Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, August 3, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

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

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

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercityorg.zoom.us/j/82592136594 To dialin via phone:
16694449171 or
14086380968
And enter Webinar ID: 825 9213 6594
To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:

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

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

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

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

AGENDA
Monday, August 03, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel

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

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

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

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

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2026

5.2. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing an Appropriation of $1,432 From the Vehicle Replacement Fund (501) to Account No. 50105604314384, Authorizing the Purchase of Two (2) Motorcycles from Long Beach BMW Motorcycles for a Total Amount of $91,432; Authorizing a Carryover of $90,000 From FY 20252026 to FY 20262027; And Finding the Purchase Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15061(B)(3) a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

5.3. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving a Construction Contingency Increase for the Street Rehabilitation Project (20252026) (CIP 301726) in the Amount of $175,000
a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

5.4. A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Accepting the Work by Performance Mechanical, Inc. For the Lift Station 59 Effluent Line Improvements Project (CIP 455695) and Directing the District Secretary to File the Notice of Completion a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

5.5. A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Authorizing (1) the Award of a Construction Contract to Telstar Instruments in the Amount of $2,289,544.50 for the Construction of the Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase I) Project (CIP 455705); (2) the Establishment of a Construction Contingency in the Amount of $572,000; (3) the Award of a Task Order With Consor PMCM, Inc., for Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing Services in the Amount Of $ 400,920; (4) the Establishment of a Construction Management Contingency in the Amount of $81,000 And; (5) Finding the Project Exempt From CEQA Under Section 15301(B)
a) Staff Report
b) Adopt Resolution

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1. A Public Hearing to Hear and Consider Comments Regarding the Foster City Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
a) Staff Report
b) Open Public Hearing
c) Receive Public Comments
d) Close Public Hearing
e) Action – By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction

7. COMMUNICATIONS

7.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 16, 2026
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

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

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC)

9.2. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (D) of Section 54956.9: (Two Potential Cases)

9.3. Report Out from Closed Session

10. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

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

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

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

AGENDA
Monday, August 03, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel

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

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2026

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. COMMUNICATIONS

7.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 16, 2026
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC)

9.2. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (D) of Section 54956.9: (Two Potential Cases)

9.3. Report Out from Closed Session

10. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

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

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

2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

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

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

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

AGENDA
Monday, August 03, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel

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

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2026

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. COMMUNICATIONS

7.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 16, 2026
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC)

9.2. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (D) of Section 54956.9: (Two Potential Cases)

9.3. Report Out from Closed Session

10. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

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

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

3 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

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

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

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

AGENDA
Monday, August 03, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel

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

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2026

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. COMMUNICATIONS

7.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 16, 2026
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC)

9.2. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (D) of Section 54956.9: (Two Potential Cases)

9.3. Report Out from Closed Session

10. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

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

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

4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

To Attend the Meeting in Person:

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

To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:

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

AGENDA
Monday, August 03, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF

DIRECTORS

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel

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

5.1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2026

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. COMMUNICATIONS

7.1. City/District Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on July 16, 2026
a) Information Item Only
b) No Action Required

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC)

9.2. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (D) of Section 54956.9: (Two Potential Cases)

9.3. Report Out from Closed Session

10. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.

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

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

5 CITY OF FOSTER CITY/

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2026

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Regular Meeting of June 20, 2026 of the City Council of the City of Foster City, sitting as said Council and as ex officio the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, San Mateo County, California, by Mayor/President Art Kiesel.

This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.

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

PRESENT: Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel.

ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager; Benjamin Stock, City Attorney/District Legal Counsel; Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager; Sofia Mangalam, Deputy City Manager; Diane Pitman, Administrative Services Director; Nate Cruz, Finance Director; Thai-Chau Le, Interim Community Development Director; Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director; Cory Call, Police Chief; Eric Mackintosh, Deputy Fire Chief; Frank Fanara, Parks Manager; Laura Galli, Engineering Manager; Justin Lai, Senior Civil Engineer; Rob Lasky, IT Manager; Lyly Mai, Police Officer; Jaspreet Mann, Police Officer; Eric Cromosini, Police Officer; Alexis Garcia-Dawson, Deputy City Clerk; Shuli Chen, Video Technician; and Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk/District Secretary.

PUBLIC
The following people addressed the City Council in person:

1. Michelle Droz, regarding the San Mateo County API Foundation Student Summer Internship Program;

2. Steve Okamoto, regarding the Sister City program; and

5.1 5.1 Minutes

6 3. Eduardo Kiryczun, San Mateo County Veterans Services Officer, regarding a forum focusing on topics surrounding veterans and first responders’ mental health, hosted by the San Mateo County Veterans Commission at Central Peninsula Church on September 10.

Susan addressed the City Council via teleconference, regarding the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Councilmember/Director Jimenez, seconded by Councilmember/Director Sullivan and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, approving the following items on the City/District Consent Calendar:

City/EMID Consent Calendar

1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2026;

2. City Ordinance No. 700, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Foster City Amending the Foster City Zoning Map to Modify the Previously Approved General Development Plan (GDP) for an Approximately 11.87-Acre Land Known as Chess Hatch Master Plan Located at 1155-1159, 1161-1169, and 1175-1191 Chess Drive in the C-M/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development Combining) District with an Amended GDP Removing Office as a Primary Use and Updating Associated Exhibits to Facilitate the Gilead Campus Expansion Project to Allow up to 800,000 Square Feet (SF) of Biotechnology or Research and Development (R&D) Uses with a Reduced Parking Ratio (APNs: 094-010-500, 094-010-510, 094-010-100) -- Gilead Sciences, Inc -- RZ2025-0005 (First Reading and Adoption of Second Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report on June 15, 2026);”

3. City Ordinance No. 701, “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 (First Reading on June 15, 2026);”

4. City Resolution No. 2026-072, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Terminating the Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to Cybersecurity Event;”

5. City Resolution No. 2026-073, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Temporary Closure of Shell Boulevard Between East Hillsdale Boulevard and South Service Road, Balclutha Drive Between the Round- About on the Peninsula Jewish Community Center (PJCC) Campus and Shell Boulevard, and the Temporary Closure of the Shell Boulevard Exit of the South Service Road for Summer Days 2026;”

6. City Resolution No. 2026-074, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Contract Amendment

5.1 5.1 Minutes

7 No.1 in the Amount of $50,000 to the Agreement to Thermal Mechanical Inc. for Citywide Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System Repair for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 Annually and Finding Project Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities);”

7. City Resolution No. 2026-075, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2 in the Amount of $35,000 With Apex Testing Laboratories, Inc. for Testing and Inspection Services on the Foster City Community Rebuild Project (CIP 301-678);”

8. City Resolution No. 2026-076, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving and Adopting the Amended Pay Plan for Fiscal Year 2026- 2027, Effective July 1, 2026;”

9. EMID Resolution No. 3860, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Approving and Adopting the Pay Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2027, Effective July 1, 2026;”

10.City Resolution No. 2026-077, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Master Professional Service Agreements With the Selected Twenty-Eight (28) Consultants (Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers, Nichols Consulting Engineers, NV5, Verde Design, Integrated Design 360, CSG Consultants, Ghirardelli Associates, Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, WHB Engineers, HydroScience Engineers, Carollo Engineers, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Marina Construction Management, Swinerton Management & Consulting, David J. Powers & Associates, Huffman-Broadway Group, TRC Engineers, Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Inspection Services, Advance Design Consultants, Interface Engineering, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Moffat & Nichol, ZFA Structural Engineers, Fehr & Peers, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and Traffic Patterns) for On-Call Services in Civil Engineering, Construction Management & Inspection, Materials Testing, Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Engineering, Structural Engineering, and Traffic Engineering and Finding That the Project Is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3);”

11.EMID Resolution No. 3861, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Authorizing the District President to Execute Master Professional Service Agreements With the Selected Twenty-Eight (28) Consultants (Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers, Nichols Consulting Engineers, NV5, Verde Design, Integrated Design 360, CSG Consultants, Ghirardelli Associates, Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, WHB Engineers, HydroScience Engineers, Carollo Engineers, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Marina Construction Management, Swinerton Management & Consulting, David J. Powers & Associates, Huffman-Broadway Group, TRC Engineers, Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, ISI Inspection Services, Advance Design Consultants, Interface Engineering, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Moffatt & Nichol, ZFA Structural Engineers, Fehr & Peers, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and Traffic Patterns) for On-Call Services in Civil Engineering, Construction Management &

5.1 5.1 Minutes

8 Inspection, Materials Testing, Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Engineering, Structural Engineering, and Traffic Engineering and Finding That the Project Is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)”; and

12.EMID Resolution No. 3862, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Authorizing the President to Execute Contract Amendment No. Two (2) to the Vendor Agreement with CD & Power in the Amount of $26,484.18 for the Emergency Generator Replacements Project (CIP 455-705) (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2-Existing Facilities)).”

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
ADDENDUM TO THE COUNTYWIDE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP). CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-078.

Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Kiesel removed this item from the Consent Calendar at the request of Councilmember Venkat.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Councilmember Venkat, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2026-078, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Adopting the Addendum to the Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).”

REPORTS
REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS – UPDATE #2. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2082.

Deputy City Manager Mangalam introduced Ken Hira, President of Kosmont Companies, who presented the report.

Crystal Tilton, President & CEO of the Foster City Chamber of Commerce, addressed the City Council via email.

The following people addressed the City Council in person:

1. Michael Terner;

2. Noemi Avram;

3. Rohan Gupta; and

4. Kenny Huo.

Ken Lockwood addressed the City Council via teleconference.

Discussion ensued.

5.1 5.1 Minutes

9 Motion by Councilmember Venkat, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2082, receiving and accepting Update #2 on the Real Estate Economic Market Analysis.

SAN MATEO COUNTY’S INTENT TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS 1065 E. HILLSDALE BOULEVARD (APN 094-524-180) IN FOSTER CITY WITH THE INTENT TO MOVE ITS HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY’S OPERATIONS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT 550 QUARRY ROAD TO THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY. NO ACTION TAKEN.

San Mateo County Executive Officer Callagy gave a presentation.

The following people addressed the City Council via email:

1. Shilpa Badadare;

2. Isabelle Bushman;

3. Anonymous;

4. Shrirang Ranade;

5. Jason;

6. Monica F. Nazareno;

7. Angela L.Y. Lee;

8. Leon d'Aquino;

9. Kathryn Holper;

10.Joe Beckner;

11.Walter Koch;

12.Crystal Tilton, President & CEO of the Foster City Chamber of Commerce; and

13.Priya Achuthan.

The following people addressed the City Council in person:

1. Debbie Corazzelli;

2. Joann Medbery;

3. Garth Gabrielson;

4. Fred Baer;

5. Sanjay Gehani;

6. Melissa Pera;

7. Josep A. Beckner;

8. Mark Neyzberg;

9. Noemi Avram;

10.Jim Hugnet;

11.Robert Pedro;

12.Robert Lee;

13.Doug Stoveland;

14.Howard Roth;

15.Isabel Orphnopios;

16.Steve Gunn;

17.Kandy O’Mara;

5.1 5.1 Minutes

10 18.Michael Terner;

19.Ravi Jagtiani;

20.Kenny Huo;

21.Patricia Swackhamer;

22.Cecilia Quan;

23.Heather Wei;

24.Austin Willis; and

25.Staci Stoveland.

Discussion ensued.

There was no action taken.

RECESS. The meeting recessed at 10:24 p.m. and reconvened at 10:36 p.m.

HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM H-D-2-A POTENTIAL RE-USE OF COMMERCIAL SITES. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2083.

Interim Community Development Director Le presented the staff report.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, seconded by Councilmember Venkat and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2083, receiving and accepting the update on the Housing Element 2023-2031 Program H-D-2-a, Potential Re-Use of Commercial Sites.

PROPOSED DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR THE CITY HALL, POLICE STATION, AND FIRE STATION LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 301-720). MINUTE ORDER NO. 2084.

Parks Manager Fanara presented the staff report.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2084, receiving and accepting the report, and providing the following policy direction:

1. Incorporate the proposed landscape concept into the final design;

2. Proceed with Clock Tower Fountain Concept #2 to repurpose the City Hall fountain feature into a functional public space and incorporate public art installations into the design;

5.1 5.1 Minutes

11 3. Proceed with the Play Fountain Alternative Concept to repurpose the area into a shaded gathering space with a variety of picnic tables, benches, and loungers; and

4. Proceed with phased implementation of the proposed improvements into the four primary project zones described in the staff report.

COMMUNITY CENTER REBUILD PROJECT (CIP 301-678) GENERAL UPDATE.

MINUTE ORDER NO. 2085.

Senior Civil Engineer Lai presented the staff report.

Discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2085, receiving and accepting the Community Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301-678) General Update.

COMMUNICATIONS
CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.

City/District Warrants of Demands were processed via ACH on June 5 and July 2, 2026, and Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued on June 5, June 16, and June 30, 2026.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND

REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
City/District Manager Chatwin expressed appreciation and recognized City staff for their work and thanked the City Council for their support.

Vice Mayor/Vice President Niederhofer encouraged residents to apply to join the City’s Civics Academy, and noted applications are due July 31 at 5 p.m. She stated she attended the San Mateo Foster City Public Financing Authority Meeting on July 9.

Councilmember/Director Venkat stated she attended the Juneteenth Celebration hosted by the Foster City Association of Black Residents on June 20. On June 23, she attended a Community Conversation event hosted by the San Mateo County’s Commission on the Status of Women. On July 18, she attended the Foster City Housing Resource Fair.

Mayor/President Kiesel stated he attended the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly Meeting on June 18. On July 4, he attended the Foster City Fourth of July Celebration event.

5.1 5.1 Minutes

12 CLOSED SESSION
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Kiesel tabled the following item for the August 3, 2026 City Council Regular meeting:

1. Threat to Public Services or Facilities
Consultation with: (Cory Call, Chief of Police, Caitlin Smith and Pasha Sternberg, Polsinelli PC); and

2. Report out of Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Kiesel adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.

5.1 5.1 Minutes

13 DATE: August 3, 2026

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Michael Miller, Fleet Supervisor
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Authorizing an Appropriation of $1,432 From the Vehicle Replacement Fund (501) to Account No. 501-0560-431-4384 for the Purchase of Two Motorcycles in the Amount of $91,432 and the Carryover of $90,000 From FY2025-2026 to FY2026-2027

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing an appropriation of $1,432 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (501) to Account No. 501-0560-431-4384;

2. Authorizing the purchase of two (2) motorcycles in the amount of $91,432;

3. Authorizing a carryover of $90,000 appropriated in the FY 2025-2026 budget to complete the purchase in FY 2026-2027; and

4. Finding the purchase is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15061(b)(3) Common Sense Exemption.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY 2025–2026 Vehicle Replacement budget had approved funding of $90,000 for the replacement of two (2) motorcycles, as evaluated by the Vehicle Maintenance Division. Although staff began the procurement process during FY 2025–2026, the specifications required revisions, and completed bid responses were not received in time to obtain approval and complete the purchase by June 30, 2026. The total purchase price for two (2) motorcycles is $91,432 which includes the cost of Police equipment upfitting. The budgeted amount for the replacement and upfitting of these two (2) motorcycles is

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

14 $90,000 therefore a carryover request of $90,000 from FY 2025-26 to FY 2026-27 and an appropriation from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund 501) of $1,432 is requested to complete the purchase.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Staff recommends purchasing two (2) motorcycles from the appropriate lowest responsible bidders that meet the City’s vehicle specifications and delivery requirements.

A request for bid with vehicle specifications and delivery requirements was sent to six (6) dealerships and posted on the City’s website. Two dealerships responded:

Long Beach BMW Motorcycles and Powersports of Modesto. The table below lists the vehicle type and corresponding lowest bid:

Type Lowest Bid Equipment
Installation
Total Lowest Bidder
Motorcycle 45,716 Included 45,716 Long Beach
BMW
Motorcycles
Motorcycle 45,716 Included 45,716 Long Beach
BMW
Motorcycles
Totals $91,432 $91,432

Two (2) motorcycles will be used by the Police Department for patrol operations, emergency response, investigative assignments, and specialized enforcement activities.

The FY 2025-2026 Vehicle Replacement budget included $90,000 for the replacement of two (2) BMW motorcycles. Staff began the bidding process ahead of the end of the fiscal year, however due to lack of specified motorcycles, bids were not finalized in time to request City Council approval of award of purchase until after June 30, 2026, the end of the fiscal year. As a result, staff is requesting a carryover of the appropriated funds to complete the purchase.

Typically, all carryover requests are brought to City Council at one time in late August. Staff is requesting approval of this carryover ahead of the remaining carryover requests to allow the motorcycles to be ordered and placed into service as soon as possible. Vendors have indicated that current pricing and availability can only be guaranteed through mid-August, and additional time will be needed to prepare the purchase requisitions following City Council approval.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

15 The purchase is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15061(b)(3) Common Sense Exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of proposed replacement of two (2) motorcycles is (a) $90,000 previously appropriated in the FY 2025-2026 and carried forward to FY 2026-27, plus (b) a supplemental appropriation of $1,432 to pay for the actual cost in excess of budget estimates. When the new motorcycles are delivered and put into service, the replaced motorcycles will be sold at public auction at an estimated sale value of $3,500 to $4,500 per vehicle (or $7,000 to $9,000 in total). Net proceeds from the motorcycles sales would be returned to the Vehicle Replacement Fund (501).

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Quotes

5.2 5.2 Staff Report

16 RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION OF $1,432 FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (501) TO ACCOUNT NO. 501-0560-431-4384, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) MOTORCYCLES FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $91,432; AUTHORIZING A CARRYOVER OF $90,000 FROM FY 2025-2026 TO FY 2026-2027;

AND FINDING THE PURCHASE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 15061(B)(3)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, staff is recommending the purchase of two (2) motorcycles for the Foster City Police Department that are scheduled for replacement; and WHEREAS, quotes were obtained for the replacement motorcycles with the lowest bid submitted by Long Beach BMW Motorcycles in the amount of $45,716, for a total of $91,432 for two vehicles; and
WHEREAS, a carryover from FY 2025-2026 for $90,000 is needed since the purchase will be made during FY 2026-2027 and the lowest bids for the motorcycles exceeded the budgeted amount by $1,432; and an appropriation from the Vehicle Replacement Fund is needed to complete the purchase and the installation of equipment.

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

1. An appropriation of an additional $1,432 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (501) to Account No. 501-0560-431-4384;

2. A carry forward of 90,000 from FY 2025-2026 to FY 2026-2027;

3. The purchase of two (2) motorcycles in the amount of $91,432; and

4. Find that the purchase is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15061(b)(3) Common Sense Exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment.

5.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution

17 PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 3rd day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

5.2 Attachment 1 - Resolution

18 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

19 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

20 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

21 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

22 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

23 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

24 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

25 5.2
Attachment 2 - Quotes

26 BMW R1300 RT-P Motor Pricing Form(2026 Model Year)Color Option Code0Night Black & Alpine White III 7532Night Black 7160Alpine White III (special order) 7510Black Blue (special order +60 days) $119.60 999 (see below)0Saphir Blue (special order + 60 days) $119.60 999 (see below)0Violet Blue (special order +60 days) 756 Revised:December 8, 20250Glacier Silver Metallic (special order) N99Quotation:MotorcycleCity of Foster CityOption Code Retail Price $48,789.48Factory Special-Order Options - Plan 90-120 Days for Delivery0 Headlight Pro (includes 134)219 $560.23 $0.000Gear Shift Assist Pro222 $304.55 $0.000GPS Prep272 $179.55 $0.000Chrome Exhaust (Includes 340) 19F $229.55 $0.000Dark Chrome Exhaust (Includes 34A)19J $179.55 $0.000Additional LED Headlights (driving lights)562 $470.45 $0.000High Seat Black77E $0.00 $0.000Low Seat Black 77D $0.00 $0.000Dynamic Package235 $2,114.77 $0.000Dynamic Package with Auto Shift 22A235 $3,055.68 $0.000Rider Assistant Safety Package5AS $825.00 $0.000Black Blue 999 $119.60 $0.000Sapphire Blue999 $119.60 $0.00The Features Below Denote Standard Order Deck$0.001US Authority Package$339.77$679.541BMW Electronic Siren$1,220.45$2,440.901Weather Protection, Tire Pressure Monitors, Heated Seat, Cruise Control$0.00$0.00$2,100.00$2,400.00$170.00$70.00$7.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00UnitsQuotation valid for 60 days Total Price - Page 1 $56,656.921from date noted below.Total Price - Page 2 $1,223.13Total Price - Page 3 $1,683.39Date of Quote: Parts From Other Suppliers - Page 4 $20,946.60$1,390.00$2,190.00$84,090.049.38%$7,887.65$91,977.68 Additional Labor Operations Provided by DealerPAGE 3 FMS ACCESSORIES LABOR INSTALL @ $150/HOURMotorcycle FreightINSTALL RADIO/PVP WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMDOC FEESTotal Retail Price per Unit with OptionsDealer Basic Assembly / PreparationTotal Retail Price per Unit with OptionsNote: Prices subject to change without notice. Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer.State Sales Tax (if applicable)ELECRTONIC FILINGCALIFORNIA TIRE TAX

5.2 Attachment 2 - Quotes

27 BMW RT-P Motor Pricing Form - Page 2See Special Notation CommentQuotation for:City of Foster CityPer Dealer Installed Options / Retrofits BMW P/N Order # Retail$0.15Total Retail0Shift Assistant Pro (hardware)23 00 1 543 107 0 $95.73 $0.000 Screw Torx drive (order two)07 12 9 904 977 0 $2.46 $0.000 Enabling Code77 15 8 395 839 0 $45.00 $0.000LED Additional Headlight (order 2)63 17 9 898 7850 $183.65 $0.000 Fillister Head Screw (order 2) 07 12 9 907 398 0 $3.36 $0.000 Fillister Head Screw (order 2) 07 12 9 907 377 0 $9.36 $0.000 Hex Nut With Plate (order 2)07 11 9 905 544 0 $1.11 $0.002Extra Ignition Key - Keyless Fob Transmitter66 12 5 A94 F18 2 $454.69 $909.390Heated Seat - Low TBD52 53 5 A79 7B8 0 $690.98 $0.000Heated Seat - High TBD52 53 5 A79 7B9 0 $690.98 $0.000Tire Pressure Gauge82 12 0 140 377 0 $32.12 $0.002BMW Battery Charger61 43 2 408 594 0 $134.24 $268.472 Motorcycle Charging Plug 61 43 2 411 680 2 $22.64 $45.27Qty Item DescriptionPer Additional Accessories BMW P/N Order # Retail Total RetailEngine Protection2Rocker Cover Protection Left Side (order 1)77 14 5 A6E 645 2 $81.53 $163.062Rocker Cover Protection Right Side (order 1)77 14 5 A6E 646 2 $81.53 $163.068 Body Screw W/O collar (order 4)46 63 8 568 780 8 $5.80 $46.408 Body Screw W/collar (order 4)46 63 8 550 994 8 $6.59 $52.7116 Spacer (order 8)77 14 5 A74 317 16 $8.61 $137.7916 Nut (order 8)07 11 9 905 710 16 $1.45 $23.1516 Bush (order 8)11 84 8 544 832 16 $7.06 $112.942Large Skid Plate (order 1)11 84 7 914 425 2 $342.42 $684.858 Fillister Head Screws (order 4) 07 12 9 907 402 8 $3.08 $24.662 Engine Guard Holder (order 1)11 84 8 829 202 2 $27.18 $54.352 Skid Plate Holder Front (order 1)11 84 5 A64 A34 2 $40.68 $81.362 Skid Plate Holder Rear (order 1)11 84 5 A64 A35 2 $40.68 $81.368 Fillister Head Screw (order 4)07 12 9 907 383 8 $3.60 $28.808 Clip Nut (order 4)07 14 7 693 887 8 $3.61 $28.89Adjustable Footrest System 0 Rider Foot Peg Left Adapter46 71 5 A73 D11 0 $75.20 $0.000 Rider Foot Peg Right Adapter47 71 5 A73 D12 0 $75.20 $0.000 Footbrake Lever, adjustable77 23 5 A73 F61 0 $219.20 $0.000 Gearshift Lever, adjustable77 25 5 A73 C87 0 $219.20 $0.000 Pin (order 2)46 717 675 691 0 $18.21 $0.000 Circlip (order 2) 07 11 9 909 941 0 $2.76 $0.00Qty Description PN Price Each Total Price2 FMS Standard Emergency Lighting PackageFMSA-SOS-0014,405.00$ 8,810.00$ 2 DARLA CLEARWATER LIGHTS 714.00$ 1,428.00$ Additional Accessories From Other Suppliers - Page 4Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer.

Note: Prices subject to change without notice. Always verify accuracy of part pricing before submitting quotations.Additional Accessories - Page 3Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer.

Note: Prices subject to change without notice. Always verify accuracy of part pricing before submitting quotations.

5.2 Attachment 2 - Quotes

28 2 Note Pad HolderFMSA-MT-NPH48.00$ 96.00$ 2 Stalker RLR Lidar Holster w/Drop Protection/Bracket- RHFMSA-GHST-RLRDP319.00$ 638.00$ 2Stalker II Radar Gun Holster LHFMSA-GHST-II299.00$ 598.00$ 2KA3 Flashlight Baton Holder LHFMSA-KA3-FLBHLH240.00$ 480.00$ 2Rifle Mounting bracket - RHFMSA-MT-RMB79.00$ 158.00$ 2AR Rifle Mount RHFMSA-GL-ARM767.00$ 1,534.00$ 2 Rifle Dust CoverFMSA-GL-ARDC89.00$ 178.00$ 2 Helmet Lock for Rifle MountFMSA-GL-HL19.95$ 39.90$ 4 Saddlebag LinersFMSA-KA3-SBIC59.00$ 236.00$ 4 Rear Blue ID LightFMSA-EA-LPIDS59.00$ 236.00$ 2 Ilium Works Side Extension13-40099.95$ 199.90$ 2 LAPD Ticket Book BoxFMSA-LAPD-TBB235.00$ 470.00$ 2 Techspec XL2 Tank Grips 62-1032-XL2 59.96$ 119.92$ 2RADIO POWER CONNECTION PLUG CODE A FMSA-EL-RPP10.00$ 20.00$ 2RADIO POWER PLUG DIVIDER CHOISE: CODE A - STD. BLK PLUG FMSA-EL-RPPD36.00$ 72.00$ 2SPEAKER CONNECTION PLUG FMSA-EL-SCP9.50$ 19.00$ 2ACCESSORY I-III CONNECTION PLUGS FMSA-EL-ACP9.50$ 19.00$ 2MICROPHONE MOUNT K52 CHOICE: STANDARD MIC MOUNTIN FMSA-MT-MCM29.00$ 58.00$ 2HANDLEBAR ACCESSORY MOUNTING BOLT KIT 2015-2024 MOD FMSA-HBKS12.00$ 24.00$ 2RADIO ANTENNA MOUNT 2026+ RT-P FMSA-MT-KAST42.00$ 84.00$ 2RADIO RECEIVER QUICK MOUNTING PLATE KA3 FMSA-MT-KA3QMP$34.00 68.00$ 2RADIO HEAD MOUNTING BRACKET 2026+RT-PFMSA-MT-RHMB$67.00 134.00$ 2LICENSE PLATE MOUNTING SETFMSA-MT-LPMT$10.90 21.80$ 2FREEDOM GEN3 MOBILE ONLY PVP HELMET KITPVHKA-736M3R10-B/XT$1,364.72 $2,729.442 WIRELESS MOTOR KIT PVTK8180-RT12-15/XT2 $1,237.82 $2,475.64

5.2 Attachment 2 - Quotes

29 DATE: August 3, 2026

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Director of Public Works
Laura Galli, Engineering Manager
Francine Magno, Senior Civil Engineer
Jerrick Carandang, Associate Civil Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Approval of Construction Contingency Increase for the Street Rehabilitation Project (2025-2026) (CIP 301-726) in the Amount of $175,000

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing an increase to the construction contingency for CIP 301-726 in the amount of $175,000 with authorization given to the City Manager or his designee to execute contract change orders up to the increased contingency amount.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CIP 301-726 focuses on street rehabilitation efforts on Foster City Blvd. from E. Hillsdale Blvd to Beach Park Blvd and a portion of Altair Ave near E. Hillsdale Blvd Construction bids came in significantly lower than the engineer’s estimate, resulting in available budget capacity within the project. Staff recommends using these available funds to maximize the value of the project by adding additional roadway improvement scope items to the Contractor’s scope while taking advantage of the Contractor’s competitive bid unit pricing.

To implement the additional scope, change orders are issued to the Contractor. Change orders are funded via construction contingency. To preserve the construction contingency

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

30 for its intended purpose of addressing unforeseen conditions during construction, staff recommend increasing the construction contingency by $175,000, an amount equal to the cost of the added scope. This increase offsets the cost of the added scope and ensures adequate contingency remains available for unforeseen field conditions for the original project scope. Construction started in July and is anticipated to be completed by the end of September 2026.

BACKGROUND
CIP 301-726 consists of street rehabilitation in the form of asphalt milling, asphalt overlays, and base repairs along Foster City Blvd and a portion of Altair Ave. The base bid includes the section of Foster City Blvd from E. Hillsdale Blvd to Marlin Ave and a portion of Altair Ave adjacent to East Hillsdale Blvd. Bid Alternate 1 includes the section of Foster City Blvd from Marlin Ave to Beach Park Blvd.

On January 20, 2026, the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2026-003 approving the plans and specifications for CIP 301-726 and authorizing the call for bids.

Thirteen (13) bids were received and opened on Wednesday, February 18, 2026. QA Constructors, Inc. submitted the apparent low responsive base bid in the amount of $1,031,894.90. The base bid total was significantly lower than the engineer’s estimate.

Due to these favorable unit bid prices, the City exercised the option to award both the base bid amount and bid alternate 1 in the amount of $253,218.50. As such, on March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2026-022 approving a construction agreement with QA Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $1,285,113.40 and established a contingency in the amount of $128,000 for CIP 301-726.

ANALYSIS
Construction bids for CIP 301-726 were significantly lower than the engineer's estimate, resulting in approximately $500,000 in available budget capacity even after the award of the base bid and bid alternate 1. Staff evaluated opportunities to maximize the value of the project by incorporating additional roadway improvements while utilizing the Contractor’s competitively bid unit prices.

The proposed additional work includes:
Installation of four (4) ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersections of Balclutha Drive and Ranger Circle (Cost: $54,000) - (CCO #1)
Upgrade from standard crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks along Foster City Blvd to further improve pedestrian safety and visibility (Projected cost: $50,000- 78,000) - (PCO under staff review)

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

31 Additional pavement dig-outs at known problem areas within the City. The specific location identified for repair is on Turnstone Court (Projected cost:
$34,000-$40,000) - (PCO under staff review)

The estimated cost of the additional work is approximately $175,000; however this amount is subject to negotiation and may be reduced prior to execution of a change order.

Because this work will be added to the construction contract through a change order, staff recommends increasing the construction contingency by $175,000. This action will give the City Manager the authority and discretion to issue change orders up to the revised contingency amount of $303,000, which includes the original construction contingency ($128,000) plus the proposed $175,000 for the added scope items. This approach allows the project to utilize the available budget capacity to complete additional improvements, while preserving the construction contingency for its intended purpose of addressing unforeseen conditions encountered during construction in a timely manner.

The proposed contingency increase can be accommodated within the existing project budget and does not require additional appropriation.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
On January 20, 2026, the City Council found that this project was categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (CEQA Cat Ex Class 1, Existing Facilities).

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this action is $175,000, providing additional construction contingency to pay for additional scope items while preserving the previously approved construction contingency to address unforeseen conditions that could occur through the course of construction for the original project scope of work. The revised project contingency would be $303,000 (21.7% of the construction contract). Funding is available in the approved project budget.

Item Amount
Approved Project Budget $ 2,228,263.00
Anticipated Expenditures
Construction Contract – QA Contractors $ 1,395,750.40 Construction Contingency $ 128,000.00
Construction Management – CSG $ 174,069.00

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

32 Construction Management Contingency $ 17,500.00 Misc (programmer, printing, advertising, CEQA filing, etc.) $ 4,155.53 Total Expected Expenditures $ 1,719,474.93
BUDGET REMAINING $ 508,788.07
Item Amount
Additional Budget Capacity $ 508,788.07
Projected Improvements Cost (contingency increase) $ 175,000.00 BUDGET REMAINING with additional scope $ 333,788.07

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

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 - Resolution

5.3 5.3 Staff Report

33 RESOLUTION NO. ___________

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

APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY INCREASE FOR THE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT (2025-2026) (CIP 301-726) IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,000

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2026-022 approving a construction agreement with QA Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $1,285,113.40 and established a contingency in the amount of $128,000 for Street Rehabilitation Project (2025-2026)(CIP 301-726); and
WHEREAS, the base bid total was significantly lower than the engineer’s estimate and due to these favorable unit bid prices, and the City exercised the option to award both the base bid amount and bid alternate 1; and
WHEREAS, the favorable unit bid prices resulted in available budget capacity within the project; and
WHEREAS, staff evaluated opportunities to maximize the value of the project by incorporating additional roadway improvements while utilizing the Contractor’s competitively bid unit prices; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends increasing the construction contingency by $175,000 to offset the costs of the proposed additional scope, allowing the project to utilize the available budget capacity while preserving the construction contingency for its intended purpose of addressing unforeseen conditions encountered during construction in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, this project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) – Existing Facilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby authorize a construction contingency increase for the Street Rehabilitation Project (2025-2026) (CIP 301-726) in the amount of $175,000 with authorization given to the City Manager or his designee to execute contract change orders up to the increased contingency amount.

5.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution

34 PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 3rd day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

5.3 Attachment 1 - Resolution

35 DATE: August 3, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing acceptance of the work performed by Performance Mechanical, Inc. (PMI) for the construction of the Lift Station 59 Effluent Line Improvements Project (CIP 455-695) and other related actions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CIP 455-695 includes improvements to provide Pump Station 59, the District’s final and largest capacity lift station, with enhanced operational flexibility and flow measurement accuracy and reliability.

On October 7, 2024, the District Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3778 approving a construction agreement with PMI in the amount of $1,289,130 to construct the Project.

5.4 5.4 Staff Report

36 The work has been completed in conformance with the contract documents. It is recommended that the EMID Board of Directors accept the work and direct the District Secretary to file the Notice of Completion (NOC) and close out the project.

BACKGROUND
CIP 455-695 includes improvements to provide Pump Station 59, the District’s final and largest capacity lift station, with enhanced operational flexibility and flow measurement accuracy and reliability. The specific improvements designed to achieve these goals include the following:

1. Replace the flow meter that measures the volume of sewage that flows to the Wastewater Treatment Plan.

2. Design, purchase, and assemble a temporary bypass for the Pump Station that can be installed by staff and stored at the Corporation Yard to allow for repairs on the system without interrupting sewage flow to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

3. Install a knife gate valve to allow for isolation of half the station for continued system operation during repairs and maintenance.

At its February 1, 2021 meeting, the EMID Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3557 authorizing a consultant agreement with BKF Engineers for professional engineering services for the subject project. At its April 3, 2023, meeting, the EMID Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3715 authorizing the Call for Bids for the project. However, the District received one sole bid, almost one million dollars over the engineer’s estimate. At its June 20, 2023, meeting, the EMID Board subsequently adopted EMID Resolution No. 3735 rejecting the sole bid and approved additional design work in order to rebid the project.

At its July 15, 2024 meeting, the EMID Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3767 authorizing the Call for Bids based on revised plans and specifications.

On August 5, 2024, the EMID Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3768 and City Resolution No. 2024-75 awarding a master agreement for professional on-call construction management services to Consor. Services as part of this agreement include construction management, inspection, materials testing and coordination and review of submittals, etc.

On October 7, 2024, the EMID Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3778, authorizing the following: (1) the award of a construction agreement to Performance Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $1,289,130; (2) the execution of a task order with Consor in the amount of $149,305 for construction management and inspection services; and (3) the execution of a contract amendment with BKF in the amount of $10,833 for construction support services.

5.4 5.4 Staff Report

37 ANALYSIS
The Project was initiated in November 2024 with the procurement of long lead time items. After the items were received, construction began in January 2026. Throughout the entire duration of the Project, only two contract change orders were issued to PMI, resulting in a small contract increase of $2,310.38, which is approximately 2% of the available contingency amount.

Contract Change Order #1 (CCO #1) resulted in a $13,901.30 credit. These savings were due to underground field conditions that allowed for a smaller, more cost-effective vault to house the flow meter than originally planned.

Contract Change Order #2 (CCO #2) increased the contract cost by $16,211.68 to accommodate out-of-scope items. This included the removal and disposal of an abandoned 30-inch diameter asbestos cement pipe, specialty adjustment of a ball valve, and additional paving.

Given that PMI has completed its work in conformance with the contract documents, it is recommended that the District Board accept the work and direct the District Secretary to file the Notice of Completion for the project.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15301(Class 1- Existing Facilities) A notice of exemption was filed with the County of San Mateo (File Number: 128230) on March 8, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this resolution. The table below includes the project expenditure summary as of July 9, 2026:

Item CIP 695
Approved Budget $1,800,000.00
Project Expenditures
Construction Contract (PMI) $1,289,130.00
CCOs #1 and #2 $2,310.38
Design Contract (BKF) $178,959.00
Construction Management Contract
(Consor) $149,305.00

5.4 5.4 Staff Report

38 Amendment #1 $21,358.51
Miscellaneous Expenses $11,066.59
Total Anticipated Project Expense $1,652,129.48
The work has been completed, and the NOC is ready to be filed. Action by the EMID Board tonight will establish the official date of completion of the work performed by PMI, formalizing the District’s acceptance of the contract work and allowing for the release of retention to the contractor and encumbered funds for construction back to the project.

At project closeout, estimated to occur in approximately 2 months, any remaining funds in the project will return to the respective originating funds.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – EMID Resolution
Attachment 2 – CIP 455-695 Notice of Completion

5.4 5.4 Staff Report

39 RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ACCEPTING THE WORK BY PERFORMANCE
MECHANICAL, INC. FOR THE LIFT STATION 59 EFFLUENT LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 455-695) AND DIRECTING THE DISTRICT SECRETARY TO FILE

THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director/District Engineer has filed with the District Secretary the Notice of Completion for the work known as the Lift Station 59 Effluent Line Improvements Project (CIP 455-695) located in the City of Foster City, situated in San Mateo County, California; provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract documents and agreement between the Estero Municipal Improvement District and Performance Mechanical, Inc. dated October 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the EMID Board found that this project was categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15301(Class 1- Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2026, a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of San Mateo under file number 128230 and posted for thirty calendar days; and WHEREAS, the District Manager has executed Documents 00 6530 – Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims, as required by the agreement; and WHEREAS, Performance Mechanical, Inc. has executed Document 00 6536 – Guaranty, as required by the agreement; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors that said work has been completed in an acceptable manner; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does hereby authorize:

1. The acceptance of said work subject to reservation of all District's rights arising from any defective workmanship and/or materials not observed during construction being hereafter discovered and becoming known to District; and

2. The District Secretary to notarize and file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo the Notice of Completion thereof, as

5.4 Attachment 1 - Resolution

40 required by law, and file a conformed, recorded copy of said notice with the Finance Director and Public Works Director/District Engineer; and

3. The District Secretary to notify Performance Mechanical, Inc. that the Construction Performance Bond No. 108130341 from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America may be released one year following the recordation of the Notice of Completion; and

4. The District Secretary to release the Labor and Material Bond No. 108130341 from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, thirty-five (35) days after the date of recording of the Notice of Completion if no claims or Stop Notices have been received.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 3 rd day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________________

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

5.4 Attachment 1 - Resolution

41 NOTICE OF COMPLETION
LIFT ST ATION 59 EFFLUENT LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 455-695)

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Performance Mechanical, Inc. entered into a contract dated the 7th day of October 2024 for the construction of certain improvements in the City of Foster City, situated in San Mateo County, California.

Said construction is known as the Lift Station 59 Effluent Line Improvements Project (CIP 455-695) and consists of various improvements intended to provide Pump Station 59, the City'sfinal and largest capacity liftstation, with enhanced operational flexibility,flowmeasurementaccuracyandreliability,and redundancyduring repairs.

That said work is located in the City of Foster City, situated in San Mateo County, California, and was completed on the 29'h day of May 2026.

That acceptance of said work was ordered by resolution of the Estero Municipal Improvement District adopted on the 3rd day of August 2026.

Thatthe name and bond number of the surety of the contractor's bond for Labor and Materials on said project is Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America and Laborand Material Bond No. 10813034'l.

That said work and improvements consisted of the furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidentals required to undertake and complete the Lift Station 59 Effluent Line Improvements Project (CIP 455-695), all in accordance with the contract documents as required by the City of Foster City and more particularly described in the agreement approved by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District pursuant to Resolution No. 3778 adopted on the 7th day of October 2024, subject to reservation of all District rights arising from the contract documents and further, any defective workmanship and/or materials not observed during construction being thereafter discovered and known to the District.

DATED:
:,'
" /i
AndrewB iyna
Public rks Director
Estero unicipal ImprovementDistrict

5.4 Attachment 2 - CIP 455-695 Notice of Completion

42 DATE: August 3, 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/District Engineer Laura Galli, Engineering Manager
Francine Magno, Senior Civil Engineer
Jerrick Carandang, Associate Civil Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Telstar Instruments for the Construction of the Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase I) Project (CIP 455-705); the Establishment of a Construction Contingency in the Amount of $572,000; the Award of a Task Order with Consor PMCM, Inc., for Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing Services in the Amount of $400,920; and the Establishment of a Construction Management Contingency in the Amount of $81,000

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) adopt the attached resolution authorizing:

1. The President to execute an agreement with Telstar Instruments (Telstar) in the amount of $2,289,544.50 for the construction of the Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase I) Project (CIP 455-705); and

2. The establishment of a construction contingency in the amount of $572,000 with authorization given to the District Manager, or his designee, to execute contract change orders up to the contingency amount; and

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

43 3. The President to execute a Task Order with Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $400,920 for Construction Management, Inspection, and Materials Testing Services; and

4. The establishment of a construction management contingency for Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $81,000 with authorization given to the District Manager or his designee, to execute contract change orders up to the contingency amount; and

5. Finding that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) – Existing Facilities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CIP 455-705 addresses the replacement of emergency generator systems (generators) and automatic transfer switch (ATS) equipment at ten (10) of the District’s lift stations, which have reached the end of their useful lives. To address extended equipment procurement lead times and prioritize the District’s most critical facilities, the project was divided into two phases. Phase I, which includes Lift Stations 22, 29, and 59, is ready for construction. Additionally, the long lead equipment for Phase I has been ordered ahead of construction. Freyer and Laureta, Inc. (F&L) are the Engineers of Record who developed construction documents for the project. Construction is anticipated to start in September 2026 and is estimated to take 5-6 months to be completed.

Three (3) bids for the construction of Phase I of CIP 455-705 were received and publicly opened on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, following a formal bid solicitation. The bid submitted by Telstar in the amount of $2,289,544.50 was determined to be the lowest responsible and responsive bid.

Consor PMCM, Inc. (Consor) will provide construction management, inspection and support services throughout the duration of construction via Task Order CON-2026-01.

Consor is an on-call consultant and has provided proof of their experience with generator replacement projects.

There are adequate funds in the project budget for CIP 455-705 to cover the cost of construction.

BACKGROUND
CIP 455-705 addresses the replacement of emergency generators at ten (10) of the District’s wastewater lift stations (Lift Stations 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 26, 29, 41 and 59)

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

44 and associated ATSs with exception of the ATS equipment at Lift Station 22 which was deemed to be in good condition. The existing generators and ATS equipment scheduled for replacement have reached the end of their useful lives.

Staff prioritized Lift Stations 22, 29, and 59 due to their importance to the system and having a much longer lead time (upwards of a year) to procure the equipment. Due to this, the project has been split into two Phases where Phase I consists of generator replacements at Lift Station 22, 29 and 59, while Phase II contains replacements of the generators at the remaining Lift Stations (10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 26, 41). The equipment for Phase I has been ordered and the District is in possession of two of the three generators.

The remaining generator is expected to be delivered prior to the start of construction.

Phase II is currently in design and is anticipated to start construction in early 2027.

At the April 7, 2026 meeting, the District Board adopted EMID Resolution No. 3843 approving the plans and specifications for CIP 455-705 and authorizing the call for bids.

ANALYSIS
Bids for the construction of Phase I of CIP 455-705 were solicited through a formal bidding process. Bids for this project were opened on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, with the following results:

Name of Company Total Bid $ Over/(Under)
Engineer’s
Estimate
% Over/(Under)
Engineer’s
Estimate
Engineer’s Estimate $1,906,000.00 $ - -%
Telstar Instrumental $2,289,544.50 $383,544.50 20%
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$2,318,550.00 $412,550.00 22%
PC Inc. $2,404,398.24 $498,398.41 26%

After evaluating all submitted bid documents, staff determined that Telstar submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid, in the amount of $2,289,544.50. The bid amount is above the engineer’s estimate by $383,544.50 or 20%. Staff met with F&L to discuss the difference between the Engineer’s estimate and the lowest bid. Ultimately, it was determined that the unfamiliarity to the cost of certain electrical work and general higher overall cost led to the difference in amounts. Staff conducted an extensive evaluation of Telstar and found their previous experience to be satisfactory and in line with what staff expect for this project. Telstar has provided all the required documents and licenses.

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

45 Following the award of the construction contract, the contractor shall provide all necessary paperwork and meet with the City for a preconstruction meeting. The contractor will have 180 calendar days to substantially complete the project from the date specified in the Notice to Proceed. Construction is anticipated to start in September 2026 and to be completed by February 2027. The contractor will coordinate with the City and any affected properties such as Bank of America for LS 29 work.

Project management will be conducted through City staff and Consor will provide construction management, inspection and support services through Task Order CON- 2026-01 throughout the duration of construction. F&L will provide construction support services during construction and produce record drawings post-construction.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The project has been found to be categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(b) (Class 1-Existing Facilities) as the project consists of minor alteration of existing public facilities and equipment to provide public utility services and would result in negligible or no expansion of existing use.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this resolution is $3,343,464.50, including (a) $2,289,544.50 for a construction contract award to Telstar; (b) $572,000 in construction contingency; (c) $400,920 for a construction management services task order to Consor; and (d) $81,000 in construction management contingency.

The construction contingency of $572,000, or approximately 25% of the total bid amount, is requested to pay for any unforeseen conditions during construction.

Construction contingency is typically 15%-20% of the total bid amount, however a higher contingency is recommended due to the complexity of the electrical work involved in the generator replacement and the increased potential for unforeseen conditions during construction, such as staff’s recent experience with projects within the corporation yard, where unidentified underground facilities were encountered that were not accurately reflected in the available record drawings.

There are adequate funds in the project budget for construction and construction management of Phase I. Any unused money, including contingency remaining following construction of Phase I, will be retained in the project budget for the remaining project scope to replace the emergency generators.

Additional funding necessary for completion of Phase II construction will be subjected to future appropriation when PSE approval and Call for Bids for Phase II is introduced to

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

46 the District Board for approval.

Approved Current Budget Amount
Wastewater Capital Investment (455) $ 7,200,000.00

Current/Completed Expenditures
F&L Agreement $ 847,418.00
F&L Contingency $ 59,000.00
Miscellaneous Design Expenses (includes BAAQMD
permit fees) $ 24,710.50
Procurement of 3 Priority Generators, ATS and
associated equipment (Phase I) $ 1,715,136.00 Procurement of 7 Generators, ATS and associated
equipment (Phase II) $ 648,763.76
Construction Cost of the Removal of the Underground
Storage Tank $ 258,350.50
Anticipated Expenditures
Construction Bid submitted by Telstar (Phase I) $ 2,289,544.50 Construction Contingency (25%) (Phase I) $ 572,000.00 Construction Management by Consor $ 400,920.00 Construction Management Contingency (20%) $ 81,000.00 Subtotal Subject to Council Approval $ 3,343,464.50 Additional BAAQMD permit fees $ 3,921.00

Total Anticipated Expenditures to date $ 6,900,764.26

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

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

47 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Task Order - CON-2026-01
Attachment 3 - Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

5.5 5.5 Staff Report

48 RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AUTHORIZING (1) THE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,289,544.50 FOR

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT (PHASE I) PROJECT (CIP 455-705); (2) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $572,000; (3) THE AWARD OF A TASK ORDER WITH CONSOR PMCM, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION, AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 400,920; (4) THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,000 AND; (5) FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15301(B)

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, CIP 455-705 addresses the replacement of emergency generator systems (generators) and automatic transfer switch (ATS) equipment at ten (10) of the District’s lift stations; and
WHEREAS, to address extended equipment procurement lead times and prioritize the District’s most critical facilities, the project was divided into two phases; Phase I, which includes the first three Lift Stations 22, 29, and 59, and is ready for construction, and Phase II, which includes the remaining seven Lift Stations which are in design; and WHEREAS, at the meeting on April 7, 2026, the District Board adopted Resolution No. 3843 approving the issuance of plans and specifications and authorizing the call for bids for CIP 455-705; and
WHEREAS, out of three (3) bids received and opened on June 17, 2026, Telstar Instruments submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid in the amount of $2,289,544.50; and
WHEREAS, a project contingency in the amount of $572,000 will enable expedient resolution of changes to the plans resulting from any unforeseen conditions; and WHEREAS, Consor PMCM, Inc., (Consor) will perform construction management, inspection services and materials testing along with support services throughout construction and closeout; and
WHEREAS, this Project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) – Existing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the budget for CIP 455-705 Emergency Generator Replacement Project.

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

5.5 Attachment 1 - Resolution

49 1. The President to execute an agreement with Telstar Instruments in the amount of $2,289,544.50 for the construction of the Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase I) Project (CIP 455-705); and

3. The President to execute a Task Order with Consor in the amount of $400,920 for Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing Services for CIP 455- 705; and

4. The establishment of a construction management contingency for Consor in the amount of $81,000 with authorization given to the District Manager, or his designee, to execute contract change orders up to the contingency amount; and

5. Find that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities as the project consists of minor alteration of existing public facilities and equipment to provide public utility services and would result in negligible or no expansion of existing use.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District President is hereby authorized to execute the Agreements, with minor, non-substantive revisions may be approved by the District Manager and Attorney, and any other documents may be executed as necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement as authorized above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 3rd day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

5.5 Attachment 1 - Resolution

50 TASK ORDER NO. CON-2026-01

TO MASTER ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Task Order No. CON-2026-01 ("Task Order") is made and entered into by and between the Estero Municipal Improvement District (“City/District”) and Consor PMCM, Inc., (Consor). ("Consultant").

RECITAL
A. District and Consultant entered into an agreement entitled Master Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management & Inspection Services ("Agreement"), by which the Consultant agreed to perform on-call Construction Management & Inspection Services in accordance with Task Orders issued by the District.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This Task Order hereby incorporates by reference all items and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

2. SCOPE OF TASK ORDER. Consultant shall perform the services described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

3. PAYMENT. For services performed by Consultant in accordance with this Task Order, City will compensate Consultant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $ 400,920.00 (including all hourly billings as well as reimbursable costs).

4. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Task Order represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Task Order on behalf of the respective legal entities of the Consultant and the City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and Consultant do hereby agree to the full performance of the terms set forth herein.

Estero Municipal Improvement District Consultant
_____________________________ _________________________ By: Art Kiesel By: Brett Margosian
Title: President Title: Area Principal
Date: _________________________ Date: _____________________

5.5 Attachment 2 - Task Order - CON-2026-01

51 EXHIBIT A

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

PROFESSIONAL ON-CALL MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES
This is an Exhibit attached to and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated August 2024, by and between Consor PMCM, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" and the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, hereinafter referred to as "CITY/DISTRICT" providing for professional services.

Description of the Project:

See attached proposal

5.5 Attachment 2 - Task Order - CON-2026-01

52 1663 Mission Street, Suite 425
San Francisco, CA 94103
888.451.6822

VIA EMAIL
July 9, 2026
Jerrick Carandang
Associate Engineer | Public Works
City of Foster City | Estero Municipal Improvements District 619 Foster City Blvd
Foster City, CA 94404
RE: CIP 455-705 – Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase 1) Project CM and Inspection Services Dear Mr. Carandang:

Consor North America, Inc. (Consor) is pleased to present its proposal to provide the City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvements District (City/District) with construction management (CM) and inspection services in support of your CIP 455-705 – Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase 1) Project.

Our proposal is based on our understanding of the project gained through a review of the plans and specifications as well as the information conveyed during the meeting held on June 29, 2026. The assumptions regarding the project schedule and the level of CM and inspection effort are detailed in Attachment 1 – Proposed Work Scope.

SCOPE AND BUDGET
Attached, for your review and consideration, are a detailed breakdown of the scope of work and a proposed budget based on the level of effort that Consor anticipates being needed to provide the requested services and the approved billing rates per our Master Professional Services Agreement. As shown in Attachment 2 – Proposed Staffing and Budget, our total proposed fee estimate is as follows:
 CIP 455-705 – Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase 1) Project: $400,920 Please review the proposed work scope and staffing plan/budget and let us know if they meet your expectations.

PERSONNEL
Consor proposes Brett Margosian, PE, CCM, to serve as the construction manager and Rolando Calvo to serve as the lead inspector for this project. During key phases of the work where a high degree of electrical expertise is required, Consor proposes Kerry McCard to serve as the electrical inspector on the project. Their resumes are included as Attachment 3 for your review.

We look forward to hearing from you soon and greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Consor North America, Inc.

Brett Margosian, PE, CCM – Area Principal
901-568-2689 | [email protected]
Att
achments: 1. Proposed Work Scope

2. Proposed Staffing and Budget

3. Staff Resumes

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

53 Attachment 1 – Proposed Work Scope
CIP 455-705: Emergency Generator Replacement Project
Consor will support the City/District in accordance with the following project tasks:
 TASK 1 – ConstrucƟon Management and ConstrucƟon AdministraƟon  TASK 2 – Field InspecƟon and ConstrucƟon ObservaƟon
 TASK 3 – Project Closeout
 TASK 4 – Management and Project Controls
Below is a detailed breakdown of the acƟviƟes covered by each of the above tasks:

TASK 1 – ConstrucƟon Management and ConstrucƟon AdministraƟon  General CoordinaƟon
o Conduct pre-construcƟon and weekly progress meeƟngs, and prepare/distribute agenda and meeƟng minutes.
o Produce Weekly Statement of Working (or Calendar) days. o Maintain communicaƟons and coordinate with the City/District, its Contractor, and its Designer.
 Contractor Invoice Review
o Review, comment on, and process Contractor’s Requests for Payment. o Verify claimed quanƟƟes with Lead Inspector.
 Change Management
o Maintain Log of PotenƟal Change Orders / Change Orders. o Coordinate, review, and evaluate potenƟal change orders and cost esƟmates/quotaƟons.
o Inspect and evaluate site condiƟons which are perceived to be diﬀerent than those shown in the contract documents.
o Resolve and/or facilitate resoluƟon of conﬂicts between plans, speciﬁcaƟons, and ﬁeld condiƟons.
o Once merit has been determined, produce contract change orders for City/District approval.
o Review, comment on, and approve contractor’s Time Impact Analyses for change orders.
o Review, gather, and evaluate informaƟon for resoluƟon of potenƟal disputes or claims.

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

54  Schedule Review
o Evaluate contractor’s schedule for actual versus planned progress, and document all scheduling discrepancies and deviaƟons.
o Review and comment on contractor’s monthly schedule submiƩal. o Communicate ﬁndings to the City/District and Contractor and coordinate any follow-up acƟons needed.
 Labor Compliance
o Perform spot review of labor compliance submiƩals from Contractor. o Conduct ﬁeld interviews conﬁrming labor compliance.
 RFI and SubmiƩal CoordinaƟon
o Create/maintain submiƩal and RFI logs to track submissions and responses. o Facilitate reviews of submissions by the Engineer of Record and others as needed for response and resoluƟon.
 Materials TesƟng
o Perform intermiƩent veriﬁcaƟon tesƟng of materials to conﬁrm compliance with contract requirements.
o Coordinate materials tesƟng as required by the contract documents.

TASK 2 – Field InspecƟon and ConstrucƟon ObservaƟon
 Field InspecƟon
o Inspect the contractor’s work daily for compliance with contract requirements. o Review materials and equipment delivered to the site for compliance with submiƩals and contract documents.
 ConstrucƟon ObservaƟon
o Observe the contractor’s ﬁeld work for general compliance with safety, environmental, quality, and other applicable standards. o Produce daily inspecƟon reports, including photos, descripƟons of daily acƟviƟes, notable observaƟons, any needed correcƟve acƟons, an accounƟng of personnel and equipment on site, conversaƟons held, site visitors, and work to be performed on the following day(s).

TASK 3 – Project Closeout
 Facilitate Project Closeout
o Coordinate and conduct site inspecƟons to determine if the faciliƟes are complete and in compliance with the contract documents.

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

55 o Develop correcƟve item work lists (punch lists) and inspect the correcƟve acƟons performed to conﬁrm resoluƟon.
o Coordinate punch list preparaƟon with the Engineer of Record and others as needed.
o Recommend retenƟon release and ﬁnal payment.
o Review the Contractor’s as-built drawings for accuracy and completeness. o Assist with preparing project closeout forms.
o Organize and verify completeness of project records, and transmit ﬁnal records to the City/District.
o Verify the Contractor has made all payments to subcontractors/vendors and that all required releases have been submiƩed.
o Prepare and submit a ﬁnal construcƟon report.

TASK 4 – Management and Project Controls
 Manage internal resources and coordinate with City/District staﬀ to ensure smooth project delivery.
 Be available to consult with the City/District project manager at all reasonable Ɵmes and immediately advise the project manager of requests, technical issues, delays, deﬁciencies, or other items which may materially aﬀect the project’s scope, quality, schedule, or cost.

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

56 Hours Billing Rate Amount Aug-26Sep-26Oct-26Nov-26Dec-26Jan-27Feb-27Mar-27 General Coordination PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 78 275.00$ 21,450.00$ 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 Contractor Invoice Review PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 36 275.00$ 9,900.00$ 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 Change Management PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 96 275.00$ 26,400.00$ 0 8 16 16 16 16 16 8 Schedule Review PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 40 275.00 $ 11,000.00$ 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 Labor Compliance PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 24 275.00 $ 6,600.00$ 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 RFI and Submittal Coordination PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 50 275.00$ 13,750.00$ 0 12 10 8 8 8 4 0 Materials Testing
Coordinate Materials Testing PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 10 275.00$ 2,750.00$ 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 Perform Materials Testing Subconsultant Inspection Services, Inc. 1 LS 10,000.00$ 5% Subconsultant Markup Markup Consor 1 LS 500.00 $
336 102,350.00$ 10 50 56 54 54 54 48 8
Field Inspection (General/Lead)Construction
Inspector Rolando Calvo (Consor) 480 215.00$ 103,200.00$ 0 80 80 80 80 80 80 0 Field Inspection (Electrical) Construction
Inspector Kerry McCard (Consor) 152 235.00$ 35,720.00$ 0 0 40 16 40 16 40 0 Construction Observation (Day Shift)Construction
Inspector Rolando Calvo (Consor) 510 215.00$ 109,650.00$ 0 85 85 85 85 85 85 0 Construction Observation (Overnight)Construction
Inspector Rolando Calvo (Consor) 80 322.50$ 25,800.00$ 0 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 1222 274,370.00$ 0 181 221 197 221 197 205 0 Facilitate Project Closeout PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 56 275.00$ 15,400.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 8 General Management/Coordination PM/RE Brett Margosian, PE, CCM (Consor) 32 275.00$ 8,800.00$ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1646 400,920.00$ 14 235 281 255 279 279 281 20

0.08 1.42 1.70 1.55 1.69 1.69 1.70 0.12
Notes:

ATTACHMENT 2 - PROPOSED STAFFING PLAN AND BUDGET
CIP 455-705: Emergency Generator Replacement (Phase 1) Project Hours and Hourly Rates
TASK 2 - Field Inspection and Construction Observation
Activity Person/Firm

GRAND TOTALS
FTEs
Title

1. Billing rates are 2026 rates escalated per CPI-W for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA from original rates in Consor's Master Professional Services Agreement with the City/District dated August 5, 2024.

2. Fee proposal and rates assume straight time only, Monday - Friday, except for Construction Inspector whose hours include allowances for the ten (10) separate overnight shutdowns required to complete the work.

TASK 3 - Project Closeout

TASK TOTALS
TASK 4 - Management and Project Controls

TASK TOTALS
TASK 1 - Construction Management and Construction Administration

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

57 1
BRETT MARGOSIAN, PE, CCM | Project Manager / Area Principal Brett is a seasoned construction and project manager with extensive experience delivering large public-sector capital programs. He has a strong track record of leading complex projects, building effective teams, and providing technical expertise across water and wastewater infrastructure totaling over $200M.

As Construction Manager for Contra Costa Water District, he oversaw construction administration and inspection for a $50M annual capital program. At EBMUD, he led multidisciplinary teams delivering water infrastructure projects exceeding $100M annually, demonstrating his strength in managing high-value, technically complex initiatives.

EXPERIENCE
15 years

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of Memphis

REGISTR ATION
Professional Civil Engineer
CA #84299

CERTIFIC ATIONS
Certified Cons
truction
Manager – CMCI #41517
CA Water Distribution
Operator – Grade 2 #43006
CA Water Treatment
Operator – Grade 2 #35889

JOINED C ONSOR
2026

KEY PROJECT EXPERIENCE
VARIOUS PROJECTS; Contra Costa Water District (CCWD); Construction Division Manager. As Manager of the Construction Division at CCWD, Brett led a team of construction administrators, inspectors, support staff, and consultants, ensuring the successful delivery of CCWD's capital construction project portfolio. Under his leadership, the division managed an average annual cash flow of $50M. Brett was instrumental in developing a robust organizational structure that could support the division's growing demands. By implementing efficient and effective business processes and systems, Brett ensured that the division was well-prepared to handle a significant increase in project workload anticipated through 2032. His strategic vision and proactive approach enabled the team to maintain high standards of quality and efficiency, even as the volume and complexity of projects increased.

VARIOUS PROJECTS; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); Senior Civil Engineer.

Brett served in various capacities at EBMUD, progressing through the ranks from Junior Engineer to Senior Civil Engineer. Throughout his tenure, Brett demonstrated leadership and technical expertise, overseeing a wide range of water infrastructure capital construction projects with an annual cash flow exceeding $100M. He was instrumental in implementing business process and system enhancements to effectively handle the dramatic expansion of EBMUD's capital improvement program. His strategic vision and ability to streamline operations were key to managing the increased project workload.

He served as both construction manager and resident engineer on large, complex projects involving civil, mechanical, HVAC, structural, electrical, and controls elements.

His in-depth understanding of these multidisciplinary projects ensured their successful execution and completion. In his role as Resident Engineer on water infrastructure renewal and improvement projects ranging from $500,000 to over $20M in value, he was responsible for daily construction engineering, administration, inspection, and testing activities, ensuring that all projects met the highest standards of quality and compliance. Brett's extensive project portfolio at EBMUD includes:
• SAN PABLO WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL REPLACEMENT: A $45M project involving the replacement of the clearwell and a major rate control facility at the San Pablo Water Treatment Plant. Brett served as the Senior CM and oversaw the CM, Project Engineer, and Inspector in delivering the project. • SOBRANTE AND UPPER SAN LEANDRO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OZONE IMPROVEMENTS: A $40M project to replace the ozone treatment systems at two actively operating water treatment plants. Brett served as the CM and Resident Engineer, leading the day-to-day construction management of the project and a simultaneous upgrade to the arc flash prevention and electrical safety systems as the Upper San Leandro WTP .

Attachment 3 - Staff Resumes

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

58 2
BRETT MARGOSIAN, PE, CCM | Project Manager / Area Principal (continued) • ORINDA WATER TREATMENT PLANT S HUTDOWN

IMPR OVEMENTS AND FILTER UNDERDR AIN
REPLACEM ENTS: A $25M project to improve the
redundancy and operability of a must-run water
treatment plant and replace the filter underdrains. Brett served as the Resident Engineer on this complex upgrade of nearly every treatment process at the plant,
coordinating all field work with the contractor, EBMUD
Operations and Maintenance staff, the design team, and
other stakeholders on this award-winning project.
• ORINDA, WALNUT C REEK, AND LAF AYETTE
WTP CAR BONIC ACI D FEED SYSTEMS: A $20M project
to install carbonic acid feed systems for pH adjustment at multiple operating water treatment plants
simultaneously. Brett served as the Senior CM,
overseeing the CM, Project Engineer, and Inspector in
delivering the project.
• EDEN AND ROUND HILL RESERVOIR REHABILITATIONS: A
$5M project to fully replace a 1.6 million gallon (MG)
welded steel tank with two 0.45 MG welded steel tanks,
and rehabilitate an existing 0.5 MG welded steel tank in two sensitive communities in Castro Valley and Alamo.

Brett served as the Resident Engineer, leading the day-to- day management of the project and overseeing the
contractor's field work for compliance with safety,
environmental, and quality requirements.
• FIRE TRAIL AND JENSEN NO. 2 PUMPING PLANT
REHABILITATION: A $4M project to rehabilitate two
distribution pumping plants located in quiet, residential areas in Castro Valley, including replacement of all
pumps, motors, piping, instrumentation, electrical gear, control elements, and other appurtenances. Brett served as the Construction Manager, responsible for all aspects of project delivery including field quality oversight,
change management, monitoring cost and schedule,
coordinating project impacts with residents and agencies having jurisdiction over the work, and ensuring the work was completed within the tight outage windows for each
facility to maintain sufficient water service in the
surrounding communities.
• HAPPY VALLEY AND SUNNYSIDE PUMPING PLANT
REPLACEMENTS: A $20M project involving the
replacement of two pumping plants in sensitive
communities and with stringent environmental permit
conditions in Orinda and Lafayette. Brett served as the Senior CM, overseeing the CM, Project Engineer, and
Inspector in delivering the project.
• OAKLAND INNER HARBOR PIPELINE CROSSING: A
$27M project to construct a large-diameter pipeline
crossing from Oakland to Alameda underneath the
Oakland Inner Harbor and install over two miles of
water transmission pipelines in Alameda. Brett served
as the Senior CM, overseeing the CM, Project
Engineer, and Inspector in delivering the project.
• BRYANT NO. 2 PUMPING PLANT REHABILITATION: A
$3M project to replace a 2,000 HP motor and the full
electrical lineup including switchgear, motor control
center, and control panels at a large distribution
pumping plant within an active water treatment plant.

Brett served as the Resident Engineer, managing
communications with the contractor, administering
changes to the contract, processing all submittals,
RFIs, and design clarifications, and overseeing the
contractor's field work for compliance with safety,
environmental, and quality requirements.
• BAYFAIR, PERALTA, AND SOUTH PUMPING PLANT
REPLACEMENTS: A $13M project to replace three
distribution pumping plants entirely and install 3,500
feet of new distribution pipeline along a heavily-
traveled city street in San Leandro. Brett served as the Construction Manager, responsible for day-to-day
administration of the project, lead coordination with
the City, Caltrans, and other agencies having
jurisdiction over the work, oversight of the project
team including a Project Engineer, two Construction
Inspectors, and several subconsultants performing
special inspections and materials testing.

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

59 Rolando Calvo
Construction Inspector
Rolando has more than 40 years of extensive work experience in engineering and construction projects, specialized in construction inspection, project monitoring, and management of large and complex infrastructure projects including but not limited to construction of sewerage system, pump station, force main, effluent pond sludge drying facilities, watermains, recycled waterlines, and drainage improvement projects. Rolando also has knowledge and experience in HMA pavement construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance, as well as roadway concrete improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and curb ramp construction. Rolando has assisted in completing projects on schedule and within budget in accordance with contract requirements.

He has performed inspection of construction activities to ensure conformance with approved contract document. He has worked with private companies, various utility companies, numerous agencies, and the public. His experience, ability to work well with others, and attention to detail is a benefit to all projects.

EXPERIENCE
40+ years

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of the City of
Manila, Philippines

CERTIFICATIONS
Certificate, Pipeline
Assessment Certification
Program
Certificate, HAZWOPER,
Compliance Solution
Certificate, Fundamentals
of Inspection Practice,
UC Berkeley Institute of
Transportation Studies
Certificate, Asphalt Pavement
Design, Construction and
Maintenance, UC Berkeley,
ITS
Certificate, OSHA 3010,
Excavation, Trenching and
Soil Mechanics
Certificate, OSHA 2264,
Permit Required Confined
Spaces Entry

LOCATION
Walnut Creek, CA

JOINED FIRM
2022

KEY PROJECT EXPERIENCE
SOUTHLINE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; City of San Bruno, CA; Construction Inspector. Rolando was the construction inspector for this project.

Project scope of work included demolition of the
Huntington/Sneath curve, installation of a new
signalized intersection, installation of a new signalized left turn on Huntington Avenue for a bus entrance into
the SamTrans transit center, additions/modifications
of utilities, stormwater system, landscaping, lighting, retaining wall, thermoplastic striping, and pedestrian
facilities along Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane.

GENESIS-HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; City of San Bruno, CA; Field Engineer/Construction Inspector. Rolando is the City’s construction inspector for this development project for a new 171,610-square-foot, multi-story Hyundai and Genesis dealership under construction at 1010 Admiral Court in San Bruno. This project led by Cardinale Automotive Group, features a five-story structure with showroom, service bays, and rooftop parking on the former U.S. Navy site. Project scope of work includes constructing underground utilities, ADA accessible sidewalks, drainage systems, and improvements to the adjacent roadways.

MARINA BRANCH PUBLIC LIBRARY RESTORATION PROJECT; City of San Mateo, CA; Field Engineer/Construction Inspector. Scope of work for this $6 million project, situated on the west embankment of Seal Slough, a meandering tidal channel that flows toward San Francisco Bay, the building leaned towards the waterway. The building was supported by a series of parallel spread footings with a crawl space, and the raised wood floor had experienced differential settlement on the order of five inches. As a result, the existing fill soils and shallow soft Bay mud require deep underpinning to the existing foundation, such as auger cast piles with grade beam foundations for re- leveling. The improvement project restored the sloping floors to near-level conditions, addressing safety concerns. The project installed approximately 158 deep helical piles to a depth of 60

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

60 Rolando Calvo
Construction Inspector
feet. New concrete grade beams were installed near existing grades on top of the helical piles. The building was jacked to re-level it and then re-supported on these new foundation elements. The entire building was then re-supported on the new foundations. The project also included Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements throughout the site and interior spaces, removal and relocation of the existing rear deck to the south side of the library building, replacement of the existing roof and addition of roof insulation, replacement of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, replacement of lighting, mechanical, plumbing and electrical building systems, full interior renovation, and grading and drainage site improvements. 2020-21 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT; City of Daly City, CA; Field Engineer/ Construction Inspector. Rolando was the construction inspector for this road improvement project. He performed inspections for this $3M project that included Asphalt Concrete (AC)/ Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) grinding and paving; installation of new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutters, construction of Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps and driveways; installation of thermoplastic striping and markers, re-setting or relocation of existing signs and sign posts; reconstruction of top of catch basins, construction of new catch basins, and resetting of survey monuments.

MISSION STREET STREETSCAPE PROJECT; City of Daly City, CA; Field Engineer/ Construction Inspector. Rolando was the construction inspector for this project. He performed field inspection and monitored contract work to ensure compliance with plans and specifications. Project work consisted of bulb out and curb ramp improvements, landscaped median widening with new irrigation and planting, roadway base repairs and slurry seal, new traffic striping/pavement markings, high visibility crosswalks, pedestrian street lighting, and pedestrian safety signage improvements along Mission Street from Crocker Avenue to Templeton Avenue.

CITYWIDE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT; City of Dublin, CA; Construction Inspector.

Rolando was the construction inspector on the solar canopies and battery backup system at the Wave Water Park, which is part of the Citywide Energy Efficiency Project. This design/ build project involved the design/builder to perform an Investment Grade Audit and develop and implement approved energy projects throughout the City. Projects to improve energy efficiency in the City include: solar canopies and battery backup systems, HVAC upgrades, generator upgrades, lighting upgrades, traffic signal power backup with hydrogen fuel cell.

SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT; City of San Rafael, CA; Field Engineer/ Construction Inspector. As a District employee for close to 14 years, Rolando performed field inspection and monitored contract work to ensure compliance with plans and specifications and District standards on numerous Capital Improvement Projects and Permit Projects. He enforced the District’s Standard and Regulations on various sewer facilities projects in construction and rehabilitation of sewer pumping stations, force and gravity sewer mainlines, and other capital improvement projects. Reviewed and assisted in the design of plans, progress payments, prepared and maintain daily inspection reports and pictures, and kept daily records.

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

61 1
KERRY MCCARD | Construction Inspector
Kerry McCard has 37 years of experience in the construction industry. Prior to becoming an Electrical Inspector, Kerry was a General Foreman for electrical contractors with expertise in the installation of electrical distribution and transmission systems. With his knowledge of the electrical industry and knack for delivering projects on time, within cost, and quality and safety parameters, he is a great addition to any team. Kerry understands design drawings and specifications and communicates well with owners, inspectors, contractors, engineers, and architects. He has supervised and overseen electrical labor, material, and installation on various projects ranging from wastewater and water treatment plants, pump stations, high voltage switch gear, transformer replacement, transit projects and power plants.

EXPERIENCE
37 years

EDUCATION
I.B.E.W. Local Union #180
Apprenticeship
Journeyman Wireman

REGISTRATIONS &

CERTIFICATIONS
CA Licensed Electrician
#104486
NFPA 70E-2018
OSHA-10 hour

SOFTWARE
• Oracle Unifier
• Bluebeam

JOINED FIRM
2019

KEY PROJECT EXPERIENCE
WESTSIDE PUMP STATION RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ($48M); San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Electrical Inspector (11/2021 - ongoing). This project will upgrade the aging mechanical and electrical infrastructure that has been in service for numerous decades in a harsh marine environment. The project will effectively improve the reliability of the pump station by providing back-up electrical power, back- up and/or replacement mechanical equipment, and ventilation improvements. On this project, Kerry is the Electrical Inspector for 12kV power replacement. In this role, he is responsible for quality assurance, daily documentation of the project including logging manpower, taking photographs, and inspection of the work to ensure work for compliance with plans and specs and applicable codes. Additionally, Kerry assists the project team in their evaluation of change orders related to electrical scope.

WESTSIDE RECYCLED TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT ($216M); San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Electrical Inspector (11/2021 - 05/2023). This project is for the construction of a new Recycled Water Treatment Facility within the existing Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). Secondary effluent from the Oceanside WPCP will undergo an advanced treatment process using membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light disinfection to produce recycled water at a level that will exceed state of California standards. The project will produce and deliver up to 2 mgd on average of recycled water, with peak deliveries of up to 4 mgd during the summertime of recycled water that is suitable for all recycled water uses approved by the State of California. As Electrical Inspector, Kerry documents daily job progress and confirms work is installed per plans, specifications, and applicable codes. Kerry also assists with startup of the facility and related equipment. In this role, he helps to coordinate between the plant staff and vendors and confirms that all testing is completed per plan. To this end, he reviews the startup plan along with approved submittals to verify that subconsultants and vendors perform their work as indicated by the plans and specifications.

TAXIWAY B (PHASE 2 & 3) PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ($9.3M); Oakland International Airport; Construction Inspector (2021). The Taxiway B (Ph 2 & 3) Project provided pavement rehabilitation of the primary taxiway at Oakland International Airport to meet the latest Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and design standards. Rehabilitation of airfield pavement included complex and diverse infrastructure including specific strength requirements, civil grading, airfield lighting and markings, airfield signage, and utility structures. As the Electrical Inspector for the project, Kerry oversaw the work by the lead contractor and their electrical trade partner, making sure that all work was done safely, to code, and in adherence to the plans and specifications..

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

62 2
KERRY MCCARD | Construction Inspector (continued)
MULTIPLE PROJECTS AIRPORT-WIDE; San Francisco
International Airport, Building Inspection and Code
Enforcement; Electrical Inspector and Plan Check (2019 – 2021). As an Electrical Inspector and Plan Check Reviewer, Kerry was a consultant to SFO’s Building Inspection and Code Enforcement group, which is SFO’s inhouse Authority Having Jurisdiction. He inspected and reviewed projects throughout the airport, including terminal remodels,
checkpoint upgrades, and performed electrical review of the current airfield program design.

CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT ($823M); San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Electrical General Foreman (2011 – 2016). The Calaveras Dam Replacement
Project involved construction of a new earth and rock fill dam downstream of the existing dam. The replacement
dam has a structural height of 220 feet and is designed to accommodate a maximum credible earthquake on the
Calaveras Fault. The replacement dam increased reservoir capacity to 31 billion gallons of water, to provide adequate water to Bay Area customers. Kerry’s participation on
this project involved the installation of new high voltage system with new electrical rooms and MOV structures.

As the Electrical General foreman, Kerry was responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project from planning to implementation. He allocated resources, supervised
onsite personnel and subcontractors, and interfaced with project inspectors, contractors, architects, engineers, city and county officials, and clients. He maintained the highest standards and quality assurance of workmanship
to adhere to contract plans and specifications.

HARRY TRACY WATER TREATMENT PLANT LONG-TERM
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ($283M); San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission; Electrical General Foreman (2011
– 2015). The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant is the
sole treatment plant serving the Crystal Springs Reservoir system. The system provides critical local water storage and serves as emergency and supplementary water supply
for San Mateo and San Francisco counties. The project
primarily involved replacement of the existing 6.5 million gallon and eight million gallon treated water reservoirs with a new 11 million gallon treated water reservoir. It also included the construction of five new filters, replacing the existing 0.5 million gallon washwater tank, conversion of washwater clarifiers to equalization basins, installation of new high-rate clarifiers, and completions of hydraulic improvements to various treatment units. Other work
included the installation of a new ozone generation facility, sedimentation basins, sludge thickening and dewatering
facilities, an effluent pipeline and a raw water pumping system, as well as electrical and instrumentation upgrades.

Kerry’s participation in this project involved the installation of all new 4,160V high voltage switchgears, cabling with 6 MW of standby power, and a new SCADA system. As
the Electrical General Foreman, Kerry was responsible for overseeing electrical aspects of the project from planning to implementation. He allocated resources, supervised
onsite personnel and subcontractors, and interfaced with project inspectors, contractors, architects, engineers, city and county officials, and clients. He maintained the highest standards and quality assurance of workmanship
to adhere to contract plans and specifications.

LAKE MERCED PUMP STATION ($52M); San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission; Electrical General Foreman (2010 – 2012). The Lake Merced Pump Station is the
major pumping station in the City and County of San
Francisco (City), supplying water to the Sunset and Sutro Reservoirs, which, in turn, supply water to other regions of the City. The continual operation of this facility is critical to the delivery of water to approximately 60 percent of San Francisco. Project improvements included a new
reinforced concrete structure, pumps, stand-by generator, security fencing, SCADA, monitoring and disinfecting
systems, and landscaping. The electrical scope included the installation of a new standby power building, 4MW
of standby power, new 4,160V switchgear, new pump
room with (5) - 4,160V motors and motor control center, and new SCADA system which includes PLC, MOV,
instrumentation, flow meters, level transmitters, etc. Prior to construction, Kerry developed field drawings with the use of the contract specifications, electrical, mechanical and P&ID drawings. These contract documents were used
to incorporate all raceways to be installed underground prior to the placement of structural slabs for each building area, including the pumping room, main electrical room, emergency main electrical room, and 3 new emergency
generators. The field drawings were also used to develop a material take-off for all electrical materials required for the project. Once underground construction began,
Kerry supervised all aspects of installation, layout, grade measurements for correct raceway installation elevations and placement of stub-ups for the raceways with raceway ID matrix that matched the field drawings. Kerry oversaw the installation of all new 4,160V high voltage switchgears, cabling with 4 MW of standby power, and a new SCADA
system. As the Electrical General Foreman, he was
responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project from planning to implementation. He allocated resources,
supervised onsite personnel and subcontractors, and
interfaced with project inspectors, contractors, 3rd

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

63 3
party testing, architects, engineers, City and County
officials, and clients. Kerry maintained the highest
standards in quality assurance of workmanship to adhere to contract plans and specifications. as well as adherence to on-site safety requirements.

WATERMAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT ($67M); City
of Fairfield; Electrical General Foreman. This project
modernized the Fairfield, California plant and expanded water treatment capacity from 16 to 30 millions gal
per day. The project scope involved adding ozone
process capacity as well as the Actiflow clarification
process equipment. In an effort to modernize the plant, many of its facilities were completely or partially torn down and replaced. Kerry was involved in various site
improvements including installation of a new chemical
building, new blower room, water treatment building,
new 4,160v transformer and switchgear. As Electrical
General Foreman, Kerry oversaw the installation of all new 4,160V high voltage Transformers and Switchgear, new
MCC and Scada room, new Actiflow bldg., new chemical
bldg., Ozone generator and new Blower bldg. He was
responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project from planning to implementation. He allocated resources,
supervised onsite personnel and subcontractors, and
interfaced with project inspectors, contractors, 3rd party testing, architects, engineers, City and County officials, and clients. Kerry maintained the highest standards in quality assurance of workmanship to adhere to contract plans
and specifications. as well as adherence to on-site safety requirements.
480V SWITCHGEAR REPLACEMENT ($7.7M); Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART); Electrical General Foreman.

This project replaced electrical service from PG&E to
BART stations for station lighting, ventilation, elevators, escalators, fare collection equipment, and power for
essential systems. As Electrical General Foreman on this project, Kerry oversaw the removal and replacement of
480 volt switchboards at 14 BART transit station.

NEW POWER PLANT; University of California, San
Francisco; Superintendent/General Foreman/Electrician.

New 12kv power line into Refinery with 12kv switchgear.

New overhead lines to PG&E substation.

ALUM ROCK/SANTA CLARA BUS RAPID TRANSIT
($18.5M); Santa Clara Valley Transport Authority; Electrical General Foreman. The Alum Rock/Santa Clara Bus Rapid
Transit Project provides over seven miles of limited-stop rapid transit service through San Jose. Kerry was involved in upgrading traffic signals and installing new bus shelters.

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE ($1.5M); CLIENT?; Electrical
General Foreman. For this project, Kerry conducted site wide improvements including the installation of new
4,160V Transformers sitewide, 2 MW of standby power,
switchgear and ATS system. Replacement of 480v/120v
Switchboards and Panelboards.

RUSSELL CITY ENERGY CENTER; CLIENT?; Electrical
General Foreman. The Russell City Energy Center is a
new 635-megawatt power plant with two 200-megawatt
turbine generators at 15kv and one 235-megawatt
steam turbine generator at 18kv with transformers to
increase voltage to 230kv. Auxiliary equipment motors
are 4,160v. The Russell City plant brings much-needed
energy capacity to western Alameda County and the San
Francisco peninsula. The facility is capable of serving the needs of 600,000 households. The energy center, which
uses natural gas for fuel, represents a greater than 90 percent reduction of emissions and is 40 percent more fuel efficient than older, fossil-fueled generating facilities in the Bay Area. Russell City Energy Center is also the nation’s first power plant to receive a federal air permit that
includes a voluntary limit on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Russell City Energy Center treats effluent water from the local sanitation district for use as cooling water within the plant. It is also a zero liquid discharge plant, further reducing its impact on the environment.

KERRY MCCARD | Construction Inspector (continued)

5.5 Attachment 3- Consor PMCM, Inc Proposal

64 DATE: August 3, 2026

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Laura Galli, Engineering Manager
Francine Magno, Senior Civil Engineer
Claire McWilliams, Assistant Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Hear and Consider Comments Regarding the Foster City Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions by Minute Order:

1. Receive a presentation from the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project team; and

2. Open a public hearing and receive public input regarding the contents of the draft Plan; and

3. By Minute Order, provide direction regarding its comments and revisions to the Draft Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project Team, comprised of staff and Fehr and Peers (F&P), have been developing the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), a comprehensive Plan to lay out the future of bicycling, walking, and rolling in Foster City. The Draft BPMP (Draft Plan) consolidates the work completed throughout the planning process, including existing conditions analyses, policy recommendations, a recommended project list, and conceptual designs for the City's priority projects. The August 3, 2026 meeting is a

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

65 public hearing intended to be a part of gathering community feedback on the Draft Plan.

No formal action to adopt the Plan is being requested at this time, and staff will return with a final version of the BPMP for adoption after incorporating Council and public input.

BACKGROUND
The Foster City BPMP was initiated in response to the July 2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report entitled “Bike Safety in San Mateo County,” which recommended “each city, town, and unincorporated county should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan if their current plan is older than five years.”

In November 2023, staff applied for grant funding in the amount of $80,000 from the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and was approved to receive an allocation of TDA funds for the BPMP Project in August 2024, offsetting half of the City’s currently budgeted funds.

On November 4, 2024, the City Council adopted City Resolution 2024-116, approving the RFP for the BPMP and authorizing staff to begin consultant selection. On March 3, 2025, the Council awarded the contract to Fehr and Peers, a transportation engineering and planning firm, which has a strong familiarity with Foster City due to their work on past studies.

In April 2025, City staff and Fehr & Peers kicked off the BPMP with Phase 1 – Existing Conditions, which ended in July 2025. In September 2025, the project team sought feedback on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian network maps as part of Phase 2 – Draft Projects and Programs. Phase 3 – Draft and Final Plan is currently ongoing and is the final phase in the project, which aims to get feedback on the draft Plan and priority projects concept sheets.

On December 15, 2025, City Council received and accepted, by Minute Order, a status update on the progress of the development of the BPMP and provided general policy direction on the preliminary Plan goals, policies, and prioritization methodology.

On May 4, 2026, the City Council participated in a work session and provided feedback on the five (5) priority projects recommended by staff to advance to further conceptual development. At this work session, the City Council added two (2) additional projects to the priority project list.

ANALYSIS
A Draft Plan has been developed (Attachment 1) following approximately 16 months of technical analysis, community engagement, and collaboration between Fehr & Peers

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

66 and City staff. The Draft Plan consolidates the work completed throughout the planning process, including existing conditions analyses, policy recommendations, a recommended project list, and conceptual designs for the City's priority projects.

The Draft Plan, including priority projects concept sheets, was reviewed by the Traffic Review Committee (TRC) on July 9, 2026. Following the TRC’s review, the project team published the Draft Plan for public feedback on the project website, on July 13, 2026, initiating the public review period. Comments are encouraged from the public through mid-August, at which time staff and Fehr & Peers will review and incorporate revisions, and work towards finalizing the Plan for adoption.

The August 3, 2026 public hearing provides another opportunity for the City Council and community to directly comment on the specific recommendations outlined in the Draft Plan. Staff are seeking comments on the Draft Plan, including the priority projects concept sheets, and direction from the City Council to help inform revisions prior to bringing the Final BPMP forward for adoption.

Plan Overview
The planning process began with a comprehensive assessment of Foster City’s existing bicycle and pedestrian network to identify current conditions, opportunities, and connectivity gaps. This data informed the development of bicycle and pedestrian network maps, future policy recommendations, and project goals.

The BPMP is based upon three overarching goals brought to the City Council at the December 15, 2025, meeting. These goals are woven into every step of the Plan’s development. The goals are as follows:

1. Safe Routes to Key Destinations

2. Design with Intent

3. Develop a Connected and Flexible Network
Recommended Projects List & Priority Projects
Using the developed bicycle and pedestrian network maps, Fehr & Peers developed a recommended project list consisting of twenty-four (24) potential projects. These recommended projects were then prioritized using a data-driven prioritization framework that captures empirical inputs such as safety data, available street width, and connectivity to use as a starting point for prioritizing projects based on safety, connectivity, and feasibility. The recommended projects are comprised of both pedestrian and bicycle improvements, detailed below:

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

67 1. Pedestrian Improvements – Potential pedestrian improvements could include high-visibility crosswalks, ADA curb ramp upgrades, bulb outs, and median refuge islands.

2. Bicycle Improvements – Development of a new, low-stress network, including 13 miles of new Class IV bike lanes on major boulevards (bike lanes with a form of physical buffer between the rider and vehicle) and Class III bike boulevards in residential areas (whereby improvements to the road are designed to slow the speed of vehicles to enhance safety for all users of the road).

Of the twenty-four (24) recommended projects, seven (7) projects were selected by City Council for a more in-depth feasibility analysis at the May 4, 2026, Work Session, listed below:

1. Beach Park Boulevard (Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard)

2. Gull Avenue (Connected via Grebe Street)*

3. Marlin Avenue (Connected via Grebe Street)*

4. Edgewater Boulevard (Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue)

5. Edgewater Boulevard (City Limits to Hillsdale Boulevard)

6. Foster City Boulevard (Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard)

7. Beach Park Boulevard (Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard) *Gull and Marlin Avenues are identified in the BPMP as two separate projects but are shown together in the priority project concepts.

The additional analysis produces project concept cut-sheets consisting of rough-order- of-magnitude (ROM) cost estimations, conceptual drawings, and an outline of what further analysis/studies (e.g. traffic impact studies, speed studies, design surveys, public outreach) are needed to advance the improvements. The priority project concept cut sheets are included in Chapter 6 of the Draft Plan. These project recommendations represent the potential improvements for incorporation into the City’s multi-year capital improvement program, providing a roadmap for future bicycling and pedestrian investments throughout Foster City.

The project list will be continuously evaluated alongside public feedback to implement projects that both improve safety, connectivity, and have strong public support.

Goals and Policies
While capital improvements are vital to creating a greater sense of physical safety and connectivity through intentional design, the BPMP recognizes that infrastructure alone is not enough. In the goals and policies, the Plan outlines non-infrastructure strategies to support a culture of biking, walking, and rolling. These strategies were developed based on public feedback, industry best practices, and consideration of previous studies.

Some of these include lowering speed limits in accordance with Assembly Bill AB 43

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

68 Traffic Safety Speed Limit Flexibility, creating strong community partnerships to address issues collaboratively, and increasing public engagement and education.

The City has already made good progress by adopting the following policies and practices and continues to pursue additional opportunities to improve safety and influence behavior beyond construction related improvements such as: implementing the AB 413 daylighting law at all schools, parks, and throughout residential neighborhoods as part of the annual street paving projects; adopting an ordinance reducing speed limits in the vicinity of schools; reprogramming traffic signals with a pedestrian lead time; upgrading curb ramps as part of paving projects; etc.

Public Outreach
Public outreach was, and continues to be, an important component of the BPMP and occurred concurrently with several tasks in the scope of work. Outreach aimed to include the community throughout the Plan development process, ensuring that the Final BPMP will be based on community priorities, opinions, and feedback. Below is a summary of completed and planned outreach efforts as of July 16, 2026:

Date Phase Outreach Type Location / Platform Topic
4/21/2025 Phase 1 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Internal Kickoff/Project
Briefing
5/29/2025 Phase 1 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Phase 1 Kickoff
6/11/2025 -
7/18/2025
Phase 1 Online Survey Social Pinpoint Existing Conditions:

Opportunities and
Needs
6/12/2025 Phase 1 In-person Event Family Movie Night, Leo J.

Ryan Park
Existing Conditions:

Opportunities and
Needs
6/13/2025 Phase 1 Distributed
Flyers
PJCC, Starbucks, The Vibe,
Foster City PD, City Hall, FC
Library, etc.

Link to project website
6/13/2025 Phase 1 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 6/23/2025 Phase 1 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 1 Survey Reminder
6/30/2025 Phase 1 Flyers Levee Kiosks Link to project website 7/3/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey
Reminder
7/10/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey
Reminder
7/16/2025 Phase 1 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 1 Survey Reminder
7/18/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey
Reminder

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

69 8/14/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Instagram Mayoral Minute 9/11/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Phase 2 Event Reminder
9/11/2025 Phase 2 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 9/17/2025 Phase 2 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 2 Event Reminder 9/17/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey
Reminder
9/18/2025 -
10/20/2025
Phase 2 Online Survey Social Pinpoint Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
9/21/2025 Phase 2 In-person Event Boothbay Park Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
9/22/2025 Phase 2 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 2 Survey Reminder
9/25/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Draft Pedestrian and
Bicycle Networks
10/2/2025 Phase 2 Press Release Online Phase 2 Survey
Reminder
10/7/2025 Phase 2 PRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Project Update and
Draft Networks
10/7/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey
Reminder
10/13/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey Reminder
10/15/2025 Phase 2 IDEC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Goals and Policies
10/16/2025 Phase 2 Virtual Event Online Focus Group (PTAs) Safe Routes to School and Draft Networks
11/20/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Goals and Policies and
Project Prioritization
12/15/2025 Phase 2 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Goals and Policies and
Project Prioritization
4/30/2026 Phase 3 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Priority Projects
5/4/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Work Session
Emergency Operations
Center
Priority Projects
7/9/2026 Phase 3 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Draft Plan and Priority
Projects
7/13/2026 –
8/17/2026
Phase 3 Online Survey Social Pinpoint Draft Plan and Priority Projects
7/13/2026 Phase 3 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 7/14/2026 –
8/17/2026
Phase 3 Social Media Facebook Phase 3 Outreach
Reminders
7/20/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Event Reminder

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

70 7/29/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Event Reminder
7/29/2026 Phase 3 In-person Event The VIBE Teen Center/Off the Grid
Draft Plan and Priority
Projects
7/30/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Public Hearing Reminder
7/31/2026 Phase 3 Social Media Instagram Video
8/3/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Draft Plan and Priority
Projects
8/6/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey Reminder
8/13/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey Reminder
9/21/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Draft Plan and Priority
Projects
Next Steps
Because this Plan is intended to reflect community priorities, staff are requesting review and feedback on the Draft Plan. Any comments received during the public hearing, together with input collected through the remainder of the public review period, will be thoughtfully evaluated and incorporated into the Final BPMP, as appropriate. Staff will return to the City Council on September 21, 2026, with the revised Final BPMP for consideration of adoption.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
No CEQA determination or filing is requested or is required tonight. When staff returns to the City Council for adoption of the final BPMP, staff will recommend that the City Council find the Plan exempt from CEQA pursuant to under PRC § 21080.20, which states that CEQA does not apply to an active transportation plan, a pedestrian plan, or a bicycle transportation plan for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. Before determining that a project is exempt pursuant to section 21080.20, the lead agency must hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by the project to hear and respond to public comments. The public hearing on August 3, 2026 will satisfy that requirement. City staff have prepared and published the required public hearing notice (Attachment 2).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item, it is for informational purposes only.

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

71 CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA Infrastructure and Facilities; Innovation and Sustainability

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Attachment 2 – Public Hearing Notice

6.1 6.1 Staff Report

72 Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Master Plan
Foster City
Draft as of 07/13/26
Submitted on:

Fehr & Peers
Prepared by:

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

73 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Table of Contents
Contents
Chapter 1: The Vision ....................................................................................................................... 8 About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan .................................................................................................... 8 BPMP Goals ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Network Today ............................................................................................................. 12 Vehicle Volumes .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Posted Speed ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Collision History ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Where Do Collisions Occur? ............................................................................................................................ 16 Collision Severity .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Existing Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 19 Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions ............................................................................................................... 20 Comfort and Connectivity ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter ....................................................................................................... 22 Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress ....................................................................................... 22 Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations ........................................ 26 Chapter 3: Community Feedback ................................................................................................ 30 Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and Needs ............................................................................... 30 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network .................................................................................................................... 33 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Informing the Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan [In Progress]............................................................................................... 34 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................... 36 Existing Policies and Programs .............................................................................................................................. 37 Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations ...................................................................................................... 38 Goal 2: Design with Intent ................................................................................................................................ 40 Goal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network .............................................................................. 42 Chapter 5: Future Network .......................................................................................................... 45 Bicycle Network .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

74 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Bicycle Boulevards ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Future Bicycle Network ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Future Pedestrian Network ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................ 53 Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Pedestrian Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................... 53 Bicycle Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................... 55 Advancing Priority Projects ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Funding Strategy ........................................................................................................................................................ 73 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

75 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendices

Appendix A. Benchmarking Assessment
Appendix B. Engagement Summaries
Appendix C. LTS and Connectivity Methodology Memorandum Appendix D. Bicycle Facility Prioritization Results

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

76 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
List of Figures

Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S. Census, 2024) ................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Weekday Vehicle Volumes (Replica, 2024) ............................................................................................ 14 Figure 3: Posted Speeds (Foster City, 2024) ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Five-Year Collisions by Mode (Foster City, 2025) ............................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Five-Year Collisions by Severity (Foster City Police Department, 2025) .................................... 17 Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024) ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 8: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Scoring ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: Bicycle LTS Results ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Results............................................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Pedestrian Connectivity and LTS ............................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13: Phase 1 Pop-up Engagement Event ......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14: Map of Community Comments Received During Phase 1 ................................................................. 31 Figure 15: Phase 1 Engagement Comment Categories .......................................................................................... 32 Figure 16: Process Used to Develop BPMP Goals, Policies, and Strategies ................................................... 36 Figure 17: Caltrans Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance .. 45 Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types ................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 20: Future Pedestrian Improvements Network .......................................................................................... 50 Figure 21: Menu of Example Intersection Improvements ....................................................................................... 51 Figure 22: Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements ..................................................................................................... 54

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

77 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
List of Tables

Table 1: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage ............................................................................................................ 49 Table 2: Bicycle Projects Prioritization Criteria ....................................................................................................... 55 Table 3: Bicycle Project Prioritization Results .......................................................................................................... 56 Table 4. Potential Ways to Fund Priority Projects ................................................................................................... 74

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

78 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 7
z
Chapter 1
The Vision

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

79 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 8

Chapter 1: The Vision
About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Foster City possesses many characteristics that make walking and bicycling attractive ways to get around, including the close proximity of homes, schools, shops, parks, and waterfront trails. These features provide strong opportunities and desire for getting around using more active modes, but barriers such as California State Route 92 (SR 92), major roadways, wide intersections, high vehicle speeds, and gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network can make some trips difficult or uncomfortable. As travel patterns and mobility needs continue to evolve, the City has an opportunity to build on its existing strengths while addressing these challenges.

The Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Project identifies policies, programs, and projects that support walking and biking in Foster City. The BPMP is the City’s first unified effort to document walking and biking needs and opportunities citywide to guide future decision making to support access.

The BPMP provides a roadmap for improving connectivity, enhancing safety and comfort, and expanding transportation choices. The recommendations were developed through technical analysis and community engagement. Together, data analysis, community input, and industry best practices informed the vision presented in this plan.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

80 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 9

Guiding Vision

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
aims to make walking and biking in
Foster City safer, more convenient, and
accessible for everyone.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

81 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 10
BPMP Goals
The following three goals provide an overarching guide for the development of short- and long-range strategies that encourage walking and biking in Foster City. The goals draw from existing plans and policies, public feedback received, and consider current needs, demands, and challenges within the transportation network.

Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities.

Goal 2: Design with Intent
Enhance walking and biking options by tailoring designs to the function and context of each roadway, accounting for roadway classification, adjacent land uses, and key destinations to ensure safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all.

Goal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network
Advance a connected, adaptable, and regionally integrated system that supports walking and biking as an option for local travel and responds to evolving mobility needs.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

82 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 11

Chapter 2
Network
Today

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

83 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 12
Chapter 2: Network Today
The first step in developing the BPMP is to understand Foster City’s existing transportation network and the unique conditions that shape how people travel presently. The City’s planned peninsula layout—characterized by limited access points, an extensive lagoon system, and a highly interconnected street network—creates both constraints and opportunities for mobility. Because travel routes are concentrated, predictable, and relatively flat, even small improvements to key corridors and crossings can have a significant, systemwide impact on safety and connectivity for people walking and biking. Additionally, as e-bikes continue to expand the distance and range of trips that can be made comfortably without a car, providing a safe and connected network will become increasingly important for residents traveling within the City and regionally.

Foster City’s demographics further
reinforce the importance of a multimodal
network that serves users of all ages and
abilities. Residents of Foster City include a
high proportion of both youth and seniors
with 22% of residents under the age of 18
and 18% over the age of 65

1. These groups
often have distinct mobility needs and
benefit from safe, comfortable, and
accessible walking and bicycling
infrastructure. At the same time, Foster
City is home to many families whose daily
travel patterns include a mix of local trips
and regional commuting. As shown in
Figure 1, while 59.3% of workers commute
by car, a notable 34.2% work from home
2,
increasing the likelihood of short, non-
work trips that rely on walking and biking
within the City. Additionally, the majority of
Foster City's public and private elementary and middle schools are located south of SR 92, making this area a focal point for daily school-related travel by students and families. An existing Safe Routes to School program led by parents, teachers, and community leaders is already working to encourage more families to walk or bike to school. These characteristics create a strong opportunity for more local trips to be made by walking and biking, particularly for access to schools, parks, commercial areas, and other key destinations.

To inform the BPMP, the City assessed safety, accessibility, and connectivity across the existing network. This evaluation established a baseline of current infrastructure conditions, travel behavior, and unmet needs for active transportation. These findings directly informed the development of the

1 American Community Survey Five-Year Population Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S0101?g=160XX00US0625338&d=ACS+5- Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables
2 American Community Survey Five-Year Commuting Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S0801?g=160XX00US0625338&d=ACS+5- Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables

51.8%

7.50%

2.90%

1.70%

1.80%

34.20%
Drive Alone Carpool
Public Transportation Walking
Other Work from Home
Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S.

Census, 2024)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

84 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 13
future bicycle and pedestrian network, helping to guide facility selection, project prioritization, and implementation strategies that are responsive to Foster City’s unique context and mobility goals.

Vehicle Volumes
Vehicle volumes inform the comfort of people walking and biking. Vehicle volume is also one of two characteristics transportation planners and engineers use to select the appropriate type of treatments to create safe, comfortable walking and biking conditions. Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance3 (DIB-94) provides recommended roadway treatments, such as bicycle facility types, based on vehicle speed and vehicle volume. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations4 also uses vehicle speed and vehicle volume to indicate the types of appropriate crosswalk treatments.

Figure 2 shows weekday vehicle volumes (i.e., Annual Daily Traffic) based on the DIB-94 delineations of volume. High vehicular volumes in Foster City are concentrated on SR 92, Edgewater Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard.

3 Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance, Caltrans (2024), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf 4 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, U.S. DOT (2022), https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 09/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

85 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 14
Figure 2: Weekday Vehicle Volumes (Replica, 2024)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

86 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 15
Posted Speed
The posted speeds in Foster City fall into three categories: 25 miles per hour (mph) on local roads, 35 mph on major roads, and 55 mph on freeways, as shown in Figure 3. Like vehicle volumes, posted speed is an indication of safety, roadway comfort and, therefore, appropriate treatments. Posted speed is the additional consideration in DIB-94 bicycle facility guidance and FHWA’s pedestrian crossing guidance.

Note: Posted speed limits are generalized for mapping purposes and may vary along individual corridor segments.

Figure 3: Posted Speeds (Foster City, 2024)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

87 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 16
Collision History
Where Do Collisions Occur?
The City looked at collision locations for the most recent six years of data. There were a total of 59 collisions involving a pedestrian or bicycle between 2019-2024. During this period, collisions most often occur at intersections, along arterial roadways (i.e. major roadways that are typically wider and faster to efficiently move many vehicles) and near key destinations such as schools, parks, or business districts and commercial land use, as illustrated in Figure 4. Intersections bring together people driving, walking, and biking, while arterial roadways carry a large share of the community's traffic and often have higher travel speeds. As a result, these locations experience more collisions than other parts of the transportation network.

This same five-year dataset was also used to inform the project prioritization process outlined in Chapter 6.

Figure 4: Five-Year Collisions by Mode (Foster City, 2025)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

88 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 17
Collision Severity
Over the past five years, 88% of collisions involving people walking and biking resulted in an injury.

This highlights the greater risk faced by these road users compared to people traveling in vehicles.

Because people walking and biking do not have the external protection of a vehicle, they are more likely to be seriously injured when a collision occurs.

The Safe System Approach, adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, recognizes that all road users make mistakes and that the transportation system should be designed and operated to reduce the likelihood of severe injuries and fatalities. Consistent with this approach, the BPMP prioritizes strategies that prevent collisions from occurring in the first place by reducing conflict points between roadway users, lowering vehicle speeds, and improving the design of streets, intersections, and crossings.

A Note on Injury Collisions: Foster City Police Department collision records are documented in accordance with the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual. They distinguish between injury and non-injury collisions. An injury collision includes any crash in which at least one person reports a physical injury, ranging from a complaint of pain or visible injuries to severe or fatal injuries. People walking and biking are especially vulnerable in collisions because they do not have the protection provided by a vehicle. As a result, even crashes that result in relatively minor physical injuries can have lasting impacts, including ongoing pain, emotional trauma, medical expenses, and reduced mobility. The high rate of injury among pedestrians and bicyclists underscores the importance of preventing these collisions from occurring in the first place.

Figure 5: Five-Year Collisions by Severity (Foster City Police Department, 2025)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

89 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 18
Existing Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network in Foster City is comprised of a combination of bicycle route treatments on local roads and arterials, bike lanes on select arterials, and the levee/bay trail which encircles the perimeter of Foster City. As illustrated in Figure 6, there are 29 miles of existing bicycle facilities in Foster City:
• Class I Shared Use Paths: 12.4 miles of shared bi-directional space for people walking and biking. • Class II Bicycle Lanes: 5.7 miles of striped lanes for bikes next to vehicle travel lanes. • Class III Bicycle Routes: 11 miles of shared travel lanes for cars and bikes.

For more information on bicycle facility types and images, see Figure 18.

Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

90 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 19
Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions
Pedestrian crossings throughout Foster City vary in their design and level of comfort. The examples below highlight the range of existing conditions found today. Some crossings incorporate features that support comfortable and convenient access (shown on the right), while others highlight opportunities for improvement (shown on the left).

Uncontrolled intersection

Crane Avenue at Duck Court and Loon Court
Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing

Polaris Avenue at Castor Street
Highly visibility crosswalk and advanced yield
markings
Stop-Controlled Intersection

Altair Avenue at Leo Drive
Unmarked pedestrian crossing

Catamaran Street at Shell Boulevard
Visible (buffered) bike lane and standard
crosswalk striping
Signalized Intersection

Foster City Boulevard at Metro Center Boulevard
Limited crossings, long crossing distances, and
narrow pedestrian island

E Hillsdale Boulevard at Central Park Lane
Decorative intersection and crossings on all legs
No Crossing Marked
No Crossing Marked
Limited Crossings
Crossings Marked
Crossings Marked
Crossings Provided

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

91 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 20
Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions
People biking in Foster City encounter a variety of roadway conditions, from busy corridors to quieter neighborhood streets. The examples below showcase common bicycle facilities used within the City.

While these facilities support bicycle travel, many rely primarily on pavement markings and provide little physical separation from vehicle traffic.

An all ages and abilities bicycle network is designed to be comfortable for a broad range of users, including children, older adults, families, and people who may not currently bike. Facilities that provide greater separation from vehicle traffic are generally more comfortable and appeal to a wider range of riders

5. The examples below illustrate both the existing bicycle network and opportunities to create a more connected and comfortable bicycling experience.

Arterial Roads

E Hillsdale Boulevard at Edgewater Boulevard
Class II Bike Lanes with 40 mph speed limit

Local Roads

Marlin Avenue at Surfperch Street
Class III Bike Route with 30 mph posted speed limit

5 Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO (2025), https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

92 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 21
Planning for the E-Bike Era
E-bikes are transforming how people travel. By reducing the physical effort required to ride, e-bikes make bicycling more accessible for people of all ages and abilities, enabling older adults, families with children, and others to travel farther, carry more, and choose bicycling for both everyday and recreational trips.

California law recognizes three classes of e-bikes, each with different operating characteristics and speed capabilities. Under state law, these e-bikes are generally treated as bicycles, meaning they are subject to the same rules of the road and are permitted on most bicycle facilities unless otherwise restricted. In Foster City, Class III e-bikes are prohibited on the Bay Levee Trail. During development of this BPMP, community members frequently raised concerns about interactions between people walking, bicycling, and riding e-bikes along the trail, highlighting the importance of designing and managing shared-use facilities that are safe and comfortable for all users.

A related challenge facing Foster City and communities across the country is the growing availability of higher-powered electric motorcycles ("e-motos") and other devices that are marketed or sold as e-bikes but do not meet California's legal e-bike definitions. These vehicles are capable of significantly higher speeds and have contributed to confusion around regulations, enforcement, and safe operation. In response, the California Legislature is considering measures to strengthen consumer protections, improve labeling requirements, and better distinguish legal e-bikes from non-compliant electric vehicles.

The community's feedback received as part of the BPMP reinforced that safely accommodating e-bikes requires a layered approach. The foundation is a connected, comfortable, and predictable network that reduces conflicts. Complementing these infrastructure improvements, the plan recommends education and outreach strategies to promote safe bicycling and micromobility, including education on the safe operation of e- bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards. The plan also recommends exploring partnerships with local schools to establish an e-bike education, skills training, and permit program to help young riders understand applicable laws, ride responsibly, and build confidence before riding independently.

While this BPMP is centered on improving conditions for people walking and bicycling, its recommendations also establish a strong foundation for accommodating the continued growth of e-bikes and other emerging micromobility devices. By prioritizing a connected, low-stress network and more comfortable crossings, the plan creates infrastructure that is resilient to changing travel behaviors and technologies. The City will continue to monitor travel and safety trends, including tracking e-bike and scooter-related collisions separately, to help guide future investments and adapt as new mobility options emerge.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

93 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 22
Comfort and Connectivity
Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter
Creating a walking and biking network that people enjoy and choose to use requires more than simply providing facilities, it requires thinking critically about which destinations people want to reach and whether they can be reached through routes that feel safe, comfortable, and connected.

Evaluating both comfort and connectivity helps identify where existing conditions currently:
• Support walking and bicycling;
• Where barriers discourage travel; and
• Where investments can most effectively improve access to key destinations.

The following maps present the outcomes of a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) and Connectivity Analysis.

Together these analyses identify destinations within the City where walking and biking improvements can expand access for all types of residents. By evaluating both the comfort of individual routes and how well those routes connect people to destinations, the analysis highlights gaps in the network and opportunities to create a more connected, accessible, and user-friendly transportation system.

Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress is a framework used to evaluate how comfortable a roadway segment or crossing feels for people to walk or bike. The framework recognizes that many people are unlikely to walk or bike along routes that feel stressful or unsafe due to roadway or intersection factors, such as vehicle speeds, vehicle volumes, number of travel lanes, lack of barrier between vehicles, and marked crosswalks. Understanding stress levels helps identify facilities that are comfortable for a wide range of users, including children, older adults, and people who are less confident walking or bicycling in traffic.

The following section describes Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the LTS analysis. Bicycle LTS is assigned to roadway segments, while Pedestrian Crossing LTS is assigned to intersection crossings. LTS scores are classified into four categories, ranging from LTS 1 (lowest stress) to LTS 4 (highest stress), as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

94 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 23
Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring

Figure 8: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Scoring

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

95 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 24
Figure 9 displays the results of the bicycle LTS analysis. Most local neighborhood roads in Foster City have an LTS of 1 and are relatively comfortable for walking and biking. Major roadways such as Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard have LTS scores of 4, and are very low comfort given the high speeds and vehicular volumes. While parts of Edgewater Road, Shell Boulevard, Marsh Drive, Vintage Park Drive, and E 3rd Avenue have LTS scores of 3, they are currently only comfortable for the very confident bicyclists.

Figure 9: Bicycle LTS Results

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

96 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 25
Figure 10 displays the results of the pedestrian crossing LTS analysis. The highest stress pedestrian crossings are largely located on Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Shell Boulevard and Beach Park Boulevard. Most local crossings have an LTS score of two, meaning they are generally comfortable for people walking, but need improvements to provide the most comfort for children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Figure 10: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Results

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

97 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 26
Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations While LTS measures the comfort of individual routes and crossings, connectivity evaluates how effectively those routes enable people to reach destinations. A well-connected network allows people to travel between homes, schools, parks, shopping areas, and community facilities using comfortable and direct routes. Conversely, gaps in the network may limit access even when destinations are geographically close.

The connectivity analysis evaluates how accessible key destinations are from surrounding areas using the existing walking and biking network. For each destination, the areas that can be reached within 5 minutes, 5–15 minutes, and 15–30 minutes by walking or biking were mapped. These areas, called travel sheds, show how far someone can travel along the current street, trail, and path network within a given amount of time. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the connectivity analysis.

Combining connectivity with LTS helps identify destinations that are already well-served by low- stress facilities, as well as destinations where access is constrained by high-stress routes or missing connections.

The destinations included in the analysis were informed by community feedback collected during Phase 1 engagement and include:

Schools: Public and private schools

• Community Facilities: Access points to City
parks (including neighborhood and pocket parks) and
primary access points to regional parks/trails. The City’s Community Center, Community Center Annex, and
Library are all within or nearby a City park and are
included as part of this destination type.

• Shopping Areas: Grocery stores and small
commercial areas
The following analysis was completed on public right-of-way only. Private roads were excluded because they are not owned and managed by the City. Figure 11 and Figure 12show the results of the combined LTS and Connectivity analysis, highlighting areas where strong low-stress connections already exist and areas where improvements could significantly enhance access to key destinations.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

98 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 27
Figure 11: Pedestrian Connectivity and LTS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

99 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 28
Figure 12: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

100

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 29

Chapter 3
Community
Feedback

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

101

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 30
Chapter 3: Community Feedback
Community input is a critical part of bicycle and pedestrian planning because it brings real-world experience into the planning and engineering process. While data can identify roadway characteristics, traffic conditions, and network gaps, community members provide insight into how those conditions affect travel choices, perceptions of safety, and access to destinations.

The BPMP aims to create a network that reflects the needs and priorities of people who live and travel through Foster City. Community feedback was conducted in three phases and directly informed the following elements of the BPMP:
• BPMP goals (see Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations)
• Future Network (see Chapter 5: Future Network)
• Key Destinations included in the Connectivity Analysis (see Chapter 2: Network Today, Comfort and Connectivity)
Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and
Needs

The first phase of outreach occurred in
parallel with the existing conditions data
analysis. The project team sought feedback
about the most important concerns related
to walking and biking in Foster City, from
City-wide issues to spot-location concerns.

The Phase 1 engagement included an online
survey, one in-person public event, a
presentation to the City Council, and a
presentation to the Foster City Traffic
Review Committee. The survey was open
for six weeks, from May through mid-July
2025. Comments from the in-person event
were combined with the online survey
responses. Through the surveys and other
forms of engagement, 252 contribution
points were collected to show areas of
concerns within the City. Figure 14 shows
the areas of concerns based on the public
comments received. Comments are most
dense along major corridors such as Foster
City Boulevard and E Hillsdale Boulevard.

Figure 13: Phase 1 Pop-up Engagement Event

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

102

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 31
Figure 14: Map of Community Comments Received During Phase 1

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

103

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 32
Takeaways
The project team asked community members to provide feedback on the existing network. They chose to provide a comment within one of the five categories as shown in Figure 15.

Safety needs are where respondents noted concerns regarding safety for people walking and biking.

Pedestrian and biking gaps are where respondents noted a missing connection in facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes. Key destinations are where participants noted desired or missing access to a community destination such as a school or park. Other needs include all other comments related to walking and biking.

The community provided a broad range of feedback which followed five key themes.

1. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
Comments highlighted respondents urgent desire for more visible, safe, and accessible crosswalks— particularly along Edgewater Blvd and near parks, schools, and apartments—due to high vehicle speeds and missing pedestrian infrastructure such as curb ramps, refuge islands, and flashing beacons. Residents noted that long stretches of busy roads lack safe crossing options, forcing people walking to take risks.

2. Traffic Calming and Speed Reduction
Respondents requested measures such as stop signs, roundabouts, and lane reductions to address frequent speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving that endanger people walking and biking.

Specific corridors included Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard.

3. Conflicts and Confusion Around Shared Paths and Trail Etiquette Many respondents described “dangerous” or high-stress interactions on shared trails involving fast- moving e-bikes; however, community members often use the term "e-bike" broadly to describe a range of electric-powered devices, including higher-powered e-motos that are not legally classified 38%
19%
10%
6%
27%
Safety Need Pedestrian Gap Biking Gap Key Destinations Other Need Figure 15: Phase 1 Engagement Comment Categories

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

104

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 33
as e-bikes. They expressed desire for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to reduce conflicts. Respondents’ concerns were especially focused on e-bike speeds on the levee and Bay Trail, with some users even suggesting restrictions on certain e-bike classes.

4. Protected and Connected Bike Infrastructure
Although some respondents opposed bike lanes on major roads, many respondents supported protected facilities, citing gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and missing protected crossings as major safety issues. Respondents frequently requested closing trail gaps around Harbor Cove, Isle Cove, and the Bay Trail, noting that more people would bike if they felt safer.

5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
Some respondents opposed adding or widening bike lanes if it requires removing vehicle travel lanes or parking; respondents cited concerns about increased congestion, reduced driving space, and safety issues on roads they believe are unsuitable for cycling. Roads such as Edgewater Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard are frequently mentioned as poor candidates due to high vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, and bike lanes here are perceived to have an impact on driver experience. Informing the Plan
The five key themes above were instrumental in developing the goals and policies in Chapter 4 which aim to be responsive to the community’s needs and concerns, addressing the most critical barriers to a safe, connected, and accessible network. Phase 1 also provided context for the existing conditions analysis outlined in Chapter 2 and additional places residents want to walk, bike, and roll to, which were incorporated as key destinations in the connectivity analysis.

Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network
Phase 2 engagement sought feedback from the community on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The network maps show the proposed walking and biking improvements, as outlined in Chapter 5. The methods of engagement included an online survey, an in-person pop-up, and a focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for several schools in Foster City.

The online survey consisted of an interactive feedback map that was available from September to October 2025. The interactive feedback map received 113 contributions from 41 contributors. The top two contributors made up 36% of all comments. On September 21, 2025, the project team, including City Staff and the consultant team attended the Foster City Family Bike Ride to collect in-person feedback. During the pop-up, the project team spoke with approximately 75 residents. The third and final engagement activity of Phase 2 was a focus group held on October 16, 2025. All schools were invited to participate, and two parents attended representing students from Kids Connection Private School, Bowditch Middle School, and Audubon Elementary School.

Phase 2 included presentations at two Traffic Review Committee (TRC) meetings and two City Council meetings. The first TRC meeting occurred at the beginning of the engagement process and focused on reviewing the planned outreach approach and providing input on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The second TRC meeting presentation occurred after public engagement activities were completed, and concentrated on reviewing community feedback, discussing revisions to the proposed future networks, and reviewing the project prioritization approach and results. Two City Council meetings were also attended during Phase 2. The first

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

105

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 34
Council meeting occurred after public engagement activities and before project prioritization. The presentation focused on reviewing the proposed prioritization approach and confirming the goals and policies presented in Chapter 4. The second Council meeting occurred after project prioritization was complete and the presentation focused on reviewing the results and selecting the priority projects to advance for conceptual design.

Takeaways
Overall, Phase 2 engagement demonstrated the public’s consensus about the need for pedestrian crossing improvements as proposed across Foster City. Community members identified crossing locations they wanted to be added to the network or made a higher priority. Crossings near schools and parks were highlighted by community members as being their highest priorities.

Input on the proposed future bicycle network varied greatly based on the facility and corridor. The majority of comments were related to Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Beach Park Boulevard, Shell Boulevard, and the Bay Trail/levee. Community members expressed interest in greater separation for bikes along Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard, which were previously planned to remain either Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Routes. Community members largely supported the proposed separated bicycle (Class IV) facilities on Beach Park Boulevard and Shell Boulevard, while comments on the Bay Trail/levee centered on conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and concerns about e-bike speeds.

Informing the Plan
The comments received on the proposed future networks directly influenced the final future bicycle network and priority pedestrian crossings presented in Chapter 5. Several changes were made to the proposed bicycle network, including revisions to the recommended facility types on Foster City Boulevard and Hillsdale Boulevard. Phase 2 also informed which proposed improvements would advance to conceptual design and helped identify potential implementation and funding strategies.

Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan [In Progress]
Phase 3 engagement aims to share the results of previous engagement activities and gather feedback on the draft BPMP. The draft BPMP will be posted for public review on the project website.

Takeaways
This section will be updated after the draft BPMP public review period is completed in Summer 2026.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

106

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 35

Chapter 4
Goals and Policies

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

107

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 36
Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations
The BPMP vision is supported by a set of goals, policies, and strategies that will guide future decisions, investments, and programs. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for improving safety, comfort, accessibility, and connectivity for people walking and biking throughout Foster City.

The goals and policies presented in this chapter reflect community priorities, City objectives, and transportation planning best practices. Figure 16 illustrates how these elements work together to support the long-term vision of the BPMP.

Figure 16: Process Used to Develop BPMP Goals, Policies, and Strategies

1. •Review and document City's existing bicycle and pedestrian efforts (plans, policies, and programs)

2. •Perform a benchmark assessment to evaluate existing efforts to date against current industry best practices

3. •Conduct public engagement to understand community needs and desires

4. •Identify key themes and community priorities from public engagement

5. •Re-evaluate project goals and develop policies and strategies to enhance bicycle and pedestrian activity/accessibility

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

108

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 37
Existing Policies and Programs
The Goals & Policies development began with a benchmarking assessment to gain a thorough understanding of the current bicycle and pedestrian efforts in Foster City. The goal of the assessment was to provide a snapshot of the current practices that influence planning and implementation decisions and identify opportunities to institutionalize practices that support and advance the goals of the BPMP.

The complete Benchmarking Assessment can be found in Appendix A. The assessment evaluates the following categories:

1. Vision & Leadership: City leadership and interagency coordination commit to support the overarching goals of the BPMP and have established processes which support project advancement.

2. Community Engagement: Establish avenues to communicate progress and receive feedback from community members on key projects.

3. Data Analysis: Leverage data analysis tools to support ongoing project identification, prioritization, and tracking.

4. Funding & Policy Integration: Strategize on funding opportunities to maximize safety and connectivity benefits.

5. Education & Enforcement: Organize educational efforts to target the most vulnerable communities and enforcement efforts to cover the most dangerous locations.

6. Infrastructure & Design: Develop projects to align with identified needs, integrate existing policies, and demonstrate potential improvements.

7. Speed & Operations: Align vehicle roadway classification with target speeds, facility selection, and context sensitive design.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

109

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 38
Policy Recommendations

Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities.

Policy 1.1 Eliminate bicycle and pedestrian crashes that cause fatalities and severe injuries.

Strategy 1.1.a: Prioritize projects on roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network from the Local Roadway Safety Plan6 (LRSP), as updated, with particular focus on roads with high volumes of vulnerable road users such as school-aged children, seniors, and people walking or biking.

Strategy 1.1.b: Identify opportunities to align project improvements with project locations highlighted in the LRSP, as updated.

Policy 1.2 Build and maintain a dense, low-stress network of on-and off-street bicycle facilities that seamlessly connect to key destinations.

Strategy 1.2.a: Evaluate the lowering of speed limits (based on state guidance and speed studies) on roadways providing access to schools and parks and along the High Injury Network identified in the LRSP, as appropriate.

Strategy 1.2.b: Prioritize infrastructure projects that close key walking and biking gaps or enhance high stress roadsthat provide access to key destinations. Use public input to help identify gaps and barriers to access.

Strategy 1.2.c: Where feasible, implement traffic calming measures in locations identified through the LRSP and existing Safe Routes to School initiatives, with an emphasis on areas within a ¼ mile of schools. Collaborate with residents and school communities to identify priority locations for improvements. Explore opportunities to participate in quick-build or pilot projects to test and evaluate the effectiveness of potential infrastructure changes.

6 CCAG. Local Roadway Safety Plan. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/28717_CCAG- Countywide-LRSP-Foster-City-Chapter.pdf

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

110

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 39
Policy 1.3 Reduce conflicts between bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other vehicular travel.

Strategy 1.3.a: Establish an internal process for selecting bikeway types based on the Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB 94) guidelines for Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways, including consideration of roadway context, user needs, and safety for people of all ages and abilities.

Strategy 1.3.b: Develop crosswalk guidelines for both controlled and uncontrolled intersections, incorporating FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations to inform improvements based on roadway context, traffic volumes, and pedestrian activity.

Strategy 1.3.c: Establish striping and signage standards for bikeway conflict zones at driveways, intersections, and loading zones, following guidance in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide.

Strategy 1.3.d: Continue efforts to implement Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413 - daylighting) by removing visual obstructions within 20 feet of the approach side of the crosswalks at intersections, in compliance with state law. Begin with locations near schools, parks, and areas with high volumes of vulnerable road users, and expand citywide with a commitment to daylight all intersections along the High Injury Network.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

111

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 40

Policy 2.1 Ensure that walking and biking infrastructure reflects the needs and constraints of each neighborhood.

Strategy 2.1.a: Reference design context and modal priorities, in accordance with Caltrans DIB-94 and City Engineering Staff, when determining future roadway cross sections.

Strategy 2.1.b: Prioritize infrastructure upgrades that support children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

Strategy 2.1.c: Where feasible, coordinate infrastructure improvements with other relevant City planning efforts, such as Green Infrastructure, Parks Master Plan, and General Plan.

Policy 2.2 Engage residents in shaping active transportation solutions that work for their neighborhoods.

Strategy 2.2.a: Explore opportunities to host workshops or online surveys to gather input on preferred routes, safety concerns, and design ideas prior to project design. Look for ways to provide multiple opportunities for feedback throughout the planning and design process.

Strategy 2.2.b: Aim to partner with local schools, senior centers, neighborhood associations, and organized citizen groups to provide design input on improvements.

Policy 2.3 Direct resources to locations with the greatest network gaps or safety concerns for people walking and biking.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

112

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 41

Strategy 2.3.a: Maintain an annually updated map of infrastructure priorities that account for needs and network gaps.

Strategy 2.3.b: Pursue local, regional, and other applicable grant and funding opportunities focused on active transportation and Safe Routes to School.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

113

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 42

Policy 3.1 Support the use of walking and biking for local trips.

Strategy 3.1.a: Coordinate improvement projects with the ADA Transition Plan to maximize benefits and make sure every project includes accessible ramps.

Strategy 3.1.b: Promote safe bicycling and micromobility through outreach channels and partner agencies, including education on safely using e-bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards.

Strategy 3.1.c: Incorporate before and after studies on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects to evaluate changes in vehicle volumes and vehicle speeds.

Strategy 3.2.d: Create a comprehensive network map illustrating primary bicycle and pedestrian routes, key destinations, transit access points, and linkages to adjacent communities.

Policy 3.2 Coordinate with local and regional agencies to create a network that extends beyond the City’s limits and continuously connects to adjoining communities.

Strategy 3.2.a: Participate in countywide and regional gap analyses to support seamless network connectivity.

Strategy 3.2.b: Collaborate on cross-jurisdictional projects and pursue joint funding opportunities.

Strategy 3.2.c: Explore opportunities to provide safer and improved access to transit stops.

Policy 3.3 Encourage the integration of new and evolving transportation modes, considering safety, accessibility, and infrastructure compatibility.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

114

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 43

Strategy 3.3.a: Explore the development of e-mobility design guidelines focused on defining appropriate areas for use, reducing conflicts for network users, and managing shared use paths with strategies such as minimum spacing for signage, supportive pavement markings, and recommended path speed limits.

Strategy 3.3.b: Look for ways to partner with schools to establish an e-bike training course and permit program.

Strategy 3.3.c: Identify opportunities to provide secure micromobility parking at key destinations like schools, parks, public buildings, apartments, and shopping centers. Collect input from residents and businesses to determine priority locations and other amenities of interest (e.g. bike repair stations).

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

115

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 44

Chapter 5
Future Network

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

116

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 45
Chapter 5: Future Network
This chapter presents the future bicycle and pedestrian networks for Foster City. The future networks build upon existing facilities and identifies opportunities to improve connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping areas, and other key destinations.

The recommendations include both near-term and long-term improvements designed to create a more comfortable and connected experience for people walking and biking throughout the City.

Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network establishes a
low-stress network of bicycle facilities
that build upon the existing network to
provide continuous connections across
major corridors and collector streets.

Low-stress facilities are intended to be
comfortable for everyone, regardless of
age or ability.

The recommended facility types in the
future bicycle network align with Caltrans
guidelines for low-stress facilities based
on roadway characteristics such as
speeds, volumes, number of lanes, and
other key contextual factors. Figure 17
shows a chart from the Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance,
which informed the creation of the
Foster City future bicycle network. The
recommendations are also informed by
feedback from community engagement.

What do we mean by a low-stress and connected
network?
A low-stress and connected network is one that feels comfortable for all users. It provides convenient connections to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and shopping centers.

Different streets require different types of bicycle facilities. On busier streets with higher vehicle volumes and speeds, greater separation from vehicles is needed to create a comfortable bicycling experience. The future bicycle network reflects these differences and aims to provide connected, low-stress routes throughout Foster City.

Figure 17: Caltrans Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

117

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 46

Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

118

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 47
Bicycle Boulevards
Foster City currently has 11 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes, where bicycles share the travel lane with vehicles. While some of these routes will remain shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, the City intends to enhance them with features that improve comfort and better prioritize bicycle travel. These improvements may include traffic calming, speed and volume reduction measures, wayfinding signage, pavement markings, and intersection treatments. When a shared street is intentionally designed to create a more comfortable bicycling experience, it is commonly referred to as a bicycle boulevard.

Bicycle boulevards are low-speed, low-volume neighborhood streets designed to provide comfortable Class III bicycle connections between key destinations. Bicycle boulevards use a combination of improvements to enhance comfort and prioritize bicycle travel.

Common bicycle boulevard improvements are shown below.

Speed Reduction Measures to reduce vehicle
speeds
Volume Reduction Measures to encourage
traffic to use major roads
Wayfinding Signage to guide users along the
route
Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Markings to
identify the route and increase awareness

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

119

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 48
Future Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network builds upon Foster City's existing bicycle facilities and identifies opportunities to improve connectivity and comfort to key destinations throughout the City. The network includes existing facilities, recommended new facilities, and corridors that need additional study and public engagement before a preferred design can be identified and implemented.

Some future corridors may require changes to the existing roadway layout to provide bicycle facilities that better meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. On Figure 19, existing facilities are shown with solid lines, while proposed facilities and corridors for future study are identified separately.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

120

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 49
Table 1: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage Future Mileage
Class I Shared Use Path 12.4 12.4
Class II Bike Lanes 5.7 0.1
Class III Bike Route 11 4.8
Class IV Bikeways 0 13.4
Total Mileage 29.1 31.2

Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

121

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 50
Future Pedestrian Network
The future pedestrian network shown in Figure 20 identifies intersections where targeted pedestrian improvements would enhance both comfort and connectivity. Rather than prescribing a single improvement at each location, the BPMP identifies candidate intersections for additional evaluation and investment. This provides the flexibility to implement improvements at each intersection based on its specific context.

Figure 20: Future Pedestrian Improvements Network

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

122

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 51
Pedestrian crossing improvements vary based on factors such as whether a traffic signal or stop sign are present, the number of vehicle lanes being crossed, the volume of vehicles, the speed of vehicles, and nearby destinations like bus stops, schools, parks, and stores. Figure 21 presents a menu of example improvements that may be considered to improve pedestrian safety, comfort, and accessibility at different crossing types. The improvements shown are illustrative and not intended to prescribe a specific treatment at each location. Final improvements selection should be determined during project development and design through site-specific engineering analysis and in accordance with applicable guidance, including FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
7, the California MUTCD8, and City design standards9.

7 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, U.S. DOT (2022), https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 09/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf 8 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans (2026), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/2026/camutcd-2026-all.pdf 9 Streets Standard Details, Foster City,
https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/13691/streets_details_foster_cit y.pdf
Figure 21: Menu of Example Intersection Improvements

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

123

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 52

Chapter 6
Implementation
Strategy

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

124

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 53
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
The BPMP identifies a vision for a safer, more comfortable, and more connected transportation network, and this chapter outlines the steps to turn that vision into reality.

Because not all improvements can be implemented at once, projects were prioritized to help guide future investments and funding decisions. This chapter presents the prioritization approach, identifies the design options for the highest-priority projects, and outlines potential funding opportunities to support implementation.

Project Prioritization
The project prioritization approach helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit to Foster City residents and guides future investment decisions.

Because pedestrian improvements primarily consist of localized crossing enhancements, they were grouped into three priority tiers based on their pathways to implementation (?). Bicycle corridors were evaluated using a project-level scoring framework that allowed projects to be ranked relative to one another.

Pedestrian Project Prioritization
Pedestrian improvements were grouped into three priority tiers to identify crossings where safety and accessibility improvements could provide the greatest benefit. Particular emphasis was placed on crossings near schools, parks, and along major roadways or the Bay Trail. Some pedestrian crossings that were not high stress, high connectivity, were added as priority improvements based on community feedback.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

125

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 54
Whenever feasible, the City will seek to incorporate crossing improvements into larger roadway and bicycle projects. Tier 1 locations should generally be implemented in conjunction with bicycle facility projects, while Tier 2 and Tier 3 locations may be advanced independently to address specific community needs or take advantage of pedestrian-focused funding opportunities. • Tier 1: Priority crossings (high-stress, high connectivity crossings) on major roadways that provide access to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations. • Tier 2: Priority crossings (high stress, high connectivity) located along bicycle corridors where no bicycle facility upgrades are currently proposed.
• Tier 3: All remaining high stress, high connectivity crossings identified through the analysis.

Figure 22 displays the results of the pedestrian improvements prioritization.

Figure 22: Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

126

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 55
Bicycle Project Prioritization
Bicycle projects were evaluated using a scoring framework that considered safety, connectivity, and implementation feasibility. Projects that improve access to key destinations, improve safety, strengthen connections across major roadways, and can be implemented efficiently received higher scores.

Table 2 displays the prioritization criteria.

Table 2: Bicycle Projects Prioritization Criteria
Category Criteria
Safety
Fatal or Injury Bicycle/Pedestrian Collision (Foster City PD, 2019-2024) All Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions (Foster City PD, 2019-2024) Level of Traffic Stress
Connectivity
Connectivity Score
Tier 1 Priority Pedestrian Intersections
Increases Connectivity across Major Roads in Foster City (E Hillsdale Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, SR 92) or Access to San Mateo Caltrain Access Project
Feasibility
Available Right-of-Way
Estimated Costs

Table 3 presents the prioritization results. Both new facilities and facility upgrades are included in the prioritization results.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

127

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Table 3: Bicycle Project Prioritization Results
Project ID Corridor From To Future
Facility Existing Facility Total Prioritization
Score
BPMP-06.a Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 8 BPMP-06.c Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave at 1900 block of Beach
Park Boulevard
Class IV Class III. Green-backed
sharrow
8 BPMP-05.a Edgewater Blvd /
Mariners Island
Blvd
City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 7 BPMP-07.a Shell Blvd Metro Center Blvd Bounty Dr Class IV Class II & IIB 7 BPMP-09 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Class III None 7 BPMP-02.b Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending
feasibility
None 6
BPMP-05.b Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II Bike Lane 6 BPMP-06.b Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow
6 BPMP-07.b Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Class IV Class II & IIB 6 BPMP-08 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending
feasibility
Class II 6
BPMP-02.a Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV None 5 BPMP-04 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 5 BPMP-10 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
5 BPMP-14 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
5 6.1
Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

128

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Project ID Corridor From To Future
Facility Existing Facility Total Prioritization
Score
BPMP-03 Vintage Park Dr Metro Center Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-11 Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-12 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-17 Polaris Ave Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Class III None 4 BPMP-13 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Class III None 3
BPMP-01 E 3rd Ave City Limits Levee/Bay Trail Class IV None 2 BPMP-05.c Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin St Class IV Class II Bike Lane 2 BPMP-15 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Dr Class III None 2 BPMP-16 Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Class IV None 2 BPMP-06.d Beach Park Blvd /
Foster City
Elementary
Virgo Ln Polaris Ave Class IV None 1

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

129

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 58
Advancing Priority Projects
While project prioritization helped identify corridors with the greatest potential benefit, additional considerations were used to select projects for further development. These considerations included community feedback received throughout the planning process, coordination with planned roadway repaving projects, and opportunities to further refine and illustrate new facility types in the City, such as protected bikeways and bicycle boulevards. Based on these factors, City Council selected seven priority projects to advance.

The concept designs presented in this chapter demonstrate how the BPMP recommendations could be incorporated into Foster City's existing transportation network. These concepts are intended as a starting point for future project development rather than implementation-ready designs. Additional public engagement, engineering, analysis (such as parking and traffic operations), environmental review, and cost estimating will be required to refine each concept before implementation.

Advancement of these projects will also depend on future funding availability, including competitive grant awards, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, and other available funding sources.

To support future project development, the concept designs were informed by industry guidance including:
• California Fire Code
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• Caltrans DIB 94
• Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
• FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

130

Beach Park Boulevard
Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard
Existing
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IIB and parking
separated Class IV with Caltrans Design Informational
Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where
ADT falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration.

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce posted speed limit
by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices • Raised crosswalks are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with posted speed limits of 30 mph
or less, average daily trafﬁc volumes below 9,000
vehicles, and no direct access to a hospital.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane
Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
Beach Park Boulevard provides key connections to the
Bay Trail and several community destinations. The
current shared lane markings and four vehicle lanes on
Beach Park are high stress for people biking and rolling, and the existing crossings are long and uncontrolled
with high exposure for pedestrians.

Proposed
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$250k
Engineering
Design
$260k
Construction
Cost
$900k
Cross sections are shown looking north along Beach Park Boulevard Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Turn Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Bikeway
6’
Bikeway
6’

3’

3’
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Separated bikeway on the northbound side
Buffered bikeway on the southbound side
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply a four lane to three lane road diet and
narrow lane widths to manage vehicle speeds
*includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

131

Gull Ave
Marlin Ave
Tarpon St
Swordﬁsh St
Halibut St
Foster City Blvd
Sanderling St
Egret St
Teal St
Gull Ave
N
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Gull Avenue (signal)
Curb extensions on Gull
Avenue
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn box
Bay Trail Access
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Teal Street, Egret Street, &
Sanderling Street
Raised refuge island
Tarpon Street, Swordﬁsh Street,
and Halibut Street
Raised refuge island
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Side-street stop control with
existing RRFB
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Two stage left turn box
Curb extensions on Gull
and Marlin avenues
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Raised crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Raised crosswalk
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

132

*Includes community engagement and 10% design
Cross sections are shown looking north along Gull Avenue Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Bike Boulevards are appropriate on streets with an
average of less than 2,500 vehicles per day and a
posted speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Source: Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94
• Bike Boulevard treatments should include shared-lane
markings in the center of each lane, omit centerlines
along mid block, and include wayﬁnding signs.

Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• Speed Cushions are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with an average of less than 3,500
vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 30 mph
or less. Volume reduction can be achieved when
installed as a series, spaced every 260’-500‘.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
Proposed
Gull Avenue, Marlin Avenue, and Grebe Street are
neighborhood streets which run through residential uses and provide access to several schools and connections
to the Bay Trail. The existing streets have shared lane markings for bicycles, but lack speed or volume
management measures to support low-stress travel.

There are several locations missing marked crosswalks.

Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$90k
Engineering
Design
$340k
Construction
Cost
$1.34M
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Connected via Grebe Street
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
• Following implementation, collect updated speed data
to evaluate whether operating speeds have decreased
to support a lower posted speed limit.

Speed cushions with cutouts for transit &
emergency vehicles (apply every
260’-500’)
Apply daylighting on approach to all
crossings
BLVD Use bike boulevard pavement
markings and wayﬁnding
Existing
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

133

Gull Ave
Marlin Ave
Tarpon St
Swordﬁsh St
Halibut StFoster City Blvd
Gull Ave
Grebe St
Crane St
Swan St
Plover St
Ribbon St
Surfperch St
N
Cod St
Surfperch Street and Cod Street
Neighborhood Trafﬁc
Circle
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard to
Catamaran Street
Repurpose excess
pavement width with
5’ bike lanes and 2’
buffer on both sides
Crane Street
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control*
Extend curb on northeast
corner to reduce receiving
lanes from 2 to 1
Existing side-street stop-control
High Visibility Crosswalks
Gull Avenue Midblock Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Beach Park Boulevard
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
across FCB
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Plover Street, Pompano Circle,
and Halibut Street
Existing side-street stop control
Advanced yield markings
and signage
High Visibility Crosswalks
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Raised refuge island
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project
*If trafﬁc volumes indicate queuing could
become an issue, consider a yield- or
stop-controlled trafﬁc circle at Mallard St.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

134

*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, parking occupancy study, and 10% design
** Range reflects different building materials, with the low-end including quick build materials and the high-end including full build out of concrete and landscaping elements
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
beneﬁts.

Edgewater Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to Edgewater Park, schools, and
residential uses. There are two distinct cross sections.

From East Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard,
the street has four vehicle lanes, existing Class IIB
buffered bike lanes, parking, and limited marked
pedestrian crossings. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue,
there are four vehicle lanes, parking on the west side, and existing Class II bike lanes. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour. For both sections, the existing bicycle facility does not align with the speeds along the street, as recommended by Caltrans DIB-94.

Edgewater Boulevard
East Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class II and Class IV with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
• A parking study may be conducted to assess whether
nearby streets can accommodate parking displaced
by the proposed removal of on-street parking.
• Following implementation, periodically collect
updated speed data to assess changes in operating
speeds. If operating speeds remain higher than
appropriate for a Class III facility, additional speed
management measures should be considered to
create a more comfortable shared roadway
environment. If operating speeds are lower, consider
additional reductions to posted speed limit.

Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$240k
Engineering
Design
$600k
Construction
Cost**
$1.7-3.0M
Separated bikeways on the both sides
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
beneﬁts.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

135

Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgewater Boulevard Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’6’
Existing (E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard) Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Existing to Remain (Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue) Bike
Lane
6’
Curb-to-Curb: 34’
Median
14’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 26’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Proposed (Regulus Street to Beach Park Boulevard)
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Parking
7’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’ 3’3’

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

136

E Hillsdale Blvd
N
Altair Ave
Regulus St
Beach Park Blvd
Port Royal Ave
Boothbay Ave
Dorado Ln
Proposed Intersection Improvements
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Altair Avenue, Regulus Street
& Dorado Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Beach Park Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Boothbay Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Port Royal Avenue
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Remove pork chop and
acceleration lane, subject to
conﬁrmation of adequate
intersection sight distance

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

137

*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design. ** Range reflects different building materials, with the low-end including quick build materials and the high-end including full build out.

Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
The northern portion of Edgewater Boulevard is a six
lane arterial which connects Foster City to State Route

92. The current bike lanes are high stress for people
biking and rolling given that the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour and there are three vehicle lanes in each direction. The existing sidewalks are comfortable, but
crossings are long and lack separation in time for
pedestrians to cross Edgwater Blvd.

Design and Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• While this segment provides direct access to SR-92,
trafﬁc volumes should be evaluated to determine
whether a reduced cross section is feasible, creating
greater consistency with adjacent roadway segments
and potentially improving safety outcomes.
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices Edgewater Boulevard
City Limits to East Hillsdale Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Existing
Planning
Study*
$80k
Engineering
Design
$230k
Construction
Cost**
$750k-1.26M
Proposed
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width
of 5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgwater Boulevard Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane

6.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’

2’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane

6.5’

2’
Median
16’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

138

Hillsdale Blvd
SR 92 Ramps
N
Metro Center Blvd
Gateway Dr
City Limits
Proposed Intersection Improvements
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Gateway Drive
Existing side-street stop control
Apply yield markings across
conflicting westbound right
turn.

Metro Center Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting right
turn movement in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
State Route 92 Ramps
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting right
turn movement in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

139

*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, parking study, and 10% design.
** Range reflects potential implementation of new signals, with the low end including no new signals and the high end including two new signals:
one at Marlin Avenue and one at Beach Park Boulevard.

Foster City Boulevard
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$330k
Engineering
Design
$1.1M
Construction
Cost**
$3.4-5.7M
Foster City Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to commercial and residential uses.

There are two distinct cross sections. From E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive the street has four vehicle
lanes and parking lanes that transition to turn lanes at major intersections. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard there
are four vehicle lanes. For both sections, Class III Bike Route signs are present; however, this is not considered an appropriate facility under Caltrans DIB-94.

Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV with Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where ADT
falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration. Weekday ADT on Foster City
Boulevard ranges from approximately 10,000 vehicles
per day at the north end of the corridor to 2,500
vehicles per day at the south end (see Figure 2).

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• While this segment provides access to SR-92, trafﬁc
volumes should be evaluated to determine whether a
reduced cross section is feasible, creating greater
consistency with adjacent roadway segments and
potentially improving safety outcomes.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set back
2’ from the travel lane
Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of 5’
and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Apply a four lane to two lane road diet
south of Bounty Drive
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.

Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

140

Cross sections are shown looking north along Foster City Boulevard Bike
Lane
7’
Existing (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)
Proposed (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)
Existing (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)
Proposed (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)
Shoulder
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’6’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’

5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’

5’
Bike
Lane
7’

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

141

E Hillsdale Blvd
N
Beach Park Blvd
Balclutha Dr
Polynesia Dr
Bounty Drive
Marlin Ave
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Balclutha Drive & Polynesia Drive,
& Bounty Drive
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Remove right turn pocket
and prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Marlin Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Beach Park Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Proposed Intersection Improvements

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

142

*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design Cross sections are shown looking east along Beach Park Boulevard Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.

Beach Park Boulevard
Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard
Cost Estimates
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where
ADT falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration. Weekday ADT is approximately less
than 2,500 vehicles per day (see Figure 2).

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices • Install marked crosswalks and associated crossing
treatments approximately every 500 feet and
consider crossings at locations with concentrated
pedestrian demand, such as trail connections, parks,
Planning
Study*
$140k
Engineering
Design
$700k
Construction
Cost
$3.9M
Bike
Lane
7’
Existing
Proposed
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’

5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’

5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Beach Park Boulevard west of Foster City Boulevard is a key east-west connector and provides access to
commercial and residential uses, as well as schools.

From Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard the street has four vehicle lanes and existing Class III bicycle
facilities. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour.

Design & Implementation Considerations
schools, transit stops, and commercial destinations.

Source: Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a minimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

143

Proposed Intersection Improvements
Shell Blvd
N
Barkentine St
Cutter St
Wheel House Ln
Foster City Blvd
Shell Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Two stage left turn boxes
Barkentine Street, Cutter Street,
& Wheel House Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
*Cost for signal installation included
in costs for Foster City Boulevard
Project.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

144

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 73
Funding Strategy
Implementing the BPMP will require a combination of local funding, competitive grants, and strategic coordination with other planned projects and investments. While project prioritization helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit, implementation opportunities often depend on factors such as roadway maintenance schedules, capital improvement projects, redevelopment activity, and available funding programs.

Table 4 identifies potential pathways for advancing a select number of priority projects and highlights opportunities to coordinate improvements with existing City projects, private development, quick- build implementation strategies, and county, regional, state, and federal funding sources. • 5-Year Maintenance Alignment: Identifies whether pavement rehabilitation or other planned maintenance activities are anticipated within the next five years, creating opportunities to implement improvements more efficiently and at a lower cost. • Pursue Grant Funding: Identifies whether the project is well suited for competitive state, regional, or federal grant programs based on project type, scale, and anticipated benefits. • Program in Future CIP: Identifies whether the project is appropriate for implementation through the City's future CIP, either as a standalone capital project or in coordination with other planned improvements.
• Quick-Build Opportunity: Identifies whether all or portions of a project could be implemented using lower-cost improvements such as pavement markings, signage, delineators, or temporary materials prior to full reconstruction.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

145

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 74
Table 4. Potential Ways to Fund Priority Projects
Project
Corridor
Project
Limits
5-Year
Maintenance
Alignment1
Pursue Grant
Funding
Program in
Future CIP
Quick Build
Opportunity
Beach Park
Blvd
Foster City
Blvd to Gull
Ave
X X
Beach Park
Blvd
Edgewater
Blvd to Shell
Blvd
X X
Edgewater
Blvd /
Mariners
Island Blvd
City Limits
to E
Hillsdale
Blvd
X X
Edgewater
Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Boothbay
Ave
X X
Foster City
Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Beach Park
Blvd
X X
Gull Ave
Beach Park
Blvd to E
Hillsdale
Blvd
X X
Marlin Ave
Catamaran
St to Beach
Park Blvd
X X
1 Reflects the City's repaving plan as of July 2026. Planned maintenance activities are subject to change.

In addition to the funding opportunities listed above, there are competitive regional and countywide grants that the City may be well-positioned for, including C/CAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Program, C/CAG Local Transportation Services & System Management (TSSM) Program, and SMCTA Measure A Local Streets & Transportation Program. For state and federal grant opportunities, the City may be more competitive by partnering with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

146

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 75
Next Steps
Foster City is already well positioned to begin implementation. Through the City’s Capital Improvement Program, upcoming roadway maintenance projects, redevelopment opportunities, and potential competitive grant funding, the City has multiple pathways to advance some of the improvements identified in this plan. The prioritization scoring developed through the BPMP provide a starting point for future project development.

Community engagement throughout the BPMP planning process has revealed strong support for additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Foster City. Residents are highly invested in their City and want to make walking and biking easier for everyone. The City is exploring ways to continue to share updates and progress with the community through their website and other means. As implementation moves forward, the City will continue to seek opportunities for community input to help shape and refine future walking and biking improvements.

Implementation will not happen all at once. Instead, each completed crossing improvement, bicycle boulevard, protected bikeway, and trail connection will contribute to a larger network that is safer, more comfortable, and more connected than it is today. As projects are delivered, residents will experience improved access to schools, parks, shopping areas, neighborhoods, and regional destinations.

The BPMP is not the end of a planning process; it is the beginning of a long-term investment in Foster City's future. By continuing to advance priority projects, pursue funding opportunities, and integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into everyday City projects, Foster City can deliver meaningful near-term improvements while building toward a community where walking and biking are safe, convenient, and accessible choices for everyone.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

147

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 76

Appendices

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

148

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix A.

Benchmarking Assessment

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

149

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
The City and its leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

City committed to eliminating all traffic fatalities and reducing non-fatal crashes by 50% by 2050. LRSP X X
Establish performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress towards completion of the proposed network and implementation of programs and policies.

City does not appear to have performance metrics established for bike/ped projects completed, network mileage, and/or other performance metrics established.

City committed to updating LRSP every 5 years, reporting to TSAC (Transportation Safety Advisory Committee) annually, and providing updates to Foster City Council. LRSP includes various metrics like crash data, # of trainings by city staff, # of LRSP project locations advanced through project development etc

LRSP X X
Interagency Coordination
Convene and participate in a multi-agency working group tasked with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's development, implementation, and monitoring, including representation from all relevant departments.

TRC is charged with development, implementation and monitoring of BPMP.

City PW Directors is part of the C/CAG TAC. The TAC oversaw the development of the City's LRSP (along with other cities in SMC).

As part of the TAC, the City also engaged with Caltrans in discussions and review of the draft D4 Bike Plan
City participates in MTC Quarterly Joint Partnership Local Streets and Roads Meetings.

City Staff
X X X
Maintain an up-to-date website with implementation progress and provide opportunities for public input throughout all planning phases.

City recently launched a Social Pinpoint website that includes project information, schedule, upcoming events, and interactive map to provide feedback.

City also has a BPMP site that can be leveraged in the long-term to support engagement, provide project updates, and monitor progress.

Social Pinpoint X X X
Integrate proactive and transparent safety analysis into all phases of facility design and implementation.

The LRSP includes proactive and transparent safety analysis, however, its not clear yet if this is informing facility design and implementation.

General Plan, Bike Network
Assessment, LRSP x X
Establish a process for public comment throughout the planning process.

Public engagement will be collected at multiple phases throughout the BPMP project.

Engagement is often tailored by audience and topic. Focused on explanation and education.

Social Pinpoint
City Staff X X X
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Vision & Leadership
Leadership Commitment

Public Engagement

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

150

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

School & Youth Engagement Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program with dedicated funding and stakeholder engagement.

Foster City participates in the San Mateo County Safe Routes to School Program, which is a partnership between C/CAG and the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE).

Conducted MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey in 2012 and 2016, with resulting recommendations tailored to each school.

Completed SRTS Study in 2018 and identified safety improvements at schools in Foster City.

Safe Routes to School program included as a goal in the following documents: General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and LRSP.

LRSP outlines recommendations to continue participation in school safety assessments and School Travel Fellowship Program (funded through C/CAG, OTS, and San Mateo County Public Health). As well as developing implementation plans for improvements up to 1/4 mile from schools.

Climate Action Plan,
Local Roadway Safety Plan,
Foster City Bike Network
Assessment,
Safe Routes to School Study
Foster City Community
Development Page
(https://www.fostercity.org/co
mmdev/page/efficient-
transportation), Safe Routes to
School Program website
(https://ccag.ca.gov/programs
/transportation-programs/safe-
routes-to-school/)
X X X
Network Monitoring Maintain a GIS inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and establish performance indicators to track plan implementation.

City has data on traffic controls, posted speeds, and roadway classification, but is missing some key spatial datasets, such as volumes, # of lanes, dedicated crossings/crosswalks, observed speeds.

X X X
Proactively evaluate locations with high levels of traffic stress or known crash risk and prioritize improvements.

LRSP identified High-Injury Network for each mode and Priority locations (at intersections and segment level).

Bike Network Assessment has map of existing bicycle facilities and level of traffic stress network map.

LRSP, Foster City Bike
Network Assessment X X
Leverage community-input to supplement data and identify missing pieces of users safety and comfort experiences (e.g. near miss experiences).

City leverages SeeClickFix for community input. SeeClickFix X X X Apply for grant programs and institutionalize funding for active transportation through CIP and other long-term budgeting tools.

General Plan identifies Capital Improvement Program as primary source for projects. Other plans mention federal, state, county and district funding programs for street and other transportation improvements.

Potential funding sources mentioned in Caltrans D4 Bike Plan include:

SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program) funding, One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program, the Active Transportation Program and Regional Measure 3
Land Use and Circulation
Element, LRSP X X X
Prioritize implementation of projects that have the greatest potential to improve safety and increase walking and biking.

LRSP calls for emphasizing social equity and priority communities in funding prioritization of safety projects. Unclear based on document review, whether projects with greatest opportunity to improve or increase walking and biking are prioritized.

City prioritizes student travel, but does not have dedicated CIP funds for implementing bike/ped improvements.

LRSP
X X X
Safety & Risk Assessment

Capital Planning & Grants
Community Engagement
Data Analysis

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

151

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

Development & Repaving
Coordination
Leverage private development and repaving projects to implement planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Goal LUC-E-8-a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. Make it a condition of approval that new, large-scale developments address transit, biking and walking access to the site.

Goal LUC-E-8-b. The City will establish standards for new development and redevelopment projects to support bicycle use. a. Develop standards for safe pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations, including:
i. “Complete Streets” policies that foster equal access by all users in the roadway design; (Complete)
ii. Bicycle and pedestrian access internally and in connection to other areas through easements; (In practice)
iii. Safe access to public transportation and other non-motorized uses through construction of dedicated paths; (Bus stops are on busiest streets with sidewalks connecting to "town center" area) iv. Safe road crossings at major intersections. (All our major intersections are signalized)
Land Use and Circulation
Element X X
Manage or fund education programs targeted at reaching the most vulnerable users.

City grant funds roadway safety education in schools (School Travel Fellowship Program).

City Communications team has produced Rules of Road video.

LRSP
City Staff X X X
Leverage local partnerships with advocacy groups and local organizations to develop context-sensitive safety education and programs.

County Public Health and Police Department identified in LRSP. No reference to non-government agencies in documents reviewed. LRSP X X X
Targeted Enforcement
Reallocate enforcement efforts to locations and behaviors most associated with crashes and serious injuries.

The Police Department is charged with enforcing policies and is as key partner with PW staff, however, capacity is generally enforcement is focused citywide and targeted enforcements are generally reactive (resident complaints, crash review, then targeted enforcement).

Additionally, LRSP outlines targeted strategies, such as monitoring speeds on streets to raise awareness of speeding.

City Staff

LRSP X X
Designate modal priorities for corridors to guide selection of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Not current practice X X X
Funding & Policy Integration
Education & Enforcement
Outreach & Behavior Change
Infrastructure & Design
Facility Implementation

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

152

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

Ensure cyclist and pedestrian accessibility is maintained and user safety prioritized during construction and road maintenance activities.

Contractors are always required to maintain ped/bike access and provide detours. Detailed in construction manuals and encroachment permits.

Construction Manual &
Encroachment Permit
Conditions
X X
Demonstration & Innovation
Use demonstration projects to test new facility types, gather feedback, and build support for permanent implementation.

School Travel Fellowship Program allows groups to receive technical assistance on pilot projects and communication with the public, however, unclear not currently used in the City.

SRTS Annual Report
(https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/2.1-
A1-2022-2023-SRTS-Annual-
Report_Final.pdf)
X X
Implement curbside and micromobility management strategies that support pedestrian and bicycle safety.

City identified goals to launch pilot a program to provide free or reduced-price access to e-bikes or other micro-mobility options to low-income residents and students. Minimal mention of parking or other curbside management strategies that impact safety and comfort for biking and walking.

Climate Action Plan
X X
Leverage routine resurfacing projects to implement planned bike/ped facilities and network connectivity.

The Complete Streets Policy lists resurfacing, restriping, utility projects, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related features as strategies for implementing bike/ped projects.

Land Use and Circulation
Element X X X X
Speed Policy & Evaluation Evaluate speed setting opportunities using state or local guidance before design to ensure compatibility with safety goals.

LRSP lists assessing posted speeds based on new allowable criteria as a goal, but not currently being implemented. LRSP
X X X
Align bicycle and pedestrian facility selection and design with targeted vehicle speed outcomes using context-sensitive geometric design.

Is there a way to rephrase this benchmark?
Not current practice
X X X
Adopt bikeway design standards that consider facility selection and design based on roadway classification, volumes, and observed speeds.

City does not have specific bikeway design standards, but uses Highway Design Manual as standard operating practice.

X X
Speed & Operations
Street Design for Speed

Policy Integration

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

153

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix B.

Engagement Summaries

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

154

Foster City Bicycle & Pedestrian Master
Plan Phase 1 Engagement Summary
Overview
Phase 1 engagement included a Social Pinpoint survey and one in-person event. The survey was open for six weeks, from May through mid-July 2025. On June 12, 2025, the project team attended Foster City Family Movie Night, where participants completed an interactive map activity featuring the same questions as the online survey. Results from the event were combined with the online survey responses.

This survey gathered 252 contributions from 49 unique IP Addresses (proxy for contributors). The five most frequent IP Addresses represent 138 contributions, or 54.7% of total contributions. The mapping activity during the in-person event collected an additional 27 responses.

Figure 1: Comment Density from Phase 1 Engagement (All Categories)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

155

Feedback was organized into the following categories:
• Safety Need: 38% (illustrated in Figure 2)
• Pedestrian Gap: 19% (illustrated in Figure 3)
• Biking Gap: 10% (illustrated in Figure 4)
• Key Destinations: 6%
• Other Need: 27%

Figures on the following pages illustrate the specific locations where feedback was identified. Areas identified as ‘Key Destinations’ were incorporated into the Connectivity Analysis to help the Project Team better understand where people want to walk or bike in Foster City. These locations were an input to the analysis which was the primary input for network development.

Figure 2: Map of Identified Safety Needs

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

156

Figure 3: Map of Identified Pedestrian Gaps

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

157

Figure 4: Map of Identified Bike Facility Gaps
Comment Themes
The following five comment themes were developed by reviewing and categorizing each comment by their primary sentiment. In instances when one contributor left several similar or duplicative comments, we consolidated such sentiments to one comment to avoid weighing any individual’s feedback heavier than others. Comments which did not pertain directly to the focus of this project were omitted from the development of the themes.

1. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
• There are many comments calling for more visible and safer crosswalks, especially along Edgewater Blvd, near parks, schools, and apartment complexes. • Missing or Inaccessible Crosswalks: Many high-traffic corridors lack safe, high-visibility crossings, especially Edgewater Blvd.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

158

• Many noted dangerous crossing conditions, with high vehicle speeds and a lack of pedestrian infrastructure like curb ramps, refuge islands, or flashing beacons. • Several comments emphasize the urgent need for crossings on long stretches of busy roads where pedestrians currently take risks.

2. Traffic Calming and Speed Reduction
• Comments request stop signs, roundabouts, lane reductions, and other measures to slow down vehicles, especially near schools and residential areas. • Speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving behavior were cited as regular threats to safety for people walking and biking.
• Comments identify several roads that have a speeding problem, including Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard.

3. Conflicts and Confusion Around Shared Paths and Trail Etiquette • Several comments describe dangerous interactions on shared trails, especially involving fast- moving e-bikes, scooters, and unaware pedestrians.
• Users call for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to avoid conflicts.
• There’s widespread concern about e-bike speeds on the levee trail and Bay Trail, with some suggesting banning certain classes of e-bikes.

4. Protected and Connected Bike Infrastructure
• While there is opposition to bike lanes on main roads, many cyclists advocate for protected bike lanes, especially on bridges and connections to the Bay Trail. • Gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and lack of protected crossings are seen as major safety issues.
• Requests to close trail gaps—especially around Harbor Cove, Isle Cove, and the Bay Trail. • Supportive comments often note that more people would bike if they felt safer.

5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
• Several responses oppose adding or widening bike lanes, especially if it means removing car lanes or parking.
• Common reasons for opposing bike lanes include increased traffic congestion, reduced driving space, and perceived safety hazards for both drivers and cyclists. Some respondents believe that FC is not suited for bike commuting and perceive that bike lanes are underused compared to the impacts on vehicle traffic
• Roads like Edgewater, Hillsdale, and Beach Park Blvd are cited as poor candidates for bike lanes due to high vehicle speeds and volumes.

The findings from this outreach will not only inform network development, but as the Goals and Policies identified for the final plan.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

159

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 1
Foster City Bicycle Pedestrian Master
Plan Phase 2 Engagement Summary
October 27, 2025
Overview
Phase 2 engagement sought feedback from the communi ty on the future proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks. The methods of engagement incl uded an online Social Pinpoint interactive mapping exercise, an in-person pop-up, and a focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for several schools in Fo ster City.

The Social Pinpoint interactive map was active for a month, launching on September 19, 2025 and closing October 20, 2025. The interactive mapping e xercise received 113 contributions from 41 contributors. The top two contributors made up 36% of all comments. On September 21,2025, the project team, including City Staff and the consultant team attended the Foster City Family Bike Ride to collect in-person feedback. During the pop-up, the project team spoke with approximately 75 residents. The third and final engagement activity of Phase 2 was a focus group held on October 16, 2025. All schools were invited to participate, and two parents attended representing students from Kids Connection Private School, Bowditch Middle Sch ool, and Audubon Elementary School.

Engagement Findings
The following summary of engagement findings includ es feedback from all engagement activities.

Comments which were not directly relevant to feedba ck about the proposed network were omitted from this summary.

Pedestrian Network Comments
Overall, there was consensus about the need for ped estrian crossing improvements as proposed across Foster City. Fehr 7 Peers organized the feed back into five categories: agreement with the crossing tier, disagreement with the proposed cross ing tier, requests to add a crossing to the proposed future network, and segment-related commen ts.

Agreement with Crossing Tier:

Defined as an intersection location that received a positive response for crossing improvements in proposed future network.
• Beach Park Blvd and Catamaran St
• Proposed crossing locations identified along Beach Park Blvd between Shell Blvd and Foster City Blvd
• Beach Park Blvd crossings near the Bay Trail
• E Hillsdale Blvd and Shell Blvd (+1)
• Marlin Avenue and Pompano Cir

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

160

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 2
• Foster City Blvd and Marlin Ave
• Foster City Blvd and Bounty Dr
• Proposed crossing locations identified along Edgewa ter between Hillsdale Blvd and Beach Park Blvd
• Edgewater Blvd and Beach Park Blvd (+1)
• Edgewater Blvd and Apollo Ln
• Tarpon St and Beach Park Blvd
• Swordfish St and Beach Park Blvd
• E Hillsdale Blvd and Edgewater Blvd
Disagreement with Crossing Tier
Defined as an intersection location that received a response to adjust the identified priority in proposed future network.
• Hillsdale and Foster City should be moved to Tier 1
• Metro Center and the 92 Ramps should be removed fro m the prioritization tiers. • Metro Center and Foster City should be Tier 1
• Killdeer and Gull should be moved to Tier 1
Request to add a location to the proposed future network:

Defined as an intersection location not currently listed within the proposed future network and received request to be included. Note: All locations except Polaris Ave received only one (1) response to be added.
• Tarpon St and Ribbon St
• Polaris Ave at the school crossing (midblock crossing likely not included in LTS and connectivity analysis)
• Edgewater Blvd and Baffin St
• Crane Ave and Egret St
• Crane Ave and Swan St
• Swan St and Avocet Ct
• Marlin Ave and Grebe St
• Beach Park Blvd and Compass Ln
• Pilgrim Dr and Grand Ln
• Port Royal Park Entrance
• Pilgrim Dr and Metro Center Blvd
• Marlin Ave and Cod St
• Marlin Ave and Grebe St
Additional segment-level considerations identified:
• Desire for wider sidewalks along Edgewater Blvd
• Desire to formalize a pedestrian connection from the Lagoon Apartments to Boat Park/Foster City Dog Park
• Improve comfort for pedestrians along Foster City B lvd and address goose problems along path (+3)
• Improve sidewalks on Vintage Park through the 92 Ov erpass

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

161

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 3
Bicycle Network Comments
The following table summarizes the feedback received for each facility on the proposed bicycle network. The comments fall into three categories: Agreement with the proposed facility, disagreement with the proposed facility, or something missing from the network recommendations.

Table 1. Feedback on Future Proposed Bike Network
Street Name Proposed
Facility Agree Disagree Something Missing or Misc Comment Beach Park Boulevard Class IV 10 people 1 person
Bay Trail/Levee Trail Maintain existing
Class I
3 people asked for wider facilities and
better striping
3 people requested wayfinding
improvements
2 people raised concerns about e - bikes
Foster City Boulevard Class III 9 people requested a
Class IV
1 person requested better connection for
bikes over the bridge
East Hillsdale Boulevard
Class II to the
bridge, Class III
from bridge to
Beach Park

5 people requested
continuous class IV
2 people requested
continuous Class II
3 people requested Class IV over the
bridge
Edgewater Boulevard Class IV 3 people
2 people requested a
Class III
1 person requested a
Class II

Shell Blvd Class IV 1 person
Chess Drive Class IV 1 Person
Metro Center Boulevard Class IV 1 person

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

162

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 4
Street Name Proposed
Facility Agree Disagree Something Missing or Misc Comment Crane Avenue None 2 people requested traffic calming
measures
Pitcairn Drive Class III 1 person
2 people asked this not to
be a bike route
1 person asked for Class
IV

Catamaran Street Class III 1 person requested traffic calming measures
Gull Avenue Class III 1 person requested traffic calming Vintage Park Drive Class IV 1 person
Polaris Avenue None
1 person requested
consideration for Bike
lanes

East 3 rd Street Class IV 1 person
Pilgrim Drive Class II 1 person disagrees with
need for bike facility
Swordfish Class III 1 person requested Class
II facilities
Marlin Class III 1 person requested Class
II facilities
Tarpon Class III 2 people requested Class
II facilities

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

163

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 5
Summary of Feedback from Focus Group Meeting
The focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) from several Foster City schools followed a different format than the interactive mapping exercise and pop-up event. Key insights from the discussion are summarized below:
• Priority Segments for School Safety
o Hillsdale Blvd: Vehicle speeding is a top concern. The corridor provides direct access to Kids Connection School and the main shopping are as and library which are both areas frequently visited by youth on bikes.
o Beach Park Blvd: An important student route where m any currently ride on the sidewalk or along the levee, but only where ramps p rovide access. Participants noted that adding more ramps would improve accessibility.
o Gull Ave: Traffic calming is needed, especially near the mid-block crossing by Audubon Elementary School. There is no traffic control between Hillsdale Blvd and the mid-block crossing, leading to dangerously high vehicle speeds. • Crossings Identified as Dangerous or in Need of Imp rovement:
o Mid-block crossing on Swan St
o Intersection of Duck Ct and Crave Ave
o Mid-block crossing on Gull Ave, where parents reported that a school crossing guard has been struck multiple times.

Next Steps
The project team will present the feedback to City Council and City staff. City staff will then determine whether the input should inform any changes to the final future network. A final future network will be determined in late Winter 2025/2026 .

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

164

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix C.

LTS and Connectivity
Methodology Memorandum

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

165

Memo
Date: 7/21/2025 (revised 8/14/2025)
To: Foster City; Claire McWilliams
From: Fehr & Peers; Angelica Rocha and Erin Ferguson
Subject: Methodology – Level of Traffic Stress and Connectivity Analysis (DRAFT)

Introduction
The following memo details the Foster City (herein referred to as “the City”) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Level of Traffic Stress and Connectivity Analysis. This analysis was conducted to identify locations within the City where bicycle and pedestrian facilities and network enhancements can provide the greatest connectivity to key everyday destinations. The analysis results highlight bicycle segments and pedestrian crossings with high levels of connectivity to a variety of destinations or attractions via low stress facilities, and parts of the City that may have high levels of destinations or attractions, but along high-stress facilities.

Level of Traffic Stress
The first analysis performed included the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), which is a framework for evaluating the suitability and comfort level of routes for vulnerable network users. It is based on the understanding that people are unlikely to use routes that feel too stressful or unsafe due to roadway or intersection conditions. The following section describes Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS.

Bicycle LTS is assigned to roadway segments, whereas Pedestrian Crossing LTS is assigned to intersection crossings.

LTS scoring is classified into four (4) categories ranging from LTS 1 (lowest stress) to LTS 4 (highest stress), as described in Figure 1 and Figure 2. LTS 1 and 2 are considered generally low-stress, and LTS 1 is considered appropriate for all ages and abilities. LTS 3 and 4 represent higher stress bicycle facilities and pedestrian crossings. LTS scores are calculated separately for bicycle facilities as segments and pedestrian crossings as intersections.

The Bicycle LTS methodology used was developed by Dr. Peter G. Furth of Northeastern University.1 It considers existing roadway characteristics such as speed limits, the amount of motor vehicle traffic, the number of travel lanes, bikeway(s), and on-street parking characteristics. The Pedestrian LTS

1Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022) https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

166

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 2
methodology used was developed by the Center for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety.2 It considers existing roadway characteristics such as the number of travel lanes, motor vehicle traffic, crossing treatments, and ADA-accessible ramps.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle LTS analysis is an approach to mapping the suitability of streets and off-street paths based on the perceived stress levels of riding on the existing conditions present along all roadway segments in the network. There are several methodology approaches available, however Northeastern University’s methodology was determined feasible given the City’s data availability.3 Figure 1. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Data Used
There are six roadway characteristics used as variables to determine the Bicycle LTS segment score.

These variables and sources are listed in Table 1.

2 https://www.pedbikesafety.org/_files/ugd/71d50c_45338ef866774d978fcc08cbe750b6b1.pdf 3 https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

167

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 3
Table 1: Bicycle LTS Variables
Variable Source
ADT Replica Transportation Data
# of Travel Lanes City of Foster City
Bikeway Facility
City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) of San Mateo County and City of
Foster City
Bike Lane Width Fehr & Peers
Parking Lane Width (Adjacent to a Bike Lane) Fehr & Peers Posted Speed1 City of Foster City (Speed Limit)
1 The LTS methodology requires prevailing speed data, which the City does not currently have readily available.

As a result, the analysis will initially rely on posted speed limits. Fehr & Peers is exploring the possibility of validating arterial speeds using E&TS data, but this will be determined following the initial run of the analysis.

LTS Score Assignment
The tables below, from Dr. Peter G. Furth of Northeastern University LTS Methodology, were used to classify roadway segment stress in Foster City based on the variables described.

Table 2: Bikes in Mixed Traffic
Posted Speed (mph)
Number of Lanes ADT 0 - 23.5 23.5 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 - 43.5 43.5 - 48.5 48.5 + Unlaned 2-way street (no
centerline)
0 - 750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751 - 1,500 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1,501 -
3,000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3,001 + LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2-way with 1 lane per direction
and centerline
0 - 1,000 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1,001 -
1,500 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

168

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 4
1,501 + LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per direction
0 - 8,000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
8,001 + LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ thru lanes per direction any ADT LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)
Table 3: Conventional Bike Lanes, Advisory Bike Lanes, and Shoulders Not Adjacent to a Parking Lane
Posted Speed (mph)
Number of Lanes Bike lane
width 0 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 - 43.5 43.5 - 48.5 48.5 + 1 thru lane per direction or
contraflow lane
6 + ft LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 6 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per direction
6 + ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 6 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ lanes per direction Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)
Table 4: Conventional Bike Lanes and Advisory Bike Lanes alongside a Parking Lane Posted Speed (mph)
Number of lanes
Bike lane reach =
bike + parking lane
width
0 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 +
1 thru lane per direction or contraflow lane
15 + ft LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1-way multilane
15 + ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
2-way, 2 lanes per direction
15 + ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
other 2-way multilane any LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

169

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 5
Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress
Pedestrian Crossing LTS analysis is an approach to mapping the suitability of pedestrian crossings based on the perceived stress levels of crossing a street based on the existing conditions present at all intersections in the network. Like the Bicycle LTS methodology, there are several pedestrian crossing LTS methodologies used in practice. The methodology developed by the Center for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety, published in July 2024, is currently the best state of the practice given the data availability for this project.4
Figure 2. Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress

Data Used
There are six (6) intersection characteristics used as variables to determine the Pedestrian Crossing LTS score. These variables and their sources are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Variables
Variable Source
Traffic Control City of Foster City
Crossing Treatments City of Foster City / Fehr & Peers
Crossing Width (Lanes) City of Foster City

4 https://www.pedbikesafety.org/_files/ugd/71d50c_45338ef866774d978fcc08cbe750b6b1.pdf

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

170

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 6
ADT Replica Transportation Data
Crossing Locations Open Street Map
ADA Accessible Ramps City of Foster City
LTS Score Assignment
The tables on the following pages were used to classify segment stress in Foster City based on the variables described in the section above.

Table 6 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Crossing Width Raised Refuge Island
and Curb Extension(s)1
Raised Refuge Island
only
Curb extension
only None
Traffic Signal

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
5+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Stop Sign

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1 Raised refuge islands must be 6 feet wide with a physical (raised) barrier.

Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 7 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Crossing Width Raised Refuge Island
and Curb Extension(s)
Raised Refuge Island
only
Curb extension
only None
Traffic Signal
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

171

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 7

3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
5+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Stop Sign

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 8 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 20 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 20 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

172

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 8
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1 Prevailing (actual) 85th percentile speed should be used if available data exists. If not, use an estimate of prevailing speed based on the posted speed limit.
2 High visibility crosswalks include continental, ladder, and zebra style markings. Solid bars that run perpendicular to traffic are not considered to be high visibility markings Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024)

Table 9 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Medium traffic Volume (2,500-7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

173

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 9
Crossing Treatments
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 10 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

174

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 10
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Data Gaps & Assumptions Made
The following section describes gaps in the City-provided data and assumptions applied to the data to complete the LTS analysis.
• Bike Lane Width: Width and buffer determined based on Google Earth desktop review. • On-Street Parking Presence and Width: Determined based on Google Earth desktop review. • Marked Crossings: Open Street Map, a crowdsource dataset, was used as the base. City Staff validated and revised each marked crossing based on a Google Earth desktop review and institutional knowledge of infrastructure on the ground. • Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Leveraged a big data vendor dataset, which provided an aggregated count of vehicles along roadway segments. Arterials were validated with counts as availab.e • Number of Lanes: Applied a universal assumption that all arterials have 4 lane cross-sections with 2 lanes in each direction and local roads have a 2 lane cross section with 1 lane in each direction).

City Staff validated and revised all assignments through a Google Earth desktop review and institutional knowledge of infrastructure on the ground. • Limited-access highways and ramps (e.g. Caltrans facilities) were excluded because they prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access.

Connectivity Analysis
Once the LTS analysis was completed, it served as a key input for the subsequent Connectivity Analysis.

This analysis evaluates how accessible a variety of key destinations are from surrounding areas, or "travel sheds." The following destination types were used to identify where access and connectivity via low-stress segments and crossings should be prioritized:
• Schools: Public and private schools
• Community Facilities: Access points to city parks (including neighborhood and pocket parks) and primary access points to regional parks/trails. The City’s one Recreation Center, one Community Center, and one Library are all within or nearby a City park and are included as part of this destination type.
• Shopping Areas: Grocery stores and small commercial areas

Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS are analyzed for connectivity separately. The connectivity analysis performed for Bicycle LTS assumed an average biking speed of 10 miles per hour, meaning the analysis assumed the average person will travel five miles on their bicycle in 30 minutes. While actual speeds may vary from person to person, this average was selected for planning purposes and aligns with best practices for considering all ages and abilities. Given the constrained resources, the City’s small size, and the limited number of destination types included in the analysis, the pedestrian

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

175

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 11
crossing was assigned the connectivity score of the nearest roadway segment. This approach accounts for the highest concentration of destinations within a given area.

For each destination type, three travel sheds were assessed and scored. Bike trips within each travel shed were assigned to all roads with or without bike facilities (since bicyclists could presumably share the road with vehicles).

Analysis Inputs
The connectivity analysis uses two primary inputs: LTS (described above) travel sheds and destination types.

Destination Types are comprised of specific land uses or places that attract people and generate trips.

See Table 6 for the destination types selected and their sources. Three (3) destination types were selected to represent everyday places where people may currently bike/walk to or would more likely bike/walk to if they could get to the destination on a low stress bicycle or pedestrian network.

Table 11: Data Sources for Destination Types
Destination Type Layer Name Source
Schools Schools City of Foster City
Community Facilities
Parks City of Foster City
Libraries City of Foster City
Community/Recreation Centers City of Foster City
Shopping Areas
Grocery Stores Fehr & Peers
Key Shopping Areas City of Foster City
As part of Phase 1 engagement activities, the Project Team collected community input on key destinations they access by walking or cycling. These destination types were then validated against locations provided by residents through digital and in-person engagement tactics.

Analysis Approach
The connectivity analysis was conducted using the following steps:
• Step 1: Develop bicycle and pedestrian travel sheds for all three (3) destination types. Travel sheds were developed based on the centroid of a destination.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

176

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 12
• Step 2: Calculate a “travel shed score” for each roadway segment and crossing within the travel shed of a destination type.
• Step 3: Calculate a normalized segment and intersection score by destination type between 0-1
• Step 4: Combine each destination type’s normalized segment and intersection score to arrive at the “connectivity score” for each segment. Since there are three (3) destination types, the maximum score for any segment is 3.5 Note: In the weighted example, where schools are weighted twice, the maximum score is four (4).

Steps 1 through 4 are described in detail in the sections below.

Step 1: Develop Travel Sheds for all Destinations
The following three bicycle and pedestrian travel sheds were developed for all three(3) destination types throughout the City: 0-5 minutes, >5-15 minutes, and >15-30 minutes. Travel sheds are drawn around the land use centroid.

See Figure 1 for an example three travel sheds developed for a library destination.

Figure 3: Example Pulled from Previous Project of a Bicycle Travel Sheds for a City Library, Light Blue = 0 -5 minutes, Dark Blue = >5-15 minutes, and Magenta = >15-30 minutes

5 Note that all roadway segments and intersections received a connectivity score for each destination type between 0-1. The scores are then summed up for the three (3) destination types. This process represents equal weight placed on each destination type. It is possible to weight destination types differently if community values indicate a higher emphasis is placed on a certain destination type.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

177

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 13
Step 2: Travel Shed Scores by Destination Type
The next step was performed for each of the three (3) destination types separately. Since there are many travel sheds for each destination type, there are many travel sheds that overlap one another.

For each individual destination (in the schools, parks, libraries, and shopping area types), the roadway segments and intersections within that destination’s travel shed were assigned a travel shed score as follows:

Travel Shed Score for Each Segment and Intersection
• 0 – 5 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within a 5-minute travel shed are assigned a Travel Shed Score of 3
• >5 – 15 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within the greater than 5 – 15- minute travel shed are assigned a Score of 2
• >15 – 30 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within the greater than 15 – 30- minute travel shed are assigned a Score of 1
Step 3: Calculate Normalized Segment Score
For each destination type, the travel shed scores were summed for each individual road segment and intersection in the network. Because there are numerous destinations for each destination type, an individual roadway segment and intersection likely falls into travel sheds for several destinations within the same destination type, receiving points for each travel shed.

For illustration, consider a roadway segment near multiple schools. Suppose that the roadway segment is within the travel sheds of six (6) school destination types, resulting in the following travel sheds:
• Within 0-5 min. = 1 destination(s)
• Within >5-15 min. =2 destinations
• Within >15-30 min. = 3 destinations
The process of calculating the total travel shed score for this roadway segment is described in Table

7. Table 12: Total Travel Shed Score for a Roadway Segment in the Described Example Travel
Shed
Score for each Segment in
Travel Shed Quantity of Destinations within
Travel Shed Total Travel
Shed Score
0-5 mins 3 * 1 = 3
>5-15
mins 2 * 2 = 4
>15-30
mins 1 * 3 = 3
Travel Shed Score 10
Source: Fehr & Peers (2024)
In this example, the segment would receive a school destination type total travel shed score of 10.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

178

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 14
Once this summation process is complete for all segments and intersections by destination type, the total score for each segment and intersection is normalized by dividing the total travel shed score by the highest total travel shed score for each destination type. The result will arrive at a score between 0-1.

Continuing with the example above, suppose the highest total segment travel shed score is 20 for the schools destination type, then the example roadway segment above would have a normalized score of 10/20=0.5.

All segments and intersections will be assigned a normalized score for each destination type.

Step 4: Calculate the Connectivity Score
To calculate the connectivity score for each roadway segment and intersection, the normalized travel shed scores for each destination type are summed. To understand how this process is applied to a roadway segment, see example below:

For illustration, consider the roadway segment from above may have received the following normalized scores by destination type:

Table 13: Normalized Score by Destination Type for Described Example Destination Type Normalized Score
Schools 0.5
Community Facilities 0.1
Shopping Areas 0.25
Total Connectivity Score 0.85
In this example, the sample roadway segment has a connectivity score of 0.85 out of a total of 3, with a score of 3 being the highest preferred score when all destination types are weighted equally.

The Project Team has outlined two potential approaches: Weighted, where schools are weighted higher than the other destination types, and Unweighted, where equal weight is placed on each destination type. Table 9 describes how this approach impacts the highest possible score and median score.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

179

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 15

Table 14: Results for Connectivity Analysis by Approach, Weighted vs Unweighted

Analysis Type
Unweighted; Max Possible Score=3 Weighted; Max Possible Score=4 Highest
Score Median Score Highest Score Median Score
Bike LTS/Connectivity 2.83 1.23 3.83 1.63
Ped LTS/Connectivity 1.92 0.80 2.66 1.11
Analyzing Connectivity By LTS
A primary purpose of developing connectivity scores for roadway segments and intersections is to understand which segments and intersections provide connections to high levels of (or many) everyday destinations and to what extent people can walk or bike to those destinations. Connectivity scores for each segment and intersection can be further contextualized through their respective LTS scores to provide this additional layer of information.

Ideally, roadways that have high levels of connectivity would be comfortable to walk or bike on or have a comfortable parallel route and crossing when riders or walkers have to approach high stress facilities.

This combination of high connectivity and high comfort (LTS 1 or 2) results in walking and cycling as a viable and attractive travel option.

High LTS (or uncomfortable walking and cycling conditions) was defined as an LTS score greater than 2, and low LTS (comfortable walking and cycling conditions) was defined as less than or equal to 2.

High connectivity was defined as a connectivity score above average (3), and low connectivity as a score below average.

Segments and intersections were sorted into one of four categories:
• High Connectivity and High LTS: Roadway segments and intersections where there are many destinations near, but the route is uncomfortable.
• High Connectivity and Low LTS: Roadway segments and intersections where there are many destinations near, and the route is comfortable.
• Low Connectivity and High LTS: Roadways where there are few destinations near the segment and intersection, and the route is uncomfortable.
• Low Connectivity and Low LTS: Roadways where there are few destinations near the segment and intersection, but the route is comfortable.

In general, improving the LTS in the high connectivity/high LTS category would likely result in the greatest shift from driving to walking and cycling.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

180

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 16
Next Steps
The purpose of this analysis is to identify locations in the City where bicycle and pedestrian facilities or network enhancements can provide the greatest connectivity to everyday destinations. The analysis highlights segments and intersections with high connectivity to destinations and identifies if there is a low stress network available to access these areas.

As part of the next steps, the Project Team will be evaluating the connectivity analysis with existing network data to understand gaps and opportunities in the current network. The primary intent will be to understand if areas with high connectivity are accessible via a low stress network, either along the high connectivity segment or via a low stress parallel street. This will be a critical input to network development to be completed as part of Task 6.

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

181

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix D.

Bicycle Facility
Prioritization Results

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

182

Corridor Begin End Type of Facility Existing Facility Project Type Fatal or Injury
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Collision
Bicycle Pedestrian
Collision
Level of Traffic
Stress
Connectivity
Priority
Intersections
Major Roads
Connections
Right-of-
Way
Estimated
Costs
Total Score
Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Edgewater Blvd /
Mariners Island Blvd
City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 Shell Blvd
Metro Center
Blvd
Bounty Dr Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility Class II Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 Vintage Park Dr
Metro Center
Blvd
Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Polaris Ave
Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 E 3rd Ave City Limits Levee/Bay Trail Class IV N/A New Facility 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Class III N/A Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Beach Park Blvd /
Foster City
Elementary
Virgo Ln Polaris Ave Class IV N/A New Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

6.1 Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

183

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Foster City will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Monday, August 3, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. to hear and consider public input on the following:HEAR AND CONSIDER COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSTER CITY DRAFT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (BPMP).The draft BPMP is a citywide effort to lay out the future of bicycling, walking, and rolling in Foster City. The draft BPMP consolidates the work completed throughout a 16-month planning process and is now ready for public review and feedback on the draft plan as a whole. This public hearing is being held in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21080.20, which states that CEQA does not apply to an active transportation plan, a pedestrian plan, or a bicycle transportation plan for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. Before determining that a project is exempt pursuant to section 21080.20, the lead agency must hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by the project to hear and respond to public comments. The draft BPMP can be reviewed on the project website at: https://fp.mysocialpinpoint.com/foster-city-bicycle-and-pedestrian-master-plan.SAID PUBLIC HEARING will be held as a hybrid meeting in-person and by teleconference/video conference, subject to appropriate regulations. The meeting address is 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. Final meeting location(s) and teleconference/video conference information will be listed on the agenda which will be published not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.The public may participate by submitting comments via email to [email protected] by providing live verbal public comment by joining the meeting via teleconference and/or video conference, or in person. Instructions on how to join the meeting are included in the top portion of the agenda posted at: www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes.THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND.__________________________Priscilla SchausCity Clerk/District SecretaryDated: July 9, 2026Posted/Published: July 22, 2026

6.1 Attachment 2 - Public Hearing Notice

184

Prepared Date 07/16/2026 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register

Page 1 ends

Foster City City CouncilAugust 3, 2026

Foster City City Council
August 3, 2026