Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, June 15, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

ALL OF PARCEL A, AS SAID PARCEL IS DELINEATED AND SO DESIGNATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP 11-73, IN THE INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF

MATEO COUNTY RECORDS AND ALSO BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL "A", TRACT NO. 801, FOSTER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 1. UNIT NO. 1, RECORDED IN VOLUME 57 OF MAPS AT PAGES 32 TO 41, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, FOSTER CITY SAN MATEO CO. CALIFORNIA", FILED FOR RECORD DECEMBER 10, 1973, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 23
OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 8, RECORDS OF SAID SAN MATEO COUNTY.

PARCEL 3:

ALL OF PARCEL "B", AS SAID PARCEL IS DELINEATED AND SO DESIGNATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP 11-73, IN THE INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF

THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP NO. 820, FOSTER CITY INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1, RECORDED IN VOLUME 59
OF MAPS PAGE 35, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS AND ALSO BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 'A' TRACT NO. 801, FOSTER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 1, UNIT NO. 1, RECORDED IN VOLUME 57 OF MAPS AT PAGES 32 TO 41, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, FOSTER CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", FILED FOR RECORD DECEMBER 10, 1973, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 8, RECORDS OF SAID SAN MATEO COUNTY.

APN(S): 094-010-500 AND 094-010-510

7.1 Attachment 7 - Adopted Planning Commission Resolutions 604
DATE: June 15, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Deputy City Manager
Thai-Chau Le, Interim Community Development Director
Kevin McGill, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: AMENDING TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, MAKING REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 17.78

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE

WITH STATE LAW RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
(ADUS)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance making various text amendments to Chapter 17.78 “Accessory Dwelling Units” of Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC) to ensure compliance with State laws related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and finding the proposed amendments exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Foster City’s Housing Element 2023-31 includes goals, policies, and programs to provide additional housing in a way that is balanced with the community’s desires to retain the aspects of Foster City that make it a great place to live, work, and play. The Housing

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
605
Element Programs include the City’s commitment to timeframes for implementation to continuously update the ADU ordinance to comply with new state laws.

One of the Housing Element Programs pertaining to ADU code updates is:

H-D-4-a: ADUs - Continue implementation of Chapter 17.78, Accessory Dwelling Units.

Update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with State laws by December 2023 and subsequently update the City’s regulations to comply with new state laws within six months of being effective.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Update Chapter 17.78 to comply with 2023 State laws by December 2023 and update the City’s regulations to comply with subsequent new State laws within 6 months of being effective.

Quantifiable Objectives: 24 ADUs by 2031
Funding Source: General Plan Maintenance Fund
Geographic Targeting: Promote programs to expand housing choices in singlefamily areas Since the adoption of the Housing Element 2023-31, Chapter 17.78, Accessory Dwelling Units, in Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC), has been amended multiple times to implement the program, H-D-4, as follows:
• File No. RZ2023-0006 / PC Resolution No. P-11-23 / City Council Ordinance No. 669 / September 18, 2023 City Council Meeting
• File No. RZ2024-0001 / PC Resolution No. P-04-24 / City Council Ordinance No. 677/ March 20, 2024 City Council Meeting
• File No. RZ2024-0012 / PC Resolution No. P-23-24 / City Council Ordinance 684 / November 18, 2024 City Council Meeting and,
• File No. RZ2025-0004 / PC Resolution No. P-09-25 / City Council Ordinance 692 / August 18, 2025 City Council Meeting
Foster City’s ADU Ordinance was last amended on August 18, 2025, via Ordinance No. 692 to comply with State Law. However, further amendments are now required due to changes in California law that became effective October 10, 2025, and January 1, 2026.

In addition, staff are proposing additional edits to provide clarification for both applicants and staff.

On May 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft Ordinance amending Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code revising Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units to ensure compliance with State law related to ADUs. During the discussion, one of the Commissioners raised concerns about the deed restriction and owner-occupancy and how these components may restrict future occupancy options and potential sale of ADUs. The concerns included that deed restrictions can create long-term title and resale issues because they run with the land.

Owner occupancy requirement can prove burdensome even if an owner’s circumstances

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
606
change - such as needing to move into a care facility or wanting to rent both the main house and the JADU.

After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-0-1 (1-absent) to adopt Resolution P-11-26 (Attachment 2), recommending that the City Council amend Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code making revisions to Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units to ensure compliance with State law related to ADUs and finding the proposed amendments are exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) Common Sense Exemption and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 with an amendment to deed restrictions requirements pertaining to JADUs included in FCMC Section 17.78.060.B.3, to read as follows: “So long as required by California Government Code Section 66333, or successor code section, the owner must record a deed restriction as outlined in California Government Code Section 66333, which shall run with the land, and shall include the following….” To follow through City’s commitment in the timely implementation of the Housing Element program H-D-4-a, staff is recommending that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance making various text amendments to FCMC Chapter 17.78 - Accessory Dwelling Units. The draft Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 for the City Council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND
The California State Legislature continues to pass new laws aimed at easing California’s housing crisis by continuing to limit local government discretion over housing development projects, and these laws are intended to increase the housing supply. Four (4) new state laws became effective pertaining to ADUs since the last ADU text amendments in August 2025.

1. California Assembly Bill No. 462: On October 10, 2025, AB 462 was signed into law by Governor Newsom to streamline and accelerate the permitting process for ADUs in certain coastal and disaster-affected areas. These areas include the County of Los Angeles and certain other counties under a Governor’s State of Emergency proclamation.

Staff Comments: Per this bill, there are no areas within the Foster City limits that are identified as coastal or disaster-affected areas per AB 462. Staff is not proposing any text amendments in relation to this bill.

2. California Assembly Bill No. 1154: On October 10, 2025, AB 1154 was signed into law by Governor Newsom to amend California Gov. Code Section 66333 to:

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
607
• Specify when a JADU has a shared sanitation facility (bathroom) with the primary house, an owner-occupancy is required. If the JADU has independent sanitation facility, then owner-occupancy is not required.
• Requires that JADUs cannot be used as short-term rentals (30 days or less). If the JADU is rented, the JADU must be rented for longer than 30 days.

Staff Comments: Some of the text amendments pertaining to this bill are already incorporated into Chapter 17.78. However, a few further amendments to further clarify these requirements are recommended. Specifically, FCMC Sections

17.78.060.B and 17.78.100.A would be updated to address these new State laws to comply with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements to require JADUs only needing to be owner-occupied when there is a shared sanitation facility with the JADU. Previous updates to FCMC Sections 17.78.060 and 17.78.100 have incorporated restriction for JADUs to be used for short-term rentals (leases of less than 30 days) and no additional changes in FCMC are required at this time.

3. California Senate Bill No. 9: On October 10, 2025, SB 9 was signed into law by Governor Newsom and amended California Gov. Code Section 66326 of the California Gov. Code to further clarify that local agencies are required to adopt an ADU ordinance that complies State requirements and to submit the adopted ordinance to the HCD within 60 days of the adopted ordinance. Furthermore, if the HCD finds that the ordinance does not comply with the State standards and provides comments, the local agency shall respond to HCD’s finding within 30 days. If the local agency fails to fix the ordinance or justify compliance, HCD can escalate the issue to the Attorney General, potentially triggering legal action.

Staff Comments: It should be noted that this version of SB 9 effective January 1, 2026, is not the same as the 2022 SB 9 that pertains to lot splits for ADUs. The 2025 SB 9 bill revises Section 66326 to set and clarify local agencies’ requirements to adopt an ordinance for ADUs that meets the States ADU requirements, send the adopted ordinance to HCD for the State to review within 60 days of adoption, and to respond to comments from HCD of non-compliance with 30 days.

No text amendments are being proposed pertaining to this bill as this is a clarification of review procedures for staff. However, pursuant to the requirements of this bill, staff will transmit the adopted Ordinance to HCD following City Council approval.

4. California Senate Bill No. 543: On October 10, 2025, SB 543 was signed into law by Governor Newsom and amended various sections of the State ADU laws (California Gov. Code Sections: 66311, 66313, 66317, 66320, 66321, 66323, 66325, and 66335). These updates include:

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
608
A. Standardizing size measurements: All size limits and fee rules are now based on interior livable space. Specifically:
o A revision to the JADU definition to require the size of a JADU to be no more than 500 SF of interior livable space (California Gov. Code Section 66313).
o No impact fees for ADUs that less than or equal to 750 SF of interior livable space or for JADU that has 500 SF of interior livable space or less. In addition, it requires that impacts fees for ADUs with more than 750 SF of interior livable space be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary house (California Gov.

Code Section 66311).
o Clarification that an ADU or JADU of less than 500 SF of interior livable space does not increase the assessable space when used in the calculation and imposition of school fees (California Gov. Code Section 66311).
o Revision of the size limitations of ADUs to be based on the square footage of interior livable space (California Gov. Code Section 66321).

B. Clearer and faster review process:
o Cities must review applications within 15 business days and specify missing items if incomplete (California Gov. Code Section 66317). o Applicants can appeal denials or incompleteness decisions, with a final decision required within 60 business days.

C. Clarification on HCD Oversight:
o If local agencies fail to comply with state oversight deadlines, state ADU laws override local JADU rules.
o Expansion of HCD’s authority to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines and to additionally grant that authority with respect to terms, references, and standards for ADUs (California Gov. Code Section 66311).

D. Specification of the number of allowable ADUs allowed on a given parcel (California Gov. Code Section 66323).

E. Clarification that fire sprinklers are not required for a JADU if the primary residence does not have fire sprinklers and that the addition of a JADU cannot trigger the requirement for fire sprinklers (California Gov. Code Section 66323).

F. Local Ordinance Requirements: Specifies that if a local agency fails to submit an adopted JADU ordinance to HCD within the 60- day timeline or fails to respond to HCD’s findings regarding their ordinance within the 30- day timeline, that ordinance is null and void and the local agency must only apply State ADU Law when processing applications for JADUs (California Gov. Code Section 66333.5).

Staff Comments: Text amendment to FCMC Chapter 17.78 is recommended to further align the City’s code with this Bill as follows:

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
609
o For item A above, staff recommends adding a definition for interior livable space in FCMC Section 17.78.040 Definitions and Section 17.78.100 Other Provisions.
o For item B above, staff recommends adding a new Section 17.78.110 Appeal to comply with these new requirements for an appeal process and revised areas in Section 17.78.090 Permit Process to align the 15- and 30- days timeline.
o For items C and D, no changes are proposed as those only pertain to clarifications of review procedures for staff and the City. o For item E, no changes are proposed as fire sprinklers requirements have previously been codified in FCMC Section 17.78.100.F.
o For item F, staff will transmit the adopted Ordinance to HCD following City Council approval.

To implement the Housing Element program H-D-4-a, staff continue to re-examine FCMC Chapter 17.78 in response to new State laws and are proposing a series of text amendments. The recommended text amendments in this round of updates are intended to:

1. Ensure compliance with state laws;

2. Provide additional clarity to support staff implementation of the code; and

3. Reduce potential misinterpretation for applicants.

Full changes are shown in Attachment 1 and summarized under Analysis below.

PREVIOUS MEETINGS
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting
A Joint City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting was held on February 24, 2026, providing the City Council, Planning Commission, and the public an opportunity to review and provide input on the 2026 Land Use and Housing Legislative Updates. The presentation by Special Legal Counsel, Eric Philips, provided an overview of the significant housing and land use bills adopted by the California Legislature, including the four (4) ADU bills discussed above.

The City Council and Planning Commission provided the following comments from Feb 24, 2026 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting:
• Clarification for the definition of calendar days and business days if the streamlining 15 calendar days to review new applications for ADUs (1:19.45). • Inquiry if the updates to the ADU ordinance would remove the home occupation requirements for JADUs per AB 1154 (1:20:00).
• Inquiry if the ADU Ordinance would be updated to include the appeal requirements per SB 543 (1:23:30).

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
610
• Clarification on the number of ADU units allowed on a single-family lot and if there would still be setback constraints (1:38:20).

Please click the link for the February 24, 2026 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Public Hearing
On May 21, 2026, staff presented draft amendments to Chapter 17.78 of the Foster City Municipal Code to align with State laws pertaining to ADUs for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Planning Commission asked clarifications pertaining to frequency of ADU updates needed by local municipalities pertaining to these State’s requirements, authority of Planning Commission to deny or approve changes, and whether the City has received any front-yard ADU requests or inquiries.

One of the commissioners expressed concerns regarding deed restrictions and owneroccupancy requirements, noting that deed Restrictions may create long-term title and resale issues because they run with the land. The commissioner also noted that owneroccupancy requirements can become burdensome if an owner’s circumstances change, such as if the owner needs to move into a care facility or wishes to rent both primary residence and the JADU.

After deliberation, the Commission made a motion to include edits to the Section

17.78.060.B to provide that deed restriction for JADUs will be applicable as long as required by the California Gov. Code Section 66333, or successor code section.

A motion was made by Commissioner Pedro, seconded by Commissioner Jagtiani, and adopted Resolution No. P-11-26 (Attachment 2) recommending the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with amendments.

ANALYSIS
Staff is recommending the following amendments.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.040 – DEFINITIONS
Clarified and added the following definitions:
• Clarified size limitations to interior living space under “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU”.

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
611
• D. “Business Days” means regular days of business operations that excludes Saturday, Sunday, and holidays specified in Gov Code 6700 & 6701. • F. “Days” means a calendar day, representing a 24-hour period beginning at midnight. In computations of time, this means every day on the calendar, including weekends and holidays, unless the law specifically states "business days".
• Combining livable space to the new Interior Livable Space definition:
o K. “Interior livable space” shall mean a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.

Livable space includes bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, closets, and interior stairs.

Staff’s Comments: SB 543 incorporates the use of “interior livable space” in regulating the size of ADUs. Therefore, interior livable space has been added as a definition to review and apply the code consistently with State laws. Business Days and Days (calendar days) have been added to the definition section as several California Gov.

Codes reference a limit on ADU review using these terms. These definitions were added in order to ensure staff reviews of ADUs are consistent with State laws.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.050 – PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AN

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Changes to this section include:
• Removal of courtesy neighbor notification reports requirements. • Refer submittal requirements to the existing Foster City ADU Checklist.

Staff’s Comments: Staff has revised requirements for the Permit Application submittal for a complete submittal to align with existing practice. An interdepartmental Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Checklist was created and available on the Foster City ADU Webpage to provide a clear list of required documents an owner, applicant, or designer would need to submit a complete application.

These changes do not stem from the new ADU Bills mentioned above and are only staff recommended revisions to align submittal requirements with existing practice to streamline submittal and review for staff and applicants. Removing the courtesy neighbor notification requirement would make the ADU review consistent with the building permit review process and aims to reduce the Incompleteness Review timeframe while providing clear guidance to applicants.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.060.A.3.c – STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
Changes to this section include:

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
612
• Clarified Option 3.c can be an attached or detached ADU.

Staff Comments: This change did not stem from the new ADUs bills but is recommended as an administrative clarification for applicants’ use and staff.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.060.B – STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS – JADUs REQUIREMENTS Changes to this section include:
• Added clarifications that JADUs only require owner occupancy if they do not have an independent sanitary facility in their unit.
• Clarified JADUs entrance requirements.
• Added Planning Commission’s suggested language to further clarify deedrestriction implementation per State Law.

Staff Comments: These code revisions address the JADU shared sanitation facilities per SB 543. Other revisions were made to provide language that is consistent with State laws and provide clarification to the applicant. As mentioned above, this section also include Planning Commission’s recommended language to further clarify that deed restrictions should only be implemented to the extent required by State law and can change should future successor code is amended from the State.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.060.C – STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS – ATTACHED ADU REQUIREMENTS Changes to this section include:
• Clarifying maximum size of an ADU if the primary house to be 850 SF, consistent with State’s requirements, even if the 50% of the primary home’s size is less than that.
• Clarified that State Exempt ADUs are not restricted in location placement.

Note: California Gov. Code Section 66323 creates four (4) categories of ADUs and JADUs that must be approved ministerially and are only subject to standards set forth in California Gov. Code Section 66323 and are known as State Exempt ADUs. These units do not have to comply with lot coverage, front setbacks, and design standards. However, these ADUs must comply with building code and health and safety requirements for dwellings.

Staff Comments: The current code requires the size of ADUs to be restricted to a maximum of 1,200 SF or 50% of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less. However, for smaller homes such as those with only a 1,500 SF house, this 50% cap would allow only a 750 SF ADU, and therefore, is inconsistent with the requirement of other sections of the FCMC Chapter 17.78 and State law requiring jurisdictions to allow at least an 850 SF ADU. Therefore, this recommended change to Section

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
613

17.78.060.C.1.a was added as clarification that City shall allow a minimum of 850 SF for smaller single-family homes.

Furthermore, consistent with HCD guidelines and City’s legal council’s advice, State Exempt ADUs cannot be restricted from locating in the front yard. Accordingly, FCMC Section 17.78.060.C.2 has been updated to exempt State Exempt ADUs from the location requirement.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.060.D – STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS – DETACHED ADU REQUIREMENTS Changes to this section include:
• Remove the 50% requirement from the size requirements for detached ADUs. • Clarified that State Exempt ADUs are not restricted in location placement. • Added clarification that 2 feet above the maximum requirement of 18 feet could be for roof pitch to align with the primary dwelling unit.

Staff Comments: The current Chapter 17.78 allows a size of 1,200 SF or 50% of the primary unit, whichever is less, for detached ADUs. Per legal counsel’s advice, the 50% limitation allowed by State laws is only for the attached ADUs. Since the State law does not reference this for attached ADUs, the proposed revision proposed to Section

17.78.060.D.1 would be consistent with HCDs requirements and interpretations.

Similar to attached ADUs, the State law does not allow local jurisdictions to limit the location of State Exempt ADUs. This has been noted in Section 17.78.060.D.2.

Staff revised language regarding the maximum height to provide a clear allowance of an additional 2’ in height to accommodate and match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.

The context of this text amendment would not change how this requirement has been or will be applied.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.060.F – STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS – ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Changes to this section include:
• Moved exterior access language from Section 17.78.060.F Additional Requirements to Section 17.78.100 Other Provisions.
• Minor clarification for interior space.

Staff Comments: Currently, State Exempt ADUs are exempt from this Section

17.78.060.F Additional Requirements. However, exterior entrances are required for all

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
614
ADUs. Therefore, relocating this requirement to another part of the code such as Section

17.78.060.F would reduce misinterpreted during the implementation process.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.080.B – PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Changes to this section include:
• Added clarification that State Exempt ADUs are exempt from parking requirements.

Staff Comments: Per California Gov. Code Section 66323, State Exempt ADUs are exempt from parking requirements and staff recommends this additional language for clarification.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.090 – PERMIT PROCESS
Changes to this section include:
• Clarify the timeframe for review is 60 calendar days. • Clarify completeness review is 15 business days.
• Revision to California Gov. Code Section 66317.

Staff’s Comments: A completeness review is local agency’s initial determination whether an application contains all required materials or in other words, is complete or not. Staff recommends revisions to the permit process language to provide clarification and aims to be consistent with California Gov. Code Section 66317. This would provide clear and transparent guidance to an applicant for the review timeline and expectations for both completeness and full review of an ADU project.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.78.100 – OTHER PROVISIONS
Changes to this section include:
• Clarify the size limitation of ADUs are based on interior living space. • Moved exterior access language from 17.78.060.F Additional Requirements to

17.78.100 Other Provisions and remove “JADUs”.

Staff’s Comments: The recommended changes to Section 17.78.100.L would provide clarification on how staff and the applicant would determine the size limitations of the proposed ADUs (i.e. interior living space), consistent with SB 543.

As mentioned above, the provision for exterior entrance requirement is better located in this section. Removal of the word “JADUs” is a clerical clarification as ADUs encompasses JADUs as well.

AMENDMENTS TO ADD NEW SECTION 17.78.110 – APPEAL

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
615
Changes to this section include:
• Add a new section for an Appeal procedure for applicants who are not satisfied with ADU permit decision from the Building Official and making Planning Commission the hearing body.

Staff’s Comments: SB 543 required an appeal process to give the applicant the ability to appeal a permit application that has been deemed incomplete or has been denied. Staff recommends adding this new Section 17.78.110 Appeal to satisfy this new State requirement. The proposed appeal language would be consistent with the Chapter 15 – Building appeals. Additional language was added to ensure the timeline of appeals would be constant with SB 543.

CEQA
The proposed actions would update the City’s existing Municipal Code to align with the requirements of the most recent updates to the State’s laws. The actions would not result in physical changes to the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 states that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the California Gov. Code. which means that adoption of this ordinance to update the Municipal Code to implement State ADU and JADU law is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this item except for staff time spent on the preparation of the Ordinance.

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

Attachment 1 – Ordinance
Attachment 1a – Exhibit A
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26

7.2 7.2 Staff Report
616
ORDINANCE NO.____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY MAKING VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.78 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE

WITH STATE LAWS RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS EXEMPT UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3), COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.17 – RZ2026-0002

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local jurisdictions to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2026, four (4) key ADU bills became effective:

California Assembly Bill No. 462 (AB 462), California Assembly Bill No. 1154 (AB 1154), California Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), and California Senate Bill 543 (SB 543); and WHEREAS, these bills make further revisions to state law, and local jurisdictions need to readopt any local ordinances related to ADUs to include new provisions/clarifications; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting Study Session was held to update the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the public on the most recent State Laws affecting land use and ADUs; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is an integral part of the Foster City General Plan that identifies the community’s housing needs, states the community’s goals and objectives regarding housing production, rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation to meet those needs, and defines the policies and programs; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element Programs include the City’s commitment to timeframes for implementation and the Annual Progress Report (APR) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), due by April 1st of each year, reports on progress in implementation of these Programs; and WHEREAS, amendments to Foster City Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning are required for the implementation of the Housing Element program, H-D-4-a; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution

7.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance
617
regarding the amendments to Chapter 17.78, and after conducting the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. P-11-26 with the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the amendments to Chapter 17.78; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2026, a public hearing notice was published and posted in three public places, and mailed pursuant to California Code Section 65090 for the City Council public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing where it carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and all attachments thereto, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the proposed amendments to various sections of Chapter 17.78, “Accessory Dwelling Units”, of Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code, to ensure compliance with State law related to ADUs and the associated CEQA finding, including any and all timely submitted correspondence, all information submitted at or prior to the public hearing, and all public comment and testimony presented at the public hearing (collectively, the “Record”).

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

Section 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine based upon the aforementioned Record as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action; and

2. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies, or programs of the General Plan; and

3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through the implementation of the Housing Element; and

4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with and are required by applicable State laws; and

5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City; and
Section 2. The proposed actions would update the City’s existing Municipal Code to align with the requirements of the most recent updates to the State’s laws. The actions would not result in physical changes to the environment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 states that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, which means that adoption of this ordinance to update the Municipal Code to implement State ADU and JADU law is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

7.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance
618
Section 3. Amendment. Various Sections of Chapter 17.78 “Accessory Dwelling Units” within Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing certain specified sections Chapter 17.78 in their entirety and replacing those sections to read as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those Sections within Chapter 17.78 not specifically amended in Exhibit A (Sections 17.78.010 (Findings), 17.78.020 (Purpose), 17.78.030 (Application),

17.78.070 (Standards applicable to multifamily residence zoning districts), and 17.78.075 (Standards applicable to public facilities (PF) zoning districts)), shall remain unchanged in Chapter 17.78.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.

Section 6. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.

This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 15th day of June, 2026, and passed and adopted on the _____ day of ________ , 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

7.2 Attachment 1 - Ordinance
619
Chapter 17.78

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sections:

17.78.040 Definitions.

17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.

17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.

17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.

17.78.090 Permit process.

17.78.100 Other provisions.

17.78.110 Appeal.

17.78.040 Definitions.

A. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

1. An efficiency unit.

2. A manufactured home, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18007.

3. Size limitations of ADUs is based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU.

B. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

C. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing single-family residence and shares at least one wall with the single-family residence.

D. “Business Days” means regular days of business operations that excludes Saturday, Sunday, and holidays specified in Gov Code 6700 & 6701.

E. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is created within existing space, including a portion of a primary dwelling unit or existing non-habitable space in an existing primary or accessory structure.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
620
F. “Days” means a calendar day, representing a 24-hour period beginning at midnight.

In computations of time, this means every day on the calendar, including weekends and holidays, unless the law specifically states "business days".

G. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit and does not share any walls with the primary dwelling unit or an existing attached accessory structure.

H. “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

I. “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.

J. “Infeasible” shall mean when applicable development standards are applied, they would physically preclude development of a proposed ADU up to eight hundred fifty square feet with at least four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

K. “Interior livable space” shall mean a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation. Livable space includes bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, closets, and interior stairs.

L. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than five hundred square feet of interior livable space and contained entirely within a singlefamily residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.

M. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure or building.

N. “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21155.

O. “Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.

P. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.

Q. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
621
R. “State exempt unit” means an ADU or JADU that is constructed pursuant to Government Code Section 66323 and is not subject to Government Code Sections 66314 through 66322. State exempt units shall be subject exclusively to the provisions of Government Code Section 66323, notwithstanding any contrary requirements set forth in Sections 17.78.060, 17.78.070, and 17.78.080.

S. “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.

The application for an ADU permit shall be made by the owners of the subject property in writing to the building division in the form designated by the building division and shall contain the following:

A. Completed building permit application form and applicable fee; B. Written project description;
C. Plans, drawings, and reports as required by the Foster City ADU Checklist;;and D. A copy of required deed restriction as included in Section 17.78.100, unless exempt.

17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.

The following shall apply to single-family lots in R-1, R-2 and R-1/PD zoning districts:

A. Number of Units. A single-family lot with a primary dwelling unit may have:

1. Option 1. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); or

2. Option 2. One ADU (conversion, attached, or detached); or

3. Option 3.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One conversion ADU; and
c. One newly constructed ADU (attached or detached, up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

4. Option 4.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One newly constructed ADU over eight hundred fifty square feet.

5. Option 5.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
622
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One conversion ADU.

6. Option 6.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One newly constructed ADU (up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

7. Option 7.
a. One conversion ADU; and
b. One newly constructed ADU (up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

B. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. The number of JADUs shall be limited to one unit per residential lot zoned for single-family residences that includes a proposed or existing single-family residence.

2. The property owner must reside in either the remaining portion of the primary dwelling unit or the JADU only if the JADU does not have an independent sanitary facility (e.g. restroom). Owner occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

3. So long as required by California Government Code Section 66333, or successor code section, the owner must record a deed restriction as outlined in California Government Code Section 66333, which shall run with the land, and shall include the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms with this chapter.
c. If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days.

4. A JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence, including attached garages.

5. JADUs shall include a separate entrance from the primary dwelling entrance of the proposed or existing single-family residence.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
623
If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include both a separate entrance from the primary dwelling entrance and an interior entry to the main living area to provide access to the shared sanitation facilities.

6. The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.

C. Attached ADUs. One attached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

1. Size. The total floor area of an attached ADU shall be not more than one thousand two hundred square feet or fifty percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
a. In any case where 50% of the primary house SF is less than 850 SF, a maximum of 850 SF new constructed (attached or detached) shall be permitted.

2. Location. Unless a State Exempt ADU, attached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred-fifty-square-foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.

3. Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet.

4. Height.
a. An attached ADU shall not exceed twenty-five feet in height, or the height requirement for the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. b. ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height.

5. Colors. An attached ADU or JADU shall use the same exterior wall and roof colors as the primary dwelling unit.

6. Roof Pitch and Eaves. An attached ADU or JADU shall have the same roof pitch as the primary dwelling with same eave details but may vary by up to two vertical inches more or less in every twelve horizontal inches.

D. Detached ADUs. One newly constructed detached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
624

1. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet.

2. Location. Unless State Exempt ADU, detached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred-fifty-square-foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
a. Exception – State Exempt ADUs are not restricted in the location provided the ADU meets the 4 foot setback.

3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residential Code.

4. Height. A detached ADU shall not exceed sixteen feet in height, except in the following cases:
a. A height of eighteen feet, plus up to two (2) additional feet solely to accommodate a roof pitch aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit is permitted when an ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in this code section.

5. Colors. Detached ADUs shall utilize the same exterior wall and roof colors as the primary dwelling unit.

E. Conversion ADUs. One conversion ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

1. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADU conversions located within the existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an ADU that replaces an existing structure and is located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced. A legal accessory building (including a detached garage) may be converted into an ADU, provided the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.

2. Height. A conversion ADU shall not alter the height of the existing structure (single-family dwelling, accessory building, or garage) that is being converted.

3. Other Standards.
a. Conversion ADUs in existing accessory structures may expand the existing dimensions of the structure no more than one hundred fifty square

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
625
feet to accommodate ingress/egress. Any such expansion shall count towards the size of the ADU.

4. Colors. Conversion ADUs shall utilize same roof and exterior wall colors as the primary dwelling unit.

F. Additional Requirements. These requirements shall apply to all ADUs and JADUs on single-family lots except for those ADUs and JADUs that are state exempt:

1. Except as specified in this section, ADUs shall comply with lot coverage, open space, front setbacks, minimum lot size, and other zoning standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except in no event shall the application of any of these standards preclude at least an eight-hundred-square-foot ADU of interior livable space.

2. Windows. Second floor windows facing another residential property, less than ten feet from the property line, and larger than two square feet shall include at least one of the following:
a. Have obscured glazing; or
b. Be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy; or c. Include splayed windows to avoid direct views, as shown in Figure 1 (applies only to new construction).

Figure 1: ADU/JADU Window Locations for Privacy

3. Second Floor Balconies or Decks. Second floor balconies, decks, or rooftop terraces facing another residential property are prohibited (applies only to new construction).

4. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be mounted no higher than seven feet from grade and directed downwards.

17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.

A. Parking requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. This space may be provided as

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
626
tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the nondriveway front yard setback. Exception to the requirement for provision of one parking space may be made per subsection B of this section.

B. Parking is not required in the following instances:

1. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.

2. When there is an approved car share vehicle for which a Foster City business license has been issued and remains active, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

3. When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot; provided, that the ADU or the parcel satisfies any other any other criteria listed in Government Code Section 66322, subdivisions (a)(1)—(a)(5), as may be amended from time to time.

4. As a condition of construction of a JADU.

5. Where the ADU only includes a studio with no bedroom.

6. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant area.

7. Where the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.

8. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of, or is converted to, an ADU, then those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. (Ord. 692 § 3 (Exh. A), 2025)

9. When the proposed ADU is a State Exempt ADU.

17.78.090 Permit process.

A. Unless otherwise specified in subsection D of this section, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66317 mandating ministerial approval of JADUs and ADUs if all of the applicable standards are met, the chief building official or the official’s designee shall approve the JADU and ADU permit within sixty calendar days of the complete application being submitted. The City shall determine the completeness of all ADU or JADU application within fifteen business days after receipt of application.

1. If a ADU and/or JADU is proposed as part of a new or remodeled primary residence, the sixty-calendar day timeline shall not commence until the primary residence is permitted.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
627

2. The city may review and approve the ADU or JADU in conjunction with the new or remodeled primary residence, but the application to create the ADU or JADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing.

The chief building official or the official’s designee shall approve the ADU permit within thirty calendar days from the date the local agency receives a complete application if the application either:

1. Utilizes a plan for an accessory dwelling unit that has been preapproved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle, or

2. Utilizes a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit approved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle.

B. If the city disapproves an application for an ADU or JADU, the building division shall return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

C. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU must be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

D. In conformance with Government Code Section 66314, the city shall, by resolution, adopt a program for the preapproval of designs for ADUs, which may be amended from time to time. Any application for an ADU utilizing a design plan for ADUs that has been preapproved pursuant to that program shall be approved or denied within thirty days.

1. The city shall also review accessory dwelling unit plan submissions for preapproval upon an application for such a request and payment of the applicable fee. The city shall approve or deny the preapproval applications, as specified.

17.78.100 Other provisions.

A. Prior to obtaining a building permit for a JADU, a deed restriction, approved by the city attorney, shall be recorded with the county recorder’s office, which shall include the pertinent restrictions and limitations of a JADU identified in this section including but not limited to: prohibition of the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence; restrictions on the size and attributes of the JADU; and prohibitions on rentals less than thirty consecutive days. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
628
B. Owner Occupancy. Except for the JADU owner-occupancy requirements set forth in this chapter, no owner-occupancy requirement shall be enforced, and no deed restriction shall be required for ADU permit applications.

C. Permitting of Existing Unpermitted ADUs or JADUs. For any unpermitted or substandard ADU or JADU built before January 1, 2020, upon an owner’s request, the city’s chief building official shall not deny the permit unless they make a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 or the building is deemed substandard pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66332.

D. Any ADU may be leased for a period not fewer than thirty consecutive days.

E. Fire flow and fire department access must comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, or an alternate means shall be proposed.

F. Fire Sprinklers.

1. An ADU shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alternative methods for fire protection.

2. The construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement of fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

G. ADUs that are seven hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space or smaller are exempt from impact fees.

H. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not preclude constructing one ADU of at least eight hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space which is not more than sixteen feet in height, and at least four feet set back from the side and rear property lines.

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, an applicant shall not be required to correct nonconforming conditions on the subject property as a condition of obtaining permits to construct an ADU or JADU.

J. Any properties with ADUs built or developed by a nonprofit corporation may qualify to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66341. A qualified nonprofit corporation is a nonprofit corporation which is organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under California Revenue and Taxation

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
629
Code Section 214.15 for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.

L. Per Gov. Code, §§ 66321, subds. (b)(2) and (b)(3); 66313, subd. (d) size limitations shall be based on the square footage of interior living space of an ADU or JADU.

M. All ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.

17.78.110 Appeal.

A. In case the permit application is determine to be incomplete or is denied, the applicant not satisfied with an ADU permit decision of the Building Official, may, within 10 calendar days after the decision of the Building Official, appeal in writing to the Planning Commission, accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the city council.

B. The appeal letter or completed appeal form shall specify:

1. The person making the appeal;

2. The specific item of appeal, and all supporting documentation, written in clear and concise language;

3. The basis for such appeal; and

4. The relief or action sought.

The appeal letter shall contain information substantiating the basis for appeal.

C. The Planning Commission shall review the written findings of staff, and shall consider the written and oral argument of the appellant, and render a decision within 60 business days of the appeal. Information not presented to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to rendering a decision may not be introduced at the meeting of the Planning Commission on the appeal.

D. If the appeal is approved, the application for the appeal and ADU shall be approved and issued within the original shot clock pertaining to the type of ADU application (30 calendar day or 60 calendar day review).

7.2 Attachment 1a - Exhibit A
630
RESOLUTION NO. P - 11 - 26

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.78 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE

TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS RELATED TO ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS EXEMPT UNDER

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3), COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.17 – RZ2026-0002

FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local jurisdictions to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2026, the four (4) key ADU bills became effective:

California Assembly Bill 462 (AB 462), California Assembly Bill No. 1154 (AB 1154), California Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), and California Senate Bill 543 (SB 543); and WHEREAS, these bills make further revisions to state law, and local jurisdictions need to readopt any local ordinances related to ADUs to include new provisions/clarifications; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting Study Session was held to update the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the public on the most recent State Laws affecting land use and ADUs; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is an integral part of the Foster City General Plan that identifies the community’s housing needs, states the community’s goals and objectives regarding housing production, rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation to meet those needs, and defines the policies and programs; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element Programs include the City’s commitment to timeframes for implementation and the Annual Progress Report (APR) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), due by April 1st of each year, reports on progress in implementation of these Programs; and WHEREAS, amendments to Foster City Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning are required for the implementation of the Housing Element program, H-D-4-a; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly published for consideration of the amendment to the Municipal Code Chapter 17.78 at the Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and all attachment thereto presented as part of

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 631
Resolution No. P- 11 - 26
RZ2026-0002
the agenda for the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.78, Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code as referenced above including any and all timely submitted correspondence, all information submitted at or prior to the public hearing, and all public comment and testimony presented at the public hearing (collectively, the “Record”); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on facts and analysis in the staff report, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, finds that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action; and

2. The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 17 (Zoning) are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies, or programs of the General Plan; and

3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through implementation of the Housing Element; and

4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with, and are required by, applicable State laws; and

5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City; and

6. The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance making various text amendments to Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on May 21, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Jagtiani, Kenkre, Stoveland, and Chair Pedro NOES, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Haddad

ROBERT PEDRO, CHAIR
ATTEST:

SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
Robert Pedro (May 28, 2026 12:57:03 PDT)
Robert Pedro

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 632
Chapter 17.78

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sections:

17.78.040 Definitions.

17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.

17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.

17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.

17.78.090 Permit process.

17.78.100 Other provisions.

17.78.110 Appeal.

17.78.040 Definitions.

1. An efficiency unit.

2. A manufactured home, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18007.

3. Size limitations of ADUs is based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU.

B. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

D. “Business Days” means regular days of business operations that excludes Saturday, Sunday, and holidays specified in Gov Code 6700 & 6701.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 633
ED. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is created within existing space, including a portion of a primary dwelling unit or existing non-habitable space in an existing primary or accessory structure.

EF. “Days” means a calendar day, representing a 24-hour period beginning at midnight. In computations of time, this means every day on the calendar, including weekends and holidays, unless the law specifically states "business days".

GF. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit and does not share any walls with the primary dwelling unit or an existing attached accessory structure.

HF. “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

IG. “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.

JH. “Infeasible” shall mean when applicable development standards are applied, they would physically preclude development of a proposed ADU up to eight hundred fifty square feet with at least four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

LI. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than five hundred square feet of interior livable space in size and contained entirely within a singlefamily residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.

KJ. “Livable space” means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.\
MK. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure or building.

NL. “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21155.

OM. “Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 634
PN. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.

QO. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

RP. “State exempt unit” means an ADU or JADU that is constructed pursuant to Government Code Section 66323 and is not subject to Government Code Sections 66314 through 66322. State exempt units shall be subject exclusively to the provisions of Government Code Section 66323, notwithstanding any contrary requirements set forth in Sections 17.78.060, 17.78.070, and 17.78.080.

SQ. “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. (Ord. 692 § 3 (Exh. A), 2025; Ord. 684 § 2 (Exh. I), 2024; Ord. 669 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023)

17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.

A. Completed building permit application form and applicable fee; B. Written project description;
C. Courtesy neighbor notification report in a form designated by the building official indicating adjacent property owners have been notified of the new ADU (garage conversions are exempt from notification);
CD. Plans, and drawings, and reports as required by the Foster City ADU Checklist;building division;and
DE. A copy of required deed restriction as included in Section 17.78.100, unless exempt. (Ord. 684 § 2 (Exh. I), 2024; Ord. 669 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023)

17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.

The following shall apply to single-family lots in R-1, R-2 and R-1/PD zoning districts:

A. Number of Units. A single-family lot with a primary dwelling unit may have:

1. Option 1. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); or

2. Option 2. One ADU (conversion, attached, or detached); or

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 635

3. Option 3.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One conversion ADU; and
c. One newly constructed ADU (attached or detached, up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

4. Option 4.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One newly constructed ADU over eight hundred fifty square feet.

5. Option 5.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One conversion ADU.

6. Option 6.
a. One JADU (up to five hundred square feet); and
b. One newly constructed ADU (up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

7. Option 7.
a. One conversion ADU; and
b. One newly constructed ADU (up to eight hundred fifty square feet).

B. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. The number of JADUs shall be limited to one unit per residential lot zoned for single-family residences that includes a proposed or existing single-family residence.

3. So long as required by California Government Code Section 66333, or successor code section, Tthe owner must record a deed restriction as outlined in California Government Code Section 66333, which shall run with the land, and shall include the following:

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 636
a. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the singlefamily residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms with this chapter.
c. If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days.

4. A JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing singlefamily residence, including attached garages.

5. JADUs shall include a separate entrance from the primary dwelling main entrance of to the proposed or existing single-family residence.

If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include both a separate entrance from the primary dwellingmain entrance and to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area to provide access to the shared sanitation facilities.

C. Attached ADUs. One attached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

1. Size. The total floor area of an attached ADU shall be not more than one thousand two hundred square feet or fifty percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
a. In any case where 50% of the primary house SF is less than 850 SF, a
maximum of 850 SF new constructed (attached or detached) shall be permitted.

2. Location. Unless a State Exempt ADU, Aattached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred-fifty-square-foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 637

3. Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet.

4. Height.
a. An attached ADU shall not exceed twenty-five feet in height, or the height requirement for the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. b. ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height.

5. Colors. An attached ADU or JADU shall use the same exterior wall and roof colors as the primary dwelling unit.

D. Detached ADUs. One newly constructed detached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

1. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet. or fifty percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.

2. Location. Unless State Exempt ADU, Ddetached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred-fifty-square-foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
a. Exception – State Exempt ADUs are not restricted in the location provided the ADU meets the 4 foot setback.

3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residential Code.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 638
roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

5. Colors. Detached ADUs shall utilize the same exterior wall and roof colors as the primary dwelling unit.

E. Conversion ADUs. One conversion ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:

2. Height. A conversion ADU shall not alter the height of the existing structure (single-family dwelling, accessory building, or garage) that is being converted.

3. Other Standards.
a. Conversion ADUs in existing accessory structures may expand the existing dimensions of the structure no more than one hundred fifty square feet to accommodate ingress/egress. Any such expansion shall count towards the size of the ADU.

4. Colors. Conversion ADUs shall utilize same roof and exterior wall colors as the primary dwelling unit.

F. Additional Requirements. These requirements shall apply to all ADUs and JADUs on single-family lots except for those ADUs and JADUs that are state exempt:

1. All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.

2. Except as specified in this section, ADUs shall comply with lot coverage, open space, front setbacks, minimum lot size, and other zoning standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except in no event shall the application of any of these standards preclude at least an eight-hundred-square-foot ADU of interior livable space.

3. Windows. Second floor windows facing another residential property, less than ten feet from the property line, and larger than two square feet shall include at least one of the following:

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 639
a. Have obscured glazing; or
b. Be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy; or c. Include splayed windows to avoid direct views, as shown in Figure 1 (applies only to new construction).

Figure 1: ADU/JADU Window Locations for Privacy

4. Second Floor Balconies or Decks. Second floor balconies, decks, or rooftop terraces facing another residential property are prohibited (applies only to new construction).

5. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be mounted no higher than seven feet from grade and directed downwards. (Ord. 692 § 3 (Exh. A), 2025)

17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.

A. Parking requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. This space may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the nondriveway front yard setback. Exception to the requirement for provision of one parking space may be made per subsection B of this section.

B. Parking is not required in the following instances:

1. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.

2. When there is an approved car share vehicle for which a Foster City business license has been issued and remains active, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 640

4. As a condition of construction of a JADU.

5. Where the ADU only includes a studio with no bedroom.

6. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant area.

7. Where the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.

9. When the proposed ADU is a “State Exempt ADU”.

17.78.090 Permit process.

1. If a ADU and/or JADU is proposed as part of a new or remodeled primary residence, the sixty-calendar day timeline shall not commence until the primary residence is permitted.

1. Utilizes a plan for an accessory dwelling unit that has been preapproved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle, or

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 641
B. If the city disapproves an application for an ADU or JADU, the building division shall return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

C. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU must be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

D. In conformance with Government Code Section 65852.2766314, the city shall, by resolution, adopt a program for the preapproval of designs for ADUs, which may be amended from time to time. Any application for an ADU utilizing a design plan for ADUs that has been preapproved pursuant to that program shall be approved or denied within thirty days.

17.78.100 Other provisions.

B. Owner Occupancy. Except for the JADU owner-occupancy requirements set forth in this chapter, no owner-occupancy requirement shall be enforced, and no deed restriction shall be required for ADU permit applications.

D. Any ADU may be leased for a period not fewer than thirty consecutive days.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 642
E. Fire flow and fire department access must comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, or an alternate means shall be proposed.

F. Fire Sprinklers.

1. An ADU shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alternative methods for fire protection.

2. The construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement of fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

G. ADUs that are seven hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space or smaller are exempt from impact fees.

H. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not preclude constructing one ADU of at least eight hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space, which is not more than sixteen feet in height, and at least four feet set back from the side and rear property lines.

K. All JADUs and ADUs shall comply with the current Title 24 California Code of Regulations, as adopted by the city, and all related safety codes, except as otherwise permitted pursuant to California Government Code Section 66332. (Ord. 684 § 2 (Exh. I), 2024; Ord. 677 § 3 (Exh. F), 2024; Ord. 669 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023) L. Per Gov. Code, §§ 66321, subds. (b)(2) and (b)(3); 66313, subd. (d) size limitations shall be based on the square footage of interior living space of an ADU or JADU.

M. . All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.

17.78.110 Appeal.

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 643
A. In case the permit application is determine to be incomplete or is denied, the applicant not satisfied with an ADU permit decision of the Building Official, may, within 10 calendar days after the decision of the Building Official, appeal in writing to the Planning Commission, accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the city council.

B. The appeal letter or completed appeal form shall specify:

1. The person making the appeal;

2. The specific item of appeal, and all supporting documentation, written in clear and concise language;

3. The basis for such appeal; and

4. The relief or action sought.

The appeal letter shall contain information substantiating the basis for appeal. .

7.2 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-26 644
DATE: June 15, 2026
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
Yelena Cappello, Principal Management Analyst
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE 2025 URBAN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMD WATER SHORTAGE

CONTINGENCY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the EMID Board of Directors adopt the attached resolution adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adoption of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is required by State law. The UWMP serves as a foundational planning document for urban water suppliers to assess water demands, supplies, and supply reliability over a 20-year planning horizon under normal, singledry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions. The UWMP also summarizes water conservation, water management, and supply reliability planning activities.

The WSCP is incorporated as part of the UWMP and establishes EMID’s planned response to potential water shortage conditions. The WSCP identifies shortage response actions for shortages ranging from 0% to greater than 50%.

7.3 7.3 Staff Report
645
Pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act, EMID is required to update its UWMP every five years and submit the adopted plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Following adoption, the final 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be submitted electronically to DWR, provided to the California State Library, and posted on the City’s website.

The 2025 UWMP incorporates updated water demand projections based on the 2025 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Demand Study, updated population and employment forecasts, and continued passive and active conservation assumptions. Although population and employment are projected to increase, projected water demand remains relatively consistent due to recent lower water-use trends, continued conservation and water-use efficiency The 2025 UWMP also reflects newer regulatory requirements, including the Making Conservation a California Way of Life framework, and includes updated dry-year reliability analysis related to potential Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan) impacts.

BACKGROUND
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers that provide water to more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an UWMP. The UWMP is intended to evaluate whether adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs over a 20-year planning period.

The UWMP Act also requires water suppliers to prepare a WSCP. The WSCP identifies how a supplier will prepare for and respond to water shortages, including drought conditions, supply interruptions, and other shortage events. To comply with the UWMP Act, water suppliers are required to update and submit their UWMP to the Department of Water Resources every five years.

Bay-Delta Plan Amendment Implementation
The State Water Resources Control Board oversees the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan, commonly known as the Bay-Delta Plan. In December 2018, the State Water Board adopted amendments to the Bay-Delta Plan that would establish new flow requirements for the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne River, which is a primary source of supply for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System. If implemented as adopted, the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan amendments would require increased instream flow releases on the affected tributaries during February through June. These requirements are intended to support fish and wildlife and could reduce the amount of water available for storage and delivery through the SFPUC Regional Water System during dry years.

The 2018 Bay-Delta Plan amendments have not been fully implemented due to litigation and continued consideration of potential alternative approaches, including the

7.3 7.3 Staff Report
646
Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal. These alternative approaches generally include a combination of flow commitments, habitat restoration, and other measures intended to improve ecosystem conditions while addressing water supply impacts.

At this time, the final implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan amendments, or any alternative agreement, remains uncertain. As a result, the 2025 UWMP continues to evaluate potential dry-year supply reliability risks associated with implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan based on information provided by SFPUC and BAWSCA.

ANALYSIS
The UWMP and WSCP have been prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and in cooperation with BAWSCA, SFPUC, and the BAWSCA member agencies.

Water Demand
During normal, non-drought years, SFPUC is expected to meet EMID’s projected demands. EMID’s Individual Supply Guarantee from SFPUC is approximately 2,154 million gallons (MG) per year. Based on the 2025 demand of 1,473 MG, EMID is using approximately 68% of its Individual Supply Guarantee. Although population and employment are projected to increase over the planning period, total water demand is expected to remain relatively consistent. Growth-related demand is largely offset by continued conservation and efficiency savings, recent lower water-use trends, stable or reduced landscape demand, and anticipated reductions in system water losses. EMID has implemented and will continue to implement active conservation measures, such as rebates, outreach, advanced meter infrastructure (AMI) customer water-use monitoring, and management of distribution system water loss
Supply Reliability
The key supply reliability constraints evaluated in the UWMP include drought conditions, and potential regulatory actions such as implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan amendments. SFPUC is continuing to evaluate strategies to meet its contractual obligations and adopted service level goals, including alternative agreements, regional supply projects, and other water supply reliability efforts.

If the Bay-Delta Plan amendments are implemented as adopted, SFPUC has indicated that it would be able to meet system demands during normal years but is projected to experience supply shortages during dry years. Based on SFPUC’s water service reliability data, EMID is also projected to experience dry-year SFPUC supply shortages if the Bay-Delta Plan amendments are implemented as adopted.

SFPUC is also evaluating additional water supply reliability strategies, including potable reuse, groundwater banking, dry-year transfers, storage expansion, and other regional partnerships. However, because the outcome of the Bay-Delta Plan process and

7.3 7.3 Staff Report
647
alternative agreements remains uncertain, the 2025 UWMP continues to evaluate dryyear supply reliability risks using the current regional supply reliability projections assuming the Bay-Delta Plan amendments are implemented as adopted.

If additional water supply becomes available through adoption of alternative agreements or implementation of SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Program, EMID may amend the UWMP as appropriate.

Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The WSCP is a planning document designed to prepare for and respond to water shortages. It concentrates on the reduction of non-essential water uses such as landscape irrigation and other discretionary outdoor water use and gives the highest priority to preserving water uses that are essential to the health, safety, welfare, and economic vitality of EMID’s customers. The 2025 WSCP includes six levels corresponding to increasing ranges of water shortages:

Water Shortage Level Demand Reduction Target
Level 1 Up to 10%
Level 2 Up to 20%
Level 3 Up to 30%
Level 4 Up to 40%
Level 5 Up to 50%
Level 6 Greater than 50%
The WSCP identifies specific shortage response actions for each of the six levels, including water-use prohibitions that are in effect at all times regardless of a declared water shortage. This planning framework is intended to help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions through proactive management. The WSCP provides EMID with a structured guide for responding to water shortages, including standardized shortage levels, pre-established response actions, and procedures for catastrophic supply interruptions. If shortage conditions arise, EMID’s governing body, staff, and the public can identify and implement the appropriate steps to manage the shortage.

Upon declaration of a water shortage by the SFPUC or the State, staff would return to the EMID Board with a resolution to implement the appropriate water shortage condition and corresponding restrictions identified in the WSCP.

Public Noticing
State law requires a public hearing prior to adoption of the UWMP and associated WSCP, as well as notification regarding preparation and planned adoption of the plans.

EMID sent a notice of preparation of the plans on March 6, 2026, and a notice of public hearing on May 27, 2026, to water agencies in the region, neighboring cities, and the County of San Mateo. Public notice of the hearing is being provided through publication

7.3 7.3 Staff Report
648
in the Foster City Islander on June 3, 2026, and June 10, 2026. A press release regarding the public hearing was issued on May 28, 2026. The draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP were also posted on the City’s website and a copy placed in the City Hall lobby for public review.

CEQA
Pursuant to Section 10652 of the CWC and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15282 (v), the CEQA does not apply to the preparation and adoption of UWMPs.

FISCAL IMPACT
No additional appropriations or resources are anticipated to finalize and adopt the 2025 UWMP and WSCP.

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

Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Hyperlink - UWMP and associated WSCP (Draft posted on www.fostercity.org/UWMP)

7.3 7.3 Staff Report
649
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADOPTING THE 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE 2025 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN; AND FINDING THE APPROVAL EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15282(v)

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Water Code Section 10610 et seq., known as the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as amended, mandates that every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), including a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP); and WHEREAS, Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) is an urban supplier of water providing water to over 30,000 customers; and
WHEREAS, the UWMP must address long-term water supply, demand, and reliability, and the WSCP must outline the urban water supplier’s response and plan for changes or shortages in water supplies; and
WHEREAS, the UWMP and WSCP must be updated every five years; and WHEREAS, EMID updated and adopted its UWMP and WSCP in 2020 per EMID Resolution No. 3596 and EMID Resolution No. 3597, respectively, in compliance with requirements; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2025, the EMID Board awarded Task Order 2025-03 to EKI Environmental & Water (EKI), under the approved Master Services Agreement for Water and Wastewater Engineering Services, to develop EMID’s updates 2025 UWMP and associated WSCP ; and
WHEREAS, the preparation, update, and adoption of Urban Water Management Plans and Water Shortage Contingency Plans are activities exempt from CEQA pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(v).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does hereby adopt EMID’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and authorizes District staff to submit the plans to the Department of Water Resources as required.

7.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution
650
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

7.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution
651
DATE: June 15, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
FROM: Nate Cruz, Finance Director/Treasurer
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors hold a public hearing and then adopt the attached resolutions establishing the appropriations limit for FY 2026-2027.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 7900 of the California Government Code limits the growth in annual appropriations to the annual growth in population and inflation (known as the "Gann Limit"). Staff has applied the appropriate inflation and population adjustment factors to calculate the combined EMID and Foster City FY 2026-2027 appropriation limit of $202.6 million. The FY 2026-2027 appropriation subject to the limit is only $60.0 million.

BACKGROUND
Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative) was approved by voters in the November 6, 1979 Special Election, which added Article XIIIB to the State Constitution. Subsequent legislation added Section 7900 et seq. to the Government Code which provided additional

7.4 7.4 Staff Report
652
interpretation and instructions implementing Proposition 4. The combined effect of the legislation restricts the growth of appropriations enacted by local government in their annual budgets and subsequent adjustments to inflation and population growth. The adjustments are provided annually by the California Department of Finance.

In June 1990, Proposition 111 was approved by the voters which, among other things, revised the spending limit calculations for state and local government effective July 1, 1990. The base year for determining an agency’s limit was set as FY 1986-1987 with two annual adjustment factors for:
• Inflation – either (a) the percentage change in the California Per Capita Income or (b) the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the addition of local non-residential new construction. • Population – either (a) the City’s own population growth or (b) the population growth of the entire County.

ANALYSIS
The inflation factor selected by the City is the percentage change in California per capita income because it exceeds the assessed value in the preceding year due to new non-residential construction (4.95% vs -8.96%). Similarly, San Mateo County’s population change was selected as it was higher than Foster City’s population growth (-

0.02% vs. -0.90%). Growth data was published by the California Department of Finance in May 2026.

The resulting combined growth rate is 4.92%, as calculated by multiplying the California Per Capita Personal Income and the San Mateo County population growth rate.

Using the methodology for calculating the appropriations limit in accordance with Proposition 111, the following chart shows the appropriation bases, and the appropriation growth factors to establish the appropriations limit for FY 2026-2027.

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS - FY 2026-2027 (BY AGENCY)

CITY DISTRICT TOTAL
FY 2025-2026 Appropriations Limit $99,730,382 $93,411,227 $193,141,609 FY 2026 -2027 Growth Factor 4.92% 4.92% 4.92%
FY 2026-2027 Appropriations Limit $104,637,117 $98,007,059 $202,644,176 FY 2026-2027 Appropriations Subject to Limit $30,966,577 $29,004,461 $59,971,038 Dollar amount under limit $73,670,540 $69,002,598 $142,673,138 Percentage of limit 29.59% 29.59% 29.59%

7.4 7.4 Staff Report
653
The total appropriations subject to the Gann Limit are calculated as the total of all appropriated expenditures in the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and the City CIP Fund, less all revenue sources that are not considered general tax proceeds (e.g. permits, recreation programs, rental income).

As required by law, the information used to calculate these limits is available in the Financial Services Department that will allow the public to determine the validity and bases for the appropriations limit recommended for adoption. Accordingly, the City Council/District Board is requested to hold a public hearing on these limits this evening and, subject to any public testimony received, adopt the attached resolutions to approve the appropriations limit specified herein.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no budget impact on establishing the FY 2026-2027 Appropriations Limit.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Innovation and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - City Resolution
Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution

7.4 7.4 Staff Report
654
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, voters of California have approved Propositions 4 and 111 which place various limitations on the appropriations of local government; and WHEREAS, said Article XIIIB of the California Constitution requires the governing body of each agency to adopt an appropriations limitation for each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director, pursuant to Article XIIIB and enacted legislation, has duly computed said appropriations limitation for FY 2026-2027 and submitted the same to the City Council for review and public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and posted and said public hearing was held on June 15, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2026-2027 appropriations limit is the California Per Capita Personal Income; and WHEREAS, the population adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2026- 2027 appropriations limit is the change in population growth for San Mateo County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Foster City that the amount of $104,637,117 is hereby adopted as the City’s appropriations limitation for FY 2026-2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the Regular Meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

7.4 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
655
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, voters of California have approved Propositions 4 and 111 which place various limitations on the appropriations of local government; and WHEREAS, said Article XIIIB of the California Constitution requires the governing body of each agency to adopt an appropriations limitation for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director, pursuant to Article XIIIB and enacted legislation, has duly computed said appropriations limitation for FY 2026-2027 and submitted the same to the District Board for review and public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and posted and said public hearing was held on June 15, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2026-2027 appropriations limit is the California Per Capita Personal Income; and WHEREAS, the population adjustment factor used for calculating the FY 2026-2027 appropriations limit is the change in population growth for San Mateo County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District that the amount of $98,007,059 is hereby adopted as the District’s appropriations limitation for FY 2026-2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the Regular Meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
____________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

7.4 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
656
DATE: June 15, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Diane Pitman, Administrative Services Director
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: 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 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.

7.5 7.5 Staff Report
657

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 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 2025, the City’s annual average percentage of vacancies (i.e., regular, full-time equivalent) is 3.2%.

The highest vacancy rate in 2025 was 6.0%.

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 Administrative Services Department 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 2025, 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 – 6.0%
FCPOA – 6.8%
Unrepresented Management – 0%
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

7.5 7.5 Staff Report
658
City sent notice of this hearing to the two (2) represented bargaining units American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Foster City Police Officers Association (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
• 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
In addition, finalizing new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU’s) with AFSCME and FCPOA through June 30, 2029 does provide predictability in compensation and benefits which could improve our recruitment and retention efforts.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Presentation Document

7.5 7.5 Staff Report
659
Presented by Diane Pitman
June 15, 2026
AB 2561 Presentation:

Status of Foster City
Vacancies and Recruitment
and Retention Efforts for
Calendar Year 2025

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
660
Agenda
● Background
● Foster City Summary Information
○ Workforce Information
○ Vacancy Information
○ Recruitment Information
○ Hiring Issues
○ Retention Information
● Bargaining Unit Specific Information
○ Vacancy Information

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
661
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

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
662
Workforce Information (2024) - General
● Total Budgeted/Authorized Full-Time Positions: 182
● 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

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
663
Vacancy Information (2025) - General
● Average percentage of vacancies at the end of each month: 3.2% ● Highest percentage of vacancies at the end of a month: 6.0% ● Lowest percentage of vacancies at the end of a month: 1.1%

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
664
Recruitment Information - General
Established in the Personnel Rules and Regulations

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
665
Recruitment Information (2025) - General
● Recruitment Statistics
○ Total number of vacancies filled in 2025: 18
○ # of Vacancies Filled by Existing Eligibility List/Ongoing Recruitment: 1
○ # of Vacancies Filled by New External/Internal Recruitment: 16 ■ Average # of Calendar Days to Fill Vacancies: 83
○ # of Vacancies Filled by New Internal Only Recruitment: 1 ■ Average # of Calendar Days to Fill Vacancies: 77

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
666
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

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
667
Retention Statistics (2025) - General
● Retention Statistics
○ Annual staffing turnover rate: 4.9%
○ Total number of vacancies created in 2025: 22
○ # of Vacancies Created by Newly Created Positions: 2
■ % of Vacancies Resulting From Staffing Growth: 9%
○ # of Vacancies Created by Internal Opportunities: 4
■ % of Vacancies Resulting From Internal Opportunity: 18% ○ # of Vacancies Created by Attrition (Separation/Retirement): 7 ■ % of Vacancies Resulting from Attrition: 32%
○ # of Vacancies Created by Resignation: 9
■ % of Vacancies Resulting from Turnover: 41%

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
668
Vacancy Information (2025) – Bargaining Units
● No bargaining units met or exceeded the 20% vacancy rate outlined in AB 2561

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
669
Questions?

7.5 Attachment 1 - Presentation Document
670
2025
- 2028

BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

STRATEGIC
PLAN
1 8.1

8.1 Presentation
671

FOSTER CITY PR & SOCIAL MEDIA FEATURES
Featured in our San Francisco Peninsula Visitor Magazine! 38k+
views

1.6k
interactions
Social Media
Supported Foster City’s Fun Run

8.1 8.1 Presentation
672
JUNE 3 – FOSTER CITY NETWORKING MIXER, EDGEWATER MARINE

8.1 8.1 Presentation
673

ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION
• Founded in 1971 as a 501(c)(6) nonprofit by San Mateo County hoteliers to attract visitors and drive hotel stays.
• Operates as the regional Film Commission and manages the San Mateo County "As Fresh as it Gets" farm-to-table program.
• 2022: Rebranded to The San Francisco Peninsula
• 2024: Launched New Tourism Marketing District (TMD)
• 2025: Launched Tourism Board Advisory Council, Launched Strategic Plan • 2026 – 2028: Educate and Actualize

8.1 8.1 Presentation
674

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Melissa Andretta, San Francisco International Airport
Cynthia Chow, Embassy Suites SFO Oyster Point, South San Francisco Simone Harms, The Ameswell Hotel, Mountain View
Daniel Herbst, Enterprise Rent-a-Car
The Westin & Aloft, Millbrae
Michael Holloway, HYATT House, Belmont
Lisa Kershner, SFO Waterfront Marriott, Burlingame
Sam Kim, Embassy Suites SFO Waterfront, Burlingame
Daisy Li, Moonstar Kitchen, South San Francisco
Georges Safi, Four Seasons Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto Cameron Palmer, Cameron’s Restaurant & Pub, Half Moon Bay Prativ Patel, Hotel Aura & Hotel Skye, San Bruno
Mitch Postel, San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City Blanca Rivera, Half Moon Bay Lodge, Half Moon Bay
Paul Wilson, Grand Bay Hotel, Redwood City
Yakub Yakubi, Courtyard by Marriott, Foster City

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
BOARD CHAIR – Kevin Kretsch, Hyatt Regency SFO, Burlingame CHAIR ELECT – Jonathan Powers, DoubleTree SFO, Burlingame IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR – Christina Ongerth, The Dylan SFO, Millbrae SECRETARY – Pravin Punjiya, Best Western Inn & Suites, San Mateo TREASURER – Casper van Eldik Thieme, Grand Hyatt at SFO VICE CHAIR 1 – Anthony Buralli, Residence Inn, San Carlos VICE CHAIR 2 – Randy Johnson, Fairfield Inn & Suites, Pacifica

8.1 8.1 Presentation
675

BOARD ADVISORY COUNCIL
Chair: Mitch Postel, President, SMC Historical Association Education
• Dr. Melissa Moreno, Chancellor, San Mateo County
Community College District
Business/Tech/Biotech
• Rosanne Foust, CEO, SAMCEDA
• Jim Wunderman, CEO, Bay Area Council
• Gina Simi, Public Policy + External Affairs, Zoox
• Peter Banzhaf, Co-Founder, Helios
• Amy Buckmaster, CEO, Chamber San Mateo County
• Krystlyn Giedt, CEO, Coastside Chamber of Commerce
Government
• Jackie Speier, SMC Board of Supervisors
• Mike Callagy, SMC County Executive
• Matthew Chidester, City Manager, Half Moon Bay
Hospitality
• Martin Yan
• Bob Trahan, Twelvemonth
• Ajay Walia, Amara
• Micheál Mallie, Maverick Jack’s
• Mathieu Riviere, The Ritz-Carlton, Half Moon Bay
Labor
• Julie Lind, Executive Officer, San Mateo Labor Council Attractions
• Kara Newport, CEO, Filoli
• Jennifer McCabe, Director, SFO Museum
Parks and Recreation
• Nicholas Calderon, Deputy County Executive
Venues
• Dana Stoehr, CEO, San Mateo County Event Center
• Dr. Allison Keaney, CEO, Cow Palace Arena & Event Center • Jim McGuire, CEO, South San Francisco Conference Center Community
• Alicia Aguirre, Former Redwood City Councilmember
Strategic Plan Facilitator:Bill Geist, Founder & CEO, DMOproz The Board of Directors thanks all the members of the Board Advisory Council and members of the community who participated in focus groups and interviews, which were integral in the development of the Strategic Plan.

8.1 8.1 Presentation
676

SUPPORT DESTINATION ASSET DEVELOPMENT
• Advocate for significant upgrades to the San
Mateo County Event Center.
• Analyze opportunities to develop additional
tournament-grade sports facilities throughout
the Peninsula.
• Consider the opportunity to develop a Tourism
Master Plan for the Peninsula to serve as an
inspirational guide for future community
development.

8.1 8.1 Presentation
677

ENDEAVOR TO MAXIMIZE THE DESTINATION EXPERIENCE
• Analyze the opportunity to develop an annual
destination event that would ultimately be
synonymous with The San Francisco Peninsula
brand.
• Advocate for the completion of the 500-mile Bay
Trail.
• Work with communities throughout the Peninsula
to encourage music and nightlife to power
additional visitation and quality of life.

8.1 8.1 Presentation
678

CONTINUE TO BUILD ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE
• Increase the awareness, appreciation, and
support of the organization and the Peninsula’s
visitor economy.
• Engage the recently launched SFP Board
Advisory Council to serve as community
ambassadors and emissaries.
• Continue to build organizational culture, capacity
and impact.

8.1 8.1 Presentation
679
April 23 - May 3, 2026
January 21 - 31, 2027
Ten days of celebrating culinary excellence
and exploration on Bayside and Coastside.

Flavors of the Peninsula
Coyote Point, San Mateo
July 26, 2026
Heritage Fire brings together local
restaurants, talented chefs, and food lovers for
an all-inclusive walk-around feast celebrating
community and bold flavors.

Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.

August 28, 2026
The nation’s premier whiskey-tasting event tour.

CELEBRATING THE PENINSULA’S CULINARY EXCELLENCE IN 2026 & 2027

8.1 8.1 Presentation
680
THANK YOU!

8.1 8.1 Presentation
681
DATE: June 15, 2026
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
Frank Fanara, Parks Maintenance Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT

PLAN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION QUARTERLY REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the general update report on the implementation of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose (CAGO) Management Plan for Reporting Period 2 (January 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following City Council approval of the CAGO Management Plan on February 6, 2023, the City began implementing the Plan’s recommended management strategies. On December 2, 2024, City Council adopted the Plan along with the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City subsequently issued a Request for Proposals and, on August 4, 2025, awarded a professional services contract to Wildlife Innovations to implement the Plan through a three-year pilot program.

This report provides an update on Reporting Period 2 (January 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026), when the program moved from initial setup and monitoring into active implementation. Key activities during this period included expanded hazing operations, monitoring and data collection, GPS tracking of geese movement patterns, and initial nesting surveillance and management efforts.

8.2 8.2 Staff Report
682
During this phase, multiple hazing methods were implemented and evaluated at priority parks, including Catamaran, Edgewater, Erckenbrack, Gull, Leo J. Ryan, Marlin, and Sea Cloud Parks. These efforts resulted in measurable reductions in goose activity and related impacts within the treatment areas. Monitoring data indicated that the management actions contributed to reductions beyond normal seasonal fluctuations, supporting the effectiveness of the City’s integrated management approach in year 1 of the three-year pilot program.

Implementation efforts will continue to align with seasonal goose behavior, with an increased focus on nesting activity, post-nesting deterrence, and CAGO management during the molting period. This item is presented for informational purposes only, and no action is required.

BACKGROUND
Resident Canada geese have posed ongoing challenges within Foster City parks, open spaces, and along the lagoon system for many years. The City’s lagoon, shoreline, and maintained turf areas provide favorable conditions for foraging and loafing, resulting in turf damage, fecal accumulation, water quality concerns, and conflicts with recreational park use.

In response to these conditions, the City implemented a range of non-lethal management measures over time, including egg addling, visual deterrents, and increased maintenance efforts. While these actions provided temporary and localized relief, they did not result in sustained reductions in goose presence or long-term mitigation of impacts.

Recognizing the need for a more comprehensive approach, City Council authorized development of the CAGO Management Plan on February 6, 2023. The Plan established a long-term, non-lethal framework focused on monitoring, deterrence, habitat modification, and adaptive management strategies.

On December 2, 2024, City Council adopted the Plan and associated environmental documentation. Following adoption, the City issued a Request for Proposals to support implementation and, on August 4, 2025, awarded a contract to Wildlife Innovations to implement the Plan through a three-year pilot program focused on seven (7) priority parks.

ANALYSIS
Since execution of the professional services contract with Wildlife Innovations, implementation has progressed in a phased manner consistent with City Council direction. This reporting period reflects the transition from program setup into active field implementation and evaluation.

8.2 8.2 Staff Report
683
During this period, staff and the consultant conducted coordinated hazing operations across priority parks using multiple tools, including a trained dog team, remotecontrolled devices, drones, and other deterrent methods. These tools were applied strategically based on site conditions and observed goose behavior, with an emphasis on adaptive use of multiple techniques to achieve effective displacement. A total of 316 hazing events were conducted, collectively displacing 1,623 geese from priority park areas.

Figure 1. Average number of Canada Geese observed per park before and during hazing.

Similarly, CAGO scat piles (geese droppings) declined 76.6% since the onset of hazing, with treatment parks averaging an 83% reduction while control parks increased by 6%, further supporting that more significant declines in CAGO activity were the result of hazing efforts as opposed to seasonal shifts exclusively.

8.2 8.2 Staff Report
684
Figure 2. Average scat piles per transect visit per park before and during hazing.

Monitoring and data collection efforts indicate that these actions resulted in measurable reductions in goose presence and associated impacts within treatment parks.

Comparative observations between treated and untreated locations suggest that these reductions exceeded what would be expected from seasonal behavioral changes alone, supporting the effectiveness of active management efforts.

GPS tracking of collared geese provided additional insight into movement patterns and site fidelity. Data confirmed that while some geese utilize areas beyond Foster City, many continue to return to local parks and lagoon-adjacent areas, reinforcing the need for sustained and consistent management over time.

Nesting surveillance was initiated during this period using a combination of drone technology, field observation, and public reporting. These efforts supported early identification and management of nesting activity, helping to reduce successful hatching and limit long-term imprinting within City parks. Imprinting occurs when young geese identify an area as their home range after hatching, increasing the likelihood they will return to the same locations in future years.

As implementation advances, management activities will continue to align with seasonal Canada goose behavior and life-cycle patterns. Upcoming phases of work will focus on continued nesting monitoring and management, intensified hazing efforts during the post-nesting return and molting periods, and evaluation of additional tools such as habitat modification and audio deterrent systems.

Nesting-season management actions, including egg addling, will continue as part of the overall implementation of the CAGO Management Plan and may occur outside City

8.2 8.2 Staff Report
685
limits. These efforts will be coordinated with continued deterrence and monitoring to reduce sustained use of priority parks and improve overall park conditions.

The program will continue to be evaluated through ongoing monitoring and data collection, with findings used to refine management strategies and inform future recommendations to City Council over the course of the pilot program.

The next quarterly report covering the months of April to June is expected to be presented to the City Council in August 2026.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
On December 2, 2024, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including all findings, standard conditions of approval, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, for the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan. The approval of the professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations authorizes implementation of the Management Plan. Implementation activities, including the use of various management techniques, were contemplated and analyzed as part of the approved IS/MND. The project is being implemented in a manner consistent with the adopted IS/MND, and no additional environmental review or action is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this informational update. All work to date has been completed within previously approved appropriations for the CAGO Management Plan.

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

Attachment 1 - Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan Project Implementation 2026 1st Quarter Report

8.2 8.2 Staff Report
686

INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Performance Period Report (01 January 2026 – 31 March 2026) Submitted to:

City of Foster City
Submitted by:

Wildlife Innovations, Inc.

DUNS: 081042844
CAGE: 81PJ1
EIN: 82-3456892

30 April 2026

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
687
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE.............................................................................. 5 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD................................................................... 8 SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS.................................8 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW................................................................................................................... 8 CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT................................................................................. 9 NESTING BIRD AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE ......................................12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................................................................12 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION...........................................................................................................15 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY...............................................16 CAGO OBSERVATIONS AND TRENDS .........................................................................................................16 POINT COUNT STATION SURVEY OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................17 SCAT TRANSECT SURVEY DATA .................................................................................................................18 TRACKING CAGO MOVEMENTS WITH GPS TRANSMITTERS.........................................................................20 SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY ........................................22 HAZING EFFECTIVENESS BY METHOD .........................................................................................................24 CAGO RESPONSE TO HAZING ...................................................................................................................26 SCAT TRANSECT SURVEYS PRE- AND DURING HAZING................................................................................27 SECTION VII: NESTING CAGO SUMMARY.............................................................................................28 SECTION VIII: PLAN FOR NEXT PERIOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................29 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED ........................................................................30 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS .....................................................................................37 APPENDIX C: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS .........................................................................44 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF GPS COLLARED CAGO..................................................................................51

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
688
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MAP OF PRIORITY PARKS, IDENTIFIED IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA. .................................................7 FIGURE 2. NESTING HABITAT SUITABILITY MODEL FOR CANADA GEESE IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA...............11 FIGURE 3. CAPTURED DRONE IMAGERY OF A CAGO NEST, OUTLINED IN YELLOW..............................................12 FIGURE 4. WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS DOG TEAM. ...............................................................................................15 FIGURE 5.TOTAL NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED BY LOCATION AND MONTH DURING REPORTING PERIOD

2. .........................................................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 6. HEAT MAP, DEPICTING THE LOCATIONS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED WITHIN FOSTER CITY DURING REPORTING PERIOD 2. ..........................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 7.TOTAL NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED DURING POINT COUNT STATIONS SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY PARK DURING REPORTING PERIOD 2..................................................................................................18 FIGURE 8. CANADA GOOSE SCAT PILES PER SQUARE METER RECORDED DURING TRANSECT SURVEYS, BY PARK AND MONTH...........................................................................................................................................19 FIGURE 9. COLLARED CAGO A01 IN LEO J. RYAN PARK.................................................................................21 FIGURE 10. MAP DEPICTING THE DISPERSAL MOVEMENT OF COLLARED CAGO WITHIN FOSTER CITY AND SURROUNDING AREAS............................................................................................................................22 FIGURE 11. PERCENT DEPLOYMENT OF HAZING METHOD BY TREATMENT SITE...................................................23 FIGURE 12. CANADA GOOSE BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE PER HAZING DEPLOYMENT BY METHOD AND SUBSTRATE ..25 FIGURE 13. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED PER PARK BEFORE AND DURING HAZING.............27 FIGURE 14. AVERAGE SCAT PILES PER TRANSECT VISIT PER PARK BEFORE AND DURING HAZING. ......................28

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF SCAT PILES OBSERVED DURING SURVEYS BY TRANSECT AND MONTH. ..............................20 TABLE 2. HAZING METHOD EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY....................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
689
4 SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with Canada Geese (Branta canadensis; hereinafter “CAGO” or “geese”), particularly from fecal accumulation in public parks and waterways, Foster City contracted Wildlife Innovations (WI) to implement a comprehensive, long-term, adaptive, and site-specific pilot program consistent with the City's CAGO Management Plan. The pilot program is being conducted within seven priority parks within the city. The contract was executed on August 4, 2025, and this report (RP2) details the efforts and data collected during Reporting Period 2 (RP2; identified as January 1 through March 31, 2026).

During RP2, WI implemented and evaluated a suite of active hazing techniques to reduce CAGO presence within priority parks. A total of 316 hazing events were conducted, collectively displacing 1,623 geese from priority park areas. Methods deployed included a trained hazing dog team, a Remote-Controlled Amphibious Device (RCAD), a handheld laser, an aerial drone, and a remotecontrolled boat. Each method was evaluated across varying environmental conditions and sitespecific circumstances, and the strengths and limitations of each tool were recorded during each application. Many events incorporated multiple tools deployed consecutively, but a coordinated land-and-water approach proved most effective to fully displace CAGO from priority parks and adjacent water areas.

When evaluated individually, all tools elicited a displacement response, though effectiveness varied by method. Preliminary testing indicated the RCAD performed best overall, with its ability to operate across both land and water likely a primary contributing factor. The drone, despite similar cross-substrate capability, produced lower displacement rates than all other methods.

Although continued testing and refinement will clarify which methods perform best under specific site and environmental conditions, supporting a more targeted hazing approach and more durable outcomes, collectively, these efforts produced measurable reductions in CAGO presence across priority parks, substantiated by both direct observations and scat surveys.

Since hazing efforts began, CAGO observation counts declined 57% across all parks, with treatment parks averaging a 66% decline compared to 48% at control parks. This reduction suggests that hazing efforts may have attributed more to these declines in goose presence beyond seasonal trends alone (i.e. behavioral shifts due to nesting season). Similarly, CAGO scat piles declined 76.6% since the onset of hazing, with treatment parks averaging an 83% reduction while control parks increased by 6%, further supporting that more significant declines in CAGO activity were the result of hazing efforts as opposed to seasonal shifts exclusively.

During RP1, seven CAGO were captured within priority parks and fitted with GPS transmitters.

One collared individual was subsequently harvested through legal hunting activities in the surrounding area, and the transmitter was recovered and returned to WI. Movement data from the remaining six collared individuals revealed meaningful shifts in area use during RP2, likely attributable to a combination of seasonal movement patterns and behavioral responses to hazing.

These findings informed hazing efforts during RP2 and will continue to guide adaptive management in subsequent reporting periods. Collectively, transmitter data have contributed to a refined understanding of regional population structure, enabling a more targeted hazing approach going forward.

WI also conducted targeted nesting goose surveys, monitoring, and nest removal during RP2. A CAGO nesting habitat suitability model that incorporated vegetation and water feature data was used to create a map of suitable nesting areas within and near Foster City. That map was used

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
690
5 to identify high-priority areas to search for active goose nests. WI used a thermal imaging camera aboard a drone to detect nesting geese. The public also reported additional nests through the city's See-Click-Fix platform, with submissions routed through the park's maintenance department to WI for timely follow-up.

During Reporting Period 3 (identified as 01 April – 30 June 2026; RP3), WI will continue to develop the program. Hazing efforts will intensify as the flightless molt season approaches, with a particular focus on preventing geese from settling in priority parks during the molting period and preventing goose families with goslings from entering priority parks and imprinting on those areas.

Monitoring of CAGO within Foster City will continue through point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and GPS transmitter data. WI will coordinate with Foster City park staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications, deploy and evaluate effectiveness of an audio deterrent system within at least one priority park, and continue nest monitoring and management efforts through the remainder of nesting season. Additionally, WI will continue to perform nesting bird surveys to avoid take and minimizing disturbance to MBTA-protected species during the breeding season.

SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
Foster City is located 17 miles south of San Francisco on the western shore of San Francisco Bay, where nearby protected lands, including Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and Eden Landing State Ecological Reserve, provide extensive foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for CAGO. As a result of available habitat within this area, and modifications to the habitat by humans that resulted in removal of many natural predators that would have helped to regulate the CAGO population, reduction in recreational hunting, and milder weather associated with climate change, an unnatural, nonmigratory population of resident CAGO has become established in the southern part of San Francisco Bay, and may be growing. As a result of the growing resident population of CAGO, cities in the region are being forced to seek solutions to mitigate conflicts stemming from property damage and human-CAGO conflicts.

Foster City manages 24 parks and open spaces which are centered around Foster City Lagoon, which is used for recreation and stormwater detention. The lagoon features 16.5 miles of shoreline connecting seven parks, three with beach and swimming access, and supports widespread water recreation. City parks and the lagoon are attractive to nonmigratory resident CAGO for foraging and loafing. Frequent overlap between CAGO and public recreation within city parks has resulted in conflicts, property damage, and health and safety concerns. A comprehensive management plan to mitigate conflicts with CAGO was developed which describes a proactive, adaptive, and nonlethal approach to reduce these conflicts through habitat modification, deterrence and exclusion, aversive conditioning (aka hazing), localized reproductive control, monitoring, and public education, which are consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) management recommendations and regulatory authorizations.

To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with CAGO, particularly from fecal accumulation in public parks and waterways, Foster City contracted WI to implement a comprehensive, long-term, adaptive, and site-specific program consistent with the City’s CAGO Management Plan. To evaluate the effectiveness of hazing and deterrence efforts and to inform development of a long-term CAGO management strategy, WI was tasked with developing a pilot project stemming from the plan, which was to include testing and evaluation of the following:
parks-specific habitat modifications, hazing with Remote Controlled Devices, drones, trained dogs, lasers, a fogger, an audio deterrent system, and other methods as appropriate or

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
691
6 determined necessary.

This program focused on CAGO management within seven (7) priority parks selected based on lagoon proximity, presence of youth athletic fields, and conflict history. Work conducted during RP2 included conflict mitigation measures at five of these parks: Leo J. Ryan, Gull, Catamaran, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater. Marlin and Erckenbrack, while designated priority parks, were not treated during RP2 as deterrent measures (including habitat modifications and a sound system) were still being developed and approved by WI and City staff; these parks therefore served as temporary controls alongside Boothbay, the program's long-term control park. The use of multiple control parks allowed for a more robust before-and-after comparison to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive management efforts. Marlin and Erckenbrack are scheduled to receive park-specific CAGO deterrent measures in RP3.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
692
7 Figure 1. Map of Priority Parks, identified in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
693
8 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
Objectives for RP2 of the program included:

1. Implement frequent hazing of CAGO at priority parks using Hazing Dog Team, remote-controlled boats and amphibious devices, aerial drones, and lasers;

2. Identify the most effective site-specific hazing and deterrence strategies;

3. Perform ground and aerial nest searches to identify and remove CAGO nests to reduce their nesting success and site fidelity;

4. Collect data from cellular transmitter collars, point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and non-point count observations to be used to establish and contribute to measures of success;

5. Participate, as requested, in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings to present findings, demonstrate program success, and recommend adjustments based on monitoring results;

6. Evaluate and refine the most appropriate hazing and deterrence methods based on CAGO monitoring data and ongoing management challenges; and

7. Work with Foster City representatives to develop public education materials regarding CAGO nesting.

SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS WI staffed this project with two full-time Wildlife Biologists (BIO I), one being the handler for the hazing dog team and both of which will be FAA Part 107 Certified Drone Pilots to support project work. Additional support was provided by specialized WI wildlife biologists (BIO II), a Project Manager (PM), and the Principal Investigator (PI), as needed.

Throughout RP2, staff were typically on-site five (5) days per week, and eight (8) hours per day, with the flexibility to adapt schedules based on project needs. Multiple site visits were conducted by the PM to attend meetings with the city, provide supplies, logistical updates to on-site biologists, and steer other parts of project development.

Data Collection and Review
Digital data collection systems on mobile devices were used for recording all CAGO surveys and management activities in the field. Customized databases and data collection forms for this project were developed by WI, allowing for digital collection of georeferenced information such as location, CAGO abundance and behavior, management techniques deployed, and observed responses. Data collection protocols were developed and used to promote standardization. These data were downloaded into spreadsheets and mapping programs for analysis, mapping, and summary. Observations were summarized by park, observation type, month, and other relevant categories to support interpretation of results. CAGO observational data were also classified by six time periods to characterize activity patterns: morning (0600–0959), midday (1000–1359), afternoon (1400–1759), evening (1800–2159), night (2200–0159), and pre-dawn (0200–0559).

Data was reviewed periodically throughout RP2 and at its conclusion to ensure accuracy and consistency. Program effectiveness was evaluated using metrics such as reductions in CAGO presence and scat within priority parks, property damage, and public complaints, as well as improvements in health indicators (e.g., water quality), although multiple variables may affect certain health indicators. Results are presented herein in tabular, graphical, and georeferenced

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
694
9 formats.

CAGO Surveillance and Behavioral Assessment
In-person surveillance was conducted primarily during weekdays with occasional weekend work, and the timing of work schedules varied to identify and to target peak activity periods for CAGO.

WI personnel recorded all CAGO observed while conducting work within priority parks and while transiting between parks within city limits. Observations recorded outside of formal survey periods (e.g. point count and transect surveys) were recorded as “non-survey” observations. When CAGO were observed, the number observed, their behavior, and location were recorded and georeferenced. Cellular transmission capable digital cameras in priority parks were also utilized to monitor goose presence. These cameras were programmed to be active during daylight hours seven days per week.

Cellular Camera Surveillance — During RP1, WI installed 12 digital cameras in priority parks and recorded presence and behavioral data, to help steer CAGO aversive conditioning efforts for the duration of the project. Cameras were set to take time-lapse photos at 15-minute intervals. Photos were reviewed using a mobile app, while WI personnel were conducting field work in the city, and uploaded and analyzed in more detail via desktop computer. The camera settings for RP1 were not changed for RP2. Additionally, WI developed and tested AI-driven programs for image recognition to identify and evaluate possible integration avenues for CAGO surveillance and pre- and post-treatment evaluations.

Point Count Station Surveys — 13 Point Count Station (PCS) locations (Appendix B) were used to monitor and record the behavior of CAGO. Each fixed-point survey was conducted by a biologist at PCS locations for a period of three (3) minutes and recorded the location, number of CAGO observed or heard, and their behavior, during the survey. Surveys were conducted within specific time periods during this period, to identify and evaluate CAGO presence and use of priority parks, in time and space. By continuing to conduct pre- and post-treatment PCS, comparisons of CAGO presence can be used to help evaluate and describe the effectiveness of the habitat modifications and hazing methods applied.

Scat Transect Surveys — A total of 28 Scat Transect Surveys (STS; 30m in length and 1m in width) were used to monitor CAGO presence across RP2 (Appendix B). During each STS, a biologist walked each transect line while counting and recording all CAGO scat piles present within the transect area. WI reduced STS survey frequency during RP2 to twice weekly, once at the beginning and once at the end of each week, as scat accumulation remained detectable through the end of each survey interval, eliminating the need for daily monitoring. This period the data was used to help evaluate presence of and impacts by CAGO to priority parks pre- and posttreatment. The data will be used in RP3 to evaluate effectiveness of the habitat modifications and additional hazing tools.

GPS Transmitters — During RP1, a total of seven (7) CAGO were captured, and each was examined for health, aged, sexed, and morphological measurements recorded. All captured CAGO were banded with a service band, an alpha-numeric auxiliary band (yellow over black), and received a GPS neck collar. Capture, banding, and the placement of transmitters was conducted under state and federal permits, and banding information was reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory (managed by the US Geological Survey).

The GPS transmitters are battery powered and recharged via small solar panels. Transmitters can be monitored through the manufacturer’s website, and the programming can be adjusted remotely. Initially, transmitters are programmed to collect GPS locations every 30 minutes.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
695
10 Transmitters will be monitored at regular intervals to ensure function, and to adjust the programming as needed. During RP2 data was downloaded periodically and mapped to evaluate CAGO movements in response to hazing, and to evaluate where GPS collared CAGO nest. The data will be used in RP3 to associate effectiveness of the habitat modifications and additional hazing tools. Soon after deployment of GPS collars, one goose was shot during legal hunting activities. Therefore, data summary provided in this report is for the six remaining collared geese.

Canada Goose Nest Surveys — During RP2, WI began developing and testing standardized drone flight protocols and survey paths to improve CAGO nest detection across Foster City. Most survey flights were conducted manually, with WI personnel targeting areas of high nesting potential based on habitat characteristics, prior observations, and results from a nesting habitat suitability model developed for this purpose. In parallel, WI began testing a hybrid drone survey approach utilizing preprogrammed waypoints for autonomous navigation between survey locations, with manual pilot control resumed at each station to conduct observations, to establish a more consistent and replicable survey methodology for future reporting periods.

To prioritize survey efforts, WI developed a CAGO nesting habitat model using ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro (Redlands, California). The model pulled data from two publicly available datasets: vegetation data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), and water feature data from San Mateo County's open GIS data portal. Areas where suitable nesting vegetation, including grasslands, shrub patches, mudflats, and wetland-fringe plant communities occurred in close proximity to water were identified as highpriority nesting habitat for CAGO. These habitat types are commonly used by CAGO for nesting.

The resulting map guided the design of targeted drone survey flights and ground-based nest monitoring efforts across Foster City.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
696
11 Figure 2. Nesting Habitat Suitability Model for Canada Geese in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
697
12 WI utilized the drone's thermal imaging camera to survey areas identified as high-conflict nesting habitat. Flights were conducted regularly throughout the nesting season, typically during early morning hours when thermal contrast between incubating female geese and the surrounding environment was greatest. Upon nest confirmation, the drone was used to monitor incubation progress and inform timely management decisions. Thermal imaging proved particularly valuable for locating nests in areas inaccessible or impractical to survey on foot. All flight operations were conducted in compliance with FAA Part 107 regulations by certified personnel and coordinated with San Carlos Airport traffic control throughout the season.

Figure 3. Captured drone imagery of a CAGO nest, outlined in yellow.

Additionally, public reporting of goose nests observed through the city's See-Click-Fix platform was also utilized by WI to locate and inform management for additional goose nests.

Nesting Bird and Special Status Species Surveys for CEQA Compliance In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to minimize disturbance to non-target species, WI conducted nesting bird and special-status species surveys at each priority park at least once per week during RP2. Surveys consisted of 20-minute observation periods structured in two phases: the first 10 minutes were spent stationary to passively detect bird activity, followed by a slow, deliberate 10-minute walk to visually inspect vegetation, ground cover, and other features with nesting potential. High-powered optics and audio recording devices were used to confirm species identifications, and all birds were documented, with separate records logged for individuals associated with active or suspected nests. If nesting activity was identified, hazing applications were to be modified or suspended accordingly.

Special-status species surveys were also conducted at Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Gull parks, which contain beach habitat with potential to support nesting Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus; WSPL). These surveys followed the same 20-minute protocol with focused attention on open sandy areas and shoreline features consistent with WSPL nesting habitat.

Adaptive Management
During RP2, WI began formal testing and evaluation of site-specific hazing and deterrence application procedures. All events followed a standardized behavioral assessment protocol. For the purpose of this report, a hazing event refers to a single continuous hazing effort targeting one (1) group of geese, which may involve multiple sequential tool applications; each individual tool

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
698
13 application within an event is noted as a deployment (e.g. the dog team pushing geese from a lawn to adjacent water followed by an RC boat completing dispersal constitutes one (1) event comprising two (2) deployments).

Prior to each hazing event, observers recorded a count of all CAGO present, including their location, group size, behavior, and any banding information. Hazing events were then logged separately, capturing location, group size, banding presence, pre-event behavior, deployment substrate (lawn, beach, water, or other), tool applied, and the time for geese to vacate the site.

When multiple attempts or additional tools were required, supplementary fields were recorded within the same event entry. During RP2, specific methods were designated as primary tools at specific treatment parks based on site and tool characteristics; however, when needed, primary methods were substituted when a tool was unavailable, environmental conditions limited use, or initial application failed to produce displacement. Goose response to each hazing application was categorized into one of five outcomes:

1. No Reaction: Little to no change in behavior; geese remained at the original location with no indication of displacement

2. Partial Group Left: One or more geese of the group were displaced from the site while others remained at the original location

3. Transited Within Park: Geese displaced but quickly re-landed within the same treatment substrate (e.g. land to land)

4. Retreated to Water: Geese were displaced into park-adjacent water bodies within treatment park

5. Full Flush: The entire group was displaced from the treatment park (land and water) Any additional observational comments on goose response were also recorded for each hazing application. The tools used in RP2 are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Remote Controlled Amphibious Device — WI deployed the remote-controlled amphibious device (RCAD) across Foster City parks to exploit its predator-mimicking qualities, including its appearance, movement, and bright orange coloration, which elicit a strong fear response in CAGO and are visible from a considerable distance. WI operators employed deliberate techniques such as large S-curve patterns to corral geese, concealed approaches behind cover, and sharp accelerations to simulate predatory attacks. The RCAD proved adaptable across multiple substrates including artificial turf, natural grass, sand, concrete, and open water.

Deployment of the RCAD was subject to environmental and wildlife considerations. Due to its lightweight, and high-profile structure, the RCAD is susceptible to capsizing in wind and is considered inoperable at wind speeds of 10 mph or greater. To avoid capsizing, WI personnel implemented a protocol to use a hand-held wind meter to assess conditions prior to each RCAD deployment. Additionally, the RCAD was not to be used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators were to suspend use at any time based on observed wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns. Testing of the RCAD during RP2 continued to identify strengths and limitations and information gathered will be used to inform more effective applications in future reporting periods. WI has also begun evaluating static RCAD decoys as a potential supplementary deterrent.

Remote-controlled Boat — During RP2, WI acquired a remote-controlled boat (hereinafter “RC boat”), as an additional water-based hazing tool to address gaps where methods such as the

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
699
14 dog team were ineffective and when wind or other environmental conditions limited RCAD deployment. Though lacking the RCAD's predator-like qualities, operators employed similar techniques during deployment of the RC boat in water, including S-curve patterns to corral CAGO and sharp accelerations to simulate a predatory attack. As with the RCAD, the RC boat was not to be used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators suspended use of the RC boat when wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns occurred.

Drone — During RP2, WI expanded drone operations across multiple project applications.

The drone was equipped with daytime and thermal imaging cameras, a two-way speaker, and multi-color strobe lights, with its appearance modified to enhance CAGO response in future program stages. Foster City falls within semi-complicated airspace, including Class B and Class D designations, each requiring different coordination protocols. WI maintained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization through the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system with multi-month access for up to seven (7) days per week, coordinated with San Carlos Air Traffic Control (ATC) before and after each flight day, and communicated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to maintain compliance. Successful flights were conducted in most priority parks and over the Lagoon during RP2.

Hazing flights employed varied altitudes and speeds in unpredictable patterns to mimic avian predator movement and maximize disturbance to loafing and foraging geese. The drone is particularly effective for covering large areas and accessing water bodies, dense vegetation edges, and other locations impractical or unsafe for personnel and the dog team. To reinforce predator association, WI broadcast predator vocalizations through the drone's integrated speaker during hazing flights, testing calls from Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, Coyote, and domestic dog. In RP3, the drone is anticipated to continue supporting nesting surveillance and management while serving as a hazing tool in combination with the audio deterrent system.

Dog Team — During RP2, WI managed, trained, and deployed the dog team as one of the most effective predator-mimicking hazing tools available (Fig. 4). The dog's predator-like appearance and directed movement closely simulates the behavior of a natural predator such as a coyote or wolf, eliciting a stronger fear response in CAGO than what is typical of most dogs. WI directed the dog to initiate each hazing event with a slow, low-profile stalk, with head down, gaze focused and focused, before executing a full-speed chase on command to simulate a predatory attack. The flush and chase are timed to occur when geese are most vocal and alert, maximizing the behavioral impact. The dog team is effective across a variety of substrates and continues to build commands for varying conditions, including different levels of human activity and other environmental factors. While the dog patrols water edges to apply additional pressure, it is intentionally discouraged from pursuit in the water; water-based tools are used to address those areas instead.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
700
15 Figure 4. Wildlife Innovations Dog Team.

Habitat Modifications — During RP1, WI designed and recommended temporary habitat modifications to Foster City and a plan was developed with city staff to test this modification within Erckenbrack Park. CAGO presence within Erckenbrack Park during RP2 was irregular and the city was not ready to deploy the temporary habitat modifications. WI will consult with the city again during RP3, and the temporary habitat modifications will be deployed and evaluated when CAGO return following nesting season and when habitat modification materials are available.

Audio Deterrent — The audio deterrent system was available for deployment during RP2; however, as CAGO presence was intermittent within the priority park during this time and adequate testing of this deterrence method determined not possible, it was not deployed during RP2. The audio deterrent will be tested in Marlin Park during RP3, once CAGO presence has been determined to be more regular.

Public Outreach and Education
During RP2, WI met with Foster City representatives to evaluate and develop outreach and support materials. Specifically, a nest identification pamphlet for CAGO and informational content for inclusion on the City’s website were developed and shared with the public during RP2. CAGO nest identification and reporting information was shared on the city’s CAGO Management Program website, and the public was directed to use the See-Click-Fix app to efficiently report suspected CAGO nests.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
701
16 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Data reported in the following sections were collected during RP2. The locations of all CAGO observed during RP2 are provided in maps within Appendix A. Camera surveillance data were not summarized for this report but will be summarized within the annual report for this project.

CAGO Observations and Trends
CAGO were observed daily throughout the performance period within priority parks, non-priority parks, lawn areas adjacent to roadways, and select non-city properties including apartment complexes (Figs. 4-5). Overall CAGO presence declined during the period, with fewer individuals recorded during the final month than the first.

WI personnel recorded 4,281 CAGO during fieldwork conducted across Foster City, encompassing both survey and non-survey observations (Figs. 5–6). The majority of observations (80.6%; n = 3,450) occurred within priority parks. Monthly totals were highest in January (n = 1,657; 38.7%), followed by March (n = 1,387; 32.4%) and February (n = 1,237; 28.9%; Fig. 4).

More observations were recorded during midday hours (41.3%), with afternoon (30.4%) and morning (28.3%) periods comprising smaller proportions. Foraging was the predominant behavior recorded (61.9%), followed by loafing (22.2%), swimming (5.9%), flying (3.6%), calling (3.2%), transiting within site (1.5%), transiting through site (1.0%), and preening (0.6%).

Figure 5.Total number of Canada Geese observed by location and month during Reporting Period 2.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
702
17 Figure 6. Heat map, depicting the locations of Canada Geese observed within Foster City During Reporting Period 2.

Point Count Station Survey Observations
CAGO were detected in all parks surveyed during the performance period. Between January and March 2026, a total of 748 surveys were conducted at 13 point-count stations (PCS) across five (5) parks that received hazing treatments and three control parks that did not receive hazing treatments (Fig. 6).

During PCS, the greatest proportions of CAGO observations were recorded at Boothbay (54.7%; n = 827; control park), Sea Cloud (14.3%; n = 216; treatment park), and Marlin (10.2%; n = 154; control park). Survey effort was distributed relatively evenly across the three-month period, with the greatest number of surveys conducted in March (35.3%; n = 264), followed by February (33.0%; n = 247) and January (31.7%; n = 237). Boothbay recorded the highest single-survey CAGO count (n = 57), the highest mean count per survey (x̄ = 14), and the highest site occupancy rate (84.7%; proportion of surveys with at least one CAGO detected).

Monthly observation totals were highest in January (40.1%; n = 607), declined in February (20.2%; n = 306), and rebounded in March (39.7%; n = 600). While no single variable can be identified as

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
703
18 the primary driver of this pattern, seasonal redistribution and the onset of nesting behavior are likely contributing factors.

Figure 7.Total number of Canada Geese observed during point count stations surveys conducted by park during Reporting Period 2.

Scat Transect Survey Data
During this period, 685 scat transect surveys (scat/m²) were conducted across 28 transects in city parks, recording a total of 3,077 CAGO scat piles (Fig. 5). Scat detections declined across the period with detections the highest in January (46.6%) and February (31.7%), and lowest in March (21.7%). Marlin and Boothbay transects (n=6), where hazing was not conducted during this period, accounted for 72.4% of all scat detected. The remaining scat transects (n=22) within parks where hazing was conducted, only accounted for 27.6% of scat. In January, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.87), Boothbay (0.62), and Sea Cloud (0.29). In February, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.74), Boothbay (0.32), and Gull (0.19). In March, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.46), Boothbay (0.2), and Gull (0.08; Fig. 8).

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
704
19 Figure 8. Canada Goose scat piles per square meter recorded during transect surveys, by park and month.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
705
20 Table 1. Number of scat piles observed during surveys by transect and month.

Site January February March Total
MarlinST1 509 459 285 1253
BoothbayST2 391 228 115 734
GullST1 81 133 60 274
SeaCloudST3 177 22 19 218
MarlinST3 38 53 59 150
SeaCloudST1 73 3 7 83
EdgewaterST2 53 0 2 55
MarlinST2 2 19 25 46
EdgewaterST3 31 12 1 44
BoothbayST3 0 1 34 35
SeaCloudST2 31 3 0 34
SeaCloudST4 1 14 15 30
CatamaranST2 18 6 0 24
Erckenbrack ST3 11 1 9 21
GullST3 10 5 5 20
LeoST1 0 4 9 13
BoothbayST1 0 2 9 11
LeoST2 2 6 3 11
EdgewaterST1 0 0 7 7
Erckenbrack ST1 3 0 3 6
CatamaranST3 2 2 0 4
LeoST3 0 2 1 3
GullST2 0 1 0 1
CatamaranST1 0 0 0 0
Erckenbrack ST2 0 0 0 0
LeoST4 0 0 0 0
LeoST5 0 0 0 0
LeoST6 0 0 0 0
Total 1433 967 668 3077
Tracking CAGO Movements with GPS Transmitters
All six (6) GPS transmitters deployed on collared CAGO (not including the transmitter from the harvested individual) remained functional throughout RP2 (Fig. 9). Although all collared

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
706
21 individuals were captured within priority parks in Foster City, movement data confirmed they utilize a broader landscape than Foster City alone, with locations recorded across sloughs and wetland areas along the San Francisco Bay margin, including Belmont Slough, the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, and Bair Island, as well as urban areas within San Mateo and Redwood Shores. Individual birds varied considerably in their site fidelity to Foster City; a pattern explored in detail in the movement analysis below (Fig. 10, Appendix D).

Figure 9. Collared CAGO A01 in Leo J. Ryan Park.

In January, the majority of collared CAGO maintained relatively localized movement patterns within and around Foster City. Four (4) of the six (6) individuals remained within Foster City and nearby sloughs and wetlands, while two (2) birds made longer-range movements northward into the Oakland and Alameda estuary corridor, traveling more than 25 kilometers from Foster City.

These movements suggest that at least some collared individuals are part of a broader regional population rather than exclusive city residents.

In February, most collared birds continued to demonstrate localized movement patterns, returning consistently to Foster City parks and waterways despite ongoing hazing pressure. This persistence underscores the challenges of managing resident CAGO and reinforces the need for sustained multi-method hazing strategies with great enough frequency and duration to break strong site habituation created over years of using city parks. Collared bird 376614 made brief movements to Bair Island and the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, while the two (2) birds that ranged north in January continued to move between Foster City and the broader Bay corridor, suggesting regular commuting behavior.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
707
22 By March, transmitter data began to reflect the advancing nesting season. Several birds exhibited tighter, more consistent clustering within habitat outside of Foster City's priority parks, potentially indicating nesting site selection and territorial behavior associated with incubating active nests.

Bird 376613, which had previously demonstrated wide-ranging movements between Foster City and the greater Bay corridor, appeared to establish a more consistent presence outside the city by the end of the period, possibly reflecting a range shift in response to sustained hazing pressure, though continued monitoring is needed to confirm this trend. Separately, Bird 376618 demonstrated strong site fidelity to the Belmont Slough area throughout the entire period, maintaining a consistent presence south of Foster City's priority parks.

Figure 10. Map depicting the shifts in areas use by collared CAGO from early January to late March within Foster City and surrounding areas. Each dot on the map represents an average of GPS collar locations recorded, and the arrows indicate the direction of area use shift for each collared individual between the beginning of January and the end of March 2026.

SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY To assess overall program effectiveness, WI monitored CAGO presence and park use across treatment and control parks using point count surveys, observational surveys, and scat transect surveys. Sound deterrents and habitat modifications were intentionally withheld during RP2, providing experimental control to isolate the efficacy of active hazing techniques. Data from all

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
708
23 three monitoring methods were collected consistently across pre-hazing and active hazing periods, enabling direct before-and-after comparisons of goose activity.

Results across all three methods indicated substantial reductions in CAGO presence at treatment sites. Declines at treatment parks consistently exceeded those at control parks, suggesting that observed reductions were not attributable to seasonal CAGO movement patterns alone.

Observational surveys documented CAGO presence across varied times of day and site conditions, while point count surveys provided standardized, single-visit effort at fixed stations conducted once daily. Because both methods were implemented concurrently at the same sites and yielded near-uniform trends, point count data were incorporated into the observational survey analysis rather than reported separately. The sections that follow summarize these findings.

Over the course of RP2, WI conducted 316 hazing events (defined as a single continuous effort targeting one (1) group of geese, potentially incorporating multiple tools applied sequentially), collectively displacing 1,623 geese from priority park areas. Tools deployed included the dog team (n = 144), remote-controlled aquatic device (RCAD; n = 173), laser (n = 70), aerial drone (n = 34), and remote-controlled (RC) boat (n = 28). Tool use varied by park, with Sea Cloud relying predominantly on the dog team (68%; n = 99), Edgewater on the laser (45%; n = 35), and Gull, Catamaran, and Leo J. Ryan on the RCAD (83%, n = 49; 57%, n = 32; 72%, n = 79, respectively; Fig. 11). Multiple tools were frequently used in succession, and coordinated multi-method approaches consistently outperformed single-method applications.

Figure 11. Percent deployment of hazing method by treatment site.

A recurring behavioral pattern observed throughout RP2 was that CAGO displaced from land frequently retreated to adjacent water rather than vacating the park entirely. In these instances, a secondary water-based hazing method was deployed to achieve full displacement of the group of CAGO. Without this follow-through, geese typically staged at the water's edge and re-entered the park shortly after hazing pressure ceased. This land-to-water dynamic has been a key factor informing the multi-tool hazing strategy within Foster City.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
709
24 Each hazing method was evaluated across a range of environmental conditions and site-specific circumstances, including high park occupancy by the public, proximity to water, wind, and precipitation. Effectiveness is reported at the deployment level (each individual tool applied within an event) to capture per-application performance, including instances where multiple passes were required to achieve full displacement of CAGO. Event-level outcomes are summarized separately (Table 2), and the strengths and limitations of each tool are discussed in the sections that follow.

Hazing Effectiveness by Method
Aerial Drone — WI deployed a drone as a hazing tool across priority park areas during this period. Hazing effectiveness varied by deployment substrate. On land (n = 27 deployments), full flush occurred in 25.9% of deployments; an additional 37.0% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water. The remaining 29.6% of deployments elicited only brief agitation before geese resumed normal behavior. Flush rates declined when the drone was deployed over water (n = 7 deployments), with a full flush occurring in 14.3% of deployments, 42.9% of deployments relocating geese within the water body, and 42.9% producing no discernible response (Fig. 12).

Deployment strategies are being refined to improve drone hazing efficacy across substrates.

Auditory deterrent calls are under active evaluation, and results will inform further development of the program.

Dog Team — WI deployed a border collie dog team as an active hazing tool across priority park areas during this period. Land-based deployments (n = 144) demonstrated strong hazing efficacy, producing a full flush in 47.2% of events; 15.3% of successful displacements required multiple applications to achieve a full flush. An additional 37.5% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water, providing a handoff opportunity for water-based hazing tools to achieve a full flush of the CAGO (Fig. 12).

Remote-Controlled Amphibious Device — During land-based deployments (n = 104), the RCAD achieved a full flush in 39.4% of deployments. RCAD deployments were frequently initiated on shoreline lawns and beach areas directly adjacent to the lagoon, resulting in 58.3% of landbased deployments driving geese to retreat to water. Unlike single-substrate methods, however, the RCAD's amphibious capability eliminated the need for a tool handoff when geese retreated to water. When deployed directly on water (n = 69 deployments), the RCAD achieved a full flush in

98.6% of deployments, the highest recorded across all methods evaluated in this program, with the remaining 1.4% of deployments resulting in geese moving beyond the device's operational range (Fig. 12). Though not yet implemented in Foster City parks, RCAD decoys may serve as a valuable addition to the program provided they are regularly repositioned to prevent CAGO habituation.

Remote-Controlled Boat — When integrated with a coordinated land-based hazing strategy, the RC boat demonstrated promising efficacy across water deployments (n = 28 deployments): 67.9% of deployments produced a full flush, 22.7% required a second application to achieve a full flush, and the remaining 9.1% resulted in geese moving beyond the device's operational range (Fig. 12). The concurrent application of ground-based hazing during water deployments effectively constrained shoreline refuge options for geese, producing a more comprehensive and coordinated hazing effect.

The RC boat remains under evaluation. If results continue to be positive, investment in a larger RC boat with greater range will be explored to improve operational performance. Key considerations, research, and testing will include improving range capabilities to increase

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
710
25 coverage of target waterways, and to evaluate whether increased vessel size and speed, and coloration, elicit stronger hazing responses from CAGO.

Handheld Laser — Land-based deployments (n = 67) of the handheld laser produced a full flush in 52.2% of deployments; an additional 22.4% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water, and 23.9% elicited a partial or transition response. A very small proportion of deployments (1.5%, n = 1) produced no discernible response. In three deployments where geese were positioned at the water's edge and the laser was directed at the adjacent shoreline, a full flush occurred in 33.3% of deployments, while geese remained on the water in the remaining 66.7% (Fig. 12).

WI noted that laser efficacy appeared reduced on bright, sunny days, likely attributable to diminished beam visibility from a goose’s perspective. These observational data are being systematically tracked to characterize the environmental conditions under which laser hazing is most effective.

The laser was not deployed over open water due to safety considerations. The combination of active airspace, adjacent residential development, and non-target wildlife occupying the hazing area limited the locations and situations that the laser could be used safely within. In situations where the laser could not be used safely, other tools were utilized instead.

Figure 12. Canada Goose behavioral response per hazing deployment by method and substrate

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
711
26 Table 2. Canada Goose behavioral response to hazing by method and substrate where hazing was initiated.

Outcome
Dog
Team
Land
RCAD
Land
RCAD
Water
Laser
Land
RC
Boat
Water
Drone
Land
Drone
Water
Number of Events 118 100 9 49 6 27 4
Full Flush from Standalone
Method 43.2% 38% 100% 46.9% 66.7% 25.9% 0%
Repeated Same Method to
Achieve Full Flush 11% 53% 0% 18.4% 16.7% 0% 0%
Needed Different Tool to Achieve
Full Flush 11% 0% 0% 10.2% 0% 29..6% 75%
Retreated to Water as Final
Reaction 33.1% 8% 0% 22.4% 16.7% 33.3% 25%
Transited in Park as Final
Reaction 0.8% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
No Reaction as Final Reaction 0.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.1% 0% CAGO Response to Hazing
Outside of designated point count surveys, CAGO observations were recorded throughout the reporting period to track CAGO occurrence across priority parks. Pre-hazing observations recorded 7,661 geese across 67 survey days; following hazing implementation, counts declined to 3,282 geese across 60 survey days, representing an overall reduction of 57.2% across all parks. Treatment parks averaged a 66% decline in goose counts: Sea Cloud Park decreased 71%, from 46.8 geese per survey day (pre-hazing: n = 50 days) to 13.7 (post-hazing: n = 43 days), and Edgewater Park decreased 74%, from 30.2 to 7.9 geese per survey day (n = 41 and 34 days, respectively). Control parks averaged a 48% decline over the same period: Boothbay Park decreased 43%, from 45.4 to 25.9 geese per survey day (n = 44 and 52 days, respectively), and Marlin Park decreased 40%, from 17.1 to 10.3 geese per survey day (n = 34 and 30 days, respectively). Point count surveys corroborated these patterns, with treatment parks averaging an 85% decline in geese per survey compared to 48% at control parks. The 18-percentage-point differential between treatment and control park declines suggests that hazing contributed to goose displacement beyond the effects of seasonal behavioral changes alone (Fig. 13).

Although observed declines are promising, goose activity is anticipated to increase temporarily as the breeding season concludes and resident CAGO return to park areas. CAGO surveillance observations will continue into the next reporting period, with hazing pressure adjusted as needed to sustain the reductions documented here.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
712
27 Figure 13. Average number of Canada Geese observed per park before and during hazing.

Scat Transect Surveys Pre- and During Hazing
Scat transect surveys served as an additional index of hazing effectiveness and helped identify temporal gaps in hazing effort. Prior to hazing implementation, WI recorded 11,996 scat piles across 2,154 transect surveys. Following hazing initiation, scat abundance declined to 2,804 piles across 627 surveys, representing a system-wide reduction of 76.6%.

Mean scat pile counts differed markedly between treatment and control parks. Treatment parks showed a mean decline of 83%; Sea Cloud Park decreased 84%, from 15.3 piles per survey (n = 227) to 2.5 (n = 92), and Edgewater Park decreased 94%, from 12.2 (n = 170) to 0.7 (n = 69).

Control parks, by contrast, showed a mean increase of 6%. Marlin Park increased 88%, from 11.3 piles per survey (n = 164) to 21.2 (n = 66), and Boothbay Park increased 23%, from 9.2 (n = 133) to 11.3 (n = 69). Erckenbrack Park, designated as a control site during RP2, was an exception to this pattern, with scat piles declining 92%, from 3.8 (n = 168) to 0.3 (n = 63; Fig. 14). The mechanism driving this anomaly remains unclear; however, the consistent increases observed at the remaining control parks provide corroborating evidence of hazing efficacy at treatment sites.

These results are notable in that the magnitude of reduction at treatment parks exceeds what would be expected from seasonal variation alone. WI anticipates that CAGO activity may increase as the breeding season progresses and resident birds return to park areas. Scat transect monitoring will continue during the third reporting period, with hazing effort adjusted as needed to sustain the reductions documented here.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
713
28 Figure 14. Average scat piles per transect visit per park before and during hazing.

SECTION VII: CAGO NESTING SUMMARY
During RP2, WI conducted approximately 30 drone survey flights throughout the month of March, focusing on parks and areas identified as containing suitable nesting habitat by the nesting habitat suitability model. Survey flights ranged from approximately 10 to 20 minutes in duration, with coverage prioritized in areas where habitat characteristics suggested the greatest likelihood of nest establishment. Parks lacking suitable nesting habitat in proximity were not surveyed during this period.

One (1) active CAGO nest was detected on March 11, 2026, within the Sea Cloud Basin area using the drone's thermal imaging camera. The nest was located on city-owned property and was surveilled and managed prior to the suspected hatch date. The incubating female was hazed from the nest site, the nest structure was dismantled, and the eggs were destroyed on site to prevent successful hatching and discourage renesting at the location. The thermal camera proved valuable in this detection, as the nest was situated in an area that would have been difficult to identify through ground-based survey methods alone.

Separately, one (1) nest was reported by the public through the city's See-Click-Fix platform during RP2. The reported nest was located on private HOA property and was assessed by WI personnel following notification through the park’s maintenance department. WI will continue to encourage the city to promote public use of the platform as nesting season progresses into RP3.

Community involvement in nest detection can meaningfully contribute to preventing successful hatching, particularly on private property where goslings may imprint on the surrounding environment and become a long-term management challenge. WI has encouraged the city to promote use of the platform, and as public awareness of the program grows, this reporting pathway has the potential to become an increasingly effective tool for timely nest identification and management.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
714
29 SECTION VIII: PLAN FOR NEXT PERIOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the third reporting period (RP3), WI will intensify hazing pressure in anticipation of CAGO returning from nesting areas and the onset of the molt season. Hazing protocols will be refined based on lessons learned during RP2, with management effort prioritized to prevent birds from establishing or reestablishing use of priority parks during the pre-molt and molt periods. As geese temporarily lose flight feathers and become flightless, their reduced mobility increases site fidelity risk, making proactive displacement particularly critical during this interval.

Any goslings detected within priority parks, along with attending adults, will be subject to intensive but careful hazing efforts designed to establish strong negative site associations prior to imprinting on the city as part of their established home range. Disrupting early imprinting represents one of the highest-value long-term management outcomes achievable during this period, as juvenile site fidelity can substantially influence future population distribution and management complexity.

Collar monitoring will continue throughout RP3 to evaluate long-term program effectiveness.

Transmitter data will be used to assess whether individuals displaced through hazing or deterrence maintain range shifts or return to priority parks following the conclusion of the nesting season. This data will inform adaptive management decisions and contribute to a longitudinal record of program outcomes.

WI will continue to evaluate and document the efficacy of all hazing methods, assessing their strengths, limitations, and most effective applications as seasonal conditions evolve. Point-count and scat transect surveys will continue to track changes in CAGO space use across priority parks.

WI will also coordinate with Foster City Parks staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications identified during recent collaborative planning efforts, monitoring CAGO behavioral responses to those modifications both independently and in conjunction with active hazing. An audio deterrent system will be deployed at a minimum of one priority park, with CAGO presence and behavior monitored for measurable responses.

Nest monitoring will continue via ground-based surveys and aerial drone methods, with active nests treated or removed as appropriate to reduce site fidelity and prevent successful hatching.

The nest reporting system will be evaluated on an ongoing basis for its utility in supporting broader program objectives, with improvements implemented as opportunities are identified.

WI will remain prepared to support public engagement and outreach efforts if additional needs are identified or requested by Foster City. Coordination will continue with Foster City representatives and relevant homeowners associations (HOAs) to advance public education and participation in the CAGO Management Program.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
715
30 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED
Appendix A-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
716
31 Appendix A-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey period, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
717
32 Appendix A-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
718
33 Appendix A-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
719
34 Appendix A-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
720
35 Appendix A-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
721
36 Appendix A-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
722
37 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS
Appendix B-1. Locations of CAGO and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
723
38 Appendix B-2. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
724
39 Appendix B-3. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
725
40 Appendix B-4. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
726
41 Appendix B-5. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
727
42 Appendix B-6. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
728
43 Appendix B-7. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
729
44 APPENDIX C: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS
Appendix C-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
730
45 Appendix C-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
731
46 Appendix C-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
732
47 Appendix C-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
733
48 Appendix C-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
734
49 Appendix C-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
735
50 Appendix C-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
736
51 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF GPS COLLARED CAGO
Appendix D-1. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of January.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
737
52 Appendix D-2. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of February.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
738
53 Appendix D-3. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of March.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
739
54 Appendix D-4. Map depicting the movement of GPS Collared CAGO by dispersal range from the beginning of January to the end of March.

8.2 Attachment 1 - 2026 First Quarter Report
740
DATE: June 15, 2026
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
DEPARTMENT: City Manager, Finance
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF FY 2026-27 AND FY 2027-28 CITY/DISTRICT BUDGET

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors (City Council) approve the attached resolutions approving the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 City/EMID Budget.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 19, 2026 the Council reviewed the preliminary budget at a special meeting and then held a public hearing on the preliminary budget on June 1. Staff now recommends City Council’s approval of the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 City/EMID Budget.

There have been a number of revenue and expenditure changes to the preliminary budget that result in lower, but still positive, net operating revenues in each year of the five-year forecast (prior to the transfer to capital). See the table in the next section for details on each change by year.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On May 19, City staff presented the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 Preliminary Budget and 5-year financial plan for all Funds, including the General Fund (Funds 001 to 003).

The preliminary budget and five-year plan showed an operating surplus in each of the five years, before the transfer to capital.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report
741
A number of changes have been made to the Preliminary Budget in the proposed Final Budget, which is available at https://www.fostercity.org/finance/page/annual-budget.

The General Fund changes are detailed in the table below which reconciles the net revenues from the Preliminary Budget to the Final Budget:

Revenue Changes
• Property Tax forecast was increased to reflect actual collections and updates through the 3rd Quarter of FY 2025-26.
• Sales Tax was decreased to reflect reduced retail activity in the business-tobusiness sector. • Business License Tax income was reduced to reflect the loss of a maximum rate taxpayer and reductions in the gross receipts reports by several larger payers. • Interest revenue was increased to be less conservative, and now assume rates revert to 3% over the five-year forecast instead of 2%.

Expenditure Changes
• Personnel costs were increased due to the costs of the recently adopted POA MOU and the 3.8% cost of living increase effective July 1 (higher than previously forecasted at 3.0%); costs decreased because of the reallocation of some planning staff costs to Fund 128 and the elimination of a new Recreation Supervisor position that may be considered at a future date. • Supplies and Services decreased in FY 2026-27 due to savings from district elections being less costly than general city-wide elections and reductions in Public Works contracting resources. The cost of fireworks was restored in both budget years. In FY 2027-28, costs were increased due to SMC Fire updating their cost projections.

Other Funds
26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31
Revenue Changes
Property Tax Increases 632,597 680,608 880,758 937,328 996,318 Sales Tax Decreases (365,000) (419,000) (467,000) (511,000) (551,000) Business License Tax Increases (189,000) (194,670) (200,510) (206,525) (212,721) Interest Increases - 167,004 297,267 397,119 471,882
Subtotal 78,597 233,942 510,515 616,922 704,479
Expense Changes
Personnel Increases 731,196 1,000,689 1,169,465 1,205,497 1,235,231 Supplies and Services Increases (71,883) 93,785 8,813 7,501 (2,850) Other Changes (1,765) (603) (2,088) 1,023 1,799
Subtotal 657,548 1,093,871 1,176,190 1,214,021 1,234,180 Net Change from Preliminary Budget (578,951) (859,929) (665,675) (597,099) (529,701)

9.1 9.1 Staff Report
742
• Water Enterprise costs were increased to correctly reflect the cost of wholesale water from the San Francisco PUC.
• The Internal Service Fund for Self-Insurance was corrected for a data entry error, reducing costs in FY 2027-28.

The FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 Final City/EMID Budget for all funds totaling $171,320,806 and $155,503,725, respectively, includes direction received from the City Council at various budget study sessions and a public hearing. The City Council also provided direction to use General Fund reserves to address the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 General Fund deficit after the transfer to capital.

Having reviewed the Preliminary Budget and having held a public hearing on the Preliminary Budget, it is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board adopt the attached resolutions approving the proposed FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 City/EMID Budget. The financial and personnel summary pages of the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027- 28 Budget are attached to this report (Attachment 3).

CEQA
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the annual budget authorizes expenditures identified in the budget for FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, and VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - City Resolution
Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
Attachment 3 - Exhibit to City/EMID Resolutions: Financial and Personnel Summaries

9.1 9.1 Staff Report
743
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY APPROVING THE FISCAL YEARS 2026-27 AND 2027-28 CITY BUDGET

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the City Manager is responsible for preparing and submitting a City budget for the operation and improvements of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and evaluated the proposed budget submitted by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the citizens have had an opportunity to review and make additional suggestions to the City Council.

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

1. The two-year City budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year ending June 30, 2027 and 2027-28 fiscal year ending June 30, 2028, is hereby approved as set forth in the attached Exhibit and incorporated herein.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make administrative corrections to the adopted budget for FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28, including but not limited to corrections of typographical errors, formatting, account coding, and other non-substantive revisions that do not change the total appropriations or materially alter the intent of the budget as adopted by the City Council.

3. The City Treasurer shall not certify any encumbrance nor execute any payment in excess of department budget appropriations.

9.1 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
744
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

9.1 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
745
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT APPROVING THE FISCAL YEARS 2026-27 AND 2027-28

DISTRICT BUDGET

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the District Manager is responsible for preparing and submitting a District budget for the operation and improvements of the community; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has reviewed and evaluated the proposed budget submitted by the District Manager; and
WHEREAS, the citizens have had an opportunity to review and make additional suggestions to the Board of Directors.

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

1. The District budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year ending June 30, 2027 and 2027- 28 fiscal year ending June 30, 2028 is hereby approved as set forth in the attached Exhibit and incorporated herein.

2. The District Manager is hereby authorized to make administrative corrections to the adopted budget FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28, including but not limited to corrections of typographical errors, formatting, account coding, and other non-substantive revisions that do not change the total appropriations or materially alter the intent of the budget as adopted by the City Council.

3. The District Treasurer shall not certify any encumbrance nor execute any payment in excess of department budget appropriations.

9.1 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
746
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 17th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

9.1 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
747
Fund
*Available
July 1, 2026
Estimated
Revenues Transfers In Transfers Out Total Available
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures
Total
Requirements
Net Change in
Reserves
*Available
June 30, 2027
General Funds
001 GENERAL FUND $60,022,485 $25,175,428 $43,653,414 $6,345,566 $122,505,761 $66,715,338 $0 $66,715,338 ($4,232,062) $55,790,423 002 GENERAL FUND-DISTRICT $0 $43,958,914 $0 $43,653,414 $305,500 $305,500 $0 $305,500 $0 $0 003 SPECIAL RECREATION $0 $2,568,674 $695,566 $0 $3,264,240 $3,264,240 $0 $3,264,240 $0 $0 005 COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM $975,312 $38,950 $0 $0 $1,014,262 $13,704 $0 $13,704 $25,246 $1,000,558 006 DRUG ABUSE RESIST EDUCATION $42,995 $1,500 $0 $0 $44,495 $12,600 $0 $12,600 ($11,100) $31,895 007 SOLAR INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM $33,668 $1,854 $0 $0 $35,522 $15,000 $0 $15,000 ($13,146) $20,522 008 EE HOME LOAN PROGRAM $70,130 $2,700 $0 $0 $72,830 $0 $0 $0 $2,700 $72,830 009 ASSET SEIZURE $46,771 $3,500 $0 $0 $50,271 $4,097 $0 $4,097 ($597) $46,174 010 PENSION STABILIZATION $106,738 $4,200 $0 $0 $110,938 $0 $0 $0 $4,200 $110,938 011 FACILITIES REPLACEMENT $2,783,933 $110,000 $0 $0 $2,893,933 $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $2,893,933 012 SUSTAINABLE FC $372,165 $15,000 $50,000 $0 $437,165 $7,200 $0 $7,200 $57,800 $429,965 Subtotal General Funds $64,454,197 $71,880,720 $44,398,980 $49,998,980 $130,734,917 $70,337,679 $0 $70,337,679 ($4,056,959) $60,397,238 Special Revenue Funds
101 TRAFFIC SAFETY $6,337 $41,200 $0 $0 $47,537 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $1,200 $7,537 102 MEASURE "A" $4,471,123 $1,158,300 $0 $0 $5,629,423 $0 $4,455,000 $4,455,000 ($3,296,700) $1,174,423 103 GAS TAX $231,947 $983,623 $0 $0 $1,215,570 $636,358 $0 $636,358 $347,265 $579,212 104 PARK IN-LIEU FEES $2,510,283 $100,000 $0 $0 $2,610,283 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $2,610,283 105 MEASURE M $127,823 $100,000 $0 $0 $227,823 $0 $120,000 $120,000 ($20,000) $107,823 108 SLESF/COPS GRANT $69,950 $205,000 $0 $0 $274,950 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $105,000 $174,950 114 CalOpps Fund $461,026 $466,000 $0 $0 $927,026 $467,032 $0 $467,032 ($1,032) $459,994 116 FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION FUND $300,517 $80,500 $0 $0 $381,017 $110,000 $0 $110,000 ($29,500) $271,017 119 SB1 ROAD MAINT&REHAB A/C $1,046,203 $1,015,838 $0 $0 $2,062,041 $0 $975,000 $975,000 $40,838 $1,087,041 122 LMIHAF-HOUSING SUCCESSOR $2,671,960 $173,345 $0 $0 $2,845,305 $235,156 $0 $235,156 ($61,811) $2,610,149 124 FC AFFORDABLE HOUSING $4,928,759 $70,000 $0 $0 $4,998,759 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $4,998,759 128 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $3,830,721 $1,280,624 $0 $0 $5,111,345 $802,777 $0 $802,777 $477,847 $4,308,568 129 CONST & DEMO RECYCLING FUND $701,275 $83,037 $0 $50,000 $734,312 $181,500 $0 $181,500 ($148,463) $552,812 130 TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE $426,562 $221,290 $0 $0 $647,852 $105,485 $0 $105,485 $115,805 $542,367 131 SB 1186 FUND $62,298 $9,665 $0 $0 $71,963 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $7,365 $69,663 132 SMIP FEE FUND $9,522 $639 $0 $0 $10,161 $500 $0 $500 $139 $9,661 133 CRV GRANT FUND $10,869 $9,002 $0 $0 $19,871 $13,000 $0 $13,000 ($3,998) $6,871 134 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $303,654 $27,450 $0 $0 $331,104 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $2,450 $306,104 135 GREEN BUILDING FEE $9,550 $927 $0 $0 $10,477 $500 $0 $500 $427 $9,977 136 MEASURE W $880,918 $559,184 $0 $0 $1,440,102 $0 $820,000 $820,000 ($260,816) $620,102 137 AFFORDABLE HOUSING-COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES $12,673,249 $8,131,386 $0 $0 $20,804,635 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $8,121,386 $20,794,635 138 TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE $264,214 $10,000 $0 $0 $274,214 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $274,214 139 WORKFORCE HOUSING $286,307 $662,377 $0 $0 $948,684 $398,369 $0 $398,369 $264,008 $550,315 140 EQUIP REPLACEMENT-WORKFORCE HOUSING $100,364 $29,767 $0 $0 $130,131 $0 $0 $0 $29,767 $130,131 141 SB1383 IMPLEMENTATION ($5,991) $515 $0 $0 ($5,476) $6,979 $0 $6,979 ($6,464) ($12,455) 142 IMPACT FEE - PARKS FACILITIES $469,086 $924,551 $0 $0 $1,393,637 $0 $0 $0 $924,551 $1,393,637 143 IMPACT FEE - PUBLIC SAFETY $161,047 $96,683 $0 $0 $257,730 $0 $0 $0 $96,683 $257,730 144 IMPACT FEE - TRANSPORTATION $511,963 $321,905 $0 $0 $833,868 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $21,905 $533,868 145 LOCAL HOUSING TRUST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $37,521,536 $16,762,808 $0 $50,000 $54,234,344 $3,134,956 $6,670,000 $9,804,956 $6,907,852 $44,429,388 (Continued on next page)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Resources and Requirements by Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028

FINAL BUDGET
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 1

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 748
(Continued from previous page)
Fund
*Available
July 1, 2026
Estimated
Revenues Transfers In Transfers Out Total Available
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures
Total
Requirements
Net Change in
Reserves
*Available
June 30, 2027
Debt Service Fund
230 LEVEE PROTECT I&R IMP $5,328,714 $4,469,076 $0 $0 $9,797,790 $3,903,213 $0 $3,903,213 $565,863 $5,894,577 231 2023 GO BOND-LEVEE PRJ FD $249,346 $347,064 $0 $0 $596,410 $317,375 $0 $317,375 $29,689 $279,035 Subtotal Debt Service Funds $5,578,060 $4,816,140 $0 $0 $10,394,200 $4,220,588 $0 $4,220,588 $595,552 $6,173,612 Capital Projects Funds
301 CIP-CITY $21,918,333 $1,615,708 $7,380,000 $0 $30,914,041 $0 $15,928,000 $15,928,000 ($6,932,292) $14,986,041 326 CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION & REPLACEMENT $11,619,512 $1,477,067 $0 $0 $13,096,579 $0 $0 $0 $1,477,067 $13,096,579 327 LEVEE PROJECT FUND $963,741 $0 $0 $0 $963,741 $0 $0 $0 $0 $963,741 328 LEVEE PROJECT FD-2023 GO BOND $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Capital Projects Funds $34,501,586 $3,092,775 $7,380,000 $0 $44,974,361 $0 $15,928,000 $15,928,000 ($5,455,225) $29,046,361 Enterprise Funds
Water Funds
401 WATER REVENUE $11,289,860 $21,745,228 $0 $2,600,000 $30,435,088 $21,132,715 $0 $21,132,715 ($1,987,487) $9,302,373 405 CIP-WATER $30,034,255 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $32,634,255 $0 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $400,000 $30,434,255 408 WATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $5,132,136 $523,853 $0 $0 $5,655,989 $165,000 $0 $165,000 $358,853 $5,490,989 409 WATER CONNECTION FEE $675,359 $509,855 $0 $0 $1,185,214 $0 $0 $0 $509,855 $1,185,214 Subtotal Water Funds $47,131,610 $22,778,936 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $69,910,546 $21,297,715 $2,200,000 $23,497,715 ($718,779) $46,412,831 Wastewater Funds
451 WASTEWATER REVENUE $17,349,135 $22,482,000 $2,500 $15,814,186 $24,019,449 $12,439,395 $0 $12,439,395 ($5,769,081) $11,580,054 453 WASTEWATER SURPLUS $2,000,000 $0 $2,092,250 $2,092,250 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 454 SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LOAN ($36,766,040) $0 $2,092,250 $0 ($34,673,790) $2,092,000 $0 $2,092,000 $250 ($36,765,790) 455 CIP-SEWER $181,570,658 $0 $9,800,000 $0 $191,370,658 $0 $8,857,803 $8,857,803 $942,197 $182,512,855 456 WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION $3,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 458 WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $4,635,172 $374,538 $0 $0 $5,009,710 $180,000 $0 $180,000 $194,538 $4,829,710 459 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE & INNOVATION ACT LOAN ($46,445,337) $100,000 $2,659,832 $0 ($43,685,505) $2,659,832 $0 $2,659,832 $100,000 ($46,345,337) 460 WASTEWATER CAPACITY $1,848,453 $1,209,560 $0 $0 $3,058,013 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $209,560 $2,058,013 461 STATE REVOLVING FUND/OTHER BONDS ($28,712,973) $0 $1,262,104 $0 ($27,450,869) $1,262,104 $0 $1,262,104 $0 ($28,712,973) Subtotal Wastewater Funds $95,482,568 $24,168,598 $17,908,936 $17,908,936 $119,651,166 $18,633,331 $9,857,803 $28,491,134 ($4,322,536) $91,160,032 Subtotal Enterprise Funds $142,614,178 $46,947,534 $20,508,936 $20,508,936 $189,561,712 $39,931,046 $12,057,803 $51,988,849 ($5,041,315) $137,572,863 Internal Service Funds
501 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT $10,670,278 $2,439,081 $0 $0 $13,109,359 $2,285,274 $0 $2,285,274 $153,807 $10,824,085 502 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $9,981,659 $1,007,513 $0 $480,000 $10,509,172 $227,800 $770,000 $997,800 ($470,287) $9,511,372 503 SELF INSURANCE $1,643,759 $2,160,175 $0 $0 $3,803,934 $2,113,610 $0 $2,113,610 $46,565 $1,690,324 504 COMMUNICATION & INFO SVC $7,397,723 $3,170,771 $0 $0 $10,568,494 $4,002,391 $0 $4,002,391 ($831,620) $6,566,103 505 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $9,427,194 $4,172,310 $0 $1,250,000 $12,349,504 $4,874,256 $1,250,000 $6,124,256 ($3,201,946) $6,225,248 507 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIAB $3,024,404 $343,420 $0 $0 $3,367,824 $247,720 $0 $247,720 $95,700 $3,120,104 508 PEMHCA $1,827,606 $55,000 $0 $0 $1,882,606 $519,751 $0 $519,751 ($464,751) $1,362,855 509 COMPENSATED ABSENCES $3,659,530 $117,000 $0 $0 $3,776,530 $804,922 $0 $804,922 $(687,922) $2,971,608 510 WORKERS COMPENSATION $383,982 $1,564,082 $0 $0 $1,948,064 $1,214,100 $0 $1,214,100 $349,982 $733,964 Subtotal Internal Service Funds $48,016,135 $15,029,352 $0 $1,730,000 $61,315,487 $16,289,824 $2,020,000 $18,309,824 ($5,010,472) $43,005,663 Fiduciary Fund
604 SUCCESSOR AGENCY ($394,926) $309,309 $0 $0 ($85,617) $581,910 $0 $581,910 ($272,601) ($667,527) 608 SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE $0 $149,000 $0 $0 $149,000 $149,000 $0 $149,000 $0 $0 Subtotal Fiduciary Fund ($394,926) $458,309 $0 $0 $63,383 $730,910 $0 $730,910 ($272,601) ($667,527) Total All Funds $332,290,766 $158,987,638 $72,287,916 $72,287,916 $491,278,404 $134,645,003 $36,675,803 $171,320,806 ($12,333,167) $319,957,598 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027
*Beginning and Ending available resources excludes Capital Assets (except for Fund 455) and Non-Spendable, Restricted, Committed, and/or Assigned Funds, including Prepayments, Inventory, Garbage Stabilization Reserve, and unrealized investment gains/losses.

City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Resources and Requirements by Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028

FINAL BUDGET
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 2

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 749
Fund
*Available
July 1, 2027
Estimated
Revenues Transfers In Transfers Out Total Available
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures
Total
Requirements
Net Change in
Reserves
*Available
June 30, 2028
General Funds
001 GENERAL FUND $55,790,423 $22,696,966 $44,845,451 $5,853,416 $117,479,424 $66,381,743 $0 $66,381,743 ($4,692,742) $51,097,681 002 GENERAL FUND-DISTRICT $0 $45,181,501 $0 $44,845,451 $336,050 $336,050 $0 $336,050 $0 $0 003 SPECIAL RECREATION $0 $3,312,268 $53,416 $0 $3,365,684 $3,365,684 $0 $3,365,684 $0 $0 005 COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM $1,000,558 $36,223 $0 $0 $1,036,781 $13,704 $0 $13,704 $22,519 $1,023,077 006 DRUG ABUSE RESIST EDUCATION $31,895 $1,395 $0 $0 $33,290 $12,600 $0 $12,600 ($11,205) $20,690 007 SOLAR INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM $20,522 $1,724 $0 $0 $22,246 $15,000 $0 $15,000 ($13,276) $7,246 008 EE HOME LOAN PROGRAM $72,830 $2,511 $0 $0 $75,341 $0 $0 $0 $2,511 $75,341 009 ASSET SEIZURE $46,174 $3,405 $0 $0 $49,579 $4,220 $0 $4,220 ($815) $45,359 010 PENSION STABILIZATION $110,938 $3,906 $0 $0 $114,844 $0 $0 $0 $3,906 $114,844 011 FACILITIES REPLACEMENT $2,893,933 $102,300 $0 $0 $2,996,233 $0 $0 $0 $102,300 $2,996,233 012 SUSTAINABLE FC $429,965 $13,950 $50,000 $0 $493,915 $7,200 $0 $7,200 $56,750 $486,715 Subtotal General Funds $60,397,238 $71,356,149 $44,948,867 $50,698,867 $126,003,387 $70,136,201 $0 $70,136,201 ($4,530,052) $55,867,186 Special Revenue Funds
101 TRAFFIC SAFETY $7,537 $42,436 $0 $0 $49,973 $41,200 $0 $41,200 $1,236 $8,773 102 MEASURE "A" $1,174,423 $1,174,049 $0 $0 $2,348,472 $0 $1,005,000 $1,005,000 $169,049 $1,343,472 103 GAS TAX $579,212 $1,010,751 $0 $0 $1,589,963 $655,448 $300,000 $955,448 $55,303 $634,515 104 PARK IN-LIEU FEES $2,610,283 $93,000 $0 $0 $2,703,283 $0 $0 $0 $93,000 $2,703,283 105 MEASURE M $107,823 $103,000 $0 $0 $210,823 $0 $130,000 $130,000 ($27,000) $80,823 108 SLESF/COPS GRANT $174,950 $211,150 $0 $0 $386,100 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $111,150 $286,100 114 CalOpps Fund $459,994 $464,530 $0 $0 $924,524 $478,330 $0 $478,330 ($13,800) $446,194 116 FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION FUND $271,017 $90,500 $0 $0 $361,517 $119,265 $0 $119,265 ($28,765) $242,252 119 SB1 ROAD MAINT&REHAB A/C $1,087,041 $1,034,813 $0 $0 $2,121,854 $0 $855,000 $855,000 $179,813 $1,266,854 122 LMIHAF-HOUSING SUCCESSOR $2,610,149 $167,545 $0 $0 $2,777,694 $238,966 $0 $238,966 ($71,421) $2,538,728 124 FC AFFORDABLE HOUSING $4,998,759 $32,550 $0 $0 $5,031,309 $0 $0 $0 $32,550 $5,031,309 128 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $4,308,568 $1,331,042 $0 $0 $5,639,610 $707,448 $0 $707,448 $623,594 $4,932,162 129 CONST & DEMO RECYCLING FUND $552,812 $81,128 $0 $50,000 $583,940 $184,695 $0 $184,695 ($153,567) $399,245 130 TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE $542,367 $230,548 $0 $0 $772,915 $108,650 $0 $108,650 $121,898 $664,265 131 SB 1186 FUND $69,663 $9,555 $0 $0 $79,218 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $7,255 $76,918 132 SMIP FEE FUND $9,661 $638 $0 $0 $10,299 $500 $0 $500 $138 $9,799 133 CRV GRANT FUND $6,871 $9,248 $0 $0 $16,119 $13,390 $0 $13,390 ($4,142) $2,729 134 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $306,104 $27,074 $0 $0 $333,178 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $2,074 $308,178 135 GREEN BUILDING FEE $9,977 $935 $0 $0 $10,912 $500 $0 $500 $435 $10,412 136 MEASURE W $620,102 $567,960 $0 $0 $1,188,062 $0 $435,000 $435,000 $132,960 $753,062 137 AFFORDABLE HOUSING-COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES $20,794,635 $2,632,561 $0 $0 $23,427,196 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $2,622,561 $23,417,196 138 TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE $274,214 $9,300 $0 $0 $283,514 $0 $0 $0 $9,300 $283,514 139 WORKFORCE HOUSING $550,315 $664,934 $0 $0 $1,215,249 $407,932 $0 $407,932 $257,002 $807,317 140 EQUIP REPLACEMENT-WORKFORCE HOUSING $130,131 $30,603 $0 $0 $160,734 $0 $0 $0 $30,603 $160,734 141 SB1383 IMPLEMENTATION ($12,455) $479 $0 $0 $(11,976) $0 $0 $0 $479 $(11,976) 142 IMPACT FEE - PARKS FACILITIES $1,393,637 $283,268 $0 $0 $1,676,905 $0 $0 $0 $283,268 $1,676,905 143 IMPACT FEE - PUBLIC SAFETY $257,730 $46,943 $0 $0 $304,673 $0 $0 $0 $46,943 $304,673 144 IMPACT FEE - TRANSPORTATION $533,868 $161,408 $0 $0 $695,276 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $11,408 $545,276 145 LOCAL HOUSING TRUST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $44,429,388 $10,511,948 $0 $50,000 $54,891,336 $3,093,624 $2,875,000 $5,968,624 $4,493,324 $48,922,712 (Continued on next page)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2028
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Resources and Requirements by Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028

FINAL BUDGET
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 3

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 750
(Continued from previous page)
Fund
*Available
July 1, 2027
Estimated
Revenues Transfers In Transfers Out Total Available
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures
Total
Requirements
Net Change in
Reserves
*Available
June 30, 2028
Debt Service Fund
230 LEVEE PROTECT I&R IMP $5,894,577 $4,579,510 $0 $0 $10,474,087 $3,903,113 $0 $3,903,113 $676,397 $6,570,974 231 2023 GO BOND-LEVEE PRJ FD $279,035 $356,439 $0 $0 $635,474 $317,000 $0 $317,000 $39,439 $318,474 Subtotal Debt Service Funds $6,173,612 $4,935,949 $0 $0 $11,109,561 $4,220,113 $0 $4,220,113 $715,836 $6,889,448 Capital Projects Funds
301 CIP-CITY $14,986,041 $1,504,179 $6,300,000 $0 $22,790,220 $0 $8,683,500 $8,683,500 $(879,321) $14,106,720 326 CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION & REPLACEMENT $13,096,579 $1,488,047 $0 $0 $14,584,626 $0 $0 $0 $1,488,047 $14,584,626 327 LEVEE PROJECT FUND $963,741 $0 $0 $0 $963,741 $0 $0 $0 $0 $963,741 328 LEVEE PROJECT FD-2023 GO BOND $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Capital Projects Funds $29,046,361 $2,992,226 $6,300,000 $0 $38,338,587 $0 $8,683,500 $8,683,500 $608,726 $29,655,087 Enterprise Funds
Water Funds
401 WATER REVENUE $9,302,373 $23,178,738 $0 $2,600,000 $29,881,111 $21,938,623 $0 $21,938,623 $(1,359,885) $7,942,488 405 CIP-WATER $30,434,255 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $33,034,255 $0 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,150,000 $31,584,255 408 WATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $5,490,989 $539,569 $0 $0 $6,030,558 $470,500 $0 $470,500 $69,069 $5,560,058 409 WATER CONNECTION FEE $1,185,214 $11,160 $0 $0 $1,196,374 $0 $0 $0 $11,160 $1,196,374 Subtotal Water Funds $46,412,831 $23,729,467 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $70,142,298 $22,409,123 $1,450,000 $23,859,123 ($129,656) $46,283,175 Wastewater Funds
451 WASTEWATER REVENUE $11,580,054 $22,829,000 $2,500 $9,613,280 $24,798,274 $12,752,329 $0 $12,752,329 $465,891 $12,045,945 453 WASTEWATER SURPLUS $2,000,000 $0 $2,091,375 $2,091,375 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 454

SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
LOAN ($36,765,790) $0 $2,091,375 $0 $(34,674,415) $2,091,125 $0 $2,091,125 $250 $(36,765,540) 455 CIP-SEWER $182,512,855 $0 $3,600,000 $0 $186,112,855 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $184,112,855 456 WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION $3,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 458 WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $4,829,710 $385,774 $0 $0 $5,215,484 $342,500 $0 $342,500 $43,274 $4,872,984 459 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE & INNOVATION ACT LOAN ($46,345,337) $93,000 $2,659,832 $0 $(43,592,505) $2,659,832 $0 $2,659,832 $93,000 $(46,252,337) 460 WASTEWATER CAPACITY $2,058,013 $8,430 $0 $0 $2,066,443 $0 $0 $0 $8,430 $2,066,443 461 STATE REVOLVING FUND/OTHER BONDS ($28,712,973) $0 $1,262,073 $0 $(27,450,900) $1,262,073 $0 $1,262,073 $0 $(28,712,973) Subtotal Wastewater Funds $91,160,032 $23,318,704 $11,707,155 $11,707,155 $114,478,736 $19,107,859 $2,000,000 $21,107,859 $2,210,845 $93,370,877 Subtotal Enterprise Funds $137,572,863 $47,048,171 $14,307,155 $14,307,155 $184,621,034 $41,516,982 $3,450,000 $44,966,982 $2,081,189 $139,654,052 Internal Service Funds
501 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT $10,824,085 $2,477,253 $0 $0 $13,301,338 $6,603,136 $0 $6,603,136 $(4,125,883) $6,698,202 502 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $9,511,372 $1,002,738 $0 $0 $10,514,110 $598,100 $0 $598,100 $404,638 $9,916,010 503 SELF INSURANCE $1,690,324 $2,223,380 $0 $0 $3,913,704 $2,210,908 $0 $2,210,908 $12,472 $1,702,796 504 COMMUNICATION & INFO SVC $6,566,103 $3,230,894 $0 $0 $9,796,997 $3,076,574 $0 $3,076,574 $154,320 $6,720,423 505 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $6,225,248 $4,253,479 $0 $500,000 $9,978,727 $5,163,172 $500,000 $5,663,172 $(1,909,693) $4,315,555 507 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIAB $3,120,104 $343,723 $0 $0 $3,463,827 $247,720 $0 $247,720 $96,003 $3,216,107 508 PEMHCA $1,362,855 $51,150 $0 $0 $1,414,005 $556,008 $0 $556,008 $(504,858) $857,997 509 COMPENSATED ABSENCES $2,971,608 $108,810 $0 $0 $3,080,418 $829,070 $0 $829,070 $(720,260) $2,251,348 510 WORKERS COMPENSATION $733,964 $1,595,345 $0 $0 $2,329,309 $1,241,100 $0 $1,241,100 $354,245 $1,088,209 Subtotal Internal Service Funds $43,005,663 $15,286,772 $0 $500,000 $57,792,435 $20,525,788 $500,000 $21,025,788 ($6,239,016) $36,766,647 Fiduciary Fund
604 SUCCESSOR AGENCY ($667,527) $318,197 $0 $0 $(349,330) $353,550 $0 $353,550 $(35,353) $(702,880) 608 SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE $0 $149,000 $0 $0 $149,000 $149,000 $0 $149,000 $0 $0 Subtotal Fiduciary Fund ($667,527) $467,197 $0 $0 ($200,330) $502,550 $0 $502,550 ($35,353) ($702,880) Total All Funds $319,957,598 $152,598,412 $65,556,022 $65,556,022 $472,556,010 $139,995,258 $15,508,500 $155,503,758 ($2,905,345) $317,052,252 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2028
*Beginning and Ending available resources excludes Capital Assets (except for Fund 455) and Non-Spendable, Restricted, Committed, and/or Assigned Funds, including Prepayments, Inventory, Garbage Stabilization Reserve, and unrealized investment gains/losses.

City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Resources and Requirements by Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028

FINAL BUDGET
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 4

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 751
General Fund 001-003
City
Property Taxes in-lieu of Vehicle License Fee $2,680,715 $2,680,715 $3,833,192 $3,633,776 Sales Taxes $3,992,179 $3,992,179 $3,725,000 $3,793,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $4,600,000 $4,600,000 $4,017,000 $4,137,510 Business License Tax $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $3,811,000 $3,925,330 Franchise Taxes $1,377,700 $1,377,700 $1,464,341 $1,508,271 Real Property Transfer Tax $304,900 $304,900 $468,392 $482,444 Permits $2,721,093 $2,721,093 $4,609,624 $2,081,104
Intergovernmental (POST, SB90, Grants, etc.) $43,260 $43,260 $43,260 $44,558 Charges for current services $566,739 $566,739 $575,340 $592,600 Fines and forfeitures $87,922 $87,922 $48,822 $50,286
Interest $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,087,544 $1,941,416
Other (Fines, Reimbursement, Street Sweeping, Other) $491,913 $491,913 $491,913 $506,671 General Fund (City) Subtotal $22,466,421 $22,466,421 $25,175,428 $22,696,966 District
Property Taxes $36,356,666 $36,356,666 $38,858,400 $39,946,435 Excess ERAF $3,600,000 $3,600,000 $3,968,888 $4,080,017 Intergovernmental $100,940 $100,940 $100,940 $103,968
Rentals $1,030,686 $1,030,686 $1,030,686 $1,051,081
Interest $213,900 $213,900 $0 $0
General Fund (District) Subtotal $41,302,192 $41,302,192 $43,958,914 $45,181,501 Special Recreation
Program Revenues $1,781,431 $1,781,431 $1,713,416 $1,955,568 Rents and Concessions $549,121 $549,121 $855,258 $1,356,700 General Fund (Special Recreation) Subtotal $2,330,552 $2,330,552 $2,568,674 $3,312,268 total general fund 001-003 $66,099,165 $66,099,165 $71,703,016 $71,190,735 General Fund 005-012
City
Community Benefits Program $20,000 $20,000 $38,950 $36,223 Intergovernmental (D.A.R.E.) $1,030 $13,030 $1,500 $1,395 Solar Incentive Grant Program $1,854 $1,854 $1,854 $1,724 Employee Rental Assistance Program $1,494 $1,494 $2,700 $2,511 Asset Seizure Program $1,751 $1,751 $3,500 $3,405
Pension Sustainability Fund $3,399 $3,399 $4,200 $3,906 Facilities Replacement Fund $77,971 $77,971 $110,000 $102,300 Sustainable Foster City Fund $4,841 $4,841 $15,000 $13,950 General Fund 005-012 (City) Subtotal $112,340 $124,340 $177,704 $165,414 total general fund 005-012 $112,340 $124,340 $177,704 $165,414 Total General Fund (ALL) $66,211,505 $66,223,505 $71,880,720 $71,356,149 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 5

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 752
Special Revenue Funds
Traffic Safety
Vehicle Code Fines $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $42,436
Interest $0 $0 $0 $0
Traffic Safety Subtotal $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $42,436 Measure A
Sales Taxes $964,492 $964,492 $968,300 $997,349
Interest $125,600 $125,600 $190,000 $176,700
Measure A Subtotal $1,090,092 $1,090,092 $1,158,300 $1,174,049 Gas Tax (2030; 2105 - 2107.5; 2103 Gas Tax Swap)
Gas Tax (2105-2107.5) $627,270 $627,270 $645,723 $664,914 Gas Tax (2103) $308,206 $308,206 $315,900 $325,377
Interest $14,317 $14,317 $22,000 $20,460
Gas Tax (2030; 2105-2107.5; 2103 Gas Tax Swap) Subtotal $949,793 $949,793 $983,623 $1,010,751 Park In-Lieu Fees
Developer Fees $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $93,000
Park In-Lieu Fees Subtotal $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $93,000 Measure M
Vehicle License Fees $127,823 $127,823 $100,000 $103,000 Measure M Subtotal $127,823 $127,823 $100,000 $103,000
SLESF/COPS Grant
Grant $169,950 $169,950 $205,000 $211,150
SLESF/COPS Subtotal $169,950 $169,950 $205,000 $211,150 CalOpps.org
Fees for Services $445,000 $445,000 $445,000 $445,000
Interest $19,982 $19,982 $21,000 $19,530
CalOpps.org Subtotal $464,982 $464,982 $466,000 $464,530 Foster City Foundation
Grants and Donations $21,000 $21,000 $80,500 $90,500
Foster City Foundation Subtotal $21,000 $21,000 $80,500 $90,500 SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account $900,838 $900,838 $900,838 $927,863 Interest $29,664 $29,664 $115,000 $106,950
SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund Subtotal $930,502 $930,502 $1,015,838 $1,034,813 Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund (LMIHF)
Loan Payment $0 $0 $0 $0
Rentals $63,345 $63,345 $63,345 $65,245
Interest $83,533 $83,533 $110,000 $102,300
LMIHF Fund Subtotal $146,878 $146,878 $173,345 $167,545 City Affordable Housing Fund
Loan Repayment $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $0
Interest $31,364 $31,364 $35,000 $32,550
City Affordable Housing Fund Subtotal $66,364 $66,364 $70,000 $32,550 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 6

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 753
General Plan Maintenance Fund
Other $1,136,522 $1,136,522 $1,155,624 $1,214,792
Interest $61,646 $61,646 $125,000 $116,250
General Plan Maintenance Fund Subtotal $1,198,168 $1,198,168 $1,280,624 $1,331,042 Construction & Demo Fund
Other $39,037 $39,037 $39,037 $40,208
Interest $36,977 $36,977 $44,000 $40,920
Construction & Demo Fund Subtotal $76,014 $76,014 $83,037 $81,128 Technology Maintenance Fund
Other $203,773 $203,773 $208,290 $218,458
Interest $7,210 $7,210 $13,000 $12,090
Technology Maintenance Fund Subtotal $210,983 $210,983 $221,290 $230,548 SB 1186 Fund
Other $5,665 $5,665 $5,665 $5,835
Interest $1,391 $1,391 $4,000 $3,720
SB 1186 Fund Subtotal $7,056 $7,056 $9,665 $9,555
SMIP Fund
Other $433 $433 $433 $446
Interest $206 $206 $206 $192
SMIP Fund Subtotal $639 $639 $639 $638
CRV Grant Fund
Other $8,755 $8,755 $8,755 $9,018
Interest $247 $247 $247 $230
CRV Grant Fund Subtotal $9,002 $9,002 $9,002 $9,248
Curbside Recycling Fund
Other $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $15,914
Interest $8,807 $8,807 $12,000 $11,160
Curbside Recycling Fund Subtotal $24,257 $24,257 $27,450 $27,074 Green Building Fees Fund
Other $721 $721 $721 $743
Interest $206 $206 $206 $192
Green Building Fees Fund Subtotal $927 $927 $927 $935
Measure W Fund
Sales Taxes $467,723 $467,723 $479,184 $493,560
Interest $33,372 $33,372 $80,000 $74,400
Measure W Fund Subtotal $501,095 $501,095 $559,184 $567,960 Affordable Housing Fund-Commercial Linkage Fees Fund
Charges for current services $7,831,386 $7,831,386 $7,831,386 $2,353,561 Interest $16,892 $16,892 $300,000 $279,000
Affordable Housing Fund-Commercial Linkage Fees Fund Subtotal $7,848,278 $7,848,278 $8,131,386 $2,632,561 Tenant Relocation Assistance Fund
Interest $3,708 $3,708 $10,000 $9,300
Tenant Relocation Assistance Fund Subtotal $3,708 $3,708 $10,000 $9,300 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 7

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 754
Workforce Housing Fund
Rentals $622,488 $622,488 $622,488 $622,488
Other $32,889 $32,889 $32,889 $35,936
Interest $6,018 $6,018 $7,000 $6,510
Workforce Housing Fund Subtotal $661,395 $661,395 $662,377 $664,934 Workforce Housing - Equipment Replacement Fund
ISF Charges $29,190 $29,190 $29,190 $30,066
Interest $577 $577 $577 $537
Workforce Housing - Equipment Replacement Fund Subtotal $29,767 $29,767 $29,767 $30,603 SB1383 Implementation Fund
Interest $515 $515 $515 $479
SB1383 Implementation Subtotal $515 $515 $515 $479
Impact Fees - Parks Facilities
Charges for current services $915,952 $915,952 $915,951 $275,270 Interest $0 $0 $8,600 $7,998
Impact Fees - Parks Facilities Subtotal $915,952 $915,952 $924,551 $283,268 Impact Fees - Public Safety
Charges for current services $96,684 $96,684 $96,683 $46,943 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0
Impact Fees - Public Safety Subtotal $96,684 $96,684 $96,683 $46,943 Impact Fees - Transportation
Charges for current services $310,405 $310,405 $310,405 $150,713 Interest $0 $0 $11,500 $10,695
Impact Fees - Transportation Subtotal $310,405 $310,405 $321,905 $161,408 Local Housing Trust Fund
Intergovernmental $0 $0 $0 $0
Local Housing Trust Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
total special revenue funds $16,003,429 $16,003,429 $16,762,808 $10,511,948 Debt Services Fund
City - GO Bond 2020
Property Taxes $4,207,550 $4,207,550 $4,319,076 $4,440,010 Interest $4,635 $4,635 $150,000 $139,500
City Debt Services Subtotal $4,212,185 $4,212,185 $4,469,076 $4,579,510 City - GO Bond 2023
Property Taxes $319,300 $319,300 $343,564 $353,184
Interest $515 $515 $3,500 $3,255
City Debt Services Subtotal $319,815 $319,815 $347,064 $356,439 total debt services fund $4,532,000 $4,532,000 $4,816,140 $4,935,949 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 8

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 755
Capital Projects Fund
City Capital Projects
Other $15,708 $15,708 $15,708 $16,179
Interest $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,600,000 $1,488,000
City Capital Projects Subtotal $1,465,708 $1,465,708 $1,615,708 $1,504,179 Capital Asset Acquisition and Replacement Fund
Loans Receivable Payments $755,754 $755,754 $780,685 $806,439 Interest $717,026 $717,026 $696,382 $681,608
Capital Asset Acquisition and Replacement Subtotal $1,472,780 $1,472,780 $1,477,067 $1,488,047 total capital projects fund $2,938,488 $2,938,488 $3,092,775 $2,992,226 Enterprise Funds
Water Revenue
User Charges $19,174,000 $19,174,000 $21,238,228 $22,673,738 Interest $317,000 $317,000 $257,000 $205,000
Sustainability Fund Revenues $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 Water Revenue Subtotal $19,741,000 $19,741,000 $21,745,228 $23,178,738 Water Equipment Replacement
Equipment Rental $470,470 $470,470 $523,853 $539,569
Water Equipment Replacement Subtotal $470,470 $470,470 $523,853 $539,569 Water Connection
Connection Fees $497,855 $497,855 $497,855 $0
Interest $33,784 $33,784 $12,000 $11,160
Water Connection Subtotal $531,639 $531,639 $509,855 $11,160 Wastewater Revenue
User Charges $21,558,000 $21,558,000 $21,950,000 $22,471,000 Other $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Interest $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $531,000 $357,000
Wastewater Revenue Subtotal $22,559,000 $22,559,000 $22,482,000 $22,829,000 Wastewater Expansion
Other $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
Wastewater Expansion Subtotal $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Wastewater Equipment Replacement
Equipment Rental $476,101 $476,101 $374,538 $385,774
Wastewater Equipment Replacement Subtotal $476,101 $476,101 $374,538 $385,774 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Financing Proceeds $66,860,640 $66,860,640 $0 $0
Interest $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $93,000
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Subtotal $66,960,640 $66,960,640 $100,000 $93,000 Wastewater Connection
Connection Fees $1,200,496 $1,200,496 $1,200,496 $0
Interest $9,064 $9,064 $9,064 $8,430
Wastewater Connection Subtotal $1,209,560 $1,209,560 $1,209,560 $8,430 total enterprise funds $111,950,910 $111,950,910 $46,947,534 $47,048,171 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 9

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 756
Internal Service Funds
Vehicle Replacement
Vehicle Replacement Charges $2,089,081 $2,089,081 $2,089,081 $2,151,753 Interest $91,950 $91,950 $350,000 $325,500
Vehicle Replacement Subtotal $2,181,031 $2,181,031 $2,439,081 $2,477,253 Equipment Replacement
Equipment Rental $657,513 $657,513 $657,513 $677,238
Interest $172,650 $172,650 $350,000 $325,500
Equipment Replacement Subtotal $830,163 $830,163 $1,007,513 $1,002,738 Self-Insurance
Insurance Charges $2,144,175 $2,144,175 $2,144,175 $2,208,500 Interest $18,750 $18,750 $16,000 $14,880
Self-Insurance Subtotal $2,162,925 $2,162,925 $2,160,175 $2,223,380 Information Technology
User Charges $2,778,889 $2,778,889 $2,778,889 $2,862,256 Other $41,882 $41,882 $41,882 $43,138
Interest $134,400 $134,400 $350,000 $325,500
Information Technology Subtotal $2,955,171 $2,955,171 $3,170,771 $3,230,894 Building Maintenance
User Charges $3,616,092 $3,616,092 $3,732,310 $3,844,279 Interest $168,750 $168,750 $440,000 $409,200
Building Maintenance Subtotal $3,784,842 $3,784,842 $4,172,310 $4,253,479 Longevity Recognition Benefits
Longevity Benefits Charges $229,402 $229,402 $243,420 $250,723 Interest $68,085 $68,085 $100,000 $93,000
Longevity Recognition Benefits Subtotal $297,487 $297,487 $343,420 $343,723 PEMHCA Benefits Plan
PEMHCA Benefits Charges $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest $162,915 $162,915 $55,000 $51,150
PEMHCA Benefits Plan Subtotal $162,915 $162,915 $55,000 $51,150 Compensated Absences
Employer Contributions $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest $87,975 $87,975 $117,000 $108,810
Compensated Absences Subtotal $87,975 $87,975 $117,000 $108,810 Workers Compensation
Workers Compensation Charges $1,563,882 $1,563,882 $1,563,882 $1,595,159 Interest $200 $200 $200 $186
Workers Compensation Subtotal $1,564,082 $1,564,082 $1,564,082 $1,595,345 total internal service funds $14,026,591 $14,026,591 $15,029,352 $15,286,772 (Continued on next page)
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 10

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 757
Fiduciary Fund
Successor Agency of Community Development Agency
Property, Current Secured $305,395 $305,395 $305,395 $314,557 Interest $3,914 $3,914 $3,914 $3,640
Successor Agency - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Subtotal $309,309 $309,309 $309,309 $318,197 San Mateo Consolidated Fire
Other $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Subtotal $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 total fiduciary funds $458,309 $458,309 $458,309 $467,197 TOTAL REVENUE ALL FUNDS $216,121,232 $216,133,232 $158,987,638 $152,598,412 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Approved Revised Budget Budget
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Revenue by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
(Continued from previous page)
City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 11

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 758
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Appropriations by Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027
Total Appropriations: $171,320,806
General Fund (001-003); $70,285,078; 41.02%
General Fund (005-012); $52,601; 0.03%
Special Revenue Funds; $9,804,956; 5.72%
Debt Service Funds; $4,220,588; 2.46%
Capital Improvements Projects; $15,928,000; 9.30%
Enterprise Funds; $51,988,849; 30.35%
Fiduciary Fund; $730,910; 0.43%
Internal Service Funds; $18,309,824; 10.69%
General Fund (001-003) General Fund (005-012) Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Improvements Projects Levee Project Fund Enterprise Funds Fiduciary Fund Internal Service Funds

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 12

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 759
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Appropriations by Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2028
Total Appropriations: $155,503,758
General Fund (001-003); 70,083,477; 45.07%
General Fund (005-012); 52,724; 0.03%
Special Revenue Funds; 5,968,624; 3.84%
Debt Service Funds; 4,220,113; 2.71%
Capital Improvements Projects; 8,683,500; 5.59%
Enterprise Funds; 44,966,982; 28.92%
Fiduciary Fund; 502,550; 0.32%
Internal Service Funds; 21,025,788; 13.52%
General Fund (001-003) General Fund (005-012) Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Improvements Projects Levee Project Fund Enterprise Funds Fiduciary Fund Internal Service Funds

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 13

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 760
City of Foster City, California / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Appropriations by Fund
Annual Appropriations for the Year Ending June 30, 2027 & 2028 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED
GENERAL FUND (001-003) $64,872,745 $66,371,595 $70,285,078 $70,083,477 GENERAL FUND (005-012) $40,397 $69,105 $52,601 $52,724
TRAFFIC SAFETY $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $41,200
MEASURE A $0 $0 $4,455,000 $1,005,000
GAS TAX (2105-2107) $1,127,270 $1,127,270 $636,358 $955,448 PARK IN-LIEU FEES $0 $0 $0 $0
MEASURE M $0 $0 $120,000 $130,000
SLESF/COPS GRANT $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
CALOPPS.ORG $472,120 $556,610 $467,032 $478,330
FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION $88,000 $88,000 $110,000 $119,265 SB1 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $975,000 $855,000 LMIHAF-HOUSING SUCCESSOR $186,500 $186,500 $235,156 $238,966 CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND $5,224 $25,224 $0 $0
GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FUND $409,512 $527,392 $802,777 $707,448 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION FUND $106,500 $106,500 $181,500 $184,695 TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE FUND $105,485 $105,485 $105,485 $108,650 SB 1186 FUND $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300
SMIP FEE FUND $500 $500 $500 $500
CRV GRANT FUND $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,390
CURBSIDE RECYCLING FEE FUND $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 GREEN BUILDING FEE FUND $500 $500 $500 $500
MEASURE W $0 $0 $820,000 $435,000
AFFORDABLE HOUSING-COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES $10,000 $889,250 $10,000 $10,000 WORKFORCE HOUSING $375,088 $375,088 $398,369 $407,932
SB1383 IMPLEMENTATION $6,979 $28,612 $6,979 $0
IMPACT FEE - PARKS FACILITIES $467,000 $467,000 $0 $0
IMPACT FEE - TRANSPORTATION $0 $0 $300,000 $150,000
LOCAL HOUSING TRUST $0 $0 $0 $0
DEBT SERVICES FUND $3,904,988 $3,904,988 $3,903,213 $3,903,113 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $8,228,263 $8,325,583 $15,928,000 $8,683,500 DSF-231 $214,300 $214,300 $317,375 $317,000
LEVEE PROJECT FUND $0 $0 $0 $0
WATER $20,348,571 $20,450,794 $23,497,715 $23,859,123
WASTEWATER $102,233,056 $102,289,727 $28,491,134 $21,107,859 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT $2,339,837 $3,084,837 $2,285,274 $6,603,136 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $924,900 $978,800 $997,800 $598,100 SELF INSURANCE $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $2,113,610 $2,210,908 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $2,780,864 $2,855,104 $4,002,391 $3,076,574 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $3,657,183 $3,657,183 $6,124,256 $5,663,172 LONGEVITY RECOGNITION BENEFITS $231,820 $231,820 $247,720 $247,720 PEMHCA BENEFITS PLAN $566,314 $5,066,314 $519,751 $556,008 COMPENSATED ABSENCES $493,029 $493,029 $804,922 $829,070 WORKERS COMPENSATION $1,180,100 $1,855,100 $1,214,100 $1,241,100

SUCCESSOR AGENCY (SA) OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY $504,630 $504,630 $581,910 $353,550
SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 TOTAL FOR CITY / EMID $219,690,975 $228,646,140 $171,320,806 $155,503,758 City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 14

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 761
City of Foster City, California / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of Operating Expenditures and Capital Expenditures by Category Annual Operating Budget Appropriations For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED
EMPLOYEE SERVICES $51,812,286 $56,458,062 $54,993,687 $55,902,073 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $120,101,848 $123,332,697 $ 59,710,425 $ 60,932,426 INTERNAL SERVICES $ 13,138,258 $ 13,138,258 $ 15,977,942 $ 14,963,264 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 2,783,804 $ 3,707,704 $ 3,962,949 $ 8,197,495 REALLOCATIONS $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $187,836,196 $196,636,721 $134,645,003 $139,995,258 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $31,854,779 $32,009,419 $36,675,803 $15,508,500 TOTAL CITY / EMID / SA EXPENDITURES $219,690,975 $228,646,140 $171,320,806 $155,503,758 City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 15

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 762
City of Foster City
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Department (001-012) For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027
Total General Fund Operating Expenditures: $70,337,679
COUNCIL/BOARD: $432,840: 0.61%
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER: $2,071,934: 2.95%
COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK: $1,285,702: 1.83%
CITY ATTORNEY: $553,036: 0.79%
ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS: $2,222,367: 3.16%
FINANCIAL SERVICES: $2,053,656: 2.92%
POLICE: $21,055,148: 29.93%
FIRE: $14,097,321: 20.04%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $5,009,355: 7.12%
PARKS & RECREATION: $14,199,155: 20.19%
PUBLIC WORKS: $6,524,448: 9.28%
LIBRARY SERVICES: $527,217: 0.75%
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION: $305,500: 0.43%

COUNCIL/BOARD CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER

COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS FINANCIAL SERVICES

POLICE FIRE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARKS & RECREATION

PUBLIC WORKS LIBRARY SERVICES

PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 16

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 763
City of Foster City
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Department (001-012) For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2028
Total General Fund Operating Expenditures: $70,136,201
COUNCIL/BOARD: $457,258: 0.65%
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER: $2,121,432: 3.02%
COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK: $1,262,213: 1.80%
CITY ATTORNEY: $572,627: 0.82%
ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS: $2,278,837: 3.25%
FINANCIAL SERVICES: $2,102,989: 3.00%
POLICE: $21,517,476: 30.68%
FIRE: $14,393,688: 20.52%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $5,165,519: 7.37%
PARKS & RECREATION: $13,370,965: 19.06%
PUBLIC WORKS: $5,992,441: 8.54%
LIBRARY SERVICES: $564,706: 0.81%
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION: $336,050: 0.48%

COUNCIL/BOARD CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER

COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS FINANCIAL SERVICES

POLICE FIRE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARKS & RECREATION

PUBLIC WORKS LIBRARY SERVICES

PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 17

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 764
City of Foster City, California / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of General Fund Appropriations (001-003)
Annual Operating Budget Appropriations For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

DEPARTMENT APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED
COUNCIL/BOARD $546,534 $546,534 $432,840 $457,258
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER $2,065,778 $2,065,778 $2,058,230 $2,107,728 COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK $1,321,187 $1,321,187 $1,285,702 $1,262,213 CITY ATTORNEY $684,554 $684,554 $553,036 $572,627
ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS $1,926,240 $1,926,240 $2,222,367 $2,278,837 FINANCIAL SERVICES $1,893,929 $2,008,629 $2,053,656 $2,102,989 PARKS & RECREATION $11,630,139 $12,053,963 $14,199,155 $13,370,965 POLICE $19,993,959 $20,155,127 $21,038,451 $21,517,476
FIRE $13,527,093 $13,527,093 $14,097,321 $14,376,868
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $4,715,722 $5,453,813 $5,002,155 $5,165,519 PUBLIC WORKS $5,654,550 $5,715,617 $6,509,448 $5,985,241 LIBRARY SERVICES $607,560 $607,560 $527,217 $549,706
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION $305,500 $305,500 $305,500 $336,050 TOTAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS $64,872,745 $66,371,595 $70,285,078 $70,083,477 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED EMPLOYEE SERVICES $40,297,001 $40,442,777 $43,360,169 $44,017,608 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $19,030,733 $20,268,807 $19,699,689 $20,210,419 CAPITAL OUTLAY $33,500 $148,500 $0 $0
INTERNAL SERVICES $8,702,933 $8,702,933 $10,874,915 $9,613,420 REALLOCATIONS ($3,191,422) ($3,191,422) ($3,649,695) ($3,757,970) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $64,872,745 $66,371,595 $70,285,078 $70,083,477 City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 18

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 765
City of Foster City, California / Estero Municipal Improvement District Summary of General Fund Appropriations (005-012)
Annual Operating Budget Appropriations For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

DEPARTMENT APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED
COUNCIL/BOARD $0 $0 $0 $0
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER $0 $22,208 $13,704 $13,704
COMMUNICATIONS/CITY CLERK $0 $0 $0 $0
CITY ATTORNEY $0 $0 $0 $0
HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0
FINANCIAL SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0
POLICE $16,697 $16,697 $16,697 $16,820
FIRE $0 $0 $0 $0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $8,700 $15,200 $7,200 $7,200
PUBLIC WORKS $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
LIBRARY SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS $40,397 $69,105 $52,601 $52,724 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28

EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY APPROVED REVISED REQUESTED REQUESTED EMPLOYEE SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0
SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $40,397 $69,105 $52,601 $52,724
CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0
INTERNAL SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0
REALLOCATIONS $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $40,397 $69,105 $52,601 $52,724 City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 19

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 766
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Personnel Summary
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2026 to 2027
Department Prior Years Budget Budget
2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
City / District Manager 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Communications/City Clerk 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Community Development 17.00 18.00 20.00 20.00
Financial Services/City Treasurer 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 Administrative Services 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Parks and Recreation 30.00 30.00 31.00 31.00
Police 55.00 55.00 56.00 56.00
Public Works 49.00 51.00 52.00 52.00
Total Full Time Positions 178.00 182.00 188.00 188.00
City / District Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications/City Clerk 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Community Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Services/City Treasurer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks and Recreation 2.25 0.00 2.25 2.25
Police 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Part Time with Benefits Positions 3.00 0.75 3.00 3.00 City / District Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications/City Clerk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Community Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Services/City Treasurer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks and Recreation 9.16 10.34 11.77 11.77
Police 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total Part Time without Benefits Positions 10.66 11.84 13.27 13.27 TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS 191.66 194.59 204.27 204.27 Note: For position change details, please refer to the respective department staffing pages. Position counts exclude overhires.

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 20

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 767
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plan (FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28) • For the 2026-27 and 2027-28 CIP, please refer to Table C-1 and Table C-2 starting on page 294 in the Capital Improvement Section.

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 21

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 768
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Schedule of Fund Balance Transfers
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2027 & 2028
Transfers Out Fund FY 2026-27
# Transfer In Fund FY 2026-27 001 002 129 401 451 453 456 502 505 Totals 1 001 GENERAL FUND $0 $43,653,414 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,653,414 2 003 GENERAL FUND-SPECIAL
RECREATION $695,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $695,566
3 012 SUSTAINABLE FOSTER CITY $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 4 301 CAPITAL INVESTMENT-CITY $5,650,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $1,250,000 $7,380,000 5 405 CAPITAL INVESTMENTWATER $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 6 451 WASTEWATER REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $2,500 7 453 WASTEWATER RATE
STABILIZATION FUND $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,092,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,092,250 8 454 SM-FC PFA LOAN FUND* $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,092,250 $0 $0 $0 $2,092,250 9 455 CAPITAL INVESTMENTWASTEWATER $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,800,000 10 459 WIFIA* $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,659,832 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,659,832 11 461 SRF LOAN* $0 $0 $0 $0 1,262,104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,262,104 Totals $6,345,566 $43,653,414 $50,000 $2,600,000 $15,814,186 $2,092,250 $2,500 $480,000 $1,250,000 $72,287,916 Transfers Out Fund FY 2027-28
# Transfer In Fund FY 2027-28 001 002 129 401 451 453 456 505 Totals 1 001 GENERAL FUND $0 $44,845,451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,845,451 2 003 GENERAL FUND-SPECIAL
RECREATION $53,416 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,416
3 012 SUSTAINABLE FOSTER CITY $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 4 301 CAPITAL INVESTMENT-CITY $5,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $6,300,000 5 405 CAPITAL INVESTMENTWATER $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 6 451 WASTEWATER REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500 7 453 WASTEWATER RATE
STABILIZATION FUND $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,091,375 $0 $0 $0 $2,091,375 8 454 SM-FC PFA LOAN FUND* $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,091,375 $0 $0 $2,091,375 9 455 CAPITAL INVESTMENTWASTEWATER $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,600,000 10 459 WIFIA* $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,659,832 $0 $0 $0 $2,659,832 11 461 SRF LOAN* $0 $0 $0 $0 1,262,073 $0 $0 $0 $1,262,073 Totals $5,853,416 $44,845,451 $50,000 $2,600,000 $9,613,280 $2,091,375 $2,500 $500,000 $65,556,022 *SRF = State Revolving Fund; WIFIA = Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan Fund 002 - General Fund - District; Fund 129 - Construction & Demolition; Fund 137 - Commercial Linkage Fee; Fund 401 - Water Revenue; Fund 456 - Wastewater Plant Expansion; Fund 502 - Equipment Replacement; Fund 505 - Building Maintenance Footnotes:

1. Transfer of District Surplus to General Fund 001.

2. Transfers to subsidize Special Recreation Fund.

3. Annual transfer to General Fund Sustainable Foster City Fund.

4. Set aside funds for long-term Capital Improvement Projects & transfer from Fund 505 to CIP 301-678

5. Transfers to set aside funds for Long-Term CIP Projects in the Water Capital Investment Fund.

6. Transfers to transfers to Wastewater Revenue.

7. Set aside funds for Wastewater Rate Stabilization Fund.

8. Transfers to SM-FC PFA debt service.

9. Set aside funds for Long-Term CIP Projects in the Wastewater Capital Investment Fund.

10. Set aside funds for debt service, fiscal agent fees and expenses.

11. Set aside funds for debt service, fiscal agent fees and expenses.

City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027-28 Final Budget Page 22

9.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibit to CityEMID Resolutions Financial and Personnel Summaries 769
DATE: June 15, 2026
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
Frank Fanara, Park Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS, INC. FOR

CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED

ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for continued implementation of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan, exercising the first of two optional one-year extension periods from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $381,598, subject to the appropriation of funds in the Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for continued implementation of the City’s Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan.

The original agreement was executed on August 4, 2025, with a term through June 30, 2026. The agreement includes two optional one-year extension periods, exercisable at the discretion of the City Council. The proposed first amendment would authorize the

9.2 9.2 Staff Report
770
first extension, continuing services from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, for an amount not to exceed $381,598.

Approval of the amendment will allow the City to maintain continuity of services and continue implementation of adaptive Canada goose management strategies, including hazing and deterrence, trained dog deployment, remote-controlled deterrence devices, monitoring, reporting, regulatory compliance, and ongoing program refinements based on field observations and data.

Funding for this work is included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget, which is scheduled for City Council consideration in June. Approval of this item would authorize execution of the First Amendment, subject to the appropriation of funds through the adopted Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget.

BACKGROUND
The City has experienced ongoing impacts from Canada goose activity in parks and open space areas, including turf damage, accumulation of fecal matter, impacts to public use areas, and concerns regarding the long-term usability and maintenance of waterfront park spaces. In response, the City developed and adopted the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan, which provides a comprehensive, phased framework for addressing goose-related impacts through humane, science-based, and adaptive management practices.

On August 4, 2025, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. to implement the Canada Goose Management Plan. The agreement established an initial term through June 30, 2026, and included two optional one-year extensions: the First Optional Extended Term from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, and the Second Optional Extended Term from July 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028.

Under the agreement, Wildlife Innovations provides professional wildlife management services within seven priority Foster City parks, including Leo J. Ryan Park, Marlin Park, Gull Park, Erckenbrack Park, Sea Cloud Park, Edgewater Park, and Catamaran Park. The agreement also allows program implementation to expand beyond the seven (7) priority parks if goose presence is effectively reduced in those areas or if mitigation efforts become more efficient.

The proposed First Amendment would extend the agreement for one additional year, from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. All other provisions of the original agreement would remain in full force and effect during the extended term.

ANALYSIS
The Canada Goose Management Plan was designed as an adaptive program, meaning strategies are evaluated and refined over time based on observed goose behavior,

9.2 9.2 Staff Report
771
seasonal patterns, monitoring data, site conditions, and program results. Because goose activity changes throughout the year, including during nesting, molting, and migration-related movement periods, continued implementation is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and adjust as conditions change.

Exercising the First Optional Extended Term allows the City to maintain continuity in the implementation of the Canada Goose Management Plan and continue building on work completed during the first year of the agreement. It is important to maintain an uninterrupted field presence because Canada geese can quickly reestablish site use patterns when deterrence and monitoring efforts are reduced or inconsistent.

The scope of work includes several key program components. Wildlife Innovations conducts site-specific evaluations, applies hazing and deterrence techniques, utilizes trained dog teams, deploys remote-controlled deterrence devices, assists with monitoring and metrics, provides detailed reporting, supports regulatory compliance, and refines strategies based on ongoing observations. The agreement also includes use of cameras and GPS or cellular transmitter tools to help evaluate goose activity, timing, location, movement patterns, and behavioral response to management techniques.

Following adoption of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan and execution of the professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations, implementation efforts initially focused on program setup, operational coordination, and baseline monitoring. Consistent with the adopted framework, the CAGO Plan has been implemented in phases. Current activities include:
• Confirming baseline conditions and validated priority park selection • Establishing operational structure needed to support on-the-ground geese management actions across multiple park types and shoreline conditions • Acquiring all necessary permits and regulatory approvals associated with the current phase of implementation including those related to goose banding and GPS tracking
• Transitioning from planning and preparation to active field implementation including ground-based hazing at priority parks
During the current implementation year, early performance indicators show progress toward the City’s desired outcomes of reducing Canada goose activity, improving targeted response, and supporting cleaner, more usable park and lagoon-adjacent areas. Wildlife Innovations’ second quarterly reporting period documented expanded monitoring and field response efforts, including drone surveillance, camera monitoring, GPS collar data review, trained dog hazing, and use of the remote-controlled amphibious deterrent device. These efforts have helped identify goose movement patterns, congregation areas, nesting activity, and seasonal return behavior, allowing staff and Wildlife Innovations to adjust strategies and focus resources in high-activity locations. Several nests have also been located and addressed through permitted egg addling efforts, reducing reproductive success and helping limit long-term site fidelity. In particular, the combination of the trained hazing dog and remote-controlled amphibious

9.2 9.2 Staff Report
772
device has shown to be effective in moving geese from turf, shoreline, and lagoon-edge areas where traditional land-based hazing methods are more limited.

Additionally, priority beach locations were removed from the County’s elevated bacteria notification list during recent reporting periods, reflecting improved conditions in areas historically impacted by goose activity.

Next Steps
As implementation continues, management activities will be sequenced to align with seasonal Canada goose behavior and life-cycle patterns. Upcoming phases of work are expected to include locating and monitoring nesting activity within City limits, followed by nesting season management activities such as egg addling, where appropriate.

These efforts will be coordinated with continued deterrence and monitoring during the post-nesting return period and molting season. Together, these phases represent critical windows for influencing site fidelity and long-term use of City parks by resident geese.

Continuation of the agreement will also support the City’s ability to respond to seasonal conditions and focus efforts in high-impact areas. The agreement anticipates that contractor staffing will generally be onsite five days per week for eight hours per day, with flexibility to adjust scheduling based on program needs. This allows the program to remain responsive as goose activity shifts between parks, lagoon areas, nesting sites, and other locations.

The proposed First Amendment does not create a new scope of work. Rather, it exercises the first optional extension period already contemplated in the original agreement. The amendment extends the agreement through June 30, 2027, establishes compensation for the extended term in an amount not to exceed $381,598, and confirms that all other provisions of the original agreement remain in effect.

Staff recommends approval of the First Amendment to ensure continued implementation of the City’s adopted Canada Goose Management Plan and to avoid a gap in service at the start of Fiscal Year 2026–27.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

9.2 9.2 Staff Report
773
On December 2, 2024, the City Council via City Resolution No. 2024-127 adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including all findings, standard conditions of approval, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, for the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan. The approval of the professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations authorizes implementation of the Management Plan.

Implementation activities, including the use of various management techniques, were contemplated and analyzed as part of the approved IS/MND and thus no supplemental review or action is necessary. The project is being implemented in a manner consistent with the adopted IS/MND, and no additional environmental review or action is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
The First Amendment would extend the agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $381,598.

The total compensation paid to Wildlife Innovations for the original term and the First Optional Extended Term would not exceed $771,438.

The original agreement also identifies optional services for the same performance period in the amount of $90,847.73. These optional services are separate from the requested services and would only be used if authorized and needed.

Funding for the extended term is included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget, which is scheduled for City Council consideration on June 15. Approval of this item would authorize execution of the First Amendment, subject to the appropriation of funds through the adopted Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget. No expenditure under the extended term would occur unless sufficient funding is approved and available.

The proposed FY 2027-28 budget also includes sufficient funds for a possible second extension of services from Wildlife Innovations. While the budget includes these funds, any further contract extension beyond the First Amendment would be subject to Council approval.

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

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Amendment No. 1
Attachment 3 – Agreement

9.2 9.2 Staff Report
774
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS, INC.

FOR CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CEQA STATUS: IS/MND APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2, 2024)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Foster City has experienced ongoing impacts from Canada goose activity within parks, open space areas, and waterfront public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan (“Plan”) to provide a comprehensive, phased, and adaptive framework for humane and science-based management of Canada goose activity within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for implementation of the Plan, with an initial term through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement included two optional one-year extension periods, exercisable at the discretion of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed First Amendment would exercise the first optional extension period and extend the Agreement from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $381,598; and
WHEREAS, continuation of the Agreement will allow the City to maintain continuity of services and continue implementation of adaptive Canada goose management strategies; and
WHEREAS, funding for the extended term is included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget and is subject to appropriation by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Foster City that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. for continued implementation of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan, extending the agreement term from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $381,598, subject to appropriation of funds in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026– 27 budget.

9.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
775
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

9.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution
776

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVIES FOR

CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Foster City (“CITY) and Wildlife Innovations Inc.(“CONTRACTOR”)(collectively “the parties”) hereby amend the agreement entitled Agreement for VENDOR AGREEMENT FOR

PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICES FOR CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (“Agreement”), Which was Executed on August 4, 2025, as follows:

RECITALS
This First Amendment is agreed to with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

A. The initial term of the Agreement was to run from August 4, 2025 thru June 30, 2026; B. Section 2 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement may be renewed by the City Council for two, one year (12 months), extended terms (“Extended Term”) as follows: First Optional Extended term will be from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027 and Second Optional Extended Term will be from July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028; C. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement to evidence the City Council’s exercise of the First Optional Extended term at the agreed-upon contract price during the period of July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027.

AGREEMENT
The Parties agree to the following: :

1. CONTRACTOR shall perform the work called for under the Agreement for an additional year, with the additional term commencing on July 1, 2026 and expiring on June 30. 2027 (“First Optional Extended Term”)

2. All other provisions of the Agreement, unless revised in this First Amendment , shall remain in full force and effect .

3. The total combined compensation and reimbursement for the costs payable to the CONTRACTOR for services performed during the First Optional Extended Term (July 1, 2026 thru June 30, 2027) shall not exceed $381,598. The total compensation paid to CONTRACTOR pursuant to the Agreement for the Initial Term and the First Optional Extended Term of the Agreement shall not exceed the amount of $771,438.

4. Any additional extension of the term of the Agreement beyond June 30, 2026 shall require an additional amendment executed by the parties. [Signatures on Next Page]

9.2 Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 1
777
IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to the Agreement for VENDOR AGREEMENT FOR PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICES FOR CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION be executed by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated: _________________________________
Stefan Chatwin , City Manager
ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock, City Attorney
VENDOR
Dated:

Jake Manley, Owner, Wildlife Innovations

9.2 Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 1
778
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, OR

LANDSCAPING
FOR

CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 4th day of August, 2025 by and between the City of Foster City hereinafter called "CITY" and Wildlife Innovations Inc. hereinafter called "CONSULTANT".

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

WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide professional services in the CITY;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to provide such services to the CITY and; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereby agree as follows :

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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

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

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

2. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date hereinabove written and shall expire on June 30, 2026. (“Initial Term”).

The Agreement may be renewed in the sole discretion of the City Council for two, one-year (12 months), extended terms as follows (“Extended Terms”):

First Optional Extended Term will be from July 1,2026 to June 30, 2027 and Second optional Extended Term will be from July 1,2027 to June 30, 2028 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY may with or without cause, direct CONSULTANT to suspend, delay or interrupt Services, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as CITY may determine in its sole discretion. (c) CITY may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for default, should CONSULTANT commit Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
779
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
a material breach of this Agreement, or part thereof, and not cure such breach within ten ( 10) calendar days of the date of CITY’s written notice to CONSULTANT demanding such cure, in which case CONSULTANT shall be liable to CITY for all loss, cost, expense, damage and liability resulting from such breach and termination. ( d) CITY may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for convenience, whenever CITY determines that such termination is in CITY’s best interests, in which case CONSULTANT shall be entitled to recover its costs expended up to the termination date plus reasonable profit thereon to the termination date as this Agreement would otherwise provide, but may recover no other cost, damage or expense. CONSULTANT shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and CONSULTANT’ s failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material breach of this Agreement.

3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder in an amount based upon CONSULTANT’s hourly rates during the time of the performance of said services. A copy of CONSULTANT’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONSULTANT’ s fee schedule marked Exhibit “B” hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum of

THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY
DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($389,840.00). If the CITY, in its sole discretion, exercises its option to extend the Agreement for the Extended Terms, compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Eight Dollars and No Cents ($ 381,598.00) for the first Extended Term and Three Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Six Dollars and No Cents ($385,306.00) for the second Extended Term. Invoices for amounts in excess of the annual amounts set forth above shall not be paid unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by the City Manager ( for contracts less than $ 50,000) or City Council ( for contracts 50,000 or more) evidenced by motion duly made and carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon monthly billing therefor by CONSULTANT to CITY, which billing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed. Final payment will be made when all Services required under this Agreement have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY including, without limitation, CONSULTANT's transmittal of all deliverables to CITY required by EXHIBIT A.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
780
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
CITY shall not incur any charges under this Agreement, nor shall any payments become due to CONSULTANT for any payment period on the Project, until CITY receives all deliverables required under Exhibit A, SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE, for the payment period (if any) and reasonably accepts such deliverables as meeting the requirements of this Agreement. In cases where CONSULTANT has partially completed one or more deliverables due during a payment period, and if CONSULTANT demonstrates diligent progress thereon, then CITY may make a partial progress payment based upon percentage completion of the partially completed deliverables and diligent progress but taking into account any adverse impacts upon CITY.

CITY shall not be liable for, and CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to, any payment for Services performed before this Agreement's execution.

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

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

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

7. Reliance on Professional Skill of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT represents that it has the necessary professional skills to perform the services required and the CITY shall rely on such skills of the CONSULTANT to do and perform the work. In performing services hereunder CONSULTANT shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consulting services similar to those to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder.

CONSULTANT represents that it has reviewed Exhibit A and that in its professional judgment the Services to be performed under this Agreement can be performed for a fee within the maximum amount set forth in the Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
781
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
Compensation Schedule established in Exhibit A and within the times specified for each individual Project.

CONSULTANT represents that it possesses all necessary training, licenses and permits to perform the Services and that its performance of the Services will conform to the standards of practice of a professional having experience and expertise in performing professional services of like nature and complexity of the Services working on similar, successfully completed projects.

The granting of any progress payment by CITY, or the receipt thereof by CONSULTANT, or any inspection, review, approval or oral statement by any representative of CITY or any other governmental entity, shall in no way waive or limit the obligations in this Paragraph 7 or lessen the liability of CONSULTANT for unsatisfactory Services, including but not limited to cases where the defective or below standard Services may not have been apparent or detected at the time of such payment, inspection, review or approval.

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

9. Relationship of Parties. CONSULTANT is an independent Contractor and does not act as City’s agent in any capacity, whatsoever. CONSULTANT is not entitled to any benefits that CITY provides to CITY employees, including, without limitation, worker’s compensation benefits or payments, pension benefits, health benefits or insurance benefits. Terms within this Agreement regarding direction apply to and concern the result of the CONSULTANT’s provision of Services, not the means, methods, or scheduling of the CONSULTANT’s work. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures with respect to its provision of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall pay all payroll taxes imposed by any governmental entity and shall pay all other taxes not specifically identified in this Agreement as CITY’s responsibility.

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

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

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
782
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation

11. Prevailing Wage. CONSULTANT shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any contract in excess of $1,000.00. Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are on file at the City’s Public Works Department and may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations website
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm]. CONSULTANT shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

CONSULTANT and all subcontractors shall keep and maintain accurate employee payroll records for Work performed under the Agreement. The payroll records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code Sections 1771.4 (if applicable) and 1776, including to the Labor Commissioner no less frequently than monthly. CONSULTANT shall comply fully with Labor Code Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement.

12. Indemnity. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of any person, including an employee of CONSULTANT or its Subconsultants), cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, at law or equity, which may be brought against, or suffered or sustained by, City of Foster City or Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers or agents that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed or retained by them, or anyone that they control. In the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.

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

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
783
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

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

13. Insurance. Prior to execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY Certificates of Insurance showing satisfactory proof that it maintains the insurance required by this Contract as set forth in EXHIBIT C, Insurance, which are attached and made a part of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain all required insurance throughout the term of this Agreement and as otherwise provided in EXHIBIT C. In the event CONSULTANT fails to maintain any required insurance, and notwithstanding Paragraph 3 above, CITY may ( but is not obligated to) purchase such insurance and deduct or retain premium amounts from any sums due CONSULTANT under this Agreement ( or CONSULTANT shall promptly reimburse CITY for such expense).

CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five ( 5) years following completion of this project or service. In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the CITY at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by CONSULTANT.

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

15. Non-Discrimination. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act ( Public Law 101-336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
784
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

16. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in writing, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of Foster City
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404-2299
Attention: Frank Fanara
CONSULTANT: Wildlife Innovations, LLC
11629 Westridge Pl
Lakeside, CA 92040
Email:admin@wildlifeinnovation. net

17. Non-Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part.

18. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties.

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

20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the County of San Mateo, California. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California unless the parties agree otherwise in a written amendment to this Agreement . In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

21. Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution with the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be paid equally by the parties. If a mediated settlement is reached neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and each party shall bear its own legal costs.

22. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it presently has no interest, and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of work and services required Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
785
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
under this Agreement. Without limitation, CONSULTANT represents to and agrees with CITY that CONSULTANT has disclosed any potential conflict of interest, and will have no future conflict of interest, in providing CITY services hereunder, including but not limited to, any interest ( financial, share ownership, shared management, shared directors, or reporting responsibilities) CONSULTANT may presently have, or will have in the future, with respect to any other person or entity (including but not limited to potential suppliers, vendors, consultants, contractors, or regulatory agency) which may have an interest in the subject matter of the Services.

23. Liability of CITY.

Except as provided in Exhibit A, Services to be Provided by CONSULTANT and Exhibit C, Insurance, CITY's obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the payment of the compensation provided for in Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of this Agreement,
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall CITY be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract, tort or otherwise, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Services, or the Project.

CITY shall not be responsible for any damage to persons or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by CONSULTANT, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented or loaned to CONSULTANT by CITY. The acceptance or use of such equipment by CONSULTANT or any of its employees shall be construed to mean that CONSULTANT accepts full responsibility for and shall exonerate, indemnify, defend and save harmless CITY from and against any and all claims for any damage or injury of any type, including attorneys' fees, arising from the use, misuse or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the CONSULTANT, its employees, CITY employees or third parties, or to property belonging to any of the above.

Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any right or remedy, whether in equity or at law, which CITY or CONSULTANT may have under this Agreement or any applicable law. All rights and remedies of CITY or CONSULTANT, whether under this Agreement or other applicable law, shall be cumulative.

24. Waiver of Default. Waiver of any default by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach, and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided below.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
786
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation

25. Force Majeure. Except for defaults of subconsultants at any tier, CONSULTANT shall not be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform the Agreement arises from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including without limitation failure to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts (Force Majeure). Force Majeure events include the following:

Acts of God, fires, floods, earthquake, other natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics (other than COVID-19 or variants), abnormal weather conditions beyond the parameters otherwise set forth in this Article, nuclear accidents, strikes, lockouts, freight embargos, interruptions in service by a regulated utility, or governmental statutes or regulations enacted or imposed after the fact (together, “force majeure events”).

Any Force Majeure event with a duration in excess of [30] days entitles either party to terminate this Agreement with written notice to the other party, without further penalty or compensation.

26. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A, B, C, and D comprises the entire Agreement.

Signatures on Next Page]
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
787
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated: _________________________________
Stacy Jimenez, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________
Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
Dated:

Jake Manley, Owner
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 8/5/2025 | 5:00 PM PDT
8/5/2025 | 5:15 PM PDT
8/6/2025 | 12:23 PM PDT
8/6/2025 | 2:45 PM PDT

9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
788
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation

EXHIBIT A

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, PAYMENTS, PROJECTS AND SCHEDULE, AND

DELIVERABLES FOR

CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
This is an Exhibit attached to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated August 4, 2025 by and between Wildlife Innovations, LLC hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" and the City of Foster City, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" providing for professional services.

1. Description of the Project:

1.1 DESCRIPTION: Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation identified in this Exhibit A.

2. Basic Services:

The CITY has developed a general scope of work as described below.

The following scope of services and project responsibilities describe the specific tasks to be performed by the Contractor. If the Contractor believes that the project can be enhanced by the addition of other task(s) or deletion of any specified task(s), such information shall be included in the proposal.

Site Assessments
Task 1: Conduct Site Assessments Tailored to Each Park’s Conditions a. Assessments will be conducted by senior-level personnel to determine site-specific logistics for implementation of a comprehensive CAGO management program within priority FCP
b. Nesting bird and/or special status survey locations will be identified and digitally recorded, and protocols will be developed for the implementation of surveys in conjunction with CAGO management efforts
c. CAGO survey locations will be identified and digitally recorded, and protocols will be developed for their implementation
d. Digital camera locations and placement will be identified and recorded e. Potential deterrence equipment locations and placement will be evaluated and digitally recorded
f. Locations and types of habitat modification or exclusion will be evaluated and discussed with FCP staff
g. Vehicle parking, equipment deployment, and transit logistics will be evaluated for each priority park
h. A schedule will be made for the initial employment of management techniques Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
789
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
Task 2: Evaluate Park-specific Challenges
a. WI senior staff will discuss the results from the assessments and establish a plan for addressing:
i. Avoidance of MBTA and other protected species
ii. Avoidance of high human activity periods
iii. Potential safety concerns
iv. Steps to limit disturbance to the public associated with CAGO hazing v. Logistics of parking, boat launching, and other site accessibility with hazing equipment
Task 2 Assumptions:

WI will discuss and work with FCR to address some of these limitations and identify an approved plan for implementation
Hazing and Deterrence Techniques
Task 3: Use of Trained Dogs to Haze Geese
a. A dog team will be used to conduct hazing of CAGO within priority park areas b. This service includes:
i. Experienced handlers and trained dogs that will conduct patrols throughout designated park zones with dogs harassing and discouraging geese from congregating without causing them injury
ii. Trained handlers will direct the dogs to pursue gaggles and/or individual CAGO until all birds take flight and leave the area
iii. Trained dogs and handler teams will follow predetermined routes and schedules to help provide efficient coverage of the area
b. If dog hazing is initiated and proves to be successful in reducing the presence of CAGO within priority parks sufficiently, it may become possible to reduce frequency of other hazing staff presence. This will depend on the overall effectiveness of thecomprehensive program and must be agreed upon between WI and FCR before reduced effort for other tasks could be implemented.

Task 3 Assumptions:

As WI was not able to identify a local goose-dog team with the capability and capacity to conduct this task at the level of effort requested by FC, and WI does not currently provide these services to other clients, WI will develop a dog team internally if an appropriate subcontractor cannot be identified.

It is anticipated that WI would be able to provide a goose dog and handler team within six months of contract initiation, although it may be possible to deploy a team sooner.

Deployment of the internal WI dog team is contingent upon a minimum full-time (5 days per week) contractual commitment of one year for these services.

This full-time service could be expanded to other FCP outside priority parks for no additional costs, at the request of FCR and upon the ability of WI to maintain the desired results within the seven (7) priority parks.

Costs for this service are based on a monthly flat rate.

Initial efforts will comprise up to five days per week and up to twice daily, as identified in the RFP.

If a full-time dog hazing team is not desired, WI will attempt to identify and Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
790
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
subcontract the most appropriate company to perform these services up to five (5) days per week, dependent upon the subcontractor’ s availability and within budget constraints.

Alternatively, WI will continue to pursue subcontracting a qualified dog team that can provide dog hazing services at the seven (7) priority parks up to five (5) days per week.

The dog team will be scheduled and supervised by the WI PM and coordinated with the BIO(s) tasks to avoid redundancy and conflicts between methods applied.

Costs for this service will be determined upon identification of a qualified entity but will not exceed the costs identified in the cost tables.

Task 4: Remote-controlled Devices to Deter Goose Activity a. Land-based and/or amphibious remote-controlled devices will be used to implement frequent hazing of CAGO at priority parks
i. Equipment may include:
a. Aerial Drones
b. Remote-controlled Amphibious Devices
a. Remote-controlled Boats
b. Lasers
b. Additional equipment may be mounted to devices to increase effect i. Equipment may include:
a. Speakers
b. Other equipment as appropriate
Task 4 Assumptions:

All efforts for this task will require the implementation of techniques and equipment identified in Task 5.

Efforts will require the use of a full-time biologist onsite.

Some equipment (e.g. aerial drones), may require additional permissions from FC or other entities
Task 5: Aversive Conditioning
a. An array of adaptive hazing and deterrence methods and equipment will be employed to increase effectiveness on CAGO and reduce their foraging, roosting, and nesting within FC priority parks
i. Equipment may include:
a. Audio Sonic Goose Deterrent Systems
b. Lasers
c. Scare Eye Balloons
d. Fox Lights
e. Predator Decoys
b. Nest searches and addling or destruction will be employed throughout all FCP properties, as feasible, to reduce resident CAGO reproductive success and site fidelity
Task 5 Assumptions:

All efforts in this task will require the implementation of techniques and equipment in Task 4.

Hazing and deterrence work will be conducted by and/or under the direction of WI biologists specialized in conflict mitigation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
791
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
Efforts will require the use of a full-time biologist onsite for a minimum of nine 9) months per contract year.

Higher intensity hazing will be conducted in high-CAGO activity areas within priority areas or parks, as those areas are identified through surveillance.

The intensity of hazing effort may be greater during ecologically relevant times of year for CAGO (e.g. ahead of the molt), to maximize effectiveness of the program and achieve desired results.

All techniques/equipment will be approved by FCR prior to deployment.

Techniques and equipment used will be site and situationally specific, based on site and CAGO characteristics and limitations.

Task 7: Fogging Using Backpack Style Mobile Mist Blower a. Administration of chemical repellents, such as Methyl Anthranilate, may be used to deter or haze CAGO in select parks, and when conditions to allow for use of this method under permits exist.

Task 7 Assumptions:

This technique will only be administered using a fogging and/or misting device that emits a product that contains Methyl Anthranilate (e.g. EcoBird 4.0, EPA#:
86583-4 or equivalent) into the air up-wind from CAGO that are observed loafing, resting, or foraging within parks.

This method would only be used in compliance with applicable permits, laws and regulations.

Chemical repellents will only be administered by individuals with the appropriate permits, license and/or certifications.

The use of this technique will not exceed two (2) hours per week for 38 weeks.

Monitoring and Metrics
Task 8: Track Success Using Transmitter Tools and Measurable Metrics a. Measures of success will be established for the CAGO management program b. GPS and/or cellular transmitter collars will be fitted to at least one individual from each gaggle, to gather better information on timing of site use, nesting, roosting, foraging in FC parks and surrounding areas
a. Collars will also be used to better understand regional movements between properties and evaluate the efficacy of management methods/techniques throughout the year
c. Cellular Cameras will be positioned in priority parks to gather information on CAGO and human activity for focusing efforts and evaluate the timing, location, and behavioral responses of CAGO to the applied management techniques d. PCS, TS, and/or other survey types will be conducted at priority parks to record presence and abundance of CAGO prior to and during CAGO management efforts Task 8 Assumptions:

A maximum of ten (10) GPS or cellular capable collars will be deployed o Obtaining all permits for collaring efforts will not exceed six (6) weeks o Collars will be deployed prior to employing hazing and deterrence techniques to increase collaring efficiency
o If additional collars are to be deployed, they will be deployed at a cost of $2000 per transmitter.
o It will take three (3) personnel three (3) days to deploy ten (10) collars on target CAGO.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
792
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
o Deployment of all collars may not be preferable in the first period of performance due to late implementation of program and the associated limitations of available candidates.

A maximum of two cameras will be deployed per park.
o Additional cameras can be deployed at the cost of $1300 per camera.

Collar data upload and review will be performed at least once per week.

Data analysis and summary will be performed as part of Task 8.

Task 9: Submit Detailed Reports
a. Quarterly reports will be submitted during each performance period, summarizing CAGO management methods/techniques employed, all data collected, and modifications made or recommended to approach
b. An annual report will be submitted following the conclusion of each performance term, summarizing all CAGO management methods/techniques employed, data collected, results of management efforts and established metrics, including the status of meeting the established benchmarks of success, and recommendations for improving the program
Task 9 Assumptions:

For POP1, two Quarterly Reports will be submitted to FC representatives within 30 Days following the conclusion of each quarter.

An Annual Report will be submitted within 60 days of the conclusion of each POP.

The submitted costs comprise one annual report revision and two quarterly report revisions per POP. Additional revisions can be made at the rate identified in Task 9 Table.

More frequent reporting can be requested by FC representatives and completed at the costs identified in Task 9 Table.

Task 10: Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings a. WI will Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings, as requested, to present findings, demonstrate program success, and recommend adjustments based on monitoring results.

Task 10 Assumptions:

Efforts comprise assisting with the development of presentation materials and attendance of one (1) meeting or event per contract year.

If more events would be of advantage, support for those events can be discussed between WI and FCR
Regulatory Compliance
Task 11: Maintain Regulatory Compliance & secure permits for chemical repellents as needed
a. WI will ensure all activities are aligned with local, state, and federal regulations, including compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Plan
b. WI will, upon request, obtain all permits and/or certifications necessary for the employment of chemical repellents, such as Methyl Anthranilate, for the deterrence and/or hazing of CAGO in select parks
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
793
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
Task 11 Assumptions:

The following permits/certifications will be required and can be obtained to administer the selected chemical repellents for CAGO management:
o Pest Control Business License (PCB)
o Qualified Applicator License (QAL)
o Qualified Applicator Certificate (QAC)
Adaptive Management and Maintenance
Task 12: Refine Strategies Based on CAGO Monitoring Data and Ongoing Challenges a. Senior personnel will utilize physical and digital surveillance, including tracking data from Task 8, collected during CAGO management efforts within priority FCP and other relevant properties, to continue to assess and quantify CAGO presence and behavior within those areas, identify the most appropriate hazing or deterrence methods and times for implementation, and evaluate the efficacy of the methods employed to measure success
b. Refinement of management efforts may include:

I. Adding, removing, or repositioning deterrence and/or surveillance equipment
II. Adjustment of schedule to target times of high CAGO activity and low human activity
III. Addition, removal, or adaptation of management techniques Task 12 Assumptions:

Evaluation and refinement of management efforts will be done concurrently with Tasks 3-8.

Public Outreach and Education
Task 13: Develop Public Education Materials
a. WI will work with FC representatives to consider and develop the following for deployment:
i. Different or additional “Don’t Feed Wildlife” signs for FC Parks ii. Flyers or signage to describe CAGO management techniques/efforts that may be observed within parks
iii. Website and/or social media posts highlighting CAGO management techniques/efforts that may be observed within parks
Task 13 Assumptions:

WI will assist with the development of public educational materials, which FCR will distribute, post, or purchase and install.

Optional Services Descriptions
Task 6: Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO a. This task is listed as optional, although it is strongly recommended. Utilization of a boat for this program will enhance the effectiveness of hazing techniques and allow for hazing in all areas of the lagoon. Additionally, identification and addling of CAGO nests within some areas of the lagoon shoreline may not be possible without boat access, and result in successful CAGO nesting within the city and lead to more CAGO that are imprinted and accustomed to using the city properties.
b. A gasoline powered motorboat will improve effectiveness of the following program elements:
i. Ability to identify and/or respond to addle CAGO nests within FC Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
794
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
ii. Hazing for CAGO that retreat to the water. There may be limitations due to weather and/or ordinances for operating amphibious remote-controlled devices or drones and some areas in the lagoon may not be visible from city property or be too far from areas where WI can access, to safely and effectively deploy remote controlled devices.
iii. Improved efficiency when transitioning between some parks to deploy hazing methods and to get closer to CAGO for deploying some hazing methods
iv. Improved coverage for CAGO surveillance ( nighttime and daytime) to ensure that all of FCP and all areas of the lagoon are surveyed to gather behavioral data, and map nesting and roosting locations for deployment of deterrents
Task 6 Assumptions:

All efforts in this task will require the implementation of techniques and equipment in Tasks 4 and 5.

Utilization of a gasoline-powered boat will require permission from the Department of Public Works.

WI will not be responsible for any fees associated with launching the boat within FC lagoon
All techniques/equipment will be approved by FC representatives prior to deployment.

All techniques/equipment will only be implemented if site limitations do not prohibit their use.

Task 14: Secure Required Permits to Begin Egg Addling on Bair Island a. WI will obtain all permits, including the use of drones for aerial mapping of nests and operation within sensitive habitats, necessary to conduct egg addling/destruction on Bair Island
b. WI will conduct permit reporting and maintenance for issued permits c. Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies, as needed, for egg addling/destruction efforts on Bair Island
Task 14 Assumptions:

If any necessary permit(s) cannot be issued to WI as a contractor, they will be obtained by Foster City, and WI will assist with acquisition and maintenance of those permit(s).

Task 15: Conduct Egg Addling Operations During Nesting Season a. Using 2-3 personnel once per week during the nesting season, WI will survey Bair Island for the presence, location, and number of CAGO nests then target those nests via egg addling and/or destruction efforts
a. Drones may be utilized for aerial mapping of CAGO nests if permitted to by relevant agencies
b. WI will employ CAGO egg addling and/or destruction for all detected nests on Bair Island as allowed within permits
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
795
Canada Goose Management Plan Implementation
Task 15 Assumptions:

Aerial nest mapping efforts will comprise a maximum of two personnel for 16 hours for the duration of egg addling operations.
o Additional efforts can be made at the rates identified in Task 15 Table.

Egg addling efforts will comprise a maximum of three personnel making up to 14 trips to Bair Island.
o Additional efforts can be made at the rates identified in Task 15 Table.

Task 16: Review and Analyze Previous Camera Data (1 FEB 2024-30 NOV) a. To be used to support measures of success, WI will review and analyze all digital camera surveillance data (from cameras mounted in priority parks) collected from 1 February-30 November 2024 to help quantify CAGO presence and abundance in priority parks over space and time.
b. Data will be used to help quantify the success of CAGO management efforts (as part of the measures of success) by allowing a comparison between goose activity (per month and as a whole) during the year prior to and following program initiation.
c. All data and analysis will be included in the annual report for POP1, as part of Task 9
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
796
19 PAYMENTS

1. The maximum payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for the Project shall be:

Year One (FY 2025–26): $389,840.00
Year Two (FY 2026–27): $381,598.00 (Optional)
Year Three (FY 2027–28): $385,306.00 (Optional)

2. METHODS OF PAYMENT FOR CONSULTANT’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES:

Monthly Lump Sum Payments Upon Receipt of Invoices

3. TIMES OF PAYMENTS.

Upon receiving monthly invoices

PROJECTS AND SCHEDULE
Service will be provided at the times and locations identified below. as follows Leo J. Ryan Park
Marlin Park
Gull Park
Erckenbrack Park
Sea Cloud Park
Edgewater Park
Catamaran Park
The contractor and City agree that project implementation may expand beyond the identified 7 high impact parks if the presence of geese is effectively reduced in those parks and/or mitigation efforts become more efficient. Contractor staff will generally be onsite five (5) days per week for eight (8) hours per day, with flexibility to adjust scheduling based on program needs, particularly during initial implementation. Staffing levels, visit frequency, and timing (day or night) will be adaptive. Personnel assignments will ensure compliance with California labor laws and maintain safe operations.

DELIVERABLES
CONSULTANT’ s deliverables under the Agreement are enunciated throughout the Professional Services Agreement and include but are not limited to the following:

1. PROJECT DELIVERABLES

1.1 DELIVERABLES: Canada Goose Management within identified City Owned Parks

1.2 OTHER:

2. CONSULTANT SERVICES. The deliverables considered part of CONSULTANT’ s professional services are defined as, but are not limited to, the following deliverables:

2.1 SERVICES: Canada Goose Management at locations shown in Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
797
20 Leo J. Ryan Memorial Park
Erckenbrack Park
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
798
21 Gull Park
Marlin Park
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
799
22 Catamaran Park
Sea Cloud Park
Edgewater Park

END OF EXHIBIT A
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
800
23 EXHIBIT B

FEE SCHEDULE
Summary
Term. The initial term of the Agreement shall be three years, from August 4, 2025, to June 30, 2026. The maximum that shall be paid to consultant for the Initial Term is $389,840.

The Agreement may be renewed in the sole discretion of the City for two, one-year (12 months), extended terms as follows:

Optional extended term will be from July 1,2026 to June 30, 2027 Optional extended term will be from July 1,2027 to June 30, 2028 Task 1: Site Assessments and Habitat Modifications - Initial Site Assessment and Recommendations
Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 4 $ 4,960.00
PI $ 1,500.00 2 $ 3,000.00
TOTAL 6 $ 7,960.00
Task 2: Site Assessments and Habitat Modifications - Evaluate park-specific challenges Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 2 $ 2,480.00
PI $ 1,500.00 1 $ 1,500.00
TOTAL 3 $ 3,980.00
Task 3: Use of trained dogs to chase geese
Personnel Monthly Rate # of Months Total
BIO I 0 $ 0.00
BIO II 0 $ 0.00
PM 0 $ 0.00
Dog Team/Month $ 12,000.00 9 $ 108,000.00
TOTAL 9 $ 108,000.00
Task 4: Remote-controlled devices to deter geese activity Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 80 $ 83,200.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 6 $ 7,440.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
801
24 PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL 86 $ 90,640.00
Task 5: Aversive conditioning
Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 80 $ 83,200.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 6 $ 7,440.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL 86 $ 90,640.00
Optional Task 6: Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 12.5 $ 13,000.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 3 $ 3,720.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL 15.5 $ 16,720.00
Task 7: Hazing and Deterrence - Fogging Using Backpack Style Mobile Mist Blower Emitting Grape Seed
Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 9.5 $ 9,880.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 1 $ 1,240.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL 10.5 $ 11,120.00
Task 8: Monitoring and Metrics - Track Success using GPS Tools and Measurable Metrics Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 10 $ 10,400.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 3 $ 3,450.00
PM $ 1,240.00 5 $ 6,200.00
PI $ 1,500.00 3 $ 4,500.00
Transmitters $ 1,500.00 10 $ 15,000.00
TOTAL 31 $ 39,550.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
802
25 Task 9: Submit detailed reports
Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 9 $ 11,160.00
PI $ 1,500.00 4 $ 6,000.00
TOTAL $ 17,160.00
Task 10: Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 1 $ 1,240.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL $ 1,240.00
Task 11: Regulatory Compliance (MBTA, MMRP, Chemical Repellents) and Secure Permits or Recommendations for Chemical Repellents as Needed
Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 1 $ 1,150.00
PM $ 1,240.00 3 $ 3,720.00
PI $ 1,500.00 1 $ 1,500.00
TOTAL 5 $ 6,370.00
Task 12: Adaptive Management and Maintenance - Refine Strategies Based on Monitoring Data and Ongoing Challenges
Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 3 $ 3,720.00
PI $ 1,500.00 2 $ 3,000.00
TOTAL 5 $ 6,720.00
Task 13: Develop public education materials
Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 4 $ 4,960.00
PI $ 1,500.00 1 $ 1,500.00
TOTAL $ 6,460.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
803
26 Optional Task 14: Egg Addling - Secure required permits to begin egg addling on Bair Island Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge) Personnel Daily Rate Estimated Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 0 $ 0.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 1 $ 1,240.00
PI $ 1,500.00 3.5 $ 5,250.00
TOTAL 4.5 $ 6,490.00
Optional Task 15: Conduct egg addling operations during nesting season and keep accurate records of total nests and eggs addled
Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO II $ 1,150.00 14 $ 16,100.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 16 $ 18,400.00
PM $ 1,240.00 16 $ 19,840.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL 46 $ 54,340.00
Optional Task 16: Review and Analyze Previous Camera Data Personnel Daily Rate # of Days Total
BIO I $ 1,040.00 13 $ 13,520.00
BIO II $ 1,150.00 0 $ 0.00
PM $ 1,240.00 1 $ 1,240.00
PI $ 1,500.00 0 $ 0.00
TOTAL TBD $ 14,760.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
804
Cost Summary by Task for Period of Performance 1 (2025/2026)

TASK REQUESTED SERVICES OPTIONAL
Task 1: Conduct site assessments tailored to each park’ s conditions $ 7,960.00 Task 2: Evaluate park-specific challenges $ 3,980.00
Task 3: Use of trained dogs to chase geese $ 108,000.00 Task 4: Remote- controlled devices to deter geese activity $ 90,640.00 Task 5: Aversive conditioning $ 90,640.00
Task 7: Fogging using backpack style mobile mist blower emitting grape seed $ 11,120.00 Task 8: Track success using GPS tools and measurable metrics $ 39,550.00 Task 9: Submit detailed reports $ 17,160.00
Task 10: Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings $ 1,240.00 Task 11: Regulatory Compliance & Secure permits for chemical repellents as needed $ 6,370.00 Task 12: Refine strategies based on monitoring data and ongoing challenges $ 6,720.00 Task 13: Develop public education materials $ 6,460.00
Optional Task 6: Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO $ 16,720.00 Optional Task 14: Secure required permits to begin egg addling on Bair Island $ 6,490.00 Optional Task 15: Conduct egg addling operations during nesting season $ 54,340.00 Optional Task 16: Review and Analyze Previous Camera Data $ 14,760.00 389,840.00 $ 92,310.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
805
Cost Summary by Task for Period of Performance 2 (2026/2027)

TASK REQUESTED SERVICES OPTIONAL
Task 1: Conduct site assessments tailored to each park’ s conditions $ - Task 2: Evaluate park- specific challenges $ -
Task 3: Use of trained dogs to chase geese $ 123,600.00 Task 4: Remote-controlled devices to deter geese activity $ 108,368.06 Task 5: Aversive conditioning $ 108,368.06
Task 7: Fogging using backpack style mobile mist blower emitting grape seed $ 6,492.10 Task 8: Track success using GPS tools and measurable metrics $ 15,356.30 Task 9: Submit detailed reports $ 15,543.58
Task 10: Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings $ 1,290.10 Task 11: Regulatory Compliance & Secure permits for chemical repellents as needed $ - Task 12: Refine strategies based on monitoring data and ongoing challenges $ 1,290.10 Task 13: Develop public education materials $ 1,290.10
Optional Task 6: Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO $ 17,395.49 Optional Task 14: Secure required permits to begin egg addling on Bair Island $ 1,560.60 Optional Task 15: Conduct egg addling operations during nesting season $ 56,535.34 Optional Task 16: Review and Analyze Previous Camera Data $ 15,356.30 381,598.39 $ 90,847.73
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
806
Cost Summary by Task for Period of Performance 3 (2027/2028)

TASK REQUESTED SERVICES OPTIONAL
Task 1: Conduct site assessments tailored to each park’ s conditions $ - Task 2: Evaluate park- specific challenges $ -
Task 3: Use of trained dogs to chase geese $ 127,308.00 Task 4: Remote-controlled devices to deter geese activity $ 108,368.06 Task 5: Aversive conditioning $ 108,368.06
Task 7: Fogging using backpack style mobile mist blower emitting grape seed $ 6,492.10 Task 8: Track success using GPS tools and measurable metrics $ 15,356.30 Task 9: Submit detailed reports $ 15,543.58
Task 10: Participate in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings $ 1,290.10 Task 11: Regulatory Compliance & Secure permits for chemical repellents as needed $ - Task 12: Refine strategies based on monitoring data and ongoing challenges $ 1,290.10 Task 13: Develop public education materials $ 1,290.10
Optional Task 6: Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO $ 17,395.49 Optional Task 14: Secure required permits to begin egg addling on Bair Island $ 1,560.60 Optional Task 15: Conduct egg addling operations during nesting season $ 56,535.34 Optional Task 16: Review and Analyze Previous Camera Data $ 15,356.30 385,306.39 $ 90,847.73
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
807
Updated 1/10/2023 30
4866-0924-0181 v1

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE FORMS
CONSULTANT shall provide, in addition to the Certificates of Insurance, original Endorsement affecting the coverages specified in herein on the attached form. No substitute form will be accepted.

This is an Exhibit to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated August 4, 2025 by and between Wildlife Innovations, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "Consultant”, and the City of Foster City, hereinafter referred to as "City", providing for professional services.

1. Consultant's Duty to Show Proof of Insurance. Consultant, in order to protect City and its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees against all claims and liability for death, injury, loss and damage as a result of Consultant' s acts, errors, or omissions in connection with the performance of Consultant' s obligations, as required in this Agreement, shall secure and maintain insurance as described below. Consultant shall not perform any work under this Agreement until Consultant has obtained all insurance required under this section and the required certificates of insurance and all required endorsements have been filed with the City's authorized insurance representative, insurance Tracking Services Inc. (ITS). Receipt of evidence of insurance that does not comply with all applicable insurance requirements shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements set forth herein. The required documents must be signed by the authorized representative of the insurance company shown on the certificate. Upon request, Consultant shall supply proof that such person is an authorized representative thereof, and is authorized to bind the named underwriter(s) and their company to the coverage, limits and termination provisions shown thereon, Consultant shall promptly deliver to ITS a certificate of insurance, and all required endorsements, with respect to each renewal policy, as necessary to demonstrate the maintenance of the required insurance coverage for the term specified herein. Such certificates and endorsements shall be delivered to ITS prior to the expiration date of any policy and bear a notation evidencing payment of the premium thereof if so requested. Consultant shall immediately pay any deductibles and self-insured retentions under all required insurance policies upon the submission of any claim by Consultant or City as an additional insured.

1.1 Insurance Requirements
Commercial General Liability Insurance
Commercial General Liability Insurance including, but not limited to, Contractual Liability Insurance (specifically concerning the indemnity provisions of this Agreement with the City ), Products-Completed Operations Hazard, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy arising out of professional services rendered hereunder, Personal Injury ( including bodily injury and death), and Property Damage for liability arising out of Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain no exclusions or limitation for independent contractors working on the behalf of the named insured. Consultant shall maintain the Products- Completed Operations Hazard coverage for the longest period allowed by law following termination of this Agreement. The amount of said insurance coverage required by this Agreement shall be the policy limits, which shall be at least two million dollars ($ 2,000,000) each occurrence and three million dollars 3,000,000) aggregate.

Please note, the City will require a separate additional insured endorsement for the Commercial General Liability policy, listing the “ City of Foster City, its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees”.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
808
Updated 1/10/2023 31
4866-0924-0181 v1
Business Automobile Liability Insurance
Automobile Liability Insurance against claims of Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death) and Property Damage covering any vehicle and/or all owned, leased, hired and non-owned vehicles used in the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall be at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence.

Workers' Compensation Insurance
Consultant shall submit written proof that Consultant is insured against liability for workers' compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 3700 of the California Labor Code. Consultant shall require any Subconsultants to provide workers' compensation for all of the Subconsultants' employees, unless the Subconsultants' employees are covered by the insurance afforded by Consultant. If any class of employees engaged in work or services performed under this Agreement is not covered by California Labor Code section 3700, Consultant shall provide and/or require each Subconsultant to provide adequate insurance for the coverage of employees not otherwise covered. Consultant shall also maintain employer's liability insurance with limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury or disease.

Professional Liability Insurance
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, for liability arising out of, or in connection with, all negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services to be provided under this Agreement, with no exclusion for claims of one insured against another insured, with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall not be less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate.

Installation Floater
Installation Floater, covering the work performed under this Contract, against all risks of direct physical loss. The policy shall cover the Contractor’s labor, materials and equipment, including materials and equipment in transit or away from the project site, to be installed in the existing structure(s). The coverage shall be written for an amount equal to the initial contract amount plus the value of any subsequent change orders, subject to a deductible of not more than [$10,000] payable by Contractor.

Cyber Liability Insurance
Cyber Liability Insurance, covering network risk and cyber liability ( including coverage for unauthorized access, failure of security, breach of privacy perils, as well at notification costs and regulatory defense) in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. Such insurance shall be maintained in force at all times during the term of the Contract and for a period of two years thereafter for services completed during the term of the Contract.

1.2 Self-Insured Retention
Any self-insured retentions in excess of $ 100,000 must be declared on the Certificate of insurance or other documentation provided to City and must be approved by the City Risk Manager.

1.3 Claims-Made Basis Coverage
If any of the insurance coverages required under this Agreement is written on a claims -made basis, Consultant, at Consultant' s option, shall either (i) maintain said coverage for at least five ( 5) years following the termination of this Agreement with coverage extending back to the effective date of this Agreement; ( ii) purchase an extended reporting period of not less than five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement; or (iii) acquire a full prior acts provisio n on any renewal or replacement policy.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
809
Updated 1/10/2023 32
4866-0924-0181 v1

2. City as Additional Insured
On Consultant's Commercial General Liability and Automobile policies, the City, its Council members, officers, directors, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insured's, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured. Any endorsement shall be provided using one of the following three options: (i) on ISO form CG 20 10 1 1 85; or (ii) on ISO form CG 20 37 10 01 plus either ISO form CG 20 10 10 01 or CG 20 33 10 01; or (iii) on such other forms which provide coverage at least equal to or better than form CG 20 10 1 1 85.

3. Insurance terms and conditions:

3.1 Cancellation of Insurance
The above stated insurance coverages required to be maintained by Consultant shall be maintained until the completion of all of Consultant' s obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise indicated herein. Each insurance policy supplied by Consultant shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after ten (10) days written notice by Consultant in the case of non-payment of premiums, or thirty (30) days written notice in all other cases. This notice requirement does not waive the insurance requirements stated herein.

Consultant shall immediately obtain replacement coverage for any insurance policy that is terminated, canceled, non - renewed, or whose policy limits have been exhausted or upon insolvency of the insurer that issued the policy.

3.2 All insurance shall be issued by a company or companies admitted to do business in California and listed in the current "Best's Key Rating Guide" publication with a minimum rating of A -; VII Any exception to these requirements must be approved by the City Risk Manager.

3.3 If Consultant is, or becomes during the term of this Agreement, self-insured or a member of a self-insurance pool, Consultant shall provide coverage equivalent to the insurance coverages and endorsements required above.

The City will not accept such coverage unless the City determines, in its sole discretion and by written acceptance, that the coverage proposed to be provided by Consultant is equivalent to the above-required coverages.

3.4 For any claims related to the Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City , its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’ s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3.5 Insurance coverages in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Consultant for any liability, whether within, outside, or in excess of such coverage, and regardless of solvency or insolvency of the insurer that issues the coverage; nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of this Agreement or otherwise in law.

3.6 Failure by Consultant to maintain all such insurance in effect at all times required by this Agreement shall be a material breach of this Agreement by Consultant. City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Consultant resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Consultant, City shall deduct from sums due to Consultant any premiums and associated costs advanced or paid by City for such insurance. If the balance of monies obligated to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are insufficient to reimburse City for the premiums and any associated costs, Consultant agrees to reimburse City for the premiums and pay for all costs associated with the purchase of said insurance. Any failure by City to take this alternative action shall not relieve Consultant of its obligation to obtain and maintain the insurance coverages required by this Agreement.

3.7 Should any of the required insurance (other than errors and omissions insurance) be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defenses costs be included in such general aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limit specified above.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
810
Updated 1/10/2023 33
4866-0924-0181 v1

3.8 City may (but is under no obligation to) secure project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance, or administer an owner controlled insurance program ("OCIP"), in which case Consultant and its subconsultants shall communicate this fact to their insurance carriers and request that the risk of this project be excluded from their practice policies.

Consultant's fees under this Agreement (and the fee of its subconsultants under subconsultant agreements) shall be reduced by the amount of insurance premiums that may be avoided by Consultant and its subconsultants by virtue of the City's obtaining the project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance or administering an OCIP, and the exclusion of this project from coverage of Consultant's and subconsultants policies. Construction Manager and its subconsultants shall afford City access to their books and records and cooperate with City in verifying the amount of savings realized.

ATTACHED

1. Insurance Coverage Form
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
811
Updated 1/10/2023 34
4866-0924-0181 v1

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

Named Insured: Effective Work Date(s):

Description of Work/Locations/Vehicles:

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

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

MEETS OR EXCEEDS ISO Form # CG 20 10 11 85}
Auto Liability: the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Named Insured, regardless of whether liability is attributable to the Named Insured or a combination of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Other: [ Cyber Liability, Installation Floater, etc.]
Certificates of Insurance Required (no endorsement needed) (Check all that apply) Insurer Policy No.

Workers Compensation: work performed by employees of the Named Insured while those employees are engaged in work under the simultaneous directions and control of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured.

Professional Liability:

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

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

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

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

WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: The insurer(s) named above agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers and employees for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the CITY.

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

SIGNATURE OF INSURER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER I, ______________________________________________________________( print/type name), warrant that I have authority to bind the above-named insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
812
Updated 1/10/2023 35
4866-0924-0181 v1
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ( original signature required) ORGANIZATION: TITLE:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE: ( ) DATE ISSUED:

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
813
Updated 1/10/2023 36
4866-0924-0181 v1

EXHIBIT D
COVID-19 AMENDMENT/ATTACHMENT
Consulting Agreement Form)
This COVID-19 Amendment/Attachment amends the Agreement between City of Foster City (“City”) and Wildlife Innovations, LLC. (“Consultant”) dated ___________________________.

1. Definitions
A. The 2019 novel coronavirus and the disease it causes are collectively referred to herein as COVID-19”.

B. A “COVID-19 Condition” is something attributable to COVID-19 not caused by the Consultant which for purposes herein includes all subconsultants) and beyond its reasonable control including but not limited to COVID-19 Proclamations and supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19, and other circumstances concerning COVID-19 not caused by the Consultant and which are beyond its reasonable control.

C. A “COVID-19 Proclamation” includes but is not limited to orders, directives and guidance concerning COVID-19 that have been issued, and which may be issued from time to time, by public agencies or regulatory bodies, the CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, including without limitation the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards. Consultant acknowledges that those orders, directives and guidance may require the Project to shut down or otherwise increase the Consultant’s cost or time of performance by calling for things such as social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. In the event of conflicting COVID-19 Proclamations, the Consultant shall follow the most applicable, restrictive and newest COVID-19 Proclamations.

D. An “Unknown COVID-19 Condition” is a COVID-19 Condition the Consultant did not know about, and reasonably should not have known about, as of the date the Consultant submitted its proposal. The requirements contained in COVID-19 Proclamations issued before submission of a proposal are not Unknown COVID-19 Conditions, and the Consultant will be deemed to have knowledge of those requirements.

E. An “Unknown COVID-19 Cost” is a cost that: (i) is solely attributable to an Unknown COVID19 Condition; (ii) is reasonable and unavoidable under the circumstances; (iii) is not the result of the Consultant’s failure to comply with the contract documents or a COVID -19 Proclamation; and (iv) is not the result of a subconsultants failure to comply with a COVID-19 Proclamation in connection with the performance of the Services.

2. COVID-19 Conditions and Proposal. Consultant is expected to know and is deemed to have known about COVID-19 Conditions when it submits its proposal, and COVID-19 Conditions must be accounted for in the Consultant’s price and schedule. In order to be entitled to any relief from a COVID19 Condition, the Consultant must demonstrate that the issue, cost or delay is due to an Unknown COVID-19 Condition.

Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
814
Updated 1/10/2023 37
4866-0924-0181 v1

3. Compliance with COVID-19 Proclamations.

A. Consultant shall comply with COVID-19 Proclamations in the performance of the Services, irrespective of when the COVID-19 Proclamations are issued, and as they pertains to performance of the Services. The cost of such compliance is non-compensable, except as otherwise expressly stated herein.

B. Consultant is responsible to ensure that its subconsultants and suppliers comply with COVID - 19 Proclamations at all times in connection with the performance of their Services.

4. Delay. The Consultant is entitled to a reasonable time extension for an Unknown COVID-19 Condition. Such time extension is non-compensable.

5. City Directed Suspension. The City may suspend Services due to COVID-19 health concerns, even though the Consultant may be allowed to proceed with the Services based on COVID-19 Proclamations. The City may suspend the Services for its convenience. The Consultant is entitled to a time extension for a City Directed Suspension, and the contract amount will be equitably adjusted if and to the extent Consultant incurs increased costs that are Unknown COVID -19 Costs.

6. Compensation for COVID-19 Costs. City will reimburse the Consultant for Unknown COVID-19 Costs that are not included in the schedule of values.

7. Safe Work Practices. Consultant shall implement safe work practices recommended by CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, which may include, inter alia, screening all employees, subconsultants, or others worker(s)”) at all locations where Services are performed for signs and symptoms of COVID-19; adopting staggered work schedules, e.g., providing alternating workdays or extra shifts, to reduce the total number of employees on a site at any given time and to ensure physical distancing; identifying choke points where workers are forced to stand together, such as hallways and elevators, ingress and egress points, break areas, and buses, and implement policies to maintain social distancing; coordinating deliveries in line with the employer's minimal contact and cleaning protocols; and instituting a rigorous housekeeping program to reduce dust levels at all exterior locations. Consultant remains fully responsible for following and complying with changes to recommended safe work practices from time to time.

8. Monitoring and Reporting. City may require the Consultant to actively monitor the health of its workers through temperature checks and questionnaires of major COVID-19 symptoms, including but not limited to cough, fever above 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit and shortness of breath. Consultant shall immediately report to City any outbreaks of COVID-19 among its workers. The Consultant shall not knowingly allow any worker who has tested positive with COVID-19 to enter a City building. In the event of an outbreak or an exposure to COVID-19, the City may impose appropriate mitigation strategies which may be in consultation with the public health officer.

9. Conflicts. In the event of an inconsistency between this COVID-19 Amendment and the Agreement, this Addendum shall control.

Signatures on Next Page]
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
815
Updated 1/10/2023 38
4866-0924-0181 v1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Covid-19 Amendment as of the date set forth above.

CONSULTANT: CITY:

Signature Signature
Jake Manley Stacy Jimenez
Owner Mayor
Docusign Envelope ID: 35DEED55- 1A35-4726-A284-81B0E3E11B3B 9.2 Attachment 3 - Agreement
816
Prepared Date 05/28/2026 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 1 ends

Foster City City CouncilJune 15, 2026

Foster City City Council
June 15, 2026