6.8 Attachment 2 - Change in Fund Balances (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
124
Attachment 2
CITY OF FOSTER CITY/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025
CAPITAL ASSETS/ AVAILABLE
TOTAL
FUND
ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
REVENUES
9 MONTHS
ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
TOTAL
FUND
NON-SPENDABLE/ (UNRESTRICTED)
RESTRICTED/
COMMITTED/
ASSIGNED*
FUND
BALANCE
AS OF 7/1/2024
EXPENDITURES
9 MONTHS
TRANSFERS
IN
TRANSFERS
OUT
BALANCE
AS OF 3/31/25
BALANCE
AS OF 3/31/25*
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
230 LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND
231 LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND -2023 GO BONDS
$
$
4,566,590
122,454
$
$
3,053,068 $
$
(3,901,913)
(212,100)
$
$
-
-
$
$
-
-
$
$
3,717,745
75,215
$
$
-
-
$
$
3,717,745
75,215164,861
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301 CIP PROJECTS-CITY
326 CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION AND REPLACEMENT FUND
327 LEVEE PROJECT FUND
328 LEVEE PROJECT FUND - 2023 GO Bonds
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
$
$
$
$
$
81,963,287
4,735,436
2,902,546
13,737
$
$
$
$
$
3,614,284
1,100,303
155,167
-
$
$
$
$
$
(7,658,962)
-
$
$
$
5,750,000
3,490,558
13,737
$
$
$
$
$
(3,490,558) $
$
$
$
$
80,178,051
9,326,297
2,922,838
-
$
$
$
$
$
(61,195,717) $
$
$
$
$
18,982,334
9,326,297
952,871
-
- -
(1,969,967)
-
(148,612)
(13,737)
(7,821,311)
-
-
89,615,006 4,869,754 $ 9,254,295 (3,490,558) 92,427,186 (63,165,684) 29,261,502
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
401 WATER REVENUE
405 CIP-WATER
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,976,757
30,014,272
4,461,553
156,059
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,668,524 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(12,674,335) $
$
$
$
- $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(1,000,000) $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,970,946
28,081,221
4,772,775
241,201
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(782,143) $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,188,803
5,434,275
4,631,847
141,201
- (2,933,051) 1,000,000 - (22,646,946)
408 WATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
409 WATER CONNECTION FEES
451 WASTEWATER REVENUE
453 WASTEWATER RATE STABLIZATION
454 SM-FC PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LOAN
455 CIP-WASTEWATER
456 WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION
458 WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
459 WASTEWATER NOTES/WIFIA LOAN
460 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEES
461 STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
342,575 (31,353) -
-
- (140,928)
85,142 - - (100,000)
27,401,539
2,000,000
(37,638,449)
167,404,052
-
16,395,360 (5,565,546) (13,567,053) 24,664,300
2,000,000
(37,631,049)
167,012,965
2,853
- 24,664,300
2,000,000
(37,631,049)
(27,835,677)
2,853
- - $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,091,650 (2,091,650) -
-
-
(2,084,250) 2,091,650 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(7,991,087) 7,600,000 (194,848,642)
2,853
346,676
2,300,321
268,498
-
- - -
4,186,232
(52,228,870)
363,545
(128,553) - 4,404,355
(49,923,219)
632,043
(1,337,422) 3,066,933
(49,923,219)
632,043
(3,870,073) 3,875,403 -
-
-
-
-
-
-- - -
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $ 158,096,690 $ 32,409,949 $ (35,278,248) $ 16,658,703 $ (16,658,703) $ 155,228,391 $ (219,856,081) $ (64,627,690)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
501 VEHICLE RENTAL FUND
502 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
503 SELF INSURANCE FUND
504 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
505 BUILDING MAINTENANCE
507 LONGEVITY RECOGNITION PLAN
508 PEMHCA FUND
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,706,834
9,436,415
1,056,004
6,714,193
9,576,186
2,824,490
6,662,683
4,075,218
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,866,897
762,405
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(959,399)
(324,059)
(1,670,768)
(1,997,710)
(1,841,369)
(163,228)
(440,669)
(153,016)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,614,332
9,874,761
961,149
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(2,041,370) $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,572,962
7,662,207
961,149
(2,212,554)
1,575,913
2,316,574
3,012,869
262,409
-
7,033,057
10,747,686
2,923,671
6,640,503
4,058,880
- 7,033,057
8,886,286
2,923,671
6,640,503
4,058,880
(1,861,400)
-
-
-
418,489
509 COMPENSATED ABSENCES FUND 136,678
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ 49,052,022 $ 10,352,234 $ (7,550,218) $ - $ - $ 51,854,038 $ (6,115,324) $ 45,738,714
FIDUCIARY FUND
604 SUCCESSOR AGENCY
608 SMC FIRE
$
$
(385,059)
-
$
$
302,639
71,904
$
$
(10,389)
(68,499)
$
$
-
-
$
$
-
-
$
$
(92,809)
3,405
$
$
-
-
$
$
(92,809)
3,405
TOTAL CITY / EMID FUNDS $ 399,875,776 $ 102,345,912 $ (105,821,170) $ 25,962,998 $ (25,949,261) $ 396,414,255 $ (295,839,538) $ 100,574,717 $ 13,737
* Available Balance excludes Capital Assets and Non-Spendable, Restricted, Committed, and/or Assigned Funds, including Prepayments, Inventory, Garbage Stabilization Reserve, unrealized investment gains, and unspent funds for previously approved CIP projects.
6.8 Attachment 2 - Change in Fund Balances (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
125
Attachment 3
CITY OF FOSTER CITY/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMPARISON OF BUDGET VS. PROJECTED ACTUAL REVENUES
BUDGET VS ACTUAL & CURRENT VS PRIOR
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025
FY 2024-25
AMENDED
ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
ACTUAL
FY 2023-24
ACTUAL
FY 2022-23
YR OVER YR
FAVORABLE
% OF BUDGET
FY 2024-25
% OF BUDGET
FY 2023-24ABOVE (BELOW)
ANNUAL BUDGET
%
9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS (UNFAVORABLE) INCREASE 9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS Fund BUDGET PROJECTED $ % AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2024 AS OF 3/31/2023 VARIANCE (DECREASE) AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2024 GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-003)
002 PROPERTY TAXES
SECURED $
$
$
$
$
33,146,460
1,341,300
988,700
$ 33,176,460
1,341,300
988,700
$
$
$
$
$
30,000 0.1% $
$
$
$
$
21,150,154
1,426,307
230,844
$
$
$
$
$
20,598,885
1,339,707
598,874
$
$
$
$
$
19,394,044
1,154,218
664,283
$
$
$
$
$
551,269 2.7%
6.5%
63.8%
106.3%
23.3%
64.7%
64.3%
64.2%
101.9%
61.8%
109.9%
67.5%
UNSECURED $
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
86,600
(368,030)
30,525
SUPPLEMENTAL
ERAF
002 PROPERTY TAXES
(61.5%)
1.7%2,800,000
38,276,460
3,600,000
39,106,460
800,000
830,000
28.6%
2.2%
1,810,297
24,617,602
1,779,772
24,317,238
1,608,573
22,821,118(1)
(1)
300,364 1.2%
001 PROPERTY TAX IN-LIEU OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEE $ 4,288,848 $ 4,631,493 $ 342,645 8.0% $ 3,042,855 $ 2,242,414 $ 4,451,048 $ 800,441 35.7% 70.9% 51.1% 001 OTHER TAXES
SALES AND USE $
$
$
$
$
4,099,600
4,698,500
1,377,700
268,600
$
$
$
$
$
4,003,133
4,300,000
1,377,700
268,600
$
$
$
$
$
(96,467) (2.4%) $
$
$
$
$
2,438,976
2,764,407
674,716
$
$
$
$
$
2,280,905
2,697,832
658,970
$
$
$
$
$
2,572,617
2,059,501
667,657
$
$
$
$
$
158,071
66,575
6.9%
2.5%
2.4%
96.8%
6.4%
59.5%
58.8%
49.0%
97.8%
58.8%
58.1%
75.8%
52.0%
42.9%
63.7%
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
FRANCHISE
(398,500) (8.5%)
-
-
-
-
15,746
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER
SUBTOTAL
262,563 133,436 136,047 129,127
369,51910,444,400 9,949,433 (494,967) (4.7%) 6,140,662 5,771,143 5,435,822 001 LICENSES & PERMITS
BUSINESS LICENSES $
$
$
1,890,000
1,081,140
2,971,140
$
$
$
4,061,000
2,744,194
6,805,194
$
$
$
2,171,000
1,663,054
3,834,054
114.9%
153.8%
129.0%
$
$
$
4,010,827
2,489,750
6,500,577
$
$
$
1,719,721
1,251,911
2,971,632
$
$
$
1,650,925
1,352,205
3,003,130
$
$
$
2,291,106
1,237,839
3,528,945
133.2%
98.9%
212.2%
230.3%
218.8%
106.5%
98.8%PERMITS
SUBTOTAL 118.8% 103.1%
001 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
GRANTS, REIMBURSEMENTS, ARPA (POST, SB 90, GRANTS)
002 HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
003 GRANTS
(2) $
$
$
$
42,000
98,000
-
$
$
$
$
42,000
98,000
-
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
22,109
43,914
-
$
$
$
$
3,122
45,086
-
$
$
$
$
4,122,732
46,453
$
$
$
$
18,987
(1,172)
-
608.2%
(2.6%)
-
52.6%
44.8%
-
7.4%
46.0%
-6,039
SUBTOTAL 140,000 140,000 66,023 48,208 4,175,224 17,815 37.0% 47.2% 34.4%
CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
001 SERVICE FEES
003 RECREATION AND LEISURE
SUBTOTAL
$
$
$
523,366
1,640,589
2,163,955
$
$
$
651,732
1,640,589
2,292,321
$
$
$
128,366
-
24.5%
-
$
$
$
422,535
1,396,648
1,819,183
$
$
$
438,822
1,538,456
1,977,278
$
$
$
526,001
1,142,296
1,668,297
$
$
$
(16,287)
(141,808)
(158,095)
(3.7%)
(9.2%)
(8.0%)
80.7%
85.1%
84.1%
93.1%
100.8%
98.9%128,366 5.9%
001 FINES & FORFEITURES $ 25,100 $ 25,100 $ - - $ 22,797 $ 18,311 $ 24,938 $ 4,486 24.5% 90.8% 73.5%
INTEREST AND RENTALS
INTEREST (3) $
$
$
1,563,900
1,563,700
3,127,600
$
$
$
2,097,553
1,563,700
3,661,253
$
$
$
533,653
-
34.1%
-
$
$
$
1,815,393
1,215,116
3,030,509
$
$
$
1,833,378
689,401
$
$
$
885,667
1,099,424
1,985,091
$
$
$
(17,985)
525,715
507,730
(1.0%)
76.3%
20.1%
116.1%
77.7%
96.9%
120.5%
48.4%
68.9%
RENTS & CONCESSIONS
SUBTOTAL 533,653 17.1% 2,522,779
OTHER REVENUES $
$
$
499,885
61,937,388
61,937,388
$
$
$
499,885
67,111,139
67,111,139
$
$
$
-
5,173,751
5,173,751
-
8.4%
8.4%
$
$
$
343,545
45,583,753
45,583,753
$
$
$
147,953
40,016,956
40,016,956
$
$
$
250,914
43,815,582
43,815,582
$
$
$
195,592
5,566,797
5,566,797
132.2%
13.9%
13.9%
68.7%
73.6%
73.6%
29.8%
69.1%
69.1%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-003)
Total Funds 001-003
005 GENERAL FUND - COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM
006 GENERAL FUND - DARE
007 GENERAL FUND - SOLAR INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM
008 GENERAL FUND - RENTAL ASSISTANCE
009 GENERAL FUND - ASSET SEIZURE
010 GENERAL FUND - PENSION STABILIZATION FUND
011 GENERAL FUND - FACILITIES REPLACEMENT
012 SUSTAINABLE FOSTER CITY
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,000
1,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,000
1,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
- - $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,892
1,484
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
39,260
1,437
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
23,473
38,211
1,361
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(3,368)
47 (8.6%)
3.3%
179.5%
148.4%
98.4%
604.0%
159.7%
112.5%
266.3%
53.5%
- -
1,800 1,800 - - 1,771 2,025 (254) (12.5%)
3.3%1,450 1,450 - - 2,200 2,130 1,169 70 151.7%
1013.8%
101.9%
116.3%
278.7%
73.7%
1,700 1,700 - - 17,235
3,362
856 1,842 16,379
108
1913.4%
3.3%(3)
(3)
(3)
3,300 3,300 - - 3,254 1,786 98.6%
75,700
4,700
75,700
4,700
-
-
-
-
88,030
13,100
45,746,827
85,212
8,779
46,755
6,776
2,818
4,321
5,586,918
3.3% 99.1%
49.2%
13.9%
548.7%
69.2%TOTAL ALL GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-011) 62,047,038 67,220,789 5,173,751 8.3% 40,159,909 43,936,955
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
101 TRAFFIC SAFETY
102 MEASURE "A"
103 GAS TAX
104 PARK-IN-LIEU FEES
105 MEASURE "M"
108 SLESF/COPS GRANT
114 CALOPPS
116 FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION
119 SB 1 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHAB
122 HOUSING SUCCESSOR-LMIHF
124 FC AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
128 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE
129 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMO RECYCLING
130 TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE
131 SB 1186
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,000
1,062,000
922,129
100,000
124,100
165,000
564,400
40,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,000
1,062,000
922,129
100,000
124,100
165,000
564,400
40,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
30,479
793,840
685,700
92,725
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
23,808
802,073
640,468
99,951
100,000
170,765
484,794
27,292
529,964
142,973
32,894
384,469
52,822
57,931
7,507
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24,123
732,177
606,909
54,842
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,671
(8,233)
45,232
(7,226)
(100,000)
10,812
(68,236)
(2,563)
74,577
(10,696)
(8,550)
687,117
29,256
114,618
884
28.0%
(1.0%)
7.1%
76.2%
74.7%
74.4%
92.7%
-
39.7%
91.8%
65.3%
(3) (7.2%)
(100.0%)
6.3%
133.6%
82.2%
181,577
416,558
24,729
604,541
132,277
24,344
1,071,586
82,078
172,549
8,391
145,909
457,251
21,160
448,318
92,256
9,348
110.0%
73.8%
61.5%
66.9%
92.8%
79.9%
564.4%
111.2%
443.1%
122.5%
110.2%
94.3%(14.1%)
(9.4%)
14.1%
(7.5%)
(26.0%)
178.7%
55.4%
197.9%
11.8%
70.2%
903,400
142,600
30,450
903,400
142,600
30,450
61.9%
106.9%
369.6%
1108.0%
80.0%
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
189,850
73,800
189,850
73,800
217,575
48,492
53,853
1,940
38,940 38,940 154.3%
144.4%6,850 6,850
6.8 Attachment 3 - Comparison of Budget vs. Actual and Prior Year's Revenues (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
126
Attachment 3
CITY OF FOSTER CITY/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMPARISON OF BUDGET VS. PROJECTED ACTUAL REVENUES
BUDGET VS ACTUAL & CURRENT VS PRIOR
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025
FY 2024-25 ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
ACTUAL
FY 2023-24
ACTUAL
FY 2022-23
YR OVER YR
FAVORABLE
% OF BUDGET
FY 2024-25
9 MONTHS
AS OF 3/31/2025
182.9%
101.1%
40.1%
66.8%
59.8%
1132.8%
231.3%
75.0%
63.5%
533.2%
-
% OF BUDGET
FY 2023-24
9 MONTHS
AS OF 3/31/2024
37.6%
4.5%
ABOVE (BELOW)
ANNUAL BUDGET
%
AMENDED
BUDGET
620
9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS (UNFAVORABLE) INCREASE
Fund
132 SMIP FEE
133 CRV GRANT FUND
134 CURBSIDE RECLYCLING
135 GREEN BUILDING FEE
PROJECTED $ % AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2024 AS OF 3/31/2023 VARIANCE 901
(DECREASE)
386.7%
2171.5%
8.4%
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 620
8,740
23,550
900
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,134 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
233 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
114 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,740
23,550
900
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,836
9,454
389
8,720
173
19,337
488
8,447
734 38.6%
54.1%
73.1%
32618.8%
403.1%
72.6%
63.0%
486.5%
-
601 487 114 23.4%
2.3%136 MEASURE W 486,500
16,400
3,600
676,262
28,900
500
486,500
16,400
3,600
676,262
28,900
500
290,854
185,780
8,328
284,311
4,827,589
8,062
264,764
11,120
4,423
172,004
16,709
866
6,543
137 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE
138 TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
139 WORKFORCE HOUSING
140 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT-WORKFORCE HOUSING
141 SB1383 IMPLEMENTATION
142 PARK FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
143 PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE
144 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
145 LOCAL HOUSING TRUST
(4,641,809)
266
(96.2%)
3.3%
507,214
18,364
2,666
454,252
17,585
973
52,962
779
11.7%
4.4%
1,693 174.0%
(98.0%)
(96.6%)
(96.6%)
-
- - 11,420
2,094
562,463
60,893
190,693
-
- (551,043)
(58,799)
(184,136)
-
- - - - -
- - 6,557 - - -
500,000
6,149,691
- (500,000) (100.0%) - - - -
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 5,649,691 (500,000) (8.1%) 5,374,676 9,974,361 3,404,151 (4,599,685) (46.1%) 87.4% 197.3% 230 LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND - 2020 GO BONDS
231 LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND - 2023 GO BONDS
$
$
4,089,500
240,794
$
$
4,089,500
240,794
$
$
-
-
-
-
$
$
3,053,068
164,861
$
$
3,118,331
230,132
$
$
2,943,860
-
$
$
(65,263)
(65,271)
(2.1%) 74.7%
68.5%
77.7%
-(28.4%)
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301
326
327
328
CIP PROJECTS-CITY
CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION AND REPLACEMENT FUND
LEVEE PROJECT FUND
(3) $
$
$
$
$
2,892,650 $
$
$
$
$
2,892,650 $
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
3,614,284
1,100,303
155,167
-
$
$
$
$
$
3,121,145
950,307
$
$
$
$
$
2,389,937
886,487
294,533
-
$
$
$
$
$
493,139
149,996
15.8%
15.8%
124.9% 137.5%
76.6%
731.4%
-
975,255 975,255 112.8%
-
-
-
-
38,034 117,133 308.0%
(100.0%)
(46.7%)
-
LEVEE PROJECT FUND - 2023 GO Bonds
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
5,030,338
9,139,824
(5,030,338)
(4,270,070)
-
3,867,905 3,867,905 4,869,754 3,570,957 125.9% 260.0%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
401 WATER REVENUE
405 WATER CIP
(4)
(4)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,959,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,959,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
- - $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,668,524 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,251,175 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,679,496 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
417,349 3.4% 66.8%
-
66.9%
- - - - -
342,575
85,142
16,395,360
-
-
336,073
40,782
15,330,658
-
-
382,827
68,967
13,668,137
-
- -
1.9%
108.8%
6.9%
-
-
408 WATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
409 WATER CONNECTION FEES
451 WASTEWATER REVENUE
453 WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION
454 SM-FC PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LOAN
455 WASTEWATER CIP
456 WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION
458 WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
459 WASTEWATER NOTES/WIFIA LOAN/SRF LOAN
460 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEES
461 STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
456,767 456,767 - - 6,502 75.0%
259.6%
73.2%
-
75.0%
32,800 32,800 - - 44,360 5.0%
22,404,000 22,404,000 - - 1,064,702 71.2%
- - - - - -
-
-
-
-
- - - - - -
-
- - -
- - - - - - - -
439.8%
75.0%
-
636 636 - - 2,853 2,797
257,216
483,555
11,966
-
2,715
199,595
255,062
14,639
-
56 2.0%
34.8%
375.7%
2143.8%
-
448.6%
75.0%
121.1%
3.0%
-
462,234
1,900,000
8,936,837
-
462,234
1,900,000
263,165
-
- - 346,676
2,300,321
268,498
-
89,460
1,816,766
256,532
-
-
(8,673,672)
-
-
(97.1%)
-
0.1%
-
53,152,274 44,478,602 (8,673,672) (16.3%) 32,409,949 28,714,222 25,271,438 3,695,727 12.9% 61.0% 57.0%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
501 VEHICLE RENTAL FUND
502 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
503 SELF INSURANCE FUND
504 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
505 BUILDING MAINTENANCE
507 LONGEVITY RECOGNITION PLAN
508 PEMHCA FUND
509 COMPENSATED ABSENCES FUND
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,150,834
868,562
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,150,834
868,562
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
171,400
70,500
-
8.0%
8.1%
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,866,897
762,405
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,708,354
326,733
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,441,348
497,471
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
158,543
435,672
419,499
125,329
(15,582)
(16,916)
(13,419)
(395,160)
697,966
9.3%
133.3%
36.3%
5.7%
86.8%
87.8%
74.8%
79.4%
80.6%
83.7%
88.1%
116.5%
81.6%
82.9%
111.8%
74.9%
79.7%
80.7%
87.5%
95.3%
84.1%
81.8%
2,106,723
2,917,812
3,735,769
313,500
2,106,723
2,917,812
3,735,769
313,500
1,575,913
2,316,574
3,012,869
262,409
1,156,414
2,191,245
3,028,451
279,325
906,310
122,200
174,500
60,000
138,800
34,400
771,800
4.2%
4.7%
19.1%
29.2%
29.3%
6.1%
2,036,914
2,742,656
221,902
(0.5%)
(6.1%)
(3.1%)
(74.3%)
7.2%
474,980 474,980 418,489 431,908 284,079
117,300 117,300 136,678 531,838 487,224
12,685,480 12,685,480 10,352,234 9,654,268 8,617,904
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
604 SUCESSOR ANGENCY
608 SMC FIRE
$
$
$
300,300
149,000
$
$
$
300,300
149,000
$
$
$
3,700
-
1.2%
-
$
$
$
302,639
71,904
$
$
$
176,184
90,802
$
$
$
286,247
99,704
$
$
$
126,455
(18,898)
71.8%
(20.8%)
1.1%
100.8%
48.3%
71.7%
60.9%
28.4%
75.9%TOTAL CITY / EMID FUNDS 142,681,982 138,682,061 (3,224,421) -2.3% 102,345,912 101,258,033 88,131,216 1,087,879 Notes and Explanation of Variances:
The majority of property tax revenues are distributed by San Mateo County in December and April of each fiscal year. Notwithstanding, the City received $1,396,205 in August 2024 from the State to backfill the FY 22/23 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF shorfall. Similaryly, we received $667,557 in August 2023 from the State to backfill the FY 21/22 Property Tax in lieu of VLF shortfall.1 2 3
4 The City received two tranches of ARPA COVID relief payments of $4.05 million each from the federal government in FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23.
The year over year yield on the City's investment portfolio was stable at 4.20% for the 12 month period ending March 31, 2025 compared to 4.60% for the period ending March 31, 2024 as Federal Funds rates continued to be unchanged for the majority of the period.
FY 2024-25 water consumption rates and fixed charges increased by 3.8% and 4.5% respectively; wastewater rates increased by 2%.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Comparison of Budget vs. Actual and Prior Year's Revenues (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
127
Attachment 4
COMPARISON OF BUDGET VS. PROJECTED ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
BUDGET VS ACTUAL & CURRENT VS PRIOR
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025
FY 2024-25 ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
ACTUAL ACTUAL
FY 2021-22
INCREASE /
DECREASE /
FROM
% OF BUDGET
FY 2024-25
% OF BUDGET
FY 2022-23SAVINGS (EXCESS) FROM
AMENDED BUDGET
FY 2022-23
9 MONTHS
%
AMENDED
BUDGET
9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS INCREASE
(DECREASE)
9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS
Fund PROJECTED $ % AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2023 AS OF 3/31/2022 PRIOR YEAR AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2024 GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-003)
DEPARTMENTS:
COUNCIL/BOARD
CITY MANAGER
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
501,844 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
501,844
1,901,526
1,430,691
677,968
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 431,099
969,540
$ 376,037
1,128,825
764,747
$ 425,815
1,566,447
677,156
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
55,062
(159,285)
294,638
(266,060)
1,046,316
149,115
955,086
1,134,724
2,853,026
344,022
890,267
6,860
14.6%
(14.1%)
38.5%
(50.5%)
126.0%
11.8%
18.3%
9.2%
85.9%
51.0%
74.0%
38.5%
82.8%
71.5%
73.7%
71.6%
91.7%
68.4%
63.2%
75.0%
74.7%
83.4%
72.2%
61.3%
80.3%
42.8%
70.6%
66.1%
69.4%
73.9%
65.6%
54.0%
75.0%
67.6%
1,901,526
1,430,691
677,968
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
1,059,385
260,879 526,939 407,651
HUMAN RESOURCES
FINANCIAL SERVICES
PARKS & RECREATION
POLICE
2,268,070
1,973,652
8,383,797
18,868,123
12,531,604
4,906,979
5,316,133
547,507
2,268,070
1,973,652
8,383,797
18,868,123
12,531,604
4,906,979
5,316,133
547,507
1,876,980
1,410,770
6,181,593
13,515,355
11,486,856
3,356,611
3,362,089
410,630
830,664 301,874
1,261,655
5,226,507
12,380,631
8,633,830
3,012,589
2,471,822
403,770
884,705
5,992,725
12,262,036
10,331,012
2,443,343
2,075,518
377,808
FIRE (2)
(1)
33.0%
11.4%
36.0%
1.7%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
LIBRARY
001 SUBTOTAL 59,307,894 59,307,894 44,321,787 37,018,016 37,746,090 7,303,771 19.7% 002
003
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION
SPECIAL RECREATION
$
$
406,600 $
$
406,600 $
$
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
$
$
138,856 $
$
164,459 $
$
152,731 $
$
(25,603) (15.6%)
(5.9%)
34.2%
64.2%
44.5%
69.4%3,153,333 3,153,333 2,025,753 2,153,499 1,391,327 (127,746) Less: Projected Unspent Personnel Cost
TOTAL GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-003)
$ (1,200,000)
$ 62,867,827 $ 61,667,827 $ - 0.0% $ 46,486,396 $ 39,335,974 $ 39,290,148 $ 7,150,422 18.2% 73.9% 67.5% 005 GENERAL FUND - COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM
006 GENERAL FUND - DARE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
183,231
38,366
25,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
162,000
38,366
25,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
21,231 11.6%
0.0%
0.0%
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
143,706 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
73,668 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
89,287 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
70,038 95.1% 78.4% 22.5%
- - - - - -
(88.9%)
-
-
8.0%
-
-
007 GENERAL FUND - SOLAR INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM
008 GENERAL FUND - RENTAL ASSISTANCE
009 GENERAL FUND - ASSET SEIZURE
- 2,000 18,000 7,000 (16,000) 72.0%
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-4,097 4,097 0.0%
92.7%
0.2%
- - -
012 SUSTAINABLE FOSTER CITY 119,838
63,238,359
8,700 111,138
132,369
3,615 4,258 4,447 (643) (15.1%)
18.3%
3.0%
73.7%
48.9%
67.2%TOTAL ALL GENERAL FUND (FUNDS 001-011) 61,905,990 46,635,717 39,431,900 39,390,882 7,203,817
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
101
102
103
104
105
108
114
116
119
122
124
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
TRAFFIC SAFETY $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,000
4,652,153
1,109,000
745,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,000
4,652,153
1,109,000
745,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
30,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
45,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
45,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(15,000)
685,452
(317,362)
745,000
(100,000)
10,812
149,644
6,015
-
(33.3%) 75.0% 75.0%
MEASURE "A" 1,343,298 657,846 388,006 104.2% 28.9% 43.9% GAS TAX 456,800 774,162 975,902 (41.0%) 41.2% 119.9%
PARK-IN-LIEU FUND 745,000 - - - 100.0% -
MEASURE "M" - 100,000 119,300 (100.0%) - -
SLESF/COPS GRANT 100,000
716,349
85,000
1,200,000
173,884
-
100,000
716,349
85,000
1,200,000
173,884
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
181,577 170,765 145,909 6.3% 181.6% 170.8%
CALOPPS 390,845 241,201 338,875 62.0% 54.6% 30.9%
FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION
SB 1 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHAB
HOUSING SUCCESSOR-LMIHF
FC AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMO RECYCLING
TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE
SB 1186
63,588 57,573 36,701 10.4% 74.8% 42.3%
- - 1,286,699 - - -
51,752 58,961 50,427 (7,209)
(43,717)
83,333
20,095
(5,219)
(1,082)
-
(12.2%) 29.8% 40.2%
- 43,717 105,385 (100.0%) - -
876,162
104,500
105,485
2,300
876,162
104,500
105,485
2,300
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
166,833 83,500 425,133 99.8% 19.0% 77.7%
46,804 26,709 55,404 75.2% 44.8% 9.4%
75,457 80,676 70,776 (6.5%) 71.5% 76.5%
218 1,300 - (83.2%) 9.5% 100.0%
SMIP FEE 500 500 - - - - - -
CRV GRANT FUND 14,000
25,000
500
14,000
25,000
500
5,245 11,993 280 (6,748)
-
(56.3%) 37.5% 96.6%
CURBSIDE RECLYCLING
GREEN BUILDING FEE
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
MEASURE W 1,575,000
110,000
-
1,575,000
110,000
-
- 240,215 4,679 (240,215)
(8,466)
-
(100.0%) - 240.2%
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE GEE
TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
WORKFORCE HOUSING
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT-WORKFORCE HOUSING
SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION
PARK FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
LOCAL HOUSING TRUST
- 8,466 - (100.0%) - 84.7%
- - - - - -
357,208
-
357,208
-
0.0%
-
186,058 168,500 98,576 17,558
-
10.4% 52.1% 43.6%
- - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
92,779
560,300
-
92,779
560,300
-
0.0%
0.0%
-
39,000 16,316 6,594 22,684
560,300
-
139.0% 42.0%
560,300 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0%
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
509,860 509,860 0.0% -
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 13,154,980 $ 13,154,980 $ - 0.0% $ 4,342,775 $ 2,786,900 $ 4,153,646 $ 1,555,875 55.8% 33.0% 57.4%
6.8 Attachment 4 - Comparison of Budget vs. Actual and Prior Year's Expenditures (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
128
Attachment 4
COMPARISON OF BUDGET VS. PROJECTED ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
BUDGET VS ACTUAL & CURRENT VS PRIOR
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025
FY 2024-25 ACTUAL
FY 2024-25
ACTUAL ACTUAL
FY 2021-22
INCREASE /
DECREASE /
FROM
% OF BUDGET
FY 2024-25
9 MONTHS
AS OF 3/31/2025
99.9%
% OF BUDGET
FY 2022-23
9 MONTHS
AS OF 3/31/2024
100.0%
SAVINGS (EXCESS) FROM
AMENDED BUDGET
FY 2022-23
9 MONTHS
%
AMENDED
BUDGET
3,904,188
9 MONTHS 9 MONTHS INCREASE
(DECREASE)
(27.0%)
Fund
230
PROJECTED
3,904,188
214,100
$ % AS OF 3/31/2025 AS OF 3/31/2023 AS OF 3/31/2022 PRIOR YEAR (1,444,999)
104,588
LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND - 2020 GO BONDS
LEVEE DEBT SERVICE FUND - 2023 GO BONDS
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
$ 3,901,913
212,100
$ 5,346,912
107,512
$ 6,376,713
-
$
$231 214,100 $ $ $ 97.3% 99.1% -
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301 CIP PROJECTS-CITY $ 12,046,246 $ 8,998,104 $ 3,048,142 25.3% $ 7,658,962 $ 5,265,605 $ 1,498,253 $ 2,393,357 45.5% 63.6% 129.1%
CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION AND REPLACEMENT
FUND326
327
328
(3) $
$
$
-
2,118,579
-
$
$
$
-
2,118,579
-
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
0.0%
-
$
$
$
-
148,612
13,737
$
$
$
-
6,802,605
-
$
$
$
7,015,009
17,354,921
-
$
$
$
-
(6,653,993)
13,737
- -
7.0%
-
-
-
-
LEVEE PROJECT FUND (97.8%)
-LEVEE PROJECT FUND - 2023 GO BONDS
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 14,164,825 $ 11,116,683 $ 3,048,142 21.5% $ 7,821,311 $ 12,068,210 $ 25,868,183 $ (4,246,899) (35.2%) 55.2% 295.8%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
401
405
408
409
451
453
454
455
456
458
459
WATER REVENUE $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,835,358
250,000
226,000
100,000
10,695,333
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,835,358
150,000
226,000
200,000
10,695,333
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
- 0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
(100.0%)
0.0%
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,674,335
2,933,051
31,353
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,800,686
358,263
17,199
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,887,611
131,394
250,002
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,873,649
2,574,788
14,154
(205,931)
386,861
-
17.3%
718.7%
82.3%
(100.0%)
7.5%
67.3%
1173.2%
13.9%
-
60.4%
-CIP-WATER 100,000
WATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
WATER CONNECTION FEES
WASTEWATER REVENUE
- 6.9%
-(100,000) 205,931
5,178,685
-
- 5,565,546
-
5,299,755
-
52.0%
-
52.1%
-WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION
SM-FC PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LOAN
CIP-WASTEWATER
- -
1,867,891
10,625,263
636
1,867,891
10,625,263
-
- 0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2,084,250
7,991,087
-
2,085,000
14,604,056
-
2,084,250
24,876,748
-
(750) (0.0%)
(45.3%)
-
111.6%
75.2%
-
111.9%
124.5%
-
- (6,612,969)
-WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION
WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
WASTEWATER NOTES/WIFIA LOAN/SRF LOAN
636
142,350
3,875,403
142,350
3,875,403
-
-
128,553
3,870,073
184,764
3,139,780
55,985
3,139,920
(56,211)
730,293
(30.4%)
23.3%
90.3%
99.9%
47.2%
99.8%
460
461
WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEES
STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
$
$
- $
$
- $
$
-
-
- $
$
-
-
$
$
-
-
$
$
-
-
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-136,332 136,332 0.0%
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $ 46,754,566 $ 46,753,930 $ 636 0.0% $ 35,278,248 $ 36,574,364 $ 45,725,665 $ (1,296,116) (3.5%) 75.5% 80.9%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
VEHICLE RENTAL FUND501
502
503
504
505
507
508
509
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,619,617
745,796
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,619,617
745,796
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
- 0.0%
0.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
959,399
324,059
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
897,260
39,003
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,146,077
100,370
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
62,139
285,056
210,363
452,305
(14,216)
5,240
6.9%
730.9%
14.4%
29.3%
(0.8%)
3.3%
36.6%
43.5%
83.2%
66.1%
59.3%
70.1%
164.6%
29.7%
61.5%
7.4%EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
SELF INSURANCE FUND
-
(4)
(5)
(6)
2,007,000
3,022,579
3,104,036
232,720
2,007,000
3,022,579
4,965,436
232,720
- 0.0% 1,670,768
1,997,710
1,841,369
163,228
1,460,405
1,545,405
1,855,585
157,988
152,993
119,606
1,166,562
1,571,078
1,872,520
140,698
95.3%
53.5%
62.8%
66.3%
62.2%
23.9%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
LONGEVITY RECOGNITION PLAN
PEMHCA FUND
- 0.0%
(1,861,400) (60.0%)
0.0%-
(286,294)
-
267,760 554,054 (106.9%)
0.0%
440,669 143,401 287,676
33,410
188.0%
27.9%COMPENSATED ABSENCES FUND 514,834 514,834 153,016 350,244 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ 12,514,342 $ 14,662,036 $ (2,147,694) (17.2%) $ 7,550,218 $ 6,228,245 $ 6,490,950 $ 1,321,973 21.2% 60.3% 60.2%
FIDUCIARY FUND
604 SUCESSOR ANGENCY
608 SMC FIRE FEES
$
$
625,392
149,000
$
$
625,392
149,000
$
$
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
$
$
10,389
68,499
$
$
8,876
82,386
$
$
10,610
64,751
$
$
1,513
(13,887)
17.0%
(16.9%)
1.7%
46.0%
1.7%
25.7%
TOTAL CITY / EMID FUNDS $ 154,719,752 $ 152,486,299 $ 1,033,453 0.7% $ 105,821,170 $ 102,635,305 $ 128,081,400 $ 3,185,865 3.1% 68.4% 79.4% Notes and Explanation of Variances:
FY 24/25 expenditures for various departments were comparatively higher than the previous year as the City elected to prepay the entire year's unfunded liability obligations to CalPERS in July; however, in the prior year, the City elected to make monthly payments due to its high investment portfolio yields. These July payments totaled $7.37M and $7.51M for FY 24/25 and FY 23/24 respectively.1 2 3
4 5
6 The City made all four payment to SMC Fire in FY 24/25 vs. three payments in FY 23/24 The City acquired 22 units of workforce housing in August 2022 The City makes its annual insurance premium payments in the 1st quarter of each fiscal year.
Additional appropriation represents transfer to Capital Project Fund (Fund 301) for Recreation Center project.
Additional approptiation represents amount invested in IRC Section 115 Trust.
6.8 Attachment 4 - Comparison of Budget vs. Actual and Prior Year's Expenditures (for the nine months ended March 31, 2025)
129
6 0
8 sf
DATE: June 2, 2025
TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant District Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Nate Cruz, Finance Director
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING UPDATED WATER RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025, WITH ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS EACH JULY 1 THROUGH
JULY 1, 2029
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID):
1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments on proposed updated Water Rates effective July 1, 2025, with annual adjustments each July 1 through 2029; and
2.After considering the staff report and the public testimony and determining that a majority protest does not exist, adopt the attached resolution amending the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule establishing new Water Rates effective July 1, 2025.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 24, 2025, the EMID Board held a Budget Study Session to consider an analysis of proposed water rates for a five-year period from FY 2025-2026 to FY 2029- 2030 conducted by EMID's rate consultant, Bartle Wells Associates (BWA). Pursuant to direction received from the EMID Board at that meeting, staff prepared a public
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
130
6 0
8 hearing notice of the proposed adoption of maximum new water rates. At that meeting, the EMID Board also approved Rate Setting Procedures to allow property owners administrative remedies for submitting written objections to the proposed rates, in accordance with Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 (known as “AB 2257”).
In conformance with Proposition 218 and AB 2257, a public hearing notice with the proposed rates was mailed to all record property owners and customers of record on March 31, 2025.
The recommended rates include the following:
•FY 2025-2026 – 3% volumetric rate increase and a 8.5% meter charge increase.
The average bill for a single-family home would increase by 5% which is equal to $4.05 per month.
•FY 2026-2027- 3.2% volumetric rate increase and a 8% meter charge increase The average bill for a single-family home would increase by 5% which is equal to $4.26 a month per month.
•FY 2027-2028 – 3.8% volumetric rate increase and a 7% meter charge increase The average bill for a single-family home would increase by 5% which is equal to $4.51 per month.
•FY 2028-2029 – 3.6% volumetric rate increase and a 7.1% meter charge increase. The average bill for a single-family home would increase by 5% which is equal to $4.71 per month.
•FY 2029-2030 – 3.6% volumetric rate increase and a 7% meter charge increase.
The average bill for a single-family home would increase by 5% which is equal to $4.94 per month.
The proposed water rates are designed to cover District operating and capital costs and maintain the operating fund above the 25% target reserve level.
BACKGROUND
EMID provides water service to a population of approximately 36,500. Over 80% of all water accounts utilize the smallest meter size (3/4”) which is typically associated with single family residential accounts. There are approximately 8,295 water accounts, including both water service and private fire protection service accounts.
Water bills are composed of a fixed monthly charge for water system availability that is based upon the water meter size for domestic accounts and the fire line size for fire line accounts, and a consumption charge calculated on the metered water use based on the cost of the water that is delivered to the account.
On March 24, 2025, the EMID Board held a Budget Study Session regarding updated water rates to be effective July 1, 2025, with annual increases through July 1, 2029. At the Budget Study Session, the EMID Board considered information developed by EMID's rate consultant, BWA, and approved the Rate Setting Procedures which incorporate and implement the requirements contained in Proposition 218 and the
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
131
6 0
8 procedures by which property owners/rate payers are required to exhaust administrative remedies as set forth in Government Code section 53759.1 and 53759.2 (AB 2257).
Pursuant to that direction and in conformance with Proposition 218, staff prepared and mailed the public hearing notice with the proposed rates by March 31, 2025.
ANALYSIS
The proposed rates will provide adequate revenue for operations, capital expenditures and transfers, account for water loss, and maintain the operating fund balance at or above target levels.
The primary drivers for the proposed rates include the following:
•Cost of Wholesale Water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The primary driver for the proposed rate increases is projected increases in the SFPUC wholesale water rate. At the time of the Rate Study development, the SFPUC, the sole source of water supply for the District, projected the current rate of $5.67 per hundred cubic feet (hcf, also abbreviated as ccf) in FY 2025 will increase 2.1% to $5.79 in FY 2026, 1% to $5.85 in FY 2027, 1% to $5.91 in FY 2028, 5.2% to $6.22 in FY 2029, and 8% to $6.72 in FY 2030. The FY 2026 rate was approved by SFPUC on May 13 at $5.80, the one cent difference does not result in a change to the EMID rates. The proposed water rates are designed to phase in District rate increases over time to avoid sharp increases. Any increases implemented by SFPUC above these values are recommended to be passed through to District customers via Government Code section 53756, referred to as the “pass through” adjustment. EMID customers will be notified of any such pass- through adjustments at least 30 days prior to the change in rates (on or after each July 1 of the 5-year period). The rate model includes an escalator estimating SFPUC water use charges, and the pass through provision would only be implemented if the wholesale rate increase was in excess of the estimate. If the rate comes in lower than anticipated, the additional proceeds would be transferred to reserves to help smooth rates in the future. •Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Surcharge.
The District will continue to make annual payments to BAWSCA for capital improvement costs associated with the $4.8 billion Water System Improvement Project (WSIP) to upgrade the Hetch Hetchy Water System.
The bond surcharge for each BAWSCA agency is typically a fixed annual amount that is adopted each fiscal year by the BAWSCA Board to ensure collection of necessary revenue to pay that year’s obligated debt service. •System Water Losses. Water utilities incur real losses from pipeline leakage and apparent losses when customer water consumption is not properly
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
132
6 0
8 measured or billed. The current water rates are calculated with an assumption of 10.0% water loss based on the Water Division’s records. The proposed water rates are designed to cover the water loss and fund projects, such as water meter replacements, that reduce water loss. •Capital Funding. EMID's strategy for funding long-term capital water improvements calls for an annual transfer from water operating revenues to the City's Capital Improvement Fund to fund projects over the next 15 years.
The proposed rate projections allocate approximately $12 million to the Capital Improvement Account over the next five years to support critical water infrastructure projects, including water tank lining, structural retrofitting, and an emergency bypass transmission main. In addition to annual transfers, BWA anticipates the need to secure $4 million in short term debt financing in Fiscal Year 2027- 2028 to provide the necessary cash to fund these improvements. While the specific funding source has not yet been identified, current planning assumptions estimate a 30-year loan at a 6% interest rate with 1.5% transaction costs. By securing financing instead of immediately raising rates, the EMID can ensure that cash flow needs are met while allowing funds to be replenished over time. Should staff determine that debt financing is recommended in FY 2027-2028, the recommendation will be presented to the EMID Board for approval.
•Conservation Costs. District staff is recommending that the EMID Board of Directors continue to allocate $200,000 annually to the Water Sustainability Rebate Program to encourage voluntary water conservation efforts and provide funding for the District water leakage detection and repair program. •Operational Costs. BWA projections for operations and maintenance costs assume 4.0% annual increases in personnel costs, and an allowance for additional staff positions that may be needed over the 5-year term to support water enterprise projects subject to EMID Board approval. Annual increases of 2.5% in all other costs (excluding wholesale water purchases) have been assumed to keep revenues in line with operating expenses.
Table 7 from the BWA analysis provides a comparison of current water rates to proposed rates.
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
133
6 0
8 The EMID Board has implemented a long-term rate smoothing model that considers long-range projections for wholesale water rates and significant capital improvements and maintains rate increases at no greater than 10% per year. The proposed rates were prepared using a 15-year model, which has proven to be successful in dampening rate spikes.
Table 9 - Projected Water Rate Impacts provides projections for future rate impacts for single family ratepayers.
Rate Survey
BWA surveyed communities along the San Francisco Peninsula to compare EMID’s typical residential monthly water bill with neighboring communities. Since it is unknown Table 7City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement DistrictProposed Water Rates - Two Tier Hybrid Model Current Rates FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 Monthly Meter Charge3/4" $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40 $43.05 $44.75 $46.55 $48.40 $50.351" 48.08 52.17 56.33 60.25 64.50 69.00 71.75 74.58 77.58 80.67 83.921-1/2" 115.40 125.20 135.20 144.60 154.80 165.60 172.20 179.00 186.20 193.60 201.402" 153.87 166.93 180.27 192.80 206.40 220.80 229.60 238.67 248.27 258.13 268.533" 336.58 365.17 394.33 421.75 451.50 483.00 502.25 522.08 543.08 564.67 587.424" 605.85 657.30 709.80 759.15 812.70 869.40 904.05 939.75 977.55 1,016.40 1,057.356" 1,346.33 1,460.67 1,577.33 1,687.00 1,806.00 1,932.00 2,009.00 2,088.33 2,172.33 2,258.67 2,349.678" or greater 2,308.00 2,504.00 2,704.00 2,892.00 3,096.00 3,312.00 3,444.00 3,580.00 3,724.00 3,872.00 4,028.00 Conservation-Based Water Rate Model (based on bi-monthly allotments)*Single Family ResidentialTier 1 0-20 per ccf 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31Tier 2 Over 20 ccf 7.33 7.56 7.79 8.08 8.34 8.59 8.92 9.19 9.46 9.75 10.05Multi-Family Residential (per living unit)Tier 1 0-10 ccf per living unit 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31Tier 2 Over 10 ccf per living unit 7.36 7.54 7.77 8.06 8.32 8.57 8.90 9.17 9.44 9.73 10.03Irrigation CustomersTier 1 <=100% of annual budget 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31Tier 2 >100% of annual budget 7.80 7.76 8.00 8.29 8.55 8.79 9.12 9.39 9.66 9.95 10.24Commercial and Fire Line CustomersBase Consumption Rate 6.72 6.92 7.14 7.41 7.68 7.96 8.29 8.56 8.83 9.12 9.42 Monthly Fire Meter Charge1-1/2" & below 40.39 43.82 47.32 50.61 54.18 57.96 60.27 62.65 65.17 67.76 70.492" 53.95 58.53 63.21 67.60 72.37 77.42 80.50 83.68 87.05 90.51 94.153" 117.71 127.70 137.90 147.49 157.90 168.91 175.64 182.58 189.92 197.47 205.434" 212.05 230.06 248.43 265.70 284.45 304.29 316.42 328.91 342.14 355.74 370.076" 471.12 511.13 551.95 590.33 631.97 676.06 703.01 730.77 760.16 790.37 822.228" or greater 807.80 876.40 946.40 1,012.20 1,083.60 1,159.20 1,205.40 1,253.00 1,303.40 1,355.20 1,409.80(Minimum charge is equivalent to 1-1/2" meter charge)
TWO TIER HYBRID MODEL
Recommended Rates
*Recommended SFPUC wholesale rate pass through formula: (Additional SFPUC $ Amount Per HCF Above Study) / (0.9) added to each volumetric rate. 0.9 Accounts for 10% Water loss Table 9Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement DistrictProjected Water Rate Impacts Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Two Tier Hybrid ModelSingle Family Residential Monthly Rate $81.65 $85.70 $89.96 $94.47 $99.18 $104.12 $108.41 $112.27 $116.31 $120.48 $124.83$ Increase 4.05 4.26 4.51 4.71 4.94 4.29 3.86 4.04 4.17 4.35% Increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.1% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Based on Single Family Residential Use of 8 ccf
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Extended Year ProjectionProjected Water Bills
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
134
6 0
8 what the comparator agencies will be proposing for FY 2025-2026, the District compares its current monthly residential water bills to the current rates of the neighboring agencies.
The survey indicates the District's water rates remain among the lowest on the Peninsula.
For FY 2024-2025, the average monthly water bill for the region (based on 8 hcf of water for monthly usage) is $116.09 per month and the District’s average monthly residential water bill is $81.65 per month, or about 30% less than the current average of neighboring communities. Since the proposed increase is also less than the FY 2025 average, it is likely that EMID customers will continue to pay lower than average water bills.
Public Notice
Article XIII D, Section 6(a), added to the Constitution by Proposition 218, allows agencies to adopt property-related fees, like water rates, if they issue a notice of public hearing to all ratepayers no less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date of the public hearing. In addition to ongoing compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the Rate Setting Procedures approved at the March 24, 2025 EMID Board meeting also incorporate the optional requirements under AB 2257 (Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2, effective January 1, 2025, AB 2257). AB 2257 allows EMID to establish a supplemental process intended to provide an opportunity for property owners to submit a written objection regarding a new or increased water rate to EMID's attention early in the rate consideration process. Accordingly, this provides an opportunity for EMID to address or resolve any objections before the EMID Board makes a final decision on whether to adopt a proposed rate pursuant to Proposition 218. Unlike written protests under Proposition 218, written objections under AB 2257 must specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218, among other requirements. Since written objections are required to provide more detail and be submitted earlier than written protests, written objections will also serve as written protests; however, written protests will not serve as written objections.
Instituting AB 2257 prohibits a person or entity from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218 (Article XIII D of the California Constitution) for those water rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to EMID a written objection to that rate that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.
Attachment 3 is the Mailing Transaction Receipt for the Notice of Public Hearing that was prepared and mailed out by March 31, 2025, to property owners of record and non-owner account holders served by EMID. EMID may adopt rates lower than the rates included in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice, but it may not adopt rates higher than those in the public hearing notice.
Per the requirements of Proposition 218, if more than a majority of parcels receiving water services protest any proposed rate increase, the EMID Board may not implement the increases. The City Clerk/District Secretary may only count the submitted written protests. As of May 19, 2025, the District had received two (2) written protests. Protests may be submitted up to the close of the Public Hearing. A final number of protests will be reported at the EMID Board meeting, and if there is not a majority protest, then the
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
135
6 0
8 EMID Board may adopt the noticed rates. The deadline for objections was set as May 15, 2025. No written objections have been received.
Public Notices for this meeting were advertised in compliance with applicable State statutes and local ordinances. Ratepayers were notified of the proposed water rate increases by mail. If the EMID Board approves the proposed water rates, no further notices will be sent to ratepayers other than a note on the bills indicating that rates were approved and will be effective on July 1, 2025, and that more information can be found on the District’s website or by calling the District. Thereafter, for each annual update to the water rates authorized by the recommended resolution through July 1, 2029, a supplemental note on the bill will be provided by the District to rate payers at least 30 days prior to the effective date of each update.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
•CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 – Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges •Exempt per General Rule, Section 15061 (b) (3)
FISCAL IMPACT
Proposed water rates will cover the projected system expenditures while adhering to budget policy objectives established by the EMID Board related to enterprise funds. All fiscal impacts for the water system are borne by water system customers. There is no General Fund impact.
Staff prepared the attached resolutions to incorporate the rate changes into the Master Fees and Service Charge Schedule by reference, which were adopted on April 21, 2025. The proposed rates are based upon the data that was reviewed by, and direction received from, the EMID Board at its March 24, 2025 meeting.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
Innovation and Sustainability
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Exhibit A – Bartle Wells Associates Water Rate Study Analysis Exhibit B – Rate Setting Procedures
Exhibit C – Prop 218 Notice
Exhibit D – Water Rate Schedule
Attachment 2 – Mailing Transaction Receipt
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
136
3 4
2 0
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING UPDATED WATER RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025, WITH ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS EACH JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 1, 2029
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) provides water service to property owners (who may also be referred to as “owners”) within the District’s service area (as identified on the final page of the Water Rate Study, attached as Exhibit “A”), and establishes the amount of water service charges to be charged customers in accordance with Estero Municipal Improvement District Code (“District Code”) Chapter
8.48 and applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the District is authorized to establish fees, rates, and charges for the water services provided to each property owner in accordance with District Code Chapter
8.48, and “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions); and California Health and Safety Code Section 5471.The District refers to those fees, rates, and charges as water charges or water rates (as used herein, the phrases “water charges” and “water rates” may be used interchangeably); and
WHEREAS, the District has previously established water rates under District Code Chapter 8.48, pursuant to Resolution No. 3762, adopted by the District Board on June 3, 2024, The purpose of water rates is to ensure that adequate funding is provided to protect the public health, safety and general welfare through the provision of a reliable and adequate water system that meets current and anticipated demands to serve the owners and customers of the District; and
WHEREAS, the District undertook an analysis of previously established water rates, as documented in the memorandum from the District’s consultant, Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”), dated March 19, 2025 and titled “Water Rate Study Update Results” (“Water Rate Study”), and determined that proposed changes to the water rates are warranted (to be effective July 1, 2025, with annual adjustments each July 1 through July 1, 2030) in order to offset the District’s ongoing costs of providing water services to owners and customers, including the costs of providing proper maintenance and replacement of existing utility infrastructure, and providing adequate reserves for emergency. The Water Rate Study is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and it has been posted on the “District’s Webpage” ( www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and- wastewater-rates) since March 31, 2025; and
WHEREAS, at its Budget Study Session held on March 25, 2024, the District Board (a) reviewed the Water Rate Study and detailed analyses of the District’s utility system
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
137
3 4
2 0
operations, revenues, expenses and long-term capital improvement program; (b) directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider recommended updates to water rates; and (c) approved the “EMID Rate Setting Procedures” (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”) to document the process by which the District will conduct the public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 as well as implementing administrative remedies for owners to submit written objections to the water rates (in accordance with “AB 2257” codified at Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2); and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2025, the District mailed the notice of public hearing (to be held on June 2, 2025) to all property owners receiving water service from the District, and posted the notice and the EMID Rate Setting Procedures on the District’s Webpage.
The public hearing notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and it was mailed in accordance with Proposition 218, posted in accordance with AB 2257, and published in accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a, 54354.5, and 66016; and WHEREAS, consistent with the notices of public hearing, the public hearing was held on June 2, 2025, the District Board provided an opportunity for every interested person to comment on the proposed water rates, the Board was prepared to consider any timely written protests from property owners and written responses from District staff (per AB 2257) however no written objections were filed, and the Board proceeded to conduct the public hearing to consider timely written protests submitted prior to the close of public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the District Board finds and determines, based on the entire record before the District Board, including but not limited to the Water Rate Study and the Staff Report and attachments thereto, that it is warranted and necessary to establish the revised water rates as set forth in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The District Board hereby finds that the above recitations are true and correct and, accordingly, are incorporated as a material part of this Resolution.
2. The District Board hereby finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8), and California Code of Regulations Section 15273 (of the “CEQA Regulations”) because it establishes, modifies, structures, or restructures, and approves rates and charges for the purposes of: (1) meeting operating expenses; (2) purchasing supplies, equipment and materials; (3) meeting financial requirements; and (4) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas.
3. The procedures followed and the water rates referenced herein are in compliance with the California Constitution Article XIII D, California Government Code sections 53755 and 53759.1, and Health and Safety Code
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
138
3 4
2 0
section 5471.
4. The District Board accepts and approves the Water Rate Study in the referenced Exhibit “A” setting forth the basis for the water service charge rates.
The Water Rate Study establishes that the water rates do not exceed the District’s costs of service and that the rates are proportionately charged to each customer class.
5. The District Board hereby approves and adopts the water rates set forth on Exhibit “D,” to be incorporated into the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule. The water rates approved by this Resolution shall be implemented in accordance with Resolution Section 6. The water rates are approved based on the following findings and determinations by the District Board:
a. Although the District received no timely written objections, the Rate Study and all evidence identified in this Resolution document the bases on which these water rates are approved, and there is no need to reduce, alter, or clarify the proposed water rates.
b. At the close of the public hearing on June 2, 2025, the District Board considered all timely written protests and determined that, from the total number of 10,736 parcels served by District water service, the owners of a majority of those parcels did not submit a written protest. Therefore, the Board overruled all written protests against the proposed water rates, and the District may approve the water rates in accordance with California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(a)(2). c. The Water Rate Study and all evidence identified in this Resolution document that the water rates comply with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218, as set forth at California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(b):
i. The revenues derived from the rates do not exceed the cost of providing water service to property owners or customers served by the District’s water service.
ii. The revenues derived from rates are not, and shall not be, used for any other purpose other than meeting the costs of providing water service.
iii. The amount of the rate imposed upon any parcel does not exceed the proportional cost of the water service provided to that parcel. iv. The revenues derived from rates are used for water services actually used by, or immediately available to, the person or owner of the property responsible for the payment of the rate. v. No rate is imposed for general governmental services, such as police or fire, that is available to the public at large.
6. The water rates set forth on “Exhibit D” shall be effective July 1, 2025, for the rates identified in each column labeled “Proposed FY 25-26” for each row of rates as applicable to the relevant property owner or customer. Thereafter:
a. The water rates shall be automatically updated on an annual basis each
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
139
3 4
2 0
July 1 for the years 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029, in accordance with the schedule set forth on Exhibit “D” for the corresponding columns for each year labeled “Proposed FY 26-27,” “Proposed FY 27-28,” “Proposed FY 28-29; and “Proposed FY 29-30.”
b. Provided, however, for any annual update to water rates under this Resolution Section 6, the District shall provide notice of the update at least 30 days before the effective date, in accordance with Government Code Section 53756(d).
c. Provided further that, for any notice of an annual update to water rates:
(1) the District Board may incorporate passthrough SFPUC Wholesale Rates, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Water Rate Study; (2) the District Board may set the rates by resolution in an amount that is equal to or less than the amounts authorized by this Resolution Section 6; and (3) the District Board may delay the effective date of an annual increase as long as the amount of the increase does not exceed the authorized by this Resolution Section 6.
d. The rates in effect on July 1, 2029, shall remain in effect each July 1, thereafter.
e. The water rates shall not be set in an amount that exceeds those set forth in this Resolution Section 6 unless the District Board first conducts a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of law including Proposition 218.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the District Board of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 2nd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
STACY JIMENEZ, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
140
1 | Page
2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
D
ATE:
T
O:
F
ROM:
SUBJECT:
March 19th, 2025
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Bartle Wells Associates
Water Rate Study Update Results
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction and Background
The Estero Municipal Improvement District (District ) engaged Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) to develop 10-year financial projections for the District’s Water Enterprise and to project water rate adjustments for the next five-year period. BWA last conducted formal rate studies in 20 24, which resulted in a one -year rate approval for water rates for FY 2025.
C
urrent and projected water service rates are in the low range compared to other agencies on the Peninsula, however, t he District water enterprise s face unique infrastructure funding challenges.
Water Enterprise Summary
The primary driver for the proposed rate increases is to smooth District rate increases due to projected increases in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) wholesale water rate. The rate increase is due to a variety of factors including debt service on existing and newly issued bonds, continued low water usage, and repayment of the balancing account. Additionally, the District has increased the annual amount of projected capital expenditure transfers from the operating reserve fund to the capital reserve fund from $1 million to $2.4 million on average.
SFP
UC, the sole source of water supply for the District, released updated projections for their wholesale rate for the next 5 years (FY 2026 to FY 2030) . SFPUC is projecting the current rate of $5.67 in FY 2025 per hundred cubic feet (ccf) will increase 2.1% to $5.79 in FY 2026, 1% to $5.85 in FY 2027, 1% to $5.91 in FY 2028, 5.2% to $6.22 in FY 2029, and 8% to $6.72 in FY 2030. Any increases implemented by SFPUC above these values are
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
141
2 | Page
recommended to be passed through to District customers via Government Code section 53756, as explained on page 11.
BWA projects the SFPUC rate will increase 3.5% annually beyond FY 2030 based on the average increase projected by SFPUC. 3.5% also corresponds well to BWA’s estimate of future cost inflation in the economy.
SFPUC rates were historically held level at $4.10/ccf for six years (FY 2017 to FY 2022) despite escalating SFPUC debt service and operating costs through use of a balancing account. The balancing account was built up from SFPUC wholesale water sales exceeding projections used in rate setting . In FY 2023, the wholesale rate increased 15.9% to $4.75/ccf, 9.7% to $5.21 in FY 2024, and 8.8% to $5.67 in FY 2025.
During the time that SFPUC wholesale rates were held flat by the balancing account, the District has been gradually increasing its volumetric rates in anticipation of projected wholesale rate increases by SFPUC. While the wholesale rate increases have come to fruition, the District’s rates have been phased to ensure sufficient revenues and avoid sharp increases based on a rate smoothing model.
The District will also continue to make annual payments, projected to be $ 675,000 annually, to the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) for the Water System Improvement Project (WSIP) that was funded through the issuance of bonds. The water enterprise’s single largest cost is water purchases from SFPUC.
WSIP is a multi- year capital initiative with a budget of $4.8 billion. Its goal is to enhance both the regional and local water systems managed by the SFPUC. The program focuses on repairing, replacing, and seismically upgrading critical parts of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. WSIP encompasses 87 projects, including 35 local projects within San Francisco and 52 regional projects across seven counties, extending from the Sierra foothills to San Francisco. By October 2020, the San Francisco portion of the program had been fully completed. In March 2022, the SFPUC Commission approved updates to the program, including a schedule extension to February 2027.
BWA proposed water rates are designed to maintain the operating fund above target levels (90 days operating expenses in reserves) and cover District operating and capital costs. The District is projected to set aside approximately $12 million for capital improvements over the next 5 years. The capital improvement set aside amount is based on funding the District’s water master plan. Major projects include valve replacements,
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
142
3 | Page
water tank lining and structural retrofitting, and an emergency bypass transmission main, among others. BWA projects the District will need to obtain $ 4 million of debt financing to fund the capital improvements in FY 2028. The source of the funds is unknown currently and is estimated to be a 30-year loan at 6% interest with 1.5% transaction costs for planning purposes.
Proposed water rates are based on 1 0% water loss. That is, 90 % of the water EMID purchases are sold to retail customers. The losses have decreased over time due to the District’s efforts to replace aging meters. Water loss refers to the difference between the amount of water put into the distribution system and the amount of water billed to customers. This loss can be categorized into two main types:
• Real Losses: These are physical losses of water from the system due to leaks, overflows, or breaks in the water mains, service lines, and other infrastructure.
Real losses can be caused by aging infrastructure, corrosion, damage, or faulty installation.
• Apparent Losses: These are losses caused by non-infrastructure related incidents such as inaccuracies in metering, data handling errors, or unauthorized consumption (water theft).
The District separates its costs into variable costs (captured by a volumetric rate) and fixed costs (captured by a meter charge rate). (see page 1 8 and Table 6.) To maintain the operating reserve s, fund the capital set aside, and phase in volumetric rates , BWA recommends the District implement a 3% volumetric rate increase and a 8.5% meter charge increase in FY 2026 . The average bill for a single family home would increase by 5% or $4.05 per month.
Detailed water rate calculations are shown in APPENDIX C.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
143
4 | Page
Rate Survey
A survey of communities along the San Francisco Peninsula was conducted to compare the District’s typical residential monthly water bills with neighboring communities. The results of the water survey are summarized in APPENDIX B.
The water survey compares a monthly water bill for 8 units (1 unit = 1 ccf) of water which would be a common residential consumption. Including the recommended increase, the District’s average monthly water bill proposed for FY 2026 is $85.70. Since it is unknown what the comparator agencies are proposing for FY 2026, the District compares its FY 2025 monthly residential water bills to the FY 2025 monthly residential water bills for the neighboring agencies. The survey indicates that the District’s water rates are among the lowest on the Peninsula. The average monthly water bill for the region based on 8 ccf is $116.09 per month and the District’s average monthly residential water bill is $81.65 per month, or about 30% less. Since the proposed increase is also less than the FY 2025 average, it is likely that EMID customers will continue to pay lower than average water bills.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
144
5 | Page
Water Enterprise Fund
The District currently provides water service to a population of approximately 3 6,500.
Most of the District’s customers are residential. Table 1 shows approximately 8,295 accounts/meters that allow for water service and fire protection service.
Meter ratios reflect the proportionate volume of water that may flow through the various meter sizes. The total 3/4” meter equivalents in the District amounts to 20,229 based on industry standard meter ratios established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA).
Private fire meter ratios are set at 35% of regular meter ratios due to lower usage frequency, as they are primarily for emergency use. Fire meters are often on standby and only used during fire emergencies, resulting in less operational time and reduced maintenance and inspection requirements compared to regular water meters. Fire service lines of 1-1/2" and smaller diameters often have similar flow rates and pressure requirements, making it practical to treat them as a single category for cost and rate purposes.
The water enterprise service area includes Foster City and the Mariner’s Island area shown in APPENDIX D.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
145
6 | Page
Table 2 illustrates the current reserves that the District can draw down in case of emergency or to smooth any “rate shocks” to its customers.
The District is meeting its 90-day operating fund reserv e target (estimated to be $ 4.4 million.) The target is based on the District’s long standing reserve policy and is an industry Table 1
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Water Meters By Size
Data as of: 01/22/25
Water Service
3/4" 6,832 1.00 6,832
1" 466 1.67 777
1-1/2" 182 4.00 728
2" 379 5.33 2,021
3" 89 11.67 1,038
4" 61 21.00 1,281
6" 39 46.67 1,820
8" or greater 19 80.00 1,520
Subtotal 8,067 16,017
Private Fire Protection Service
1-1/2" & below 11 1.40 15
2" 0 1.87 0
3" 2 4.08 8
4" 35 7.35 257
6" 95 16.33 1,551
8" or greater 85 28.00 2,380 Subtotal 228 4,212
Total 8,295 20,229
Source: Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District water use records [2] Private fire protection service ratio based on the fire service line; Resolution No. 2715 [3] Equals the number of accounts multiplied by the meter ratio for each meter size.
Meter Size Accounts Meter Ratio1,2 Est. Meter Equivalents3 [1] The meter ratios shall be based on meter size in compliance with ratios established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters M22, Second Edition, 2004 (M22 Manual)
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
146
7 | Page
standard minimum target to maintain adequate short term liquidity in case of emergencies.
The wholesale water purchase rates that SFPUC and BWA are projecting through FY 2030 are shown graphically in CHART A. The SFPUC rates are projected to increase from $5.67/ccf in FY 2025 to $6.72/ccf in FY 2030.
Table 2
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District W
ater Enterprise Operating Reserves
July 1, 2024
Fund Reserve Component Reserve Balance
Reserved for Maintenance & Operation (401) $11,194,614
Total $11,194,614
operating expenditures.
Note: Rate model only includes fund reserve components available to fund ongoing Source: City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Staff
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
147
8 | Page
CHART A
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
148
9 | Page
Table 3 summarizes the District’s projected operating costs which are anticipated to increase over the next five years between 2.1% and 6.6% annually.
Table 3
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Water Enterprise O&M Projection
Revised
Budget
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Employee Services 2,956,001 3,387,751 3,523,261 3,664,191 3,810,759 3,963,190 4.0% Additional Cost [2] - 31,339 303,873 313,542 324,103 335,045 varies Internal Services - Others 1,244,701 1,449,956 1,486,205 1,523,360 1,561,444 1,600,480 2.5% Internal Services - Equipment
Replacement Fund 456,767 396,971 406,895 417,068 427,494 438,182 2.5% Services & Supplies 817,062 979,062 1,003,539 1,028,627 1,054,343 1,080,701 2.5% SFPUC Water Purchases 10,467,000 10,814,000 10,966,000 11,119,000 11,742,000 12,727,000 varies BAWSCA Bond Repayment 601,416 670,356 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 Reallocation [3] 1,362,521 1,373,045 1,407,371 1,442,555 1,478,619 1,515,585 2.5% Water Sustainability 250,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 TOTAL O&M Expenditures 18,155,468 19,352,480 19,972,144 20,383,343 21,273,763 22,535,182
6.6% 3.2% 2.1% 4.4% 5.9%
[1] Based on City/District Staff direction
[2] A placeholder for potential additional positions to support the water enterprise Five Year Projection Annual %
Increase [1]Expenditures
[3] Costs allocated to the water enterprise for the cost of services provided to the enterprise by City departments, as documented in the City’s cost allocation study.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
149
10 | Page
Table 4 summarizes the current water rates. The District has variable expenditures which are expenditures that are impacted by the amount of water its customers consume. These costs must be recouped via its volumetric water charge, $6.60 per ccf in FY 2025. Likewise, the District’s meter charges recover fixed expenditures, expenditures that are fixed regardless of amount of water that is consumed, $28.85 for a ¾” meter in FY 2025.
District Tiered Rates Cost Basis
The District has a two-tiered model for its residential customers where higher levels of water consumption are subject to higher water rates based on a proportionate share of conservation program costs. Commercial customers are charged a uniform rate, which includes commercial customers’ proportionate share of conservation program costs.
Water conservation programs for District customers aim to reduce water use in the District service area and help water users save water and money. Conservation efforts include rebates, such as conversion of living grass lawn to more water-wise options, rain barrels to collect rainwater, smart irrigation controllers to minimize excess water use; education, including free landscaping and gardening classes and educational programs for students in local schools and the Foster City Library; self-audit kits for indoor water use and landscape audits for outdoor water use, and more.
Conservation program costs of $200,000 per year are allocated to each customer class based on the proportionate impact of each customer class on the need for the program and its costs.
Residential and irrigation customers pay conservation costs on Tier 2 usage only, while commercial customers pay their share of conservation costs on each unit of water usage.
For its irrigation customers, the District has worked with John Whitcomb of Waterfluence to assign each irrigation customer a water budget. Any water consumed above the irrigation customers allotted amount is subject to a higher Tier 2 rate based on each customer’s share of conservation program costs.
APPENDIX A shows the District’s historical water use trends from the prior year . BWA’s proposed rates are designed to match volumetric expenses (such as water purchases) with volumetric revenue. The rate structure mitigates over or under collecting revenue due to fluctuations in water use.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
150
11 | Page
District Residential Tier Allotments
The tiered rate allotments are designed to align with the state’s gallon per capita per day (GPCD) mandate. Low-tier users are already consuming water within the prescribed limits, meaning their consumption does not drive the need for the conservation program. The District is required to incur the costs of the conservation program to offset water overuse by those categories of water users (Tier 2 users) that exceed the state’s GPCD threshold. Thus, those Tier 2 users are required to pay their proportionate share of the costs of the conservation program.
While Tier 1 users participate in the program, their conservation efforts are aimed at offsetting the overuse of Tier 2 users. The necessity for Tier 1 conservation arises because of the high consumption in Tier 2.
SFPUC Wholesale Rate Passthrough
SFPUC establishes the wholesale water rate and for each unit of water the District purchases, which accounts for 100% of the District’s water supply. If SFPUC increases the wholesale water rate, the District is authorized to pass through the increase to customers in accordance with Government Code section 53756.
The formula for calculating the pass through amount will be: (Additional SFPUC $ Amount Per CCF Above Study Projections / 0.9) additional charge for each unit of water usage, where 0.9 accounts for 10% water loss. The District will provide 30 days’ notice before passing through an increase in water rates. The District will not convene another public hearing before passing through any increase in the District’s water rates.
For example, if the SFPUC rate in FY 2027 is $5.94, the pass through would be calculated as the following: ($5.94-$5.85)/0.9 = $0.10 per ccf. $0.10 per ccf would be added to all District volumetric rates. The 0.9 factor is designed to adjust for the fact that the District sells 90% of its water purchases.
To elucidate the pass -through calculation with a simple example: Suppose an individual purchases 10 apples for $1 and is only able to sell 5 of them. To fully recover the cost, the selling price per apple would need to be $2. This scenario represents a loss percentage of 50%.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
151
12 | Page
Now, if the purchase price per apple doubles to $2 and the price increase is only raised by the difference (i.e., $1), then the total expenditure would be $20 (10 apples x $2 per apple).
However, only $15 would be generated in revenue (5 apples x $3 per apple). Therefore, the price increase must be passed on by dividing the increase by (1 - loss percentage).
The necessary price increase should be calculated as: ($1/0.5) = $2
With this adjustment, the expenditure remains $20 (10 apples x $2 per apple) and the revenue generated is $20 (5 apples x $4 per apple).
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
152
13 | Page
Table 4
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Current Rates
Current Rates 2025
Fixed Meter Charge
Monthly Meter Charge
Meter Size
3/4" $28.85
1" $48.08
1-1/2" $115.40
2" $153.87
3" $336.58
4" $605.85
6" $1,346.33
8" or greater $2,308.00
Bi-Monthly Water Consumption Tiers and Rates
Single Family Residential
Tier 1 0-20 per ccf $6.60
Tier 2 Over 20 ccf $7.33
Multi-Family Residential
Tier 1 0-10 ccf per living unit $6.60
Tier 2 Over 10 ccf per living unit $7.36
Irrigation Customers
Tier 1 <=100% of annual budget $6.60
Tier 2 >100% of annual budget $7.80
Commercial and Fire Line
All usage $6.72
Monthly Private Fire Protection Charge
Meter Size
1-1/2" & below $40.39
2" $53.95
3" $117.71
4" $212.05
6" $471.12
8" or greater $807.80
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
153
14 | Page
Low Income Discount
Currently the District has approximately 34 customers enrolled in the Water/Wastewater Rate Assistance Program (WWRAP), which was implemented in 2020. Customers meeting the eligibility and qualification requirements below are granted a discount of up to $15 per month each on their qualifying Water accounts, not to exceed a $30 per month discount per customer. To be eligible for the WWRAP, customers must show that they qualify for the PG&E CARE Program or other public assistance program or submit proof of income eligibility.
The estimated maximum potential cost of a $15/month discount for 34 customers amounts to $6,120 per year. Since the low income discount revenue sources cannot be funded with rates, rates are unaffected by the decision on the terms of the program and hence are not required to be included in the Proposition 218 notification.
The District funds the current low income discount through non-rate sources of revenue such as fines and penalties, cell tower lease and general fund revenue to maintain compliance with California Proposition 218. The discount is recommended to be provided as funds are available. Late penalties collected year to date for water in FY 2025 amounted to $27,000, exceeding the cost of the program.
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
154
15 | Page
APPENDIX A
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
155
16 | Page
APPENDIX B
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
156
17 | Page
APPENDIX C
Table 5
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Water Enterprise Cash Flow Projection - Residential Two Tier Rate Structure Hybrid Model Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Assumptions:
Interest Earnings Rate 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Revenue Increase from Growth [1] 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% Fixed Charge $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40 $43.05 $44.75 $46.55 $48.40 $50.35 Fixed Rate Adjustment 8.5% 8.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.0% 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% SFR Variable Charge $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84 $8.17 $8.44 $8.72 $9.01 $9.31 Variable Rate Adjustment 3.0% 3.2% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 4.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% Monthly Service Charge Single Family (8 ccf) $81.65 $85.70 $89.96 $94.47 $99.18 $104.12 $108.41 $112.27 $116.31 $120.48 $124.83 Rate Adjustment 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.1% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Beginning Fund Balance $11,194,614 $10,550,000 $8,088,500 $5,985,400 $8,468,600 $7,154,900 $6,505,800 $6,364,800 $6,383,800 $6,592,800 $6,998,800 Revenues
Water Sales & Service Charges
Meter Charge Revenue Estimate 7,004,000 7,626,000 8,265,000 8,872,000 9,533,000 10,235,000 10,682,000 11,144,000 11,635,000 12,142,000 12,677,000 Volumetric Revenue Estimate 11,171,000 11,548,000 11,961,000 12,462,000 12,968,000 13,481,000 14,090,000 14,600,000 15,135,000 15,687,000 16,258,000 Debt Issuance / Interfund Loan 0 0 0 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connection Fees [1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest Earnings - Operating Reserve [2] 336,000 317,000 243,000 180,000 254,000 215,000 195,000 191,000 192,000 198,000 210,000 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Revenues 18,511,000 19,491,000 20,469,000 25,514,000 22,755,000 23,931,000 24,967,000 25,935,000 26,962,000 28,027,000 29,145,000 Expens es
Employee Services 2,956,001 3,387,751 3,523,261 3,664,191 3,810,759 3,963,190 4,122,000 4,287,000 4,458,000 4,636,000 4,821,000 Additional Cost 0 31,339 303,873 313,542 324,103 335,045 348,000 362,000 376,000 391,000 407,000 Internal Services - Others 1,244,701 1,449,956 1,486,205 1,523,360 1,561,444 1,600,480 1,640,000 1,681,000 1,723,000 1,766,000 1,810,000 Internal Services - ERF 456,767 396,971 406,895 417,068 427,494 438,182 449,000 460,000 472,000 484,000 496,000 Services & Supplies 817,062 979,062 1,003,539 1,028,627 1,054,343 1,080,701 1,108,000 1,136,000 1,164,000 1,193,000 1,223,000 SFPUC Water Purchases 10,467,000 10,814,000 10,966,000 11,119,000 11,742,000 12,727,000 13,218,000 13,728,000 14,258,000 14,808,000 15,380,000 BAWSCA Bond Repayment 601,416 670,356 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 Reallocation 1,362,521 1,373,045 1,407,371 1,442,555 1,478,619 1,515,585 1,553,000 1,592,000 1,632,000 1,673,000 1,715,000 Capital Outlay / Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Expenses 17,905,468 19,102,480 19,772,144 20,183,343 21,073,763 22,335,182 23,113,000 23,921,000 24,758,000 25,626,000 26,527,000 Operating Net Revenues 605,532 388,520 696,856 5,330,657 1,681,237 1,595,818 1,854,000 2,014,000 2,204,000 2,401,000 2,618,000 Water Sustainability Fund Transfer 250,000 250, 000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Capital Improvement Transfer [3] 1,000,000 2, 600,000 2,600,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,750,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Proj. Debt Service (6%, 1.5% issuance, 30yr) 0 0 0 147,477 294,955 294,955 294,955 294,955 294,955 294,955 294,955 Total Expenses 19,155,468 21,952,480 22,572,144 23,030,820 24,068,718 24,580,137 25,107,955 25,915,955 26,752,955 27,620,955 28,521,955 Revenues Les s O&M Expens es 605,532 388,520 696,856 5,330,657 1,681,237 1,595,818 1,854,000 2,014,000 2,204,000 2,401,000 2,618,000 Revenues Les s Total Expens es (644,468) (2,461,480) (2,103,144) 2,483,180 (1,313,718) (649,137) (140,955) 19,045 209,045 406,045 623,045 Ending Fund Balance 10,550,146 8,088,520 5,985,356 8,468,580 7,154,882 6,505,763 6,364,845 6,383,845 6,592,845 6,998,845 7,621,845 Revenue Tes t: Annual Revenues > O&M Expenses
Annual Revenues Less O&M Expenses 605,532 388,520 696,856 5,330,657 1,681,237 1,595,818 1,854,000 2,014,000 2,204,000 2,401,000 2,618,000 Pass/fail PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS Fund Reserve Test: Minimum Fund Balance > 25% O&M Expenses Year-end fund balance 10,550,146 8, 088,520 5,985,356 8,468,580 7,154,882 6,505,763 6,364,845 6,383,845 6,592,845 6,998,845 7,621,845 25% operating expenses 4,420,000 4,710,000 4,880,000 4,980,000 5,200,000 5,510,000 5,700,000 5,900,000 6,100,000 6,320,000 6,540,000 # of Days O&M in Reserves 215 155 110 153 124 106 101 97 97 100 105 Pass/fail PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS Debt Service Coverage 9.02 5.70 5.41 6.29 6.83 7.47 8.14 8.88 [1] Connection fees not included in this analysis
[2] Calculated as 3% of the Beginning Fund Balance of the Water Revenue Fund [3] Capital Improvements are funded through the Long-Term Capital Improvement Project Fund Five Year Projection Extended Year Projection
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
157
18 | Page
Table 6
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Water Rate Calculation - Two Tier Hybrid Model
F
iscal Year Ending June 30 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Fixed Meter Charge Increas e 8.50% 8.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Fixed Revenues +/- 6% of Fixed Costs? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Res erves % Above (Below) Res erve Target 171.7% 122.7% 170.1% 137.6% 118.1% 111.7% 108.2% 108.1% 110.7% 116.5% Res erve Target Met? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Revenue Es timates
Meter Charge Revenue 7,004,000$ 7,626,000$ 8,265,000$ 8,872,000$ 9,533,000$ 10,235,000$ 10,682,000$ 11,144,000$ 11,635,000$ 12,142,000$ 12,677,000$ Other Fixed Revenue 336,000$ 317,000$ 243,000$ 180,000$ 254,000$ 215,000$ 195,000$ 191,000$ 192,000$ 198,000$ 210,000$ Volumetric Revenue 11,171,000$ 11,549,000$ 11,960,000$ 12,456,000$ 12,964,000$ 13,484,000$ 14,093,000$ 14,603,000$ 15,126,000$ 15,677,000$ 16,250,000$ Total Projected 18,511,000$ 19,492,000$ 20,468,000$ 21,508,000$ 22,751,000$ 23,934,000$ 24,970,000$ 25,938,000$ 26,953,000$ 28,017,000$ 29,137,000$ Total Projected Revenue (Rounded '000's) 18,511,000$ 19,492,000$ 20,468,000$ 21,508,000$ 22,751,000$ 23,934,000$ 24,970,000$ 25,938,000$ 26,953,000$ 28,017,000$ 29,137,000$ Revenue Allocation
Fixed 39.7% 40.8% 41.6% 42.1% 43.0% 43.7% 43.6% 43.7% 43.9% 44.0% 44.2% Variable 60.3% 59.2% 58.4% 57.9% 57.0% 56.3% 56.4% 56.3% 56.1% 56.0% 55.8% Costs Estima te s
Fixed Costs [1] $7,837,052 $10,218,124 $10,731,144 $11,036,820 $11,451,718 $10,978,137 $11,014,955 $11,312,955 $11,619,955 $11,937,955 $12,266,955 Variable Costs [2] $11,318,416
$11,734,356 $11,841,000 $11,994,000 $12,617,000 $13,602,000 $14,093,000 $14,603,000 $15,133,000 $15,683,000 $16,255,000 Total Projected Costs $19,155,468 $21,952,480 $22,572,144 $23,030,820 $24,068,718 $24,580,137 $25,107,955 $25,915,955 $26,752,955 $27,620,955 $28,521,955 Net Revenue
Fixed Charges -$497,052 -$2,275,124 -$2,223,144 -$1,984,820 -$1,664,718 -$528,137 -$137,955 $22,045 $207,045 $402,045 $620,045 Volumetric Charges -$147,416 -$185,356 $119,000 $462,000 $347,000 -$118,000 $0 $0 -$7,000 -$6,000 -$5,000 Total -$644,468 -$2,460,480 -$2,104,144 -$1,522,820 -$1,317,718 -$646,137 -$137,955 $22,045 $200,045 $396,045 $615,045 Cost Ana lysis
Fixed 40.9% 46.5% 47.5% 47.9% 47.6% 44.7% 43.9% 43.7% 43.4% 43.2% 43.0% Variable 59.1% 53.5% 52.5% 52.1% 52.4% 55.3% 56.1% 56.3% 56.6% 56.8% 57.0% Meter Charge Calculation
Monthly charge per meter equivalent 28.85$ 31.30$ 33.80$ 36.15$ 38.70$ 41.40$ 43.05$ 44.75$ 46.55$ 48.40$ 50.35$ (Rounded to nearest $0.05)
Annual charge per meter equivalent 346.20$ 375.60$ 405.60$ 433.80$ 464.40$ 496.80$ 516.60$ 537.00$ 558.60$ 580.80$ 604.20$ Meter equivalents [3] 20,229 20,303 20,377 20,452 20,527 20,602 20,677 20,753 20,829 20,905 20,982 Meter Charge Revenue Estimate 7,004,000$ 7,626,000$ 8,265,000$ 8,872,000$ 9,533,000$ 10,235,000$ 10,682,000$ 11,144,000$ 11,635,000$ 12,142,000$ 12,677,000$ Volumetric Rate Calculation
EMID Proposed Uniform Rate $6.72 6.92$ 7.14$ 7.41$ 7.68$ 7.96$ 8.29$ 8.56$ 8.83$ 9.12$ 9.42$ Projected annual water sales (ccf) [4] 1,662,412 1,669,000 1,675,000 1,681,000 1,688,000 1,694,000 1,700,000 1,706,000 1,713,000 1,719,000 1,725,000 Variable revenue estimate $11,171,000 $11,549,000 $11,960,000 $12,456,000 $12,964,000 $13,484,000 $14,093,000 $14,603,000 $15,126,000 $15,677,000 $16,250,000 % Spread between EMID and SFPUC
Surcharge 18.5% 19.5% 22.1% 25. 4% 23.5% 18.5% 19.2% 18.9% 18.5% 18.3% 18.0% SFPUC PROJECTED RATES $5.67 $5.79 $5.85 $5.91 $6.22 $6.72 $6.96 $7.20 $7.45 $7.71 $7.98 Increas e (Decreas e) % 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 5.2% 8.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% BAWSCA Surcharge $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 SFPUC Rate + BAWSCA Surcharge $6.03 $6.15 $6.21 $6.27 $6.58 $7.08 $7.32 $7.56 $7.81 $8.07 $8.34 EMID Fixed Meter Charge Increas e (Decreas e) 8.5% 8.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.0% 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% EMID Volumetric Rate Increas e (Decreas e) 3.0% 3.2% 3.8% 3.6% 3.6% 4.1% 3.3% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% Note:
[1] Includes: Employee Services, Internal Services - Other, Internal Services - ERF, Services & Supplies, Reallocation, Capital Outlay, Capital Improvement Fund Transfers, Debt Service, and net revenues for the operating fund. [2] Includes: SFPUC Water Purchases, BAWSCA Bond Repayment, and Water Sustainability Fund Transfers. [3] 0.37% growth estimated for planning purposes
[4] Includes 10% water loss factor
Five Year Projection Extended Year Projection
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
158
19 | Page
Table 7
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Proposed Water Rates - Two Tier Hybrid Model
Current
Rates FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 Monthly Meter Charge
3/4" $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40 $43.05 $44.75 $46.55 $48.40 $50.35 1" 48.08 52.17 56.33 60.25 64.50 69.00 71.75 74.58 77.58 80.67 83.92 1-1/2" 115.40 125.20 135.20 144.60 154.80 165.60 172.20 179.00 186.20 193.60 201.40 2" 153.87 166.93 180.27 192.80 206.40 220.80 229.60 238.67 248.27 258.13 268.53 3" 336.58 365.17 394.33 421.75 451.50 483.00 502.25 522.08 543.08 564.67 587.42 4" 605.85 657.30 709.80 759.15 812.70 869.40 904.05 939.75 977.55 1,016.40 1,057.35 6" 1,346.33 1,460.67 1,577.33 1,687.00 1,806.00 1,932.00 2,009.00 2,088.33 2,172.33 2,258.67 2,349.67 8" or greater 2,308.00 2,504.00 2,704.00 2,892.00 3,096.00 3,312.00 3,444.00 3,580.00 3,724.00 3,872.00 4,028.00 Conservation-Based Water Rate Model (based on bi-monthly allotments)* Single Family Residential
Tier 1 0-20 per ccf 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31 Tier 2 Over 20 ccf 7.33 7.56 7.79 8.08 8.34 8.59 8.92 9.19 9.46 9.75 10.05 Multi-Family Residential (per living unit)
Tier 1 0-10 ccf per living unit 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31 Tier 2 Over 10 ccf per living unit 7.36 7.54 7.77 8.06 8.32 8.57 8.90 9.17 9.44 9.73 10.03 Irrigation Customers
Tier 1 <=100% of annual budget 6.60 6.80 7.02 7.29 7.56 7.84 8.17 8.44 8.72 9.01 9.31 Tier 2 >100% of annual budget 7.80 7.76 8.00 8.29 8.55 8.79 9.12 9.39 9.66 9.95 10.24 Commercial and Fire Line Customers
Base Consumption Rate 6.72 6.92 7.14 7.41 7.68 7.96 8.29 8.56 8.83 9.12 9.42 Monthly Fire Meter Charge
1-1/2" & below 40.39 43.82 47.32 50.61 54.18 57.96 60.27 62.65 65.17 67.76 70.49 2" 53.95 58.53 63.21 67.60 72.37 77.42 80.50 83.68 87.05 90.51 94.15 3" 117.71 127.70 137.90 147.49 157.90 168.91 175.64 182.58 189.92 197.47 205.43 4" 212.05 230.06 248.43 265.70 284.45 304.29 316.42 328.91 342.14 355.74 370.07 6" 471.12 511.13 551.95 590.33 631.97 676.06 703.01 730.77 760.16 790.37 822.22 8" or greater 807.80 876.40 946.40 1,012.20 1,083.60 1,159.20 1,205.40 1,253.00 1,303.40 1,355.20 1,409.80 (Minimum charge is equivalent to 1-1/2" meter charge)
TWO TIER HYBRID MODEL
Recommended Rates
*Recommended SFPUC wholesale rate pass through formula: (Additional SFPUC $ Amount Per HCF Above Study) / (0.9) added to each volumetric rate.
0.9 Accounts for 10% Water loss
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
159
20 | Page
Table 8
Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District
Projected Water Rate Impacts
Current FY2026
Rates Two Tier Hybrid Model
Monthly meter charge $28.85 $31.30
% Change 8.5%
Single Family Residential
Bi-Monthly Tiers
Tier 1: 0 to 20 ccf $6.60 $6.80
Tier 2: over 20 ccf $7.33 $7.56
Water Monthly
Use Level Use (ccf) Monthly Bill
Low User 5 $61.85 $65.30
$ Increase 3.45
% Increase 5.6%
Median Us er 6 $68.45 $72.10
$ Increase 3.65
% Increase 5.3%
Average Us er 8 $81.65 $85.70
$ Increase 4.05
% Increase 5.0%
High User 10 $94.85 $99.30
$ Increase 4.45
% Increase 4.7%
Very High User 20 $160.85 $174.90
$ Increase 14.05
% Increase 8.7%
Exces s ive Us er 50 $380.75 $401.70
$ Increase 20.95
% Increase 5.5%
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
160
21 | Page
Table 9
Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District
P
rojected Water Rate Impacts
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Two Tier Hybrid Model
Single Family Residential Monthly Rate $81.65 $85.70 $89.96 $94.47 $99.18 $104.12 $108.41 $112.27 $116.31 $120.48 $124.83 $ Increase 4.05 4.26 4.51 4.71 4.94 4.29 3.86 4.04 4.17 4.35 % Increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.1% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Based on Single Family Residential Use of 8 ccf
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Extended Year ProjectionProjected Water Bills
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
161
22 | Page
APPENDIX D
7.1 Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study Analysis
162
EMID Rate Setting Procedures
Overview of Rate Setting Procedures
These “Rate Setting Procedures” (“Procedures”) describe the processes that will be followed by the Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) in establishing any new or increased water rates and wastewater rates. These Procedures are based on the “Background Information and Defined Terms” set forth on Exhibit “A, ” attached hereto. As used in these Procedures, the term “rate” or “rates” may be used to refer to the processes the District will follow for both water rates and wastewater rates.
The Rate Setting Procedures include compliance with Proposition 218 (including the consideration of “written protests” from record owners) as well as the procedures for exhausting administrative remedies under Government Code section 53759.1 (including the consideration of “written objections” from record owners). For the purpose of considering and counting written protests and written objections, the District will consider the term “record owner” to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the rates to the District (consistent with Proposition 218; California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 2(g)).
At a special meeting of the District Board of Directors (“Board” or “District Board”) on March 24, 2025, the Board approved these Procedures which includes A. For any water rates or wastewater rates adopted or approved by the Board that complies with these Procedures, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the District a written objection to those rates in accordance with these Procedures that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.B. The Board hereby adopts the administrative record principles contained in Government Code section 53759.2.
C. These Procedures will take effect upon approval on March 24, 2025, and will apply to any proposed new or increased water rates of which notice is provided in accordance with these procedures.
D. The District Board authorizes the District Manager to take such other and additional actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement the purpose of these procedures and implement the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure adopted herein.
Rate Setting Procedures
1. Overview of Exhaustion Procedure (Government Code section 53759.1)
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
163
If the District publishes a notice of public hearing identifying procedures for property owners to submit written objections (described in Section 2(b), below),1 the District will follow the “exhaustion procedure” set forth herein, to be conducted concurrently with the Proposition 218 process, for the District Board’s consideration of any proposed new or increased water rates or wastewater rates. This exhaustion procedure shall be conducted in accordance with “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions), and the particular procedures set forth in Government Code section 53759.1. The exhaustion procedure provides an opportunity for record owners to submit a “timely written objection” to identify substantive bases for asserting proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218. A ”record owner” may be referred to in these Procedures as the “owner” or “property owner. ” The processes described herein may be referred to as “these Procedures. ” a. District staff will post on its internet website a notice of the exhaustion procedure, and this notice will be prominently incorporated in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice mailed to each record owner.
b. The notice will identify the date and time by which timely written objections must be submitted to the District, and the date will be no less than 45 calendar days after the notice is mailed to record owners.
c. District staff will review timely written objections and prepare written responses providing the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed rates in response to the written objections. District staff will present its written responses to the District Board prior to the close of the public hearing for the Proposition 218 protest hearing, and the District Board will review to determine whether action is needed in response to the written objections or written responses.
d. Following the District Board’s review and response to timely written objections and written responses, it is within the discretion of the District Board to proceed with the Proposition 218 protest hearing process, as described herein, to consider approval of the proposed rates.
e. Rate Challenger Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies. No claim, suit for damages, suit for injunctive relief, petition for writ of mandamus, or administrative or judicial proceeding shall be brought against the District (including the District Board, or its employees, officers, or designees) regarding a challenge to a proposed rate unless the challenging party first exhausts its administrative remedies by complying with these Procedures and submitting to the District a timely written objection.
2. Notice of Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Initiating Exhaustion Procedure Prior to approving or imposing any new or increased rates, the District will conduct a public hearing and provide prior written notice to each record owner of the hearing and the exhaustion procedure
1 If the District publishes a notice of public hearing that does not identify procedures for property owners to submit written objections , the District will conduct the public hearing in compliance with Proposition 218, and consider any written protests in accordance with these Procedures.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
164
as described in these Procedures. To the extent the District sends a regular billing statement for water or wastewater service provided to a “customer” (e.g., a “tenant” or other “ratepayer”) who is not the record owner, the District will also mail the written notice to the customer at the address for the billing statement. The District will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner no later than 45 days prior to the public hearing. The contents of the hearing notice will include:
a. Compliance with Proposition 218:
(1) The date, time, and location of the public hearing.
(2) The amount of the rates imposed on each parcel . This may be satisfied by identifying the rate amounts for each customer type subject to the rates.
(3) The basis upon which the amount of the proposed rates were calculated.
(4) The reason for the rates.
(5) The location to which all owners must submit signed paper written protests to the District via mail or personal delivery.
(6) To the extent relevant to support bond covenants that rely on revenue from rates, p ursuant to Government Code section 54354.5, the notice will identify the opportunity for record owners to be heard as to whether the proposed rates are not in compliance with any requirements of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (Government Code Sections 53000 – 55821), including : (a) the rates are discriminatory or excessive, or (b) the rates will not be sufficient under the provisions of any outstanding revenue bonds (including Government Code section 54515).
(7) How members of the public may obtain additional information regarding the proposed new or increased fee, including a link to information that is available on the District’s website or by requesting a mailed copy.
b. Compliance with the Exhaustion Procedure for Written Objections. If the District chooses to follow the exhaustion procedure for written objections, concurrently with mailing the public hearing notice, the District will post on its internet website the written basis for the proposed rates and a link to the Proposition 218 public hearing notice which will be supplemented with the following prominently displayed information:
(1) The “deadline” (date and time) by which a “timely written objection” must be submitted to the District. The deadline will be no earlier than 45 days after the District mails to property owners the notice of the public hearing.
(2) The location to which all owners must submit signed paper written objections to the District via mail, or personal delivery.
(3) All substantive requirements for submitting a written objection. The record owner must comply with the requirements set forth in Procedures section 3, below,
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
165
including specifying the grounds on which the owner alleges the proposed new or increased rates does not comply with Proposition 218.
(4) Notice that: (a) any person’s failure to submit a timely written objection bars any right of that person to challenge the proposed new or increased fee through a legal proceeding; and (b) there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging the proposed new or inc reased rates (in accordance with Government Code section 53759).
c. The District will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner of a parcel that is subject to payment of the new or increased fee. The notice shall be mailed to owner’s address shown on the last equalized property tax assessment roll. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent equalized property tax assessment roll of the San Mateo County Recorder is sufficient evidence of the record owner of each parcel. A person may rebut the presumption by providing to the District written proof of ownership.
(2) The District Manager, or designee, will identify those persons authorized to provide proper mailing of any notice required by these Procedures, and an affidavit of the manner and timing of those mailings shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud.
(3) Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the hearing or its results.
(4) The District may also provide supplemental notices to the address where the District customarily mails the billing statement for rates. d. Concurrently with publishing and mailing the public hearing notice, the District will post on its website relevant information regarding the proposed new or increased fee including a copy of the cost of service analysis (which may be referred to as a “rate study”) which provides documentation of compliance with all substantive requirements of Prop 218 regarding the calculation of the amount of the proposed new or increased fee.
3. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Objections In order for a record owner to submit a timely written objection, it must:
a. Be received by the District at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the deadline identified on the public hearing notice. The deadline may be no earlier than 45 days after the District mails to record owners the notice of public hearing.
b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the District.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
166
c. Specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Prop osition 218. The grounds must identify (i) the substantive requirement of Proposition 218, and (ii) the reason the proposed rates do not comply with that requirement. For any proposed new or increased “fee” for a property-related service (such as water rates or wastewater rates ), relevant substantive requirements of Proposition 218 include:
(1) Revenues derived from the rates shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
(2) Revenues derived from the rates shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
(3) The amount of the rates shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No rates may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Rates based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted.
(5) No rates may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.
4. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Protests
The District will consider each timely written objection to also serve as a timely written protest from a record owner.
In order for a record owner to submit a timely written protest , to be considered as a part of the Proposition 218 protest hearing described in Section 6, below, it must:
a. Be received by the District at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing.
b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the District.
c. Must clearly identify that the record owner opposes the proposed new or increased rates that are the subject of the hearing.
d. Will only be counted as one protest per parcel. That means if any one or more record owners of a parcel submits a timely written protest (or timely written objection) for the same parcel, it will be counted as one timely written protest.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
167
e. Record owners of multiple parcels within the District may file one protest for each parcel owned within the District’s service area.
f. A record owner may withdraw a written protest only if the withdrawal is submitted in writing by the record owner clearly indicating an intent to withdraw for an identified property, and it is received by the District at the location (and no later than the time) for submitting written protests. After a written protest is withdrawn, a record owner may submit a new or replacement written protest in accordance with the requirements of these Procedures. No other modification to a timely written protest may be made.
g. The District Clerk shall take custody of all submitted written objections and written protests.
(1) In order to protect the integrity of the procedures for considering written objections and written protests as described in these Procedures, all written objections and written protests shall remain confidential until the District Manager (or designee) has determined they may be published in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 4(g)(2).
(2) Any submitted written objection and written protest shall be a public record, subject to the District’s determination that the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure under Government Code section 7922.000. As a general rule, the District finds there is a substantial public interest in not disclosing written objections and written protests to protect the integrity of the process described herein during the time that: (A) written objections are still being submitted and (B) prior to the time that the Brown Act meeting agenda is posted (e.g., at least 72 hours before a regular meeting under Government Code section 54954.2).
5. District’s Response to Timely Written Objections
At the close of the written objection period, District staff shall review timely written objections and shall draft written responses to the written objections. The District’s written response will include:
(i) the grounds on which the objection is (or is not) resulting in amendments to the proposed new or increased rates; and (ii) an explanation of the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed new or increased rates.
District staff shall present the written responses to the District Board at the public meeting that was specified in the public hearing notice described in Section 2, above. a. In accordance with the Brown Act, the public will be provided an opportunity to address the District Board prior to the Council’s action related to the timely written objections and written responses. (See Government Code section 54954.3(a).) b. In accordance with Government Code section 53759.1(d), the District Board, in exercising its legislative discretion in considering timely written objections and written responses, shall determine for the proposed new or increased rates whether further review,
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
168
clarification, or reduction is needed, and whether to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest hearing.
6. Conducting the Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing If the District Board determines to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest public hearing for proposed new or increased rates (as previously noticed in accordance with Section 2, above), the public hearing shall be conducted consistent with the following:
a. The District Board will open the public hearing and consider all evidence presented during the hearing including the public hearing notice and all documents referenced therein (particularly including the Rate Study), all written objections, written responses, written protests, and any testimony, documents, or information presented during the public hearing.
b. Prior to closing the public hearing, the District Board will request if there are any additional written protests to be submitted to (or withdrawn from) the District. c. The District Board will then close the public hearing and request a report from the District Clerk to identify the number of timely written protests compared to the total number of parcels subject to the new or increased fees. (1) A majority protest exists only if the number of timely written protests exceeds one-half of the parcels served by the District. (2) If the District Clerk determines that additional time is needed to tabulate timely written protests, the District Board shall recess or continue the public meeting to provide sufficient time for the District Clerk to complete the tabulation. (3) If the District Clerk determines that there is a majority protest, the District shall not impose the new or increased rates.
(4) If the District Clerk determines that there is not a majority protest, the District Board shall continue its deliberations and take action on the proposed new or increased rates.
(5) The District Clerk’s determinations under these Procedures shall be the final determination of the District subject to appropriate judicial review. This shall include the District Clerk’s determinations that: (a) a written protest meets the requirements for a timely written protest in accordance with these Procedures; or (b) a majority protest has (or has not) been submitted for the proposed rates.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
169
Exhibit A
Background Information and Defined Terms
A. The Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) provides water and wastewater services to property owners (who may also be referred to as “owners”) within the District’s service area (as described in Exhibit B ), and establishes the amount of water and wastewater rates to be charged customers in accordance with Estero Municipal Improvement District Code (“District Code”) and applicable law.
B. California law authorizes the District to charge a fee to the property owners or property owners’ “tenants” (who may be collectively referred to as “ratepayers” or “customers”) for the proportionate cost of providing water and wastewater services to each customer in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the voter-approved ballot measure known as “ Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions). The phrase “rate” or “rates” may be used to refer to the processes the District will follow for both water rates and wastewater rates.
C. Under Proposition 218, the District’s rates are considered to be a “fee” for a “property- related service” (also referred to as a “property -related fee”), subject to the particular requirements of Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6. A property-related fee is one imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of pr operty ownership. In general, the District may only increase its existing rates if the District (1) calculates the rates in accordance with Proposition 218, (2) conducts a noticed public hearing before the District Board (“ District Board ”), as described in these procedures and (3) a “timely written protest” is not submitted by property owners representing a majority of the parcels served by the District.
D. Under Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 (known as “ AB 2257”), the District may establish a supplemental process for objecting property owners to exhaust administrative remedies, also described in these procedures , by which the District will take specified actions in response to any “timely written objection. ” Any timely written objection will also be counted by the District as a timely written protest. However, under this process, only an owner who submits a timely written objection will have a right to challenge a proposed increase in water rates or wastewater rates through a legal proceeding . (These supplemental processes were authorized by Assembly Bill No. 2257, Chapter 561, Statutes of 2024, e ffective January 1, 2025.)
E. The purpose of these Procedures is to document the processes the District will follow in considering proposed new or increased rates, including compliance with Proposition 218 as well as the exhaustion of administrative procedures under AB 2257. The processes described in these Procedures provide a meaningful opportunity for a property owner to submit a written objection to proposed new or increased rate s early in the rate consideration process, and to provide an opportunity for the District to address or r esolve any objections before the District Board makes a final decision on whether to adopt proposed rates pursuant to Proposition 218.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
170
F. These Procedures identify the process the District will follow in order to implement the administrative remedies to be exhausted by property owners under Government Code sections 53759.1 prior to an owner initiating litigation to challenge the rates . In general, at least 45 days before a public hearing to consider a proposed new or increased rates, the District will make available the proposed rate s, and post the written basis for the proposed rates on its internet website. The District will provide at least 45 days for any property owner to review the proposed rates and timely submit to the District a written objection to the rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218 . The District will consider and provide a substantive written response to each timely written objection submitted prior to the close of the public hearing described in Section 1(C).
G. For any rates approved by the District implementing these Procedures, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the District a written objection to those rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.
H. The District Board hereby intends to adopt the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure as outlined in Government Code section 53759.1, and the administrative record principles contained in Government Code section 53759.2.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
171
Exhibit B
Estero Municipal Improvement District and City of Foster City Map EMID provides water service in the City of Foster City and the Mariner’s Island portion of San Mateo. EMID provides wastewater service in the City of Foster City.
7.1 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
172
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED WATER AND
WASTEWATER RATES
Monday, June 2, 2025, 6:30 P.M.
Estero Municipal Improvement District
610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404-2222
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
HAYWARD, CA
PERMIT #3335
The Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID)
provides water service to Foster City and a portion of the City of San Mateo immediately adjacent to the west,
referred to as the Mariners Island area. EMID provides
wastewater service to Foster City. State law allows EMID to follow the process described in this notice to set rates sufficient to cover costs of operating and maintaining the facilities needed to provide these services. EMID will hold a public hearing on June 2, 2025 at 6:30 pm to
consider approval of proposed updated water and
wastewater rates, to take effect on July 1, 2025. If the updated rates are approved, they will include annual
adjustments for cost of living for FY 2025-2026 to FY
2029-2030. The EMID Board will consider all information presented regarding the proposed rate changes, including any timely written objections and protests prior to making a decision.
The hearing will be held as a hybrid meeting in-person and by teleconference/video conference, subject to appropriate regulations. The meeting address is 620 Foster City
Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. Final
teleconference/video conference information will be listed on the published agenda. The public may participate by
submitting comments via email to
[email protected] or by providing live verbal public comment by joining the meeting via teleconference and/or video conference, or in person. Instructions on how to join the meeting are included in the top portion of the agenda posted at: www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes
.
Estero Municipal
Improvement District
Proposed Rate Changes
A Rate Study was prepared pursuant to governing law in
“Prop 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6) identifying each parcel to be charged water and
wastewater rates, the amount of the rates, the basis
upon which the rate was calculated, and the reason for
the change in rates. Additional information regarding the proposed rates, including the Rate Study (prepared by
Bartle Wells Associates) and the Rate Setting
Procedures are available on the City’s website:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-
wastewater-rates.
How to Submit a Written Objection or Protest
Any objection OR protest must: (1) be on a paper writing identifying the name of the “customer of record” (either the property owner or a tenant directly liable to pay the rates), and the street address or other clear identification of the property subject to the rates; (2) be signed by the customer of record; and (3) comply with the relevant
requirements for a written objection or written protest (as outlined below and summarized in the Rate Setting
Procedures posted at
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-
wastewater-rates.). Do not transmit objections or
protests via email or other electronic transmission. The main differences between an objections and a protest: a) the deadline for timely submission; b) the additional
information required for each; and c) a timely written
objection is required prior to bringing a legal challenge to the proposed rates.
Additional Requirements: Timely Written Objection
A timely written objection must specify the grounds for alleging that the proposed rates do not comply with Prop 218. The Rate Setting Procedures summarize the
relevant requirements of Prop 218, and the Rate Study
documents EMID’s compliance with Prop 218.
The deadline for written objections is May 15, 2025 at
5 pm. To be considered timely, such objections must be
received by the EMID City Clerk/District Secretary at the return address on this notice.
Additional Requirements: Timely Written Protest
A written protest must clearly state that the customer of record opposes the rate increase. To be considered
timely, a written protest must be received by the EMID
City Clerk/District Secretary at the return address on this notice prior to the close of the public testimony portion of the June 2, 2025 6:30 pm public hearing. Any timely
written objections (see above) will also be considered a timely written protest. Only one protest will be counted per parcel. Owners of multiple parcels may file one
protest for each parcel owned within EMID’s service
area. If timely written protests are received from
customers of record of a majority of parcels within the EMID service area, the proposed rate increase will not
be implemented.
Rate Assistance Program
The District may be able to offer Rate Assistance
discounts to qualifying customers. To learn more or to
apply, visit: www.fostercity.org/wwrap.
Water Conservation Tips
Water is a precious resource! Thank you for taking
steps to save water and lower your monthly bill.
• Switch from lawn to drought-tolerant landscape.
• Turn the faucet off while brushing your teeth.
• Run only full loads in the clothes washer or
dishwasher.
• Fix leaks around your home
Water Conservation Rebates
Get money to help pay for water-saving changes at
your home or business. For information on water
conservation rebate programs, visit
www.fostercity.org/rebates.
You are hereby notified that in order to file a
judicial action or legal proceeding to challenge the
proposed water and wastewater rates, you must
file a timely written objection, and you must
commence the action or proceeding within 120
days of EMID’s approval of the rates. Failure to
submit a timely written objection bars any right to
challenge the proposed rates through a judicial
action or legal proceeding. (Gov Code Section
53759.1(c).) There is a 120-day statute of
limitations for challenging any new, increased, or
extended water fee, rate, or charge.
(Gov Code Section 53759.)
7.1 Exhibit C - Prop 218 Notice
173
Wastewater Rates
Wastewater rates provide the revenue needed to pay for the staff, supplies and capital projects required to maintain the District’s wastewater collection and conveyance system. In addition, the District is in a partnership with the City of San Mateo to provide treatment of the District’s wastewater and approximately 24% of the capital improvement costs to expand the jointly-owned WWTP, for which the District is responsible for approximately $171.9 million. For details on projected EMID wastewater rates in FY 2025-2026 through FY 2029-2030 please visit:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-wastewater-rates.
EMID provides wastewater service to Foster City. If you receive water service from EMID in San Mateo, your wastewater service is provided through the City of San Mateo, not through EMID. For information on San Mateo wastewater, visit:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/1085/Sewer-Service-Charge.
Monthly Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 Townhouse/
Duplex
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Apt/Condo
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Commercial
(per ccf)
High Strength $24.26 $24.26 $24.75 $25.25 $25.76 $26.28 Med/Domestic
Strength
$8.53 $8.53 $8.70 $8.87 $9.05 $9.23
Low Strength $5.61 $5.61 $5.72 $5.83 $5.95 $6.07
Water Rates and Pass-Through for Water Use Rates
Water rates include fixed water meter charges and water use charges.
Adjustments were required to provide necessary revenue for the maintenance, operational and capital costs associated with the water distribution enterprise. A significant driver for the proposed water use rate increases is projected increases in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) wholesale water rate. Government Code section 53756 allows EMID to “pass through” changes to the wholesale cost to its customers. It is proposed that EMID implement a “pass-through” adjustment whereby changes by SFPUC to its rates in excess of the estimated increases will be reflected in EMID’s retail water rates during the 5-year period covered by this Notice. EMID customers will be notified of any such pass-through adjustments at least 30 days prior to the change in rates (on or after each July 1 of the 5-year period). Rates are presented per ccf (hundred cubic feet). Additional details regarding proposed water rates, including the formula for this pass-through rate can be found in the Rate Study here:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-wastewater-rates.
Water Use Rates for Single-Family Residences
Single-family residences with responsibility for indoor (domestic) and outdoor (irrigation) water uses are placed in a tiered rate structure whereby the cost of water increases based on the amount of water used in a bi-monthly billing cycle as follows:
Per CCF Charge
Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—0 to 20 ccf $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—Over 20 ccf $7.33 $7.56 $7.79 $8.08 $8.34 $8.59
Water Use Rates for Irrigation Customers
Irrigation customers with separate irrigation water meters are provided an individually-prepared water budget based on the square footage of landscaping being watered, whereby the cost of water increases for the amount of water used over the allotment. Customized reports through the year let customers know how they are doing in water use.
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Monthly Water Consumption Budget
<= 100% $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
> 100% $7.80 $7.76 $8.00 $8.29 $8.55 $8.79
Water Use Rates for Commercial Customers and Fire Line
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
All Usage $6.72 $6.92 $7.14 $ 7.41 $7.68 $7.96
Fixed Water Meter Rates
The fixed water meter charge ensures the continued safe delivery of water through the system. The meter ratios are based on meter size in compliance with the American Water Works Association.
Monthly
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Domestic and/or Irrigation Customers
5/8” and 3/4” $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40 1” $48.08 $52.17 $56.33 $60.25 $64.50 $69.00
1.5” $115.40 $125.20 $135.20 $144.60 $154.80 $165.60
2” $153.87 $166.93 $180.27 $192.80 $206.40 $220.80
3” $336.58 $365.17 $394.33 $421.75 $451.50 $483.00
4” $605.85 $657.30 $709.80 $759.15 $812.70 $869.40
6” $1,346.33 $1,460.67 $1,577.33 $1,687.00 $1,806.00 $1,932.00 8”or greater $2,308.00 $2,504.00 $2,704.00 $2,892.00 $3,096.00 $3,312.00 Private Fire Service Protection Meter
1-1/12 & below $40.39 $43.82 $47.32 $50.61 $54.18 $57.96 2” $53.95 $58.53 $63.21 $67.60 $72.37 $77.42
3” $117.71 $127.70 $137.90 $147.49 $157.90 $168.91
4” $212.05 $230.06 $248.43 $265.70 $284.45 $304.29
6” $471.12 $511.13 $551.95 $590.33 $631.97 $676.06
8” or greater $807.80 $876.40 $946.40 $1,012.20 $1,083.60 $1,159.20Rates are presented per CCF. One (1) CCF =748 gallons
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Questions
If you have questions regarding this notice, please contact (650) 286-3270 or [email protected].
Water Use Rates for Multi-Family Residences (per living unit) Multi-family residences with responsibility for indoor water uses are placed in a tiered rate structure whereby the cost of water increases based on the amount of water used in a bi-monthly billing cycle as follows:
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—0 to 10 ccf $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—Over 10 ccf $7.36 $7.54 $7.77 $8.06 $8.32 $8.57
7.1 Exhibit C - Prop 218 Notice
174
Exhibit D – Water Rate Schedule
Water Use Rates for Single-Family Residences
Water Use Rates for Multi-Family Residences (per living unit) Per CCF
Charge
(bi-
monthly
billing
cycle) Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—
0 to 10
ccf
$6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—
Over 10
ccf
$7.36 $7.54 $7.77 $8.06 $8.32 $8.57
Per CCF
Charge (bi-
monthly
billing
cycle) Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—0 to
20 ccf
$6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—Over
20 ccf
$7.33 $7.56 $7.79 $8.08 $8.34 $8.59
7.1 Exhibit D - Water Rate Schedule
175
Exhibit D – Water Rate Schedule
Water Use Rates for Irrigation Customers
Water Use Rates for Commercial Customers and Fire Line
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
All
Usage
$6.72 $6.92 $7.14 $ 7.41 $7.68 $7.96
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Monthly Water Consumption Budget
<= 100% $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
> 100% $7.80 $7.76 $8.00 $8.29 $8.55 $8.79
7.1 Exhibit D - Water Rate Schedule
176
Exhibit D – Water Rate Schedule
Fixed Water Meter Rates
Monthly
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Domestic and/or Irrigation Customers
5/8” and
3/4” $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40
1” $48.08 $52.17 $56.33 $60.25 $64.50 $69.00
1.5” $115.40 $125.20 $135.20 $144.60 $154.80 $165.60
2” $153.87 $166.93 $180.27 $192.80 $206.40 $220.80
3” $336.58 $365.17 $394.33 $421.75 $451.50 $483.00
4” $605.85 $657.30 $709.80 $759.15 $812.70 $869.40
6” $1,346.33 $1,460.67 $1,577.33 $1,687.00 $1,806.00 $1,932.00 8”or
greater $2,308.00 $2,504.00 $2,704.00 $2,892.00 $3,096.00 $3,312.00 Private Fire Service Protection Meter
1-1/12 &
below $40.39 $43.82 $47.32 $50.61 $54.18 $57.96
2” $53.95 $58.53 $63.21 $67.60 $72.37 $77.42
3” $117.71 $127.70 $137.90 $147.49 $157.90 $168.91
4” $212.05 $230.06 $248.43 $265.70 $284.45 $304.29
6” $471.12 $511.13 $551.95 $590.33 $631.97 $676.06
8” or
greater $807.80 $876.40 $946.40 $1,012.20 $1,083.60 $1,159.20
7.1 Exhibit D - Water Rate Schedule
177
7.1 Attachment 2 - Mailing Transaction Receipt
178
6 0
8 DATE: June 2, 2025
TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant District Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Nate Cruz, Finance Director
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING UPDATED WASTEWATER RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025, WITH ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS EACH JULY 1
THROUGH JULY 1, 2029
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID):
1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments on updated Wastewater Rates effective July 1, 2025, with annual adjustments each July 1 through 2029; and
2.After considering the staff report and the public testimony and determining that a majority protest does not exist, adopt the attached resolution amending the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule establishing new Wastewater Rates effective July 1, 2025.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 24, 2025, the EMID Board held a Budget Study Session to consider an analysis of proposed wastewater rates for a five-year period from FY 2025-2026 to FY 2029-2030 conducted by EMID's rate consultant, Bartle Wells Associates (BWA).
7.2 7.2 Staff Report
179
6 0
8 Pursuant to direction received from the EMID Board at that meeting, staff prepared a public hearing notice of the proposed adoption of maximum new wastewater rates. At that meeting, the EMID Board also approved Rate Setting Procedures to allow property owners administrative remedies for submitting written objections to the proposed rates, in accordance with Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 (known as “AB 2257”).
In conformance with Proposition 218 and AB 2257, a public hearing notice with the proposed rates was mailed to all record property owners and customers of record on March 31, 2025.
For this five-year rate cycle, it is recommended to hold the current rate for FY 2025- 2026 and increase the rate by 2% annually in FY 2026-2027 through FY 2029-2030.
The proposed rates are designed to cover District operating and capital costs and maintain the operating fund above the 25% target reserve level.
BACKGROUND
EMID provides wastewater service to residential, commercial and institutional accounts.
The rates that residential wastewater customers pay are based on a fixed charge for the category or type of residential unit (single family, townhouse/duplex, or apartment/condominium). Commercial customers are charged a variable rate based upon the amount of water consumed by their business and the business wastewater strength category.
EMID is responsible for its share of operating and maintenance costs that San Mateo (as the lead agency and the contracting party) incurs treating the District’s wastewater, as well as 24% of the capital improvement costs and 12% of program management costs incurred as part of the Clean Water Program (CWP), a 10-year comprehensive capital improvement project initiated in 2014 to replace aging infrastructure and meet regulatory requirements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The District’s total share of the project is approximately $171.9 million. The District also has operational costs associated with the wastewater enterprise services.
On March 24, 2025, the EMID Board held a Budget Study Session regarding updated wastewater rates to be effective July 1, 2025, with annual increases through July 1, 2029. At the Budget Study Session, the EMID Board considered information developed by EMID's rate consultant, BWA, and approved the Rate Setting Procedures which incorporate and implement the requirements contained in Proposition 218 and the procedures by which property owners/rate payers are required to exhaust administrative remedies as set forth in Government Code section 53759.1 and 53759.2 (AB 2257). Pursuant to that direction and in conformance with Proposition 218, staff prepared and mailed the public hearing notice with the proposed rates by March 31, 2025.
7.2 7.2 Staff Report
180
6 0
8 ANALYSIS
The proposed rates will provide adequate revenue for operations, capital expenditures and transfers, and maintain the operating fund balance at or above target levels. The rates include consideration of the joint cost of the WWTP, and the operational and maintenance costs related to wastewater, local wastewater collection system operations, and capital improvement projects. Projections for the need for 2% increases in Fiscal Year 2026-2027 through 2029-2030 are included in Table 10 from the BWA Rate Study.
Rate Survey
A survey of communities along the San Francisco Peninsula was conducted to compare the District’s typical residential wastewater bill with neighboring communities. The results of the survey are summarized in the Wastewater Rate Survey Comparison Chart that appears as Appendix A in the BWA Rate Study. The average monthly bill among comparator agencies is $122.39. The District’s average rate is $133.49 per month, or about 9% higher than the average.
Table 10
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Projected Wastewater Rate Impacts
Current
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
% Rate Increase 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Residential (flat monthly rate)
Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.67 2.72 2.78 2.83
Townhouse/Duplex $112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.24 2.29 2.33 2.38
Apartment/Condominium (Pools w/ Restrooms) $112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.24 2.29 2.33 2.38
Commercial (rate per ccf of water use)
High Strength $24.26 $24.26 $24.75 $25.25 $25.76 $26.28 Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
Medium/Domestic Strength $8.53 $8.53 $8.70 $8.87 $9.05 $9.23 Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18
Low Strength $5.61 $5.61 $5.72 $5.83 $5.95 $6.07
Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12
Projected - Fiscal Year Ending June 30Projected Rates
7.2 7.2 Staff Report
181
6 0
8 Public Notice
ArtiArticle XIII D, Section 6(a), added to the Constitution by Proposition 218, allows agencies to adopt property-related fees, like wastewater rates, if they issue a notice of public hearing to all ratepayers no less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date of the public hearing. In addition to ongoing compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the Rate Setting Procedures approved at the March 24, 2025 EMID Board meeting also incorporate the optional requirements under AB 2257(Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2, effective January 1, 2025, AB 2257). AB 2257 allows EMID to establish a supplemental process intended to provide an opportunity for ratepayers/property owners to submit a written objection regarding a new or increased wastewater rate to EMID's attention early in the rate consideration process.
Accordingly, this provides an opportunity for EMID to address or resolve any objections before the EMID Board makes a final decision on whether to adopt a proposed rate pursuant to Proposition 218. Unlike written protests under Proposition 218, written objections under AB 2257 must specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218, among other requirements. Since written objections are required to provide more detail and be submitted earlier than written protests, written objections will also serve as written protests; however, written protests will not serve as written objections.
Instituting AB 2257 prohibits a person or entity from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218 (Article XIII D of the California Constitution) for those water rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to EMID a written objection to that rate that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.
Attachment 3 is the Mailing Transaction Receipt for the Notice of Public Hearing that was prepared and mailed out by March 31, 2025, to property owners of record and non-owner account holders served by EMID. EMID may adopt rates lower than the rates included in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice, but it may not adopt rates higher than those in the public hearing notice.
Per the requirements of Proposition 218, if more than a majority of parcels receiving wastewater services protest any proposed rate increase, the EMID Board may not implement the increases. The City Clerk/District Secretary may only count the submitted written protests. As of May 19, 2025, the District had received no written protests regarding wastewater rates. Protests may be submitted up to the close of the Public Hearing. A final number of protests will be reported at the EMID Board meeting, and if there is not a majority protest, then the EMID Board may adopt the noticed rates. The deadline for objections was set as May 15, 2025. No written objections have been received.
Public Notices for this meeting were advertised in compliance with applicable State statutes and local ordinances. Ratepayers were notified of the proposed rate increases
7.2 7.2 Staff Report
182
6 0
8 by mail. If the EMID Board approves the proposed rates, no further notices will be sent to ratepayers other than a note on the bills indicating that rates were approved and will be effective on July 1, 2025, and that more information can be found on the District’s website or by calling the District. Thereafter, for each annual update to the wastewater rates authorized by the recommended resolution through July 1, 2029, a supplemental note on the bill will be provided by the District to rate payers at least 30 days prior to the effective date of each update.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
•CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 – Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges •Exempt per General Rule, Section 15061 (b) (3)
FISCAL IMPACT
Proposed wastewater rates will cover the projected system expenditures while adhering to budget policy objectives established by the EMID Board related to enterprise funds. All fiscal impacts for the wastewater system are borne by wastewater system customers. There is no General Fund impact.
Staff prepared the attached resolutions to incorporate the rate changes into the Master Fees and Service Charge Schedule, by reference, which were adopted on April 21, 2025. The proposed rates are based upon the data that was reviewed by, and direction received from, the EMID Board at its March 24, 2025 meeting.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
Innovation and Sustainability
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Exhibit A - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Analysis Exhibit B – Rate Setting Procedures
Exhibit C – Prop 218 Notice
Exhibit D – Wastewater Rate Schedule
Attachment 2 – Mailing Transaction Receipt
7.2 7.2 Staff Report
183
3 4
1 4
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING UPDATED WASTEWATER RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025, WITH ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS EACH JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 1, 2029
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) provides wastewater service to property owners (who may also be referred to as “owners”) within the District’s service area (as identified on the final page of the Wastewater Rate Study, attached as Exhibit “A”), and establishes the amount of wastewater service charges to be charged customers in accordance with Estero Municipal Improvement District Code (“District Code”) Chapter 8.48 and applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the District is authorized to establish fees, rates, and charges for the wastewater services provided to each property owner in accordance with District Code Chapter 8.48, and “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions); and California Health and Safety Code Section 5471.The District refers to those fees, rates, and charges as wastewater charges or wastewater rates (as used herein, the phrases “wastewater charges” and “wastewater rates” may be used interchangeably); and
WHEREAS, the District has previously established wastewater rates under District Code Chapter 8.48, pursuant to EMID Resolution No. 3729, adopted by the District Board on June 5, 2025. The purpose of wastewater rates is to ensure that adequate funding is provided to protect the public health, safety and general welfare through the provision of a reliable and adequate wastewater system that meets current and anticipated demands to serve the owners and customers of the District; and
WHEREAS, the District undertook an analysis of previously established wastewater rates, as documented in the memorandum from the District’s consultant, Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”), dated March 19, 2025 and titled “Wastewater Rate Study Update Results” (“Wastewater Rate Study”), and determined that proposed changes to the wastewater rates are warranted (to be effective July 1, 2025, with annual adjustments each July 1 through July 1, 2030) in order to offset the District’s ongoing costs of providing wastewater services to owners and customers, including the costs of providing proper maintenance and replacement of existing utility infrastructure, and providing adequate reserves for emergency. The Wastewater Rate Study is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and it has been posted on the “District’s Webpage” (www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-wastewater-rates) since March 31, 2025; and
7.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
184
3 4
1 4
WHEREAS, at its Budget Study Session held on March 25, 2024, the District Board (a) reviewed the Wastewater Rate Study and detailed analyses of the District’s utility system operations, revenues, expenses and long-term capital improvement program; (b) directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider recommended updates to wastewater rates; and (c) approved the “Rate Setting Procedures” (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”) to document the process by which the District will conduct the public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 as well as implementing administrative remedies for owners to submit written objections to the wastewater rates (in accordance with “AB 2257” codified at Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2); and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2025, the District mailed the notice of public hearing (to be held on June 2, 2025) to all property owners receiving wastewater service from the District, and posted the notice and the Rate Setting Procedures on the District’s Webpage. The public hearing notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and it was mailed in accordance with Proposition 218, posted in accordance with AB 2257, and published in accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a, 54354.5, and 66016; and WHEREAS, consistent with the notices of public hearing, the public hearing was held on June 2, 2025, the District Board provided an opportunity for every interested person to comment on the proposed wastewater rates, the Board was prepared to consider any timely written protests from property owners and written responses from District staff (per AB 2257) however no written objections were filed, and the Board proceeded to conduct the public hearing to consider timely written protests submitted prior to the close of public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the District Board finds and determines, based on the entire record before the District Board, including but not limited to the Wastewater Rate Study and the Staff Report and attachments thereto, that it is warranted and necessary to establish the revised wastewater rates as set forth in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The District Board hereby finds that the above recitations are true and correct and, accordingly, are incorporated as a material part of this Resolution.
2. The District Board hereby finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8), and California Code of Regulations Section 15273 (of the “CEQA Regulations”) because it establishes, modifies, structures, or restructures, and approves rates and charges for the purposes of: (1) meeting operating expenses; (2) purchasing supplies, equipment and materials; (3) meeting financial requirements; and (4) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas.
7.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
185
3 4
1 4
3. The procedures followed and the wastewater rates referenced herein are in compliance with the California Constitution Article XIII D, California Government Code sections 53755 and 53759.1, and Health and Safety Code section 5471.
4. The District Board accepts and approves the Wastewater Rate Study in the referenced Exhibit “A” setting forth the basis for the wastewater service charge rates. The Wastewater Rate Study establishes that the wastewater rates do not exceed the District’s costs of service and that the rates are proportionately charged to each customer class.
5. The District Board hereby approves and adopts the wastewater rates set forth on Exhibit “D,” to be incorporated into the Master Fees and Service Charges Schedule. The wastewater rates approved by this Resolution shall be implemented in accordance with Resolution Section 6. The wastewater rates are approved based on the following findings and determinations by the District Board:
a. Although the District received no timely written objections, the Rate Study and all evidence identified in this Resolution document the bases on which these wastewater rates are approved, and there is no need to reduce, alter, or clarify the proposed wastewater rates. b. At the close of the public hearing on June 2, 2025, the District Board considered all timely written protests and determined that, from the total number of 9,349 parcels served by District wastewater service, the owners of a majority of those parcels did not submit a written protest.
Therefore, the Board overruled all written protests against the proposed wastewater rates, and the District may approve the wastewater rates in accordance with California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(a)(2). c. The Wastewater Rate Study and all evidence identified in this Resolution document that the wastewater rates comply with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218, as set forth at California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(b):
i. The revenues derived from the rates do not exceed the cost of providing wastewater service to property owners or customers served by the District’s wastewater service.
ii. The revenues derived from rates are not, and shall not be, used for any other purpose other than meeting the costs of providing wastewater service.
iii. The amount of the rate imposed upon any parcel does not exceed the proportional cost of the wastewater service provided to that parcel.
iv. The revenues derived from rates are used for wastewater services actually used by, or immediately available to, the person or owner of the property responsible for the payment of the rate. v. No rate is imposed for general governmental services, such as police or fire, that is available to the public at large.
7.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
186
3 4
1 4
6. The wastewater rates set forth on “Exhibit D” shall be effective July 1, 2025, for the rates identified in each column labeled “Proposed FY 25-26” for each row of rates as applicable to the relevant property owner or customer. Each Commercial Rate shall be multiplied by the amount of water usage (in units of one hundred cubic feet, or per “ccf”) per customer, and the amount of water usage shall be as determined by the Public Works Director, or designee, based on credible evidence including the total metered water usage for each billing period. Thereafter:
a. The wastewater rates shall be automatically updated on an annual basis each July 1 for the years 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029, in accordance with the schedule set forth on Exhibit “D” for the corresponding columns for each year labeled “Proposed FY 26-27,” “Proposed FY 27-28,” “Proposed FY 28-29; and “Proposed FY 29-30.”
b. Provided, however, for any annual update to wastewater rates under this Resolution Section 6, the District shall provide notice of the update at least 30 days before the effective date, in accordance with Government Code Section 53756(d).
c. Provided further that, for any notice of an annual update to wastewater rates: (1) the District Board may set the rates by resolution in an amount that is equal to or less than the amounts authorized by this Resolution Section 6; and (3) the District Board may delay the effective date of an annual increase as long as the amount of the increase does not exceed the authorized by this Resolution Section 6.
d. The rates in effect on July 1, 2029, shall remain in effect each July 1, thereafter.
e. The wastewater rates shall not be set in an amount that exceeds those set forth in this Resolution Section 6 unless the District Board first conducts a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of law including Proposition 218.
7.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
187
3 4
1 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the District Board of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 2nd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
STACY JIMENEZ, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
7.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
188
1 | Page
2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
D
ATE:
T
O:
F
ROM:
SUBJECT:
March 11th, 2025
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Bartle Wells Associates
Wastewater Rate Study Update Results
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction and Background
The Estero Municipal Improvement District (District ) engaged Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) to develop 10-year financial projection s for the District ’s Wastewater Enterprise and to project wastewater rate adjustments for the next five -year period. BWA last conducted a rate study update in 2024. No public hearing was held for wastewater, as the adopted wastewater rate increase of 2% was determined to be adequate.
C
urrent and projected w astewater service rates are in the middle-high range compared to other agencies on the Peninsula. However, because water rates are comparatively very low, combined water and wastewater service rates are in the middle-low range compared to other agencies on the Peninsula.
Wastewater Enterprise Summary
The District has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of San Mateo where the District receives treatment of its wastewater via the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) . The District is responsible for its share of operating and maintenance costs that San Mateo (as the lead agency and the contracting party) incurs treating the District’ s wastewater, as well as approximately 24% of the WWTP improvement costs and 12% of program management costs incurred as part of the Clean Water Program (CWP), a 10-year comprehensive capital improvement project initiated in 2014. The Cities of San Mateo and the District are expanding the jointly owned WWTP at an estimated cost of $748 MM with $171.9 MM of that falling under Foster City’s contributions. This is in addition to local capital projects for the District’s own wastewater collection system.
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
189
2 | Page
The wastewater enterprise revenue model is designed to fund collect ion system capital expenditures through annual transfers from the operating fund to the capital improvement fund.
In June 2020, to fund the anticipated costs of the WWTP CWP improvements, the District Board approved 5 years of wastewater rate increases: three 14.25% per year increases in FY 2021 through FY 2023, a 10% wastewater rate increase in FY 2024, and a 2% increase in FY 2025. BWA’s 2023 analysis shows that the District had adequate financing capacity for projected debt issuance s in the next several years and recommended spreading the remaining rate increases out over a longer period. Thus, the City Council reduced the 10% increase in FY 2024 to 3% and implemented the final adopted 2% increase in FY 2025.
BWA recommends adopting another 5-year rate schedule for FY 2026 through FY 203 0.
San Mateo and the District were able to lock in extremely cheap financing for WWTP projects due to the timing of the financings (loan interest rates as low as 1.14% for 30 year financing) , which has allowed the District to implement lower increases than anticipated. However, there is uncertainty about future operating and capital costs for the upgraded WWTP. BWA recommends holding the wastewater rates as the current level for FY 2026 and adopting 2% annual rate increases from FY 2027 to FY 2030. The increases are recommended to be reevaluated each year as the data evolves.
Detailed wastewater rate calculations are shown in APPENDIX B.
Rate Surveys
A survey of communities along the San Francisco Peninsula was conducted to compare the District’s typical wastewater bills with neighboring communities. The results of the wastewater survey are summarized in APPENDIX A.
The District’s proposed monthly residential wastewater bill for FY 2026 is $133.49. Since it is unknown what the comparator agencies are proposing for FY 2026, the District compared its FY 2025 monthly residential wastewater bills to the FY 2025 monthly residential wastewater bills for the neighboring agencies. The survey indicates that the District’s current wastewater rates are above the average amongst its comparator agencies. The average monthly bill for the region is $122.39 and the District’s rate is $133.49 per month, or about 9% more.
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
190
3 | Page
Wastewater Enterprise Fund
There are approximately 13,984 wastewater accounts serviced by the District. Most accounts are residential with the remainder consisting of commercial and institutional accounts as shown in Table 1. The wastewater service area includes Foster City only shown in APPENDIX C.
The District has approximately $27.4 million in its wastewater maintenance and operations reserve fund as shown in Table 2. The District’s minimum operating reserve target is 25% of operating and maintenance expenses (est. to be about $2.7 million). $2.7 million or 90 days of operating expenses is a minimum target to ensure adequate liquidity in case of unexpected expenditures. Wastewater utilities typically carry a median of 90 days to two years of cash on hand, with higher levels corresponding to better credit ratings. According to S&P Global’s Tabl e 1
Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District
Wastewater Servi ce Accounts
D
ata as of: 02/11/25
Number of Accounts
Residential
Single Fam ily 4,537
Townhouse/Duplex 2,294
Apartment/Condominium (Pools w/ Restrooms) 6,906
Re side ntial Total 13,737
Commercial
Restaurants 42
Commercial/Hotels/Offices/Industrial/Laundromats 169
Commerci al Total 211
Institutional
Institutional/Schools 36
Insitutional Total 36
Total 13,984
Source: Cognos Sewer Customer Count Report
Customer Class
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
191
4 | Page
2021 U.S. Municipal Water and Sewer Sector Medians, the median AAA rated agency carries 670 days of cash on hand. BWA projections show cash on hand in the operating reserve between 500 to 600 days of operating expenses, corresponding to AA to AA+ rated agencies.
Table 3 summarizes the current wastewater service rates.
Tabl e 2
Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District
Wa
stewater Operati ng Fund Reserves
July 1, 2024
Fund Reserve Component Balance
Reserved for Mai ntenance & Operati on $27,401,539
Total $27,401,539
operating and capital expenditures.
Note: Rate model only includes fund reserve components available to fund ongoing Source: City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Staff Tabl e 3
Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District
Current Wastewater Rates
Cur
rent
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2025
Residential (flat monthly rate)
Single Fam ily $133.49
Townhouse/Duplex 112.13
Apartment/Condominium (Pools w/ Restrooms) 112.13
Commercial (rate per ccf of water use)
Restaurants 24.26
Commercial/Hotels/Offices/Industrial/Laundromats 8.53
Institutional (rate per ccf of water use)
Institutional/Schools 5.61
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
192
5 | Page
Table 4 summarizes the operating expenses of the enterprise. Projected operating expenses are expected to increase over the next five years by about 6% annually. Projections of the District’s fair share of WWTP operating and maintenance (O&M) costs assume a District flow rate to the WWTP of 21%.
Table 4
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Wastewater Enterprise O&M Projection
Revised
Budget
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Employee Services $3,056,628 $3,196,813 $3,324,686 $3,457,673 $3,595,980 $3,739,819 4.0% Additional Staffing Expense [2] 0 31,339 115,175 118,767 122,661 126,689 Vari es Internal Services (from City) 1,522,926 1,673,613 1,715,453 1,758,339 1,802,297 1,847,354 2.5% Internal Services- Equipment Replacement Fund 462,234 401,864 411,911 422,209 432,764 443,583 2.5% Services & Supplies 801,950 933,450 956,786 980,706 1,005,224 1,030,355 2.5% EMID Share WWTP O&M 3,800,000 4,000,000 4,200,000 5,200,000 5,300,000 5,500,000 N/A Reallocation [3] 1,045,077 1,095,234 1,122,615 1,150,680 1,179,447 1,208,933 2.5% TOTAL O&M Expenditures $10,688,815 $11,332,313 $11,846,626 $13,088,374 $13,438,373 $13,896,733
6.0% 4.5% 10.5% 2.7% 3.4%
[1] Based on historical results
[2] A placeholder for potential additional positions to support the wastewater enterprise. [3] Costs allocated to the wastewater enterprise for the cost of services provided to the enterprise by City departments, as documented in the City’s cost allocation study.
Annual %
Increase [1]Expenditures Five Year Projection
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
193
6 | Page
Wastewater Financial Projections
Wastewater projections are shown in APPENDIX B.
Table 5 shows debt service estimates for the District’s share of WWTP costs. Annual debt service for the total debt issuances is estimated to amount to approximately $6 MM by FY 2026.
The City of San Mateo and the District used the proceeds to invest in the rehabilitation of their aging WWTP. This project aims to increase the plant's capacity to handle wet weather flows, produce higher-quality effluent, enhance system reliability, and support sustainability goals. The upgrade is designed to meet both current and future regulatory requirements and provide opportunities for future water reuse. Additionally, new treatment facilities comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. This upgrade will also boost the system’s ability to manage wastewater during storms and help prevent sanitary sewer overflows into the San Francisco Bay.
Key Benefits of the Project:
• Rehabilitation of the aging WWTP
• Reduction of ammonia and nitrogen effluent concentrations in compliance with the NPDES permit
• Decreased sewer overflows and unauthorized discharges into the San Francisco Bay
Table 5
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Debt Service
Debt Service FYE 2025
FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 FYE 2031 FYE 2032 FYE 2033 FYE 2034 FYE 2035 WIFIA Loan $730,453 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 $2,652,882 2019 Bonds 2,084,250 2,086,875 2,087,750 2,086,875 2,084,250 2,084,750 2,088,125 2,084,375 2,083,500 2,085,250 2,084,500 2023 SRF Loan/Bonds 134,332 1,259,604 1,259,573 1,259,540 1,259,508 1,259,475 1,259,443 1,259,410 1,259,376 1,259,342 1,259,309 Total Debt Service $2,949,035 $5,999,361 $6,000,205 $5,999,297 $5,996,640 $5,997,107 $6,000,450 $5,996,666 $5,995,758 $5,997,475 $5,996,690
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
194
7 | Page
Wastewater Cost of Service Analysis
BWA performed a Wastewater Cost of Service Analysis to determine equitable cost allocation to the various user classes. BWA recommends continuing the practice of placing commercial customers into three wastewater strength categories, (low, medium and high) based on the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Wastewater Revenue Program Guidelines. Low strength wastewater (Class A) customers include banks, laundromats, retail stores, schools, churches and others as shown in Table 6.
Medium strength wastewater (Class B) customers have wastewater strength factors that are assumed to be similar to residential wastewater strength factors. They include typical commercial activities such as libraries, spas, nail salons, gas stations and bars.
High strength wastewater (Class C) customers primarily include food -related businesses such as restaurants, bakeries, dairies, wineries, catering, butcher shops and fish markets.
Table 6
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Strength Classifications into Low, Medium/Domestic, and High Strength Dischargers
Low Strength Banks & Financial Institutions
Barber Shops/Hair Salons (hair cutting only)
Post Offices/Government
Retail Stores
Libraries
Schools
Churches, Halls & Lodges
Parking Garages
Warehouses
Medium/Commercial/ Residential - All
Domestic Strength Appliance Repair
Beauty Shops (hair cutting w/additional treatments)
Dry Cleaners
Nail Salons
Pet Groomers
Commercial Laundromats
Bars & Taverns
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
195
8 | Page
Tasting Rooms
Hospitals - General, Convalescent & Veterinarian
Hotels, Motels, B&Bs, and Vacation Rentals
Offices - Business and Professional
Offices - Medical/Dental
Pools with Restrooms (Clubhouse)
Theaters
Car Washes
High Tech Medical Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing/Industrial
Gym or Health Club
Machine Shops
Service Stations, Garages, Auto Repair Shops
Mini Marts - W/O Dish Washer or Garbage Disposal
Mini Mart with Gas Pumps - W/O Dish Washer or Garbage Disposal Spa with Various Beauty Treatments
High Strength Restaurants
Coffee Shops
Ice Cream Parlors
Catering
Eatery
Bakeries
Butcher Shops
Fish Market/Shop
Markets - with Dish Washer or Garbage
Disposal
Markets - with Bakeries or Butcher Shops
Mini Marts - with Dish Washer or Garbage Disposal
Wineries
Market
Dairies (milk producers, yogurt, ice cream maker)
Specialty Foods Manufacturing (e.g., cheese or olive oil maker)
Note: Wastewater users who have Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) waste will be put into the High Strength user category
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
196
9 | Page
Table 7 summarizes the assumed wastewater strength factors for the low, medium and high strength groups that are based on typical strengths provided in the SWRCB’s Revenue Program Guidelines. The strength factor for medium strength customers is equivalent to residential or “domestic” strength, of 1.00. The strength factor for low strength is calculated at 0.66 and for high strength is calculated at 2.85 based on the SWRCB guidelines.
Table 7
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Assumed Wastewater Strength Factors
Strength Class LOW LOW-MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
Examples: Institutional Residential Restaurant
Bank Offices Bakery
Flow (gpd) 200 168 200 200
BOD1 (mg/l) 135 240 240 1000
TSS2 (mg/l) 100 240 240 800
Strength Factor 0.66 0.84 1.00 2.85
Strength Factor Formula SF=(Flow(gpd)/200)*(0.33+(0.34*BOD(mg/l)/240)+(0.33*TSS(mg/l)/240)) WW flows and strengths based on State Water Resources Control Board's Revenue Program Guidelines 1 "BOD" stands for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
2 "TSS" stands for Total Suspended Solids
Townhouse, Duplex,
Apartment, Condo
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
197
10 | Page
Table 8 summarizes the mass-balance analysis for the City’s wastewater system and calculates the wastewater rates for each customer class. Single family residences are assumed to have an average daily (dry weather) flow of 200 gallons per day (gpd). The flow estimate is based on the State Water Resources Control Board Revenue Program Guidelines Table G-1, which estimates flow in gallons per day per person for residential dwelling units to be up to 75 gallons.
Based on residential occupancy data provided by the City of Foster City, single family residences are estimated to have an average of 2.67 residents per household and multi-family residences are estimated to have an average of 2.25 residents per household (84% of a single family household).
Multi-family dwellings are billed based on an estimated flow of 168 gpd or 0.84 time s the single family flow. As a check, the mass balance in Table 8 compares the total calculated and measured daily wastewater flows for Foster City (average dry weather flow).
The results agree well with the estimated daily flow at 2 .6 million gallons per day (mgd) and the measured flow at 2.4 mgd.
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
198
11 | Page
Table 8
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Wastewater Users by Customer Class
FY 2025 Estimate
Customer Class EDU x Flow Calculated
EDUs1 ADWF Flow ADWF Flow BOD3 TSS4 Current
(gal/day) (gal/day) (mg/l) (mg/l) Rate
Residential
Single Family Residential 4,537 200 907,400 240 240 133.49 Townhouse/Duplex 2,294 168 385,392 240 240 112.13
Apartment/Condos 6,906 168 1,160,208 240 240 112.13
Subtotal 2,453,000
Use Estimated Calculated
Accounts (gal/day) Flow Factor ADWF Flow BOD3 TSS4 Current Commercial (gal/day) (mg/l) (mg/l) Rate
Low Strength 36 46,756 65% 30,392 135 100 5.61
Medium/Domestic Strength 169 256,605 52% 133,329 240 240 8.53 High Strength 42 53,757 70% 37,630 1000 800 24.26
Subtotal 357,118 201,351
Totals 2,654,351
Check Against Lowest Actual Monthly Avg. Day Flow (May 2014 from LS 59 Flow Log): 2,367,806 1 "EDU" stands for Equivalent Dwelling Unit
2 "ADWF" stands for Average Dry Weather Flow
3 "BOD" stands for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
4 "TSS" stands for Total Suspended Solids
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
199
12 | Page
Low Income Discount
Currently the District has approximately 34 customers enrolled in the Water/Wastewater Rate Assistance Program (WWRAP), which was implemented in 2020. Customers meeting the eligibility and qualification requirements below are granted a discount of up to $15 per month each on their qualifying Wastewater accounts, not to exceed a $30 per month discount per customer. To be eligible for the WWRAP, customers must show that they qualify for the PG&E CARE Program or other public assistance program or submit proof of income eligibility.
The estimated maximum potential cost of a $15/month discount for 34 wastewater customers amounts to $6,120 per year. Since the low income discount revenue sources cannot be funded with rates, rates are unaffected by the decision on the terms of the program and hence are not required to be included in a Proposition 218 notification.
The District funds the current low income discount through non-rate sources of revenue such as fines and penalties, cell tower lease and general fund revenue to maintain compliance with California Proposition 218. The discount is recommended to be provided as funds are available.
Late penalties collected year to date for wastewater in FY 2025 amounted to $27,000, exceeding the cost of the program.
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
200
APPENDIX A
13 | Page
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
201
APPENDIX B
14 | Page
Table 9
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Wastewater Enterprise Cash Flow Projection
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Assumptions:
Interest Earnings Rate 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Revenue Increase from Growth 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% Rate Adjustment 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Monthly Service Charge for Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 $145.93 $147.39 $148.86 $150.35 $151.85 Beginning O&M Fund Balance $27,401,539 $28,466,000 $17,547,300 $18,795,500 $19,362,800 $20,134,800 $21,018,000 $21,879,900 $22,621,700 $24,233,100 $25,931,800 Operating Revenues
Service Charges 21,479,292 21,558,000 22,068,000 22,590,000 23,125,000 23,672,000 23,995,000 24,323,000 24,655,000 24,992,000 25,333,000 Connection Fees [1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest Earnings [2] 822,046 854,000 526,000 564,000 581,000 604,000 631,000 656,000 679,000 727,000 778,000 Other Revenue 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Operating Revenue 22,302,338 22,413,000 22,595,000 23,155,000 23,707,000 24,277,000 24,627,000 24,980,000 25,335,000 25,720,000 26,112,000 Total Revenue 22,302,338 22,413,000 22,595,000 23,155,000 23,707,000 24,277,000 24,627,000 24,980,000 25,335,000 25,720,000 26,112,000 Operating Expenses
Employee Services 3,056,628 3,196,813 3, 324,686 3,457,673 3,595,980 3,739,819 3,889,412 4,044,988 4,206,788 4,375,060 4,550,062 Additional Staffing Expense 0 31,339 115, 175 118,767 122,661 126,689 131,756 137,026 142,507 148,208 154,136 Internal Services (from City) 1,522,926 1,673,613 1, 715,453 1,758,339 1,802,297 1,847,354 1,893,538 1,940,876 1,989,398 2,039,133 2,090,111 Internal Services -ERF 462,234 401,864 411,911 422,209 432,764 443,583 454,673 466,040 477,691 489,633 501,874 Services & Supplies 801,950 933,450 956,786 980,706 1,005,224 1,030,355 1,056,114 1,082,517 1,109,580 1,137,320 1,165,753 EMID Share WWTP O&M 3,800,000 4,000,000 4,200,000 5,200,000 5,300,000 5,500,000 5,600,000 5,800,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Reallocation 1,045,077 1,095,234 1,122,615 1,150,680 1,179,447 1,208,933 1,239,156 1,270,135 1,301,888 1,334,435 1,367,796 Operating Expenses 10,688,815 11,332,313 11,846,626 13,088,374 13,438,373 13,896,733 14,264,649 14,741,582 15,227,852 15,523,789 15,829,732 Operating Net Revenue 11,613,523 11,080,687 10,748,374 10,066,626 10,268,627 10,380,267 10,362,351 10,238,418 10,107,148 10,196,211 10,282,268 Capital Expens es
Transfer Out - CIP 7,600,000 16,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Capital Expenses 7,600,000 16,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Annual Debt Service 2,949,035 5,999,361 6,000,205 5,999,297 5,996,640 5,997,107 6,000,450 5,996,666 5,995,758 5,997,475 5,996,690 Debt Service 2,949,035 5,999,361 6,000,205 5,999,297 5,996,640 5,997,107 6,000,450 5,996,666 5,995,758 5,997,475 5,996,690 Debt Coverage [3] 3.94 1.85 1.79 1.68 1.71 1.73 1.73 1.71 1.69 1.70 1.71 Total Expenditures 21,237,850 33,331,674 21,346,831 22,587,672 22,935,012 23,393,840 23,765,099 24,238,248 23,723,610 24,021,263 24,326,422 Revenues Less Total Expenditures 1,064,489 (10,918,674) 1,248,169 567,328 771,988 883,160 861,901 741,752 1,611,390 1,698,737 1,785,578 Ending O&M Fund 28,466,028 17,547,326 18,795,469 19,362,828 20,134,788 21,017,960 21,879,901 22,621,652 24,233,090 25,931,837 27,717,378 Cash Fund Reserve Test: Minimum Fund
Balance > 25% O&M Expenses
Year-end O&M Fund 28,466,028 17,547,326 18, 795,469 19,362,828 20,134,788 21,017,960 21,879,901 22,621,652 24,233,090 25,931,837 27,717,378 25% Operating Expenses 2,672,204 2,833,078 2,961,656 3,272,094 3,359,593 3,474,183 3,566,162 3,685,396 3,806,963 3,880,947 3,957,433 # of Days O&M in Reserves 972 565 579 540 547 552 560 560 581 610 639 Pass/fail PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS [1] Connection fees excluded from analysis.
[2] Projected interest calculated as 3% of the Beginning Fund Balance of the Wastewater O&M Fund. [3] Minimum requirement debt service covereage requirement = 1.25x Five Year Projection Extended Year Projection
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
202
15 | Page
Table 10
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District P
rojected Wastewater Rate Impacts
Current
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
% Rate Increas e 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Residential (flat monthly rate)
Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.67 2.72 2.78 2.83
Townhouse/Duplex $112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.24 2.29 2.33 2.38
Apartment/Condominium (Pools w/ Restrooms) $112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37 Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.24 2.29 2.33 2.38
Commercial (rate per ccf of water us e)
High Strength $24.26 $24.26 $24.75 $25.25 $25.76 $26.28 Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52
Medium/Domestic Strength $8.53 $8.53 $8.70 $8.87 $9.05 $9.23 Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18
Low Strength $5.61 $5.61 $5.72 $5.83 $5.95 $6.07
Increase (Decrease) per ccf 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12
Projected - Fiscal Year Ending June 30Projected Rates
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
203
16 | Page
Table 11
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Projected Wastewater Rate Impacts
Current
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
% Rate Increas e
Single Family Residential Flat Monthly Flat $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 $ Increase (Decrease) 0.00 2.67 2.72 2.78 2.83
% Increase (Decrease) 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Projected - Fiscal Year Ending June 30Rate Change Scenarios
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
204
17 | Page
$133.49 $133.49
$136.16
$138.88
$141.66
$144.49
$120
$130
$140
$150
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District
Monthly Single Family Residential Wastewater Bill
Projected SFR Monthly Bills
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
205
APPENDIX C
18 | Page
7.2 Exhibit A- - Bartle Wells Associates Wastewater Rate Study Update Results Memo dated March 11, 2025
206
EMID Rate Setting Procedures
Overview of Rate Setting Procedures
These “Rate Setting Procedures” (“Procedures”) describe the processes that will be followed by the Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) in establishing any new or increased water rates and wastewater rates. These Procedures are based on the “Background Information and Defined Terms” set forth on Exhibit “A, ” attached hereto. As used in these Procedures, the term “rate” or “rates” may be used to refer to the processes the District will follow for both water rates and wastewater rates.
The Rate Setting Procedures include compliance with Proposition 218 (including the consideration of “written protests” from record owners) as well as the procedures for exhausting administrative remedies under Government Code section 53759.1 (including the consideration of “written objections” from record owners). For the purpose of considering and counting written protests and written objections, the District will consider the term “record owner” to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the rates to the District (consistent with Proposition 218; California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 2(g)).
At a special meeting of the District Board of Directors (“Board” or “District Board”) on March 24, 2025, the Board approved these Procedures which includes A. For any water rates or wastewater rates adopted or approved by the Board that complies with these Procedures, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the District a written objection to those rates in accordance with these Procedures that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.B. The Board hereby adopts the administrative record principles contained in Government Code section 53759.2.
C. These Procedures will take effect upon approval on March 24, 2025, and will apply to any proposed new or increased water rates of which notice is provided in accordance with these procedures.
D. The District Board authorizes the District Manager to take such other and additional actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement the purpose of these procedures and implement the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure adopted herein.
Rate Setting Procedures
1. Overview of Exhaustion Procedure (Government Code section 53759.1)
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
207
If the District publishes a notice of public hearing identifying procedures for property owners to submit written objections (described in Section 2(b), below),1 the District will follow the “exhaustion procedure” set forth herein, to be conducted concurrently with the Proposition 218 process, for the District Board’s consideration of any proposed new or increased water rates or wastewater rates. This exhaustion procedure shall be conducted in accordance with “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions), and the particular procedures set forth in Government Code section 53759.1. The exhaustion procedure provides an opportunity for record owners to submit a “timely written objection” to identify substantive bases for asserting proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218. A ”record owner” may be referred to in these Procedures as the “owner” or “property owner. ” The processes described herein may be referred to as “these Procedures. ” a. District staff will post on its internet website a notice of the exhaustion procedure, and this notice will be prominently incorporated in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice mailed to each record owner.
b. The notice will identify the date and time by which timely written objections must be submitted to the District, and the date will be no less than 45 calendar days after the notice is mailed to record owners.
c. District staff will review timely written objections and prepare written responses providing the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed rates in response to the written objections. District staff will present its written responses to the District Board prior to the close of the public hearing for the Proposition 218 protest hearing, and the District Board will review to determine whether action is needed in response to the written objections or written responses.
d. Following the District Board’s review and response to timely written objections and written responses, it is within the discretion of the District Board to proceed with the Proposition 218 protest hearing process, as described herein, to consider approval of the proposed rates.
e. Rate Challenger Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies. No claim, suit for damages, suit for injunctive relief, petition for writ of mandamus, or administrative or judicial proceeding shall be brought against the District (including the District Board, or its employees, officers, or designees) regarding a challenge to a proposed rate unless the challenging party first exhausts its administrative remedies by complying with these Procedures and submitting to the District a timely written objection.
2. Notice of Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Initiating Exhaustion Procedure Prior to approving or imposing any new or increased rates, the District will conduct a public hearing and provide prior written notice to each record owner of the hearing and the exhaustion procedure
1 If the District publishes a notice of public hearing that does not identify procedures for property owners to submit written objections , the District will conduct the public hearing in compliance with Proposition 218, and consider any written protests in accordance with these Procedures.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
208
as described in these Procedures. To the extent the District sends a regular billing statement for water or wastewater service provided to a “customer” (e.g., a “tenant” or other “ratepayer”) who is not the record owner, the District will also mail the written notice to the customer at the address for the billing statement. The District will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner no later than 45 days prior to the public hearing. The contents of the hearing notice will include:
a. Compliance with Proposition 218:
(1) The date, time, and location of the public hearing.
(2) The amount of the rates imposed on each parcel . This may be satisfied by identifying the rate amounts for each customer type subject to the rates.
(3) The basis upon which the amount of the proposed rates were calculated.
(4) The reason for the rates.
(5) The location to which all owners must submit signed paper written protests to the District via mail or personal delivery.
(6) To the extent relevant to support bond covenants that rely on revenue from rates, p ursuant to Government Code section 54354.5, the notice will identify the opportunity for record owners to be heard as to whether the proposed rates are not in compliance with any requirements of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (Government Code Sections 53000 – 55821), including : (a) the rates are discriminatory or excessive, or (b) the rates will not be sufficient under the provisions of any outstanding revenue bonds (including Government Code section 54515).
(7) How members of the public may obtain additional information regarding the proposed new or increased fee, including a link to information that is available on the District’s website or by requesting a mailed copy.
b. Compliance with the Exhaustion Procedure for Written Objections. If the District chooses to follow the exhaustion procedure for written objections, concurrently with mailing the public hearing notice, the District will post on its internet website the written basis for the proposed rates and a link to the Proposition 218 public hearing notice which will be supplemented with the following prominently displayed information:
(1) The “deadline” (date and time) by which a “timely written objection” must be submitted to the District. The deadline will be no earlier than 45 days after the District mails to property owners the notice of the public hearing.
(2) The location to which all owners must submit signed paper written objections to the District via mail, or personal delivery.
(3) All substantive requirements for submitting a written objection. The record owner must comply with the requirements set forth in Procedures section 3, below,
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
209
including specifying the grounds on which the owner alleges the proposed new or increased rates does not comply with Proposition 218.
(4) Notice that: (a) any person’s failure to submit a timely written objection bars any right of that person to challenge the proposed new or increased fee through a legal proceeding; and (b) there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging the proposed new or inc reased rates (in accordance with Government Code section 53759).
c. The District will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner of a parcel that is subject to payment of the new or increased fee. The notice shall be mailed to owner’s address shown on the last equalized property tax assessment roll. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent equalized property tax assessment roll of the San Mateo County Recorder is sufficient evidence of the record owner of each parcel. A person may rebut the presumption by providing to the District written proof of ownership.
(2) The District Manager, or designee, will identify those persons authorized to provide proper mailing of any notice required by these Procedures, and an affidavit of the manner and timing of those mailings shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud.
(3) Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the hearing or its results.
(4) The District may also provide supplemental notices to the address where the District customarily mails the billing statement for rates. d. Concurrently with publishing and mailing the public hearing notice, the District will post on its website relevant information regarding the proposed new or increased fee including a copy of the cost of service analysis (which may be referred to as a “rate study”) which provides documentation of compliance with all substantive requirements of Prop 218 regarding the calculation of the amount of the proposed new or increased fee.
3. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Objections In order for a record owner to submit a timely written objection, it must:
a. Be received by the District at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the deadline identified on the public hearing notice. The deadline may be no earlier than 45 days after the District mails to record owners the notice of public hearing.
b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the District.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
210
c. Specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Prop osition 218. The grounds must identify (i) the substantive requirement of Proposition 218, and (ii) the reason the proposed rates do not comply with that requirement. For any proposed new or increased “fee” for a property-related service (such as water rates or wastewater rates ), relevant substantive requirements of Proposition 218 include:
(1) Revenues derived from the rates shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
(2) Revenues derived from the rates shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
(3) The amount of the rates shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No rates may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Rates based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted.
(5) No rates may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.
4. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Protests
The District will consider each timely written objection to also serve as a timely written protest from a record owner.
In order for a record owner to submit a timely written protest , to be considered as a part of the Proposition 218 protest hearing described in Section 6, below, it must:
a. Be received by the District at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing.
b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the District.
c. Must clearly identify that the record owner opposes the proposed new or increased rates that are the subject of the hearing.
d. Will only be counted as one protest per parcel. That means if any one or more record owners of a parcel submits a timely written protest (or timely written objection) for the same parcel, it will be counted as one timely written protest.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
211
e. Record owners of multiple parcels within the District may file one protest for each parcel owned within the District’s service area.
f. A record owner may withdraw a written protest only if the withdrawal is submitted in writing by the record owner clearly indicating an intent to withdraw for an identified property, and it is received by the District at the location (and no later than the time) for submitting written protests. After a written protest is withdrawn, a record owner may submit a new or replacement written protest in accordance with the requirements of these Procedures. No other modification to a timely written protest may be made.
g. The District Clerk shall take custody of all submitted written objections and written protests.
(1) In order to protect the integrity of the procedures for considering written objections and written protests as described in these Procedures, all written objections and written protests shall remain confidential until the District Manager (or designee) has determined they may be published in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 4(g)(2).
(2) Any submitted written objection and written protest shall be a public record, subject to the District’s determination that the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure under Government Code section 7922.000. As a general rule, the District finds there is a substantial public interest in not disclosing written objections and written protests to protect the integrity of the process described herein during the time that: (A) written objections are still being submitted and (B) prior to the time that the Brown Act meeting agenda is posted (e.g., at least 72 hours before a regular meeting under Government Code section 54954.2).
5. District’s Response to Timely Written Objections
At the close of the written objection period, District staff shall review timely written objections and shall draft written responses to the written objections. The District’s written response will include:
(i) the grounds on which the objection is (or is not) resulting in amendments to the proposed new or increased rates; and (ii) an explanation of the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed new or increased rates.
District staff shall present the written responses to the District Board at the public meeting that was specified in the public hearing notice described in Section 2, above. a. In accordance with the Brown Act, the public will be provided an opportunity to address the District Board prior to the Council’s action related to the timely written objections and written responses. (See Government Code section 54954.3(a).) b. In accordance with Government Code section 53759.1(d), the District Board, in exercising its legislative discretion in considering timely written objections and written responses, shall determine for the proposed new or increased rates whether further review,
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
212
clarification, or reduction is needed, and whether to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest hearing.
6. Conducting the Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing If the District Board determines to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest public hearing for proposed new or increased rates (as previously noticed in accordance with Section 2, above), the public hearing shall be conducted consistent with the following:
a. The District Board will open the public hearing and consider all evidence presented during the hearing including the public hearing notice and all documents referenced therein (particularly including the Rate Study), all written objections, written responses, written protests, and any testimony, documents, or information presented during the public hearing.
b. Prior to closing the public hearing, the District Board will request if there are any additional written protests to be submitted to (or withdrawn from) the District. c. The District Board will then close the public hearing and request a report from the District Clerk to identify the number of timely written protests compared to the total number of parcels subject to the new or increased fees. (1) A majority protest exists only if the number of timely written protests exceeds one-half of the parcels served by the District. (2) If the District Clerk determines that additional time is needed to tabulate timely written protests, the District Board shall recess or continue the public meeting to provide sufficient time for the District Clerk to complete the tabulation. (3) If the District Clerk determines that there is a majority protest, the District shall not impose the new or increased rates.
(4) If the District Clerk determines that there is not a majority protest, the District Board shall continue its deliberations and take action on the proposed new or increased rates.
(5) The District Clerk’s determinations under these Procedures shall be the final determination of the District subject to appropriate judicial review. This shall include the District Clerk’s determinations that: (a) a written protest meets the requirements for a timely written protest in accordance with these Procedures; or (b) a majority protest has (or has not) been submitted for the proposed rates.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
213
Exhibit A
Background Information and Defined Terms
A. The Estero Municipal Improvement District (“District”) provides water and wastewater services to property owners (who may also be referred to as “owners”) within the District’s service area (as described in Exhibit B ), and establishes the amount of water and wastewater rates to be charged customers in accordance with Estero Municipal Improvement District Code (“District Code”) and applicable law.
B. California law authorizes the District to charge a fee to the property owners or property owners’ “tenants” (who may be collectively referred to as “ratepayers” or “customers”) for the proportionate cost of providing water and wastewater services to each customer in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the voter-approved ballot measure known as “ Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions). The phrase “rate” or “rates” may be used to refer to the processes the District will follow for both water rates and wastewater rates.
C. Under Proposition 218, the District’s rates are considered to be a “fee” for a “property- related service” (also referred to as a “property -related fee”), subject to the particular requirements of Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6. A property-related fee is one imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of pr operty ownership. In general, the District may only increase its existing rates if the District (1) calculates the rates in accordance with Proposition 218, (2) conducts a noticed public hearing before the District Board (“ District Board ”), as described in these procedures and (3) a “timely written protest” is not submitted by property owners representing a majority of the parcels served by the District.
D. Under Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 (known as “ AB 2257”), the District may establish a supplemental process for objecting property owners to exhaust administrative remedies, also described in these procedures , by which the District will take specified actions in response to any “timely written objection. ” Any timely written objection will also be counted by the District as a timely written protest. However, under this process, only an owner who submits a timely written objection will have a right to challenge a proposed increase in water rates or wastewater rates through a legal proceeding . (These supplemental processes were authorized by Assembly Bill No. 2257, Chapter 561, Statutes of 2024, e ffective January 1, 2025.)
E. The purpose of these Procedures is to document the processes the District will follow in considering proposed new or increased rates, including compliance with Proposition 218 as well as the exhaustion of administrative procedures under AB 2257. The processes described in these Procedures provide a meaningful opportunity for a property owner to submit a written objection to proposed new or increased rate s early in the rate consideration process, and to provide an opportunity for the District to address or r esolve any objections before the District Board makes a final decision on whether to adopt proposed rates pursuant to Proposition 218.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
214
F. These Procedures identify the process the District will follow in order to implement the administrative remedies to be exhausted by property owners under Government Code sections 53759.1 prior to an owner initiating litigation to challenge the rates . In general, at least 45 days before a public hearing to consider a proposed new or increased rates, the District will make available the proposed rate s, and post the written basis for the proposed rates on its internet website. The District will provide at least 45 days for any property owner to review the proposed rates and timely submit to the District a written objection to the rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218 . The District will consider and provide a substantive written response to each timely written objection submitted prior to the close of the public hearing described in Section 1(C).
G. For any rates approved by the District implementing these Procedures, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the District a written objection to those rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.
H. The District Board hereby intends to adopt the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure as outlined in Government Code section 53759.1, and the administrative record principles contained in Government Code section 53759.2.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
215
Exhibit B
Estero Municipal Improvement District and City of Foster City Map EMID provides water service in the City of Foster City and the Mariner’s Island portion of San Mateo. EMID provides wastewater service in the City of Foster City.
7.2 Exhibit B - Rate Setting Procedures
216
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED WATER AND
WASTEWATER RATES
Monday, June 2, 2025, 6:30 P.M.
Estero Municipal Improvement District
610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404-2222
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
HAYWARD, CA
PERMIT #3335
The Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID)
provides water service to Foster City and a portion of the City of San Mateo immediately adjacent to the west,
referred to as the Mariners Island area. EMID provides
wastewater service to Foster City. State law allows EMID to follow the process described in this notice to set rates sufficient to cover costs of operating and maintaining the facilities needed to provide these services. EMID will hold a public hearing on June 2, 2025 at 6:30 pm to
consider approval of proposed updated water and
wastewater rates, to take effect on July 1, 2025. If the updated rates are approved, they will include annual
adjustments for cost of living for FY 2025-2026 to FY
2029-2030. The EMID Board will consider all information presented regarding the proposed rate changes, including any timely written objections and protests prior to making a decision.
The hearing will be held as a hybrid meeting in-person and by teleconference/video conference, subject to appropriate regulations. The meeting address is 620 Foster City
Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. Final
teleconference/video conference information will be listed on the published agenda. The public may participate by
submitting comments via email to
[email protected] or by providing live verbal public comment by joining the meeting via teleconference and/or video conference, or in person. Instructions on how to join the meeting are included in the top portion of the agenda posted at: www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes
.
Estero Municipal
Improvement District
Proposed Rate Changes
A Rate Study was prepared pursuant to governing law in
“Prop 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6) identifying each parcel to be charged water and
wastewater rates, the amount of the rates, the basis
upon which the rate was calculated, and the reason for
the change in rates. Additional information regarding the proposed rates, including the Rate Study (prepared by
Bartle Wells Associates) and the Rate Setting
Procedures are available on the City’s website:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-
wastewater-rates.
How to Submit a Written Objection or Protest
Any objection OR protest must: (1) be on a paper writing identifying the name of the “customer of record” (either the property owner or a tenant directly liable to pay the rates), and the street address or other clear identification of the property subject to the rates; (2) be signed by the customer of record; and (3) comply with the relevant
requirements for a written objection or written protest (as outlined below and summarized in the Rate Setting
Procedures posted at
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-
wastewater-rates.). Do not transmit objections or
protests via email or other electronic transmission. The main differences between an objections and a protest: a) the deadline for timely submission; b) the additional
information required for each; and c) a timely written
objection is required prior to bringing a legal challenge to the proposed rates.
Additional Requirements: Timely Written Objection
A timely written objection must specify the grounds for alleging that the proposed rates do not comply with Prop 218. The Rate Setting Procedures summarize the
relevant requirements of Prop 218, and the Rate Study
documents EMID’s compliance with Prop 218.
The deadline for written objections is May 15, 2025 at
5 pm. To be considered timely, such objections must be
received by the EMID City Clerk/District Secretary at the return address on this notice.
Additional Requirements: Timely Written Protest
A written protest must clearly state that the customer of record opposes the rate increase. To be considered
timely, a written protest must be received by the EMID
City Clerk/District Secretary at the return address on this notice prior to the close of the public testimony portion of the June 2, 2025 6:30 pm public hearing. Any timely
written objections (see above) will also be considered a timely written protest. Only one protest will be counted per parcel. Owners of multiple parcels may file one
protest for each parcel owned within EMID’s service
area. If timely written protests are received from
customers of record of a majority of parcels within the EMID service area, the proposed rate increase will not
be implemented.
Rate Assistance Program
The District may be able to offer Rate Assistance
discounts to qualifying customers. To learn more or to
apply, visit: www.fostercity.org/wwrap.
Water Conservation Tips
Water is a precious resource! Thank you for taking
steps to save water and lower your monthly bill.
• Switch from lawn to drought-tolerant landscape.
• Turn the faucet off while brushing your teeth.
• Run only full loads in the clothes washer or
dishwasher.
• Fix leaks around your home
Water Conservation Rebates
Get money to help pay for water-saving changes at
your home or business. For information on water
conservation rebate programs, visit
www.fostercity.org/rebates.
You are hereby notified that in order to file a
judicial action or legal proceeding to challenge the
proposed water and wastewater rates, you must
file a timely written objection, and you must
commence the action or proceeding within 120
days of EMID’s approval of the rates. Failure to
submit a timely written objection bars any right to
challenge the proposed rates through a judicial
action or legal proceeding. (Gov Code Section
53759.1(c).) There is a 120-day statute of
limitations for challenging any new, increased, or
extended water fee, rate, or charge.
(Gov Code Section 53759.)
7.2 Exhibit C - Prop 218 Notice for FY 2025-2026 to 2029-2030
217
Wastewater Rates
Wastewater rates provide the revenue needed to pay for the staff, supplies and capital projects required to maintain the District’s wastewater collection and conveyance system. In addition, the District is in a partnership with the City of San Mateo to provide treatment of the District’s wastewater and approximately 24% of the capital improvement costs to expand the jointly-owned WWTP, for which the District is responsible for approximately $171.9 million. For details on projected EMID wastewater rates in FY 2025-2026 through FY 2029-2030 please visit:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-wastewater-rates.
EMID provides wastewater service to Foster City. If you receive water service from EMID in San Mateo, your wastewater service is provided through the City of San Mateo, not through EMID. For information on San Mateo wastewater, visit:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/1085/Sewer-Service-Charge.
Monthly Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 Townhouse/
Duplex
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Apt/Condo
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Commercial
(per ccf)
High Strength $24.26 $24.26 $24.75 $25.25 $25.76 $26.28 Med/Domestic
Strength
$8.53 $8.53 $8.70 $8.87 $9.05 $9.23
Low Strength $5.61 $5.61 $5.72 $5.83 $5.95 $6.07
Water Rates and Pass-Through for Water Use Rates
Water rates include fixed water meter charges and water use charges.
Adjustments were required to provide necessary revenue for the maintenance, operational and capital costs associated with the water distribution enterprise. A significant driver for the proposed water use rate increases is projected increases in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) wholesale water rate. Government Code section 53756 allows EMID to “pass through” changes to the wholesale cost to its customers. It is proposed that EMID implement a “pass-through” adjustment whereby changes by SFPUC to its rates in excess of the estimated increases will be reflected in EMID’s retail water rates during the 5-year period covered by this Notice. EMID customers will be notified of any such pass-through adjustments at least 30 days prior to the change in rates (on or after each July 1 of the 5-year period). Rates are presented per ccf (hundred cubic feet). Additional details regarding proposed water rates, including the formula for this pass-through rate can be found in the Rate Study here:
www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-and-wastewater-rates.
Water Use Rates for Single-Family Residences
Single-family residences with responsibility for indoor (domestic) and outdoor (irrigation) water uses are placed in a tiered rate structure whereby the cost of water increases based on the amount of water used in a bi-monthly billing cycle as follows:
Per CCF Charge
Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—0 to 20 ccf $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—Over 20 ccf $7.33 $7.56 $7.79 $8.08 $8.34 $8.59
Water Use Rates for Irrigation Customers
Irrigation customers with separate irrigation water meters are provided an individually-prepared water budget based on the square footage of landscaping being watered, whereby the cost of water increases for the amount of water used over the allotment. Customized reports through the year let customers know how they are doing in water use.
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Monthly Water Consumption Budget
<= 100% $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
> 100% $7.80 $7.76 $8.00 $8.29 $8.55 $8.79
Water Use Rates for Commercial Customers and Fire Line
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
All Usage $6.72 $6.92 $7.14 $ 7.41 $7.68 $7.96
Fixed Water Meter Rates
The fixed water meter charge ensures the continued safe delivery of water through the system. The meter ratios are based on meter size in compliance with the American Water Works Association.
Monthly
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Domestic and/or Irrigation Customers
5/8” and 3/4” $28.85 $31.30 $33.80 $36.15 $38.70 $41.40 1” $48.08 $52.17 $56.33 $60.25 $64.50 $69.00
1.5” $115.40 $125.20 $135.20 $144.60 $154.80 $165.60
2” $153.87 $166.93 $180.27 $192.80 $206.40 $220.80
3” $336.58 $365.17 $394.33 $421.75 $451.50 $483.00
4” $605.85 $657.30 $709.80 $759.15 $812.70 $869.40
6” $1,346.33 $1,460.67 $1,577.33 $1,687.00 $1,806.00 $1,932.00 8”or greater $2,308.00 $2,504.00 $2,704.00 $2,892.00 $3,096.00 $3,312.00 Private Fire Service Protection Meter
1-1/12 & below $40.39 $43.82 $47.32 $50.61 $54.18 $57.96 2” $53.95 $58.53 $63.21 $67.60 $72.37 $77.42
3” $117.71 $127.70 $137.90 $147.49 $157.90 $168.91
4” $212.05 $230.06 $248.43 $265.70 $284.45 $304.29
6” $471.12 $511.13 $551.95 $590.33 $631.97 $676.06
8” or greater $807.80 $876.40 $946.40 $1,012.20 $1,083.60 $1,159.20Rates are presented per CCF. One (1) CCF =748 gallons
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Questions
If you have questions regarding this notice, please contact (650) 286-3270 or [email protected].
Water Use Rates for Multi-Family Residences (per living unit) Multi-family residences with responsibility for indoor water uses are placed in a tiered rate structure whereby the cost of water increases based on the amount of water used in a bi-monthly billing cycle as follows:
Per CCF
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Tier 1—0 to 10 ccf $6.60 $6.80 $7.02 $7.29 $7.56 $7.84
Tier 2—Over 10 ccf $7.36 $7.54 $7.77 $8.06 $8.32 $8.57
7.2 Exhibit C - Prop 218 Notice for FY 2025-2026 to 2029-2030
218
Exhibit D – Wastewater Rate Schedule
Monthly
Charge Current
Proposed
FY 25-26
Proposed
FY 26-27
Proposed
FY 27-28
Proposed
FY 28-29
Proposed
FY 29-30
Single Family $133.49 $133.49 $136.16 $138.88 $141.66 $144.49 Townhouse/
Duplex
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Apt/Condo
(per unit)
$112.13 $112.13 $114.37 $116.66 $118.99 $121.37
Commercial
(per ccf)
High Strength $24.26 $24.26 $24.75 $25.25 $25.76 $26.28 Med/Domestic
Strength
$8.53 $8.53 $8.70 $8.87 $9.05 $9.23
Low Strength $5.61 $5.61 $5.72 $5.83 $5.95 $6.07
7.2 Exhibit D - Wastewater Rates Schedule
219
7.2 Attachment 2 - Mailing Transaction Receipt
220
9 3
4 DATE: June 2, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
FROM: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Nate Cruz, Finance Director/Treasurer
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
Mimi Lam, Financial Services Manager
DEPARTMENT: City Manager, Finance
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR FY 2025-26 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board (“City Council”) receive public comments regarding the FY 2025-26 Preliminary Budget and provide direction to finalize the budget. Such direction provided by the City Council and recorded via minute order will then be incorporated in the FY 2025-26 Final Budget for adoption on June 16, 2025. The Five-Year Financial Plan will also be updated accordingly.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the FY 2025-26 annual budget development process, the City Council held budget study sessions on January 23 and March 24 to review various sections of the Preliminary Budget, including the CIP Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds. On May 22, 2025, the City Council reviewed the entire Preliminary Budget, including all the Governmental Funds.
The June 2, 2025 Public Hearing provides the public an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Budget and for the City Council to consider their input before providing direction with respect to the adoption of the Final Budget for FY 2025-26 scheduled on June 16, 2025.
7.3 7.3 Staff Report
221
9 3
4 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On May 22, staff presented the FY 2025-26 Preliminary Budget and 5-year financial plan for all Funds, including the General Fund (001 to 003) which showed a structural deficit for the entirety of the 5-year financial plan. The City Council gave direction to use General Fund reserves to address the FY 2025-26 budget shortfall and directed the City Manager to develop strategies to address the future deficits. The City Manager indicated such strategies may include additional or updated revenue opportunities, cost recovery measures, and operational efficiencies.
Since May 22, staff has made the following adjustments to General Fund revenues which are outlined in red in Attachment 1:
•Increasing the FY2024-25 projection for “Permits”, with no change to the revenues in the five-year plan. This change only impacts the forecasted fund balance.
•Increasing the “Rentals City/EMID” projection to reflect historical collections. •Lowering the “Other Revenue (Fines, Shared Services, Street Sweeping, Other)” revenue to remove a system entry error.
No changes were made to expenditures. The combined impact of the adjustments above is relatively small, increasing the FY 2029-30 Reserve Fund Balance result by
0.4%.
Any additional direction received at the June 2, 2025 meeting will be incorporated into the Final Budget that is scheduled for adoption on June 16, 2025.
It would be appropriate for the City Council to receive public testimony relative to the FY 2025-26 Preliminary Budget. Upon hearing the public testimony, City staff recommends that the City Council provide direction towards the preparation of the FY 2025-26 Final Budget.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on City Council direction at the June 2, 2025 public hearing, staff will incorporate adjustments in the FY 2025-26 Final Budget for adoption on June 16, 2025. The June 2, 2025 preliminary budget can be found at:
https://www.fostercity.org/finance/page/annualbudget
7.3 7.3 Staff Report
222
9 3
4 CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – June 2, 2025 update to the General Fund (Fund 001 to 003) Five Year Financial Plan for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30
7.3 7.3 Staff Report
223
/9>4,489+7/9>'1/,473/'
2;2?.9
B;1
B;1A<
6C2-2.?
6;.;06.9'9.;3<?A52-2.?@
;121"B;2
740+)9+* /;+&+'7/3'3)/'1 1'3
!+;+3:+8(>"4:7)+
'?<=2?AFA.E
E02@@
(
*?.;@62;A&00B=.;0F* .E
'?<=2?AF * .E2@ 6;
962B <3
+256092#602;@2
22
).92@* .E
B@6;2@@#602;@2* .E
5.?42@ 3<? 0B??2;A @2?C602@
(20?2.A6<;
5.?42@ 3<? 0B??2;A @2?C602@
&A52?@
'2?:6A@
?.;056@2* .E2@
!;A2?2@A!;0<:2
(2;A.9@
6AF
$!
(2;A.9@
'.?8@.;1(20?2.A6<;
&A52?
6;2@
)5.?21)2?C602@
)A?22A)D22=6;4
&A52?
&A52? A.E2@ ?2.9 =?<=2?AF A.E
A?.;@32?
!;A2?4<C2?;:2;A.9)
?.;A@
2A0
#49'1!+;+3:+8
740+)9+*=5+3*/9:7+8
+97+;+3:+84;+7:3*+7
+=5+3*/9:7+8(+,47+
97'38,+78
+9#7'38,+783 :9
+9 3)7+'8+ +)7+'8+ /3
:3*'1'3)+
5+3/3-:3*'1'3)+
!+8+7;+'1'3)+
$6;6:B:(2@2?C2<3
E02@@
236062;A(2@2?C2@
(2@2?C2.9.;02.@<3%2EA
-2.?@&=2?.A6;4
E=2;16AB?2@
E=2;16AB?2@3<?
-
?2=?2@2;A/B142A21.==?<=?6.A6<; @2E=2;16AB?2@3<? -
A<
-
.?2=?<720A6<;@
*52 6AF 6@ ./92 A< :22A A52 6AF <B;069 (2@2?C2 '<960F <3 A5?<B45 -
/BA 6@ =?<720A21 A< 3.99 /29<D 6A 6; A52
3<99<D6;4F2.?
6AF<3
<@A2?6AF@
-
'?296:6;.?FB142A '.42
7.3 Attachment 1 - June 2, 2025 update to General Fund (Funds 001 to 003) Five Year Financial Plan for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30
224
9 2
7 DATE: June 2, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Diane Pitman, Administrative Services Director
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FOSTER CITY WORKFORCE VACANCIES,
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION TRENDS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 2561 (AB 2561)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept an informational report on the Foster City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Trends in compliance with AB 2561.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AB 2561 requires public agencies, including the City, to hold at least one (1) public hearing per fiscal year to discuss vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts. This staff report along with the public presentation discusses the City’s legal obligations under the new law, which took effect January 1, 2025. This presentation is for informational purposes only regarding the status of the City’s vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On September 22, 2024, Governor Newsom signed AB 2561 into law to amend the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), thereby creating a new obligation for public agencies to publicly address the status of their workforce vacancies.
AB 2561 requires public agencies to present the status of their workforce vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing before their governing
7.4 7.4 Staff Report
225
9 2
7 board at least once per fiscal year prior to the adoption of a final budget for the next fiscal year. During the presentation, the public agency is also required to identify any changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles and/or delays in the hiring process.
In compliance with the new legal obligations, the City is required to do the following:
1. Public Hearing – Report on Vacancies: For the calendar year 2024, the City’s annual average percentage of vacancies (i.e., regular, full-time equivalent) is 2.9%.
The highest vacancy rate in 2024 was 4.5%.
2. Employee Organization Participation: Allow the recognized employee organizations for each bargaining unit at the City to make presentations during the public hearing concerning vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts. The Human Resources Division notified the two (2) represented bargaining units at the City about the opportunity to present. (Gov. Code 3502.3(b))
3. Additional Reporting for High Vacancy Rates: If vacancies within a single bargaining unit meet or exceed 20% of authorized full-time positions in that bargaining unit, upon request of the recognized employee organization for that bargaining unit, the City must provide additional information during the public hearing, including the following: (1) the total number of vacancies within the bargaining unit; (2) the number of applicants; (3) the average number of days to fill positions; and (4) opportunities to improve compensation and working conditions for employees in the bargaining unit. (Gov. Code 3502.3(c))
For the calendar year 2024, within the City’s bargaining units with recognized employee organizations, there were no vacancy rates that met or exceeded the 20% threshold.
Vacancy rates by bargaining unit were:
AFSCME – 1.2%
FCPOA – 4.9%
Unrepresented Management – 5.3%
While the City did not meet the 20% threshold, as indicated in Section 2 above, AB 2561 requires that recognized employee organizations shall be entitled to make a presentation before the governing board of a public agency during the same public hearing in which the public agency makes its annual presentation on vacancies. The City sent notice of this hearing to the two (2) represented bargaining units (AFSCME and FCPOA) about the opportunity to present.
The Human Resources staff have made revisions to the recruitment process starting in late 2023 to follow best practice recommendations. Some of the process/procedure improvements include:
•Centralizing recruitment function into HR as a standard service provided to all Departments
7.4 7.4 Staff Report
226
9 2
7 •HR staff screen all applicants to ensure they meet minimum qualifications before proceeding further in the recruitment process
•Removing the hiring manager from the panel interview to ensure fairness and impartiality in evaluating candidates
•More robust and defendable scoring of candidates as part of the interview and overall recruitment process
•HR staff make conditional offers, negotiate salaries and conduct background checks prior to managers establishing a start date
California Environmental Quality Act
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that is an administrative activity that will not result in a potentially significant impact to the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receive this report
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Presentation Document
7.4 7.4 Staff Report
227
Presented by Diane Pitman
June 2, 2025
AB 2561 Presentation:
Status of Foster City
Vacancies and Recruitment
and Retention Efforts for
Calendar Year 2024
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
228
Agenda
● Background
● Foster City Summary Information
○ Workforce Information
○ Vacancy Information
○ Recruitment Information
○ Hiring Issues
○ Retention Information
● Bargaining Unit Specific Information
○ Vacancy Information
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
229
Background
● Effective January 1, 2025, Government Code Section 3502.3 was added to the Myers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) requiring government entities to hold a public hearing and report on:
○ Workforce vacancies
○ Recruitment and retention efforts
○ Any necessary changes to polices, procedures and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process ● Legislation addresses the issue of job vacancies in local government, which adversely affects the delivery of public services and employee workload
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
230
Workforce Information (2024) - General
● Total Budgeted/Authorized Full-Time Positions: 179
● Services Rendered to Public by Budgeted/Authorized Workforce ○ Police Services
○ Public Works – maintaining and enhancing streets, traffic systems, water and sewer systems
○ Parks and Recreation – providing special events, classes, youth and senior programs and managing all parks
○ Community Development – reviewing and issuing building permits, planning applications, development plans and documents ○ Human Resources, Information Technology, Risk Management, City Clerk, Communications and City Manager
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
231
Vacancy Information (2024) - General
● Average percentage of vacancies at the end of each month: 2.9% ● Highest percentage of vacancies at the end of a month: 4.5% ● Lowest percentage of vacancies at the end of a month: 0% Month/Year # of Vacancies
Created
# of Vacancies
Filled
# of Remaining
Vacancies
# of Budgeted
FTEs % of Vacancies
Jan-24 0 0 0 177 0.0%
Feb-24 2 0 2 177 1.1%
Mar-24 3 1 4 177 2.3%
Apr-24 3 1 6 177 3.4%
May-24 1 3 4 177 2.3%
Jun-24 1 0 5 177 2.8%
Jul-24 4 2 7 179 3.9%
Aug-24 2 2 7 179 3.9%
Sep-24 3 3 7 179 3.9%
Oct-24 2 2 7 179 3.9%
Nov-24 4 3 8 179 4.5%
Dec-24 0 2 6 179 3.4% Average % 2.9% Highest % 4.5% Lowest % 0.0% Calendar Year Vacancy % Monthly Summary
2024
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
232
Recruitment Information - General
Established in the Personnel Rules and Regulations
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
233
Recruitment Information (2024) - General
● Recruitment Statistics
○ Total number of vacancies filled in 2024: 19
○ # of Vacancies Filled by Existing Eligibility List/Ongoing Recruitment: 0
○ # of Vacancies Filled by New External/Internal Recruitment: 14 ■ Average # of Calendar Days to Fill Vacancies: 82
○ # of Vacancies Filled by New Internal Only Recruitment: 5 ■ Average # of Calendar Days to Fill Vacancies: 39
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
234
Hiring Issues - General
● Staff have reviewed applicable policies, procedures and recruitment activities to identify any potential obstacles in the City’s hiring process ● Potential obstacles
○ Competitive job market for specific positions
■ Timeliness of recruitment process
○ Housing affordability and/or long commutes
● Strategies to maintain and improve hiring and retention ○ Continue flexible work schedules, including telework
arrangements
○ Provide opportunities for career development
○ Employee engagement and recognition
○ Continue to implement improvements in the recruitment process
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
235
Retention Statistics (2024) - General
● Retention Statistics
○ Annual staffing turnover rate: 4%
○ Total number of vacancies created in 2024: 25
○ # of Vacancies Created by Newly Created Positions: 5
■ % of Vacancies Resulting From Staffing Growth: 20%
○ # of Vacancies Created by Internal Promotion/Transfer: 6 ■ % of Vacancies Resulting From Internal Opportunity: 24% ○ # of Vacancies Created by Separation/Retirement: 7
■ % of Vacancies Resulting from Attrition: 28%
○ # of Vacancies Created by Resignation: 7
■ % of Vacancies Resulting from Turnover: 28%
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
236
Vacancy Information (2024) – Bargaining Units
● No bargaining units met or exceeded the 20% vacancy rate outlined in AB 2561 12/31/2024
Agency Total # of Budgeted FTEs 179
Bargaining Unit # of Vacancies # of Budgeted FTEs % of Vacancies AFSCME 1 81 1.2%
FCPOA 2 41 4.9%
Unrepresented 3 57 5.3%
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
237
Questions?
7.4 Attachment 1 - Presentation
238
DATE: June 2, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
Vanessa Brannon, Senior Management Analyst
Nori Jabba, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CITIZENS SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2024 YEAR END
REPORT AND REVIEW OF MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS FOR
2025
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, review and accept the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee (CSAC) 2024 Year End Report (Attachment 1), and Mission Statement and 2025 Goals (Attachment 2) and provide direction to the committee on other Council initiatives or priorities for the upcoming year.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee has prepared a written Year-End Report for 2024 and Goals for 2025 and reviewed its Mission Statement for the City Council's review and acceptance.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Minute Order No. 802, each citizen advisory committee must prepare a written year-end report, review its mission statement, and prepare a written annual goals/work program for the upcoming year for presentation to the City Council at a City Council meeting in the first quarter of each year. Due to staff oversight, the CSAC 2025 Goals and 2024 Accomplishments discussion was not agendized in time to meet the first quarter deadline. CSAC Members approved 2025 goals at the February 12, 2025, Regular Meeting, discussed 2024 Accomplishments at the April 28, 2025, Special
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
239
Meeting, and approved the final 2024 Year-End Report and Mission Statement and 2025 Goals at the May 19, 2025, Special Meeting.
CSAC’s Mission Statement for 2025 remains unchanged from 2024 and is as follows:
The Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee shall advise the City Council on sustainability issues facing Foster City regarding Environmental, Economic, or Social sustainability and research, review, and provide comments on proposed programs and initiatives.
CEQA
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - 2024 Committee Year-End Report
Attachment 2 - Mission Statement and Goals for 2025
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
240
Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee (CSAC)
2024 Year-End Report
The Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee meets on the second Wednesday of each month. The committee spent 2024 learning to develop a Community-Based Social Marketing pilot program based around appliance electrification, reviewed the Climate Action Plan 2024 Update, and spearheaded several popular community events promoting sustainability. Additionally, they conducted significant committee work and supported sustainability outside of committee meetings.
1. 2024 Goal 1: Supported Staff in preparing for the implementation of year one Climate Action Plan (CAP) actions
•Committee members read “Foster Sustainable Behavior” to better understand the psychology around encouraging sustainable action
•The Committee learned more about “Community-Based Social Marketing” through multiple brainstorming meetings including understanding barriers and benefits to change and active marketing versus passive marketing. •Committee members began work on a “Community-Based Social Marketing” test pilot to engage the community in appliance electrification, and addressing these actions in the City’s Climate Action Plan 2024 Update:
oE-W.1.1.2: Promote appliance rebate programs offered by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), PG&E, and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD).
oE-W.2.2.5: Promote awareness and understanding of electrification options to the construction industry and the community through education, outreach, and community partners.
oE-W.2.2.2: Develop and implement a community-wide education and outreach campaign to provide information, incentives, benefits, and technical support for building electrification to increase voluntary adoption of all-electric technologies.
2. 2024 Goal 2: Created mechanisms for the community to share, discuss, and learn best practices in all areas of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental)
8.1 Attachment 1 - 2024 Committee Year-End Report
241
•The Committee continued writing blogs to share tips and resources about Sustainable Living with the community for sustainable.fostercity.org. •The Committee also continued to find creative methods to conduct community outreach, including encouraging public participation at CSAC Meetings by directly inviting community members, attending events (both City- and Non- City sponsored) to promote sustainability and committee efforts, and one-on- one community conversations to encourage sustainable practices. The committee have become to “go-to” resource in the City for anyone inquiring about Sustainability.
3. 2024 Goal 3: Organize and Support Sustainable Community Events a. Earth Day
i. 200-250 attendees learned about Earth Day from 14 different vendors, including San Mateo Office of Sustainability, Peninsula Clean Energy, and Recology
ii. Dozens of children participated in the Trash-to-Art Contest iii. Strengthened partnership with the Foster City Library who hosted and promoted the event
b. 4th of July (Pancake Breakfast)
i. Worked with Organizers to reduce single use and bulk items where possible and encourage increased recycling and composting ii. Strengthened partnerships w/ rotary and Foster City scouts c. Summer Days
i. CSAC Booth for two days and connected with hundreds of community members
ii. Trash Sorting Game w/ earth-friendly prizes
iii. Water Refill Station was very popular and appreciated by the community
iv. Conducted an electric appliances survey
d. Clean Air Day
i. 130 attendees
ii. Funded by $1,000 microgrant from the Clean Air Day Coalition iii. Event was developed and managed by the CSAC Events Subcommittee
iv. Vendors included Atlas Bike Repair, the Building Decarbonization Coalition, and Peninsula Clean Energy
e. Tree Lighting Ceremony
i. CSAC Members conducted 15 one-on-one Community
Conversations about electric appliances to support development of Committee Pilot Program
•The Committee also used these events to gain feedback on the community knowledge and current participation in converting to electric appliances. This information helped the committee develop a Community-Based Social Marketing Pilot Program
8.1 Attachment 1 - 2024 Committee Year-End Report
242
4. Committee Work
•The Committee members selected a Chair and a Co-Chair for 2024 •The Committee welcomed two new resident members and one youth member •The Committee continued its subcommittee work in the following areas:
oCommunity Engagement
▪Developed monthly blog process with members contributing sustainability topics ranging from installing a heat pump to green business tips
▪Developed focus groups & questionnaires supporting the Committee’s Community-Based Social Marketing Pilot program oEvents
▪Planned and managed ALL CSAC events, including Earth Day, Clean Air Day, and Summer Days
▪Created template and best practices for future events
▪Developed new partnerships with local sustainability groups oBusiness
▪Developed relationship with the San Mateo County’s Green Business Program and brought a representative from the
agency to speak at a committee meeting
▪Committee member achieved a tier 1 green business
certification from the County’s Green Business Program and will act as a model to encourage other businesses to go green ▪Subcommittee held conversations w/ chamber of commerce to encourage more businesses to think sustainably and connect with the County’s Green Business Program
•Committee members also conducted significant work outside of committee meetings to support sustainability:
oCommittee Member Goel: Reached tier 1 green business certification for her salon and worked with (along with Committee Member Mitra) Baybasi to plan more sustainable events
oCommittee Member Kho helped Gilead Sciences align goals with the city’s Climate Action Plan and achieved an all-electric home oCommittee Member Staley brought updates from his involvement with Sustainable San Mateo County and the Thrive Alliance
oCommittee Member Yan supported the committee at events and developed a sustainable reading list for community members oCommittee Member Mitra developed and managed the Trash-to-art contest on Clean Air Day
oCommittee Member Gogi was the committee’s liaison to Youth Advisory Committee and was part of his school’s sustainability program
oCommittee Member Huo became the committee’s liaison to the City’s Parks Master Plan Committee
8.1 Attachment 1 - 2024 Committee Year-End Report
243
oCommittee Member Haupt continues to work regarding natural disaster/earthquake awareness and resiliency and worked with CERT oCommittee Member Curry worked as Committee event planner and became a key contact (along with Committee Member Motiwala) with local sustainability vendors for CSAC/City events
oCommittee Member Motiwala was liaison and participated with the Pacific Beach Coalition (with Committee Member Goel), became an electrification pioneer (induction, solar, heat pump, and became a committee resource regarding sustainable vendors, resources and general information
oCommittee Member Mitra worked with her school’s sustainability coordinator to organize a survey of how many students have earth- friendly water bottles. Due to the survey results, more than 280 students will receive free biodegradable water bottles
8.1 Attachment 1 - 2024 Committee Year-End Report
244
Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee (CSAC)
2025 Mission Statement and Goals
Mission Statement: To serve in an advisory capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. The Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee advises the City Council on sustainability issues facing Foster City regarding Environmental, Economic, or Social sustainability and researches, reviews, and provides comments on proposed programs and initiatives.
1. Support City Staff in promoting and implementing the City’s Updated Climate Action Plan (CAP).
•Work with City staff to develop and administer pilot programs to test the “Community-Based Social Marketing” concept to help achieve behavioral changes to implement Year One CAP Initiatives.
•Continue to seek creative, non-traditional to market sustainability to the Community.
•Seek opportunities to align the Community with the goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan by continuing to support staff in accomplishing activities in the CAP Implementation Plan.
•Continue to increase the knowledge of community members on sustainability topics.
2. Continue to seek out and promote sustainability best practices to the Foster City Community.
•Organize and participate in community events like Earth Day and Clean Air Day.
•Promote sustainability initiatives to the business community. •Seek collaborations with Youth Advisory Committee and Parks and Recreation Committee members
•Continue to seek partnerships with local sustainability organizations. •Continue developing blog posts to share sustainability best practices. •Continue community outreach and engagement activities to help identify local community sustainability champions and advocates. •Continue Committee and personal sustainability goals.
•Develop metrics for success.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Mission Statement and Goals for 2025
245
DATE:June 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA:Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM:Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT:UPDATE ON THE UTILITY BOX ART PILOT PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the update on the Utility Box Art Pilot Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Foster City Utility Box Art Pilot Program (“Pilot Program” or “Program”) was authorized by the City Council on March 18, 2024, via City Resolution No. 2024-16.
Developed in response to increasing incidents of vandalism on City-owned utility boxes, the program was a collaborative effort between the Foster City Police Department (FCPD) and Parks and Recreation Department, drawing inspiration from similar successful initiatives in neighboring communities. This Program initiative aims to transform utility boxes into vibrant works of public art that enhance the visual appeal of the city, foster community pride, and help deter vandalism through creative expression.
Following City Council approval, staff issued a Call for Artists from September 1 through December 31, 2024. Fifteen artists submitted a total of 23 designs. A selection committee reviewed all submissions and presented their top four (4) recommended designs to the Parks and Recreation Committee at its May 6, 2025 meeting.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
246
If deemed successful, the Utility Box Art Pilot Program could be expanded and adopted as an ongoing initiative. Additional funding would be required in future budgets to support continued implementation by making the Pilot Program a permanent one.
Staff is seeking City Council’s acceptance of the program update at the June 2, 2025 Council meeting, and will come back at a future meeting to request direction regarding the potential continuation of the Utility Box Art Pilot Program beyond the pilot phase.
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2024, the City Council authorized the Utility Box Art Pilot Program via City Resolution No. 2024-16. The Pilot Program was developed in 2023 as a joint effort between the FCPD and Parks and Recreation Department in response to an increase in vandalism on City-owned utility boxes. Inspired by similar initiatives in neighboring communities, the Program is intended to deter vandalism while enhancing the visual appeal of public spaces. Per City Council direction at its March 18, 2024 meeting, selection of the artwork associated with the Pilot Program was subject to review and approval by City staff and the Parks and Recreation Committee only. Staff was to return to City Council at a later date to provide an update on the Pilot Program and to seek further direction on whether the Program should continue.
This Pilot Program aims to transform utility boxes into vibrant, community-driven art installations. Through creative expression, the project seeks to beautify the City, foster local pride, and incorporate crime prevention strategies. The primary objectives include:
Beautification and Vibrancy: Enriching public spaces with unique, visually engaging artwork.
Community Pride: Showcasing local artistic talent and celebrating Foster City’s culture and identity.
Crime Reduction: Utilizing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, as decorated utility boxes have been shown to deter graffiti and vandalism.
The pilot phase focuses on four high-visibility traffic signal utility boxes to maximize public exposure and gather community feedback. Selected locations include:
•E. Hillsdale Blvd. @ Gull Ave.
•Metro Center Blvd. @ Edgewater Blvd.
•Foster City Blvd. @ Polynesia Dr.
•Port Royal Ave. @ Edgewater Blvd. (north end)
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
247
Artwork will be applied using either paint or vinyl wrap, and each piece will be sealed with an anti-graffiti clear coat to ensure durability and ease of maintenance.
ANALYSIS
Following City Council approval of the Utility Box Art Pilot Program on March 18, 2024, staff issued a Call for Artists through the City’s website. The application period was open from September 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. During that time, fifteen (15) artists submitted a total of 23 original designs.
Submissions were reviewed and scored by a Selection Committee comprised of City staff and two (2) members of the Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory Committee. Each design was evaluated based on the following criteria:
•Design & Creative Elements: Does the design demonstrate unique artistic vision and creativity? Is it an original concept rather than a replication of existing work?
•Artistic Quality & Execution: Are the artistic elements well executed? Does the design showcase skill and effort?
•Relevance to Foster City/Community Connection: Does the design align with and reflect the city? Does it foster a sense of pride or belonging within the community?
•Visual Impact: Does the design catch the viewer’s attention? Is it engaging and aesthetically pleasing from a distance and up close?
•Suitability for Public Display: Is the content appropriate for all ages and inclusive of the community? Does it enhance the surroundings without being disruptive or controversial?
At the March 18, 2024 City Council meeting, Council provided direction to have the Parks and Recreation Committee provide final approval on the utility box artwork selection in order to expedite the process. At its May 6, 2025 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Committee reviewed and accepted the four (4) highest scored submissions recommended by the Selection Committee. The final artwork selections are attached to this report for the City Council’s reference.
Staff notified the selected artists and plan to hold an Artist Orientation in the next month, which will cover the next steps including art installation process, signing of artist waivers, and stipend. Art installation is estimated to take place between June-August 2025.
California Environmental Quality Act
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
248
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original cost estimate for the pilot program was $13,704, which covered artist stipends, vinyl wrapping, and materials. The Foster City Foundation – Art and Culture Fund contributed $5,485.98, with the remaining $8,218.02 funded through the Community Benefit Fund.
Artist stipends are determined by the selected installation method:
•Painted boxes: $500 for standard traffic boxes, $300 for pedestal boxes. •Vinyl-wrapped boxes: $300 for standard traffic boxes, $100 for pedestal boxes.
The estimated vendor cost to vinyl-wrap a standard utility box is $2,800 per box.
For the pilot phase, two utility boxes will be hand-painted and two will be vinyl-wrapped.
No pedestal boxes are included in this phase, resulting in a total artist stipend payout of $1,600. The estimated cost for a vendor to apply the vinyl wraps is $7,591.44.
Combined, the total cost for the pilot program is $9,191.44.
If the City Council determines the Pilot Program to be successful and chooses to continue it into future years, funding will need to be allocated as part of the annual budget process and/or identified from other sources including donations and sponsorships to support the expansion to additional utility boxes.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Innovation
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment 1 – Utility Art Box Update Presentation
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
249
City Council Meeting
Utility Box Art Program Update
June 2, 2025
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
250
Submissions
Applications were accepted between
September 1 through December 31, 2024. 15 Artists Applied 23 Designs SubmittedArtwork will be applied either by the artist through hand-painting or by a third-party
vendor using a vinyl wrap.
E. Hillsdale Blvd. @ Gull Avenue
Port Royal Ave. @ Edgewater Blvd.
Metro Center Blvd. @ Edgewater Blvd.
Foster City Blvd. @ Polynesia Drive
4 Utility Box Locations
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
251
Judging Criteria
The categories each evaluator was asked to score on included:
1. Design & Creative Elements:
Does the design demonstrate unique artistic
vision and creativity? Is it an original concept
rather than a replication of existing work?
2. Artistic Quality & Execution:
Are the artistic elements well executed?
Does the design showcase skill and effort?
3. Relevance to Foster City/Community Connection:
Does the design align with and reflect the city? Does it foster a sense of pride or belonging within the community?
4. Visual Impact:
Does the design catch the viewer’s attention? Is it engaging and aesthetically pleasing from a distance and up close?
5. Suitability for Public Display:
Is the content appropriate for all ages and inclusive of the community? Does it enhance the surroundings without being disruptive or controversial?
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
252
01 PAINTED
SELECTION
Selected Location:
E. Hillsdale Boulevard @ Gull Avenue
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
253
Kelania P.
Foster City Resident
Been a resident since they were 3 year-old.
What makes this city unique and familiar to me is
the large Asian demographic that resides here.
Color Palette: Lapis Blue from “qing hua” porcelain
Main Inspiration: food, events, leisure, and iconic
Foster City landmarks.
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
254
02 PAINTED
SELECTION
Selected Location:
Port Royal Avenue @ Edgewater Boulevard
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
255
Emily M.
Foster City Resident
My art will... remind passerby of the beautiful
memories they ’ ve made in our public parks.
Color Palette: Vibrant colors representing the
vibrant community.
Main Inspiration: Time spent with friends and
family at our beautiful parks. Each panel represents
residents at Edgewater Park.
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
256
03 VINYL
SELECTION
Selected Location:
Metro Center Boulevard @ Edgewater Boulevard
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
257
Shalan C.
Works in Foster City
I believe art is powerful and essential to the
human experience, for how it inspires people, how
it shapes the artist, and its ability to touch and
communicate the mysteries of life.
Main Inspiration: The artist has deep personal ties to
this place—their spouse grew up here, their mother-
in-law still lives here, and now they work here.
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
258
04 VINYL
SELECTION
Selected Location:
Foster City Boulevard @ Polynesia Drive
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
259
Naisha O.
Foster City Resident
The phrase “ Our Home, Foster City ” ... a community
that embraces you for who you are, fosters your
dreams, and feels like home.
Main Inspiration: The artist was inspired by a trail in Foster City that their family discovered during the
pandemic, lined with ice plants and willow trees.
The natural beauty and the diversity of Foster City
further shaped the vision behind the design.
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
260
1. 2. JUNE-AUGUST 2025
TONIGHT
Installation of Artwork
Pilot Program Update to City Council
Next Steps
8.2 Attachment 1- Utility Art Box Update Presentation
261
DATE: June 2, 2025
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
Vanessa Brannon, Senior Management Analyst
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OF PARKS
AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS, REVIEW
OF ASSESSMENTS, AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept: (1) an update on the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Element project status, (2) an update on the community feedback received so far, and (3) provide policy direction and comments on the Assessments that have been completed for updating the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Elements of the General Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 20, 2025, the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee held a Joint Study Session to review the overview of the process for updating the two (2) Elements of the General Plan and the Community Engagement Plan (Attachment #6).
This staff report includes an update on the project status, feedback received thus far, and a discussion on current Assessments, including Community Assessment, Conservation and Open Space Assessment, and Parks and Recreation Assessment and associated policy considerations.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
262
The Assessments, Conservation and Open Space, and Parks and Recreation, are organized around the two (2) major focuses of the elements: Parks and recreation, which focuses on how people interact with natural areas, and Open Space and Conservation, which focuses on the ecology and health of the natural environment itself. These Assessments will guide the strategies for updating the elements; specifically, the Parks and Recreation Assessment will inform the Parks and Open Space Element, while the Open Space and Conservation Assessment will inform both the Parks and Open Space and the Conservation Elements. The Assessments are organized differently from the elements to be able to focus on the human perspective and the natural perspective and better organize around the required topics that must be covered under SB 1425.
BACKGROUND
California law requires that General Plans be updated "periodically," however, except for the Housing Element, which needs to be updated every eight (8) years, there is no specific timeline requirement from the State to update a General Plan regularly. The State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, LCI (previously known as the Office of Planning and Research or OPR) recommends comprehensively updating a General Plan every 10-15 years to reflect changes in community values, economic conditions, and emerging issues and challenges. The City's Safety Element was updated in August 2023, and the Housing Element 2023-31 was updated in March 2024.
In the 2021-2022 state legislative session, Senate Bill (SB) 1425 was passed and signed into law. This bill requires that the Open Space Element be updated by January 1, 2026, with expanded requirements, including considering climate resilience in coordination with the Safety Element. The bill also explicitly focuses on "rewilding opportunities," or creating and preserving open space networks to support biological and recreational uses.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1889, signed into law on September 10, 2024, requires the Conservation Element to consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction on the movement of wildlife and habitat connectivity. The bill requires the Conservation Element, upon the next update of one or more elements on or after January 1, 2028, to, among other things, identify and analyze connectivity areas, permeability, and natural landscape areas within the jurisdiction, identify and analyze existing or planned wildlife passage features, and consider the impacts of development and the barriers caused by development to wildlife, as defined, and habitat connectivity.
To ensure compliance with SB 1425 and AB 1889 requirements in a timely manner, the City entered into an agreement with Rincon Consultant, Inc., with WRT serving as their sub-consultant to update the Parks and Open Space Element and the Conservation Element of the General Plan.
The process of updating the two (2) Elements includes the following four steps:
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
263
1. Existing Conditions Analysis – review of existing data and preparation of three (3) Assessments.
a) Existing Plans, Regulations, Projects, Partnerships, and GIS Data: Policy and documents review to effectively inform policy. To review all the data, the consultant is using its Measure Analysis and Success Tracking (MAST) tool to evaluate the City’s existing parks, open space, and conservation policies and programs by summarizing their success and identifying implementation hurdles. The MAST tool enables the consultant team to understand prior and ongoing City efforts related to the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element amendments, guiding the development of updated policies and programs. Status: ongoing. b)Community Assessment: An updated community profile studying current demographics and growth trends in Foster City that may inform the direction of the Parks and Open Space and Conservation elements. The profile incorporates data gathered as part of the Parks Master Plan, as well as other data sources and related previous efforts. Status: in process. Study Sessions for the Planning Commission, City Council, Parks and Recreation Committee, and the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee are to be held in May/June 2025. c)Park and Recreation Needs Assessment and Inventory: An assessment of the City’s parks and recreation programs as part of the Parks Master Plan effort and integrates the information into the Elements Update and identifies key areas for policy direction. Status: in process. Study Sessions for the Planning Commission, City Council, Parks and Recreation Committee, and the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee are to be held in May/June 2025.
d)Open Space and Conservation Assessment: An Open Space and Conservation Assessment to provide the inventory of Foster City's open spaces, biological resources, shoreline, and other natural resources using a variety of existing data sources, including desktop databases, literature reviews, previous local findings, and information provided through the first phase of community engagement.
Status: in process. Study Sessions for the Planning Commission, City Council, Parks and Recreation Committee, and the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee are to be held in May/June 2025.
2.Research and Analysis
Financial Evaluation and Prioritization: Identifying funding priorities and strategies to include in the Elements update. It shall be noted that WRT is completing a financial evaluation as part of the Parks Master Plan. This information will be used in the Elements update. Status: Research and Analysis is in process.
3.Preparation and Adoption
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
264
a)Administrative Drafts
The consultant team will prepare administrative draft versions of the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements for City staff, the City’s Committees, Planning Commission and City Council, and community review. The elements will conform to applicable provisions of State General Plan law. The policy document will be organized into elements containing an introduction; issues identification; goals, policies, and implementation plan.
b)Final Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements
4.Environmental Review/CEQA
The updates to the Parks and Open Space Element and the Conservation Element update will undergo appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review prior to final adoption of the Elements.
Community Engagement During the Update Process
Community engagement will take place throughout the update process. Engagement to date has included three (3) public meetings conducted by staff and the consultant team, including:
•City Council regular meeting on March 17, 2025 ( link to the meeting) •Joint Study Session between the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee on March 20, 2025 (link to the meeting) •Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting on April 9, 2025 ( link to the meeting)
At these meetings, the consultant team provided an overview of the process for updating the Elements and discussed the Community Engagement Plan. The consultant team has compiled the notes/feedback from these public meetings (Attachment #5).
Staff met with the consultant team to discuss a coordinated community engagement approach that complements but does not duplicate the outreach conducted for the Parks Master Plan. The consultant team developed a strategic Community Engagement Plan that aligns with the Parks Master Plan’s efforts while identifying opportunities for collaboration and shared outreach activities.
The goals for public participation are to:
•Clearly communicate that the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements are separate but connected components of a broader planning effort.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
265
•Ensure community input is gathered across all related projects and thoughtfully incorporated into each one, with feedback appropriately reflected in the final documents.
Additional community engagement will take place in the coming months and will include a Community Priorities Survey, focus group meetings, community workshop, pop-up events, and study sessions to review the administrative drafts.
ANALYSIS
For the past few months, the consultant team has focused on “Existing Conditions Analysis” and prepared the following assessment documents:
1. Community Assessment (Attachment #2)
The Community Assessment analyzes Foster City’s demographics, growth patterns, and recreational needs to support updates to the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the City’s General Plan. It examines existing community demographics such as population, age, race, ethnicity, language, and household composition, along with projected growth to evaluate whether existing access and services align with community needs.
The assessment also maps the current parks and open space system, analyzing park service metrics across the City, identifying access disparities and how these disparities relate to racial, economic, and social factors. It incorporates urban tree canopy data to evaluate tree coverage and pinpoint coverage gaps. The assessment also evaluates climate impacts and adaptation needs for parks, recreational facilities, and community needs, referencing existing plans such as the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan.
The Community Assessment will be used to inform updates to the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements of Foster City's General Plan by identifying areas of needed expansion to serve existing and future communities, future climate considerations, and areas to enhance tree coverage. The insights will guide policy updates regarding future development, park planning, and resource allocation in the City.
The consultant team used the various resources to prepare this document, including Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis and Final Park Assessment Summary Report prepared for the Foster City Parks Master Plan.
Some of the key highlights of the Community Assessment are as follows:
•The City of Foster City has experienced growth between 2010 and 2024, increasing by 14.5 percent or approximately one (1) percent annually. By 2040,
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
266
the City’s population is projected to be 39,070 1 residents, which is in alignment with the City’s General Plan population projection of 39,070 in 2040. •Outdoor recreational activities have been on the rise nationally over the last five (5) years. The same trend has been seen for residents in Foster City, with all outdoor recreational activities scoring higher than the national averages.
According to the Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis, walking for exercise is the activity with the highest expected participation both nationally and locally. Foster City scored a higher Market Potential Index (MPI) than what was scored nationally, indicating that the City should continue to bolster and provide resources for pedestrian uses. Given Foster City’s lagoon and unique landscape along the bay, there is unsurprisingly a strong demand for all aquatic activities.
The City scored higher than the national average for swimming and canoeing or kayaking and scored the same as the national average for saltwater fishing.
Among all general sports analyzed in the Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis, golf was the most popular sport to engage in locally. Tennis, basketball, baseball, pickleball, football, and softball all also scored higher than the national average.
•The City has an opportunity to expand their current recreational services primarily along the waterfront by providing more water sports courses. Given that boat activities are very popular, group canoe trips or stand-up paddle board lessons could be new programs the City provides. In addition, organizing local bird watching or other special-interest groups can encourage recreation and create social opportunities.
•The Parks Assessment Summary Report evaluated all park facilities within the city against the following four metrics: Access & Connectivity, Comfort & Sense of Safety, Functionality, and Condition. A rating scale of 1 to 10 was used for scoring each park against each quality.
oFor Access & Connectivity, the Parks Assessment Summary Report notes that parks were rated on average as “good” with an average score of 6.9.
The primary concerns regarding Access & Connectivity included variable path connectivity, difficulty finding the park, inconsistent signage, a well- connected bike and pedestrian system but lack of supportive amenities such as bike racks, and a lack of parking for the most frequented parks. oFoster City parks were rated as “good” for the Comfort & Sense of Safety Category, averaging a score of 6.7. Primary needs to improve Comfort & Sense of Safety include better access to shade, additional comfort amenities, noise mitigation for parks near major noise sources, such as major roadways and freeways, and lighting.
1 The estimated population projections are from Plan Bay Area, which the adopted General Plan Land Use element and 6th Cycle Housing Element also utilize. Plan Bay Area estimates draw from the U.S. census data. These estimates are in line with the ESRI population projections prepared by WRT.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
267
oParks within Foster City were rated “good” for Functionality with an average score of 6.8 across the various park facilities. Key takeaways noted that the majority of parks within the City provide a variety of amenities, have functional layouts, include water-based landscapes and activities, and are compatible with surrounding land uses.
oParks within the City averaged highest for Condition, with a score of 7.4. In addition, the furnishings offered at each park are inconsistent and the conditions of the amenities offered also varied. the Parks Assessment Summary Report notes that geese droppings have had a major impact on park cleanliness, impacting resident enjoyment of the facilities. While many of the parks have healthy vegetation, several parks have variable vegetation conditions with some parks hosting trees that are struggling to grow and other plants appeared withered or missing.
•Within Foster City, approximately 99 percent of residents live within a 10-minute walk to their nearest park or open space.
•Foster City has a total 0.5 square miles of existing tree canopy, equivalent to roughly 21,044 trees, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Urban Heat Island Map, which shows data by Census Tract. •Foster City’s extensive waterfront, lagoon system, and vibrant network of parks are central to the community’s identity and quality of life. However, these spaces also face growing climate-related challenges, including future vulnerabilities from sea level rise, intensified storm events, extreme heat, and periodic air quality concerns. Certain parks, particularly those near the lagoon or shoreline, will require targeted adaptation measures to remain safe and enjoyable as climate conditions evolve.
2. Open Space and Conservation Assessment (Attachment #3) The City of Foster City’s open space, natural resources, and conservation management are integral to the city’s environmental sustainability, climate resiliency, and quality of life. As an urbanized shoreline community distinguished by a unique network of parks, lagoons, and shoreline areas including the adjacent Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, Foster City faces specific challenges and opportunities in preserving and enhancing its natural and recreational assets. This Open Space and Conservation Assessment evaluates existing parks, amenities, and recreational programs to highlight opportunities for enhancement and growth.
This assessment is based on a detailed review and analysis of existing data sources, relevant literature, and local findings. It inventories and evaluates key biological resources, identifies special status species and habitats, maps ecological reserves, and highlights opportunities for ecological restoration and habitat connectivity. Furthermore, the assessment examines open spaces such
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
268
as parks, lagoons, and shoreline areas, assessing their contributions to ecological health, recreation, community well-being, and climate resilience. It also identifies vulnerabilities and threats facing these spaces, particularly from flooding and sea- level rise. It also explores critical sustainability topics, including air quality, water quality, water supply, energy conservation, and renewable energy and identifies ongoing challenges and highlights opportunities for strengthening environmental resilience.
Natural Open Space
Key Issues
•Fragmentation of Open Spaces: While Foster City has parks, green spaces, and shoreline areas, many are fragmented, limiting their ecological and recreational benefits.
•Limited Rewilding and Naturalization: Many parks have been developed with ornamental landscaping over native vegetation, limiting ecological benefits; the forthcoming Parks Master Plan will outline park specific improvement recommendations to increase native plantings and habitat value.
Opportunities
•Enhancing Greenway Connectivity: Enhancing greenway connectivity could improve biodiversity corridors and recreational opportunities. Linking parks, wetlands, and the lagoon through green corridors by providing naturalization along the City’s existing bike and walking paths, trails, and parks which can improve habitat continuity and increase public access to nature. •Rewilding: Expanding rewilding efforts could enhance biodiversity, pollinator support, and climate resiliency.
•Nature-Based Shoreline Protection: Work with OneShoreline or other similar organizations to identify project opportunities for implementing living shorelines, tidal marsh restoration, and native coastal plantings can provide ecological benefits while strengthening flood resiliency.
•Regional Alignment: Build on existing coordination with OneShoreline, BCDC, and Bay Adapt by:
osharing lagoon water-level, pump-station, and groundwater data to feed OneShoreline’s countywide flood-model updates.
opursuing joint grant applications (e.g., FEMA BRIC, State Coastal Conservancy) for living-shoreline pilot projects; and
ointegrating Bay Adapt’s adaptive-pathways framework and BCDC’s 100-foot integrated shoreline-protection zone into local development review.
Biological Resources
Key Issues
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
269
•Habitat Loss and Urbanization: Development has significantly reduced natural habitat availability, particularly along the shoreline and green spaces along the City’s bike and footpath, limiting biodiversity.
•Wetlands Conservation and Climate Vulnerability: Wetlands provide critical ecosystem services, including carbon storage, flood protection, and habitat for migratory birds. However, their long-term resilience is threatened by climate change and sea level rise.
•Barriers to Wildlife Movement: Roads, urban infrastructure, and fragmented habitats restrict wildlife movement, impacting species that rely on connected landscapes. Encounters with wildlife happen when the wildlife does not have adequate habitat and/or the ability to move through an area without traversing human environments, so providing connectivity between habitats tends to reduce such conflicts.
•Invasive Species Encroachment: The proliferation of non-native plant and animal species threatens native biodiversity and reduces the ecological integrity of open spaces. Additionally, while Canada geese are not considered invasive or non- native, their rapid population expansion has caused concerns regarding water quality and co-habitation.
Opportunities
•Wetland Restoration for Climate Resilience: Expanding wetland conservation efforts along the Belmont Slough and City shoreline can enhance carbon sequestration, support biodiversity, and bolster flood protection. •Wildlife-Friendly Urban Design: Integrating underpasses and vegetated buffers into planning efforts can reduce habitat fragmentation, particularly between the fragmented open spaces along the City’s shoreline.
•Community-Driven Habitat Conservation: Public education and citizen science initiatives can foster environmental stewardship and biodiversity monitoring. •Urban Rewilding and Native Plant Landscaping: Enhancing City parks and open spaces with native plants can improve habitat quality, reduce water usage, and support pollinators; the forthcoming Parks Master Plan will outline park-specific improvement recommendations to increase native plantings and habitat value. •Green Corridors Between Parks and Wetlands: Connect parks along the bay, such as Baywinds, Shorebird, or Bayview Parks, and open spaces with greenways such as the areas along the shoreline and City bike path featuring native trees, shrubs, and grasses to provide habitat continuity.
•Partnerships to Improve Connectivity: Partner with conservation organizations, land trusts, and transportation agencies to implement connectivity designs and protect wildlife corridors. Collaborative efforts can lead to significant funding and support for conservation projects, particularly in protected areas like the adjacent Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve. re.
•Rooftop Gardens and Vertical Green Spaces: Encourage the addition of green roofs and living walls to increase biodiversity in urbanized areas. •“Green Streets” Initiatives: Retrofit roadsides with native plants, rain gardens, and permeable surfaces to improve habitat connectivity and reduce stormwater runoff.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
270
Water Resources
Key Issues
•Groundwater Rise and Infrastructure Risks: Climate change-induced rising groundwater levels could result in subsurface flooding and saltwater intrusion, affecting infrastructure and vegetation.
•Lagoon Water Quality Degradation: Persistent issues with algal blooms, excessive aquatic vegetation, and bacterial contamination in the lagoon compromise ecological health and recreational usability.
•Stormwater Pollution from Urban Runoff: Due to the built-out nature of the city, impervious surfaces contribute to runoff that carries pollutants into the lagoon and San Francisco Bay, negatively affecting water quality.
•Reliance on Imported Water Supplies: Foster City depends entirely on external water sources, making it vulnerable to regional droughts and water supply fluctuations.
Opportunities
•Improving Lagoon and Wetland Management: Adaptive management strategies such as enhanced water circulation, salinity monitoring, and habitat restoration can help maintain the lagoon’s function as a stormwater basin and recreational resource.
•Stormwater Filtration through Green Infrastructure: Supporting the Public Works Green Infrastructure Plan and measures such as expansion of the use of bioswales, permeable pavement, and rain gardens can reduce runoff pollution and improve water quality in the lagoon and Bay.
•Strengthening Water Security Partnerships: Collaborating with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and OneShoreline can enhance long-term water resilience.
•Expanding Water Quality Monitoring: Increased monitoring of groundwater and stormwater impacts, including localized water quality testing of the bay near Foster City and monitoring saltwater intrusion, can provide data to inform future policy decisions and infrastructure investments.
Climate Resilience
Key Issues
•Sea Level Rise and Flooding Threats: Due to its proximity to the bay, Foster City is vulnerable to future sea level rise, storm surges, and groundwater rise.
Consistent with Safety Element policies S3.4 b (“Maintain the City’s levees and lagoon for flood protection pursuant to the Operation & Maintenance Manual and Lagoon Management Plan”) and S6.1 (“Incorporate sea level rise considerations into development review and infrastructure planning”), the City recently invested $90 million in levee reinforcements and upgrades. The City must continue levee/lagoon maintenance and embed any future sea level rise response strategies in all new and existing development projects.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
271
•Stormwater Drainage Limitations: The City’s flat topography and reliance on pumps for drainage mean heavy rainfall events, particularly those coinciding with high tides, could overwhelm stormwater systems.
•Urban Heat Island Effect: While Foster City benefits from a temperate coastal climate, the City’s limited tree canopy (about seven percent) and large expanses of impervious surfaces can still contribute to higher localized temperatures. This can be a concern for local plant and animal life as well as outdoor workers, seniors, and other vulnerable populations who may experience greater heat exposure. •Shallow Groundwater Risks: As sea levels rise, so will groundwater, threatening infrastructure and creating long-term maintenance concerns for underground utilities and green spaces.
Opportunities
•Regional Adaptation Collaboration: Work with local, regional, State, and federal partners (e.g., OneShoreline, San Mateo County, BCDC, FEMA) on climate resilience strategies, and regularly integrate findings from the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, and Foster City’s Climate Action Plan into General Plan updates.
•Urban Green Infrastructure Expansion: Increasing tree canopy, green roofs, and permeable surfaces can mitigate heat island effects while enhancing stormwater retention.
•Flood Protection Beyond Levees: While the recent levee improvements protect against near-term sea level rise, additional strategies such as living shorelines, horizontal levees, and marsh restoration could provide long-term resilience benefits.
•Localized Climate Risk Data Collection: Partnering with research institutions and agencies to establish groundwater monitoring wells and high-resolution flood modeling can improve data-driven decision-making.
Air Quality
Key Issues
•Traffic-Related Air Pollution: Proximity to Highway 101 and 92 results in elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), impacting public health.
•Wildfire Smoke Exposure: Although Foster City has low wildfire risk, regional fires contribute to worsening air quality, leading to hazardous conditions and the need for designated clean-air refuges.
•Gaps in Local Air Quality Monitoring: Foster City lacks dedicated air monitoring stations, making it difficult to track localized pollution hotspots or accurately measure cumulative exposure impacts.
Opportunities
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
272
•Integrate Air Quality Considerations into Open Space Design: Expanding vegetated buffers along major roadways and increasing urban forestry can help filter pollutants and improve local air quality.
•Wildfire Smoke Mitigation Planning: Collaborating with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and San Mateo County and local neighboring cities can enhance emergency response strategies and clean-air shelter access. •Deploying Local Air Monitoring Sensors: Installing air quality sensors in high-traffic zones and near schools would improve pollution tracking and inform health policies.
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Key Issues
•Continued Dependence on Natural Gas: Despite the opportunity to use 100 percent carbon-free electricity for municipal buildings, residential and commercial sectors in Foster City still rely heavily on natural gas, slowing decarbonization efforts. The 2024 Climate Action Plan (CAP), action E-W.2.2.1 (page 50 of the CAP) calls for adoption of amendments to the Foster City Building Code for Green Building, Energy and Plumbing during the Foster City Building Code 2025 cycle, including a two-way air conditioning ordinance.
•Slow Adoption of Solar Energy: Upfront costs and permitting barriers deter rooftop solar; two CAP actions, E-W.2.1.7 and E-W.2.1.8 (see Page 49 of the CAP), outline next steps for this issue. CAP action E-W.2.1.7 is to “Study opportunities and specific action steps to expand municipal rooftop solar and battery storage” and E-W.2.1.8 is to “Provide education and outreach to stakeholders, including businesses, residents, and contractors, on the benefits of pairing battery storage with solar PV systems at City information centers like permit counters.” •Grid Resilience and Energy Storage Gaps: Limited incentives for battery storage; CAP action E-W.2.1.1 (see Page 49 of the CAP) calls for the City to “Provide financial incentives for solar PV and battery storage installations” to spur PV and battery installations and improve resilience.
Opportunities
•Expand Solar and Battery Storage in Public Spaces: Installing solar panels with battery backup in parks, parking lots, and municipal facilities can enhance energy resilience and reduce grid demand during peak hours.
•Promote Building Electrification and Efficiency Programs: Aligning with Peninsula Clean Energy’s (PCE) incentives and reach codes can accelerate residential and commercial transitions away from natural gas.
•Improve EV Charging and Micromobility Options in Open Spaces: Expanding EV charging infrastructure in parks and community centers supports clean transportation goals and enhances accessibility for residents and visitors. EV charging infrastructure, along with improving curb management to prioritize rideshare parking/loading zones, scooter and bike share docs, bike parking, and autonomous vehicle loading zones, is supported by Foster City’s CAP Measure T- L.3.1.7.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
273
3. Parks and Recreation Assessment (Attachment #4)
Parks are a cornerstone of Foster City’s quality of life. As a distinctive urban environment, Foster City offers a diverse range of park facilities and recreational programs that enhance residents' health, well-being, and cultural engagement. The Parks and Recreation Assessment provides an evaluation of existing parks, amenities, and recreation programs, identifying opportunities for enhancement and growth. The assessment presents the parks system in terms of park type and describes recreation amenities. It highlights unique assets such as the levee pedway and the lagoon. A key component of this initiative is the identification of community priorities, which have emerged through a public engagement and a Parks Master Plan Community Survey. The assessment compares Foster City’s parks and programs with national standards, offering insights into areas for improvement and strategic development.
Foster City’s Park System
Key Issues
•Facility and Amenity Enhancements: While Foster City is currently building a new Community Center that will augment indoor recreation opportunities, the City will still lack a gymnasium or a swimming pool.
•Lagoon Activation and Accessibility: Limited Lagoon Access. Foster City Lagoon is a unique and treasured asset, and one that several Foster City parks border.
However, recreational use of the lagoon is currently limited by relatively limited public boat launch points and lagoon water quality concerns.
Opportunities
•Park Variety. Foster City has a balanced park system, with a mix of parks serving the whole community (community parks), parks serving neighborhoods and local areas (neighborhood and mini parks), and parks serving specific types of activities (special use parks).
•Park Accessibility. The City’s parks are well-distributed, putting virtually all residents within a half-mile walk of a park—one of the gold standards of current park system planning. Furthermore, the concentration of community parks and indoor recreation facilities in central Foster City is particularly well-suited to the concentration of seniors.
•Park Land and Amenity Standards:
oFoster City’s Parks and Open Space Element Update and Parks Master Plan provide an opportunity to revisit its level of service standards to make sure they are calibrated to align with priorities. The current overall standard would require 40 acres of additional park and open space land, a target that is ambitious but may be achievable with targeted new open space opportunities. oThe City can establish amenity level of service standards to align with the level of prioritization indicated by community engagement and the Parks Master Plan Community Survey. This may result in a focus on increasing the number
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
274
of dog parks and pickleball courts, while potentially holding steady or reducing under-used amenities.
•Recreation Facility Partnerships: The lack of a gymnasium available for community use may be addressed through partnership with the school district and/or the Peninsula Jewish Community Center (PJCC).
•Trail and Connectivity Improvements: There is an opportunity to augment the Levee Pedway with new paths and trails that connect through the City and between parks. Direction may be provided both from a recreation perspective, through the Open Space and Recreation Element/Parks Master Plan, and through an active transportation planning process.
•Lagoon Activation and Accessibility: The Lagoon is a very special amenity with unrealized potential. There is an opportunity to support more recreational experiences, through improved access to the water and experiences along the water (e.g. outdoor dining, promenades, relaxation spaces, destination amenities.)
Park Usage
Key Issues
•Comfort and Extended Use: Many parks in Foster City see their dwell times fall after dark, likely due to lack of lighting. Others may have lower usage during the day due to limited shade.
•Equity and Cultural Representation: Diverse communities may not feel represented in the availability of amenities offered in Foster City’s parks. This is suggested by the relatively lower level of parks usage by Asian residents.
Opportunities
•Visitor Management and Revenue Opportunities: Parks that attract people from outside Foster City—Leo J. Ryan, Sea Cloud and Baywinds—may present opportunities for more attention to creating a positive experience, and greater leveraging of investment, such as through park user fees. •Comfort and Extended Use: The addition of lighting in parks is likely to extend park use into the evening hours and provide good recreational value for residents.
Similarly, more shade in parks will have the effect of bolstering their appeal on hot days, allowing people to still enjoy being outdoors.
•Equity and Cultural Representation: Foster City can work to improve accessibility and culturally relevant amenities and programming, recognizing the full diversity of its residents.
Site Assessment
Key Issues
•Connectivity and Accessibility: Foster City parks generally have successful access and connectivity characteristics. Areas of potential improvement include consistent signage, wayfinding in larger parks, greater visibility for some small parks, more bike racks, and potential resizing of parking. •Comfort and Usability Enhancements:
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
275
oSome Foster City parks would benefit from additional shade around seating and active amenity areas, and more distribution of comfort amenities in parts of larger parks as well as in mini parks.
oMost Foster City parks offer a range of passive and active amenities, in a functional arrangement. Some parks, especially the smaller ones, are thin on amenities, and in general, parks would benefit from more unique recreational experiences and planting palettes.
•Sustainable Landscaping and Ecology:
oFoster City’s parks involve extensive water-loving landscapes and will need to be adapted for greater water conservation, especially areas that lack amenities.
oIrrigation systems in some parks are in need of significant upgrades. •Maintenance and Wildlife Management: While parks in Foster City are in good condition overall, geese are a significant issue, leaving droppings, and feathers and degrading water quality in the lagoon. Issues are highlighted in the Canada Goose Management Plan.
Opportunities
•Connectivity and Accessibility: Signage and wayfinding improvements can help knit together Foster City’s larger parks and make some smaller parks more visible and accessible.
•Comfort and Usability Enhancements:
oThe strategic addition of shade, seating, lighting, restrooms, and bike racks will make Foster City’s parks more comfortable and accessible and extend their hours of use.
oFoster City can activate underutilized park spaces to meet the needs and interests of park users and create new and interesting park experiences. •Sustainable Landscaping and Ecology:
oDiversifying plantings will add character to parks in Foster City and also enable the City to maintain parks with lower water use.
oIrrigation upgrades can be paired strategically with significant park enhancements.
Market Potential Index
Key Issues
•Recreation Trends Monitoring:
oFoster City has a higher-than-average Market Potential Index (MPI) for nearly all of the general sports and fitness activities measured by ESRI. Foster City would be expected to have a high MPI for walking for exercise, weightlifting, swimming, jogging/running, yoga, aerobics, golf, tennis, and basketball. Hiking and road bicycling are also rated highly.
oChanging trends in recreation will continue to present new challenges around delivering the facilities and services that residents demand.
Opportunities
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
276
•Recreation Trends Monitoring: As recreation trends continue to evolve, it will be important for Foster City to track these changes while administering programs and building new amenities.
•Flexible Facility Planning: Foster City should recognize the high potential demand for certain sports and fitness activities as it creates new opportunities in existing recreation facilities, fitness programs and health and wellness classes.
Policy Considerations
Staff and the consultant team have compiled policy considerations based on Open Space and Conservation Assessment and Parks and Recreation Assessment as follows (see Figures 1 and 2):
Fig 1: Policy Consideration: Parks and Recreation Assessment Fig 2: Policy Consideration: Conservation and Open Space Assessment Joint Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee Study Session
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
277
On May 15, 2025 a Joint Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee Study Session was held to provide (1) an update on the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Element project status, (2) an update on the feedback received so far, and (3) provide policy direction and comments on the existing Assessments that have been completed for updating the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan (similar report). Please see the link to the meeting on May 15, 2025.
At the meeting, staff requested feedback on policy considerations from the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee. Below is a summary of the policy considerations and the feedback received during the meeting.
Parks and Recreation Assessment
1. Park Land and Amenity Standards
•Policy consideration on adjusting park acreage standards (5 acres per 1,000 residents) to reflect realistic growth and community preferences.
Feedback/comments:
oThere was support for revisiting park acreage based on growth; however, concerns were noted that some neighborhoods fall below the threshold.
2. Facility and Amenity Enhancements
•Policy consideration on targeting expansions of high-demand facilities Feedback/comments:
There was strong support for setting targets for amenities like dog parks, pickleball courts, and aquatics facilities.
Multiple comments emphasized the importance of prioritizing aquatic and lagoon-related recreation.
Gymnasiums and Swimming Pools: There was Interest in exploring partnerships (e.g., with PJCC) to expand access and affordability.
3. Comfort and Extended Use
•Policy consideration on prioritizing the installation of lighting and shade structures Feedback/comments:
oThere was support for adding lighting and large-canopy trees to increase park usability and comfort.
4. Visitor Management and Revenue Opportunities
•Policy consideration on introducing user fees or revenue-generating events for parks for Non-Resident Users.
Feedback/comments:
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
278
There was interest in exploring options like parking fees at parks, with consideration for equity.
•Policy consideration on enhancing visitor experiences to leverage investment.
Feedback/comments:
Suggestions included involving local companies and multicultural organizations for funding and cultural programming.
Public Engagement - Pop-Ups: There was a request to expand pop-ups beyond Off the Grid/Farmers Market to large parks (e.g., Leo Ryan, Sea Cloud) for broader community input.
Conservation and Open Space Assessment
1. Natural Open Space
•Policy consideration on creating continuous networks of vegetated areas and expanding rewilding efforts to enhance biodiversity.
Feedback/comments:
oThere was support for enhancing linkages between natural areas and promoting native landscaping.
2. Biological Resources
•Policy consideration on promoting wetland restoration and wildlife-friendly urban design.
Feedback/comments:
oThere was a positive response to promoting wetland protection and regional collaboration.
•Policy consideration: Encourage community-driven habitat conservation Feedback/comments:
Support was expressed for programs like citizen science and stewardship initiatives.
3. Water Resource
•Policy consideration on implementing adaptive management strategies for the Lagoon.
Feedback/comments:
Strong feedback on prioritizing lagoon water quality improvements—seen as vital to health, recreation, and property values.
•Policy consideration on expanding stormwater filtration through green infrastructure.
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
279
Feedback/comments:
Support for bioswales, permeable surfaces, and groundwater adaptation strategies, call for regional planning and alternative water sources beyond SFPUC reliance, and suggestions to incentivize HOA-scale water recycling and reconsider utility pricing tiers to reward conservation.
4. Energy & Climate
•Policy consideration on expanding on-site renewable energy installation and supporting sustainable construction, electrification, and EV infrastructure.
Feedback/comments:
oSupport for:
oCity-owned solar and battery projects
oPublic-private partnerships (e.g., with PCE, PG&E)
oExploring Municipal Utility for the City.
oEmphasis on large-scale planning to meet future electricity demands driven by EVs, home electrification, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Concern was expressed over the inclusion of gas cooktops in decarb mandates; it was suggested to limit the policy to water heaters and furnaces. oCalls for more public EV chargers, especially for renters. oSuggestions to reach out to Tesla and Electrify America to improve infrastructure and maintenance.
oEmphasis on installing local air monitoring stations to accurately assess pollution.
oInterest in autonomous or on-demand shuttles for local transit, especially for seniors and students.
oIdeas to partner with local mobility companies to develop last-mile transit solutions.
Next Steps
The City staff and the consultant team will also conduct community engagement activities in May and June, including a Community Priorities Survey, a public Community Workshop, a series of focus groups, and pop-up events throughout the City. The next series of public meetings will take place in August 2025.
California Environmental Quality Act
This agenda item, which is intended to provide a progress report to the City Council, 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
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
280
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 associated with this report.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Presentation
Attachment 2 – Community Assessment
Attachment 3 – Open Space and Conservation Assessment
Attachment 4 – Parks and Recreation Assessment
Attachment 5 – Public Meeting Notes
Attachment 6 – March 20, 2025, Study Session Meeting Minutes
8.3 8.3 Staff Report
281
General Plan Parks and Open
Space Element and General
Plan Conservation Element
City Council Meeting #2
June 2, 2025
City of Foster
City
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
282
Agenda
• Project Updates
• Assessment Overview
• Key Findings
• Policy Considerations
• Next Steps
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 2
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
283
Project
Updates
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
284
Existing Conditions
Engagement,
Research,
and Analysis
Preparation
and Adoption
January February March April May June July August September October November December Project
Initiation
Study
Sessions
Draft
Elements
Pop-Ups
Study
Sessions
Focus
Groups
Workshop
Focus
Groups
City
Council
Hearing
Final
Elements
Planning
Commission
Hearing
Study
Sessions
Project Timeline
Rincon Consultants, Inc. • Celebrating 30 Years 5/23/2025 4 2025
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
285
• Evaluates the current state of
Foster City's parks, amenities, and
recreation programs to identify
areas for improvement and growth
• Discusses key issues such as park
accessibility, usage patterns, and
site conditions
• Provides opportunities for
enhancement and policy
considerations to improve the
quality and accessibility of parks
and recreational services
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 5 Parks and Recreation Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
286
• Assesses Foster City's natural open
spaces, biological resources, water
resources, climate resilience, air
quality, and energy conservation to
guide policy development and
enhance environmental
sustainability
• Highlights key issues related to
habitat loss, water quality, climate
vulnerabilities, and energy use
• Offers strategic opportunities and
policy recommendations to improve
environmental sustainability and
resilience
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 6 Conservation and Open Space Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
287
Key Findings
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
288
• Demographic patterns suggest a need for senior serving recreational resources
• Park access is generally equitable across racial and
income groups
Park Accessibility and Equity
• Some parks are currently underused relative to some of the larger parks in the City
Park Usage
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 8 Key Findings: Parks and Recreation Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
289
• Parks vary in access, functionality, and condition
• Geese impact park cleanliness, especially at lagoon
adjacent parks
Site Assessment
• High demand for sports and fitness activities like golf, tennis, walking, and cycling
• Trends align with national recreation patterns
Market Potential Index
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 9 Key Findings: Parks and Recreation Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
290
• Fragmentation of open spaces limits ecological and recreational benefits
• Limited rewilding and naturalization efforts (SB 1425) Natural Open Space
• Habitat loss due to urbanization
• Wetlands conservation threatened by climate change
• Barriers to wildlife movement and invasive species encroachment Biological Resources
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 10 Key Findings: Conservation and Open Space Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
291
• Lagoon water quality issues
• Stormwater pollution from urban runoff
Water Resources
• Future vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding
• Urban heat island effect
• Rising groundwater levels and infrastructure risks
Climate Resilience
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 11 Key Findings: Conservation and Open Space Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
292
• Traffic-related air pollution
• Wildfire smoke exposure
• Gaps in local air quality monitoring
Air Quality
• Dependence on natural gas
• Slow adoption of solar energy
• Grid resilience and energy storage gaps
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 12 Key Findings: Conservation and Open Space Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
293
Do these findings reflect your knowledge of the city?
Did we miss any important information or findings?
Assessment Findings Feedback
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
294
Policy
Considerations
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
295
Park Land and
Amenity
Standards
Adjust park acreage
standards to reflect
realistic growth and
community
preferences
Establish amenity
level of service
standards to align
with community
desires
Facility and
Amenity
Enhancements
Target expansions
of high-demand
facilities
Promote
interconnected
pedestrian and
bicycle trails
Comfort and
Extended Use
Prioritize installation
of lighting and
shade structures
Enhance park
amenities to
maximize usage
Visitor
Management and
Revenue
Opportunities
Introduce user fees
or revenue-
generating events
for parks
Enhance visitor
experiences to
leverage investment
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 15 Policy Consideration: Parks and Recreation Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
296
Natural Open
Space
Create continuous
networks of
vegetated areas
Expand rewilding
efforts for
biodiversity
enhancement
Biological
Resources
Promote wetland
restoration and
wildlife-friendly
urban design
Encourage
community-driven
habitat
conservation
Water Resources
Implement
adaptive
management
strategies for
Lagoon
Expand
stormwater
filtration through
green
infrastructure
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 16 Policy Consideration: Conservation and Open Space
Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
297
Climate
Resilience
Strengthen
regional adaptation
efforts
Continue investing
in flood protection
and shoreline
adaptation
Air Quality
Establish buffer
zones and
vegetative
screening for
sensitive receptors
Prioritize urban
greening to
mitigate air
pollutants
Energy
Conservation and
Renewable
Energy
Expand on-site
renewable energy
installations
Support
sustainable
construction,
electrification, and
EV infrastructure
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 17 Policy Consideration: Conservation and Open Space
Assessment
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
298
Do these strategies seem both effective and feasible?
Are there potential policy solutions that should be added? Do you have thoughts on how these policy could be implemented? 5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 18 Policy Considerations Feedback
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
299
Next Steps
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
300
• First round of community
engagement in May and June
• Community Priorities Survey
Community Workshop
• Focus Groups
• Pop-Up Events
• Study Session #3 in August
5/23/2025Foster City Parks & Open Space and Conservation Elements 20 Next Steps
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
301
Thank you!
8.3 Attachment 1 - Presentation
302
General Plan Parks and Open Space and
Conservation Elements
Community Assessment
prepared by
City of Foster City
Community Development Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404
Contact: Vanessa Brannon, Senior Management Analyst
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Oakland, California 94607
February 2025
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
303
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
304
Introduction
Community Assessment 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 2 Community Assessment.........................................................................................................2
2.1 Foster City Demographics ...........................................................................................2
2.1.1 Population .....................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................2
2.1.3 Age Designations ..........................................................................................2
2.1.4 Households and Income ...............................................................................2
2.2 Recent and Future Growth...........................................................................................3
2.2.1 Areas of Planned Growth ..............................................................................3
2.3 Recreational Services..................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Recreation Trends.........................................................................................5
2.3.2 Existing Recreation Programs.......................................................................5
2.4 Park and Open Space Services...................................................................................5
2.5 Existing Access to Parks and Open Space..................................................................9
2.6 Urban Tree Canopy ...................................................................................................12
2.7 Climate Adaptation and Resilience............................................................................13
2.7.1 Addressing Sea Level Rise and Flooding ...................................................14
2.7.2 Preparing for Extreme Heat and Drought....................................................16
2.7.3 Mitigating Air Quality Impacts......................................................................17 3 References ...........................................................................................................................19 Tables
Table 1 Foster City Parks .........................................................................................................6 Table 2 Walking Distance Availability by Demographic............................................................9 Table 3 Foster City Parks Tree Inventory ...............................................................................12 Table 4 Climate-Related Risk Overview Across Foster City Parks.........................................13 Table 5 Snapshot of Extreme Heat Days for Three 30-Year Time Periods............................16 Figures
Figure 1 Housing Element Sites Inventory Map.........................................................................4 Figure 2 Combined Park Assessment Scores ...........................................................................8 Figure 3 Park Acreage Available per 1,000 Residents ............................................................10 Figure 4 10-Minute Walk Service Area ....................................................................................11 Figure 5 Projected Percent Area Flooded for Foster City ........................................................14 Figure 6 Most Likely Outcome and Range of Future Projections of Extreme Heat Days ........17
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
305
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 2 1 Introduction
This Community Assessment analyzes Foster City’s demographics, growth patterns, and recreational needs to support updates to the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the City’s General Plan. It examines existing community demographics such as population, age, race, ethnicity, language, and household composition, along with projected growth to evaluate whether existing access and services align with community needs.
The assessment also maps the current parks and open space system, analyzing park service metrics across the City, identifying access disparities and how these disparities relate to racial, economic, and social factors. It incorporates urban tree canopy data to evaluate tree coverage and pinpoint coverage gaps. The assessment also evaluates climate impacts and adaptation needs for parks, recreational facilities, and community needs, referencing existing plans such as the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan.
The Community Assessment will be used to inform updates to the Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements of Foster City's General Plan by identifying areas of needed expansion to serve existing and future communities, future climate considerations, and areas to enhance tree coverage. The insights will guide policy updates regarding future development, park planning, and resource allocation in the City.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
306
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 3
2 Community Assessment
2.1 Foster City Demographics
2.1.1 Population
The City of Foster City (Foster City) has experienced growth between 2010 and 2024, increasing by 14.5 percent or approximately 1 percent annually (WRT 2024a). This is greater than the national growth rate of 0.81 percent annually between 2010 and 2024 (WRT 2024a). This is also greater than the state’s growth rate at approximately
0.58 percent per year between 2010 and 2020 (Public Policy Institute of California 2024). The total number of households has only increased 9.1 percent over this 14-year period. Foster City has a slightly larger household size at 2.6 people per household compared to the U.S. at 2.55 people per household (WRT 2024a).
The current population is estimated to be 35,004 people living in 13,104 households. By 2040, the City’s population is projected to be 39,070 residents living within 15,110 households (ABAG 2018). This is in alignment with the City’s General Plan population projection of 39,070 in 2040 (Foster City 2023).
2.1.2 Race and Ethnicity
Foster City is a diverse community. Diversity within the city has also increased between 2010 and 2024. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the largest racial group within the city is Asian Alone, representing 56 percent of the total population in 2024 while White Alone represents 30 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2024).
By 2039, it’s anticipated that Foster City will have an increased Asian Alone population of 65 percent (WRT 2024a).
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
307
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 4 The Hispanic/Latino population was unchanged between 2010 and 2024 representing 7 percent of the City’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). This is far below the national average of 19 percent and state average of approximately 40 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). The Hispanic/Latino population is expected to increase only slightly to 8 percent by 2039 (WRT 2024a).
2.1.3 Age Designations
Age within the City has remained relatively balanced between 2010 and 2024. The largest age segment is the 35-54 segment at 34 percent of the population (WRT 2024a). In 2024, the median age in Foster City was
40.3, which is slightly older than the national median age of 39.3 years (WRT 2024a).
Over the next 15 years it is anticipated that the age distribution in the city will continue to be balanced. The city will age slightly as the 75 years and older segment is expected to increase by 2 percent (WRT 2024a).
However, the 18-34 segment is projected to decrease by approximately 5 percent. All other major segments will be relatively unchanged or decrease slightly (WRT 2024a).
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
308
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 5
2.1.4 Households and Income
The per capita income is the average income per person in the city, calculated by dividing the total income of the population by its total number of people. The median
household income is the halfway point of all household
incomes in the city, meaning half of households earn more and half earn less than the median income. The City’s per capita income is $92,859 and median household income is $186,440, both of which are greater than the national
averages and the regional averages for San Mateo and San Francisco counties (WRT 2024a). Approximately 4.6
percent of the City’s population live below the poverty line, lower than the national average of 11.1 percent and state average of 12 percent in 2023 (U.S. Census Bureau 2023a, 2023b, 2023c).
2.2 Recent and Future Growth
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for forecasting changes to the Bay Area population and economy, with the most recent projections presented in Plan Bay Area 2050. While Plan Bay Area 2050 does not have projections for Foster City specifically, the population of San Mateo County was 265,000 in 2015. By 2050, San Mateo County will grow by 48 percent reaching 394,000 people (ABAG 2021).
Jobs are expected to experience growth of 29 percent within the county between 2015 and 2050, increasing from 393,000 jobs to 507,000 jobs (ABAG 2021). According to Plan Bay Area 2050, housing levels within Super District 6, which includes Foster City, will increase 39 percent between 2015 and 2050, increasing from 87,000 households to 121,000 households (ABAG 2021).
The most recent projections completed at the city-level were done as a part of ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040.
According to Plan Bay Area 2040, Foster City’s population was 32,945 in 2015 and projected to grow to 39,070 by 2040 (ABAG 2018). The number of households in Foster City are anticipated to grow from 12,365 to 15,110 between 2015 and 2040 (ABAG 2018). However, the number of individuals per household is expected to slightly decrease from 2.66 in 2015 to 2.58 in 2040 (ABAG 2018). In 2015, it was estimated that Foster City was home to 21,345 jobs.
Jobs are expected to increase to 27,250 by 2040 (ABAG 2018).
2.2.1 Areas of Planned Growth
According to the City’s Housing Element, there were several sites selected for residential development or redevelopment to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The strategy used to fulfill the RHNA in the Housing Element included implementation of pipeline projects, updating zoning to allow mixed-use in areas previously designated for commercial uses and rezone non-residential sites to residential sites, the identification of a new site, and carrying over sites from the 5 th Cycle Housing Element. In total, there are 13 sites
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
309
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 6 identified in the Housing Element with the potential for new residential development (Foster City 2023). These sites are shown in Figure 1. As the city’s population continues to grow and new residential development is built in these areas, there could be an increased need for additional parks and open space to serve that population and ensure that existing facilities are aligned with additional needs.
There are several projects that are currently under review, approved, or under construction that may have an impact on the use or availability of parks and open space in the city. These include:
•The Foster City Recreation Center Rebuild Project is currently being constructed. The project involves the demolition of the existing 32,000-square-foot recreation center and construction a new Foster City Recreation Center in approximately the same location (Foster City 2025a). The new recreation center building will be two stories and a maximum of approximately 40 feet in height and approximately 40,000 square feet in size. The proposed project will also include improvements to Leo J. Ryan Park consisting of new outdoor gathering spaces, new landscaping, and restriped parking lots. •The Redevelopment of Lantern Cove Apartments which would add 420 new dwelling units and 518 new parking spaces on a 16.8-acre site known as Lantern Cove Apartments (Foster City 2025a).
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
310
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 7
Figure 1 Housing Element Sites Inventory Map
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
311
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 8 2.3 Recreational Services
2.3.1 Recreation Trends
It is important to understand the local and national participation trends in recreational activities. Understanding these trends allows the City to assess demands and fill gaps in service to meet future needs. Trends data for the city were obtained from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trend data is based on current and/or historical participation rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics. ESRI's 2024 Sports and Leisure Market Potential (MPI) Data measures the demand for recreational activities as well as expected consumer attitudes towards these activities by Foster City residents. Activities with MPI numbers greater than the national average are significant because they indicate that Foster City residents will likely take part in offerings if the city or surrounding communities provided these activities.
Outdoor recreational activities have been on the rise nationally over the last five years. The same trend has been seen for residents in Foster City, with all outdoor recreational activities scoring higher than the national averages.
According to the Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis, walking for exercise is the activity with the highest expected participation both nationally and locally. Foster City scored a higher MPI than what was scored nationally, indicating that the City should continue to bolster and provide resources for pedestrian uses. Given Foster City’s lagoon and unique landscape along the coast, there is unsurprisingly a strong demand for all aquatic activities. The city scored higher than the national average for swimming and canoeing or kayaking and scored the same as the national average for saltwater fishing (WRT 2024a). Among all general sports analyzed in the Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis golf was the most popular sport to engage in locally. Tennis, basketball, baseball, pickleball, football, and softball all also scored higher than the national average (WRT 2024a).
2.3.2 Existing Recreation Programs
Foster City has a variety of existing recreational programs for residents of all ages. Senior programs include table tennis and line dancing. Kids and teens have the greatest amount of existing programming, including basketball,
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
312
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 9
flag football, soccer, tennis, pickleball, various dance classes, track & field, and karate. Similarly, programs for adults include pickleball, tennis, low-impact fitness classes, various dance classes, karate, kobojutsu, volleyball, ping pong, wrestling, softball, and bocce ball (Foster City 2025b).
The city has an opportunity to expand their current recreational services primarily along the waterfront by providing more water sports courses. Given that boat activities are very popular, group canoe trips or standup paddle board lessons could be new programs the city provides. In addition, organizing local bird watching or other special-interest groups can encourage recreation and create social opportunities.
2.4 Park and Open Space Services
Foster City is known to have a dense park system. Generally, parks are lush, safe, quiet, and well-used. While most parks offer typical amenities such as playgrounds, sports courts, and picnic areas, many of the City’s parks are also designed and located to facilitate water-based activities such as kayaking, boating, and windsurfing.
Parks within the city are defined as follows:
•Community Parks are large parks (10 to 30 acres) that provide a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities that service a substantial portion of the city. •Neighborhood Parks are medium sized parks (2 to 10 acres) that provide a small range of amenities that meet the daily recreational needs for one or more neighborhoods. •Mini Parks are small parks (less than 2 acres) that provide basic recreational amenities for nearby residents in a specific neighborhood or subdivision.
•Special Use Parks are designed around specialized uses which serve a specific recreational need or population group.
Table 1 includes all park names, their types, and acreages of each within the city.
Table 1 Foster City Parks
Park Name Park Type Park Acres
Boothbay Community 11.2
Edgewater Park Community 8.5
Leo J. Ryan Community 20.7
Sea Cloud Park Community 23.9
Catamaran Park Neighborhood 5.9
Erckenbrack Park Neighborhood 3.5
Farragut Park Neighborhood 3.8
Gull Park Neighborhood 3.1
Marlin Park Neighborhood 3.1
Port Royal Neighborhood 3.9
Shorebird Park Neighborhood 3.5
Arcturus Park Mini 0.8
Gateshead Mini 0.1
Ketch Park Mini 1.6
Killdeer Park Mini 2.4
Leo Park Mini 0.02
Pompano Park Mini 0.6
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
313
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 10 Shad Park Mini 2.2
Sunfish Park Mini 2.4
Turnstone Park Mini 1.5
Baywinds Park Special Use 1.3
Boat Park* Special Use 1.6
Bridgeview Park Special Use 3.2
Dog Park* Special Use 1.6
Total 108.82
*Boat Park and Dog Park are considered two separate Foster City parks. However, since they are part of one cohesive site, they were assessed together.
Source: WRT 2024b.
The Parks Assessment Summary Report evaluated all park facilities within the city against the following four metrics:
•Access & Connectivity refers to the general accessibility of amenities for users of all abilities. This includes factors such as signage, internal/external path connectivity, safe pedestrian crossings, parking and more. •Comfort & Sense of Safety refers to the presence or absence of comfort amenities such as seating, shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms. It also assesses criteria that affect the feeling of safety within a park, such as unobstructed sightlines, signs of vandalism, and lighting. •Functionality refers to how well the park functions for serving recreational needs. It includes criteria such as the presence and arrangement of amenities, appropriateness of vegetation, and compatibility with neighboring land uses.
•Condition refers to the physical condition of park assets and amenities and identifies signs of deferred maintenance.
A rating scale of 1 to 10 was used for scoring each park against each quality. Scores below 4 points were rated as “poor,” those scored 4.1 to 6 points were rated as “fair,” those scored 6.1 to 8 points were rated as “good,” and those with a score of 8.1 or above were rated as “great.” For a full analysis, including individual scores across categories for all park facilities, please refer to the Parks Assessment Summary Report (2024b) completed by WRT.
Figure 2 shows the overall scores given to each of the city’s parks.
For Access & Connectivity, the Parks Assessment Summary Report notes that parks were rated on average as “good” with an average score of 6.9 (WRT 2024b). Parks with the highest scores for Access & Connectivity include Leo J. Ryan, Shorebird Park, and Gateshead Park, while the lowest scores were for Pompano Park and Edgewater Park. The primary concerns regarding Access & Connectivity included variable path connectivity, difficulty finding the park, inconsistent signage, a well-connected bike and pedestrian system but lack of supportive amenities such as bike racks, and a lack of parking for the most frequented parks.
Foster City parks were rated as “good” for the Comfort & Sense of Safety Category, averaging a score of 6.7 (WRT 2024b). On average, the City’s Community and Neighborhood parks scored higher than the City’s Mini and Special Use parks. The highest scoring parks include Catamaran Park, Leo J. Ryan, and Port Royal, and the lowest scoring parks include Pompano Park, Bridgeview Park, and Baywinds Park. Primary needs to improve Comfort & Sense of Safety include better access to shade, additional comfort amenities, noise mitigation for parks near major noise sources, and lighting.
Parks within Foster City were rated “good” for Functionality with an average score of 6.8 across the various park facilities (WRT 2024b). High scoring parks, such as Port Royal, Ketch Park, and Sea Cloud Park, have a variety of amenities. The lowest scoring parks include Pompano Park and Bridgeview Park which both were rated “poor” for Functionality, scoring below 4 points. Key takeaways noted that the majority of parks within the city provide a
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
314
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 11
variety of amenities, have functional layouts, include water-based landscapes and activities, and are compatible with surrounding land uses.
Parks within the city averaged highest for Condition, with a score of 7.4 (WRT 2024b). Unlike the other categories, the City’s Mini park Condition scores were the highest. In addition, the variance in scores was minimal with all parks scoring 6 points or higher. While scores were high, the Parks Assessment Summary Report notes that geese droppings have had a major impact on park cleanliness, impacting resident enjoyment of the facilities. As of December 2024, Foster City has adopted and begun implementation of the City’s Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan. The plan aims to reduce the goose population within the city and improve the cleanliness of parks and the waterfront through nesting management, habitat modification, and goose removal (City of Foster City 2022). In addition, the furnishings offered at each park are inconsistent and the conditions of the amenities offered also varied. While many of the parks have healthy vegetation, several parks have variable vegetation conditions with some parks hosting trees that are struggling to grow and other plants appeared withered or missing.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
315
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 12 Figure 2 Combined Park Assessment Scores
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
316
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 13
2.5 Existing Access to Parks and Open Space
The availability of greenspace (parks, fields, open space) in proximity to housing can create opportunities for physical activity and social interaction. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) measures park access and park proximity. When it comes to park access, the CDPR defines “critically underserved” communities as those communities having a ratio of less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Three acres per 1,000 residents is a State recognized park standard established by California State Parks to measure park access. As shown in Figure 3, there are several areas within Foster City, primarily in the northern and central portions, that have access to less than three acres of park space per 1,000 residents (CDPR 2020).
The Trust for Public Land also evaluates jurisdictions within California based on the ability for residents to access a park within a 10-minute walking distance. Within Foster City, approximately 99 percent of residents live within a 10-minute walk to their nearest park or open space (Trust for Public Lands 2023). This metric is similar regardless of racial group, age group, or income as demonstrated in Figure 4. In addition, the Trust for Public Lands has identified areas where gaps exist.
Table 2 Walking Distance Availability by Demographic
Demographic People within 10-Minute Walk (Percentage)
Race/Ethnicity
White1 99
Black1 99
Native American1 97
Asian1 99
Pacific Islander1 98
Other Race1 99
Two or More Races1 99
Hispanic 99
Age
Youth (<20) 99
Adults (20-64) 99
Seniors (>64) 98
Income
Low Income (<75 % MAI2) 98
Moderate Income (75%-125% MAI) 99
High Income (>125% MAI) 99
1Excludes those that report Hispanic origin, which is captured separately from race by the U.S. Census. 2MAI = Median Area Income, which is the median income of the urban area analyzed (Foster City).
Source: Trust for Public Lands 2023.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
317
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 14 Figure 3 Park Acreage Available per 1,000 Residents
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
318
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 15
Figure 4 10-Minute Walk Service Area
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
319
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 16 2.6 Urban Tree Canopy
Foster City has a total 0.5 square miles of existing tree canopy, equivalent to roughly 21,044 trees. According to Tree Equity Score data, the city’s 21 census tract block groups achieve a combined Tree Equity Score of 86 out of 100. Expanding the urban canopy by 0.7 square miles (an estimated 31,354 additional trees) and maintaining the existing canopy would bring every urban neighborhood in Foster City to a Tree Equity Score of 100 (Tree Equity Score 2025).
A major driver of Foster City’s relatively high Tree Equity Score is the presence of more than 2,000 trees across the City’s parks and recreation areas, representing over 80 different species. The most common species include Monterey Pine (361 trees), Narrow-Leafed Ash (177), Sugar Gum (87), River Red Gum (83), Italian Alder (91), and White Alder (121). Sea Cloud Park stands out for having one of the largest concentrations of trees—over 600—while smaller neighborhood parks each add incremental canopy coverage throughout the community (City of Foster City 2021). This diversity and distribution help bolster tree canopy where it might otherwise be sparse, ensuring that most neighborhoods enjoy significant tree cover.
Table 3 Foster City Parks Tree Inventory
Park Name Number of Trees
Arcturus Park 8
Boothbay Park 182
Catamaran Park 68
Corporation Yard 38
Civic Center Complex 57
Edgewater Park 122
Erckenbrack Park 26
Farragut Park 82
Gateshead Park 18
Ketch Park 62
Killdeer Park 43
Library-Comm. Ctr. 164
Marlin Park 22
Pompano Park 8
Port Royal Park 138
Recreation Center 95
Ryan Park 215
Sea Cloud Park 606
Shad Park 28
Sunfish Park 8
Turnstone Park 28
Source: City of Foster City 2021
Even if Foster City’s main parks already have solid canopy coverage, parks along “edge” zones—where neighborhoods transition into commercial areas—can be priority sites for additional planting. As Foster City updates any Parks and Recreation Master Plans or undertakes new capital projects, weaving tree planting and canopy expansion into those designs—especially in border zones or areas near major roads—will help maintain equitable tree coverage in the long term. Increasing tree canopy shade coverage around seating and active amenity
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
320
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 17
areas will provide a more comfortable experience for residents and visitors and will become increasingly important as extreme heat impacts amplify over time as climate change progresses.
2.7 Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Foster City’s extensive waterfront, lagoon system, and vibrant network of parks are central to the community’s identity and quality of life. However, these spaces also face growing climate-related challenges, including sea level rise, intensified storm events, extreme heat, and periodic air quality concerns. Certain parks—particularly those near the lagoon or shoreline—will require targeted adaptation measures to remain safe and enjoyable as climate conditions evolve.
Table 4 provides an overview of climate-related risks present at each of Foster City’s parks and recreation spaces.
Table 4 Climate-Related Risk Overview Across Foster City Parks Park Name
Coastal Flooding
& Storm Surge
Dam Failure
Inundation Groundwater Rise
Liquefaction
Susceptibility
Arcturus Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Baywinds Park Yes Partial Moderate; Water Table Between 2- 5m Depth (Moderate)
Very High
Boat Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Boothbay Park Yes Yes High; Water Table Between 0-1m
Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Bridgeview Park Yes Partial High; Water Table Between 0-1m Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Catamaran Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Edgewater Park Yes Yes High; Water Table Between 0-1m
Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Erckenbrack Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Farragut Park Yes Yes High; Water Table Between 0-1m
Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Gateshead Park Yes No High/Very High; Water Table at
Surface (Emergent) and Between 0-
1m Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Gull Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Ketch Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Killdeer Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Leo Park Yes Yes High; Water Table Between 0-1m
Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Leo J. Ryan Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Marlin Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
321
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 18 Park Name
Coastal Flooding
& Storm Surge
Dam Failure
Inundation Groundwater Rise
Liquefaction
Susceptibility
Pompano Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Sea Cloud Park Yes Partial High/Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent) and Between 0-
1m Depth (Very Shallow)
Very High
Shad Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Shorebird Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Sunfish Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Turnstone Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface (Emergent)
Very High
Pompano Park Yes Yes Very High; Water Table at Surface
(Emergent)
Very High
Port Royal Park Yes No High; Water Table Between 1-2m
Depth (Shallow)
Very High
Sources: Coastal Flooding and Storm Surge: Point Blue Conservation Science and U.S. Geological Survey. Our Coast Our Future (OCOF).
Web application, Petaluma, California. www.ourcoastourfuture.org (accessed January 2025).
Dam Failure Inundation: Foster City, City of. 2023. Safety Element Update. August 21, 2023. Foster City, California.
Groundwater Rise: Point Blue Conservation Science and U.S. Geological Survey. Our Coast Our Future (OCOF). Web application, Petaluma, California. www.ourcoastourfuture.org (accessed January 2025).
Liquefaction: Foster City, City of. 2023. Safety Element Update. August 21, 2023. Foster City, California.
2.7.1 Addressing Sea Level Rise and Flooding
While the City’s existing levee system generally meets federal requirements, some low-lying park areas may still experience intermittent tidal or storm surge flooding under extreme conditions. It is important to note that many regional sea level rise projections do not yet account for Foster City’s Levee Improvement Project, which is designed to reduce near-term to mid-century flood risks (City of Foster City 2021). By 2050, sea levels in the Bay Area could increase by 11 to 24 inches, depending on the emissions scenario, and by 2100, projections range from 1.7 feet (20 inches) to over 3 feet (36 inches) (County of San Mateo 2021).
Community parks like Sea Cloud and Leo J. Ryan already sit near the lagoon and Bay shoreline. In more severe sea level rise scenarios, these large multi-amenity parks may see temporary closures of ballfields, picnic areas, or water- based recreation zones if levees are overtopped. Parks such as Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Boat/Dog Park have direct or near-direct water access, making them vulnerable to rising tides and saltwater intrusion. Facilities like boat launches and dog runs could require periodic relocation or floodproofing. Parks currently outside FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas could, over time, be reclassified as high-risk or adapted to include formalized stormwater detention functions if sea level rise outpaces levee improvements.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
322
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 19
Figure 5 Projected Percent Area Flooded for Foster City Values indicate the percentage of Foster City’s area flooded under various storm and sea level rise scenarios, as modeled by the Our Coast, Our Future Sea Level Rise and Scenario Report (January 13, 2025). Note: these projections do not account for the Levee Improvement Project.
2.7.1.1 Levee Improvement Project
Foster City’s Levee Improvement Project is central to mitigating sea level rise impacts along roughly eight miles of shoreline. Recent enhancements raised and fortified the levee system to protect parks, trails, and community facilities from a 100-year storm event plus anticipated mid-century sea level rise. Improvements include earthen levees, hybrid sheet piles, and concrete flood walls, elevating the levee by up to 6 feet overall and sitting 2.5 to 3.5 feet above the walking surface in most segments (City of Foster City 2021). Although these upgrades substantially reduce near-term flood risk, higher-end sea level rise scenarios—over 3 feet by 2100—may necessitate additional reinforcement or future levee height increases (California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2024, San Mateo County 2021).
A levee’s performance relies on regular inspections, repairs, and incremental upgrades. Without adequate funding or political support, deferred maintenance can undermine flood protection, impacting popular community parks like Boothbay or Edgewater. Additionally, access roads serving these waterfront parks could become impassable during extreme high tides. By planning for future improvements—such as higher freeboard, pump stations, and nature-based solutions—Foster City can continue to reduce flood risks as climate projections evolve.
Furthermore, extreme events, such as strong storm surges coinciding with high tides, could still generate water levels exceeding design capacities. Parks with lagoon beaches (e.g., Marlin, Gull, Erckenbrack) and shoreline segments (e.g., Shorebird, Baywinds) may face erosion from wave action and higher tides, despite levee protection.
If updated data show faster sea level rise, the City may need to raise or retrofit the levee sooner than planned to protect high-use parks like Sea Cloud and Leo J. Ryan—both critical for large events and community sports.
2.7.1.2 Groundwater and Saltwater Intrusion
As sea levels rise in San Francisco Bay, shallow groundwater underneath low-lying coastal communities will also rise. As sea levels increase, pressure on coastal aquifers can force groundwater upward, even when levees protect against direct coastal flooding. In a low-lying community like Foster City—much of which was built on reclaimed land—this phenomenon can cause water to percolate toward the surface in places that were previously dry (City of Foster City 2023). Rising groundwater increases liquefication hazards in response to earthquakes, particularly in former open water, mudflat, marsh, and floodplain areas that have been filled for development. This is especially relevant in filled or former marshland areas supporting many of Foster City’s smaller “mini parks” (e.g., Arcturus, Pompano, Leo) and in lagoon-adjacent neighborhood parks (San Mateo County 2021). Rising groundwater can damage footpaths, sports courts, and playground equipment from below, particularly in older parks with less modern drainage (e.g., Erckenbrack, Marlin, Gull). If tide gates and drainage pipes fail or age, saltwater can corrode infrastructure in parks such as Boat/Dog Park or Leo J. Ryan, where water-based recreation is a key feature.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
323
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 20 2.7.1.3 Additional Flooding Impacts
Frequent or prolonged flooding degrades turf-grass, landscaping, and hardscapes, causing more frequent park closures. Saltwater intrusion can further weaken playground equipment, restrooms, and other park infrastructure, leading to higher maintenance and repair costs. Rising sea levels also accelerate shoreline erosion, threatening natural buffers and exposing boardwalks, picnic areas, and wildlife habitats to wave action. In turn, coastal wetlands and lagoon habitats that once served as flood buffers may diminish, adding further risk to adjacent parklands.
2.7.1.4 Flood Mitigation Strategies and Coordination
As these impacts intensify, Foster City will need to continue exploring a range of adaptation strategies—including levee reinforcement, nature-based solutions like marsh restoration, and periodic relocation of vulnerable facilities— to sustain its waterfront parks. Future park and trail enhancements should align with levee upgrades and integrate living shorelines or wetland restoration where feasible. This approach combines flood protection with ecological benefits, buffering park infrastructure while enhancing habitat. Collaboration with partners like the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District is critical to securing resources and expertise for enduring, resilient designs. By proactively addressing sea level rise in planning and maintenance, Foster City can preserve safe, enjoyable, and sustainable outdoor spaces for all.
2.7.2Preparing for Extreme Heat and Drought
Historically, the Bay Area has experienced only three to five days above 90°F each year. However, projections indicate that by mid-century (2035–2064), Foster City could see up to 15 Extreme Heat Days annually under a high- emissions scenario—a two- to threefold increase (see Table 5 and Figure 6). Extreme Heat Days refers to the number of days in a year when daily maximum temperature is above a threshold temperature of 92.9 °F. While maritime cooling may temper some impacts, average summer maximum temperatures could still rise by 4 to 5°F by 2100 (Cal-Adapt 2025). Rising temperatures can strain both park resources and the wellbeing of residents who rely on outdoor recreation. Prolonged high temperatures may limit the comfortable use of playgrounds, sports fields, and walking trails, particularly during peak afternoon hours.
Heavily used sports parks like Sea Cloud (eight ballfields), Boothbay (ballfield and basketball court), and Edgewater (multiple courts and fields) face increased irrigation needs (City of Foster City 2024). Heat stress could shorten playing hours and raise maintenance costs. Smaller parks like Gateshead, Leo, and Pompano have fewer mature trees and limited seating, making them less comfortable during high-heat days (City of Foster City 2021). During droughts, these areas could see browning turf or temporary field closures. Drought conditions that often accompany heat waves further stress park landscapes, as plantings and athletic fields become more susceptible to damage when water is restricted. This is particularly relevant when drought conditions coincide with heat waves, straining irrigation supplies.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
324
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 21
Table 5 Snapshot of Extreme Heat Days for Three 30-Year Time Periods Compiled from LOCA downscaled climate projections for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Pierce et al., 2018; Livneh et al., 2015).
Figure 6 Most Likely Outcome and Range of Future Projections of Extreme Heat Days Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015. Data presented are aggregated over all LOCA grid cells that intersect Foster City boundary. Threshold temperature for a location is defined as the 98th percentile value of historical daily maximum/minimum temperatures (from 1961–1990, between April and October) observed at that location.
In response, Foster City’s park system can adopt strategies to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat and drought.
One key strategy recommended by Foster City’s Climate Action Plan 2024 Update is to expand shade and cooling features, including tree canopies, shade structures, and water amenities (e.g., splash pads and community pools) in areas with high foot traffic and play spaces (e.g., Leo J. Ryan, Catamaran, Sea Cloud) (City of Foster City 2024).
Selecting drought-tolerant shade trees can be especially effective for long-term cooling, water conservation, and
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
325
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 22 landscape resilience. Species such as Holly Oak, Italian Stone Pine, Chinese Elm, Carob Tree, and Chinese Pistache are known for providing dense shade while requiring less water once established. Additional varieties like Mayten or Aleppo Pine can thrive in low-water conditions but may need more frequent monitoring for limb drop or invasive characteristics (Arbor Day Foundation 2025).
The City should continue to upgrade irrigation systems to optimize water use, prioritizing these resilient, low-water species wherever possible and exploring non-potable water sources. This is especially vital for large sports fields in Sea Cloud and Boothbay. Where feasible, parks can be designed or retrofitted with permeable surfaces, bioswales, and rain gardens that capture and reuse stormwater—particularly in areas prone to flooding or heavy runoff (e.g., Port Royal, Edgewater). Creating or designating existing indoor recreation spaces as cooling centers during heat events will also be crucial to ensure that residents have safe, climate-controlled environments available. Through these combined efforts, Foster City can protect community health, conserve water resources, and uphold the vitality of its parks in the face of hotter, drier conditions.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
326
Community Assessment
Community Assessment 23
2.7.3 Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
Rising temperatures and regional wildfire activity have led to periodic air quality challenges in Foster City. Smoke and particulate matter from neighboring or distant fires can drift in, impacting park visitors and staff. Meanwhile, higher temperatures can boost ozone formation, especially in the summer. Parks hosting large gatherings (e.g., Leo J. Ryan for festivals, Sea Cloud for sports tournaments) may need to cancel or postpone events on days with unhealthy air quality. Existing indoor facilities, such as community centers at Leo J. Ryan or those adjacent to Sea Cloud, can serve as respite locations.
To address these evolving risks, Foster City’s park system can implement practical measures to protect public health and maintain recreational opportunities. Clean-air shelters or “respite” locations within existing indoor facilities, such as community centers, can offer temporary relief when outdoor air quality is unsafe. Expansion of the urban tree canopy in strategic locations will also help filter pollutants while providing shade against the heat. Public messaging and real-time alerts can guide visitors to safe recreation options and suggest protective behaviors (e.g., wearing masks during severe smoke events or shifting activities indoors). By proactively planning for and responding to air quality impacts, Foster City can help ensure that residents continue to enjoy parks and open spaces—even as climate-related challenges intensify.
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
327
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements 24 3 References
Arbor Day Foundation. Tree Classification and Glossary. https://www.arborday.org/tree-guide/classification- glossary (accessed January 2025).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. November 2018. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Projections_2040-ABAG-MTC-web.pdf (accessed January 2025).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint Growth Pattern. December 2020. https://planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050-final-blueprint-growth-pattern (accessed January 2025).
Cal-Adapt. Local Climate Change Snapshot for Foster City. State of California. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/local- climate-change-snapshot (accessed January 2025).
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). 2020. “Park Access Tool.” https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess/?overlays1=parks%2Cnoparkaccess&overlays2=parks%2C parksper1000 (accessed January 2025).
California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force, California Ocean Protection Council. 2024. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance. 2024 Science & Policy Update. opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/California- Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-2024-508.pdf (accessed January 2025).
Data USA. 2024. “Foster City, CA.” https://datausa.io/profile/geo/foster-city- ca/#:~:text=Poverty%20&%20Diversity&text=3.78%25%20of%20the%20population%20for,followed%2 0by%20White%20and%20Hispanic (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2021. Foster City Levee Improvement. Foster City, California. May 5, 2020. https://fostercitylevee.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/foster_city_levee_improvements_project_project_manual_specifications.pdf (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2021. Tree Inventory. Foster City, California. Accessed January 2025.
Foster City, City of. 2022. Cana Goose Population Management Plan. June 2022. https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community/page/43633/foster_city_canad a_goose_population_management_plan_as_of_june_2022.pdf (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2023. 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Update. Foster City, California. May 22, 2023. https://engagefostercity.org/housing-element (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2023. General Plan Safety Element. August 21, 2023. Foster City, California.
Foster City, City of. 2024. Climate Action Plan 2024 Update. November 2024. Foster City, California. https://sustainable.fostercity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2024/11/FosterCityCAP_2024_Update_Final_110724_Small.pdf (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2024. Foster City Park Inventory. Foster City, California. Accessed January 2025.
Foster City, City of. 2025a. “Major Projects.” https://www.fostercity.org/projects (accessed January 2025).
Foster City, City of. 2025b. “Activities and Classes.” https://www.fostercity.org/parksrec/page/activities-and- classes (accessed January 2025).
Public Policy Institute of California. 2024. “California’s Population.” https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias- population/ (accessed January 2024).
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
328
References
Community Assessment 25
San Mateo County. 2021. Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. San Mateo County, California. October 19, 2021. https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/2021-multijurisdictional-lhmp (accessed January 2025).
Tree Equity Score. 2025. “Tree Equity Score Location Insights.” https://www.treeequityscore.org/insights/place/foster-city-ca (accessed January 2025).
Trust for Public Lands. 2023. “ParkServe.” https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/#/?CityID=0625338 (accessed January 205).
United States Census Bureau. 2023a. “QuickFacts: California.” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045224 (accessed January 2025).
United States Census Bureau. 2023b. “QuickFacts: Foster City.” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA,fostercitycitycalifornia/PST045223 (accessed January 2025).
United States Census Bureau. 2023c. “QuickFacts: United States.” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045224 (accessed January 2025).
WRT. 2024a. Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis – Foster City Parks Master Plan. December 2024. (accessed January 2025).
WRT. 2024b. Final Park Assessment Summary Report – Foster City Parks Master Plan. December 9, 2024. (accessed January 2025).
8.3 Attachment 2 - Community Assessment
329
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element
and Conservation Element
Open Space and Conservation Assessment
prepared for
City of Foster City
Community Development Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404
Contact: Vanessa Brannon, Senior Management Analyst
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Oakland, California 94607
March 2025
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
330
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
331
Table of Contents
Open Space and Conservation Assessment i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 2 Regulatory Triggers................................................................................................................2 3 Data Gaps and Limitations .....................................................................................................3
3.1 Natural Open Space Inventory.....................................................................................3
3.2 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................3
3.3 Water Resources .........................................................................................................4
3.4 Climate Resilience .......................................................................................................5
3.5 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................5
3.6 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy.............................................................6 4 Natural Open Space...............................................................................................................8
4.1 Open Space Inventory .................................................................................................8
4.2 Open Space Access ..................................................................................................11
4.3 Rewilding Potential ....................................................................................................11 5 Biological Resources............................................................................................................14
5.1 Biological Resources .................................................................................................14
5.2 Wildlife Connectivity...................................................................................................19
5.3 Coastal Resources.....................................................................................................22
5.4 Existing Plans and Programs.....................................................................................25
5.5 Climate Considerations..............................................................................................26
5.6 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................26 6 Water Resources..................................................................................................................29
6.1 Watershed and Waterways........................................................................................29
6.2 Water Quality .............................................................................................................31
6.3 Water Supply .............................................................................................................35
6.4 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................39 7 Climate Resilience................................................................................................................41
7.1 Overview of Climate Resilience in Foster City...........................................................41
7.2 Current Role of Open Space in Resilience ................................................................41
7.3 Areas Vulnerable to Climate-Related Hazards ..........................................................44
7.4 Existing City Programs and Initiatives........................................................................49
7.5 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................50 8 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................52
8.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................52
8.2 Regional Air Quality ...................................................................................................52
8.3 Known Concerns........................................................................................................52
8.4 Existing Plans and Programs.....................................................................................53
8.5 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................54
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
332
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element ii
9 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy......................................................................56
9.1 Existing Energy Usage Data......................................................................................56
9.2 Energy Conservation/Renewable Energy Goals........................................................57
9.3 Existing Plans and Programs.....................................................................................57
9.4 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................58 10 Key Issues and Opportunities Summary ..............................................................................60
10.1 Natural Open Space ..................................................................................................60
10.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................60
10.3 Water Resources .......................................................................................................61
10.4 Climate Resilience .....................................................................................................62
10.5 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................63
10.6 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy...........................................................63 11 Appendices...........................................................................................................................65
11.1 Appendix A: Regulatory Context................................................................................65
11.2 Appendix B: Definitions..............................................................................................69 Tables
Table 1 Wildlife and Status in Foster City...............................................................................17 Table 2 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison.........................................................36 Table 3 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison....................................................36 Table 4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison................................................37 Table 5 Key Mitigation Opportunities for Parks with Elevated Urban Heat Island Index ........43 Figures
Figure 1 Parks and Open Space in Foster City..........................................................................9 Figure 2 Public and Private Accessible Open Space in Foster City.........................................10 Figure 3 Vegetation and Land Cover is Foster City .................................................................15 Figure 4 Wildlife Connectivity Areas in Foster City ..................................................................21 Figure 5 Protected Areas in Foster City...................................................................................23 Figure 6 Regional Urban Heat Island Index.............................................................................43 Figure 7 Sea Level Rise Inundation (0.8 feet)..........................................................................45 Figure 8 Present-Day (No SLR) 100-Year Storm Inundation Risk...........................................46 Figure 9 Present-Day (No SLR) Groundwater Hazard.............................................................48
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
333
Introduction
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 1
1 Introduction
The City of Foster City’s (City) open space, natural resources, and conservation management are integral to the city’s environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and quality of life. As an urbanized shoreline community distinguished by a unique network of parks, lagoons, and shoreline areas including the adjacent Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, Foster City faces specific challenges and opportunities in preserving and enhancing its natural and recreational assets. This Open Space and Conservation Assessment evaluates existing parks, amenities, and recreational programs to highlight opportunities for enhancement and growth. Serving as an essential resource, it guides policy development and identifies multi-benefit opportunities aligned with the Parks Master Plan, ultimately informing the update to the Parks and Open Space Element.
This assessment is based on a detailed review and analysis of existing data sources, relevant literature, and local findings. It inventories and evaluates key biological resources, identifies special status species and habitats, maps ecological reserves, and highlights opportunities for ecological restoration and habitat connectivity. Furthermore, the assessment examines open spaces such as parks, lagoons, and shoreline areas, assessing their contributions to ecological health, recreation, community well-being, and climate resilience. It also identifies vulnerabilities and threats facing these spaces, particularly from flooding and sea-level rise.
Beyond biological and shoreline resources, the assessment explores critical sustainability topics, including air quality, water quality, water supply, energy conservation, and renewable energy. By evaluating existing conditions and regulatory compliance, it identifies ongoing challenges and highlights opportunities for strengthening environmental resilience.
Through this synthesis of current conditions, regulatory contexts, and identification of key data gaps, the assessment outlines strategic priorities and essential policy considerations. These insights are intended to guide General Plan policy development, positioning Foster City to sustainably manage and protect its natural assets, bolster community resilience, and maximize multi-benefit environmental and social outcomes for present and future generations.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
334
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 2 2 Regulatory Triggers
The following California regulations mandate an update to the Parks and Open Space Element and the Conservation Element. A full regulatory setting is provided in the Appendix.
Senate Bill 1425 Open-space element: updates
Senate Bill (SB) 1425 requires that every city and county review and update its local open space plan by January 1, 2026.1 The bill requires the local open space plan to include plans and an action program that address specified issues, including climate resilience, equitable access, and rewilding opportunities, correlated with the Safety Element, Environmental Justice Element, and Land Use Element respectively. The requirements set forth in SB 1425 may be best met by pursuing policies that promote multi-benefit approaches.
Fundamental to the multiple benefits of open space is the provision of natural areas that provide human and ecological benefits through habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics. In the context of climate change, open space provides a form of natural infrastructure, for which a definition is provided in Gov. Code § 65302(g)(4)(C)(v). Natural infrastructure utilizes natural ecological systems or processes to reduce vulnerability to climate change related hazards, or other related climate change effects, while increasing the long-term adaptive capacity of natural areas by perpetuating or restoring ecosystem services.
Assembly Bill 1889 Conservation element: wildlife and habitat connectivity Assembly Bill (AB) 1889, known as the Room to Roam Act, requires the Conservation Element of a city’s general plan to include an identification and analysis of connectivity areas, permeability, and natural landscape areas within its jurisdiction by January 1, 2028.2 It further requires an assessment of existing or planned wildlife passage features, such as wildlife crossings or underpasses, to ensure planned developments do not comprise these critical habitats or wildlife movement corridors.
Specifically, the bill directs local governments to consider the impacts of existing and future development on wildlife connectivity, emphasizing the importance of protecting and enhancing wildlife corridors, particularly in response to the challenges posed by climate change and habitat fragmentation. Local jurisdictions are required to:
•Identify connectivity areas, permeability, and natural landscape areas. •Inventory and analyze existing or planned wildlife passage features, aligning efforts with state-level connectivity assessments and plans.
•Evaluate how development may create barriers to wildlife movement. •Develop strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to wildlife connectivity from land- use decisions.
•Explore opportunities to remediate existing barriers and restore degraded habitats, integrating best available science and datasets from regional habitat connectivity assessments, wildlife movement studies, and other relevant resources. 1 Stern. 2022. Senate Bill No. 1425. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1425 (accessed March 2025).
2 Friedman. 2024. Assembly Bill No. 1889. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1889 (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
335
Data Gaps and Limitations
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 3
3 Data Gaps and Limitations
This assessment draws on a diverse set of data sources, including local documents such as Foster City's Climate Action Plan and Lagoon Management Plan, regional datasets like those from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and San Mateo County, and statewide resources such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and State Water Resources Control Board. Despite the breadth of data utilized, several key data gaps and limitations emerged during the preparation of this assessment. Some of these gaps can be addressed within the context of updating the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan, while others require broader, long-term efforts beyond the scope of this study. The following subsections identify key data gaps within each topic area, along with recommendations for improving future data collection, analysis, and policy development. These recommendations are intended to illustrate potential methods for obtaining additional information that could strengthen this report's findings. However, it is recognized that the City may face constraints in time, staffing, or funding that limit its ability to pursue these efforts in the near term. As such, the recommendations are not presented as immediate action items, but rather as context for what could be pursued to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Foster City’s natural resources.
3.1 Natural Open Space Inventory
Identified Gaps and Limitations
•Community Usage Data: While there is information on park access available, there is limited data specific to open spaces throughout the city. Often the data available to evaluate park access includes urban parks alone or urban parks and open space together. Isolated information on open space access is more challenging to identify.
Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Implement user surveys or data collection mechanisms, such as park attendance counters, to gather information on park utilization, demographics of visitors, and patterns of use.
3.2 Biological Resources
Identified Gaps and Limitations
•Wildlife Presence Data: Although State and federal resources provide data on the recorded occurrences of various species, there is a lack of recently collected information regarding the current presence of some of the rarer species. •Wildlife Movement Data: Data is available on the presence of certain species, but there is insufficient information regarding their specific movement patterns, migration corridors, and population sizes within Foster City.
•Wildlife Corridor Information: Due to the difficulty in finding information on the city's existing wildlife movement infrastructure, the analysis on the adequacy of this infrastructure is limited.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
336
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 4 Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Involve local communities and stakeholders in wildlife monitoring efforts. Their knowledge and participation can enhance data collection and ensure the success of conservation initiatives.
•Identify and map key wildlife movement corridors through field studies. This involves tracking migration patterns and identifying critical areas where wildlife is likely to move. Field studies can provide valuable data on habitat use and connectivity. •Work with partners and subject matter experts to perform more frequent and detailed biodiversity assessments in marine and coastal environments to track trends in key species and assess ecosystem resilience.
•Work with partners and subject matter experts to establish key performance indicators related to biodiversity, habitat quality, and ecosystem health to track progress and adjust strategies accordingly.
•Consider additional methods to gather data for future natural resource planning efforts, such as camera trapping, integrating data from other sources such as roadkill surveys and habitat suitability models, and/or advanced analytical tools such as spatial capture-recapture models.
3.3 Water Resources
Identified Gaps and Limitations
•Impacts of Bay-Delta Plan Amendments: The projections regarding water supply availability under the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment reflect a worst-case scenario but do not account for the implementation of the San Francisco Public Utilities District’s Alternative Water Supply Program or a Voluntary Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board. There is uncertainty regarding the actual impacts of these policies. •Future Projections for Multiple Dry Years: Projections of water supply and demand for multiple dry years are based on the assumption of significant supply shortfalls. These projections may change with improved regional coordination and better data about supply reliability. However, the exact magnitude of these shortfalls and the effectiveness of mitigation measures remain uncertain.
Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Establish a shallow-groundwater monitoring program with EMID to install dedicated wells for sampling water levels and chloride/bromide concentrations. Although Foster City already sits below sea level, rising Bay water can push salty groundwater farther inland and upward, increasing corrosion risks for buried utilities and affecting landscape irrigation quality; tracking these trends will inform future infrastructure design and maintenance.. •Refine projections and assess water supply availability in cooperation with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, especially considering the possibility of a Voluntary Agreement and the Alternative Water Supply Program. This would provide more accurate estimates of water supply reliability in both normal and dry years.
•Work with the Estero Municipal Improvement District to update the Urban Water Management Plan periodically to reflect new data and regional water supply reliability projections. Models could incorporate different future climate scenarios and their specific impacts on water supply availability.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
337
Data Gaps and Limitations
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 5
3.4 Climate Resilience
Identified Data Gaps and Limitations
•Groundwater Rise Projections: While sea level rise and coastal flooding hazards are well- documented, data on shallow groundwater rise and its interactions with infrastructure, soil stability, and stormwater systems are limited.
•Localized Flood Modeling: Current flood mapping primarily focuses on large-scale regional models (e.g., CoSMoS). More localized, high-resolution flood modeling is needed to assess inland ponding risks, stormwater drainage capacity, and the potential for compound flooding events.
•Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Strategies: While the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) outlines adaptation priorities, there is limited site-specific analysis on the role of nature- based solutions such as marsh expansion, permeable surfaces, or urban forestry for flood mitigation and cooling.
•Heat Vulnerability Mapping: While regional climate models predict increasing extreme heat days, Foster City’s neighborhood-level vulnerability assessments (e.g., tree canopy gaps, heat mapping for specific streets) remain incomplete.
Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Collaborate with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and regional water agencies to integrate shallow groundwater rise projections into future hazard planning. •Develop a localized stormwater and flood risk model in partnership with regional hydrologists to evaluate drainage vulnerabilities and compound flood risks. •Expand partnerships with OneShoreline, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and BayAdapt to conduct feasibility studies on nature-based adaptation, particularly for shoreline resilience and water retention strategies. •Work with a regional agency, an academic partner, or an external consultant to complete a high-resolution urban heat assessment, such as NOAA’s CAPA HeatWatch campaign or comparable remote-sensing/ground-sensor study, so the City can pinpoint priority streets and neighborhoods for cooling interventions (tree planting, cool paving, shade structures). •Foster City is exploring a citywide tree canopy study. Completing that inventory would close a key portion of the neighborhood level data gap by quantifying shade coverage and pinpointing streets or blocks with the greatest canopy deficits. To create a fully robust heat vulnerability assessment, the canopy study would best be paired with (1) high resolution surface temperature or satellite heat mapping and (2) sociodemographic data that highlight concentrations of heat sensitive populations. Together, these layers would identify priority areas for tree planting and other cooling interventions (e.g., cool pavements, shade structures).
3.5 Air Quality
Identified Data Gaps and Limitations
•Limited Localized Air Monitoring: Foster City does not have dedicated long-term air monitoring stations; instead, it relies on nearby stations (e.g., Redwood City, San Mateo), which may not fully capture localized conditions near highways, industrial zones, or major pollution sources.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
338
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 6 •Insufficient Data on Indoor Air Quality Impacts: While outdoor air pollution (e.g., wildfire smoke, vehicle emissions) is a known concern, there is little available data on indoor air quality trends, particularly in vulnerable buildings such as schools and senior centers. •Cumulative Exposure Assessments: While individual sources of air pollution (traffic, industry, airport) are recognized, a cumulative exposure analysis integrating multiple pollutants is lacking.
Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Work with BAAQMD or secure AB 617 Community Air Grants to co-fund and install additional air quality sensors (such as PurpleAir) in Foster City, particularly in high-traffic and high-exposure areas (e.g., near Highway 101, community centers). •Contract a qualified HVAC/industrial-hygiene consultant to measure particulate filtration performance during wildfire-smoke events at the Recreation Center, Library, and Senior Center and to prepare a phased list of ventilation upgrades. •With consultant or academic support, develop a cumulative exposure risk map that overlays pollution sources, population vulnerabilities, and health indicators to pinpoint “high-impact” blocks for land use or mitigation action.
3.6 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Identified Data Gaps and Limitations
•Limited Granular Energy Consumption Data: Current energy usage statistics rely on aggregate data from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), which do not provide detailed insights at the neighborhood or building level. •Lack of Data on Energy Efficiency Potential: While the Climate Action Plan outlines energy reduction targets, data on energy efficiency potential across building types (e.g., how much energy could be saved through retrofits) is incomplete. •Grid Resilience and Energy Storage Planning: There is limited publicly available data on the resilience of the local grid to power disruptions, renewable energy storage capacity, and microgrid feasibility for Foster City.
Recommendations to Address Gaps
•Build upon the municipal and commercial energy audits completed during the Climate Action Plan process by:
orefreshing the audits every 5 years (or when major building system replacements are planned) to capture new efficiency and electrification incentives; oadding any facilities or large private buildings that were not examined in the original study (e.g., newer retail/office developments); and
otranslating audit recommendations into a prioritized retrofit action list with cost, payback, and potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG)‑reduction estimates, suitable for grant or rebate applications.
•Coordinate with PCE on phased grid resilience studies, exploring the following:
oWork with PCE and the City’s Building Maintenance Division to scope battery-storage retrofits at critical facilities (e.g., the Civic Center, Fire Stations, the Senior Center) to maintain essential services during outages.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
339
Data Gaps and Limitations
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 7
oWith Engineering as lead and consultant support, evaluate a microgrid serving the Civic Center / Recreation Center complex; include capital-improvement-program (CIP) cost ranges, payback, and funding options.
oIf the facility-scale projects prove cost-effective, expand the study to identify neighborhood or private-sector sites (business parks, multifamily complexes) that could host microgrids, leveraging PCE or state resilience grants.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
340
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 8 4 Natural Open Space
4.1 Open Space Inventory
The City of Foster City offers an extensive array of open spaces and recreational facilities, enhancing the quality of life for its residents and visitors. In addition to the city’s 24 parks (see the Parks and Recreation Assessment), Foster City provides approximately 22 acres of publicly accessible open space, primarily along the city’s bike and pedestrian trails, and 41 acres of open space with restricted access. Much of the restricted access open space is either protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or privately owned and operated, and public access is generally discouraged as these areas consist of sensitive habitat along the levee pedway. Additionally, Foster City maintains a 218-acre man-made lagoon system, designed for both drainage and recreational purposes. This lagoon offers opportunities for various water activities, including kayaking, paddle boating and windsurfing. In addition, the city contains natural preservation areas such as the Belmont Slough, a protected region that serves as a vital estuarine environment supporting diverse wildlife and offering scenic trails for public enjoyment.
Figure 1 shows all parks and open spaces within the City of Foster City. Figure 2 identifies publicly accessible open space within and directly adjacent to the city.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
341
Natural Open Space
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 9
Figure 1 Parks and Open Space in Foster City
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
342
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 10 Figure 2 Public and Private Accessible Open Space in Foster City
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
343
Natural Open Space
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 11
4.2 Open Space Access
4.2.1 Regulatory Considerations
SB 1425 is a California law aimed at promoting climate resilience, biodiversity, and equitable access to natural resources through sustainable land use planning. It encourages local governments to integrate nature-based solutions and prioritize open space preservation, particularly in underserved communities. In Foster City, SB 1425 supports efforts to enhance equitable access to parks, shorelines, and recreational areas by ensuring that all residents, regardless of socioeconomic background, can enjoy accessible natural spaces, which includes open space on land and water.
Access to parks and open space is discussed in the Parks and Recreation Assessment.
4.3 Rewilding Potential
4.3.1 Regulatory Considerations
SB 1425 also requires a city or county consider opportunities for rewilding as part of the Open Space Element, in correlation with the Land Use Element. Per Gov. Code § Section 65565.5 (b)(1), rewilding opportunities may include but are not limited to:
•Opportunities to preserve, enhance, and expand an integrated network of open space to support beneficial uses, such as habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics.
•Establishing a natural communities conservation plan to provide for coordinated mitigation of the impacts of new development.
4.3.2 Expansion and Rewilding Opportunities
There are several existing areas near or within close proximity to the City that could be expanded, further naturalized, or provided with improved protections.
Belmont Slough
Belmont Slough borders Foster City to the east and south, separating it from Redwood Shores.
The surrounding wetlands, characterized by cordgrass and pickleweed, serve as feeding grounds for various shorebirds. It acts as a natural boundary between Foster City and Redwood Shores. The shorelines along the Belmont Slough are protected as a part of the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve. The CDFW oversees the ecological health and wildlife protection in the area.3 However, some of the area is also privately owned and managed. Both the private and public parcels along the Belmont Slough could be improved through naturalization. The City of Foster City is responsible for maintaining the adjacent trails and stormwater facilities.
Strategies that could be used to protect and enhance this area include:
•Wetlands Expansion: Work with the CDFW, BCDC, OneShoreline and private landowners to identify areas where marshlands can be restored or expanded, such as converting low- lying or underutilized land into tidal marshes.
3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025a. Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to- Visit/Redwood-Shores-ER#10597124-history (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
344
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 12 •Buffer Zones: As a part of capital improvement projects along the levee, create buffer strips with native grasses and shrubs along the inboard side of the levee to improve habitat quality and reduce runoff pollution.
•Habitat Restoration: Collaborate with the regulatory agencies (e.g., CDFW, BCDC), restoration ecologists, private landowners, and other stakeholders to plant native vegetation that supports bird species and promotes fish spawning. Develop a detailed restoration plan with a clear timeline and secure funding from grants, government programs, and private donations to cover costs for materials, labor, equipment, and maintenance. •Public Access Improvements: Develop boardwalk trails or observation decks that allow residents to enjoy the natural spaces with minimal disruption to local wildlife.
Seal Slough
Seal Slough, also known as Marina Lagoon, is a tidal channel running through San Mateo and Foster City. The surrounding marshes are productive brackish wetlands dominated by cordgrass, supporting a mix of saltwater and freshwater habitats. The area has been partially developed, and some marshes have been lost to urbanization. While the Seal Slough is largely managed by the City of San Mateo, there are opportunities for collaboration to naturalize the area. The City of San Mateo has included the Seal Slough as an ongoing focus of wetland restoration projects aimed at enhancing wildlife habitats. These efforts include creating a scenic paved path along the slough's east bank, providing recreational opportunities for the community.
Some strategies to naturalize the areas within Foster City include:
•Riparian 4 Habitat Restoration: Collaborate with the City of San Mateo on establishing plans to remove invasive species and replant native vegetation along the banks to stabilize the shoreline and enhance biodiversity.
•Wildlife Corridors: Establish small pocket habitats along the slough to allow species movement and work with the City of San Mateo to do the same on the side of the slough shared by the city.
•Stormwater Management Improvements: Use bioswales, native rain gardens, and other green infrastructure when planning projects near the slough to filter runoff before it reaches the waterway.
Urban Green Spaces
Foster City has parks and open spaces, such as Boothbay Park and Port Royal Park, primarily designed for recreational use. Although expanding these existing park spaces may be challenging, several strategies could be implemented to naturalize some areas:
•Native Plant Landscapes: Replace ornamental lawns with drought-tolerant, pollinator- friendly plants to reduce water usage and increase habitat diversity. •Small Space Rewilding: Convert sections of parks into wildflower meadows or mini- wetlands, especially in areas that line the city’s existing coastal wetlands. •Community Gardens and Native Plant Education: Provide public spaces where residents can grow native plants and learn about local ecology.
•Green Infrastructure for Climate Resilience: Add tree canopies and permeable surfaces to reduce heat islands and stormwater runoff.
4 Riparian areas are plant communities contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas are usually transitional between wetland and upland.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
345
Natural Open Space
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 13
Shoreline Areas
Foster City's shoreline along the San Francisco Bay is largely shaped by levees, bulkheads, and flood control structures, which have historically been engineered for storm protection and land stability. While effective for flood prevention, these hardened structures reduce habitat availability for shorebirds, fish, and marine organisms. Restoring and naturalizing portions of the shoreline can provide ecological, recreational, and climate resilience benefits while maintaining necessary flood protection.
While the shoreline areas are within the city, strategies and policies relating to shoreline management must be aligned with the goals of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). BCDC oversees any construction or modification along the Bay shoreline, ensuring it meets environmental standards and provides public access. The commission also plays a vital role in protecting sensitive habitats, promoting habitat restoration, and guiding the city's response to challenges such as sea-level rise and storm surges. Foster City must comply with BCDC’s permitting process for coastal infrastructure projects, and the commission collaborates with local authorities on long-term planning efforts to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient development along the coast. In addition to BCDC, some areas, such as the open space near the Belmont Slough, is privately owned and protected by the CDFW.
Some strategies to consider include:
•Public-Private Collaboration: Work with property owners along the shoreline to integrate native shoreline plantings.
In addition, the City can consider integrating with existing large-scale open space and conservation programs in the region, such as OneShoreline. The San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District operates OneShoreline, working with jurisdictions within San Mateo County to identify opportunities to improve the shorelines and prevent harm from future sea level rise. By collaborating, the City of Foster City and OneShoreline can plan and implement projects that address sea level rise, flooding, and coastal erosion, thereby improving the city’s resiliency and enhancing the quality of wildlife habitat simultaneously.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
346
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 14 5 Biological Resources
5.1 Biological Resources
5.1.1 Vegetation and Land Cover
In 2022, the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, a non-profit support partner to the National Park Service (NPS) Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), completed a fine-scale vegetation map that details vegetation communities and agricultural land cover types, including forests, grasslands, riparian vegetation, wetlands, and croplands.5 Most of the city contains developed land according to this mapping. The city has approximately 2,149 acres of developed land, 19 acres of fragmented urban forest, 22 acres of bare or sparsely vegetated areas, and 274 acres of water, primarily consisting of the Foster City Lagoon that runs centrally through the city (Figure 3). Descriptions of each vegetative community found within Foster City are as follows:5
•Tidal Wetland (96 acres). Salt marsh areas dominated by salt-tolerant wetland species. •Mudflat (71 acres). Areas in the intertidal zone that are unvegetated and exposed during low tide.
•Herbaceous (63 acres). Areas where herbaceous vegetation (i.e., vegetation consists of plants with non-woody stems, such as grasses, flowers, and herbs) is at least 10 percent absolute cover; absolute tree and shrub cover is less than 10 percent. •Non-native Herbaceous (30 acres). Areas where non-native herbaceous vegetation is at least 10 percent absolute cover; non-native herbaceous species dominate the herbaceous stratum; absolute tree and shrub cover is less than 10 percent. •Non-native Forest (15 acres). Areas where trees are at least 10 percent absolute cover; tree cover dominated by ornamental non-native species (above 50 percent relative tree cover).
•Evergreen Hardwood (8 acres). Areas where trees are at least 10 percent absolute cover; fine scale map class is a non-riparian6 evergreen hardwood type (e.g., oaks, madrone, tanoak).
•Shrub (2 acres). Areas where native woody shrubs are at least 10 percent absolute cover; absolute tree cover is less than 10 percent.
5 Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. 2022. San Mateo Countywide Fine Scale Vegetation Map Final Report. https://tukmangeospatial.egnyte.com/dl/9AdMcciYe9 (accessed March 2025). 6 A non-riparian area refers to land that does not border a river, stream, or other water body.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
347
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 15
Figure 3 Vegetation and Land Cover is Foster City
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
348
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 16 5.1.2 Foster City Wildlife
The city is bordered by the San Francisco Bay to the north and east and supports coastal wetlands and riparian habitat along the coastline; however urbanization has substantially reduced the abundance and diversity of biological resources in Foster City. The largest collection of publicly owned natural habitat in the city includes the parks, the lagoon that runs centrally through the city, and the Belmont Slough, which borders the city to the east and southeast.
The parks and waterways attract migratory and resident birds, offering food and protection from land predators. Species such as herons and egrets are commonly observed, especially in areas like the Belmont Slough and the nearby Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve. These regions provide feeding grounds for shorebirds and nesting habitats for song sparrows and Canada geese. Mammals are common in the city, with residents often spotting raccoons, skunks, squirrels, opossums, and sometimes even coyotes looking for food and shelter in residential and commercial areas.
The city's marshlands and sloughs, such as Belmont Slough and Seal Slough, support a variety of aquatic and semi-aquatic species. These habitats are characterized by stands of cordgrass and pickleweed, which provide feeding areas for rails, herons, and other shorebirds. The mudflats adjacent to these sloughs serve as foraging grounds for numerous species, contributing to the area's ecological diversity.
Special Status Species
Special status species are those plants and animals that fall under one of the following categories:
•Listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act7,8
•Those considered “Species of Concern” by the USFWS 7, 8 •Those listed or candidates for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act7, 8
•Animals designated as “Fully Protected” by the California Fish and Game Code 7, 8 •Animals listed as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW 8 •CDFW Special Plants, specifically those with California Rare Plant Ranks of 1B, 2, 3, and 4 in the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.9
The CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) captures information about California’s most imperiled plants, animals, and natural communities. It serves as a statewide inventory of the status and locations of species. There are 21 wildlife, six plants, and one natural 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025b. State and Federally Listed, Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline (accessed March 2025). 8 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025c. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline (accessed March 2025). 9 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025d. Special Vascular Plants, Brophytes, and Lichens List. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
349
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 17
community with recorded occurrences within one mile of the City of Foster City.10 The listing status and presumed presence is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 Wildlife and Status in Foster City
CNDBB Name Presence1, 2, 3 Federal List Status California List Status Animals
Alameda song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia
pusillula)
Presumed extant None None
American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus)
Presumed extant Delisted Delisted
Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
Presumed extant None Candidate Endangered
California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus)
Presumed extant None Threatened
California least tern
(Sternula antillarum
browni)
Presumed extant Endangered Endangered
California ridgeway’s rail
(Rallus obsoletus
obsoletus)
Presumed extant Endangered Endangered
Double-crested cormorant
(Nannopterum auritum)
Presumed extant None None
Green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris)
Presumed extant Threatened None
Hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus)
Presumed extant None None
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus
thaleichthys)
Presumed extant Endangered Threatened
Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly
(Speyeria zerene
myrtleae)
Extirpated Endangered None
Northern harrier (Circus
hudsonius)
Presumed extant None None
Pacific walker
(Pomatiopsis californica)
Possibly extirpated None None
Pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus)
Presumed extant None None
Ricksecker’s water
scavenger beetle
(Hydrochara rickseckeri)
Presumed extant None None
Salt-marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys
raviventris)
Presumed extant Endangered Endangered
San Francisco
gartersnake (Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia)
Presumed extant Endangered Endangered
10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025e. California Natural Diversity Database. California Natural Diversity Database (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
350
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 18 CNDBB Name Presence1, 2, 3 Federal List Status California List Status Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys venustus
venustus)
Possibly extirpated None None
Short-eared owl (Asio
flammeus)
Presumed extant None None
Western bumble bee
(Bombus occidentalis)
Presumed extant None Candidate Endangered
Western snowy plover
(Charadrius nivosus
nivosus)
Presumed extant Threatened None
Plants
Arcuate bushmallow
(Malacothamnus arcuatus
var. arcuatus)
Extirpated None None
Franciscan onion (Allium
peninsulare var.
franciscanum)
Presumed extant None None
Hillsborough chocolate lily
(Fritillaria biflora var.
ineziana)
Presumed extant None None
Point Reyes salty bird’s-
beak (Chloropyron
maritimum ssp. Palustre)
Possibly extirpated None None
Saline clover (Trifolium
hydrophilum)
Presumed extant None None
San Francisco owl’s-
clover (Triphysaria
floribunda)
Extirpated None None
Natural Communities
Northern Coastal Salt
Marsh (Spartina
alterniflora)
Presumed extant None None
1 Presumed extant = An occurrence is presumed to still be in existence until evidence to the contrary is received by the CNDDB. 2 Possibly Extirpated = Evidence of habitat destruction or population extirpation has been received by the CNDDB for this site, but questions remain as to whether the element still exists. 3 Extirpated = Species has not been seen for many years or habitat has been destroyed at the site.
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2025e.
Nesting Birds
While common birds are not designated as special status species, destruction of the eggs, nests, and nestlings of any bird (except English sparrows and European starlings) is prohibited by federal and state law. Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season.
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protects birds of prey and their nests and eggs against take, possession, or destruction. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code incorporates restrictions imposed by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to migratory birds, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
351
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 19
Canada geese are prevalent, especially around the city's lagoons and parks. Their increasing population has led to concerns about water pollution and public health, prompting discussions about management strategies. American crows have also become very common in Foster City.11 Common waterfowl include mallards, which are frequently seen in the city's lagoons and ponds, as well as great blue herons and snowy egrets.11 American coots are also a frequently sighted in freshwater habitats.
The city is home to several birds of prey, including red-tailed hawks and American kestrels.
Northern mockingbirds and California towhees are often found foraging on the ground. Anna’s hummingbirds are present year-round, and black phoebes are often seen hunting insects near water bodies. The surrounding salt marshes, featuring stands of cordgrass and pickleweed, serve as critical feeding areas for these birds.
Urban Wildlife
Foster City hosts a variety of urban wildlife species that have adapted to its suburban and shoreline environments. The area is home to coyotes, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, rats, and opossums.12 As noted above, crows, geese, and various waterfowl are often commonly sighted within the city or along its shores.
Aquatic Wildlife
The waters and tidal sloughs, such as Belmont Slough and Seal Slough, provide habitat for fish, invertebrates, birds, and marine mammals. Among the fish species commonly found in the area are leopard sharks, bat rays, striped bass, topsmelt, longjaw mudsuckers, northern anchovies, staghorn sculpins, and spiny dogfish.13,14 These species thrive in the bay’s brackish waters and mudflats, which serve as important feeding and breeding grounds. Invertebrates are also abundant, including Dungeness crabs, bay shrimp, ghost shrimp, mud crabs, and Pacific oysters, all of which contribute to the bay’s rich ecosystem.13 Birds that depend on marine life are frequently spotted in the area, with notable species including the endangered California clapper rail, snowy egrets, great blue herons, willets, western sandpipers, and Forster’s terns. These birds rely on the mudflats and shallow waters to forage for small fish and invertebrates. Occasionally, marine mammals such as harbor seals and California sea lions can be seen near the bay, though they are not as common within Foster City’s waterways.14 Other important species in the ecosystem include Pacific herring, a vital food source for many predators, and bay pipefish, a relative of the seahorse that thrives among eelgrass beds.
5.2 Wildlife Connectivity
5.2.1 Connection to AB 1889
Assembly Bill 1889 (AB 1889), enacted in September 2024, mandates that California cities and counties incorporate considerations of wildlife movement and habitat connectivity into their general plans' conservation elements. This legislation requires local governments to assess 11 Foster City, City of. 2025a. Wild Birds in Foster City. https://www.fostercity.org/community/page/wild-birds-foster-city (accessed March 2025).
12 San Mateo County Vector Control District. 2025. Wildlife Identification & Info. https://www.smcmvcd.org/wildlife-identification-info (accessed March 2025).
13 San Francisco Bay Wildlife. 2025. Fish of San Francisco Bay Area. https://www.sfbaywildlife.info/species/fish (accessed March 2025).
14 San Francisco Bay Water Trail. 2025. Bay Wildlife. https://sfbaywatertrail.org/explore-the-bay/bay-wildlife/ (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
352
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 20 how development impacts natural habitats and to implement measures that facilitate the free movement of wildlife, thereby promoting biodiversity and ecological health.
In the context of Foster City, AB 1889 necessitates identification and evaluation of wildlife corridors within the city, identifying how future development may impact these movement corridors, and exploring opportunities to improve or add wildlife movement corridors where feasible. Aligning with AB 1889, Foster City could consider integrated strategies that enhance habitat connectivity within these open spaces, such as creating green corridors, preserving natural landscapes, and designing infrastructure that accommodates wildlife movement.
Implementing the directives of AB 1889 not only ensures Foster City complies with state law but will also bolsters Foster City's commitment to environmental sustainability. Thoughtfully planned land use and open spaces with wildlife connectivity in mind can contribute to regional conservation efforts, support biodiversity, and provide residents with the benefits of a thriving natural environment.
5.2.2 Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that enable physical and genetic exchange among otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages can be locally significant, providing connections between foraging, breeding, or denning sites, or they may support broader, regional wildlife movements. Habitat linkages might function as migration corridors, allowing periodic, seasonal movements of a species, or serve as dispersal routes used primarily by younger animals seeking new habitats.
Together, interconnected habitat linkages form wildlife corridor networks. Within Foster City, several small natural landscape blocks exist, primarily where green spaces have been established.15 However, many of these spaces are designed primarily as urban parks or programmed recreational areas, limiting their current habitat potential due to factors such as managed landscaping, limited native vegetation, and frequent human activity.
Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation are important issues in assessing impacts to wildlife. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more areas in such a way that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Habitat isolation happens when wildlife can't move easily between different areas of their habitat or between different types of habitats. This often occurs when development, like scattered housing in a "checkerboard" pattern, breaks up natural spaces.
Habitat fragmentation also can occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat.
In Foster City, local wildlife movement may occur along watercourses, like the lagoon, although such movement would likely be limited given the channelized nature of much of the lagoon and its urban surroundings. Limited wildlife movement could also occur along uninterrupted areas of shoreline in the city. However, because much of Foster City is either urban or suburban, wildlife corridors and nursery sites are not present in much of the city. Figure 4 depicts areas of Foster City with the potential to provide native biodiversity and ecological connectivity, as determined through the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. 15 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025f. Natural Areas Small- California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) [ds1073]. https://data-cdfw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CDFW::natural-areas-small-california-essential-habitat-connectivity-cehc- ds1073/about (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
353
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 21
Figure 4 Wildlife Connectivity Areas in Foster City
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
354
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 22 5.2.3 Barriers to Connectivity
Foster City is largely suburban and urban, with limited natural habitat for wildlife. Built on reclaimed marshland, the city relies on levees for flood control, which disrupts natural tidal flows and wildlife migration. Once part of a vast marshland network supporting diverse species, urbanization has significantly reduced these habitats, and hard infrastructure along the shoreline further limits coastal feeding and breeding areas for shoreline species. Development has fragmented the remaining natural areas, but urban species like coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, sparrows, and rats still navigate the city. In addition, habitat fragmentation makes it more challenging for the city’s coastal species to settle, limiting nesting areas, breeding grounds, and access to food. Major roads and highways, including Highway 92 and the San Mateo Bridge, also create physical barriers that restrict wildlife movement and increase the risk of vehicle collisions.
Human activity also disincentivizes wildlife movement throughout and surrounding the city.
Activities such as boating, kayaking, and heavy foot traffic in parks can disturb sensitive species, particularly shorebirds and aquatic wildlife. Artificial lighting and noise from residential and commercial areas can disrupt nocturnal wildlife behavior and migration patterns.
Additionally, runoff from roads, lawns, and industrial areas can degrade water quality, impacting aquatic ecosystems and species dependent on these environments.
5.2.4 Impacts of Planned Development
Planned urban development in areas like Foster City can significantly impact wildlife connectivity by further fragmenting habitats and creating barriers to animal movement.
Infrastructure such as roads, buildings, and fences can disrupt natural corridors, hindering species' ability to access resources, find mates, and maintain genetic diversity. Planned development in Foster City has historically involved significant land reclamation and urbanization efforts, notably the transformation of wetlands into residential and commercial areas. This process has led to habitat loss and fragmentation, impacting local wildlife connectivity.
5.3 Coastal Resources
5.3.1 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas
Foster City contains one California Marine Protected Area, the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, which includes parts of the Belmont Slough, the northwestern edge of Redwood City, and Bair Island. The property was acquired as a result of a land exchange agreement with the State Lands Commission and Mobil Oil Corporation specifically due to the land’s wildlife value.
The area was designated as an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission in 1976.3 The 268-acre Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve is a salt marsh consisting of stands of cord grass and pickleweed on the marsh side of the levee.3 Vegetation on the levees consists of gum plant and other upland plant types. The gum plant is preferred nesting habitat for the Bay salt marsh song sparrow.3 The marsh area also provides feeding areas for rails and herons. The adjacent exposed mud flats provide foraging areas for a wide variety of shorebirds.3 The Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve and other protected areas within and adjacent to the city, such as parks within the city and the Bay Marshes Open Space adjacent to the northern edge of the city, are identified on Figure 5.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
355
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 23
Figure 5 Protected Areas in Foster City
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
356
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 24 5.3.2 Wetlands
The marine habitat bordering Foster City is part of the San Francisco Bay Estuary, a vital ecosystem characterized by salt marshes, tidal flats, and mudflats. The city is surrounded by estuarine and marine wetlands.16 The wetlands surrounding Foster City primarily consist of saltwater and brackish marshes along the eastern edge of the city, near the San Francisco Bay.
These areas are part of the larger San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, providing essential habitat for various species of birds, fish, and other wildlife, particularly migratory birds that use the wetlands as feeding and resting areas during migration.17 Many of the wetlands in Foster City were filled for urban development, but remnants of tidal and mudflat marshes exist, especially around the Bair Island area to the north and the Shorebird Park near the southern boundary. These wetlands help filter pollutants, control flooding, and support a diverse ecosystem. Sea-level rise due to climate change threatens these ecosystems, prompting a need for local initiatives to improve the shoreline.
5.3.3 Rewilding Marine Habitats
Rewilding and habitat connectivity are essential concepts for marine habitats, as they help restore ecological functions and improve biodiversity in degraded coastal and ocean environments. Rewilding in marine ecosystems involves restoring natural processes by allowing seagrass beds, kelp forests, and oyster reefs to recover without excessive human interference.
These habitats serve as crucial nurseries, feeding grounds, and shelters for a wide variety of marine species, including fish, invertebrates, and marine mammals.
Habitat connectivity in marine environments like the San Francisco Bay ensures that species can migrate, reproduce, and maintain healthy populations by linking different ecosystems, including estuaries, wetlands, and open water habitats. Maintaining connectivity is particularly important for species with complex life cycles, like fish that rely on both coastal wetlands and open oceans at different stages of development. Human activities such as coastal development, pollution, and habitat destruction can disrupt these connections, leading to population declines and ecosystem imbalances. By implementing marine protected areas, restoring degraded habitats, and reducing human impacts, rewilding efforts can help reconnect fragmented marine ecosystems and enhance their resilience to climate change and other environmental stressors.
5.3.4 Alignment with Regional Efforts
Foster City can enhance wildlife connectivity by aligning its initiatives with OneShoreline's regional strategies. OneShoreline, the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, emphasizes integrated approaches to address environmental challenges. By collaborating with OneShoreline, Foster City can participate in projects that not only mitigate flooding and sea-level rise but also restore natural habitats, thereby improving wildlife corridors.
Additionally, adopting OneShoreline's planning policy guidance can help Foster City incorporate wildlife connectivity considerations into its urban development plans. This alignment ensures that infrastructure projects support ecological networks, facilitating the movement and health of local wildlife populations. Through such coordination, Foster City can contribute to a cohesive regional effort to bolster biodiversity and environmental resilience. Key policies from 16 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025a.National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed March 2025). 17 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025b. Don Edwards Sann Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/don-edwards-san-francisco-bay?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
357
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 25
OneShoreline’s Planning Policy Guidance, adopted in 2024, that Foster City could consider aligning with include18:
Goal CR 5: Prioritize and Support Natural Infrastructure and Habitats A.Natural Infrastructure in Shoreline Protection. Prioritize the use of Natural Infrastructure, including the protection, restoration, and expansion of existing coastal habitats, consistent with the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element habitat conservation policies. Shoreline infrastructure projects should evaluate the use or restoration of natural features and ecosystem processes – such as tidal marshes, eelgrass, mudflats, beaches, and oyster reefs – and incorporate these features to the greatest extent feasible to conserve ecosystem values and functions, which benefit people and wildlife.
B.Shoreline Barrier Location. Require that shoreline barriers are sited as landward as possible within the Buffer Zone to provide as much space as possible for rising Bay water levels, incorporation of natural elements, sensitive habitats, and future Bayland-upland transition zone habitat migration.
C.Future Conditions Protection for Ecological Assets. Protect critical existing ecological assets from future conditions brought on by climate change by accounting for these assets in land use planning and shoreline infrastructure project development. This includes protecting sensitive habitats within buffer zones adjacent to planned shoreline infrastructure projects, as well as planning for and accommodate upland migration of habitats vulnerable to sea level rise.
D.Intertidal and Subtidal Habitat Conservation and Restoration. Promote the conservation, restoration, and enhancement of intertidal and subtidal habitats, which can help reduce impacts on shoreline infrastructure.
5.4 Existing Plans and Programs
Foster City Climate Action Plan
Foster City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic framework aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting energy efficiency, and enhancing climate resilience. The plan includes initiatives such as expanding renewable energy, improving transportation sustainability, increasing urban tree canopy, and preparing for sea-level rise. Through these efforts, Foster City seeks to create a more sustainable and environmentally responsible community while aligning with state and regional climate goals.
Canada Goose Adaptive Management Plan
Foster City's Integrated Canada Goose Adaptive Management Plan aims to address public health hazards and quality-of-life issues arising from the growing Canada Goose population.
The plan emphasizes non-lethal strategies such as habitat modification, hazing techniques, and landscape alterations to deter geese from congregating in public parks. Approved by the City Council in December 2024, the plan is set for pilot implementation in early 2025, focusing on select parks to evaluate the effectiveness of these humane management methods. 18 San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District. 2023. Planning Policy Guidance to Protect and Enhance Bay Shoreline Areas of San Mateo County. https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OneShoreline-Planning-Policy- Guidance-Final-June-21-2023-For-Web.pdf (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
358
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 26 5.5 Climate Considerations
Climate change is expected to further challenge wildlife movement corridors in Foster City by altering habitat conditions and increasing barriers to movement. Rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may impact the availability of food and water sources, forcing wildlife to adjust their movement patterns. Additionally, sea level rise could inundate low-lying coastal areas and wetlands, reducing habitat connectivity along the shoreline. Urbanization has already fragmented natural habitats, and climate change may exacerbate these impacts by making it more difficult for species to disperse, migrate, or find suitable breeding grounds.
Green spaces, such as parks and vegetated corridors along the lagoon and coastline, can serve as refuges and pathways for wildlife. Enhancing and preserving these spaces through climate- adaptive landscaping, native plant restoration, and habitat-friendly infrastructure can help maintain biodiversity and support species resilience. Implementing measures such as wildlife- friendly culverts, expanded green buffers, and coordinated regional conservation efforts can further mitigate the impacts of climate change on wildlife movement in Foster City.
Wetlands surrounding Foster City serve as vital carbon sinks, sequestering carbon dioxide through sediment accumulation and plant growth, which helps mitigate climate change.19 However, rising sea levels, increased storm intensity, and saltwater intrusion threaten the stability and functionality of these ecosystems. As tidal marshes become submerged, their ability to capture and store carbon diminishes, potentially turning them into sources of greenhouse gas emissions rather than sinks.19 Additionally, shifts in salinity and sediment availability may alter wetland composition, affecting species that rely on brackish environments.20 While wetlands have some natural capacity to adapt by migrating inland, urban development constrains this movement. Protecting and restoring these habitats, through sediment augmentation, marsh restoration, and nature-based adaptation strategies will be essential to maintaining their role in flood protection, water filtration, biodiversity support, and long-term carbon sequestration.
5.6 Policy Considerations
The following policy considerations highlight strategic opportunities to protect and enhance the city’s biological resources through updates to Foster City's Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan. It should be noted that any adopted habitat restoration, vegetation, or other landscaping policies contained within the Parks and Open Space Element or Conservation Element will be consistent with the strategies and initiatives contained within the City’s Park Master Plan and Canada Goose Population Management Plan.
The policy considerations are as follows:
1. Habitat Preservation and Restoration
•The City’s shorelines are a valuable resource that provides natural habitat to various species. Policies should aim to protect and enhance existing natural habitats such as tidal wetlands, mudflats, and urban forests to support local wildlife. •To improve connectivity between existing parks and natural areas, expand and connect green spaces to create wildlife corridors, particularly around Belmont Slough and Foster City Lagoon.
19 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2025. Coastal Blue Carbon. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon/ (accessed March 2025). 20 Herbert et al. 2015. A global perspective on wetland salinization: ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES14-00534.1 (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
359
Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 27
•Many of the city’s natural areas are overgrown with non-native species or are empty dirt lots, especially around the perimeter of the city along the coastal trails. There is potential for many of these areas to be naturalized.
•Integrating native vegetation into public parks and open spaces can support local wildlife, provide opportunities for species establishment and movement, and improve the shoreline aesthetics.
•Reestablishing native species and naturalizing open parcels in the city will require establishing processes that improve the maintenance and care for these areas in the future.
•To encourage public stewardship and protection of the existing and future naturalized areas, develop interpretive signage and educational programs about local wildlife and habitat conservation in parks and open spaces.
2. Wildlife Connectivity and Protection
•Foster City has limited wildlife connectivity and a highly urbanized environment.
Restoring natural habitat in strategically identified developed areas can provide greater wildlife movement.
•Given the urbanized and disjointed nature of the existing open space and green areas, incorporating wildlife-friendly infrastructure, such as underpasses or vegetated buffers, could reduce habitat fragmentation and provide safer routes for wildlife movement. •There is currently a gap in data regarding the city’s existing wildlife movement infrastructure. Assessing barriers to wildlife movement caused by roads, levees, and infrastructure, and exploring mitigation strategies such as crossings or buffer zones should be implemented for the safety and benefit of both people and migratory species. •Foster City is not currently a part of the OneShoreline program. However, given the city’s goals of reducing flooding and improving habitat resilience, there is an opportunity to enhance wildlife connectivity and resilience by aligning its policies with OneShoreline’s efforts.
3. Conservation-Focused Land Use Planning
•To naturalize more urbanized areas, implement "green streets" initiatives that incorporate native vegetation, permeable surfaces, and rain gardens to enhance habitat connectivity.
•Since the city has limited space to build out new green spaces, the city could encourage the development of rooftop gardens, vertical green spaces, and urban greening (including urban forestry) projects to provide habitat for pollinators and bird species.
4. Climate Resilience and Adaptation
•Naturalizing the coastal areas will need to consider the existing levee and flooding infrastructure. The City could incorporate climate considerations into conservation planning to ensure habitat resilience in the face of sea-level rise and extreme weather events.
•Implement policies that utilize nature-based solutions, such as wetland restoration, to enhance flood protection while benefiting wildlife.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
360
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 28 5. Public Awareness and Collaboration
•To encourage public stewardship of natural spaces, develop community engagement programs that educate residents about urban wildlife, habitat conservation, and responsible coexistence.
•Partner with regional agencies, such as OneShoreline, to implement wildlife-friendly flood protection and resilience strategies.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
361
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 29
6 Water Resources
6.1 Watershed and Waterways
6.1.1 Surface Water
Foster City contains several surface water bodies, most of which are part of an engineered system designed to accommodate stormwater storage before it is pumped to the Bay, but also to provide recreational opportunities and enhance the city’s shoreline aesthetics.
Foster City boasts an expansive network of artificial lagoons interconnected by a series of canals. These lagoons provide valuable recreational opportunities, including boating, while also serving as essential habitats for local wildlife and works as a storm drainage retention basin.
Although artificially created and maintained, the lagoons are connected both to one another and to the larger San Francisco Bay. However, they remain distinct entities and are not directly considered part of the Bay.
Situated along the eastern shoreline of San Francisco Bay, Foster City benefits from the Bay’s significant influence on local water features, particularly through tidal interactions affecting the lagoons. Despite the city's proximity to this major surface water source, Foster City's drinking water needs are predominantly met through imported surface water supplies rather than direct reliance on the Bay itself.
Foster City's sole source of potable water is from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission system, which includes water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water supply infrastructure also manages local surface water sources, although the city’s artificial lagoons and the San Francisco Bay itself are not used for potable water.
6.1.2 Groundwater
The region largely draws water from the Santa Clara Valley – San Mateo Plan Groundwater Subbasin, which is a major source of groundwater for the region.21 This basin extends across parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties reaching from approximately the City of San Mateo on the north, to approximately the County boundary at San Francisquito Creek on the south.22 The groundwater basin is part of the larger San Francisco Bay Groundwater Subbasin, which serves as a critical water source for local municipalities.
While Foster City itself solely relies on imported surface water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission system, the groundwater basin still plays a role in regional water availability.23 San Mateo County does not have a water management agency like other counties within the state so detailed use data of groundwater is not available. Considering the well types present within the county, it is likely that many of the active wells are used for public and private emergency backup drinking water supply and irrigation.22 21 California Department of Water Resources. 2025. Critically Overdrafted Basins. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Critically-Overdrafted-Basins (accessed March 2025). 22 San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2025. Groundwater. https://www.smcsustainability.org/water/groundwater/ (accessed March 2025).
23 Foster City, City of. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Estero Municipal Improvement District. https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/32041/final_draft_2020_emid_uwmp_wappendices.p df (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
362
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 30 Climate Considerations
Climate change and projected sea level rise are anticipated to increase groundwater levels in Foster City due to its low elevation and permeable fill-based foundation. Rising groundwater levels may lead to greater risks of subsurface flooding and saltwater intrusion, potentially affecting underground infrastructure, groundwater quality, and vegetation health in parks and open spaces. Although Foster City relies primarily on imported surface water, shifts in regional precipitation patterns and prolonged droughts could heighten the importance of local groundwater resources as supplemental or emergency supplies. Proactively monitoring groundwater conditions and integrating adaptive management strategies into future plans will be critical to mitigate climate-related groundwater impacts.
6.1.3 Lagoon
Foster City’s lagoon is a man-made estuary that divides the city, extending from north to south.
Its surface area is approximately 212 acres and the volume of water at the summer operation level is up to approximately 1,300 acre-feet.24 The main channel ranges in width from approximately 200 feet along most of its length to over 1,000 feet at the lake near East Hillsdale Boulevard.24 After dredging in 2004, the average depth is six feet at summer water level (Foster City 2022).24
The lagoon is a central component of Foster City’s stormwater infrastructure, acting as a detention basin that captures runoff from an approximately 2,300-acre watershed. Stormwater is temporarily stored in the lagoon and later pumped out to San Francisco Bay when tides subside, preventing flooding during periods of heavy rainfall or high tides.24 This approach helps regulate floodwater volume, thus protecting adjacent neighborhoods and infrastructure.
The City operates and maintains the lagoon system. Components of the system include an intake structure at the south end (Belmont Slough) and a drainage pumping station at the north end (San Francisco Bay along East Third Avenue).24 The primary function of the lagoon is to be a storm drainage detention basin for the city.24 The water in the lagoon is derived from the San Francisco Bay through the Belmont Slough watershed via Belmont Slough intake structure, and storm water runoff from the City's watershed. The lagoon receives runoff from a watershed of approximately 2,313 acres.24 Natural open spaces, particularly the tidal wetlands in Belmont Slough and shoreline parks, provide additional flood mitigation benefits by absorbing and dissipating wave energy and reducing storm surge impacts. These wetlands function as natural barriers, decreasing the velocity and volume of floodwaters before they reach inland areas.
The secondary function of the lagoon is recreational use. The lagoon has about 16.5 miles of shoreline, much of which is made up of residences and developments.24 Interspersed among the developments are several small parks, many of which have a community beach, picnic areas, lawn, and other amenities. These parks and their amenities make the lagoon the aesthetic and recreational centerpiece of the City. The lagoon also has two public boat launch ramps, as well as hundreds of private boat docks and launching ramps.
Climate Considerations
Foster City’s lagoon plays a crucial role in stormwater management and recreation, but climate change presents challenges to its long-term stability. Rising sea levels and increased storm intensity could impact the lagoon’s drainage capacity, especially during high tides when outflow to the Bay is restricted. Additionally, higher temperatures may lead to increased water 24 Foster City, City of. 2022. Foster City Lagoon Management Plan. 2022_foster_city_lagoon_management_revised_2-23-23.pdf (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
363
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 31
evaporation, potentially altering salinity levels and promoting harmful algal blooms, which could degrade water quality and aquatic habitats. Changes in precipitation patterns may also affect the balance of freshwater inputs, influencing the lagoon’s ability to function as a stormwater detention basin. Given these risks, adaptive management strategies such as enhancing water circulation, monitoring salinity and temperature fluctuations, and integrating climate-responsive infrastructure, will be essential to maintaining the lagoon’s role in flood control, water quality protection, and recreation in the face of climate change.
6.2 Water Quality
6.2.1 Water Quality Standards
Potable Water Quality
The Estero Municipal Improvement District purchases treated water from the San Francisco Water Department and distributes it to Foster City and parts of City of San Mateo. The Estero Municipal Improvement District monitors water quality to ensure that it meets state and federal drinking water quality standards. According to the most recent water quality report, Estero Municipal Improvement District met or exceeded all primary drinking water standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water.25
All drinking water standards are set by the USEPA under the authorization of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water can either adopt the USEPA standards or set more stringent standards, which are then codified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. There are two general types of drinking water standards:25
•Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels are health protective standards and are established using a very conservative risk-based approach for each constituent that takes into potential health effects, detectability and treatability, and costs of treatment. Public water systems may not serve water that exceeds primary maximum contaminant levels for any constituent.
•Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels are based on the aesthetic qualities of the water such as taste, odor, color, and certain mineral content, and are considered limits for constituents that may affect consumer acceptance of the water.
As previously discussed, all of Estero Municipal Improvement District’s potable water is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regional water system from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is considered a very high-quality water source due to low total dissolved solid concentrations and other factors.
Additional water supplies from the Alameda and Peninsula sources come from areas with restricted access to protect the source water quality.
To meet drinking water standards for consumption, all surface water supplies including the upcountry non-Hetch Hetchy sources undergo treatment by the regional water system before it is delivered.25 Water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is exempt from federal and State filtration requirements but receives the following treatment: disinfection using ultraviolet light and chlorine, pH adjustment for optimum corrosion control, fluoridation for dental health protection, 25 Foster City, City of. 2023. City of Foster City Estero Municipal Improvement District 2023 Water Quality Report. https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/3941/ccr2023_final_report.pdf (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
364
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 32 and chloramination for maintaining disinfectant residual and minimizing the formation of regulated disinfection byproducts.25 Water from local Bay Area reservoirs in Alameda County and upcountry non-Hetch Hetchy sources is delivered to Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant; whereas water from local reservoirs in San Mateo County is delivered to Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant.25 Water treatment at these plants consists of filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, optimum corrosion control, and taste and odor removal.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water Quality Division regularly collects and tests water samples from reservoirs and designated sampling points throughout the regional water system to ensure that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s water meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water standards. In 2022, the Water Quality Division conducted more than 48,320 drinking water tests in the sources and transmission systems.25 This is in addition to the extensive treatment process control monitoring performed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s certified operators and online instruments. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission also has online instruments providing continuous water quality monitoring at numerous locations. As of 2022, potable water within Foster City and the Estero Municipal Improvement District system are within all State and federal water quality standards, and within the thresholds for all non-regulated water quality parameters.25 Given the Estero Municipal Improvement District’s and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s proactive monitoring and management of water quality, water quality is not expected to impact the reliability of Estero Municipal Improvement District’s available supplies within the planning horizon (i.e., through 2045).
Lagoon Water Quality
Lagoon water quality in Foster City has become a notable concern, particularly during summer months when elevated bacteria levels have led to occasional beach closures, affecting public health and recreational use. In 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board established water quality standards for enterococci bacteria, which indicate potential health risks for recreational water contact. Foster City's lagoon beaches – Erckenbrack Park, Gull Park, and Marlin Park – were identified among the West Coast beaches with the poorest water quality, based on monitoring of fecal indicator bacteria, including enterococci, total coliform, and E. coli.
Specifically, during monitoring from March to August 2021, enterococci bacteria levels exceeded state water quality standards in approximately 25 percent of the samples taken. The primary suspected source of this bacterial contamination is animal waste, notably from waterfowl like Canada geese, exacerbated by direct runoff into the lagoon from residential landscaping and stormwater drainage.24
To address this issue, Foster City has implemented a comprehensive Lagoon Management Plan (July 2022), which emphasizes regular monitoring, integrated pest management, and proactive maintenance activities. Recommended practices include routine visual inspections, monthly sampling for enterococci, and public education initiatives to discourage activities that increase nutrient and bacterial loading, such as over-fertilization, improper disposal of yard debris, and the feeding of wildlife. Additionally, strategic measures such as increased water circulation, targeted public education, and improved waste management practices are being considered to mitigate bacterial levels and safeguard recreational use and public health.24 Coastal Water Quality
The San Francisco Bay has extensive water quality testing and standards enforced by various agencies to protect the ecosystem and public health, including monitoring for pathogens, pollutants, and contaminants, with requirements for specific cleanup levels. The organizations
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
365
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 33
responsible for maintaining and monitoring the San Francisco Bay include the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the East Bay Regional Parks District, and the San Francisco Parks District.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is the primary regulatory agency responsible for monitoring and managing water quality in San Francisco Bay. As part of the California State Water Resources Control Board system, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board sets water quality standards and issues permits to manage pollution sources, ensuring that the Bay’s water quality meets state and federal guidelines. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board conducts regular water quality monitoring through its own programs, such as the Bay Area Monitoring and Modeling Program, and also oversees and partners with local agencies to monitor water quality.
6.2.2 Regional Coordination
The City of Foster City collaborates with several agencies to maintain and enhance water quality. The Estero Municipal Improvement District, which serves Foster City, purchases treated water from the San Francisco Water Department and distributes it locally. Estero Municipal Improvement District monitors water quality to ensure compliance with state and federal drinking water standards.26
Regionally, Foster City participates in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, a collaborative initiative among San Mateo County municipalities aimed at preventing water pollution and ensuring compliance with stormwater regulations.23 The city also aligns with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which enforces water quality regulations and issues permits for stormwater and wastewater discharges.23 Additionally, Foster City adheres to the guidelines set by the California State Water Resources Control Board, which oversees statewide water quality policies and enforcement. The city also collaborates with the Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Collaborative, formerly known as the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, focusing on regional stormwater management and pollution reduction efforts.23
Coordination with these agencies involves compliance with regulatory permits, regular water quality monitoring and reporting, public education initiatives, infrastructure maintenance, participation in interagency meetings, and enforcement actions to address any violations. These collaborative efforts ensure that Foster City effectively manages and protects its water resources.
6.2.3 Known Concerns
Surface Water
Warmer temperatures could lead to less oxygen in streams. In lakes and reservoirs, warmer weather can make the water separate into layers for longer periods. This causes the bottom layer to lose oxygen, leading to conditions where algae can grow rapidly.23 Less rain overall could mean pollutants become more concentrated in streams, especially during droughts or when occasional heavy rains wash contaminants into the water.23 More wildfires and intense storms could make water cloudy with dirt and debris, which makes it harder to treat for safe drinking.
26 Foster City, City of. 2025b. Water Quality. https://www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/water-quality?utm_ (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
366
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 34 Groundwater
Sea-level rise could result in increases in chlorides and bromide for some coastal groundwater basins in the Region. Water quality changes in imported water used for recharge could also impact groundwater quality.23
Lagoon
Aquatic Vegetation
The Foster City Lagoon experiences three primary water quality challenges: excessive aquatic vegetation growth, algal blooms, and elevated levels of fecal indicator bacteria.24 A significant contributor to vegetation issues is widgeongrass, a native perennial submerged plant commonly found in brackish or saltwater environments. While widgeongrass provides important habitat for fish and a food source for migratory waterfowl, its overgrowth can negatively impact lagoon conditions by harboring fecal indicator bacteria, obstructing water flow, and impeding lagoon flushing and stormwater drainage. Overgrown widgeongrass also limits recreational activities and aesthetic enjoyment of the lagoon.24
Algae
In mid-summer filamentous algae blooms become noticeable along the shallow areas of the lagoon. These mats become dislodged, float to the surface, and begin to decay. Decaying algae mats also produce noxious odors as hydrogen sulfide.24 Overgrowth and decay can also discourage recreational activities on the lagoon.24
Fecal Indicator Bacteria
Enterococci levels within the lagoon have been consistently above the water quality objectives set by the State Water Resources Control Board. There are no obvious seasonal patterns in the City and County datasets. Field observations of potential bacteria sources, such as the presence of dogs, people, wildlife and there feces were made, but there is no apparent connection between the number of wildlife and feces observed and the concentrations of enterococci.
San Francisco Bay
Throughout the San Francisco Bay, state Water Quality Standards are exceeded for pesticides, invasive species, mercury and other metals and toxic substances.27 However, many of the beaches that border the San Francisco Bay are impaired due to unacceptable levels of bacteria caused by sewage spills and aging sewage infrastructure.27 In addition, the San Francisco Bay has experienced multiple algal blooms in recent years which impact recreational use of the Bay.
Mercury is also one of the most significant water quality issues in San Francisco Bay. The Bay is impaired due to high mercury concentrations, primarily due to historical industrial practices, urban runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Similar to the Foster City Lagoon, the San Francisco Bay also faces issues pertaining to high levels of fecal indicator bacteria. 27 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2025. What Are Challenges. https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/what-are- challenges (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
367
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 35
6.2.4 Existing Plans and Programs
San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan
The Basin Plan, developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, is a document that establishes water quality standards for surface waters within the Bay Area region. The plan provides policies, guidelines, and regulatory measures to maintain and improve water quality.
Foster City General Plan
Foster City’s General Plan includes specific goals and policies related to water quality and sustainability. It outlines the city’s approach to preserving water resources, preventing contamination, and managing both surface and groundwater.
OneShoreline: San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District OneShoreline is a countywide initiative designed to address sea level rise and flooding through integrated planning and infrastructure development. It involves planning efforts to protect the region’s coastlines, including water quality improvements as part of flood management and resilience projects. OneShoreline’s work in improving water quality along the Bay shoreline aligns with the city’s efforts to maintain the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay and surrounding marshes.
Urban Water Management Plan
Estero Municipal Improvement District’s Urban Water Management Plan outlines the district's approach to maintaining or improving water quality within its distribution system. This includes monitoring water quality at various points, such as the source water, treatment facilities, and final distribution points. The Urban Water Management Plan ensures that the water provided to customers meets state and federal water quality standards.
Lagoon Management Plan
The Foster City Lagoon Management Plan focuses on improving water quality through pollution control, regular monitoring, habitat restoration, invasive species management, public access regulation, water circulation enhancements, and ongoing maintenance. These strategies collectively ensure that the lagoon remains a clean and safe environment for both wildlife and recreational users.
6.3 Water Supply
6.3.1 Water Supply Sources
The City of Foster City is within the Estero Municipal Improvement District. The Estero Municipal Improvement District’s sole source of potable water is purchased water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System, operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.23 Approximately 85 percent of the water supply to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regional water system originates in the Hetch Hetchy watershed, located in Yosemite National Park, and flows down the Tuolumne River into the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Water from the Hetch Hetchy watershed is managed through the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Project. The remaining 15 percent of the water supply to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regional water system originates locally in the Alameda and
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
368
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 36 Peninsula watersheds and is stored in six different reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.23 To date, Estero Municipal Improvement District has not utilized groundwater as a potable water source and does not expect to utilize groundwater as a regular potable water source in the future.23
6.3.2 Water Supply Projections
Foster City’s dependence on imported water makes it vulnerable to supply fluctuations during drought periods. Historical droughts, such as the 2012–2016 event, resulted in mandatory water use reductions and conservation efforts. Given that climate change is expected to increase drought severity and reduce Sierra Nevada snowpack, Foster City will need to continue proactive water management strategies to maintain long-term water security.
The following tables compare Estero Municipal Improvement District’s projected water demands with the Estero Municipal Improvement District’s projected water supply availability during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years to assess the reliability of Estero Municipal Improvement District’s water supplies.
Table 2 shows the projected supply and demand totals for a normal year. Estero Municipal Improvement District is expected to have adequate water supplies during normal years to meet its projected demands through 2045.
Table 2 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 2,154 2,154 2,154 2,154 2,154
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Difference 539 508 473 431 349
1Volumes are in units of mega gallons (MG).
2Volumes are rounded to the nearest MG and may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Foster City 2021.
The reliability of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regional water system supply is anticipated to vary greatly in different year types. Estero Municipal Improvement District has relied on the supply reliability estimates provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the regional water system and the drought allocation structure provided by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to estimate available regional water system supplies in dry year types through 2045.
Table 3 shows the projected supply and demand totals for a single dry year.
Table 3 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 1,033 1,049 1,067 1,093 984
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Difference -582 -597 -613 -630 -821
1Volumes are in units of MG.
2Volumes are rounded to the nearest MG and may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Foster City 2021.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
369
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 37
Based on the supply reliability estimates and allocation structure provided by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Table 4 shows the projected supply and demand totals for multiple dry year periods extending five years.
Table 4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 1,033 1,049 1,067 1,093 984
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
First Year
Difference -582 -597 -614 -630 -821
Supply Totals 885 900 915 938 984
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Second Year
Difference -730 -746 -766 -785 -821
Supply Totals 885 900 915 938 984
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Third Year
Difference -730 -746 -766 -785 -821
Supply Totals 885 900 915 827 836
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Fourth Year
Difference -730 -746 -766 -896 -969
Supply Totals 885 900 838 827 836
Demand Totals 1,615 1,646 1,681 1,723 1,805
Fifth Year
Difference -730 -746 -843 -896 -969
1Volumes are in units of MG.
2Volumes are rounded to the nearest MG and may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Foster City 2021.
As shown in the above tables, significant water supply shortfalls are currently projected in future single and multiple dry years, directly because of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation. However, numerous uncertainties remain in the implementation of the Bay- Delta Plan Amendment. The water supply projections presented above represent a worst-case scenario in which the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented without the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board reaching a Voluntary Agreement and do not account for implementation of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Alternative Water Supply Program, described in more detail below. Under this supply scenario, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission appears not to be able to meet its contractual obligations (i.e., Level of Service goals) and Estero Municipal Improvement District’s forecasted demands during droughts.
As such, in addition to evaluating local options to increase supply reliability, Estero Municipal Improvement District has placed high priority on working with Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in the upcoming years to better refine the estimates of regional water supply reliability and may amend the Urban Water Management Plan when new information becomes available. Although there remains significant uncertainty in future supply availability, Estero Municipal Improvement District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency have developed strategies and actions to address the projected dry year supply shortfalls. These efforts are discussed in the following sections.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
370
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 38 6.3.3 Regional Coordination
The Estero Municipal Improvement District participates in regional water resources planning initiatives as a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, which represents the 26 member agencies that purchase wholesale water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency’s role in the development of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan updates is to work with its member agencies and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to seek consistency among Urban Water Management Plan documents. The City and the Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors adopted a Water Neutrality Ordinance to implement water reduction regulations for applicable future and new developments to ensure that new development does not adversely affect the City's water supply.28 The Ordinance applies to any new project in the Estero Municipal Improvement District service area that needs a new water connection or will use more water than the current allotment. Such projects must fully offset their added demand – through water-efficiency, conservation, or retrofit measures – so that overall district water use does not increase.28
Additionally, Foster City works with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) to address climate change impacts such as sea-level rise and flooding, which affect water infrastructure and supply. OneShoreline partners with the County of San Mateo and the twenty cities and towns within the County, all of which are contributing start-up funding to the District.29 OneShoreline also collaborates with Foster City and other local jurisdictions to develop and implement strategies addressing climate change impacts.
The city also coordinates with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure compliance with water quality standards and participates in regional water conservation programs.
6.3.4 Known Concerns
Surface Water
Although projections indicate relatively small changes in total annual precipitation for the region, climate models suggest a shift in precipitation timing, with decreased rainfall in the spring and more intense storms in winter months.23 These shifts could increase flooding risks and affect stormwater management and infrastructure.
Imported Water
Imported water from the Sierra Nevada and Delta diversions provides approximately 66 percent of the region’s water supply. General availability concerns are exacerbated by climate change and potentially reduce the reliability of imported water supplies.23 Climate impacts such as reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada’s could decrease the volume and reliability of water deliveries from the Hetch Hetchy system, increasing the importance of water conservation and alternative water source development for Foster City.
28 Foster City, City of. 2025c. Water Neutrality Guidebook. https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/water-neutrality-guidebook (acessed April 2025).
29 OneShoreline. 2025. Partners. https://oneshoreline.org/partners/ (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
371
Water Resources
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 39
Groundwater
Currently, Foster City does not utilize groundwater as a potable water source and does not anticipate doing so in the foreseeable future (Estero Municipal Improvement District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan). However, changes in local hydrology and sea level rise could affect the broader groundwater basin on the Peninsula. Reduced natural recharge due to changes in precipitation patterns, increased evaporative losses, and warmer winters may alter groundwater availability regionally. Sea-level rise could also cause saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, complicating potential future uses or emergency backup scenarios. Additionally, if imported water availability diminishes significantly, other communities in the region might increase groundwater extraction, potentially affecting groundwater levels and quality in the broader regional groundwater basin.23
6.3.5 Existing Plans and Programs
Urban Water Management Plan
The Estero Municipal Improvement District, which provides water services to Foster City, develops an Urban Water Management Plan every five years as required by the California Department of Water Resources. This plan assesses long-term water supply and demand, conservation efforts, and strategies for maintaining reliability, especially during drought conditions.
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
This regional plan helps ensure a stable water supply for Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency’s 26 member agencies, including Foster City, by addressing supply diversification, conservation programs, and climate adaptation.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Supply Agreement This agreement governs the purchase and delivery of water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System to Foster City via the Estero Municipal Improvement District.
San Francisco Water System Improvement Program
A long-term infrastructure investment plan designed to upgrade and modernize the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, providing increased seismic reliability and water security for customers, including Foster City.
6.4 Policy Considerations
The following policy considerations highlight strategic opportunities to maintain water quality and supply through updates to Foster City's Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan:
1. Water Resource Management and Quality
•Policies should address climate change-related water quality risks, including rising temperatures, algal blooms, and increased turbidity.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
372
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 40 2. Lagoon and Stormwater Management
•Policies should support proactive maintenance, timed replacement of aging infrastructure, enhanced water circulation, and pollution control programs to maintain the lagoon’s ecological and recreational value.
•Foster City’s participation in regional water quality initiatives, such as the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, should be expanded to address stormwater runoff concerns.
3. Regional Coordination and Compliance
•Continue collaborating with agencies such as the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to ensure compliance with evolving water quality standards. •Regular monitoring and reporting on water quality conditions should be incorporated into city planning to maintain regulatory compliance and public transparency. •Continued enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan and Foster City’s General Plan policies will be critical to safeguarding water resources.
4.Water Supply Reliability and Planning
•Since Foster City relies entirely on imported water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Water System, collaborate with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on water saving strategies to prepare for times of low water availability. •Encourage the Estero Municipal Improvement District to explore alternative supply sources and refine reliability estimates.
•In 2023, the Estero Municipal Water District and City of Foster City adopted a Water Neutrality Ordinance that requires new developments, redevelopments, and changes within the Estero Municipal Water District service area to offset increased water demands through water efficiency, conservation, and retrofit measures.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
373
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 41
7 Climate Resilience
7.1 Overview of Climate Resilience in Foster City
Climate resilience refers to a community’s capacity to anticipate, prepare for, recover from, and adapt to climate-related impacts. While climate change considerations are integrated and discussed holistically throughout this assessment – spanning biological resources, water resources, energy conservation, and air quality – the purpose of this section is to describe climate impacts most directly correlated with the Safety Element of the General Plan, particularly hazards related to flooding, extreme weather events, sea level rise, and heat vulnerability that have not been detailed elsewhere. For Foster City, a community originally constructed on reclaimed marshland, resilience holds particular importance due to its unique geography and low elevation – approximately seven feet above sea level. Foster City's safety and daily function depend heavily on an engineered system of levees and seawalls designed to mitigate tidal flooding and protect the city from inundation.30 This low elevation significantly increases the city’s exposure to climate-related hazards, including sea level rise, coastal flooding, storm surges, and rising groundwater tables. Climate change projections indicate that the Bay Area could experience sea level rise between one and three feet by mid-century, and possibly up to six to ten feet by the end of the century under high-emission scenarios.31 Such projections underscore the vulnerability of Foster City’s critical infrastructure, residential neighborhoods, and recreational open spaces situated along its shoreline.
Foster City has already experienced direct climate impacts, such as drought conditions, increased heatwaves, and severe storm events that periodically stress the community’s infrastructure and natural resources. Recent assessments underscore these vulnerabilities and reinforce that climate change is an immediate and intensifying threat to local quality of life.32 This section assesses how Foster City’s parks, open spaces, and natural features contribute to the city’s climate resilience. Open spaces, including parks, wetlands, and shoreline buffers, provide essential functions such as flood risk mitigation, heat reduction, stormwater management, and habitat protection – services critical to adapting to and mitigating climate hazards. This analysis also identifies key areas most vulnerable to climate-related hazards, providing the basis for policy considerations that Foster City will integrate into updates of the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan.
7.2 Current Role of Open Space in Resilience
7.2.1 Stormwater Management and Flood Mitigation
The Foster City Lagoon is a central component of this stormwater infrastructure, acting as a detention basin that captures runoff from an approximately 2,300-acre watershed. Stormwater is temporarily stored in the lagoon and later pumped out to San Francisco Bay when tides 30 Foster City, City of. 2024. Climate Action Plan Update. https://sustainable.fostercity.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/FosterCityCAP_2024_Update_Final_021225_small.pdf (accessed March 2025). 31 San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission. 2021. San Francisco Bay Plan Climate Change Policy Guidance. https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/San-Francisco-Bay-Plan-Climate-Change-Policy-Guidance.pdf (accessed April 2025).
32 County of San Mateo. 2021. Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Volume 2 – Planning Partner Annexes. https://coastsidewater.org/reports_and_studies/San-Mateo-County-Multijurisdictional-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-Volume-2.pdf (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
374
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 42 subside, preventing flooding during periods of heavy rainfall or high tides.24 This approach helps regulate floodwater volume, thus protecting adjacent neighborhoods and infrastructure.
Natural open spaces, particularly the tidal wetlands in Belmont Slough and shoreline parks along San Francisco Bay, provide additional flood mitigation benefits by absorbing and dissipating wave energy and reducing storm surge impacts. These wetlands function as natural barriers, decreasing the velocity and volume of floodwaters before they reach inland areas.
Foster City's stormwater management capacity faces challenges with projected sea level rise.
Rising sea levels will elevate groundwater tables, increasing subsurface flooding risk and potentially impairing stormwater infrastructure capacity.32 Groundwater rise may lead to increased waterlogging, reduced soil stability, and potential saltwater intrusion into soils, particularly near shoreline areas. Such groundwater rise could reduce the effectiveness of open spaces designed to absorb stormwater runoff. As sea level rise continues, the City will increasingly rely on its network of open spaces – parks, wetlands, and shoreline buffers – to mitigate flood hazards. By proactively maintaining and enhancing these natural and engineered systems, Foster City can bolster its resilience against future flood events.
7.2.2 Urban Heat Island Reduction
Trees and green spaces are critical components in reducing urban heat islands, a phenomenon where densely developed urban areas experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding regions due to heat retention by built surfaces. Currently, Foster City’s tree canopy covers approximately seven percent of its total land area, which is comparatively low and leaves many neighborhoods exposed to higher temperatures and associated health risks during heat events.30
The Urban Heat Island Index (UHII) is a metric that quantifies urban heat intensity as the accumulation of temperature differences (in degree-hours per day) between an urban area and a nearby rural reference. Foster City’s UHII values range from 46 to 85°F across the city’s census tracts, which is roughly half the intensity seen in hotter nearby cities like San Carlos and Redwood City, which have UHII’s of approximately 120°F. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of urban heat island intensity in the region, with cooler areas shown in green and the most intense heat zones in red to white.33 These data indicate that while Foster City does experience an urban heat island effect, its intensity is moderate relative to some neighboring communities, likely due to coastal breezes.
33 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/2022/01/31/individual-maps-and-data-files/ (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
375
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 43
Figure 6 Regional Urban Heat Island Index
Existing parks and green spaces serve as important “cool islands,” offering localized cooling through shade and evapotranspiration. These natural areas help moderate ambient air temperatures and provide relief during extreme heat days, particularly benefiting vulnerable populations such as children, seniors, and individuals with chronic health conditions.
Recognizing this benefit, Foster City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) prioritizes expanding urban forestry by increasing tree plantings in parks, along city streets, and in new developments. Many of the parks with the highest UHII values host full-size athletic fields surfaced in synthetic turf, which inherently limits on-field tree planting. As the City systematically converts these fields from rubber to natural infill, surface temperatures are expected to decline. Complementary cooling strategies should focus on perimeter and spectator areas rather than the active play zones:
Table 5 Key Mitigation Opportunities for Parks with Elevated Urban Heat Island Index Part (elevated UHII) Key Heat-Mitigation Opportunities
Sea Could Park Perimeter shade trees; shade sails over bleachers; cool‑roof concessions.
Boothbay Park Add tree rows along walkways & parking; replace adjacent hardscape with permeable pavers; integrate bioswales.
Catamaran Park Plant lagoon‑edge trees for prevailing‑wind shade; install picnic‑area shade structures.
Ketch Park Expand street‑tree canopy on perimeter streets; pilot cool‑pavement coating on surrounding paths.
Farragut Park Increase understory planting around courts; retrofit benches with integrated shade canopies.
Port Royal Park Focus on parking‑lot trees and vegetated medians; evaluate turf‑infill replacement timeline.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
376
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 44 Enhancing shade at park edges, installing shade sails, upgrading to cool or permeable paving, and continuing synthetic-turf infill improvements will reduce ambient and surface temperatures, improve air quality, and bolster community resilience – without compromising the playability of sports fields.
7.3 Areas Vulnerable to Climate-Related Hazards
7.3.1 Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding
Sea level rise (SLR) represents one of the most significant climate-related threats to Foster City due to its low-lying elevation and location along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. Regional climate projections anticipate approximately one foot of SLR by 2050, with potential increases ranging from three to six-and-a-half feet by 2100 under mid-to-high emissions scenarios. In extreme projections, SLR could approach ten feet by the end of the century.31,34,35 Foster City’s vulnerability is heightened by its geography, as approximately 99 percent of its population resides within areas projected to be impacted by future SLR.30 Mapping of SLR scenarios illustrates significant vulnerability for Foster City’s shoreline and inland neighborhoods. Figure 7 shows a mid-century scenario of approximately 0.8 feet of SLR (about the increase expected during typical daily high tides by 2050, absent any storms). Under this scenario, many shoreline parks, shoreline trails, and low-lying residential areas (for example, neighborhoods along Beach Park Boulevard and the fringes of the central lagoon) could face regular inundation during high tides. This highlights the city’s critical long-term vulnerability even during calm conditions, without additional protective measures.
The potential flood extent expands considerably when factoring in severe coastal storms or King Tide events on top of elevated sea levels. Figure 8 illustrates Foster City’s present-day 100-year storm surge scenario, depicting extensive flooding that surpasses existing levee protections and penetrates deeply into the city’s interior. Such flooding could affect significant residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, critical infrastructure, and transportation routes, including portions of Highway 101. Coupled SLR scenarios with 100-year storm impacts were not evaluated for this assessment, but Foster City should anticipate future extreme events could have devastating consequences when storm surge and SLR join forces mid to late century. 34 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2025. Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS v2). https://ourcoastourfuture.org/hazard-map/ (accessed March 2025). 35 Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L.H., Foxgrover, A.C., Finzi Hart, J.A., Limber, P., O’Neill, A.C., van Ormondt, M., Vitousek, S., Wood, N., Hayden, M.K., and Jones, J.M., 2019. Dynamic flood modeling essential to assess the coastal impacts of climate change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40742-z (accessed February 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
377
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 45
Figure 7 Sea Level Rise Inundation (0.8 feet)
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
378
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 46 Figure 8 Present-Day (No SLR) 100-Year Storm Inundation Risk
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
379
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 47
Foster City’s recent Levee Improvements Project has substantially mitigated near-term coastal flood risks by upgrading the city’s levees to withstand projected Bay water levels through at least 2050, significantly reducing current vulnerability.32 However, under longer-term scenarios beyond mid-century, additional levee enhancements, seawalls, or nature-based solutions (such as horizontal levees, marsh restoration, or expanded shoreline buffers) will likely become essential to maintaining resilience. Such strategies could provide ecological benefits while helping protect against higher tides and stronger storms.
In summary, Foster City’s shoreline – encompassing critical open spaces such as tidal wetlands, the Levee Pedway, and numerous parks – is highly vulnerable to coastal flooding driven by SLR and storm surges. Continued investment in shoreline adaptation and infrastructure improvements, alongside proactive land-use planning, will be crucial in safeguarding the community against these evolving risks.
7.3.2 Inland Flooding and Groundwater Rise
Inland flooding in Foster City can result from heavy rainfall, high tides, or a combination of both.
Given the city’s flat topography and low elevation, intense rain events that coincide with high Bay water levels can severely strain stormwater drainage systems. Foster City relies on an interconnected network of storm drains, pumps, tide gates, and the central lagoon to manage stormwater runoff. However, these facilities can become overwhelmed during severe storms, causing localized flooding, especially around lagoon-adjacent neighborhoods and lower-lying roadway underpasses.
Another emerging concern is groundwater rise. As sea level rises, the water table in Foster City will rise as well, since the city is built on permeable fill and former marsh and the water table will rise as sea level rises. Rising groundwater can lead to flooding from below, even if surface levees hold back the Bay from direct coastal inundation. Essentially, the battle against coastal flooding isn’t only above ground at the levee – it’s also below ground, where rising groundwater could emerge at or inundate the surface and cause flooding. Sea level rise-induced groundwater rise could affect open spaces by waterlogging soils and damaging root systems, so the City is studying how to improve park drainage and use salt-tolerant plant species in vulnerable areas (as noted in the Foster City Parks and Recreation maintenance plans).
Figure 9 displays a groundwater rise hazard map for Foster City, highlighting areas particularly susceptible to groundwater rise, particularly the shoreline zones and lands around the lagoon. In these areas, the water table will likely eventually breach the surface or infiltrate underground infrastructure, causing flooding of housing foundations, road base materials, or within storm sewers. Groundwater rise could also induce soil instability or mobilize pollutants in soils. San Mateo County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan recognizes rising groundwater and saltwater intrusion as linked hazards accompanying sea level rise.
To address inland flooding, Foster City continues to invest in its stormwater system (pump upgrades, tide gates, and green infrastructure). The combination of heavier downpours projected with climate change and higher baseline Bay levels means interior drainage will need to be more effective and consistently maintained to prevent floods. By preserving and expanding open spaces that can hold or absorb runoff (parks, swales, retention basins) and by planning for rising groundwater impacts, the city can reduce the risk of disruptive inland flooding. Continuous monitoring and adaptive management of both the levee and the internal drainage network will be vital as climate conditions evolve.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
380
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 48 Figure 9 Present-Day (No SLR) Groundwater Hazard
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
381
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 49
7.3.3 Extreme Heat Events
Although Foster City benefits from moderating coastal breezes, it is increasingly susceptible to extreme heat events due to climate change. Historically, the city has experienced an average of four extreme heat days per year (temperatures exceeding 93°F), but projections suggest this could increase to 11-19 days annually by 2100.30 These hotter temperatures pose health risks, increase energy demands, and can stress infrastructure.
The urban heat island effect intensifies heat impacts, especially in areas dominated by pavement, buildings, and sparse vegetation, such as commercial zones and large parking lots.
Foster City currently has limited tree canopy coverage (about seven percent), exacerbating heat exposure in neighborhoods lacking shade. Conversely, areas with greater tree coverage, such as parks or landscaped residential zones, provide critical cooling through shade and evapotranspiration.
Populations most vulnerable to extreme heat include seniors, young children, and individuals with chronic health conditions, particularly those residing in buildings without adequate cooling systems. The City’s forthcoming Parks Master Plan will guide targeted urban-greening actions such as expanded tree planting in parks, streetscapes, and heat-burdened neighborhoods to mitigate these heat impacts and boost community resilience.
7.3.4 Water Supply Stress
Foster City relies entirely on imported water from the Estero Municipal Improvement District, which sources its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hetchy system (Sierra Nevada snowmelt). This dependence on external water supplies makes the city vulnerable to regional drought conditions and water supply reductions. During past droughts, including the 2012-2016 event, Foster City implemented water use restrictions and conservation programs to manage shortages.
As climate change continues to intensify drought frequency and severity, Foster City will need to strengthen its water conservation efforts, increase efficiency measures, and enhance long-term planning to ensure a stable water supply. The City's CAP outlines strategies to reduce reliance on potable water for irrigation through drought-tolerant landscaping and smart irrigation systems. Additional details on Foster City’s water supply reliability and drought resilience planning can be found in Section 7.3: Water Supply.
7.4 Existing City Programs and Initiatives
Foster City has proactively implemented several resilience-focused initiatives that leverage open spaces and natural resources to mitigate climate-related risks:
•Levee Improvements Project: This major infrastructure project, funded by a voter- approved $90 million bond (Measure P, 2018), strengthened Foster City’s approximately 8- mile perimeter levee system.36 Completed upgrades provide robust protection against projected sea level rise and coastal flooding through at least 2050. The project also incorporated enhancements such as rebuilding sections of the San Francisco Bay Trail and introducing nature-based elements – such as improved vegetative buffers and landscaping – to increase shoreline resilience and ecological function.32 36 City of Foster City. 2018. Measure P. https://www.fostercity.org/cityclerk/page/measure-p (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
382
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 50 •Green Infrastructure Initiatives: Guided by regulatory frameworks established by municipal codes and state ordinances and in alignment with its Climate Action Plan, Foster City has been actively converting park and public landscaping to drought-tolerant, low- water-use designs.30 Additional measures include installing bioswales and permeable paving in parks and open spaces, which enhance stormwater infiltration, improve water quality, and reduce irrigation demands. The updated CAP specifically emphasizes climate adaptation strategies, including expanding the city’s urban tree canopy to mitigate heat islands, promoting cool roofs and shading structures, and protecting critical community infrastructure.
•Regional Collaboration: Foster City engages extensively with regional agencies and partnerships to bolster climate resilience. Notably, the city collaborates with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) on multi-jurisdictional flood protection and sea level rise adaptation planning. Furthermore, Foster City actively aligns local efforts with the regional BayAdapt/BCDC “One Bay” vision, which encourages collaborative, nature-based shoreline adaptation measures across the Bay Area.31 •New Foster City Community Center (approved & under construction) – This two‑story, ~40,000 square foot build will replace the 1974 Recreation Center. The building will be all-electric, solar-ready, and targeting at least LEED-Silver (option for Gold/net-zero), incorporate Bay-Friendly landscaping, permeable plaza paving, and additional shade trees, and create new outdoor gathering spaces in Leo J. Ryan Park – expanding tree-canopy coverage while showcasing low-carbon civic design.37
Through these proactive measures – strengthening levees, adopting green infrastructure, safeguarding wetlands, and expanding urban forestry – Foster City integrates ecosystem-based approaches into its resilience strategies. Continuing these programs and embedding them into updated Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element policies will further enhance the city’s long-term resilience to climate-related impacts.
7.5 Policy Considerations
The following policy considerations highlight strategic opportunities to enhance climate resilience through updates to Foster City's Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan:
1. Informing the General Plan Updates
•Integrate climate vulnerability findings into General Plan policies, explicitly prioritizing levee improvements, flood control infrastructure, wetland conservation, and open space buffers.
•Align with the Safety Element policies in accordance with SB 1425 and the San Mateo County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2. Enhancing Open Space for Climate Resilience
•Adopt policies promoting the expansion and restoration of wetlands, creation of living shorelines, and conversion of underutilized parcels into green infrastructure for natural flood mitigation.
37 Foster City, City of. 2024. Foster City Moves Ahead with Plan to Rebuild Recreation Center. https://www.fostercity.org/community/page/foster-city-moves-ahead-plan-rebuild-recreation-center (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
383
Climate Resilience
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 51
•Support habitat conservation and restoration initiatives that enhance biodiversity and provide co-benefits for climate adaptation.
3. Flood Protection and Shoreline Adaptation
•Continue investing in levee improvements and pursue nature-based solutions, such as horizontal levees and marsh restoration, leveraging state and federal funding opportunities.
•Strengthen regional collaboration with entities like OneShoreline and BayAdapt for coordinated, multi-jurisdictional shoreline adaptation.
4. Improving Water Supply Reliability
•Promote water conservation measures, recycled water usage, and stormwater capture systems within city parks and landscaped open spaces.
•Ensure consistency between the General Plan and Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), emphasizing drought preparedness and long-term water resource management.
5. Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
•Encourage the integration of renewable energy systems, such as solar installations on park facilities, and implement energy-efficient lighting and infrastructure within parks and open spaces.
•Reinforce alignment with CAP objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance community resilience.
6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management
•Develop policies establishing ongoing monitoring, data collection, and evaluation frameworks to track climate impacts and the performance of open spaces in mitigating climate hazards.
•Create decision-making mechanisms within the General Plan to periodically incorporate new climate data and regulatory changes, ensuring policies remain adaptive and responsive.
7. Carbon Sequestration Opportunities
•Identify opportunities for tree planting, wetland restoration, and marsh expansion projects within open spaces, capturing carbon while simultaneously providing flood protection, habitat enhancement, and recreational benefits. •Promote community-based urban forestry and greenbelt programs as a key climate mitigation strategy integrated into local resilience efforts.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
384
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 52 8 Air Quality
8.1 Air Quality
Foster City generally experiences good air quality throughout the year; however, local conditions are periodically influenced by regional pollution sources and episodic events such as wildfire smoke and traffic emissions. This section examines existing air quality conditions, outlines Foster City's compliance with state and federal air quality standards, and identifies key pollution sources affecting the community. Additionally, it highlights how parks, open spaces, and strategic urban forestry planning can play essential roles in reducing air pollution, mitigating health risks, and enhancing ecological resilience. The assessment also reviews existing city programs designed to maintain and improve air quality, providing a foundation for integrating air quality improvements into upcoming updates to the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan.
8.2 Regional Air Quality
Foster City is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for adherence to state and federal air quality standards. At the state level, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) designates attainment or nonattainment for criteria pollutants, including ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Meanwhile, at the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these pollutants, evaluating whether air basins meet or exceed threshold levels.
While the Bay Area generally meets most air quality standards, it currently holds non-attainment status for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 – pollutants contributing to smog and harmful smoke – due to periodic exceedances of established health thresholds.38 These regional non-attainment designations apply to Foster City and surrounding mid-Peninsula communities. However, local air monitoring stations in nearby San Mateo and Redwood City report relatively fewer exceedance days compared to more inland regions, indicating comparatively better local air quality conditions influenced by coastal breezes. 31,32 Despite these favorable conditions, episodic air quality degradation occurs due to major emission sources such as Highways 101 and 92, aircraft activity from San Francisco International Airport, and seasonal wildfire smoke. The latter is of particular concern, as wildfire- driven PM2.5 pollution has led to temporary hazardous air quality conditions in recent years. In response, BAAQMD issues "Spare the Air" alerts to encourage residents to limit outdoor exposure and reduce emissions from vehicles, fireplaces, and other sources.30
8.3 Known Concerns
Traffic Emissions
Vehicle traffic on Highways 101 and 92 significantly contributes to local air pollutants, particularly nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Transportation accounts for 57 percent of Foster City’s greenhouse gas emissions, directly correlating to elevated 38 Foster City, City of. 2024. Climate Action Plan Update Initial Study – Negative Declaration. https://sustainable.fostercity.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/11/24_11_01_CAP_InitialStudyChecklist-1.pdf (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
385
Air Quality
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 53
concentrations of local air pollutants.30 Open spaces and vegetative buffers along roadways help mitigate exposure by capturing airborne particulates and filtering pollutants, thus reducing potential health impacts in nearby neighborhoods.
Wildfire Smoke
Although Foster City itself has minimal wildfire risk, transported smoke from wildfires elsewhere in California frequently degrades local air quality. Elevated PM2.5 levels pose particular health risks to vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, and individuals with respiratory conditions. Recent wildfire events, such as the widespread smoke in 2020, caused sustained "unhealthy" air quality conditions in San Mateo County.31 Providing community clean-air refuges, such as indoor facilities near parks, can mitigate impacts during wildfire smoke episodes.
Commercial and Institutional Emissions
Foster City hosts primarily commercial, institutional, and office land uses, which, while not heavy industrial sources, include localized emissions such as those from emergency backup generators and heating systems.32 Integrating urban greenways and landscaping around these commercial areas can further absorb pollutants and support air quality improvements.
Airport Proximity
Foster City’s proximity to San Francisco International Airport introduces occasional localized air quality impacts from aircraft operations. While emissions are dispersed by prevailing winds, occasional impacts from aircraft pollutants occur, particularly in northern neighborhoods nearest the airport approach corridors.
Cumulative Effects on Public Health
Individuals with asthma, cardiovascular conditions, or other underlying health vulnerabilities can be disproportionately affected by ozone and PM2.5 exceedances. Periodic poor air quality episodes underscore the need for consistent public health measures, such as indoor air filtration and timely public alerts.30 Accessible open spaces with thoughtful design (e.g., trees for shade, lower-exposure areas away from roadways) can support public health and offer safe outdoor activities even on moderate air-quality days.
In summary, the existing air quality conditions in Foster City are relatively clean on typical days (with pollution levels usually in the “Good” AQI category), but the city is periodically affected by smog and soot from heavy traffic and regional wildfires.
8.4 Existing Plans and Programs
Foster City actively participates in local and regional initiatives to improve air quality, reduce pollution, and protect public health. Existing programs and collaborative efforts include:
Regional Collaboration with BAAQMD
•Foster City actively works with BAAQMD to implement regional air quality programs, including permitting and enforcement of stationary emission sources, and the regional “Spare the Air” alert system.30
•BAAQMD provides grant opportunities for municipalities to invest in clean vehicle fleets and infrastructure.31
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
386
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 54 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Initiatives
•The Foster City CAP prioritizes transportation emissions reductions, addressing the largest regional source of ozone precursors and particulate matter. Key actions include expanding electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, incentivizing transit use and ridesharing, and promoting active transportation to lower vehicle miles traveled.30 •Greenway expansions, bicycle-pedestrian paths through parks, and improved trail linkages support both GHG reduction and better air quality.
Wildfire Smoke Response
•Foster City coordinates with San Mateo County to develop and update emergency response protocols for wildfire smoke. These efforts include timely dissemination of air quality alerts, establishing clean-air refuges in community centers or other public buildings near parks, and public education on protective measures like the use of N95 masks during wildfire smoke events.32
•Incorporating “clean-air zones” in or adjacent to large parks or community centers, where outdoor canopies or semi-enclosed spaces can help protect against smoke.
Land Use and Zoning
•Through the ongoing updates to its General Plan, Foster City incorporates zoning and land- use strategies designed to mitigate air quality impacts, such as thoughtful land use planning to avoid conflicts of incompatible uses, and environmental review and mitigation of significant impacts. The City also guides the establishment of vegetated buffers along high- traffic corridors and creating landscaped green spaces near sensitive receptors (schools, senior facilities, residential developments). These open spaces and green infrastructure elements capture pollutants, reduce local exposure, and simultaneously offer aesthetic and ecological benefits.
•Encouraging new or enhanced open spaces near high-volume roads to serve as vegetated buffers would offer both aesthetic and air quality benefits.
8.5 Policy Considerations
The following policy considerations highlight opportunities to improve air quality and public health through updates to Foster City's Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the General Plan:
1. Regional Air Quality Alignment
•Foster City is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and must comply with air quality standards set by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and California Air Resources Board (CARB).
•Policies should integrate regional air quality goals and aligning land use and development decisions with BAAQMD's thresholds for construction and operational emissions.
2. Air Quality and Land Use Planning
•Consider establishing buffer zones or vegetative screening requirements for sensitive receptors, such as schools, childcare centers, and senior living facilities, situated near highways or major traffic routes.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
387
Air Quality
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 55
•Major roadways and transportation corridors generate pollution that can affect nearby residents and park users.
•Policies should explore strategies to mitigate exposure to transportation-related air pollutants, including requirements for high-efficiency filtration in buildings near high- traffic areas and the strategic placement of vegetation buffers where appropriate. •Policies should balance air quality mitigation measures with smart growth planning principles, ensuring that streetscapes remain walkable and economically vibrant while incorporating targeted urban greening strategies, such as shade trees, vegetated setbacks, and green roofs.
3. Green Infrastructure and Urban Greening
•Urban greening, including tree planting and vegetated buffers, can help reduce air pollutants and mitigate urban heat, though its effectiveness depends on location, species selection, and overall design.
•Pursue a Tree City USA designation and adopt a City tree-ordinance/permit process that governs planting, maintenance, and removal; pair this program with targeted canopy expansion (street trees, park edges, bioswales) near major roadways and sensitive receptors to improve air quality and public health.
•Parks and open spaces should be designed to maximize co-benefits, integrating air quality improvements with climate adaptation strategies.
4. Transportation and Mobility Improvements
•Transportation-related emissions are the largest source of air pollution in Foster City. •Policies should prioritize expansion of Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure at public facilities and parks, as well as enhancing regional connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to reduce reliance on personal vehicles.
5. Wildfire Smoke Preparedness and Adaptation
•Climate change is increasing the frequency of severe wildfire smoke events, temporarily degrading air quality in Foster City.
•Policies should consider designating park facilities and community centers as "clean-air refuges" during wildfire smoke events, and equipping them with adequate air filtration and ventilation systems.
6. Community Engagement and Education
•Public awareness plays a critical role in air quality improvements. •Policies should integrate air quality education into park programming, interpretive signage, and public outreach campaigns.
•Foster City should continue collaborating with BAAQMD on public education efforts, including promoting the "Spare the Air" program and encouraging pollution-reducing behaviors.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
388
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 56 9 Energy Conservation and Renewable
Energy
9.1 Existing Energy Usage Data
Energy use in Foster City consists primarily of electricity and natural gas consumption across residential, commercial, and municipal sectors. According to the latest Foster City GHG Emissions Inventory (2019):
•Nonresidential (commercial and institutional) energy use accounts for approximately 28 percent of the city’s total GHG emissions.
•Residential energy use contributes roughly 14 percent of the city’s total GHG emissions. 30 Overall, energy consumption from buildings comprises approximately 42 percent of the city’s total GHG emissions, with electricity use accounting for seven percent and natural gas and multiple fuels contributing 35 percent. Transportation is the largest emissions source, responsible for 57 percent of total emissions, primarily from local roads and state highways (49 percent) and off-road equipment (8 percent). Other sectors contribute smaller shares, including solid waste disposal (1 percent), wastewater treatment (<1 percent), and water use (<1 percent). This emissions breakdown by sector highlights the need for decarbonization in both the built environment and transportation sector as key strategies in Foster City’s climate efforts.30
Foster City has made significant progress toward decarbonization by sourcing 100 percent carbon-free electricity for municipal operations through Peninsula Clean Energy’s (PCE’s) ECO100 program. ECO100 provides electricity from 100 percent renewable sources and is Green-e® Energy certified.39 Although the electricity grid blends energy from various sources, customers influence the overall mix by opting into programs like ECO100, which increases demand for renewables and prompts PCE to procure more clean energy on their behalf, supporting a cleaner grid.
PCE’s default offering, ECOplus, currently supplies electricity that is 50 percent renewable and 100 percent carbon-free. PCE plans to transition ECOplus to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2025, effectively aligning it with ECO100. Automatic enrollment in ECOplus is enabled under California’s AB 117, which authorizes Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs and requires that customers be automatically enrolled unless they choose to opt out.
Despite these advancements in electricity sourcing, natural gas consumption remains a significant contributor to Foster City’s greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from space heating, water heating, and cooking in homes and businesses. The City’s CAP emphasizes building electrification as a key strategy to further reduce emissions and support long-term sustainability goals.
Municipal energy usage predominantly occurs in buildings, parks, community facilities, and outdoor lighting. Continuing the shift toward renewable electricity, improving energy efficiency, and reducing natural gas usage across sectors remain critical focus areas for Foster City’s sustainability and energy conservation goals.
39 Peninsula Clean Energy. 2025. ECO100 is Green-e Energy certified. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/residential/rates- billing/upgrade-renewable/ (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
389
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 57
9.2 Energy Conservation/Renewable Energy Goals
Foster City’s Climate Action Plan identifies specific targets and strategies to reduce energy- related greenhouse gas emissions and increase reliance on renewable energy sources.30 Key goals include:
1. Reduce Energy Consumption
•Decrease residential and commercial energy usage by 10 to 15 percent through efficiency measures, building retrofits (LED lighting, HVAC improvements), and increased adoption of energy-efficient appliances.
•Transition buildings from natural gas to all-electric systems for space heating, water heating, and cooking.
2. Increase Renewable Energy Use:
•Maintain 100 percent renewable electricity for all municipal accounts through PCE’s ECO100 program and use that leadership to promote broader community enrollment. •Encourage residents and businesses to opt into ECO100 or install onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.
3. Support Decentralized Renewable Energy Systems
•Implement PV and battery projects at cost-effective municipal sites – currently the Library/Community Center and the new Recreation/Community Center – while encouraging private solar (rooftop and parking-canopy) installations city-wide. •Integrate battery storage solutions to enhance community resilience during energy disruptions and peak demand periods.
4. Manage Peak Demand and Grid Resilience
•Increase community engagement in demand-response programs, incentivizing reduced energy consumption during peak usage periods.
•Advocate for smart-grid technologies and real-time energy management systems to stabilize the grid and improve reliability.
These goals align closely with Foster City’s overarching GHG reduction targets, specifically addressing the community’s objective to reduce energy-related emissions by 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.30 By incorporating these strategies into the Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element updates, Foster City will reinforce its commitment to sustainable growth, climate resilience, and long-term environmental stewardship.
9.3 Existing Plans and Programs
1. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE)
•Foster City participates in Peninsula Clean Energy, a Community Choice Aggregation program providing clean electricity at competitive rates. Municipal operations currently utilize the ECO100 option (100 percent renewable), while residents and businesses can voluntarily opt into ECO100 for carbon-free electricity.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
390
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 58 2. Climate Action Plan (CAP) Implementation
•The City’s CAP outlines a variety of incentives and programs aimed at reducing energy use. These include rebates for energy efficiency retrofits, incentives supporting electrification of existing buildings, free or subsidized home energy assessments, and educational initiatives promoting sustainable energy behaviors.
3. Green Building Reach Codes
•Draft reach-code concepts now under City review would mandate all-electric construction and EV-ready infrastructure for most new buildings, while encouraging rooftop PV, LEED / CalGreen-Tier 1 performance, and other low-carbon features. Until the ordinance is adopted, these measures remain voluntary but are promoted through design guidance and permit incentives.
4. Municipal Energy Efficiency Upgrades
•The City actively implements energy efficiency improvements, such as transitioning public facilities, parks, and streetlights to LED lighting, upgrading HVAC systems, and expanding on-site solar energy generation. Notable recent projects include installation of solar canopies at the Library/Community Center parking area and comprehensive LED retrofits throughout parks and streetlights.
5. Public-Private Partnerships
•Foster City collaborates with local businesses and private developers to integrate clean energy technologies and sustainable design principles into new developments. These partnerships support the City’s energy conservation goals by encouraging decentralized renewable energy systems and energy-efficient building designs in commercial and mixed-use projects.
Collectively, these existing plans and programs demonstrate Foster City’s ongoing commitment to energy conservation, renewable energy integration, and GHG reduction, providing a foundation for future policies within the General Plan updates.
9.4 Policy Considerations
The following considerations highlight strategic opportunities to integrate energy conservation and renewable energy into Foster City’s Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element, supporting the City’s broader climate resilience and emissions-reduction objectives:
1. Energy Efficiency in Park Facilities
•Parks, ECO100-powered community centers, and other public spaces can further cut energy use through efficiency upgrades (e.g., LED fixtures, motion sensors, timers) while also reducing light pollution.
•Policies should support the installation of energy-efficient fixtures (such as LED lighting with motion sensors or timers) in park buildings, pathways, restrooms, and sports facilities to minimize electricity use and reduce light pollution. •Solar-powered lighting systems should be encouraged in locations where traditional electrical grid connections are limited or costly.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
391
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 59
2. On-Site Renewable Energy
•Prioritize PV installations at municipal sites confirmed cost-effective by the feasibility study (Library/Community Center and the forthcoming Recreation/Community Center) and encourage rooftop or parking-canopy solar on private and institutional properties city-wide.
•Policies should explore opportunities for installing PV systems on city-owned structures, maintenance buildings, and parking lots, including solar canopy installations. •Battery storage systems could be piloted to support emergency preparedness and grid resilience.
3. EV Charging Infrastructure in Public Spaces
•Public spaces play a critical role in supporting EV adoption. Policies should encourage the integration of EV charging stations in municipal and park facility upgrades, community centers, and public parking areas.
•Partnerships with private entities could help fund and maintain EV infrastructure, ensuring accessibility for both residents and park users.
4. Sustainable Construction and Electrification
•Future municipal facility construction and renovations provide an opportunity to implement sustainable building practices.
•Policies should promote all-electric systems in new and renovated park facilities, aligning with Foster City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals.
•The use of sustainable, low-carbon building materials should be prioritized to reduce lifecycle emissions.
5. Community Engagement and Education
•Public awareness and education are essential for fostering a culture of energy conservation.
•Policies could utilize parks, open spaces, community centers, libraries, city halls, and schools for public demonstrations, workshops, and educational events focused on energy efficiency, renewable energy benefits, and sustainable living practices (e.g., solar installation demonstrations, "talks under solar canopies"). •Policies should support workshops, demonstrations, and interpretive signage in parks and public spaces to highlight renewable energy installations, energy efficiency, and sustainable living practices.
6. Synergies with Climate Resilience Initiatives
•Renewable energy and energy conservation efforts can complement broader climate resilience initiatives.
•Policies should explore opportunities to integrate renewable energy and energy conservation measures into green infrastructure projects, such as co-locating solar arrays with stormwater management features like bioswales or permeable pavements. •Smart irrigation and renewable-powered water management systems could be incorporated into parks and landscaped areas to reduce water and energy use while lowering maintenance costs.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
392
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 60 10 Key Issues and Opportunities Summary
Foster City’s open space and conservation challenges are shaped by urban development, climate change, and regional environmental pressures. This section identifies key issues across six thematic areas – Natural Open Space, Biological Resources, Water Resources, Climate Resilience, Air Quality, and Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy – and outlines opportunities for policy updates and strategic initiatives to enhance sustainability and resilience.
10.1 Natural Open Space
Key Issues
•Fragmentation of Open Spaces: While Foster City has parks, green spaces, and shoreline areas, many are fragmented, limiting their ecological and recreational benefits. •Limited Rewilding and Naturalization: Many parks have been developed with ornamental landscaping over native vegetation, limiting ecological benefits; the forthcoming Parks Master Plan will outline park-specific improvement recommendations to increase native plantings and habitat value.
Opportunities
•Enhancing Greenway Connectivity: Enhancing connectivity could improve biodiversity corridors and recreational opportunities. Linking parks, wetlands, and the lagoon through green corridors by providing naturalization along the city’s existing bike and walking paths, trails, and parks which can improve habitat continuity and increase public access to nature. •Rewilding: Expanding rewilding efforts could enhance biodiversity, pollinator support, and climate resilience.
•Nature-Based Shoreline Protection: Work with OneShoreline to identify project opportunities for implementing living shorelines, tidal marsh restoration, and native coastal plantings can provide ecological benefits while strengthening flood resilience. •Regional Alignment: Build on existing coordination with OneShoreline, BCDC, and BayAdapt by:
osharing lagoon water-level, pump-station, and groundwater data to feed OneShoreline’s countywide flood-model updates;
opursuing joint grant applications (e.g., FEMA BRIC, State Coastal Conservancy) for living-shoreline pilot projects; and
ointegrating BayAdapt’s adaptive-pathways framework and BCDC’s 100-foot integrated shoreline-protection zone into local development review.
10.2 Biological Resources
Key Issues
•Habitat Loss and Urbanization: Development has significantly reduced natural habitat availability, particularly along the shoreline and green spaces along the city’s bike and footpath, limiting biodiversity.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
393
Key Issues and Opportunities Summary
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 61
•Wetlands Conservation and Climate Vulnerability: Wetlands provide critical ecosystem services, including carbon storage, flood protection, and habitat for migratory birds.
However, their long-term resilience is threatened by climate change and sea level rise. •Barriers to Wildlife Movement: Roads, urban infrastructure, and fragmented habitats restrict wildlife movement, impacting species that rely on connected landscapes. •Invasive Species Encroachment: The proliferation of non-native plant and animal species, threatens native biodiversity and reduces the ecological integrity of open spaces.
Additionally, while Canada geese are not considered invasive or non-native, their rapid population expansion has caused concerns regarding water quality and co-habitation.
Opportunities
•Wetland Restoration for Climate Resilience: Expanding wetland conservation efforts along the Belmont Slough and city shoreline can enhance carbon sequestration, support biodiversity, and bolster flood protection.
•Wildlife-Friendly Urban Design: Integrating underpasses and vegetated buffers into planning efforts can reduce habitat fragmentation, particularly between the fragmented open spaces along the city’s shoreline.
•Community-Driven Habitat Conservation: Public education and citizen science initiatives can foster environmental stewardship and biodiversity monitoring. •Urban Rewilding and Native Plant Landscaping: Enhancing city parks and open spaces with native plants can improve habitat quality, reduce water usage, and support pollinators; the forthcoming Parks Master Plan will outline park-specific improvement recommendations to increase native plantings and habitat value.
•Green Corridors Between Parks and Wetlands: Connect parks along the coast, such as Baywinds, Shorebird, or Bayview Parks, and open spaces with greenways such as the areas along the shoreline and city bike path featuring native trees, shrubs, and grasses to provide habitat continuity.
•Partnerships to Improve Connectivity: Partner with conservation organizations, land trusts, and transportation agencies to implement connectivity designs and protect wildlife corridors. Collaborative efforts can lead to significant funding and support for conservation projects, particularly in protected areas like the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve. •Rooftop Gardens and Vertical Green Spaces: Encourage the addition of green roofs and living walls to increase biodiversity in urbanized areas. •“Green Streets” Initiatives: Retrofit roadsides with native plants, rain gardens, and permeable surfaces to improve habitat connectivity and reduce stormwater runoff.
10.3 Water Resources
Key Issues
•Groundwater Rise and Infrastructure Risks: Climate change-induced rising groundwater levels could result in subsurface flooding and saltwater intrusion, affecting infrastructure and vegetation.
•Lagoon Water Quality Degradation: Persistent issues with algal blooms, excessive aquatic vegetation, and bacterial contamination in the lagoon compromise ecological health and recreational usability.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
394
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 62 •Stormwater Pollution from Urban Runoff: Due to the built-out nature of the city, impervious surfaces contribute to runoff that carries pollutants into the lagoon and San Francisco Bay, negatively affecting water quality.
•Reliance on Imported Water Supplies: Foster City depends entirely on external water sources, making it vulnerable to regional droughts and water supply fluctuations.
Opportunities
•Improving Lagoon and Wetland Management: Adaptive management strategies such as enhanced water circulation, salinity monitoring, and habitat restoration can help maintain the lagoon’s function as a stormwater basin and recreational resource. •Stormwater Filtration through Green Infrastructure: Expanding bioswales, permeable pavement, and rain gardens can reduce runoff pollution and improve water quality in the lagoon and Bay.
•Strengthening Water Security Partnerships: Collaborating with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and OneShoreline can enhance long-term water resilience. •Expanding Water Quality Monitoring: Increased monitoring of groundwater and stormwater impacts, including localized water quality testing of the bay near Foster City and monitoring saltwater intrusion, can provide data to inform future policy decisions and infrastructure investments.
10.4 Climate Resilience
Key Issues
•Sea Level Rise and Flooding Threats: Foster City is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges, and groundwater rise. Consistent with Safety-Element policies S-3.4 b (“Maintain the City’s levees and lagoon for flood protection pursuant to the Operation & Maintenance Manual and Lagoon Management Plan”) and S-6.1 (“Incorporate sea-level-rise considerations into development review and infrastructure planning”), the City must continue levee/lagoon maintenance and embed sea-level-rise response strategies in all new and existing development projects.
•Stormwater Drainage Limitations: The city’s flat topography and reliance on pumps for drainage mean heavy rainfall events, particularly those coinciding with high tides, could overwhelm stormwater systems.
•Urban Heat Island Effect: While Foster City benefits from a temperate coastal climate, the city’s limited tree canopy (about seven percent) and large expanses of impervious surfaces can still contribute to higher localized temperatures. This can be a concern for local plant and animal life as well as outdoor workers, seniors, and other vulnerable populations who may experience greater heat exposure.
•Shallow Groundwater Risks: As sea levels rise, so will groundwater, threatening infrastructure and creating long-term maintenance concerns for underground utilities and green spaces.
Opportunities
•Regional Adaptation Collaboration: Work with local, regional, State, and federal partners (e.g., OneShoreline, San Mateo County, BCDC, FEMA) on climate-resilience strategies, and regularly integrate findings from the San Mateo County Sea-Level-Rise Vulnerability
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
395
Key Issues and Opportunities Summary
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 63
Assessment, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Climate-Change Vulnerability Assessment, and Foster City’s Climate Action Plan into General-Plan updates. •Urban Green Infrastructure Expansion: Increasing tree canopy, green roofs, and permeable surfaces can mitigate heat island effects while enhancing stormwater retention. •Flood Protection Beyond Levees: While the recent levee improvements protect against near-term sea level rise, additional strategies such as living shorelines, horizontal levees, and marsh restoration could provide long-term resilience benefits. •Localized Climate Risk Data Collection: Partnering with research institutions and agencies to establish groundwater monitoring wells and high-resolution flood modeling can improve data-driven decision-making.
10.5 Air Quality
Key Issues
•Traffic-Related Air Pollution: Proximity to Highway 101 and 92 results in elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), impacting public health. •Wildfire Smoke Exposure: Although Foster City has low wildfire risk, regional fires contribute to worsening air quality, leading to hazardous conditions and the need for designated clean-air refuges.
•Gaps in Local Air Quality Monitoring: Foster City lacks dedicated air monitoring stations, making it difficult to track localized pollution hotspots or accurately measure cumulative exposure impacts.
Opportunities
•Integrate Air Quality Considerations into Open Space Design: Expanding vegetated buffers along major roadways and increasing urban forestry can help filter pollutants and improve local air quality.
•Wildfire Smoke Mitigation Planning: Collaborating with BAAQMD and San Mateo County and local neighboring cities can enhance emergency response strategies and clean-air shelter access.
•Deploying Local Air Monitoring Sensors: Installing air quality sensors in high-traffic zones and near schools would improve pollution tracking and inform health policies.
10.6 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Key Issues
•Continued Dependence on Natural Gas: Despite 100 percent carbon-free electricity for municipal buildings, the residential and commercial sectors still rely heavily on natural gas, slowing decarbonization efforts. CAP action E-W.2.2.1 (2025 Building-Code amendments and two-way AC ordinance) targets accelerated electrification. •Slow Adoption of Solar Energy: Up-front costs and permitting barriers deter rooftop solar; CAP actions E-W.2.1.7 (study municipal rooftop solar + battery) and E-W.2.1.8 (public outreach on pairing PV with storage) outline next steps. •Grid Resilience and Energy Storage Gaps: Limited incentives for behind-the-meter storage; CAP action E-W.2.1.1 provides for financial incentives to spur PV + battery installations and improve resilience.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
396
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 64 Opportunities
•Expand Solar and Battery Storage in Public Spaces: Installing solar panels with battery backup in parks, parking lots, and municipal facilities can enhance energy resilience and reduce grid demand during peak hours.
•Promote Building Electrification and Efficiency Programs: Aligning with Peninsula Clean Energy’s (PCE) incentives and reach codes can accelerate residential and commercial transitions away from natural gas.
•Improve EV Charging and Micromobility Options in Open Spaces: Expanding EV charging infrastructure in parks and community centers supports clean transportation goals and enhances accessibility for residents and visitors. EV charging infrastructure, along with improving curb management to prioritize rideshare parking/loading zones, scooter and bike share docs, bike parking, and autonomous vehicle loading zones, is supported by Foster City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measure T-L.3.1.7.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
397
Appendices
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 65
11 Appendices
11.1 Appendix A: Regulatory Context
11.1.1 Natural Open Space
Government Code Section 65560
Government Code Section 65560 defines open space land and requires cities and counties to include open space elements in their general plans to protect natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreational areas.40
Assembly Bill 2278 Natural resources: biodiversity and conservation report Assembly Bill 2278 (Kalra 2022) directs California’s Natural Resources Agency to prioritize specific actions toward achieving the state’s goal of conserving at least 30 percent of California’s lands and coastal waters by 2030 ("30x30"). The bill requires annual progress reporting to the Legislature, emphasizing equity, tribal engagement, regional collaboration, and improved public access to conserved lands and coastal resources.41 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The California Fish and Game Code Sections 2780-2799.6 establishes the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. This act is a statewide conservation program that aims to protect natural habitats and biodiversity while allowing for sustainable economic development. Unlike traditional conservation efforts that focus on individual species, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act takes an ecosystem-based approach, improving the long-term protection of entire natural communities and the species that depend on them.42
11.1.2 Biological Resources
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects federally listed wildlife species from harm or take, which is broadly defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened, and endangered species under the FESA. Candidate species are not legally protected under the FESA but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.
40 California Government Code. Section 65560 10.5. Open-Space Lands [65560 - 65570]. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65560. (accessed April 2025). 41 Kalra, Ash. 2022. Assembly Bill 2278: 30x30 Biodiversity and Conservation. https://a25.asmdc.org/sites/a25.asmdc.org/files/2022- 04/AB%202278%20-30x30%20Reporting.pdf (accessed March 2025). 42 California Fish and Game. 2021. California Fish and Game Code Sections 2780-2799.6. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=178840&inline (accessed April 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
398
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 66 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the protection of species that are listed as endangered or threatened within the state. It mandates that state agencies and private entities avoid actions that may harm these species or their habitats and requires the development of recovery plans. CESA also provides a process for the listing of species and the designation of critical habitats in need of protection.
Native Plant Protection Act
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; California Fish and Game Commission [CFGC] Section 1900 et seq.).
The NPPA requires the CDFW establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species.
Fully Protected Species Laws and Avian Protection Laws
The Fully Protected Species Laws and Avian Protection Laws in California are designed to safeguard wildlife, particularly vulnerable and endangered bird species. The CDFW oversees these regulations, ensuring compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515, which prohibit the taking or possession of fully protected species, including several bird species. Additionally, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, enforced by the USFWS, provide federal protections against hunting, disturbance, or habitat destruction. The primary purpose of these laws is to prevent species extinction, conserve habitats, and mitigate human impacts on bird populations, ensuring ecological balance and biodiversity conservation.
Bay Plan
The Bay Plan is a long-term coastal management strategy developed by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its primary purpose is to regulate development along the Bay shoreline, protect and restore wetlands, address sea-level rise, and ensure public access to the shoreline. The plan establishes policies on land use, water quality, and climate adaptation to balance environmental conservation with sustainable urban development. By guiding regional decision-making, the Bay Plan helps maintain the ecological health and resilience of the San Francisco Bay Area while accommodating responsible economic growth.
11.1.3 Water Resources
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) aims to restore and maintain the integrity of U.S. waters by preventing pollution, providing regulations for wastewater discharges, and supporting the protection of water quality. It mandates that states set water quality standards, and it authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce regulations to reduce pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
399
Appendices
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 67
protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
11.1.4 Air Quality
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. The United States EPA developed primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1971 to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409].
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the State has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS.
In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility- reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.
California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations is the official compilation and publication of the regulations adopted, amended, or repealed by State agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. They are compiled into Titles and organized into Divisions containing the regulations of State agencies. The following California Code of Regulations would be applicable to the General Plan Update:
•Engine Idling. In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location. •Emission Standards. In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.
11.1.5 Climate Resilience
Senate Bill 272 Sea level rise: planning and adaptation Senate Bill 272 (Laird, 2023) requires local governments within the coastal zone or within the jurisdiction of the BCDC to develop and adopt comprehensive sea level rise plans by January 1, 2034. These plans, subject to approval by either the California Coastal Commission (CCC) or BCDC, will help local governments address and mitigate sea level rise impacts, with approved jurisdictions prioritized for future state adaptation funding.43 43 Senator John Laird of the 17th State Senate District. 2023. Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Build Coastal Resiliency and Support Coastal Communities. https://sd17.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-build-coastal-resiliency-and- support-coastal-communities (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
400
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 68 Assembly Bill 975 Environmental protection: California Coastal Resilience and Adaptation Leadership and Coordination Act of 2019
Senate Bill 975 (Calderon, 2019) established the California Coastal Resilience and Adaptation Leadership and Coordination Act, requiring California’s Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to coordinate state climate resilience and adaptation efforts with other governments and regional entities. This coordination includes sharing best practices, promoting resilience of coastal habitats, and conducting quantified risk assessments to prioritize climate adaptation actions.44 Assembly Bill 1384 Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act of 2022.
Assembly Bill 1384 (Gabriel, 2022), the Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act, updates California's climate adaptation strategy, emphasizing equitable adaptation and resilience. The bill mandates that state agencies identify vulnerabilities in communities disproportionately impacted by climate change, prioritize equity in public expenditures, and establish clear metrics to track progress toward climate resilience.45 Senate Bill 905 Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program.
Senate Bill 905 (Caballero, 2022) establishes the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) Program, overseen by the California Air Resources Board, to support and regulate technologies for capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions. The bill requires comprehensive safety standards, environmental monitoring, unified permitting, and public transparency measures to ensure these projects reduce greenhouse gases without negatively impacting local communities or ecosystems.46
Assembly Bill 2251 Urban Forestry: statewide strategic plan.
Assembly Bill 2251 (Calderon, 2022) directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to develop a statewide strategic plan to increase urban tree canopy cover by 10 percent by 2035, with a focus on disadvantaged and low-canopy communities. The plan, due by June 30, 2025, will outline state and local policies, regional targets, maintenance strategies, and resources needed to support sustainable urban forestry expansion.47 44 Calderon, Lisa. 2019. AB 975, as amended, Calderon. Environmental protection: California Coastal Resilience and Adaptation Leadership and Coordination Act of 2019. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB975 (accessed March 2025).
45 Gabriel, Jesse. 2022. AB 1384, Resiliency Though Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act of 2022. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1384/id/2606950 (accessed March 2025). 46 Cabarello, Anna. 2022. SB 905, Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB905 (accessed March 2025). 47 Calderon, Lisa. 2022. AB 2251, Urban forestry: statewide strategic plan. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2251 (accessed March 2025).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
401
Appendices
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 69
11.2 Appendix B: Definitions
Term Definition
Algal Blooms Certain environmental conditions in water bodies can intensify algae growth, causing algal blooms. Blooms with the potential to harm human health or aquatic ecosystems are referred to as Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). HABs can produce toxins that present a risk to people, animals, aquatic ecosystems, the economy, drinking water supplies, property values, commercial and industrial fishing, and recreational activities like swimming (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
Aquifer A water-bearing layer of rock or sediment that is capable of yielding useable amounts of water. Drinking water and irrigation wells draw water from the underlying aquifer (U.S. Department of Toxic Substances Control).
Biodiversity The variety of living organisms (plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms) and ecosystems, reflecting the health and complexity of an environment (California Public Resources Code §711.2).
Biological Resources Plants, animals, habitats, ecosystems, and related ecological processes that provide environmental, economic, recreational, and cultural value.
Bioswales Landscape elements designed to collect, filter, and convey stormwater runoff through vegetation, soils, and other materials to improve water quality and reduce flooding.
Cumulative Impact or
Exposure
The term cumulative impact is used in several ways: as the effect of exposure to more than one compound; as the effect of exposure to emissions from more than one facility; the combined effects of a facility and surrounding facilities or projects on the environment; or some combination of these (U.S. Department of Toxic Substances Control).
Ecosystem Services Benefits humans obtain from functioning ecosystems, including clean air and water, climate regulation, flood control, food production, recreation, and cultural values.
Energy Conservation and
Renewable Energy
Strategies to reduce overall energy use through efficiency and the adoption of energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal that replenish naturally and have minimal environmental impact.
Environmental Justice Under State law, environmental justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. (Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e)).
Equitable Access Equitable access refers to the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and services, ensuring that all individuals have the ability to obtain what they need to achieve their potential.
Estuary A coastal waterbody where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with saltwater from the ocean, creating productive, biodiverse habitats.
Flood Mitigation Actions and strategies aimed at reducing flood risk and impacts, such as building levees, preserving floodplains, enhancing stormwater management, or restoring wetlands.
Green Corridor A continuous network of vegetated areas linking natural habitats and ecosystems, facilitating wildlife movement and providing ecological and recreational benefits.
Green Infrastructure Ecological systems and engineered landscape features (e.g., rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, bioswales) used to manage stormwater, improve air quality, and enhance resilience.
Grid Resilience The ability of the electrical power system to withstand, recover from, and adapt to disruptions, minimizing impacts from power outages and emergencies.
Groundwater Water beneath the earth’s surface that flows through soil and rock openings, aquifers, and often serves as a primary source of drinking water (U.S. Department of Toxic Substances Control).
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
402
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 70 Term Definition
Habitat Fragmentation Division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, isolated patches, often due to human activities, negatively impacting wildlife movement and biodiversity.
Habitat Restoration Efforts to rehabilitate ecosystems by reestablishing native vegetation, repairing degraded habitats, and restoring ecological functions.
Invasive Species Non-native species introduced into ecosystems that rapidly proliferate and negatively impact native biodiversity, habitats, or ecosystem function.
King Tide Exceptionally high tide events caused by the alignment of the earth, moon, and sun, providing a glimpse of future sea level rise impacts.
Lagoon A shallow, enclosed or partially enclosed coastal waterbody separated from the ocean by a barrier, often influenced by tidal flows and freshwater inputs.
Living Shoreline A coastal management approach that integrates native vegetation, natural habitats, and engineered elements to stabilize shorelines, protect against erosion, and support ecological functions.
Microgrid A small-scale electrical system that can operate independently or connected to the main power grid, typically powered by renewable energy and energy storage systems to improve resilience.
Native Vegetation Plants naturally occurring in a specific region or ecosystem without human introduction, adapted to local environmental conditions and providing critical ecological benefits.
Natural Community
Conservation Plan
A California-based conservation program designed to protect entire ecosystems while accommodating compatible land use activities, focusing on long-term habitat conservation.
Natural Open Space Land preserved or maintained in a predominantly natural state, providing ecological, recreational, and aesthetic value, typically minimally developed and managed.
Nature-Based Solutions Strategies inspired by natural ecosystems that address environmental challenges (such as flooding, heat, or erosion) by preserving, restoring, or mimicking natural processes.
Nursery Site Habitat areas providing critical protection, food, and shelter needed by juvenile animals, especially marine species and migratory birds, during early developmental stages.
Open Space Per Gov. Code § 65560(b) and Gov. Code § 5097.9, any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to open space use.
Such uses can encompass preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, military installations, and protection of places, features, and objectives, with the latter specifically referring to Native American historical, cultural, and sacred sites.
Permeable Pavement Pavement materials designed to allow rainwater to infiltrate through the surface, reducing runoff and helping recharge groundwater.
Potable Water Water safe and suitable for human consumption, meeting established health standards.
Protected and Special
Status Species
Plants or animals designated under federal, State, or local regulations as endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise vulnerable, requiring special conservation measures.
Protected Area Clearly defined geographical spaces recognized and managed to conserve ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural or cultural resources.
Publicly Accessible Land, facilities, or resources that are available and open for public use and enjoyment without unnecessary barriers or restrictions.
Recreational Facilities Built or natural spaces designed for public recreation and leisure activities, such as parks, playgrounds, trails, sports fields, and picnic areas.
Recreational Opportunities Activities or resources available to the public that provide enjoyment, exercise, social interaction, and opportunities to experience nature.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
403
Appendices
Open Space and Conservation Assessment 71
Term Definition
Resilience Per the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s 2017 https://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.htmland California's Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023) Appendix 5 Glossary, resilience is defined as the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change.
Resilience is the ability to prepare for threats and hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from adverse conditions and disruptions. More specifically, climate resilience is the capacity of interconnected social, economic, and ecological systems to cope with a climate change event, trend, or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure.
Rewilding Per Gov. Code § Section 65565.5 (b)(1), rewilding is defined as opportunities to preserve, enhance, and expand an integrated network of open space to support beneficial uses, such as habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics. Rewilding is a conservation strategy that aims to restore the natural processes of an ecosystem and increase biodiversity. It involves reducing or stopping human activity and reintroducing plant and animal species, especially keystone species. Rewilding can also involve connecting protected areas through corridors.
Runoff Pollution Contamination of water bodies caused by stormwater flowing over impervious surfaces, picking up pollutants such as oil, chemicals, nutrients, and sediment.
Saltwater Intrusion The movement of saltwater into freshwater aquifers or surface water bodies, typically caused by groundwater pumping, sea-level rise, or reduced freshwater recharge.
Sea Level Rise The increase in global ocean levels resulting primarily from melting glaciers, ice caps, and thermal expansion due to global warming.
Shoreline The boundary where land meets a body of water, including beaches, marshes, and rocky coasts.
Stormwater Detention
Basin
Engineered structures designed to temporarily capture and hold stormwater runoff, releasing it slowly to reduce flooding and erosion risks.
Stormwater Management Practices and infrastructure designed to reduce or manage the volume, quality, and impacts of stormwater runoff.
Stormwater Runoff Rainwater or melted snow that flows over land and impervious surfaces without infiltration, often carrying pollutants to water bodies.
Surface Water Water that collects and flows on the earth’s surface, such as rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands.
Tidal Marsh A coastal ecosystem regularly inundated by tidal waters, supporting specialized plant and animal species adapted to brackish conditions.
Underpasses/Wildlife
Bridges
Engineered structures designed to allow wildlife to safely cross roads and other barriers, reducing collisions and supporting habitat connectivity.
Urbanization The development and expansion of urban areas resulting from population growth, land conversion, and increased built infrastructure.
Urban Heat Island Effect The phenomenon where urban areas experience higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas due to extensive impervious surfaces, limited vegetation, and human activities.
Urban Park A managed open space within a city, providing recreational opportunities, green spaces, and social gathering areas for community members.
Urban Forestry Management of trees and green spaces within urban settings to enhance environmental, social, and economic benefits.
Urban Wildlife Wild animals that inhabit urban environments, adapting to urbanized landscapes and interactions with human populations.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
404
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element 72 Term Definition
Water Supply Sources of water available for community use, including potable water for drinking, agriculture, industry, and ecological needs.
Water Quality The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, indicating its suitability for human and ecological use.
Water Resources All sources of water – including surface water, groundwater, and stormwater – that support environmental, human, and economic needs.
Wetlands Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater, characterized by hydric soils and specialized vegetation, providing critical habitat and ecosystem services.
Wildlife Connectivity The degree to which habitats and landscapes allow wildlife movement and gene flow, supporting biodiversity, ecological integrity, and species adaptation to environmental changes.
8.3 Attachment 3 - Open Space and Conservation Assessment
405
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element
and Conservation Element
Parks and Recreation Assessment
prepared for
City of Foster City
Community Development Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404t
prepared with the assistance of
WRT, LLC
120 2nd Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, California, 94105
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Oakland, California 94607
April 2025
8.3 Attachment 4 - Parks & Recreation Assessment
406
8.3 Attachment 4 - Parks & Recreation Assessment
407
Table of Contents
Parks and Recreation Assessment i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 2 Regulatory Triggers................................................................................................................2 3 Foster City’s Parks System ...................................................................................................3
3.1 Park Classification .......................................................................................................3
3.2 Park Amenities ............................................................................................................6
3.3 Indoor Recreation Facilities .........................................................................................6
3.3.1 William E. Walker Recreation Center and Future Facility .............................6
3.3.2 The Vibe Teen Center...................................................................................7
3.4 Paths and Trails...........................................................................................................7
3.4.1 Levee Pedway...............................................................................................7
3.4.2 Neighborhood Trails .....................................................................................7
3.5 Foster City Lagoon ......................................................................................................8
3.6 Park Walksheds...........................................................................................................8
3.7 Park Access and Equity ..............................................................................................9
3.8 Level of Service .........................................................................................................14
3.8.1 Acreage Level of Service ............................................................................14
3.9 Park Amenity Level of Service...................................................................................15
3.10 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................15 4 Park Usage...........................................................................................................................17
4.1 Well-Used and Under-Used Parks.............................................................................17
4.1.1 Catering to Residents, Capitalizing on Visitors ...........................................18
4.2 Extending Use............................................................................................................18
4.2.1 Understanding Park Users ..........................................................................18
4.3 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................18 5 Site Assessment...................................................................................................................20
5.1 Access & Connectivity ...............................................................................................20
5.2 Comfort & Sense of Safety ........................................................................................22
5.3 Functionality...............................................................................................................23
5.4 Condition....................................................................................................................24
5.5 Overall........................................................................................................................25
5.6 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................25 6 Market Potential Index..........................................................................................................27
6.1 Recreation Trends .....................................................................................................27
6.2 Policy Considerations ................................................................................................28 7 Community Priorities ............................................................................................................29
7.1 Community Outreach Events.....................................................................................29
7.1.1 Pop-Up Events ............................................................................................29
7.1.2 Task Force Meeting ....................................................................................30
8.3 Attachment 4 - Parks & Recreation Assessment
408
City of Foster City
General Plan Parks and Open Space Element and Conservation Element ii