 3,100,000
Overlook Terminus (pier) $ 2,500,000 $ 2,900,000
Boad Shed Dock (floating system) $ 2,100,000 $ 2,500,000 Total $ 8,700,000 $ 10,700,000
CEQA
The action to receive and accept the report for the Master Plan 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the City Council to receive and accept this report. Staff is seeking direction on the City Council’s preferences for the Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan which will help inform the City’s Parks System Master Plan project that will begin in May 2024. Any projects recommended in the Master Plan will be considered and prioritized along with other City Park improvements as part of that process. All parks improvement projects and the necessary funding are subject to City Council approval through the City’s annual budget process.

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

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

68 ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

69 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 SWA
..

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

70 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

CONTENTS Introduction
Public Preferences
Master Plans
• Master Plan
• Master Plan Variation

Reference

CONTENTS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

71 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

During reviews of the concept design for the Recreation Center Rebuild, several City Council members, Planning Commissioners, and Parks & Recreation Committee members discussed wanting to more strongly connect the Recreation Center with the Lagoon -- physically and programmatically -- and further activate Leo J Ryan Park’s waterfront. This master plan, which is the result of those discussions, provides a vision for the 1000 feet of the Leo J Ryan Park waterfront between the amphitheater and boat shed, along the Recreation Center, bocce courts and The Vibe teen center.

The master plan starts by showcasing what currently occurs in the Lagoon along the waterfront, from strolling to dragon boat and crew races to lantern festivals, and then looks regionally and globally at how other cities use and sculpt their waterfronts. In discussion with the Recreation Center Task Force, Planning Commissioners, and Parks & Recreation Committee members, the design team identified a range of waterfront features and activities that would take advantage of Foster City’s unique waterway and Leo J Ryan Park’s lagoon frontage. The City and design team then shared these waterfront features and activities with the public to survey the public’s preferences. The design team then used the public preference survey results to inform and refine initial explorations into a preferred master plan, plus one variation.

The master plan strengthens the connectivity of the well-used and beloved waterfront boardwalk, by completing a continuous multiuse path inland of the amphitheater, and completing a continuous dockside path including around the lagoon side of the amphitheater stage. The master plan also adds waterfront terraces for socializing and lingering alongside the Recreation Center, a signature southerly terminus and overlook for the popular boardwalk, and expanded people-powered watercraft facilities at the boat shed. The master plan variation further expands the waterfront terraces and further expands facilities at the boat shed and boat launch for both people-powered and electric watercraft. The estimated project cost for the Master Plan and Master Plan Variation ranges from 8.7 to 10.3 million dollars.

A reference section at the end of report shows the range of initial explorations.

INTRODUCTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONCEPT A

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

72 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

EXAMPLE IDEA FOR ACTIVATING WATERFRONT

EXISTING WATERFRONT
INTRODUCTION: EXAMPLE OF INITIAL EXPLORATIONS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

73 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

Duffy BoatingKayakingSwimming
Water Lantern Festival Rubber Ducky RaceRowing
Dragon Boat RaceDragon Boat RaceDragon Boat Race
INTRODUCTION: EXISTING WATERFRONT EVENTS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

74 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

INTRODUCTION: INITIAL EXPLORATIONS -- WATERFRONT FEATURES Steps into the WaterBoat DockMarina
Floating IslandWater ActivitiesNatural Edge
Outlook TerraceWaterfront LoungeOpen Water Pool

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

75 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

Dipping Your Toe into the WaterWalking / Sitting / OutlookingWater Movie Theatre Duffy BoatingSailingOpen Water Swimming
KayakingSunbathingDeck Lounging
INTRODUCTION: INITIAL EXPLORATIONS -- WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

76 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

PUBLIC PREFERENCES: WATERFRONT FEATURES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

77 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

PUBLIC PREFERENCES: WATERFRONT FEATURES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

78 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

PUBLIC PREFERENCES: WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

79 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

PUBLIC PREFERENCES: WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

80 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
0 50 100 150
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN: EXISTING CONDITIONS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

81 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
0 50 100 150
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN: PROPOSED RECREATION CENTER

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

82 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
0 50 100 150
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN: PROPOSED BOARDWALK CONNECTIVITY

MULTIUSE PATH

DOCKSIDE PATH

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

83 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
0 50 100 150
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN: WATER TERRACES + BOARDWALK OVERLOOK + BOAT SHED DOCK

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

84 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
0 50 100 150
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN VARIATION: GRAND WATER TERRACES + BOARDWALK TERMINUS + WATERCRAFT DOCK

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

85 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.
0 4 8 12
MASTER PLAN: ENLARGEMENT AT WATER TERRACES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

86 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.
0 4 8 12
MASTER PLAN: ENLARGEMENT AT BOARDWALK OVERLOOK

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

87 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.
0 4 8 12
MASTER PLAN VARIATION: ENLARGEMENT AT GRAND WATER TERRACES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

88 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.
0 4 8 12
MASTER PLAN VARIATION: ENLARGEMENT AT WATERCRAFT DOCK

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

89 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

MASTER PLAN: BOARDWALK SECTIONS
SECTION C: EXISTING
SECTION B: EXISTINGSECTION A: EXISTING
SECTION C: PROPOSED
SECTION B: PROPOSEDSECTION A: PROPOSED

MULTIUSE
PATH

SHIFT DOCK CLEATS

TO EDGE OF LAGOON

ADD MULTIUSE PATH ALONGSIDE

DOCKSIDE PATH

REPLACE POST & CHAIN WITH

BULLRAIL WITH DOCK CLEATS

MULTIUSE
PATH

DOCKSIDE
PATH

DOCKSIDE
PATH
C B
A

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

90 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

BOARDWALK ENHANCEMENTS FLOATING BOAT DOCK FLOATING BOAT DOCK + BOARDWALK OVERLOOK FLOATING POOL DECK + BOARDWALK OUTLOOK FLOATING “BEACH” + MARINA WATER TERRACES + MARINA + NATURE ISLAND REFERENCE: INITIAL EXPLORATIONS -- PLANS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

91 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

REFERENCE: INITIAL EXPLORATIONS -- SECTIONS

FLOATING BOAT DOCK

FLOATING POOL DECK
FLOATING “BEACH”

WATER TERRACES

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

92 RECREATION CENTER WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN: DRAFT
MARCH 2024 GROUP 4 • SWA
.

REFERENCE: SCALE OF PEOPLE POWERED & ELECTRIC WATER USES 0 10 20 30

6.1 Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

93 6.1
Attachment 1 - Recreation Center Boardwalk and Waterfront Master Plan Slide Deck

94 DATE: March 18, 2024

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

FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON ELECTRICAL CAPACITY STUDY

PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSES OF POTENTIAL REACH

CODES ADOPTION

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept an informational report on the Electrical Capacity Study prepared for consideration of potential adoption of local Energy Reach Codes and by Minute Order, provide policy direction to staff regarding Reach Codes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 32 requires the California State Air Resources Board (CARB) to ensure the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030. Residential and commercial buildings are responsible for roughly 25% of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (California Air Resources Board. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000 – 2017, 2019 Edition, California Air Resources Board). Building electrification is a strategy to decarbonize buildings and achieve GHG emission reduction goals.

Every three (3) years the State of California adopts and publishes a set of new construction codes referred to as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Through the code adoption process,

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

95 the California Building Standards Commission selects and approves a set of model codes, including California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Existing Buildings, Fire, Energy, Residential Building, Historical Building, and Green Building Codes. Participating State agencies, such as State Fire Marshal (SFM), Division of the State Architect (DSA), Housing and Community Development (HCD), and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), have an opportunity to amend the code for the occupancy groups under their respective authorities. Without taking any action, the State Model Building Codes become the default codes of the City. Local jurisdictions may choose to adopt local building codes that “reach” above and beyond the State minimums, these are referred to as “Reach Codes”.

With regard to the California Energy Code, a Reach Code can go beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to pave the way for clean air, reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), address climate change, and renewable energy solutions.

Most cities update local building codes including Reach Codes concurrently with state- required adoption of the standards. The most recent code cycle was adopted in 2022 with an effective date of January 1, 2023. The next code cycle will be proposed for adoption in 2024 (draft) with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The most recent code cycle was adopted in 2022 with an effective date of January 1, 2023. The next code cycle will be proposed for adoption in 2025 with an effective date of January 1, 2026.

On August 15, 2022, the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2022-100 authorizing staff to issue an RFP for consultant services for developing and adopting a local Energy Reach Code including performing an electrical capacity study of the City of Foster City, a cost effectiveness study and community engagement. Subsequently, on October 3, 2022, City Council approved an agreement with Integrated Design 360 LLC (ID360) for developing and adopting a local Energy Reach Code including but not limited to performing an electrical capacity study of the City of Foster City, cost effectiveness study, energy savings study and community engagement.

On January 11, 2024, ID360 provided staff with a completed “Electrical Capacity study” as included in the scope of work (see Attachment #1).

BACKGROUND
Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of Reach Codes are cost- effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title

24. Funded by California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) such as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the California Statewide Codes and Standards Program (Statewide Program) provides cost-effectiveness studies for use by local jurisdictions. See link for available cost-effectiveness studies for 2022 building code cycle ( link). For example, 2022 Cost-

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

96 Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction considers traditional detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in various California climate zones (CZs). The City of Foster City is located in climate zone 3.

In the City of Foster City, all electrical services are underground and most electrical service panels are 100 Amp. While reviewing the available cost-effectivenes studies, it was noted that the cost of underground electrical services was not considered within the 2022 Statewide Cost-Effectiveness Studies. Thus, preparation of a local Electrical Capacity study was included in the scope of work for for developing and adopting a local Energy Reach Code.

ANALYSIS
ID360 collaborated with Frontier Energy to prepare an Electrical Capacity Study. To support the City in understanding the feasibility of electrification, Frontier Energy analyzed three (3) components:

1. estimated increase in electricity use from buildings and transportation that must be supported by electric utility infrastructure,

2. potential capacity gaps in existing infrastructure, and

3. the cost-effectiveness of residential building electrification.

The consultant estimated the increase in electricity use that would result from city-wide electrification from existing buildings, new developments, and transportation.

The report concluded that electrification of existing buildings, new building development, and vehicles will add an estimated 228.5 GWh of annual electricity consumption in addition to the existing 204.7 GWh electricity use in 2022, more than doubling current electricity use. For more details, please refer to Attachment 1.

It is important to understand that full electrification of buildings and transportation comes with practical challenges and the report notes substantial challenges for Foster City.

Pages 36 through 38 of Attachment 1 includes a list of conclusions, recommendations, and mitigation strategies. Some of the highlights from the report are as follows:
•The existing electric distribution system will not fully support the future development and electrification of Foster City.
•Even when service upgrades are necessary, it is still cost-effective to electrify single family homes based on the CEC’s societal based long-term system cost (LSC) metric. However, service upgrades present a high first cost to owners and can be a deterrent to equitable decarbonization.
•Bay Meadows Feeder, which is one of the seven PG&E feeders, currently serving portions of neighborhoods 1, 2, 3, PT (Pilgrim Triton), and C (Chess Hatch) as well as portions of San Mateo will not be able to support electrification with its remaining capacity of 0.6 MW.

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

97 The report also includes numerous recommendations and mitigation strategies, most importantly re-engaging with PG&E to coordinate and plan mitigation efforts before loads exceed existing distribution capacities.

Recent Case Law Related to Electrification
On April 17, 2023, the Ninth Circuit filed its decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024) (“CRA”), finding that the City of Berkeley’s Ordinance No. 7672-NS, creating a ban on natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings, is preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), which authorizes the Department of Energy to set energy efficiency standards for consumer appliances.

The Ninth Circuit panel held that the EPCA preempts the Berkeley ordinance. In the decision, the Ninth Circuit panel takes a very expansive reading of the plain text of the EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6297(c)), which states that it is intended to preempt “State regulation[s] concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of [a] covered product.” While Berkeley argued that its ordinance did not directly ban any appliances or specifically regulate their use, and therefore was not an “energy efficiency standard” subject to preemption under the EPCA, the panel found that Berkeley was regulating the “energy use” of gas appliances via a more circuitous route, by prohibiting natural gas piping into new buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless.

As a result of the CRA decision, many jurisdictions that had locally adopted electrification requirements have suspended enforcement to evaluate alternative methods of regulation to avoid any preemption challenges under the EPCA.

For example, some jurisdictions such as San Luis Obispo, San Jose and Santa Cruz have adopted amendments to the California Energy Code that focus on carbon reductions and encourage all-electric construction through different incentives but does not mandate electrification.

For future reach codes, the Statewide team recommended a new approach called the "One Hourly Source Energy Margin" model code that uses source energy as the performance metric. Version 1.0 of the model code recommends compliance margins based on the source energy values for new single-family and multifamily buildings. The model code primarily focuses on building components (e.g., HVAC, hot water heating) and does not encompass site components such as outdoor cooking and fireplaces.

Similarly, the Bay Area Reach Codes Program published a source energy margin model code tailored for jurisdictions located in Climate Zone 3 and Climate Zone 4. The model code addresses new single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential new construction.

The one-margin model code is considered a high-performance ordinance and establishes a single compliance margin for both all-electric and mixed-fuel buildings. The City of San Luis Obispo, the City of Santa Cruz, and the City of San José adopted high-performance

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

98 energy efficiency requirements based on this approach to replace previously adopted all- electric requirements.

Another option that some jurisdictions are considering is the zero emission/zero NOx method of regulation. To date, the only city in the region that has adopted an ordinance establishing this regulation is the Town of Los Altos Hills, which amended its regulations to parallel the definition of all-electric and references with that of zero NOx emission buildings. The Los Altos Hills ordinance requires certain appliances, such as water heaters, space heating and/or space cooling systems, and clothes dryers, upgrades to be “zero NOx emitting equipment” where Zero NOx emitting equipment is defined as “Any equipment or appliance that emits no more than 0.0 nanograms of nitrogen oxides (expressed as NOx) per joule of heat and/or light output.

Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) are currently developing an emissions model code called the “Air Quality Code” which is anticipated to be published in late March 2024.

Further study of both options would need to be undertaken to ensure that the regulations would survive any preemption challenges under the EPCA.

Next Code Cycle
Adoption of California Building Standards Triennial Code is a long process, and 2025 edition is well under its way. The deadline for state agencies to submit the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), CALGreen and National Electrical Code (NEC) changes to CBSC was February 1, 2024. The International Code Council (ICC) related code changes are due May 3, 2024. The proposed code changes include adoption of the 2024 editions of the ICC and IAPMO model codes and the 2023 edition of the NEC. These code changes will result in the 2025 edition of the California Building Standards Code, which will then become effective January 1, 2026.

Policy Direction
Staff would like to note three (3) key points, including:
•The electrical capacity study concluded that the existing electric distribution system will not fully support the future development and electrification of Foster City.
•The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings, and due to this ruling, several cities and counties are currently pausing their Reach Code electrification implementations.
•The next code cycle, 2025 Title 24, Part 6 Standards are set to be released in June 2024, which will include a new set of State minimum regulations.

Staff would like to seek policy direction from the City Council on the following items:

1. If staff should continue to study options for Energy Reach Codes.

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

99 2. If staff should engage with PG&E to discuss the outcome of the study, distribution capacities and necessary resources to meet load growth.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA General Rule Exemption

FISCAL IMPACT
On October 3, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Integrated Design 360 LLC (ID 360) for developing and adopting a local Energy Reach Code in the amount of $127,774 out of which $70,145.20 has been spent so far. There is no additional fiscal impact.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Electrical Capacity Study

6.2 6.2 Staff Report

100

Foster City Electrical Capacity Study

January 11, 2024

PREPARED BY
FRONTIER ENERGY , INC.

AUTHORS
Alea German
Tom Vagts
Claudia Pingatore
Chris White

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
ID360

PREPARED FOR
The City of Foster City

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

101

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3 DeﬁniƟons & Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 3 1 IntroducƟon .......................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 ExisƟng Building Stock ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1.1 ExisƟng ResidenƟal Buildings .................................................................................................. 8

2.1.2 ExisƟng Non-ResidenƟal Buildings ........................................................................................ 10

2.2 New Development ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Biomedical ............................................................................................................................. 11

2.3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs) .................................................................................................. 12

2.4 Phasing of ElectriﬁcaƟon ........................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Capacity Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................ 15

2.6 Cost-EﬀecƟveness of ResidenƟal ElectriﬁcaƟon ........................................................................ 16

2.6.1 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Methodology ........................................................................................... 16

2.6.2 Incremental Costs .................................................................................................................. 17 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.1 ExisƟng Buildings ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 ResidenƟal ............................................................................................................................. 20

3.1.2 Non-ResidenƟal ..................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 New Development ..................................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Zero Emission Vehicles ............................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Capacity Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................ 28

3.5 Cost-EﬀecƟveness & Service Upgrades ...................................................................................... 32

3.5.1 Service Upgrades ................................................................................................................... 35 4 Conclusions & RecommendaƟons....................................................................................................... 36

4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 36

4.2 RecommendaƟons & MiƟgaƟon Strategies ............................................................................... 37 5 References ........................................................................................................................................... 39

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

102

3 | P a g e

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the following organizaƟons for their assistance in the development of this report, including the City of Foster City Community Development Department, the City of Foster City Public Works Department, the Statewide Reach Codes Program (administered by Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company), the PG&E Energy Data Request Program, the NaƟonal Renewable Energy Lab, and the California Energy Commission.

DeﬁniƟons & Acronyms
2022 Scoping Plan – A plan developed by the California Air Resources Board that lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279.

ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit – A secondary dwelling unit with complete independent living faciliƟes for one or more persons.

Assembly Bill 1236 – A bill requiring local jurisdicƟons to approve electric vehicle charging staƟons through a non-discreƟonary administraƟve permit process, unless the charging staƟon would have speciﬁc, adverse impact, supported by substanƟal evidence, on public health or safety.

CEC – California Energy Commission – California’s state energy oﬃce responsible for energy policy and planning. The agency was established by the California Legislature through the Warren-Alquist Act in 1974.

CARE – California Alternate Rates for Energy – A program that oﬀers a 30-35% electric bill discount and a 20% natural gas bill discount for income-qualiﬁed customers.

CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement – The Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) iniƟaƟve presents recommendaƟons to support the California Energy Commission’s eﬀorts to update the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) to include new requirements or to upgrade exisƟng requirements for various technologies. (California Energy Codes and Standards Program).

CBECC – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstraƟng compliance with the California Energy Eﬃciency Standards Circuit Sharing Device – A device that allows two appliances, such as an electric clothes dryer and an electric vehicle charger, to share the same circuit. This can help avoid the need for costly and Ɵme- consuming circuit panel upgrades.

Coeﬃcient of Performance – the raƟo between the useful heaƟng or cooling of a heat pump and the power that is supplied to operate the system. Heat pumps typically operate at COPs greater than 2.

Cost-EﬀecƟveness – The overall value of a measure assessed by combining the cost of the measure and the measure’s energy savings.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

103

4 | P a g e

DCFC – Direct Current Fast Chargers, or Level 3 Chargers – A type of electric vehicle charger available from certain public charging staƟons, oﬀering the fastest available charging rates.

DER – Distributed Energy Resources – Small scale energy generaƟon resources situated behind the customer’s meter such as rooŌop solar panels and baƩery storage systems.

DIDF – DistribuƟon Investment Deferral Framework – An ongoing annual process to idenƟfy, review, and select opportuniƟes for compeƟƟvely sourced distributed energy resources to defer or avoid uƟlity tradiƟonal distribuƟon capital investments.

DMV – California Division of Motor Vehicles
E-ELEC Electricity Tariﬀ – A PG&E residenƟal TOU electricity rate with peak pricing at 4-9 p.m. daily, aimed for homes with heat pump or baƩery systems.

Energy Use Intensity – The amount of energy used per square foot annually. It's calculated by dividing the total energy consumed by the building in a year by the total gross ﬂoor area.

EV – Electric Vehicles – A broad category that includes all vehicles that are fully powered by electricity, usually provided by baƩeries but may also be provided by photovoltaic (solar) cells or a fuel cell. In this report, EV is used interchangeably with ZEV.

EVI-Pro 2 – NREL's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure – ProjecƟon tool which esƟmates how much electric vehicle charging infrastructure is needed in a designated area to meet a given demand. Developed in collaboraƟon with the California Energy Commission, EVI-Pro draws on detailed data about personal vehicle travel paƩerns, EV aƩributes, and charging staƟon characterisƟcs to esƟmate the required quanƟty and type of charging infrastructure.

ExecuƟve Order B-55-18 – LegislaƟon establishing a goal for the State of California to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045.

G-1 Gas Tariﬀ – A PG&E residenƟal gas rate.

GHG – Greenhouse Gas
GWh – GigawaƩ-Hour – One million kilowaƩ-hours of electric power. California's electric uƟliƟes generated a total of about 302,072 gigawaƩ-hours in 2007.

HEEPI – Higher EducaƟon for Environmental Performance Improvement HVAC – HeaƟng, VenƟlaƟon, and Air CondiƟoning
ICA – IntegraƟon Capacity Analysis – A type of analysis that quanƟﬁes the maximum amount of capacity available to a connected distribuƟon system requiring minimal to no distribuƟon upgrades or operaƟonal restricƟons.

Internal Gains – The heat produced by people, lighƟng, and appliances inside a building. In winter, internal gains reduce the heat the HVAC system must supply; in summer, they add to the cooling load.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

104

5 | P a g e

kWh – KilowaƩ Hour – The most commonly-used unit of measure telling the amount of electricity consumed over Ɵme. It means one kilowaƩ of electricity (approximately 3,412 Btus) supplied for one hour. In 1989, a typical California household consumes 534 kWh in an average month.

LCC – Life-Cycle Cost – All costs associated with the deﬁned life cycle of a product, including capital costs, installaƟon costs, operaƟng costs, maintenance costs, and disposal costs. This deﬁniƟon does not include external costs (i.e., those not borne directly by the enƟty that owns and operates a product/service, such as environmental costs to society at large).

LED – Light Emiƫng Diode
Level 2 Chargers – EV chargers that oﬀer higher-rate AC charging than Level 1 chargers. Charging occurs through 240V (in residenƟal applicaƟons) or 208V (in commercial applicaƟons) electrical service, and is common for home, workplace, and public charging.

Load ShiŌing/Management – Steps taken to reduce power demand at peak load Ɵmes or to shiŌ some of it to oﬀ-peak Ɵmes. This may be with reference to peak hours, peak days or peak seasons. The main thing aﬀecƟng electric peaks is air-condiƟoning usage, which is therefore a prime target for load management eﬀorts. Load management may be pursued by persuading consumers to modify behavior or by using equipment that regulates some electric consumpƟon.

LSC – Long-term System Cost – A metric used to determine the dollar value of energy eﬃciency measures in the Energy Code. LSC hourly factors help the state account for long-term beneﬁts associated with policies needed to meet the statewide climate acƟons goals. Today’s energy costs do not adequately account for these long-term values to California’s energy system. LSC hourly factors weigh the long-term value of each hour diﬀerently, where Ɵmes of peak demand are more valuable, and Ɵmes oﬀ-peak demand are less valuable. LSC hourly factors are not uƟlity rates or energy rate forecasts. LSC is not a predicted uƟlity bill. LSC is the proposed primary compliance metric for the 2025 Title 24 code cycle.

MF – MulƟfamily
MW – MegawaƩ – One-thousand kilowaƩs (1,000 kW) or one million (1,000,000) waƩs. One megawaƩ is enough electrical capacity to power 1,000 average California homes. (Assuming a loading factor of 0.5 and an average California home having a 2-kilowaƩ peak capacity.) NREL – NaƟonal Renewable Energy Laboratory
NPV – Net Present Value – A measure used to help decide whether or not to proceed with an investment. Net means that both the costs and beneﬁts of the investment are included. To calculate net present value (NPV), ﬁrst add together all the expected beneﬁts from the investment, now and in the future. Then add together all the expected costs. Then work out what these future beneﬁts and costs are worth now by adjusƟng future cashﬂow using an appropriate discount rate. Then subtract the costs from the beneﬁts. If the NPV is negaƟve, then the investment cannot be jusƟﬁed by the expected returns. If the NPV is posiƟve, it can, although it pays to make comparisons with the NPVs of alternaƟve investment opportuniƟes before going ahead.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

105

6 | P a g e

On-Bill LCC – A customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon esƟmated site energy usage and customer uƟlity bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas uƟlity tariﬀs.

PCE – Peninsula Clean Energy – A community choice aggregator PG&E – Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Company
Process Loads – The load on a building resulƟng from energy consumed in support of a manufacturing, industrial, or commercial process. Process loads do not include energy consumed maintaining comfort and ameniƟes for the occupants of the building (including space condiƟoning for human comfort).

RASS – ResidenƟal Appliance SaturaƟon Survey
Real Discount Rate – Discount or interest rates adjusted for inﬂaƟon.

S-Lab – Safe, Successful and Sustainable Laboratories
SF – Single Family
Statewide Reach Code Team – The California Statewide Investor-Owned UƟliƟes (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program and its key consultants and engaged ciƟes that provide technical support to local governments considering adopƟng a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeƟng local and/or statewide energy eﬃciency and greenhouse gas reducƟon goals.

Team – The FronƟer Energy staﬀ that contributed to this analysis.

Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6 – The California Energy Code; which contains energy conservaƟon standards applicable to most residenƟal and nonresidenƟal buildings throughout California.

Thermal Eﬃciency – The eﬃciency of a heat engine measured by the raƟo of the work done by it to the heat supplied to it.

TDV – Time Dependent ValuaƟon – TDV is the predecessor to LSC used in the 2005 through 2022 Title 24 code cycles as the primary compliance metric.

TOU – Time-Of-Use Rates – The pricing of electricity based on the esƟmated cost of electricity during a parƟcular Ɵme block. Time-of-use rates are usually divided into three or four Ɵme blocks per twenty-four hour period (on-peak, mid-peak, oﬀ-peak and someƟmes super oﬀ-peak) and by seasons of the year (summer and winter). Real-Ɵme pricing diﬀers from TOU rates in that it is based on actual (as opposed to forecasted) prices which may ﬂuctuate many Ɵmes a day and are weather-sensiƟve, rather than varying with a ﬁxed schedule.

TOU-C Electricity Tariﬀ – A PG&E residenƟal TOU electricity rate with peak pricing at 4-9 p.m. daily.

ZEV – Zero-Emission Vehicle – Vehicles which produce no emissions from the on-board source of power (e.g., an electric vehicle). In this report, EV is used interchangeably with ZEV.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

106

7 | P a g e

1 IntroducƟon
As the City of Foster City conƟnues to develop and grow economically, its future focuses on innovaƟon, technology, and sustainable development. The City is commiƩed to being a leader in environmental sustainability and has adopted a local Climate AcƟon Plan. The City is considering the adopƟon of a local energy reach code that would prioriƟze cost-eﬀecƟve building electriﬁcaƟon to achieve broad decarbonizaƟon. However, full electriﬁcaƟon of buildings and transportaƟon comes with pracƟcal challenges. To support the City in understanding the feasibility of this transiƟon, FronƟer Energy analyzed three components: 1) esƟmated increase in electricity use from buildings and transportaƟon that must be supported by electric uƟlity infrastructure, 2) potenƟal capacity gaps in exisƟng infrastructure, and 3) the cost-eﬀecƟveness of residenƟal building electriﬁcaƟon.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

107

8 | P a g e

2 Methodology
This secƟon describes data sources and analysis methodology to esƟmate the increased (or incremental) electricity use that would result from city-wide electriﬁcaƟon for each of the three components analyzed: exisƟng buildings, new development, and transportaƟon.

2.1 Existing Building Stock
To esƟmate the increased electricity due to city-wide electriﬁcaƟon of buildings, energy models were used alongside metered energy use data for gas and electricity throughout the City. Modeling provides details on energy use including hourly proﬁles by end use and city metered data provides a true total of energy use by building type for a parƟcular year. As such, modeling results of natural gas use were calibrated with meter data to piece together a likely scenario of changing electrical loads under a full electriﬁcaƟon scenario.

Building energy modeling involves simulaƟons of various building prototypes with standardized features, layout, and equipment, so that speciﬁc changes can be analyzed in terms of energy use. The soŌware uƟlized in this analysis – CBECC – is approved by the California Energy Commission and is used to inform updates to the state’s building energy codes. SimulaƟon results used in this analysis were based on the analysis of exisƟng buildings performed by the Statewide Reach Code Team.

Modeled data was used to compare energy use of mixed fuel and all-electric buildings for residenƟal (single family and mulƟfamily) and commercial buildings. This simulated energy use data is broken down by all hours of the year, allowing for annual, seasonal, and hourly views of the impacts.

Metered energy use was provided by PG&E for the major customer secƟons for 2019 and 2020. Gas energy use for the two years was within 2%. The 2020 data is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Measured City Annual Energy Use in 2020
Customer
Sector
Measured Annual
Electricity (kWh)
Measured Annual
Natural Gas (Therms)
Gas Energy
Percent of Total
Residential 64,866,649 4,532,418 49.2%
Commercial 138,734,264 4,667,495 50.6%
Industrial 891,803 15,453 0.2%
Agricultural 215,694 5,662 0.1%
Total 204,708,410 9,221,029

2.1.1 ExisƟng ResidenƟal Buildings
The analysis of exisƟng single family and mulƟfamily buildings uƟlized modeling results developed by the Statewide Reach Code Team (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021) (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2022b), speciﬁcally for Climate Zone 3 in which Foster City is located. The analysis included three categories of home vintages: pre-1978, 1978-1991, 1992-2010. Hourly energy use data for the four main gas end-uses among exisƟng residenƟal buildings – water heaƟng, space heaƟng, cooking, and clothes drying – was

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

108

9 | P a g e

averaged across the three home vintages. For the electriﬁcaƟon proﬁles, heat pumps were assumed for water heaƟng and space heaƟng and electric resistance for cooking and clothes drying.

ResulƟng hourly energy use proﬁles were mulƟplied by the number of impacted residenƟal units for an esƟmate of citywide electricity and gas use. The number of housing units was taken from 2020 Census data1 for Foster City as well as the City’s single family parcel data, revealing approximately 6,464 single family units and 7,094 mulƟfamily units for a total of 13,558 housing units. Of these units, the number that would be impacted by electriﬁcaƟon were esƟmated using data from the 2019 ResidenƟal Appliance SaturaƟon Survey (RASS) (DNV, 2022) showing the prevalence of homes in Climate Zone 3 with gas versus electric major appliances. This is shown for single family and mulƟfamily homes in Table 2 and Table 3, respecƟvely.

Table 2: Single Family Appliance Breakdown
Appliance Type
Gas
Appliance
Percentage
# of Homes
with Gas
Appliances
Electric
Appliance
Percentage
# of Homes
with Electric
Appliances
Homes
with no
appliance
Space Heating 85% 5,516 15% 948 -
Water Heating 96% 6,202 4% 262 -
Dryer 38% 2,425 48% 3,128 991
Stove Top 70% 4,493 30% 1,971 -

Table 3: MulƟfamily Appliance Breakdown
Appliance Type
Gas
Appliance
Percentage
# of Units
with Gas
Appliances
Electric
Appliance
Percentage
# of Units
with Electric
Appliances
Units
with no
appliance
Space Heating 56% 3,987 44% 3,107 -
Water Heating 92% 6,494 8% 600 -
Dryer 10% 724 24% 1,687 4,682
Stove Top 41% 2,894 59% 4,200 -

The total esƟmated modeled natural gas use was then compared to 2020 city meter data provided by PG&E for residenƟal buildings (see Table 1). Total gas energy use was then scaled to reasonably align the annual modeled data with annual metered energy use. For buildings with gas appliances, gas use load proﬁles were subsƟtuted with electric load proﬁles for each appliance. The same scaling used in the gas calibraƟon was then applied to determine the total electrical load of the residenƟal building stock if all units were electriﬁed. From this hourly data the increase in annual and seasonal electricity use was esƟmated.

1 Foster City, California - Census Bureau Proﬁle

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

109

10 | P a g e

2.1.2 ExisƟng Non-ResidenƟal Buildings
Analysis of the non-residenƟal sector’s exisƟng building stock focused on commercial buildings, as they make up the vast majority of the City’s non-residenƟal building gas use (see Table 1). Industrial and agricultural buildings were also evaluated, although their combined gas loads represent only 0.3% of total annual gas use citywide.

2.1.2.1 Commercial Buildings
The analysis of exisƟng commercial buildings uƟlized modeling results developed by the Statewide Reach Code Team (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2022a) for Climate Zone 3. Unlike exisƟng residenƟal buildings, there is not as much data qualifying the type and total square footage of non-residenƟal buildings within Foster City’s exisƟng building stock. Foster City parcel data was reviewed, and the large majority of commercial parcels were classiﬁed as “Town Center”, “Service Commercial” and “Civic Center.” In coordinaƟon with the City it was decided to apply two building categories from the reach code work in this analysis – “medium oﬃce” and “stand-alone retail” – to be representaƟve of the citywide gas consumpƟon for the commercial sector. Results from modeled simulaƟons were averaged across three building vintage groups (1980s, 1990s, 2000s), similar to the approach used in the residenƟal analysis.

Space heaƟng and water heaƟng modeled hourly proﬁles were developed for the two building types. For the electriﬁcaƟon proﬁles, heat pumps with electric resistance backup heaƟng were assumed for water heaƟng and space heaƟng.

This methodology generally followed that used for exisƟng residenƟal buildings. However, there were no building counts or total ﬂoor area of commercial buildings so the sum of the gas use for the two building types was compared to the total measured gas use from Table 1 and a scaling factor calculated. This same scaling factor was then mulƟplied by the sum of the associated electricity load proﬁles to esƟmate the total increase in electrical load of non-residenƟal buildings.

2.1.2.2 Industrial and Agricultural Buildings
For industrial and agricultural energy use, modeling results were not available to esƟmate incremental electricity demand. These load types tend to be made up of process loads. Process loads can be more challenging to electrify than space heaƟng or water heaƟng where heat pumps may not always be appropriate. As such, electric resistance technology was assumed for this small load and annual metered gas usage data was simply converted to an electrical demand, accounƟng for 80% thermal eﬃciency of gas combusƟon equipment and an electric constant coeﬃcient of performance of 1.

The use of process loads also assumes negligible variaƟon in hourly demand, therefore this analysis assumed even distribuƟon of electricity demand throughout both the year and the day.

2.2 New Development
Planned developments were documented in Appendix D of Foster City’s Water Capacity Study as part of the Foster City Housing and Safety Elements Updates EIR. These developments include both commercial and residenƟal buildings and are summarized in Table 4.

For occupancies other than biomedical, annual and peak loads were esƟmated based on new construcƟon modeled analysis conducted by the Statewide Reach Code Team for Climate Zone 3 [ (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2022), (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2023), (Statewide Reach Code Team,

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

110

11 | P a g e

2022b)]. Based on the project descripƟon, the closest building category from the reach code studies was selected as described in Table 4. All new buildings were assumed to be all-electric. Hourly energy data from the reach code studies for all-electric buildings was then applied on a square foot basis for commercial buildings and a per dwelling unit basis for residenƟal buildings.

Table 4: Proposed New Development
Development Project Name
Completion
Schedule
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Commercial
Floor Area
(ft2)
Closest Modeling
Category
1001 E. Hillsdale (Parkside Towers) 2025-2030 n/a 317,599 Biomed 1065 E. Hillsdale R&D Conversions (Century
Plaza) 2020-2025 n/a 87,000 Biomed
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus 2030-2035 n/a 745,250 Biomed, Office Biomed Phase 2 2020-2025 n/a 235,000 Biomed, Office
388 Vintage Park 2023 n/a 95,931 Biomed, Office
New Hotel in Metro Center (VISA) 2025-2030 n/a 83,000 Hotel Schooner Bay II Redevelopment 2029 350 n/a Multifamily 15-Acres Project (Foster Square) 2020-2025 397 30,000 Multifamily, Retail Schooner Bay I Redevelopment 2028 408 n/a Hotel
Lantern Cove Apartments Redevelopment 2025-2030 420 n/a Multifamily 2023-2031 Residential Development to Achieve
RHNA 2025-2030 663 n/a Multifamily
Other/Additional Residential Development 2032-2045 1,184 n/a Multifamily, Office Pilgrim Triton Project Completion 2020-2025 805 70,057 Multifamily, Office 1010 Metro Center Blvd (OSH Redevelopment) 2025-2030 111 58,300 Multifamily, Retail Chess/Hatch Drive Offices Project 2025-2030 n/a 800,000 Office 1601 Beach Park Blvd/Sea Island 2020-2025 n/a 3,330 Office Charter Square Demo/Beach Park Elementary
School 2021 n/a 58,479 Office
1065 E. Hillsdale Retail Pavilion (Century Plaza) 2020-2025 n/a 5,200 Retail Other/Additional Non-Residential Growth 2030-2040 n/a 81,000 Biomed, Office, Retail
ADUs for Eaves and Single-Family Homes 2023-2031 56 n/a Single Family

2.2.1 Biomedical
Biomedical buildings were not evaluated as part of the reach code studies. EsƟmaƟng energy use for labs and research faciliƟes is challenging and there are limited exisƟng studies or other resources to inform esƟmates. A study based on audit data published by S-Lab (Safe, Successful and Sustainable Laboratories) iniƟaƟve of HEEPI (Higher EducaƟon for Environmental Performance Improvement) was used to idenƟfy a typical energy use intensity (EUI or energy use per square foot) for labs. The study provided electricity and gas EUIs. The gas EUI was converted to an electric EUI using an average

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

111

12 | P a g e

coeﬃcient of performance from the statewide reach code study for oﬃces. For the biomedical developments where a porƟon of the development was idenƟﬁed as oﬃce, the EUI from the statewide reach code study was applied. The HEEPI report did not provide any details on hourly proﬁles. In the absence of beƩer data, the hourly proﬁle for oﬃce from the statewide reach code study was used.

2.3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs)
The added electrical load from full vehicle electriﬁcaƟon through 2045 (the assumed year of full electriﬁcaƟon, addressed in SecƟon 2.4 Phasing of ElectriﬁcaƟon) depends on the number of zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in Foster City and the amount of electrical energy consumed and replaced each day. Because vehicles are transitory by nature, the load will vary from day to day and place to place. For example, an EV driver might drive 20 miles one day, 180 the next day, and not at all on the third day.

That driver’s daily electricity use for charging will vary wildly. The methodology used to esƟmate this added load marries models developed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the NaƟonal Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and uses the Team’s own forecasts based on a combinaƟon of factors that are described below.

First, a baseline was created for ZEV adopƟon. For this step, two data sources were used: 1) historical data from the California Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)2 which shows the current populaƟon of light- duty vehicles3 registered in Foster City zip codes as of December 31, 2022; and 2) the current populaƟon (individuals and households) in the same zip codes using the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The following steps were applied to this data to project the transiƟon of combusƟon-engine vehicles to zero-emission vehicles by 2045:
 EsƟmate populaƟon growth (individuals and households) using historical growth from the U.S.

Census and Foster City’s projected growth from Foster City’s Housing Element4 report in the General Plan.
 EsƟmate the total number of light-duty vehicles based on historical DMV registraƟon data, new car sales data from the California New Car Dealers AssociaƟon, and projecƟons from the Federal Reserve Bank.
 EsƟmate the percentage of new cars that will be ZEVs each year in alignment with California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulaƟon.5 This regulaƟon requires that all new cars are ZEVs in 2035.

FronƟer Energy created three growth curves: slow, medium, and fast. The medium growth curve assumes that all regulaƟons stay as they are now, and that automakers meet their self-imposed

2 hƩps://data.ca.gov/dataset/vehicle-fuel-type-count-by-zip-code/resource/9aa5b4c5-252c-4d68-b1be-ﬀe19a2f1d26 3 Although DMV data shows about 45 heavy-duty trucks registered in Foster City zip codes, FronƟer’s ﬂeet databases indicate that those registraƟons are business oﬃces and that the trucks park at other locaƟons. Outside of the municipal and Caltrans ﬂeet, the Team’s ﬂeet database found fewer than 10 trucks at Foster City addresses and several of those are registered by MoƟv Power Systems, a manufacturer of EV trucks. Because the number of heavy-duty vehicles is so low, this study did not evaluate their energy use.
4 hƩps://engagefostercity.org/housing-element
5 hƩps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

112

13 | P a g e

deadlines for EV producƟon and cost decreases. Slow growth assumes that one or more of those factors change and fast growth assumes that low-cost EVs are available sooner than currently projected.

All three scenarios assume that all ZEVs will be 100% baƩery electric (no fuel cell electric or plug-in hybrids) 6 and that all ZEVs purchased in early years will remain in Foster City. In other words, when an owner trades in a 2022 ZEV that car will be registered to a diﬀerent Foster City resident. By 2035, the forecast assumes that older model EVs will be replaced with newer model EVs.

Next, daily electricity consumpƟon was esƟmated for the medium-growth scenario. Based on U.S.

Census’ Origin-DesƟnaƟon Data for personally owned vehicles in Foster City zip codes, ZEVs were assumed to drive an average of 27 miles a day and need 0.32 kWh/mile. The assumed kWh/mile accounts for ZEV pickups, SUVs, and vans that are coming to market soon and will be slightly less eﬃcient than lighter-weight ZEV sedans. Using these numbers, each vehicle will need about 8.6 kWh a day to completely recharge.

Finally, daily electric load and load shape were esƟmated using results from EVI-Pro 2, which the CEC uses to project charging staƟon and electricity needs statewide. EVI-Pro 2 assumes that:
 Every car will recharge from empty to full every day.  82% of vehicles will charge at home, with most charging occurring between 12:00 am and 5:00 am.
 Vehicles that travel from outside the area charge at a hotel, workplace, or public charging staƟon.
 Public Level 2 chargers:
o Will have two charging session each day.
o Use 11.2 kW.
 Public DC Fast Chargers (DCFCs):
o Will have 6 to 9 charging sessions each day.
o Use 50 kW.
 Most public charging (Level 2 and DCFC) will be between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm.  UƟliƟes or some other enƟty will manage the charging load, like how smart meters control electricity to homes and businesses.

Regarding the ﬁrst bullet above, today’s EVs have a range of 200 miles or greater and it is very unlikely that every ZEV will have an empty baƩery each Ɵme it charges. Therefore, in consultaƟon with NREL, it was assumed that Foster City ZEVs will charge one third of the Ɵme of the EVI-Pro 2 assumpƟon. CEC and NREL are developing the third version of EVI-Pro that changes this assumpƟon.

In the third step, the number of chargers within Foster City over Ɵme were esƟmated. For this, CEC’s projecƟon of charging staƟons in San Mateo County was used, where 4% were assigned to Foster City based on U.S. Census data showing that the City has about 4% of San Mateo County’s populaƟon and jobs. The resulƟng number of charging staƟons is shown in Table 5.

6 Due to this assumpƟon, this report uses “electric vehicles (EVs)” and “zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs)” interchangeably.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

113

14 | P a g e

Table 5: Projected number of ZEV chargers in Foster City Charger Seƫng Foster City 2030 Foster City 2035
MulƟfamily 324 505
Workplace 297 503
Public 331 583
DCFC 25 50
Total 977 1,641

This approach provided esƟmates for 2030 and 2035. For 2040, the Housing Element report was used to determine populaƟon size and the number of single family and mulƟfamily residences that could support residenƟal charging; this projecƟon was extrapolated to esƟmate the increases in chargers up to 2045. For the 2040 and 2045 load calculaƟons, minimal growth in the numbers of public, workplace, and DCFC was assumed, and an increase in the number of daily charging sessions was also assumed.

Lastly, annual EV electricity use was calculated using EquaƟon 1.

Equation 1

2.4 Phasing of Electrification
In 2019 ExecuƟve Order B-55-18 was signed establishing a goal for the State of California to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. As part of this analysis, 2045 is set as the year for compliance with city-wide electriﬁcaƟon. The esƟmated incremental electricity use that would result from city-wide electriﬁcaƟon was then apporƟoned over the next 20 years.

For exisƟng buildings, this phasing was based on the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 scoping plan to reach carbon neutrality (California Air Resources Board, 2022). The plan idenƟﬁes that of the around 14 million exisƟng homes in California, by 2030 there shall be 3 million all-electric homes, and by 2035 7 million all-electric homes. This trajectory was used to esƟmate the percent of the total addiƟonal electriﬁcaƟon load esƟmated as part of this study that would be expected in 2030 (3 of 14 million homes) and 2035 (7 of 14 million homes). The 2040 target was set as one-third of the way moving from the 2035 target to the 100% 2045 target, assuming that substanƟal electriﬁcaƟon is achieved in the last ﬁve years. The scoping plan does not idenƟfy a similar number of exisƟng commercial buildings to be electriﬁed by 2030 and 2035, but it does establish the same appliance sales goals for both residenƟal and commercial buildings. As such, the same phasing trajectory was used for commercial buildings as can be seen in Table 6.

New development phasing was based on the compleƟon schedule reported in Table 4. Where the compleƟon schedule spans mulƟple years the total esƟmated electricity use was split evenly across

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

114

15 | P a g e

those years. The assumpƟons for EV charging are described above in SecƟon 2.3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs).

Table 6: Assumptions for Phasing of Electrification Through 2045 2030 2035 2040 2045
ExisƟng ResidenƟal Buildings 21% 50% 67% 100%
ExisƟng Commercial Buildings 21% 50% 67% 100%
New Development 77% 95% 98% 100%
Electric Vehicles 19% 51% 66% 100%

2.5 Capacity Gap Analysis
Foster City electricity distribuƟon service is provided by PG&E and served by the Bay Meadows, Belmont and San Mateo substaƟons and the following seven feeders.  Bay Meadows 1108, 1106, 2106, 2105, 2103
 Belmont 1105
 San Mateo 2101
The following PG&E resources were reviewed to evaluate the exisƟng capacity and loading of the feeders. Data accessed from the PG&E resources included rated capacity in MW by feeder, current and projected loading by feeder, Ɵme of year of peak demand and number of customers per feeder by customer type (residenƟal, commercial, industrial, and other).  DistribuƟon Investment Deferral Framework (DIDF) map7  IntegraƟon Capacity Analysis (ICA) tool8
Bay Meadows Feeder 2103 and San Mateo Feeder 2101 are considered conﬁdenƟal and do not show loading on the DIDF map or ICA tool. To esƟmate the loading on these two feeders, the average loading of the other ﬁve feeders as a percent of feeder capacity was calculated and applied to the capacity of the conﬁdenƟal feeders.

ExisƟng esƟmated feeder loads were then extrapolated to future loads from building and transportaƟon electriﬁcaƟon. These projecƟons were based on the customer type distribuƟon per feeder. For example, if a feeder served 35% of the total residenƟal customers, then 35% of the projected residenƟal building load was apporƟoned to that feeder. In this same example, 35% of projected electricity use from residenƟal charging would be applied to the same feeder. For new development, projecƟons were apporƟoned based on their proposed locaƟon in Foster City. If this data was unavailable (for example “Other/Additional Residential Development”), the loads were distributed in the same fashion as for the exisƟng building loads.

7 hƩps://www.pge.com/b2b/distribuƟon-resource-planning/grid-needs-assessment-map.html 8 hƩps://www.pge.com/b2b/distribuƟon-resource-planning/integraƟon-capacity-map.shtml

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

115

16 | P a g e

2.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Residential Electrification
The team leveraged the Statewide Reach Code Team exisƟng and ongoing studies to inform cost- eﬀecƟveness of exisƟng residenƟal building electriﬁcaƟon in Foster City. A report was published in 2021 that studied the cost-eﬀecƟveness of electriﬁcaƟon of space heaƟng and water heaƟng in single family exisƟng homes (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021). The Statewide Reach Codes Team is currently in the process of updaƟng this study; the results were used to inform the custom scenario analyses reﬂected in this report. In addiƟon to electriﬁcaƟon of individual appliances, this analysis also evaluated a complete building electriﬁcaƟon scenario where all gas appliances in the home were converted to electric appliances. The three scenarios are described below, and all replacements are evaluated at the end of the life of the exisƟng equipment, when the equipment is being replaced.

1. Space HeaƟng: Ducted heat pump space heater replacing a tradiƟonal central system (ducted gas furnace and air condiƟoner).

2. Water HeaƟng: Heat pump water heaƟng located in a garage replacing a gas storage tank water heater.

3. Complete Building ElectriﬁcaƟon:
a. Space heaƟng as described above.
b. Water heaƟng as described above.
c. Electric resistance range/oven replacing a gas range/oven. d. Electric resistance clothes dryer replacing a gas clothes dryer.

The complete building electriﬁcaƟon package was evaluated alongside the need for electrical service upgrades. Some electriﬁcaƟon upgrades trigger upgrading a home’s electrical panels either in the case where the exisƟng panel presents a safety concern or has insuﬃcient capacity to support full home electriﬁcaƟon, either based on the total amperage or limited breaker space for new circuits. To analyze the impact of this on cost-eﬀecƟveness, the analysis considered three service upgrade scenarios, described below.

1. No electrical service upgrades are necessary.

2. The electrical panel is upgraded.

2.6.1 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Methodology
Consistent with the Statewide Reach Codes Team’s statewide studies, this analysis applied two diﬀerent metrics to assess cost-eﬀecƟveness of the electriﬁcaƟon scenarios. Both life-cycle cost (LCC) methodologies require esƟmaƟng and quanƟfying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with the electriﬁcaƟon upgrades. The main diﬀerence between the methodologies is the way they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. The two methods are described below.
 UƟlity Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based LCC approach that values energy based upon esƟmated site energy usage and customer uƟlity bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas uƟlity rate schedules and esƟmaƟng impacts over the analysis period accounƟng for discount rate and energy cost inﬂaƟon.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

116

17 | P a g e

 Long-term System Cost (LSC): The California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology (formerly referred to as Time Dependent ValuaƟon (TDV)), which is intended to capture current and long- term societal value or cost of energy use, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand, projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribuƟon impacts. This is the methodology used in evaluaƟng the cost-eﬀecƟveness of upgrades to the Title 24, Part 6 energy code.

Cost-eﬀecƟveness is presented using lifecycle net present value (NPV), represenƟng the cost- eﬀecƟveness of an upgrade measure over a 30-year lifeƟme. This approach discounts future savings and costs at a three percent real discount rate. NPV is calculated as the present value of the beneﬁts minus the present value of the costs over the lifeƟme, as expressed in EquaƟon 2. If the NPV of a measure or package is posiƟve, it is considered cost-eﬀecƟve.

Equation 2
𝑵𝒆𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 = 𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑩𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒕𝒔 − 𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 Analysis was conducted using a 1,665 square foot three-bedroom single family prototype home. The prototype is a single-story with an aƩached two-car garage. Three building vintages were evaluated to determine sensiƟvity of exisƟng building performance on cost-eﬀecƟveness of upgrades: pre-1978, 1978-1991, and 1992-2010. Results in this report are presented for the pre-1978 home to best reﬂect the exisƟng building stock of Foster City.

For further details on the cost-eﬀecƟveness approach see the statewide study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021).

UƟlity bill impacts are calculated based on Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) electricity tariﬀs and PG&E gas tariﬀs. Based on review of the PG&E - PCE San Mateo joint rate comparison9, PCE rates were calculated as $0.01/kWh less than PG&E rates. The exisƟng mixed fuel home was evaluated under the TOU-C electricity tariﬀ. Homes with heat pumps were applied either the TOU-C or the new E-ELEC tariﬀ, whichever resulted in a lower annual uƟlity bill for the customer. The G-1 gas tariﬀ was used for calculaƟng gas costs.

2.6.2 Incremental Costs
Table 7 summarizes the esƟmated incremental costs at Ɵme of replacement for electric appliances based on the scenarios described above. The costs include equipment and labor as well as any electrical work that is required within the building. For example, electric appliances typically require 220-Volt service and costs include running electrical wiring to service the appliance. These costs do not include other electrical service upgrades. Cost-eﬀecƟveness results over the 30-year lifeƟme also include future replacement costs over the 30-year analysis period where applicable.

9 hƩps://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PCE-San-Mateo-Jul-2023-Comparison.pdf

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

117

18 | P a g e

Table 7: Incremental Costs for Single Family Home Electrification Measures Measure First Incremental Cost
Space HeaƟng $1,020
Water HeaƟng $4,497
Range/Oven $475
Clothes Dryer $475

A 2022 PG&E report Service Upgrades for ElectriﬁcaƟon Retroﬁts Study (NV5, Inc, 2022) was used to esƟmate the costs of other electric service upgrades. The study, based on costs reported by electricians, found that electrical panel upgrades costs between $2,000 and $4,500 with an average cost of $2,780.

Service upgrades upstream of the home electrical panel are typically paid for by the uƟlity, but the costs for transformer upgrades may be passed onto the homeowner in certain situaƟons. In cases where the transformer serves a single home the homeowner will be responsible for 100% of the transformer upgrade costs. If the transformer serves two homes, the cost is split evenly between the homes. In all other cases the UƟlity takes on 100% of the upgrade cost. The study reported average costs for transformer upgrades between $6,000 and $8,000. The costs used in this study are summarized in Table

8. Table 8: Incremental Costs for Electric Service Upgrades in Single Family Homes Measure First Incremental Cost
New Panel $2,780
Transformer $7,000

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

118

19 | P a g e

3 Results
ElectriﬁcaƟon of exisƟng buildings, new building development, and vehicles will add an esƟmated 228.5 GWh of annual electricity consumpƟon in addiƟon to the exisƟng 204.7 GWh electricity use in 2022, more than doubling current electricity use. The relaƟve contribuƟon of these groups is shown in Figure

1. Further details on incremental electricity use from these groups, impacts on the City’s exisƟng grid, and cost-eﬀecƟveness of electriﬁcaƟon are discussed in the following secƟons. Results are presented under a full electriﬁcaƟon scenario, which is assumed to occur in 2045 (see SecƟon 2.4 Phasing of ElectriﬁcaƟon).

Figure 1: AddiƟonal Annual Electricity Use in GWh, 2045 Full ElectriﬁcaƟon Scenario

3.1 Existing Buildings
Of the total added (incremental) electrical load, 42% (88.1 GWh) is due to the electriﬁcaƟon of exisƟng residenƟal (single family and mulƟfamily) and non-residenƟal (commercial, industrial, and agricultural) buildings; Figure 2 presents an overview of the contribuƟon of these various building types. Details, including hourly electricity use breakdowns, are provided throughout this secƟon.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

119

20 | P a g e

Figure 2: AddiƟonal Annual Electricity Use in GWh for ExisƟng Buildings, 2045 Full ElectriﬁcaƟon Scenario

3.1.1 ResidenƟal
Added annual electricity use among the residenƟal sector due to conversion from gas appliances in exisƟng building is esƟmated to be 28.7 GWh. 72% (20.7 GWh) of this added load is aƩributed to single family, while 28% (8.0 GWh) is from mulƟfamily. This esƟmate builds from current building condiƟons, including 1) exisƟng housing unit counts, 2) measured energy use in 2020, and 3) an esƟmated penetraƟon of exisƟng electric appliances (that don’t need to be converted from gas to electricity).

Forecasted electricity use for the electriﬁed future is based on combining these exisƟng condiƟons with modeled energy esƟmates (see SecƟon 2.1.1 ExisƟng ResidenƟal Buildings). The esƟmate does not reﬂect potenƟal changes in electricity use over Ɵme, as discussed in SecƟon 4 Conclusions & RecommendaƟons, such as from technology advances and building code updates that improve the eﬃciency and performance of buildings. The breakdown by end-use is shown in Figure 3. Heat pumps were assumed for water heaƟng and space heaƟng electriﬁcaƟon while electric resistance was assumed for cooking and clothes drying electriﬁcaƟon.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

120

21 | P a g e

Figure 3: Annual Incremental Electrical Load by End-Use for Single Family and MulƟfamily Buildings.

Single family space heaƟng is clearly the largest electricity-consuming end-use, followed by water heaƟng for both dwelling types. Space heaƟng for mulƟfamily is substanƟally less due to fewer units, less condiƟoned ﬂoor area and lower loads due to shared walls and higher internal gains as compared to single family homes. Today’s mulƟfamily building stock also has more units with electric space heaƟng, clothes drying, and cooking as compared to single family.

The spread of added electricity loads throughout the year are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. This shows anƟcipated peaks in electricity use where the grid may be most constrained, and thus where load shiŌing eﬀorts would be most valuable. In these ﬁgures, electricity loads are broken down by end use equipment and by hour of the year, where 1 represents midnight on January 1 and 8760 represents 11:00 pm on December 31.

Figure 4 illustrates the seasonal peaks in winter months due to space heaƟng—reversing the current, familiar summer peaks associated with air condiƟoning. While water heaƟng follows a similar seasonal paƩern, the associated electricity use is much lower than space heaƟng. Clothes drying and cooking represent relaƟvely smaller and more consistent loads. Remember that these results show added electrical demands; summer peaks due to air condiƟoning, for example, will sƟll be present.

Hourly electrical loads for mulƟfamily dwelling units (Figure 5) diﬀer from single-family in terms of magnitude, as discussed above, as well as distribuƟon. Due to the signiﬁcantly lower space heaƟng needs, seasonal peaks are drasƟcally reduced, leaving a more even spread of electricity use throughout the year.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

121

22 | P a g e

Figure 4: Single-Family Incremental Electricity Use (kWh) by Hour.

Figure 5: MulƟfamily Incremental Electricity Use (kWh) by Hour.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

122

23 | P a g e

3.1.2 Non-ResidenƟal
ExisƟng non-residenƟal buildings are esƟmated to add 59.4 GWh annually to the grid as a result of electriﬁcaƟon. This is dominated by commercial buildings—esƟmated to use over 99% of the added load, with industrial and agricultural faciliƟes consuming less than 1% combined. This is shown in Figure 6 for oﬃces and Figure 7 for retail buildings. EsƟmated electricity use for commercial buildings uƟlizes basically the same approach as that for residenƟal buildings – the key diﬀerences are that 1) scaling to annual metered energy use was less granular as less data was available for exisƟng commercial buildings, and 2) oﬃce and retail were used as the representaƟve building categories to develop hourly proﬁles.

Analysis of industrial and agricultural buildings uƟlized a much simpler approach, where an assumed constant electricity demand was applied to annual metered energy usage. For more informaƟon on the non-residenƟal methodology, see SecƟon 2.1.2 ExisƟng Non-ResidenƟal Buildings.

Figure 6: Oﬃce Incremental Electricity Use (kWh) by Hour.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

123

24 | P a g e

Figure 7: Retail Incremental Electricity Use (kWh) by Hour.

Like residenƟal buildings, these ﬁgures show winter electricity peaks associated with space heaƟng.

Water heaƟng, on the other hand, is relaƟvely constant unlike residenƟal buildings which typically have larger and more dispersed water heaƟng needs. Of course, commercial buildings other than oﬃces and retail can have various electricity demands not represented here.

3.2 New Development
ResidenƟal and commercial construcƟon projects planned or underway within Foster City are expected to add 67.7 GWh to the grid by the Ɵme of compleƟon, assuming all development is all-electric. Table 9 shows the esƟmated amount that each development project contributes to this total. These esƟmates are not representaƟve of the design for any parƟcular project and are based on modeling of prototype buildings only – speciﬁcally the categories listed in Table 910. However, annual electricity use was informed by project-speciﬁc data as listed in Foster City’s Water Capacity Study including ﬂoor area and/or number of units and development Ɵmespan, which is discussed in SecƟon 2.2 New Development.

10 Biomedical faciliƟes do not have a readily available prototype for modeling, therefore a diﬀerent source was used to esƟmate associated electricity use. See SecƟon 2.2 New Development.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

124

25 | P a g e

Table 9: Annual electricity use of planned new development projects.

Development Project Name Completion Schedule Closest Modeling Category Annual kWh
1001 E. Hillsdale (Parkside
Towers) 2025-2030 Biomed 18,457,222
1065 E. Hillsdale R&D
Conversions (Century Plaza) 2020-2025 Biomed 5,055,993
Gilead Integrated Corporate
Campus 2030-2035 Biomed 11,099,576
Office 893,864
Biomed Phase 2 2020-2025 Biomed 9,559,895
Office 305,879
388 Vintage Park 2023 Biomed 1,393,754
Office 104,054
New Hotel in Metro Center
(VISA) 2025-2030 Hotel 871,956
Schooner Bay II Redevelopment 2029 Multifamily 1,096,103 15-Acres Project (Foster Square) 2020-2025 Multifamily 1,243,294 Retail 137,081
Schooner Bay I Redevelopment 2028 Multifamily 1,277,743 Lantern Cove Apartments
Redevelopment 2025-2030 Multifamily 1,315,323
2023-2031 Residential
Development to Achieve RHNA 2025-2030 Multifamily 2,076,332 Other/Additional Residential
Development 2032-2045 Multifamily 3,707,959
Pilgrim Triton Project
Completion 2020-2025 Multifamily 2,521,036
Office 303,957
1010 Metro Center Blvd (OSH
Redevelopment) 2025-2030 Multifamily 347,621
Retail 266,394
Chess/Hatch Drive Offices
Project 2025-2030 Office 3,470,968
1601 Beach Park Blvd/Sea Island 2020-2025 Office 14,448 Charter Square Demo/Beach
Park Elementary School 2021 Office 253,723
1065 E. Hillsdale Retail Pavilion
(Century Plaza) 2020-2025 Retail 23,761
Other/Additional Non-
Residential Growth 2030-2040
Office 117,145
Biomed 1,569,101
Retail 123,373
ADUs for Eaves and Single-
Family Homes 2023-2031 Single Family 56,183

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

125

26 | P a g e

Because the esƟmated electricity use is based on the best-ﬁƫng model data, the hourly proﬁles of new development projects mostly reﬂect the proﬁles already shown for single-family, mulƟfamily, oﬃces, and retail. This is also the case for the relaƟve load distribuƟon throughout the year; the magnitude of hourly loads, however, will vary based on the total annual electricity use of a given building. Total (instead of building type-speciﬁc) hourly proﬁles for collecƟve new development are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Hourly Electricity Use, Total New Development (kWh)

3.3 Zero Emission Vehicles
ElectriﬁcaƟon of vehicles residing in and traveling through Foster City is expected to add 72.8 GWh annually to the grid by 2045. This accounts for the largest added load due to city-wide electriﬁcaƟon. As discussed in SecƟon 2.3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs), this includes only light-duty vehicles due to the minimal number of heavy-duty vehicles registered to and parked in Foster City locaƟons.

The hourly electricity use proﬁles are averages that are subject to change over Ɵme as more data is collected on EV usage; results for the average charging proﬁle are presented in Figure 9. The distribuƟon of electricity use throughout the day is reﬂecƟve of the assumpƟons used by the EVI-Pro soŌware—with some adjustments by the Team—as discussed in SecƟon 2.3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs). This includes the majority (82%) of vehicles being charged at homes overnight using Level 2 charging staƟons, with most charging between midnight and 5:00am. The remainder of charging will occur during the day (8:00am to 3:00pm) and mostly at public or commercial DC fast chargers. The Team assumes that most resident vehicles will not charge every day (e.g., topping oﬀ), but follow the automakers’ recommendaƟon to charge when the baƩery is between 20 and 40 percent full.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

126

27 | P a g e

Figure 9: ZEV Daily Charging Proﬁle (kWh) in 2045
Reﬁnements to the assumpƟons made by this state-uƟlized soŌware are ongoing. Such reﬁnements include near term adjustments to reﬂect today’s variaƟons in charging pracƟces, such as parƟal instead of full daily baƩery depleƟon. They will surely also include longer term changes to reﬂect increases in baƩery eﬃciency and use of load shiŌing (see SecƟon 4 Conclusions & RecommendaƟons).

Figure 10 presents the addiƟonal electricity use over Ɵme for residenƟal chargers and commercial chargers.

Figure 10: Charging needs over Ɵme for residenƟal versus non-residenƟal charging staƟons.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

127

28 | P a g e

3.4 Capacity Gap Analysis
Figure 11 shows the neighborhoods of Foster City as provided by city staﬀ. Table 10 idenƟﬁes which of the seven feeders providing electrical service to Foster City serve which neighborhoods.

Figure 11: Foster City Neighborhoods

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

128

29 | P a g e

Table 10: Foster City Neighborhoods with PG&E Feeders IdenƟﬁed Neighborhoods Feeders
1 Bay Meadows 1106, 1108
2 Bay Meadows 1106
3 Bay Meadows 1106, 1108
4 Bay Meadows 1108
5 Bay Meadows 1108
6 Bay Meadows 1108, Belmont 1105
7 Belmont 1105
8 Belmont 1105
9 Bay Meadows 1108, Belmont 1105
TC - Town Center Bay Meadows 2106
PT - Pilgrim Triton Bay Meadows 1106
C - Chess Hatch Bay Meadows 1106
L - Lincoln Centre SM 2101, Bay Meadows 2105
VP - Vintage Park Bay Meadows 2105, 2103, San Mateo 2101

Many of the neighborhoods are served by more than one feeder; in fact all but one feeder serves mulƟple neighborhoods. The feeders are also not limited to Foster City. Table 11 shows the number of customers on each feeder. The total number of residenƟal customers exceeds the total number of Foster City residenƟal homes by almost 5,000 homes, indicaƟng that some of those customers are outside the City limits.

Table 11: PG&E Number of ExisƟng Customers by Type per Feeder Substation Feeder Residential Commercial Industrial Other Bay Meadows 2401 1106 5,704 359 156 14
Bay Meadows 2401 2106 570 39 40 6
Bay Meadows 2401 2105 145 30 65 6
Bay Meadows 2401 1108 5,533 133 39 8
Bay Meadows 2401 2103 1,036 58 42 10
Belmont 2403 1105 3,613 132 34 13
San Mateo 2101 2,000 95 41 20

Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 serves the highest number of residenƟal, commercial, and industrial customers of all the feeders. Consequently, this feeder also has the highest load at 9.1 MW and is already using 89% of its capacity raƟng. Table 12 shows the capacity raƟng (MW) of each feeder and the maximum load recorded in 2022.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

129

30 | P a g e

Table 12: PG&E Feeder Capacity and Loading from 2022
Substation Feeder
Feeder
Capacity
Rating MW
2022
Loading
MW
% of
Capacity
Rating
Bay Meadows 2401 1106 10.3 9.1 89%
Bay Meadows 2401 2106 22.2 8.9 40%
Bay Meadows 2401 2105 16.8 6.8 41%
Bay Meadows 2401 1108 10.3 4.8 47%
Bay Meadows 2401 2103 16.8 Confidential
Belmont 2403 1105 10.8 4.8 45%
San Mateo 2101 20.0 Confidential

Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 extends throughout neighborhoods 1, 2, 3, PT (Pilgrim Triton), and C (Chess Hatch) as shown in Figure 12. Figure 13, on the other hand, shows the area outside of Foster City that is served by Feeder 1106.

Figure 12: Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 Shown in Yellow

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

130

31 | P a g e

Figure 13: Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 Shown in Yellow
The expected load increase (MW) from the analysis acƟviƟes described above are summarized by customer type in Table 13 below. The new system peak is expected to occur during winter mornings.

Table 13: New Load ProjecƟons (MW) by Customer Type
New Electrical Load (MW) by Year
Category 2030 2035 2040 2045
Existing Residential Buildings 6 15 19 29
Existing Commercial Buildings 17 40 54 80
Electric Vehicles Residential 5 12 18 30
Electric Vehicles Commercial 1 2 1 1
Electric Vehicles Other 1 2 3 3
Electric Vehicles Industrial 0 1 1 2
New Residential Development 5 6 7 7
New Commercial
Development
4 5 5 5
New Industrial Development 27 35 35 35

The load projecƟons were added to the exisƟng feeder loads from PG&E data and are shown in Table 14.

These load projecƟons overload the exisƟng distribuƟon system by 2030.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

131

32 | P a g e

Table 14: Load ProjecƟons by Feeder
Substation Feeder
Feeder
Capacity
(MW)
2030
Forecast
Load (MW)
2035
Forecast
Load (MW)
2040
Forecast
Load (MW)
2045
Forecast
Load (MW)
Bay Meadows 2401 1106 10 38 58 68 86
Bay Meadows 2401 2106 22 24 29 30 33
Bay Meadows 2401 2105 17 8 9 9 11
Bay Meadows 2401 1108 10 15 24 30 41
Bay Meadows 2401 2103 17 11 14 16 19
Belmont 2403 1105 11 13 21 25 34
San Mateo 2101 20 14 19 22 28
Totals 107 123 174 200 250

This analysis does not consider the eﬀects of solar photovoltaics or other distributed energy resources (DERs) on the grid. The electric grid was designed for power ﬂow in one direcƟon, from transmission to distribuƟon. GeneraƟon plants connect to the transmission system, which delivers power and electricity to distribuƟon grids, which then delivers power and electricity to all end users. The exisƟng control systems that provide grid reliability and safety are designed around this unidirecƟonal setup. While voltage regulators are used to increase voltage for heavily loaded feeders, there is no method for reducing voltages if too many DERs are connected. DER inverters create harmonics, increased feeder voltages, and the potenƟal for reverse power ﬂow. The NaƟonal Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been studying these issues for years and is currently developing new strategies to control distribuƟon systems with a high penetraƟon of DERs.

While DERs can produce signiﬁcant amounts of renewable electricity and reduce reliance on coal, natural gas and nuclear fueled energy sources, they do not help reduce overloading on transmission and distribuƟon systems. In the long term, new control systems may be able to take advantage of these DERs to create a more versaƟle and dynamic electrical grid.

3.5 Cost-Effectiveness & Service Upgrades
The primary objecƟve of this part of the study is to evaluate the cost-eﬀecƟveness of electriﬁcaƟon upgrade measures and packages for exisƟng single-family buildings in Foster City, to support the design of local ordinances, incenƟve programs, or other iniƟaƟves.

Table 15 presents the impacts of electriﬁcaƟon of space heaƟng and water heaƟng individually, alongside a whole house electriﬁcaƟon package that upgrades space heaƟng, water heaƟng, clothes drying, and cooking to electric appliances (“All-Electric”). In all cases converƟng from gas to electric appliances results in an increase in electricity use alongside a decrease in natural gas use. The net overall impact is greenhouse gas emissions savings. UƟlity costs are esƟmated to increase as a result of electriﬁcaƟon, although the increase is lower under CARE rates. The increase is about $170 per

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

132

33 | P a g e

appliance under standard uƟlity rates and about $80 per appliance under CARE rates. Based on LSC all measures are cost-eﬀecƟve over the analysis period with a posiƟve NPV.

In some cases, electriﬁcaƟon will require that the electrical panel be upgraded. This may be due to insuﬃcient capacity to serve the electric appliances at the exisƟng panel, or it may also be triggered for exisƟng panels that pose safety concerns. Panel upgrades will most oŌen be from a 100 Amp panel to a 200 Amp panel. See SecƟon 3.5.1 Service Upgrades for further discussion. Table 16 compares the whole house electriﬁcaƟon package (“All-Electric”) shown in Table 15 with whole house electriﬁcaƟon where the electrical panel needs to be upgraded. While the energy impacts between these two cases are idenƟcal, the costs incurred by the owner are higher in the case where the panel must be replaced. Table 16 shows the impact on LSC cost-eﬀecƟveness of these costs. Even aŌer accounƟng for an average $2,780 cost for a panel upgrade, electriﬁcaƟon conƟnues to be cost-eﬀecƟve based on LSC.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

133

34 | P a g e

Table 15: Savings Impacts and Cost-EﬀecƟveness for ElectriﬁcaƟon Measures Measure
Electricity
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Gas
Savings
(therm/yr)
GHG
Savings
(mtons/yr)
First
Incremental
Cost
LSC
NPV
Standard
Year 1 Utility
Cost
Savings
Standard
On-Bill
NPV
CARE
Year 1
Utility
Cost
Savings
CARE
On-Bill
NPV
Space Heating (2,214) 253 1.1 $1,020 $10,772 ($180) ($2,445) ($53) ($329) Water Heating (1,361) 170 0.9 $4,497 $4,080 ($158) ($7,959) ($61) ($6,249) All-Electric (4,630) 465 2.1 $6,468 $11,988 ($688) ($19,451) ($321) ($12,317)

Table 16: Cost-EﬀecƟveness SensiƟvity with Electrical Service Upgrades Measure
First
Incremental
Cost LSC NPV
All-Electric $6,468 $11,988
All-Electric + Panel Upgrade $9,248 $9,208

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

134

35 | P a g e

3.5.1 Service Upgrades
The 2022 PG&E study on service upgrades (NV5, Inc, 2022) invesƟgated what set of condiƟons is most likely to trigger the need for service upgrades, and it recommended strategies to eliminate the need for upgrades in some cases. Solar photovoltaic installaƟon, EV charger installaƟon, and HVAC upgrades were the top reasons for service upgrades. In homes with exisƟng air condiƟoning, the upgrade to a heat pump may require an addiƟonal circuit for the air handler or may not require any addiƟonal infrastructure. Where air condiƟoning is being added, it’s more likely that a panel upgrade may be triggered.

The 2022 PG&E study idenƟﬁed various opƟons for homes with 100-amp and 150-amp electric service.

Soon aŌer 1965, California code began to require 100-amp electrical service for single family homes.

Therefore, a subset of homes built prior to this will have less than 100-amp service and will likely require service upgrades when undergoing electriﬁcaƟon. Most homes built aŌerwards will have at least 100- amp service. 200-amp service has been required as of the 2019 code. The 2022 PG&E study esƟmated based on US Census data for the California housing stock that 71% of exisƟng homes have at least 100- amp service.

Following is a list of strategies to consider when electrifying homes with a 100-amp panel.  Reduce heaƟng and cooling loads. This provides a mulƟtude of beneﬁts including lower cost of heat pump equipment from reduced capacity, lower uƟlity bills, improved occupant comfort, and improved home resiliency to ride out power outage events. o Simple measures include insulaƟon and air sealing. Other measures include new windows in older homes with single pane windows, replacing aged duct systems, and venƟlaƟon cooling systems such as whole house fans.
 Select appliances with lower amperage and voltage requirements. o Most heat pump water heaters require 240-volt service, but the major manufactures all have developed or are developing 120-volt, 15-amp opƟons. A recent study by New Buildings InsƟtute showed that these products are excellent soluƟons for households with low to medium hot water demands, provided the tanks are appropriately sized and located (New Buildings InsƟtute, 2023).
o Standard split air handlers oŌen require 240-volt service both to the outdoor unit and the indoor air handler. Many variable capacity mini-split heat pumps power the indoor units from the outdoor units, only requiring a single 240-volt service to the outdoor unit.  Where appropriate, select appliances that combine two funcƟons. o Combined ranges require less electrical capacity than separate ovens and cooktops. o Stacked washer and dryers require less electrical capacity than separate appliances.  PrioriƟzed circuit sharing devices for EV charging.
o These devices share circuit across appliances that don’t typically have coincident loads (loads that occur at the same Ɵme), such as EV charging and washing machines.

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

135

36 | P a g e

4 Conclusions & RecommendaƟons

4.1 Conclusions
Following are a set of conclusions from this study.

1. The exisƟng electric distribuƟon system will not fully support the future development and electriﬁcaƟon of Foster City.

2. Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 was the feeder with the highest loading in 2022 at 89%. This feeder serves porƟons of neighborhoods 1, 2, 3, PT (Pilgrim Triton), and C (Chess Hatch) as well as porƟons of San Mateo. 30% of Foster City residenƟal homes are esƟmated to be served by this feeder. ElectriﬁcaƟon of exisƟng homes alone is esƟmated to add 1.8 MW of new load on this feeder, which has only 0.6 MW of capacity remaining.

3. The resultant peak load due to electriﬁcaƟon is expected to occur during winter morning hours due to the addiƟon of electric space heaƟng.

4. The electrical load esƟmates presented in this analysis should be interpreted as a maximum potenƟal for planning purposes. There are many uncertainƟes with developing projecƟons at this scale and the Team erred on the side of over-projecƟon rather than under-projecƟon. The projecƟons don’t consider technology development over Ɵme that is expected to improve system eﬃciency such as for heaƟng equipment and electric vehicles. They also don’t consider load reducƟon measures in exisƟng buildings, load shiŌing opportuniƟes, or the impacts of behind the meter solar and baƩery storage.

5. Behind-the-meter solar photovoltaics or other DERs are not considered as part of the capacity analysis. While these systems have many beneﬁts including reducing reliance on natural gas fueled energy sources with renewal energy, they do not reduce overloading on transmission and distribuƟon systems. When peak loads are non-coincident with solar producƟon, as is the case with a winter morning peak, storage strategies must be introduced to successfully alleviate grid overloading. In the long term, new control systems may be able to take advantage of DERs to create a more versaƟle and dynamic electrical grid.

6. ElectriﬁcaƟon in single family homes is cost-eﬀecƟve based on the California Energy Commission’s societal based long-term system cost (LSC) metric. However, cost-eﬀecƟveness from a customer perspecƟve is driven by the relaƟve cost of natural gas compared to electricity.

UƟlity bills based on today’s tariﬀs are esƟmated to be higher with electric appliances as compared to gas appliances. Over Ɵme, if gas rates increase substanƟally, as some suspect they may, and more electriﬁcaƟon-friendly electric tariﬀs are introduced this may shiŌ making all- electric homes lower cost.

7. Even when service upgrades are necessary, it is sƟll cost-eﬀecƟve to electrify single family homes based on the LSC metric. However, service upgrades present a high ﬁrst cost to owners and can be a deterrent to equitable decarbonizaƟon.

8. With anƟcipated changes in ZEV use and technology, it is ideal to periodically revisit assumpƟons used in terms of grid impacts due to ZEVs. For example:
 Current ZEV drivers tend to ﬁt one demographic: Homeowners that have a driveway or garage for parking (and charging) a car. As ZEVs are to become more widespread, the

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

136

37 | P a g e

number of chargers will likely increase and charging paƩerns may favor day Ɵmes when public chargers are more widely used.
 EV travel mile ranges have substanƟally increased in the last three years and is expected to conƟnue to improve in coming years. Improvements in baƩery eﬃciency are also likely in the future. Both will likely impact future charging duraƟons and Ɵmes.

4.2 Recommendations & Mitigation Strategies
Following are a set of recommendaƟons from this study.

1. The City can use this study as a resource to re-engage with PG&E to coordinate and plan miƟgaƟon eﬀorts before loads exceed exisƟng distribuƟon capaciƟes. PG&E has stated they are commiƩed to adding the necessary resources to meet load growth. This can be accomplished through adding substaƟons, adding feeders, and/or moving lines between feeders to beƩer distribute loads.

2. Bay Meadows Feeder 1106 has the highest loading currently and electriﬁcaƟon in these neighborhoods should be monitored closely. The Team recommends that The City sƟll encourage electriﬁcaƟon in these neighborhoods; however, resource planning with PG&E will need to prioriƟze addressing this feeder.

3. Load shiŌing and load reducƟon programs can miƟgate infrastructure upgrade needs. This eﬀort can leverage exisƟng programs available through PG&E and PCE and the federal Energy Eﬃcient Home Improvement tax credit11. New funding sources may be available in the future as a result of the InﬂaƟon ReducƟon Act12.
o HeaƟng and cooling loads can be reduced with measures such as adding insulaƟon, air sealing, window replacements, duct system upgrades, and whole house fans. This provides a mulƟtude of beneﬁts including lower cost of heat pump equipment from reduced capacity, lower uƟlity bills, improved occupant comfort, and improved home resiliency to ride out power outage events.
o Other building loads such as lighƟng, which can be signiﬁcant in retail and oﬃce buildings, can be reduced through the installaƟon of high eﬃciency light emiƫng diode (LED) lamps.
o Behind the meter baƩery storage systems coupled with solar photovoltaics can miƟgate grid impacts if controlled to minimize imports from the electric grid during peak Ɵmes.

In Foster City, electriﬁcaƟon is expected to impact the grid most during winter mornings due to the addiƟon of electric space heaƟng. To have an eﬀect on infrastructure capacity in the winter, baƩeries would need to be setup to store energy overnight and limit grid imports during the morning hours.
o EducaƟon can help ensure that space heaƟng heat pumps are installed, commissioned, and controlled properly to miƟgate grid impacts and maximize occupant saƟsfacƟon.

The Quality ResidenƟal HVAC Services Program13 is an incenƟve program to train

11 hƩps://www.irs.gov/credits-deducƟons/energy-eﬃcient-home-improvement-credit 12 hƩps://www.energy.gov/scep/home-energy-rebates-programs 13 hƩps://qualityhvac.fronƟerenergy.com/

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

137

38 | P a g e

California contractors in providing quality installaƟon and maintenance while advancing energy-eﬃcient technologies in the residenƟal HVAC industry. Foster City could market this to local contractors to increase the penetraƟon of contractors skilled in heat pump design and installaƟon.
 Heat pumps installed without electric resistance backup and which are controlled to a constant thermostat setpoint during the winter will also help alleviate the winter morning peak load.

4. SecƟon 3.5.1 Service Upgrades provides addiƟonal recommendaƟons regarding service upgrades. Foster City may consider strategies to encourage projects that avoid service upgrades when possible. This may include training, resources, and/or incenƟve programs geared toward contractors.

5. When developing electriﬁcaƟon strategies, consider ways to remove barriers to deploying EV charging staƟons, such as zoning codes and permiƫng pracƟces. Speciﬁcally:
 Many ciƟes and counƟes have exisƟng codes that restrict development of new automoƟve-related businesses, prohibit the renovaƟon or rehabilitaƟon of gas staƟons, and/or restrict development in the right-of-way. Each of these can prohibit a business from adding public charging staƟons as well as development of a charging hub.  California’s AB 1236 requires streamlined permiƫng for residenƟal EV charging staƟon installaƟon, which Foster City has fully adopted and implemented. It’s important to adopt a similar process for commercial charging staƟons and for ﬂeet depots, which may include an exempƟon from condiƟonal use permits for a maximum number of charging staƟons and a method to accept and record PG&E’s engineering analysis, which is a separate process.
 In 2015, California Building Code required that all new construcƟon and major renovaƟons include a level of EV readiness. Since then, state code and local codes have required greater degrees of compliance. However, none of the codes required that either the property owner or the permiƫng authority keep track of the locaƟons that have raceways for EV charging and/or stub outs for EVSEs because these charging locaƟons do not have separate building permits. Reviewing permits issued since 2015 and cataloging the locaƟons of exisƟng infrastructure could speed deployment of charging staƟons and might be a great project for a CivicSpark fellow.14

14 hƩps://civicspark.civicwell.org/fellow/

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

138

39 | P a g e

5 References
California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Retrieved from hƩps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/2022-11/2022-sp.pdf DNV. (2022). RASS SaturaƟon Tables. Retrieved from 2019 California Statewide ResidenƟal Appliance SaturaƟon Study: hƩps://webtools.dnv.com/CA_RASS/
Higher EducaƟon for Environmental Performance Improvement. (2011). Energy ConsumpƟon of University Laboratories: Detailed Results from S-Lab Audits.

NaƟonal Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2023). Highly Resolved ProjecƟons of Passenger Electric Vehicle Charging Loads for the ConƟguous United States. Retrieved from hƩps://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osƟ/83916.pdf
New Buildings InsƟtute. (2023). Plug-In Heat Pump Water Heater Field Study Findings & Market CommercializaƟon RecommendaƟons. Retrieved from hƩps://newbuildings.org/resource/plug- in-heat-pump-water-heater-ﬁeld-study-ﬁndings-market-commercializaƟon-recommendaƟons/ NV5, Inc. (2022). Service Upgrades for ElectriﬁcaƟon Retroﬁts Study Final Report. Sponsored by Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Retrieved from hƩps://pda.energydataweb.com/api/view/2635/Service%20Upgrades%20for%20ElectriﬁcaƟon% 20Retroﬁts%20Study%20FINAL.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Study: ExisƟng Single Family ResidenƟal Building Upgrades. Prepared by FronƟer Energy. Retrieved from hƩps://localenergycodes.com/download/875/ﬁle_path/ﬁeldList/2019%20V2- ResidenƟal%20Retroﬁt%20Cost-eﬀ%20Report-2021-08-27.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2022, September). 2022 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Study: Single Family New ConstrucƟon. Prepared for Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by FronƟer Energy.

Retrieved from
hƩps://localenergycodes.com/download/1240/ﬁle_path/ﬁeldList/2022%20Single%20Family%20 NewCon%20Cost-eﬀ%20Study.docx
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2022a). 2021 Reach Code Cost-EﬀecƟveness Analysis: Non-ResidenƟal AlteraƟons. Prepared by TRC. Retrieved from
hƩps://localenergycodes.com/download/960/ﬁle_path/ﬁeldList/NonresidenƟal%20AlteraƟons% 20Cost-eﬀecƟveness%20Report.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2022b). 2019 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Study: ExisƟng MulƟfamily ResidenƟal Building Upgrades. Prepared by FronƟer Energy. Retrieved from hƩps://localenergycodes.com/download/986/ﬁle_path/ﬁeldList/Low- rise%20MulƟfamily%20Retroﬁts-Cost-eﬀ%20Report.pdf

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

139

40 | P a g e

Statewide Reach Code Team. (2022b). NonresidenƟal New ConstrucƟon Reach Code Cost-eﬀecƟveness Study. Prepared by Avani Goyal, Farhad Farahmand, TRC Companies. Retrieved from California Energy Codes & Standards: hƩps://localenergycodes.com/content/resources Statewide Reach Code Team. (2023). 2022 Cost-EﬀecƟveness Study: MulƟfamily New ConstrucƟon.

Prepared for Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by FronƟer Energy. Retrieved from hƩps://localenergycodes.com/download/1552/ﬁle_path/ﬁeldList/2022%20MulƟfamily%20New Con%20Cost-Eﬀ%20Report.pdf

6.2 Attachment 1 - Electrical Capacity Study

140

5 6
7 DATE: March 18, 2024

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
Cory Call, Police Captain
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation & Police Department
SUBJECT: PILOT PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY-DESIGNED UTILITY BOX ART AND APPROPRIATING $8,220 IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
FROM THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND ACCOUNT NO. 005-
0110-413-4251 TO OFFSET THE COSTS FOR THE PILOT

PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a resolution authorizing a Utility Box Art Pilot Program and appropriating $8,220 in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 from the Community Benefit Fund Account No. 005-0110-413-4251 to offset the costs for the pilot program; and find the Utility Box Art Pilot Program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Utility Box Art Pilot Program is an initiative designed to transform ordinary utility boxes into vibrant, community-driven art installations. The goals for the pilot program are to enhance the aesthetic appeal of outdoor spaces, foster community engagement, and deter vandalism through public art.

In response to the growing incidents of utility box vandalism over the years, the Foster City Police Department and Parks and Recreation staff worked together to develop a

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

141

5 6
7 Utility Box Art Pilot Program in 2023. This program, which was inspired from successful implementations in neighboring cities, aims to combat vandalism while fostering artistic expression. The pilot program involves an artist application and selection process with priority given to artists that live, work, or attend school in Foster City. The artist application review will include a review and recommendation by City staff to the City Council Community Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee with final approval by the entire City Council. As part of staff’s recommendation, staff will seek input from the Parks and Recreation Citizen Advisory Committee before finalizing the recommendation to the Community Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The pilot program recommends both painting and vinyl wrapping of artwork to utility boxes for variety and versatility. Following the conclusion of the pilot program, city staff and program partners will conduct a comprehensive review to assess its overall value and determine its potential sustainability in the future.

Staff is seeking the City Council’s approval to move forward with the Utility Box Art Pilot Program and consider adopting a resolution approving the appropriation of $8,220 in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 from the Community Benefit Fund Account No. 005-0110-413- 4251 to offset the costs for the program’s materials and supplies. The remaining funds for the project will come from the Foster City Foundation-Art and Culture Fund in the amount of $5,485. These funds came from donations received earmarked for arts and cultural programs.

BACKGROUND
Foster City Police Department (FCPD) staff attended a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) training which focused on vandalism prevention strategies which include the application of artwork to commonly vandalized property such as utility boxes which are in the public right of way and vastly disbursed throughout the city. In addition to the applied artwork as a crime deterrent measure, most communities experience an added sense of community pride and find the artwork adds beauty and vibrancy to their community.

Utility boxes are known to be frequent targets of vandalism. Vandalism to utility boxes includes the use of markers or paint to place unwanted messages and images to the utility boxes. Once the vandalism is reported to FCPD, an officer will create a crime report and will investigate the vandalism to identify the person(s) responsible. City maintenance staff must then remove or paint over the graffiti which is at a significant expense to the City in the form of labor costs, materials, services, as well as impacts to other City services when staff are pulled away from their other duties and responsibilities. This is in addition to the harmful aesthetic impacts to the community from blight.

The FCPD tracks incidents of vandalism throughout the City and notably during the

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

142

5 6
7 pandemic, vandalism to City-owned utility boxes decreased significantly. As the community came out of the pandemic, rates of vandalism to City-owned utility boxes quickly increased. The following information represents the number of City-owned utility boxes reported to the FCPD as being vandalized, which includes traffic signal utility boxes as well as utility boxes located within neighborhoods/parks:
•2020 – 1 utility box
•2021 – 3 utility boxes
•2022 – 18 utility boxes
•2023 – 12 utility boxes
•2024 – 12 utility boxes (to date)

As noted above, there have been 12 reports of vandalism to City utility boxes to date.

This number is only anticipated to increase by the end of the year. Some of the vandalized boxes were located within parks while others were along roadways. In addition, a couple of AT&T and PG&E boxes were also vandalized. Note that AT&T and PG&E boxes are not included in the pilot program as these are privately owned.

To address the vandalism as well as to promote City beautification and civic pride, staff from both the FCPD and the Parks and Recreation Department began meeting last year to develop a Utility Box Art Pilot Program for the City similar to programs that are common in the neighboring cities of Belmont, Redwood City, Santa Clara, Los Gatos and more. In addition, the pilot program was presented at the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting twice in 2023. One meeting was a general overview of the program, and the other focused on the proposed pilot program. The Committee members were supportive of the pilot program being implemented in Foster City.

ANALYSIS
Many cities/towns/counties have implemented public arts programs, including utility box art programs, with at least one goal of the program being to deter unsightly graffiti.

Two cities that have implemented successful utility box art programs to address high rates of vandalism to utility boxes include Hayward and Redwood City. Each agency reported over a 90% reduction in vandalisms to specific utility boxes that were adorned with artwork. A common theory explaining the decrease in vandalism to objects after having artwork applied is that many people find it more difficult to deface an artist’s artwork, and that some graffiti intended to be seen clearly, may be subdued by the artwork.

The proposed pilot program will be evaluated based on its continued feasibility, the program’s effectiveness in reducing vandalism to utility boxes, and resident feedback on the program’s promotion of City beautification and civic pride. Once the pilot program has completed, staff will return to the City Council with a progress report and if successful, a request to make the Program a permanent offering.

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

143

5 6
7 Utility Box Art Program Goals
•Beautification & Vibrancy – Transform plain utility boxes into unique works of art, creating a more vibrant, beautiful streetscape and contributing to the unique character of Foster City.
•Community Pride – Artwork supplied by community artists will function as a form of visual expression to a moving audience with the goal of demonstrating a safe, diverse, equitable, and inclusive urban environment, and will further enhance the culture of Foster City.
•Crime Reduction – Employing a CPTED tactic aimed at decreasing and deterring vandalism, the application of artwork to utility boxes is expected to deter rates of vandalism to the treated utility boxes.

Included Utility Boxes
Only utility boxes owned by the City will be included in the program. It’s recommended that only traffic signal utility boxes be included in the pilot program for now. Utility boxes located in neighborhoods and in parks may be considered in the future if the program is adopted as a permanent program by the Council and expanded beyond traffic signal utility boxes.

Traffic signal utility boxes are recommended for the pilot program due to their placement in high-visibility areas as compared to utility boxes located in the neighborhoods and parks. Maximizing the number of citizens who are able to view the utility boxes will allow the City to maximize community input as the Program is evaluated and considered as a permanent program.

Four (4) utility box locations have been identified and are recommended for inclusion in the pilot program. The City has a current Traffic Signal System Upgrade CIP project (CIP 301-698) planned and the Project accounts for this CIP which will result in many of the City’s traffic signal utility boxes being replaced due to age in the next couple of years. The utility boxes recommended for the pilot program are newer and will not be impacted by the CIP project.

The recommended traffic signal utility boxes are located at these locations (photos are included in Attachment 2):
•E. Hillsdale Blvd. @ Gull Ave.
•Metro Center Blvd. @ Edgewater Blvd.
•Foster City Blvd. @ Polynesia Dr.
•Edgewater Blvd. @ Port Royal Ave. (north end)
The project will encompass select PG&E service pedestal utility boxes, which are owned by the City and will be included in the scope of work. These utility boxes accompany the standard traffic signal utility boxes and are typically the narrower and

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

144

5 6
7 taller of the two utility boxes.

Application of Artwork
Paint and vinyl wrap are the two most common methods for application of art to utility boxes. For the pilot program, it’s recommended that both application methods be utilized; two utility box locations will have artwork painted onto the boxes and two will have artwork applied to the boxes using vinyl wrap.

Having a utility box painted will involve an artist(s) applying approved artwork to a utility box using acrylic paints. Time needed to complete a utility box painting is dependent on various factors, such as intricacy of the artwork, availability of the artist(s) to work on the project, and completion deadlines set by the City. Cities with similar programs report that the average utility box painting takes between 2-4 weeks. The artist(s) would be responsible for any required surface preparation.

Applying artwork using vinyl wrap involves approved artwork in the form of digital images sent to a vendor who will print the images onto vinyl. The vendor will apply the vinyl wrap to the utility box, which typically takes 1-3 hours per utility box. As part of the service, the vendor completes all work necessary to complete the project, including surface preparation and all required measuring, to ensure printed vinyl sections are sized correctly for each specific utility box.

The application of acrylic paint and vinyl wrap are expected to have a useful life of 5+ years. For every painted and vinyl wrapped utility box, the City will be responsible for applying an anti-graffiti clear coat which is expected to extend the life of the application, as well as for ease of cleaning and removal of graffiti.

Artwork Information
The artwork selected for the program should enhance the surrounding area, transforming the street, and reflecting the neighborhood or area where the utility box is located. The artwork should be visible from a distance; therefore, bold colors and designs will be recommended, unless designed to blend in with a backdrop. Artists may submit more than one concept for the same location.

Artist & Artwork Eligibility
All adults and youth will be invited to apply; however, priority will be given to artists that live, work, or attend school in Foster City. Artists may enlist assistants or art instructors to help them complete the project. All entries must be of an original design and artwork from the applicant and must be suitable for viewing by people of all ages and backgrounds.

Selection Criteria

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

145

5 6
7 •Artist’s experience and ability to complete the project within a provided time frame
•Creativity and originality of the proposed artwork
•Adherence to the goal of adding beauty and vibrancy to Foster City •Artwork that relates to the utility box location
•Artwork that emphasizes the City’s unique characteristics, history, cultural demographics, or key activities unique to the community Artist Rights
All artists selected to have their artwork applied to a utility box will be required to sign an agreement releasing all rights to the artwork to the City. Specifically, the agreement will include a waiver of all artists rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C §§106A and 113(d) ("VARA"), the California Art Preservation Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 987 and 989 ("CAPA"). Through this agreement, the City can remove, replace, or modify the artwork at their discretion. The City would also be authorized to use the artwork for any City purposes, such as for advertising and publicity purposes.

Artist Stipend
A stipend will be paid to the artist(s) by the City. The stipend paid for painted utility boxes will be more than is paid for vinyl wrapped utility boxes due to the difference in labor that is required of each artist.

For a standard sized traffic signal utility box, a stipend of $500 will be paid for each painted utility box and $300 for each vinyl wrapped utility box. One stipend will be paid for each utility box, regardless of the number of artists involved in a project. If a PG&E service pedestal utility box is included in a project, a stipend of $300 will be paid for each painted utility box and $100 for each vinyl wrapped utility box.

Stipends and costs associated with the Utility Box Art Pilot Program are subject to available funding and to City Council approval as part of the City’s annual budget process.

Utility Box Art Review Process
The pilot program involves an artist application and selection process with priority given to artists that live, work, or attend school in Foster City. The artist application review will include a review and recommendation by a committee made up of City staff to the City Council Community Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee with final approval by the entire City Council. As part of the staff’s recommendation, staff will seek input from the Parks and Recreation Citizen Advisory Committee before finalizing the recommendation to the City Council. The staff review committee will include staff from the Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Police Departments.

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

146

5 6
7 Pilot Program Process
•Identify utility boxes to be included in the pilot program. •Call for Local Artists – A public notice will be released announcing the pilot program to the community. The community will be provided with all information needed to submit their artwork for consideration.
•Application Process – Interested artists will submit their artwork for consideration. All required steps in the application process will be clearly provided in the Call for Local Artists document.
•Artist Selection Process – Process and selection criteria is detailed in the Call for Local Artists document. Selection process:
oReview of the application package by staff review committee oReview and input by the Parks and Recreation Committee oRecommendation to the City Council Community Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee
oFinal approval by the City Council
•Selected artists will sign all required waivers and agreements. •Artists will attend an orientation meeting.
•Paint – Artists painting their artwork will begin work and have their mural completed by the date indicated in the agreement.
•Vinyl Wrap – Artists submitting artwork to be transferred onto a vinyl wrap will submit their work to the selected vendor with all specifications provided in the Call for Local Artists document being met. The vendor will print and complete the artwork application process by the date indicated in the agreement (artist will not be held responsible for vendor delays)
•Inspection of the final product will be completed by City staff and the Public Arts Committee for quality assurance.
•City staff will apply an anti-graffiti clear coat to all approved artwork. •The pilot program will be evaluated with input from City staff and the Parks and Recreation Committee. A recommendation will be presented to the City Council Community Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee and ultimately the City Council for their review and acceptance prior to recommending adoption of a permanent program.

California Environmental Quality Act
This pilot program 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 and if a “project,” is exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment.

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

147

5 6
7 FISCAL IMPACT
The below table provides a summary of the anticipated costs for materials and supplies to fund the pilot Utility Box Art Program.

Table 1: Estimated Expenditures for Four Utility Boxes
Artist Stipend for Painted Standard Boxes ($500 each- Qty 2) $1,000 Artist Stipend for Painted Pedestal Boxes ($300 each- Qty 2) $600 Artist Stipend for Vinyl Standard Boxes ($300 each- Qty 3) $900 Artist Stipend for Vinyl Pedestal Boxes ($100 each- Qty 1) $100 Estimate for Costs of Vinyl Wrapping ($2776.25 each - Qty 4)* $11,105 Estimate for Costs of paint and other materials and supplies Total Expenditures for Pilot Program $13,705
Foster City Foundation-Art and Culture Fund ($5,485)
Remaining Balance Needed to Fund Program $8,220
If approved, funding of $8,220 would be appropriated from the Community Benefit Fund to go towards the Utility Box Pilot Art Program.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Innovation

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

7.1 7.1 Staff Report

148

1 8
0 1
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY-DESIGNED UTILITY BOX ART AND APPROPRIATING $8,220 IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FROM THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND ACCOUNT NO. 005-0110-413-4251 TO OFFSET THE COSTS FOR

THE PILOT PROGRAM

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, City utility boxes are frequent targets of vandalism and graffiti, with vandalism increasing significantly post-pandemic; and
WHEREAS, City maintenance staff must then remove or paint over the graffiti which is at a significant expense to the City in the form of labor costs, materials, and services in addition to the harmful impacts to the community from blight; and WHEREAS, In an effort to address the vandalism as well as to promote City beautification and civic pride, the FCPD and the Parks and Recreation Department would like to initiate a Utility Box Art Program for the City similar to programs that are common in the neighboring cities; and
WHEREAS, Staff requests City Council consider granting authorization to initiate a Pilot Program for Community-Designed Utility Box Art; and WHEREAS, City Council authorize an appropriation of $8,220 in Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 from the Community Benefit Fund Account No. 005-0110-413-4251 to offset the costs for a Utility Box Art Pilot Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby authorize a Pilot Program for Community-Designed Utility Box Art and approves appropriating $8,220 in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 from the Community Benefit Fund Account No. 005-0110-413-4251 to offset the costs for a Utility Box Art Pilot Program.

7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution

149

1 8
0 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PATRICK SULLIVAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution

150

City of Foster City Parks and RecreationUtility Box Art Program Pilot Program InformationPurpose of the Pilot Program Enter into a Utility Box Art Pilot Program for the purpose of achieving the stated goals of the program, as well as assessing the long-term feasibility of the program if continued beyond the pilot stage. Included in the pilot assessment would be goal achievement, fiscal sustainability, impacts on staff, community response, and efficiency of overall program process. Pilot Program Utility Box Locations and InformationProposed utility box locations, subject to City Council approval:oPort Royal Ave. @ Edgewater Blvd. (north end) – 2 boxes (standard & service pedestal)To Be Painted oE. Hillsdale Blvd. @ Gull Ave. – 2 boxes (standard and service pedestal) To Be Painted

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

151

oMetro Center Blvd. @ Edgewater Blvd. – 2 standard boxesTo Be Vinyl Wrapped o Foster City Blvd. @ Polynesia Dr. – 2 boxes (standard and service pedestal) To Be Vinyl Wrapped Considerations when selecting the proposed locations include: Included utility boxes are spread throughout the city for optimal exposure The locations of the utility boxes identified for painting were selected based on the following: o The locations are not in high vehicular traffic areas as compared to the additional two utility box locations. Lesser risk may be involved by vehicular traffic during extended site work. o The impacts of an artist impeding pedestrian traffic along a sidewalk may be more reasonable when compared to the impacts in the alternate locations. Painting will require an artist to be on-scene to complete the work for long periods of time; pedestrians may need to walk around the artist and work materials. The locations of the utility boxes identified for vinyl wrapping were selected based on the following: o The locations are in high vehicular traffic areas as compared to the additional two utility box locations. A fabricator can apply a vinyl wrap to a utility box in approximately 1-2 hours as compared to a painter spending far more time on-scene to complete the work. Decreasing time spent on-scene to apply the art decreases risk from vehicular traffic.

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

152

oA fabricator will impede pedestrian traffic along applicable sidewalks for far less time than an artist painting a utility box. The utility boxes selected for vinyl wrapping are in high vehicular traffic areas where limiting the need for pedestrians to walk around the work area is preferred. Application of Artwork It is proposed that artists paint their artwork at two utility box locations and the additional two utility box locations have artists’ artwork applied using a vinyl wrap. The purpose of incorporating examples of each application method is to understand the following:The visual results of each method. Colors, textures, and levels of detail may vary between the application methodsThe overall required process for each method. From the selection of utility boxes to be included in the program, through the completion of the projects, every aspect of the program will be assessed Fiscal impacts of each methodLevels of interest and participation from local artists. Providing opportunity for artists to participate using either method of applying their artwork may increase the pool ofinterested artists as compared to offering only one method. Overall interest and participation specific to each application method will be assessed Community response to each application method Fiscal Considerations City expenditures include set stipend amounts for the artist. For vinyl wrapped utility boxes, the City will also pay a fabricator for the production and installation of the vinyl wrap. The City may also factor Staff compensation into program considerations. Taken into consideration when setting the proposed artist stipends were the materials and labor necessary to complete the work. Also considered were the stipends being paid by other Bay Area cities/towns; the proposed stipend amounts are similar to other Bay Area programs.Proposed Artist Stipends Paint o $500 per standard utility boxo $300 per service pedestal box (only completed in addition to standard utility box) Vinyl Wrap o $300 per standard utility boxo $100 per service pedestal box (only completed in addition to standard utility box)

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

153

Vinyl Wrap VendorsThree vinyl wrap vendors were contacted for quotes. Two venders are located in the Sacramento area and the third vendor is located in San Jose. The two Sacramento area vendors began the quote process, but decided they would not be willing to travel to Foster City to complete the work. The San Jose based vendor, Signs Unlimited, quoted a cost of $2,776.25 per standard sized utility box. Actual cost may differ based on the size and shape of the utility box. This vendor completes every stage of the installation process, including measuring, surface preparation, printing, and the application of the vinyl wrap. No additional vendors were located in the area. Staff Review CommitteeTo bring relevant City and community knowledge to the committee, the Staff Review Committee will consist of City Staff selected from the Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Police departments. Committee members will be selected by their Department Heads and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. All committee members will commit to serve through the duration of one full process(application review through final recommendation to City Council for all approved utility boxes). New committee members will be selected for each new process; however, committee members will be authorized to apply for future Staff Review Committee appointments after having already served. S members will contribute the following: achieve the goals too controversial without Reliability and commitment to serve through the established term requirements of the program. electronically into a City folder Sub to City Council.

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

154

Pilot Program Process Call for Local Artists – A public notice will be released announcing the pilot program to the community. The community will be provided with all information needed to submit their artwork for consideration Application Process – Interested artists will submit their artwork for consideration. All required steps in the application process will be clearly provided in the Call for Local Artists document Artist Selection Process – Process and selection criteria is detailed in the Call for Local Artists document. Selection process: oReview of the application package by the Staff Review Committee with input from the Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory CommitteeoStaff Review Committee recommendation to the City Council Ad Hoc Beatification Sub Committeeo Final review and approval by the City Council Selected artists will sign all required waivers and agreements Artists will attend an orientation meeting Paint – Artists painting their artwork will begin work and have their mural completed by the date indicated in the Agreement Vinyl Wrap – Artists submitting artwork to be transferred onto a vinyl wrap will submit their work to the selected vendor with all specifications provided in the Call for Local Artists document being met. The vendor will print and complete the artwork application process by the date indicated in the Agreement (artist not responsible for vendor delays) All completed work will be inspected by the Staff Review Committee. Artist stipends will be paid upon Committee approval of the work. City Council will be informed of the completed work City will apply an anti-graffiti clear coat to all approved artworkAn assessment of the pilot program will be completed by City Council, with input from City Staff, involved committees, and community members to determine if the Utility Box Art Program should be adopted as a permanent program

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

155

City of Foster City Parks and RecreationUtility Box Art ProgramPILOT PROGRAM Call for Local Artists SAMPLE The City of Foster City and the Foster City Parks and Recreation Department are seeking artists to showcase their artwork by painting or vinyl wrapping utility boxes located throughout Foster City as part of a pilot utility box art program. The goals of the project are to enhance the beauty and vibrancy of Foster City, deter unsightly graffiti on utility boxes, and bring art to unexpected places. Four utility boxes have been selected to be adorned with artwork as part of the pilot program. Two sets of utility boxes will be painted by the selected artists and two sets will have artists’ artwork transferred to vinyl wrap and applied to the utility boxes. All aspects of the pilot program will be assessed by the City to determine if the program will be adopted as a permanent program. The application and design templates are available from the Foster City Parks and Recreation Department(https://www.fostercity.org/parksrec). The information is also available in the Community section of the City’s website (www.fostercity.org) and at Foster City City Hall, 650 Foster City Blvd., during office hours. Applications will not be accepted after the deadline of _____________, 20?? at 5:00 p.m. Please read this “Call for Local Artists” in its entirety before completing the application.EligibilityWhile all adults and youth are invited to apply for this program, priority will be given to artists that live, work, or attend school in Foster City. Artists may enlist assistants or art instructors to help them complete the project. All entries must be an original design and artwork of the entrant must be suitable for viewing by people of all ages and backgrounds.

7.1 Attachment 2 - Utility Box Art Pilot Program Information

156

Page 2 ends

Foster City City CouncilMarch 18, 2024

Foster City City Council
March 18, 2024