Foster City City Council
September 21, 2026

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 33

CASE STUDIES OF FOOD HALL CONCEPTS
Kosmont researched examples of high-end food halls / public markets in urban locations to understand retail trends that can inform the Analysis.

Key Takeaways: Curate with authentic and interesting food offerings, center around community gathering spaces and outdoor areas, support with entertainment and event options.

Packing House – 440-454 S Anaheim Blvd, Anaheim, CA
 Restored historic packing house converted to a food hall featuring communal dining, outdoor picnic gardens, stages for live music
 43,000 SF built in 1919, renovated in 2014
Rodeo 39 – 12885 Beach Blvd, Stanton, CA
 Experiential retail / blended use multifamily housing project built on blighted 24- acre shopping center site in 2019/20; curated market centered around cultural dining, live music, games, and gathering spaces
 41,000 SF Rodeo 39 Public Market; includes variety of specialty food and retail offerings serving mainly Asian demographic trade area
 Land Area: portion of larger shopping center on 10 acres Rodeo 72 – 7012 Walnut Grove Dr, Whittier, CA
 Restored building into new Public Market / Food hall
 21,666 SF, Built 2024/25
 Land Area: 1.59 AC
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 34 CASE STUDY – STATE STREET MARKET (LOS ALTOS)
 Originally a 20,000 SF 1950’s grocery store at 160 State Street in downtown Los Altos, it was converted to a mixed-use office/retail building and in 2021 it was reimagined as the Peninsula’s first food hall
 State Street Market currently hosts 9 eateries with a range of options from ramen to ice cream
 This retail concept is now a local destination hosting sporting watch parties and family-friendly events
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 35 CASE STUDY – CASTRO VALLEY MARKETPLACE
 The Marketplace is a 39,000 SF former Daughtrey's department store that closed in 1991. After struggling with interim uses, it was converted into a community gathering place thanks to efforts by Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council.
 It opened in 2021 and today is a mixed-use center with a natural foods grocery, and a dozen independently operated businesses ranging from craft stores to small eateries.
 Along with retail and restaurants, the marketplace contains gathering spaces to host holiday markets, music and arts/crafts workshops.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 36 Rodeo 39 is an example of an experiential retail blended use project that serves as an entertaining destination for the community.

The overall site was previously a blighted 24-acre Village Center on a major highway that had significant vacancy issues. Developer right-sized the site’s retail component to 10 acres, aiming to re-activate a “town square” environment with public spaces anchored by the 41,000 SF Rodeo 39 public market.

Food was the foundation of the public market. Rodeo 39 has been considered a great success, with the local community embracing the eclectic and engaging destination. The project also aimed to add a variety of engaging, entertaining, and experiential offerings, including a small stage for live music performances, retro arcade / games, boutique tattoo artists, pop-up shops, and a variety of communal seating areas.

CASE STUDY – RODEO 39 (STANTON) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 37

CASE STUDIES OF CONTAINER VILLAGE PROJECTS
Steelcraft
Bellflower, CA
Outdoor food court and communal dining area
made from 14 repurposed shipping containers
on 0.35-acre site, built in 2019. Features
15,000 SF of dining, drinking, and social space;
curated independent businesses. Privately
developed on city-owned lot.

Shipping Container Shops
Sparta, MI
Four refurbished containers installed in town
square around communal seating in rural town.

Managed by the village’s Downtown
Development Authority. Opened in 2020 as a
temporary installation to build momentum
downtown; phased-out in 2023 to make way
for more permanent redevelopments.

BeltLine Marketplace
Atlanta, GA
Shipping containers used to house six small
storefronts along Atlanta’s BeltLine trail that
launched in 2022. The project was a
collaboration between private developers and
philanthropic grant. Providing affordable spaces
for small businesses, with business support
services.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 38

5. OPPORTUNITY SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 39

OPPORTUNITY SITES
Based on City Council/Stakeholder input, Kosmont evaluated the following properties for development / redevelopment / revitalization potential:

1. Vacant parcel - SWC Metro Center and Shell Blvds.

2. 1010 Metro Center (OSH)

3. 1065 Hillsdale Century Plaza

4. Vintage Park (former El Torito)

5. Mariners Point Golf Center

6. State Lands

7. Edgewater Place

8. Sea Cloud II

9. Beach Park

10. 700 Lincoln Center
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 40 OPPORTUNITY SITE 1
– VACANT PARCEL

SWC METRO CENTER

AND SHELL BLVDS
SITE
Address (APN): N/A (094-522-350)
Lot Size: 1.36 AC (59,242 SF)
General Plan Land Use: Town Center
Commercial
Zoning: C-2 (General Business District) /
PD (Planned Development Combining
District)
Owner: MPQ Foster City Metro Center
LLC (Min H. Qiu, single owner)
2025-26 Assessed Value
Land: $8,124,100
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 41 OPPORTUNITY SITE #1 FINDINGS
 The vacant parcel at SWC of Shell and Metro Center Blvds. was identified as an opportunity site because it is a C-2 P/D zoned parcel that is located amidst retail, office, hotel and residential uses on Metro Center Blvd, a major east-west road that has ingress and egress from Hwy 92 and is adjacent to the Visa office building, across from Costco.  In 2021, the owner obtained City approval for a hotel, but as a result of the pandemic, they were unable to get a financing commitment as hotel occupancy and room rates had not recovered and the entitlement has expired. Hospitality demand has declined throughout the peninsula, challenging any near-term development opportunities.

Recommendations
 Given the need for housing outlined in the Housing Element, and the adjacent residential developments ranging from Cityhomes townhouses at 15 units per acre to Metro Senior Apartments at 60 units per acre, Kosmont believes the highest and best nearterm use for this site is likely a high-density residential project, with some limited ground floor commercial use due to the substantial cost of acquisition.
 The site could be used as an interim food truck park or Container Village.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 42 OPPORTUNITY SITE 2
– FMR. ORCHARD

SUPPLY HARDWARE
Address (APN): 1010 Metro Center Blvd.
(094-281-010)
Lot Size: 6.34 AC
Bldg. Size: 58,990 SF
General Plan Land Use: Town Center
Commercial
Zoning: C-2 (General Business District) /
PD (Planned Development District)
Owner: 1010 Metro LLC (Transpacific
Development Southwest)
2025-26 Assessed Value
Total AV: $17,035,000
SITE
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 43 OPPORTUNITY SITE #2 FINDINGS
 The 1010 Metro Center Blvd. property was identified as an opportunity site because it is a commercially zoned 6.34-acre parcel with a 59,000 SF retail building (formerly Orchard Supply Hardware) that was closed in 2019.  The property was under a long-term lease with Lowe’s Corp. and therefore remained vacant as no sublease tenant could be found to pay an equivalent rent. The building is currently vacant; however, a Farmers’ Market operates every Saturday from 9 am to 1 pm in the parking lot.
 The site is 6.34 acres with frontage on both Metro Center Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard. Approximately 2 acres of the parcel is underneath PG&E high voltage electric power lines running along the west side of Foster City Blvd. This will limit development to about 4-acres.
 The site is part of Housing Element sites inventory.
 Resolution No. 2022-138 adopted an amendment to the Town Center Commercial General Plan designation that allows FAR from .55 to 2.0.
 Ordinance 665 amended the General Development Plan for Metro Center, including 1010 Metro Center Blvd. and allows up to 222 housing units on the site.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 44 OPPORTUNITY SITE #2 RECOMMENDATIONS
 The site is one of the best located sites in the City with direct freeway access, as well as convenient access to services, transit, parks and civic amenities. Development of the site will not impact existing residential neighborhoods.  The main entrance on Metro Center Boulevard is opposite the SR 92 eastbound on- and off-ramps. The site is bordered by the four-story Century Plaza office building and the one-story KinderCare building at 1006 Metro Center Boulevard. Also near the rear of the property is the eight-story Parkside Towers building.  Although the property has an existing building and improvements on the site, there is no current lease that would impede redevelopment. It is very likely that the site will be redeveloped with a mix of commercial and residential uses.  Kosmont believes the property is a prime commercial development site due to its location at the intersection of Foster City Blvd., Metro Center Blvd. and the Hwy 92 on/off ramp. It could accommodate 20,000-SF food hall and close to 200 residential units or 100% retail uses.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 45 Address (APN): 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd.
(094-524-180)
Lot Size: 5.13 AC (223,463 SF)
Bldg. Size: 115,436 SF
General Plan Land Use: Town Center
Commercial
Zoning: C-2 (General Business District) /
PD (Planned Development Combining
District)
Owner: DWF IV Century Plaza LLC
(Divco West Services, LLC)
2025-26 Assessed Value
Land: $23,436,083
Improvements: $24,103,000
Total AV: $47,759,000
OPPORTUNITY SITE 3

CENTURY PLAZA
OFFICE
SITE
Opp. Site #2 –
Fmr. Orchard
Supply Hardware
Foster City
City Hall
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 46 OPPORTUNITY SITE #3 FINDINGS
 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd. was identified as an opportunity site because it is a 5.13 acre parcel with an existing 4-story office building zoned C-2/PD with a current high vacancy rate of 90%.  In 2022, the owner requested approval of conversion of up to 75% of the existing office building to Research & Development (R&D) (approximately 87,000 square feet of the 115,436 square foot office building). Subsequently, the applicant also requested approval for an approximately 5,200 square-foot, stand-alone outdoor pavilion structure. However, the approved
developments were never implemented.
www.fostercity.org/420/1065-E-Hillsdale-Blvd-RestaurantRetail-P Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 47 OPPORTUNITY SITE #3 RECOMMENDATIONS
 The General Plan Land Use Category for the Site, Town Center Commercial. It reads “the Town Center area is intended to serve as Foster City’s downtown core and allows for a mix of uses, including residential, commercial office, retail, service and compatible research and development (R&D).”
 Kosmont envisions the broader area, including the new Community Center, Leo J Ryan, Foster Square, Civic Center, Century Plaza, Parkside Towers and Metro Center- as an “Integrated Downtown Village” as laid out in the General Plan.  The vision for the “Downtown Village” is to strengthen connections among civic, recreational, residential, commercial and community destinations.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 48 OPPORTUNITY SITE #3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Adaptive reuse of the office building into residential
 The conversion of existing office buildings to residential or mixed-use development has emerged as an important adaptive reuse strategy in areas experiencing office market vacancies and housing demand due to the region’s housing shortage. Many architectural firms specialize in converting office into residential.
 The site is well positioned for adaptive reuse.
 It will support the City’s efforts to advance its RHNA goals.  Adaptive reuse could accommodate a ground-floor childcare facility to help address regional need; San Mateo County currently meets only about 73% of estimated demand for licensed childcare, leaving nearly 9,000 children without space (source: www.smcgov.org)
Example: 100 Van Ness in San Francisco– Office converted into 418 units Source: www.scb.com/project/100-van-ness/
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 49 Address (APN): 388 Vintage Park Dr.
(094-901-270)
Lot Size: 2.20 AC (95,832 SF)
General Plan Land Use: Research/Office
Park
Zoning: C-M (Commercial Mix District) /
PD (Planned Development District)
Owner: W-SW 388 Owner IX LP
(Helios Real Estate Partners)
2025-26 Assessed Value
Total AV: $14,220,993
OPPORTUNITY SITE 4
– 388 VINTAGE PARK
DR.

Vintage Park Dr.

Chess Dr.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 50 OPPORTUNITY SITE #4 FINDINGS
 388 Vintage Park was identified as an opportunity site. It is a 2.2-acre site of a former El Torito. Ordinance 652 in 2022 approved the rezoning of the site from restaurant to R&D use (C-M/PD zoning). Owner has been unsuccessful in finding an R&D tenant and the project remains unbuilt.
 The site is well located amidst a major concentration of retail (Bridgepointe, Home Depot, etc.), two (2) hotels, and employment uses with easy access from residential area along the Vintage Park Drive entrance to Gilead campus, within walking distance for several thousand employees.
 Kosmont believes this site is well suited for a 20,000 – 30,000 SF food hall/entertainment concept similar to those mentioned earlier. The City will need another rezoning to revert this to some form of retail uses.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 51 Address (APN): N/A (094-130-010)
Lot Size: 82.2 AC
General Plan Land Use: Research/Office
Park
Zoning: C-M (Commercial Mix District) /
PD (Planned Development District)
Owner: Estero Municipal Improvement
District
Lessee: V.B. Golf, LLC
2025-26 Assessed Value (EXEMPT)
Total AV: $0
OPPORTUNITY SITE 5
– MARINERS POINT
E. 3rd Ave.

Island Blvd.Mariners
E. 3rd Ave.

SITE
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 52 OPPORTUNITY SITE #5 FINDINGS
 Mariners Point Golf Center was identified by many as an opportunity site given the sizeable acreage and bay frontage.  The property is owned by EMID and the current lease to V.B. Golf LLC was just extended through Dec. 2031. The base rent is $450,000 plus percentage rents yielding ~$850,000 annually, plus a 6% capital improvement reserve. Kosmont believes that the City receives an excellent return on investment for asset, but there are additional opportunities.  The driving range has two levels offering food and beverage service opportunities similar to Topgolf. The range was recently expanded and is heavily utilized.
 Kosmont interviewed the manager who said the current facility is limited to serving groups of about 40 people and could benefit from additional event space and better bay views, though wind conditions present challenges for outdoor dining. The conversation also covered parking limitations with the course currently having about 210 stalls after recent additions, and the diverse customer base that includes local residents and visitors from throughout the Bay Area, particularly for night golf operations (only golf course on peninsula with lights).
 Ironwoods Bar & Grill on the Presidio Golf Course is an example of food and beverage facility that could be done.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 53 OPPORTUNITY SITE #5 RECOMMENDATIONS
 Key Opportunity / Recommendation: Kosmont recommends upgrading the golf course and driving range facility to add commercial food service uses taking advantage of the Bay view. In order to accommodate the extra parking needed, there was a discussion focused on a state-owned parcel between the main and auxiliary driveways that could potentially be developed without wetlands concerns, though it would require trading with the State.  Expansion Potential: Discussed potential expansion opportunities at the property, including adding more parking and building a new clubhouse with a deck overlooking the Bay to accommodate larger functions beyond the current 40-person capacity limit.  Operator Limitations: Lessee indicated they could fund construction of new facilities but would need to bring in a professional operator for a restaurant or event space, as they lack expertise in food service operations.  Regulatory Requirements: Commercial development would require bringing in a professional operator through an RFP process.
 Professional Services Need: May want to hire an architect to design potential commercial concepts.  Parking: Work with State to obtain lease/easement to allow public parking on the state-owned land to the east of the Mariners Island Blvd. entranceway. Alternatively, the northern extension of Lakeside Drive across 3rd Ave provides parking opportunity near the driving range fence.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 54 Address (APN): N/A
(094-130-060, -070, -080, -100)
Total Lot Size: 36.7AC , broken into
three areas by internal driveways
accessing the golf course
General Plan Land Use: Research/Office
Park
Zoning: C-M (Commercial Mix District) /
PD (Planned Development District)
Owner: City of Foster City (-070); State
Dept. of Transportation (-060); State of
CA Lands Commission (-080 and -100)
2025-26 Assessed Value (EXEMPT)
Total AV: $0
OPPORTUNITY SITE 6
– STATE LANDS
SITE
E. 3rd Ave.

Island Blvd.Mariners
E. 3rd Ave.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 55 OPPORTUNITY SITE #6 FINDINGS
 The State of California land was identified as an opportunity site because it is a +36-acre vacant site fronting on 3 rd Avenue and providing three access roads to the Mariners Point Golf Center.  The site is zoned C-M/PD with General Plan designation for Research Office Park.  State has shown no interest in commercial development but given it has allowed 3rd Ave. vehicle access and parking on three different roadways, requesting an easement for public parking on a small portion of the site seems possible.
 Caltrans indicated that they were holding the vacant property for mitigation during City discussions regarding Housing Element. Perhaps the City could find an alternative site that could be swapped with Caltrans.  Caltrans has a long history of transferring, relinquishing, or selling land to cities when the property is no longer needed for state highway purposes. These actions often support redevelopment, housing, civic centers, and transportation improvements.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 56 Address 901-999 Edgewater Blvd.

APN (094-541-070)
Lot Size: 8.24 AC (358,900 SF)
Bldg. Size: 111,809 SF
General Plan Land Use: Neighborhood
Commercial
Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Business
District) / PD (Planned Development)
Owner: Edgewater Holding Corp.
2025-26 Assessed Value
Land: $8,559,000
Improvements: $12,557,000
Total AV: $21,117,000
OPPORTUNITY SITE 7
– EDGEWATER PLACE

SHOPPING CENTER
SITE
Note: Parcels have recently been merged.

It is just one parcel now (094-541-070)
Edgewater Blvd.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 57 OPPORTUNITY SITE #7 FINDINGS
 Edgewater Place was identified by Council as an opportunity site due to significant ~8.2-acre size and substantial vacant space with waterfront location zoned C-1/PD. This is the largest retail shopping center in the City, but it contains low-sales-tax generating uses due to grocery store and many personal service businesses.  Kosmont interviewed management/leasing representatives to understand opportunities and challenges.  The property is located at the intersection of Beach Park Blvd. and Edgewater Blvd, a street with access to several housing units south of the center, but no through traffic outside the City limits, presenting challenges to attracting significant commercial tenants.
 As part of the outreach, Kosmont interviewed the property manager and real estate broker. Representatives discussed plans for a children's activity space that would include gymnastics and fall games aimed at keeping kids active rather than screen-dependent.

The Osaka store, which opened in December, is reported to be performing well on weekends. Proposals have been received for two dining spaces along the docks, one 3,700 SF and one 4,000 SF, with discussions ongoing with potential restaurant tenants.

They mentioned that Sana Cafe, a Yemeni coffee concept and Woodside Deli, a 50-year-old business, have signed leases and are under construction or obtaining permits.
 Management confirmed that residential development was previously considered but rejected by the City a decade ago. However, the ownership remains interested in mixed-use development opportunities. Discussed challenges with neighborhood opposition to late-night activities and lighting at the center. (e.g., opposition to a proposed 24-foot monument sign to identify tenants).

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 58 OPPORTUNITY SITE #7 RECOMMENDATIONS
 Kosmont believes there are several opportunities to be examined for Edgewater Place Shopping Center.  The Center requires substantial landscape, hardscape, open space and building facade improvements to create an appealing / walkable ambience.
 The Center’s size may be too large to stay 100% commercial.  Given its size, breadth of uses and waterfront location (with two private boat docks), the Center could be a “downtown village” for Foster City residents. Kosmont has identified Edgewater Place as a downtown village as part of downtown core feasibility.  To improve economic feasibility, the City could evaluate the potential for a modest amount of medium-density housing along the southern portion of the site.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 59 Address (APN): 100 Sea Cloud Dr.
(097-080-050)
Total Lot Size: 45.9 AC (2.0M SF);
Undeveloped Site Opportunity: ~22.4 AC
(~975,700 SF)
General Plan Land Use: Parks and
Recreation
Zoning: OSC (Open Space and
Conservation District)
Owner: City of Foster City
2025-26 Assessed Value (EXEMPT)
Land: $0
Improvements: $0
Total AV: $0
OPPORTUNITY SITE 8
– SEA CLOUD II
SITE
Sea Cloud
Park
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 60 OPPORTUNITY SITE #8 FINDINGS
 Sea Cloud II was identified as a potential opportunity site as it is a 22.4 acres vacant parcel on the east edge of Sea Cloud Park, a 23-acre park that is home to youth baseball and soccer fields and play apparatus. It is zoned Open Space and Conservation.  Once ecologically rich marshland, the site was filled with dredged material from the Foster City Lagoon and today includes areas of seasonal wetland supporting a mix of native and invasive vegetation, with protected bird species observed nesting. Despite its scenic value, the area is currently fenced off and inaccessible to the public. The site presents an opportunity to expand parkland, create new nature-based recreational experiences, and enhance wildlife habitat. Due to the potential presence of wetland and sensitive habitat areas, further study is needed to assess the site’s ecological constraints and recreational potential, as well as its suitability for future dredge disposal from the Foster City Lagoon, which is scheduled for upcoming maintenance.  The site is in a remote location with no apparent automobile access, surrounded by the Lagoon and Sea Cloud Park making commercial use problematic.
 The recently adopted Foster City Parks and Open Space Element, includes this for the site: “with further study, community visioning, and targeted improvements, it has the potential to become a valuable ecological resource and a recreation asset.” Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 61 OPPORTUNITY SITE #8 RECOMMENDATIONS
 Given the need for more sports and recreation facilities in the City, Kosmont believes the site could be utilized for more sports fields including tennis and pickleball courts and perhaps a public swimming pool, freeing up land adjacent to the community center.
 Environmental assessment/remediation may be needed to permit active sports and assess the site’s ecological constraints and recreational potential, as well as its suitability for future dredge disposal from the Foster City Lagoon, which is scheduled for upcoming maintenance.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 62 Address (APN): 1601 Beach Park Blvd.
(094-211-550)
Lot Size: 1.31 AC (57,064 SF)
Bldg. Size: 6,572 SF
General Plan Land Use: Two Family
Residential
Zoning: R-2 (Two Family Residence
District) / PD (Planned Development
Combining District)
Owner: 1601 Beach Park LLC
(G. H. Dababo [agent])
2025-26 Assessed Value
Land: $960,605
Improvements: $960,605
Total AV: $1,921,210
OPPORTUNITY SITE 9
– 1601 BEACH PARK
BLVD.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 63 OPPORTUNITY SITE #9 FINDINGS
 1601 Beach Park Blvd. was identified as an opportunity site because it is a 1.3-acre former church site with R-2/PD two-family residential (duplex) zoning that allows 10 units per acre. Owner tried to obtain approval for ~30-unit townhome project several years ago, but City reportedly would not allow more than 16 housing units.  The site is located amidst single family housing, but with frontage on the SF Bay Trail  Beach Park Plaza shopping center is located nearby and is 100% occupied with a concentration of retail / restaurant and service businesses.
 Given the Housing Element designation as a housing site, Kosmont believes there is limited market opportunity for mixed-use with 5,000 SF of neighborhood commercial and up to 20 3-story townhomes.  Townhome development is the most appropriate use as it helps the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) by adding moderate-density housing in infill areas.  Townhomes represent a more attainable homeownership option compared with single-family homes.  Townhomes increase housing supply without high-rise development, maintaining neighborhood character.  Townhome densities typically range from 14–20 dwelling units per acre, aligning well with the physical characteristics and size of the site.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 64 Address (APN): 700 Lincoln Centre Dr.
(094-532-420)
Lot Size: 5.34 AC (232,610 SF)
General Plan Land Use: Research/Office
Park
Zoning: C-M (Commercial Mix District) /
PD (Planned Development District)
Owner: BMR Lincoln Centre II LP
(BioMed Realty)
2025-26 Assessed Value
Land: $37,147,000
Improvements: $12,180,000
Total AV: $49,327,000
OPPORTUNITY SITE 10
– 700 LINCOLN
CENTRE DR.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 65 OPPORTUNITY SITE #10 FINDINGS
 The vacant Lincoln Center parcel was identified by the City Council as potential commercial opportunity site due to the large vacant land area with necessary infrastructure located within a commercial district.  Kosmont observed that the vacant parcel has poor visibility and no direct access from a major thoroughfare (e.g., 3rd Ave.).  Kosmont interviewed the property owner BioMed Realty and found that they have invested substantial dollars to design and entitle a new mid-rise R&D research building to complete the campus. BioMed sees strong demand for additional R&D tenancy.  Given the massive investment ownership has in this R&D campus, Kosmont does not believe the City should consider retail/entertainment uses on the site.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 66

OTHER OPPORTUNITY SITES
Based on stakeholder and community input, Kosmont evaluated three (3) additional opportunity sites:
 Triton Plaza is a recent high-density residential-over-commercial project with minimal small-scale retail space currently occupied.

Due to lack of through traffic and an anchor tenant, the City should work with property owner to identify alternative uses (e.g., live/work) for the vacant ground floor commercial space.  Metro Center is Safeway-anchored neighborhood center with several large office buildings and a large surface parking lot fronting Leo J. Ryan Park and the Lagoon. Unfortunately, the site has multiple leaseholders, including Safeway and CVS, as well as reciprocal easements that make redevelopment very difficult.  There are several large, low-density apartment projects along the Lagoon that are over 50 years old. Given the importance of utilization of the waterfront, the new Community Center and the significant value of residential development in Foster City, several major stakeholders suggested that redevelopment of these facilities as medium-density mixed-use residential and commercial projects that could serve as a catalyst for a “downtown core”. For example, the Housing Element identifies the Harbor Cove Apts as a potential site with a maximum density of 35 units per acre compared with its existing density of 26 units per acre. If the City were to consider a higher density of approximately 60 units per acre along the waterfront, it could potentially also accommodate commercial uses.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 67

CONSIDERATION FOR OPPORTUNITY SITES
Some of the Opportunity Sites are privately owned and their inclusion in the Analysis does not indicate a proposed City action or development project. For certain sites, Kosmont also identified potential interim uses that could activate the properties in advance of longer-term development or redevelopment.

City staff could potentially engage with property owners to better understand their long-term plans and interest in development or redevelopment. If a zoning action is required, City staff could utilize the provisions of Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 17.72 Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures, for preliminary screening of a proposed development or redevelopment project.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 68

DISCLAIMER
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 69

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2026
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 70

DATA APPENDIX
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 71 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS A. POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 72 WHY POPULATION AND PSYCHOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS?
 Demographics + psychographics = True demand profile
 Tenant mix optimization
➢ Local spending habits
➢ Cultural preferences
 Time-of-day demand (daytime populations vs evening residents) ➢ Daytime population – prioritize quick-service, café’s ➢ Diverse population – include ethnic and specialty food tenants Kosmont utilized ESRI and other sources to prepare a population and psychographic analysis including population, household incomes, ethnicity, housing preferences, educational attainment, employment by industry
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 73

POPULATION & INCOME
2025 Foster City
City
Belmont
City
Redwood City
City
San Mateo
City
Population 34,689 28,726 87,248 108,966
Daytime Population 44,071 (+27%) 24,667 (-14%) 94,448 (+8%) 117,675 (+8%) Households 13,021 10,710 31,102 41,251
Average HH Size 2.64 2.61 2.73 2.61
Median Age 40.8 41.5 38.3 39.6
% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 76.8% 71.6% 57.6% 59.9%
% Asian/Pacific Islander Origin 57.7% 33.2% 18.8%* 31.0%** Per Capita Income $95,043 $103,577 $85,400 $83,999
Median HH Income $199,174 $209,661 $161,130 $158,885
Average HH Income $253,137 $277,335 $239,414 $221,780
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026) Notes: *35.8% of residents in Redwood City report being some other race or two or more races. Hispanic origin in Redwood City is 36.3%. **28.1% of residents in San Mateo report being some other race or two or more races. Hispanic origin in San Mateo is 25.9%. Comparatively, Foster City and Belmont have populations with low Hispanic origin and sizable Asian/Pacific Islander origins.

Foster City is job rich compared to neighboring cities.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 74

POPULATION & INCOME
2025 Foster City
City
San Mateo
County
California
State
Population 34,689 785,591 39,563,914
Daytime Population 44,071 802,630 39,400,957
Households 13,021 272,778 13,785,669
Average HH Size 2.64 2.85 2.80
Median Age 40.8 40.8 38.4
% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 76.8% 56.0% 39.2%
% Asian/Pacific Islander Origin 57.7% 33.7% 16.8%
Per Capita Income $95,043 $82,647 $50,026
Median HH Income $199,174 $162,855 $101,136
Average HH Income $253,137 $237,890 $143,246
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026) Foster City has higher education levels and
household incomes compared to County and State.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 75

ASIAN POPULATION
2024 Foster City
City % of Total Population % of Total Asian Pop.

Total Population* 32,792 100.0% -
Total Asian Population 17,838 54.4% 100.0%
Chinese 7,982 24.3% 44.7%
Indian 4,694 14.3% 26.3%
Filipino 1,440 4.4% 8.1%
Japanese 1,312 4.0% 7.4%
Korean 630 1.9% 3.5%
Taiwanese 514 1.6% 2.9%
Source: 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates (Accessed February 2026) Notes: *Number is from 2024 ACS, not ESRI estimates (for consistency).

A majority of Foster City’s
population is of Asian descent.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 76 5%
6%
7%
10%
12%
18%
15%
11%
8%
6%
2%
5%
6% 6%
11%
14%
15%
13%
12%
10%
6%
2%
5%
6% 6%
13%
15%
14%
12% 12%
10%
5%
2%
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Foster City San Mateo County California Median Age
Foster City 40.8
San Mateo County 40.8
California 38.4
POPULATION BY AGE - 2025
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026) Foster City and San Mateo County
have similar age distributions.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 77 POPULATION BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - 2025
3%
6%
14%
36%
41%
8%
15%
21%
31%
25%
14%
21%
26% 25%
15%
No high school diploma High school graduate or
equivalent
Some college or
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree Graduate or prof. degree
Foster City San Mateo County California
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026); Notes: Population observed includes people aged 25 and older. % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Foster City 77%
San Mateo County 56%
California 39%
Foster City has significantly higher
levels of educational attainment
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 78 4% 2% 2% 4% 6% 6%
13% 14%
50%
5% 3% 3%
6%
8% 8%
15% 13%
41%
7%
5% 5%
8%
13% 12%
18%
12%
21%
<$15K $15-$25K $25-$35K $35-$50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K $150-$200K $200K+ Foster City San Mateo County California
HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME - 2025
HH Income Median Average
Foster City $199,174 $253,137
San Mateo County $162,855 $237,890
California $101,136 $143,246
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026) 50% of Foster City households
earn > $200K annually.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 79

ARCGIS TAPESTRY DEMOGRAPHICS
Kosmont utilized ArcGIS Tapestry (advanced demographic dataset) that groups residential areas into 60 different segments based on shared demographic characteristics. The predominant segments are described on following slide.

Kosmont examined data for Foster City, San Mateo and Redwood City:
 Foster City population is ~57% Asian descent compared to ~30% in San Mateo and ~20% in Redwood City  Foster City comprises three predominant segments – “Top Tier” (50%), “Urban Chic” (25%) and “Laptops & Lattes” (20%)
 San Mateo and Redwood City have similar segments plus a high concentration of “Uptown Lights” with each segment representing approximately 20% of their populations Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 80

ARCGIS TAPESTRY SEGMENTS
Top Tier segment is typically high net worth older married couples with advanced professional degrees, many of whom work from home. They shop at upscale/exclusive retailers and fine dining restaurants. They are politically active and contribute to many charitable organizations.

Urban Chic is typically younger married couples with children at home. They are highly educated and work in technology, education and health care. Above average income and net worth, but 50% live in multi-family condos, townhomes, etc. They frequent health clubs and shop at organic food stores.

Laptops & Lattes are typically unmarried young professionals (e.g. Millennials) who live in rental units and shop online extensively. They travel frequently, buy hardback books, buy tech gadgets, seek entertainment options and enjoy fine dining and fashion.

Uptown Lights are tech-savvy younger couples (Gen Z and Gen X) with almost 50% having college degrees. They work primarily as service professionals and earn median incomes, and live in multi-family housing. They dine out frequently and order meals for home delivery.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 81 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

HOUSING DATA
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 82 Source: Zillow.com (Accessed February 2026)

HOME VALUE HISTORY
$1.80M
$755K
$1.53M
$2M
$2M
Foster City home values exceed
County and State averages
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 83

CITY CENSUS TRACTS
Foster City is comprised of 9 U.S. census tracts:
 6081
 6082
 6083
 6080.01
 6080.02
 6080.24
 6080.25
 6080.13
 6080.23
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 84

CITY HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile (Accessed March 2026)
2024 Total Housing Units Owner-Occupied Units Renter-Occupied Units Vacant Units Census Tracts
6080.01 1,514 561 882 71
6080.02 1,315 980 296 39
6080.13 1,493 774 652 67
6080.23 830 798 95 32
6080.24 1,327 891 427 9
6080.25 2,965 386 2,337 242
6081 1,324 887 403 34
6082 1,437 747 642 48
6083 1,412 677 658 77
Foster City Total 13,617 6,701 6,392 619
The housing market has 4.5%
vacancy – indicating strong
demand.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 85

YEAR HOUSING UNITS BUILT
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile (Accessed January 2026)
2024 Total Occupied
Units 2020 or later 2000 to 2019 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1959 or earlier Census Tracts
6080.01 1,514 0 230 251 1007 26
6080.02 1,315 0 5 115 1,184 11
6080.13 1,493 0 36 905 425 127
6080.23 830 0 0 148 670 12
6080.24 1,327 0 111 394 797 25
6080.25 2,965 146 988 617 1025 189
6081 1,324 14 37 126 1107 40
6082 1,437 0 123 182 1076 56
6083 1,412 0 67 204 1125 16
Total 13,617 160 1,597 2,942 8,416 502
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 86

CITY NEW HOUSING SUPPLY BY AGE
160
1597
2942
8416
502
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2020 or later 2000 to 2019 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1959 or earlier Foster City
Foster City has added about
15% to its supply of housing
in past 25 years. However,
~70% of supply is more than
50 years old
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile (Accessed January 2026)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 87

CITY HOME OWNERSHIP VALUES
2024
Less than $199,000 $200,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $990,999 $1,000,000 to $1,999,999 $2,000,000 or more
Census Tracts
6080.01 16 0 145 190 210
6080.02 13 0 54 529 384
6080.13 30 0 84 317 343
6080.23 7 13 0 148 535
6080.24 19 0 164 416 292
6080.25 24 0 0 362 0
6081 26 40 126 379 316
6082 13 18 3 409 304
6083 42 0 21 115 499
City Total 190 71 597 2,865 2,883
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile (Accessed January 2026)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 88

CITY HOUSING MOVE-IN TIMEFRAME
Occupied housing
units
Moved in 2023 or
later
Moved in 2020 to
2022
Moved in 2010 to
2019
Moved in 2000 to
2009
Moved in 1990
to 1999
Moved in 1989
and earlier
Census
Tracts
6080.01 1,443 109 499 506 103 104 122
6080.02 1,276 68 185 452 209 126 236
6080.13 1,426 109 411 412 157 141 196
6080.23 798 28 115 184 134 98 239
6080.24 1,318 22 310 430 279 172 105
6080.25 2,723 385 1,214 886 188 14 36
6081 1,290 93 302 342 169 157 227
6082 1,389 43 278 503 277 62 226
6083 1,335 97 382 493 121 54 188
City Total 12,998 954 3,696 4,208 1,637 928 1,575
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile (Accessed January 2026)
Note: High moves in recent years due to
extensive multifamily residential development.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 89

EMPLOYMENT DATA
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 90

EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Resident Employed Population (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 20.0%
Information 12.1%
Health Care and Social Assistance 11.9%
Manufacturing 7.0%
Accommodation and Food Services 6.6%
Educational Services 6.3%
Retail Trade 5.9%
Finance and Insurance 5.2%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 4.8% Transportation and Warehousing 3.6%
Construction 3.2%
Wholesale Trade 3.0%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2.8%
Public Administration 2.1%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.7%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.4%
Utilities 0.4%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.4%
Workers Employed in Study Area (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 46.9%
Information 8.9%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 7.2% Accommodation and Food Services 6.8%
Health Care and Social Assistance 5.0%
Transportation and Warehousing 4.7%
Retail Trade 4.1%
Finance and Insurance 3.3%
Educational Services 3.2%
Construction 1.9%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.6%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.4%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 1.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.1%
Public Administration 1.0%
Wholesale Trade 0.9%
Manufacturing 0.7%
Utilities 0.0%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.0%
“Industries in which City residents work” “Jobs in the City” Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2023, Accessed February 2026) Notes: Categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sectors The professional, scientific, and tech services sector is the largest employment sector in the City and employs the most residents.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 91 Outflow:

Where Residents Commute To For Work
City Count Percentage
San Francisco city, CA 3,311 17.8%
San Mateo city, CA 1,585 8.5%
Foster City city, CA 1,531 8.2%
Redwood City city, CA 965 5.2%
San Jose city, CA 859 4.6%
South San Francisco city, CA 791 4.3%
Palo Alto city, CA 708 3.8%
Menlo Park city, CA 650 3.5%
Mountain View city, CA 579 3.1%
Sunnyvale city, CA 475 2.6%
Santa Clara city, CA 441 2.4%
Oakland city, CA 433 2.3%
Burlingame city, CA 432 2.3%
San Carlos city, CA 336 1.8%
Fremont city, CA 313 1.7%
Hayward city, CA 266 1.4%
Cupertino city, CA 238 1.3%
Pleasanton city, CA 229 1.2%
Los Angeles city, CA 178 1.0%
Belmont city, CA 150 0.8%
San Leandro city, CA 143 0.8%
San Bruno city, CA 134 0.7%
Stanford CDP, CA 127 0.7%
Daly City city, CA 108 0.6%
Los Gatos town, CA 97 0.5%
Unknown Locations 3,517 18.9%
Inflow:

Where Workers Come From
City Count Percentage
San Francisco city, CA 1,660 8.1%
Foster City city, CA 1,531 7.5%
San Mateo city, CA 1,521 7.4%
San Jose city, CA 1,281 6.3%
Fremont city, CA 738 3.6%
Redwood City city, CA 580 2.8%
Hayward city, CA 577 2.8%
Oakland city, CA 526 2.6%
Daly City city, CA 327 1.6%
Sunnyvale city, CA 322 1.6%
Mountain View city, CA 298 1.5%
Los Angeles city, CA 280 1.4%
San Carlos city, CA 279 1.4%
South San Francisco city, CA 270 1.3%
Dublin city, CA 267 1.3%
San Bruno city, CA 258 1.3%
Belmont city, CA 256 1.2%
San Ramon city, CA 249 1.2%
Union City city, CA 240 1.2%
Burlingame city, CA 238 1.2%
San Diego city, CA 230 1.1%
Castro Valley CDP, CA 220 1.1%
Santa Clara city, CA 199 1.0%
Pacifica city, CA 192 0.9%
Palo Alto city, CA 181 0.9%
Unknown Locations 7,774 37.9%
WORKER

DESTINATIONS &

ORIGINS

CITY OF FOSTER
CITY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2023, Accessed February 2026) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 92 Workers employed in City
but living outside
Workers living & employed
in City
Workers living in City but
employed outside
*Employment Ratio = People employed within City (living and working in City + those who come into City for work) / Employed population of City (living and working in City + workers who live in the City, but work outside of the City) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2023, Accessed February 2026)  Employees who work in the City are coming from San
Francisco, San Mateo, San Jose, Fremont, and Redwood City  Employed residents living in Foster City are traveling to San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City, San Jose, and South San Francisco for work

WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW
Reference Foster
City
San
Mateo
County
Workers Living and
Working 1,531 141,144
Workers Coming
(Inflow) 18,963 283,970
Workers Going
(Outflow) 17,065 230,971
Net Inflow/Outflow 1,898 52,999
Employment Ratio* 1.10 1.14
 Per the 2024-2025 ACFR, top 10
employers in Foster City include:
➢ Gilead Sciences, Inc. (6,865 employees)
➢ Visa Technology & Operations, LLC,
fmr. Inovant, LLC (2,785)
➢ Visa USA, Inc. (890)
➢ Zoox, Inc. (573)
➢ Cybersource Corporation (398)
➢ Peninsula Jewish Community Center
(390)
➢ Costco Wholesale (296)
➢ City of Foster City (274)
➢ Qualys, Inc. (272)
➢ Randstad Professionals US LLC (209)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 93 Foster City has far more jobs
than households –
“job-rich environment”

JOBS / HOUSING

BALANCE
2025 Foster City
City
San Mateo
County
California
State
Employment 23,642 370,463 15,869,208
Households 13,021 272,778 13,785,669
Jobs / Housing
Ratio 1.82 1.36 1.15
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2026) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 94 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS B. REAL ESTATE MARKET ASSESSMENT
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 95 WHY REAL ESTATE MARKET ASSESSMENT?
 Occupancy and Rent Trends show the health of the business community  Office and Industrial Employment – Drives daytime retail demand ➢ Professional jobs indicate more disposable income for convenience goods, quick-service food and full-service restaurants
 Hospitality – Drives overnight visitors and discretionary spending on full service restaurants
➢ Provides daytime meeting and event space
 Retail Tenancy Data - Explains commercial voids / financial feasibility for new tenants Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 96

BACKGROUND
Kosmont has conducted a market analysis utilizing Costar historic market data to help define the City and Bay Area current economic landscape, market trends, including supply and demand dynamics across office, retail, flex industrial, and hospitality sectors. Included are the following sub-tasks:
 Developed baseline inventory of existing properties in referenced sectors and key market indicators, such as vacancy rates, lease rates, and tenant mix
 Benchmarked economic performance of neighboring Bay Area cities  Utilized Placer.ai to analyze trade area annual dollar demand for retail goods and services Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 97 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

RETAIL SECTOR
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 98

RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
Q2 2026
City of
Foster City
Submarket
(3-Mi. Radius)
San Mateo
County
Availability
Market
Asking Rent
$PSF
$42.62 $39.77 $40.02
Vacancy Rate 16.6% 7.8% 4.4%
Vacant SF 100,261 413,835 1,377,016
Net
Absorption 1,125 53,720 94,176
Inventory
Existing SF 605,327 5,304,248 31,063,472
City Information
Major available retail space:
➢ 58,300 SF vacant and available at 1010
Metro Center Blvd. (fmr. Orchard
Supply Hardware). This freestanding
building is located across the street
from the Costco and has been vacant
for a few years.
➢ 21,997 SF vacant and available at
Edgewater Place shopping center
➢ Lucky’s store vacancy not reflected as
Osaka lease occurred within months
~233,300 SF of retail falls within a shopping
center (79% of which is in a neighborhood
center, while 21% are strip centers)
~197,500 SF of retail space is 40+ years
old.

Per CoStar, there is currently no retail
space that is planned, proposed, or under
construction in the City of Foster City
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Negative absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated retail space as opposed to renewing or expanding. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

Top: Former Orchard Supply Hardware
at 1010 Metro Center Blvd.

Above: Edgewater Place shopping center
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 99

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF
OSH closure accounts
for majority of vacancy.
$28.00
$32.00
$36.00
$40.00
$44.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
RETAIL MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 100

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 605,327 104,874 17.3% 6,697 $42.09
2024 605,327 111,571 18.4% 604 $41.24
2023 605,327 112,175 18.5% (15,123) $41.02
2022 616,827 108,552 17.6% (21,633) $39.07
2021 616,827 86,919 14.1% 14,580 $39.05
2020 616,827 101,499 16.5% (8,666) $39.14
2019 607,422 83,428 13.7% (106,807) $38.60
2018 640,835 10,034 1.6% 16,170 $37.78
2017 622,058 7,427 1.2% 20,949 $36.61
2016 610,397 16,715 2.7% (1,158) $35.66
2015 610,397 15,557 2.5% (12,152) $34.50
2014 618,582 11,590 1.9% (1,309) $32.94
2013 625,136 16,835 2.7% 6,581 $31.50
SUBMARKET (3-MI. RADIUS)
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 5,304,248 416,268 7.8% (9,041) $39.26
2024 5,304,248 407,227 7.7% (37,478) $38.56
2023 5,304,248 369,749 7.0% 17,772 $38.40
2022 5,315,748 399,021 7.5% 24,627 $38.01
2021 5,316,245 424,145 8.0% 177,293 $37.95
2020 5,174,884 460,077 8.9% (148,412) $38.01
2019 5,169,062 305,843 5.9% (57,492) $37.48
2018 5,087,264 166,553 3.3% (51,288) $36.73
2017 5,063,530 91,531 1.8% 21,848 $35.67
2016 5,061,882 111,731 2.2% (61,938) $34.81
2015 5,073,850 60,781 1.2% (192,597) $33.67
2014 5,280,264 74,598 1.4% 30,240 $32.14
2013 5,286,818 111,392 2.1% 59,198 $30.69
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

RETAIL MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 101 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

OFFICE SECTOR
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 102 Q2 2026
City of
Foster City
Submarket
(3-Mi. Radius)
San Mateo
County
Availability
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $63.25 $64.42 $64.04
Vacancy Rate 14.6% 21.1% 18.4%
Vacant SF 651,592 3,959,279 12,361,893
Net
Absorption (31,982) (353,336) 298,369
Inventory
Existing SF 4,453,707 18,729,807 67,108,833
City Information
Data in table on lower left is occupied as of the
end of June 2026. There has been substantial
leasing activity in past few months that will
reduce vacancy in near future.

Major available office space as of March 2026:
➢ 140,300 SF [41,823 is vacant] at Parkside
Towers (1001-1051 E. Hillsdale Blvd.)
➢ 117,800 SF [of which 53,000 is vacant,
remaining ~64,000 SF is available for
sublease] at 21-story Metro Tower (950
Tower Ln.)
➢ 108,000 SF vacant and available at Lincoln
Center (101 Lincoln Center Dr.), 18,000 SF
contiguous space
➢ 72,932 available [69,919 is vacant] at Metro
Center (includes two low rise, four-story
buildings (919 and 989 E. Hillsdale Blvd.)
~698,400 SF of existing office space (16% of
total office space) is 40+ years old.

Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation.

Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated space as opposed to renewing or expanding. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

Top: Parkside Towers
Middle: Metro Center Tower
Above: Lincoln Center
OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 103 Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
$42.00
$50.00
$58.00
$66.00
$74.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
OFFICE MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 104

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 4,453,707 649,686 14.6% (81,175) $60.86
2024 4,448,707 563,511 12.7% (152,257) $56.67
2023 4,448,707 411,254 9.2% (73,815) $57.99
2022 4,448,707 337,439 7.6% 53,854 $60.24
2021 4,448,707 391,293 8.8% (10,630) $60.86
2020 4,448,707 380,663 8.6% 52,675 $60.24
2019 4,498,372 483,003 10.7% (48,291) $64.47
2018 4,498,372 434,712 9.7% 460,004 $61.99
2017 4,006,420 402,764 10.1% 95,205 $57.18
2016 3,856,528 348,077 9.0% 65,104 $55.19
2015 3,856,528 413,181 10.7% 18,945 $51.03
2014 3,896,228 471,826 12.1% 146,423 $44.87
2013 3,896,228 618,249 15.9% (367,854) $40.64
SUBMARKET (3-MI. RADIUS)
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 18,729,807 3,648,840 19.5% (385,551) $62.40
2024 18,518,778 3,052,260 16.5% (325,017) $58.81
2023 18,485,512 2,693,977 14.6% (24,585) $59.73
2022 18,381,256 2,565,136 14.0% (104,985) $62.35
2021 18,245,293 2,324,188 12.7% (347,068) $63.30
2020 18,245,293 1,977,120 10.8% (480,176) $63.02
2019 18,475,564 1,727,215 9.3% 642,009 $67.63
2018 17,941,682 1,835,342 10.2% 374,797 $64.30
2017 17,445,214 1,713,671 9.8% 551,905 $59.06
2016 16,602,534 1,422,896 8.6% (150,908) $56.65
2015 16,584,534 1,253,988 7.6% 14,063 $52.36
2014 16,629,234 1,312,751 7.9% 357,221 $46.14
2013 16,651,794 1,692,532 10.2% 114,628 $41.77
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

OFFICE MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 105 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET (R&D)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 106 Q2 2026
City of
Foster City
Submarket
(3-Mi. Radius)
San Mateo
County
Availability
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $44.81 $34.67 $27.63
Vacancy Rate 3.1% 15.1% 13.6%
Vacant SF 54,067 916,262 7,956,790
Net
Absorption (17,875) (112,186) 374,765
Inventory
Existing SF 1,726,672 6,048,912 58,618,119
City Information
~321,500 SF of flex/R&D space (19% of total
space) has been built since 2013. In addition,
there is substantially more space in planning /
under construction.
➢ 182,000 SF R&D building recently completed
at Gilead Sciences Campus (331 Lakeside
Dr.).
➢ 190,000 SF R&D building proposed at Chess
Dr. / Foster City Blvd. - Gilead Masterplan
Expansion, under construction
➢ 181,000 SF R&D building under construction
at Gilead Sciences Campus (335 Lakeside Dr.)
➢ 298,000 SF flex / R&D building entitled at
600Lincoln Centre Dr.
➢ 116,300 SF of new Class A life sciences office
at 388 Vintage Park Dr. currently under
building permit review (the former El Torito
restaurant)
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated space as opposed to renewing or expanding. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

Top: Gilead Sciences Lab
Middle: 500 Lincoln Centre Dr.

Above: 300 Lincoln Centre Dr.

INDUSTRIAL / FLEX R&D MARKET OVERVIEW Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 107

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF
Foster City has much lower vacancy rates and higher rents compared to submarket and County. $15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius) San Mateo County
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX R&D MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025)Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 108

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 1,726,672 57,455 3.3% (31,320) $44.72
2024 1,726,672 26,135 1.5% (46,431) $43.70
2023 1,772,548 25,580 1.4% (10,912) $42.39
2022 1,772,548 14,668 0.8% 26,848 $40.90
2021 1,772,548 41,516 2.3% (88,432) $39.03
2020 1,822,282 2,818 0.2% (2,818) $37.15
2019 1,864,426 42,144 2.3% (42,144) $36.06
2018 1,864,426 - - 5,786 $34.80
2017 1,864,426 5,786 0.3% 101,136 $33.17
2016 1,797,486 39,982 2.2% (23,950) $31.66
2015 1,797,486 16,032 0.9% (36,249) $29.70
2014 1,985,549 164,838 8.3% (105,386) $27.86
2013 2,039,910 113,813 5.6% 99,909 $26.30
SUBMARKET (3-MI. RADIUS)
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp. SF
Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 6,048,912 981,585 16.2% (86,190) $34.59
2024 6,048,912 895,395 14.8% (47,975) $34.08
2023 5,961,988 760,496 12.8% (507,547) $33.13
2022 5,961,988 255,539 4.3% (116,252) $31.94
2021 5,961,988 139,287 2.3% (73,458) $30.33
2020 6,011,722 115,563 1.9% 44,439 $28.68
2019 6,002,366 150,646 2.5% (108,743) $27.68
2018 6,005,266 44,803 0.7% (13,682) $26.58
2017 6,005,266 31,121 0.5% 77,636 $25.22
2016 5,945,088 48,579 0.8% 61,086 $23.92
2015 5,945,088 109,665 1.8% (22,826) $22.37
2014 6,123,151 261,894 4.3% (43,694) $20.97
2013 6,177,512 272,561 4.4% 57,973 $19.82
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

INDUSTRIAL / FLEX R&D MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025)Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 109 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 110 Q2 2026
City of
Foster City
Submarket
(3-Mi. Radius)
Rental Inventory
Asking Rent $3,921 $3,769
Avg. SF 871 851
Asking Rent PSF $4.50 $4.43
Vacancy Rate 2.5% 2.3%
Total # of
Vacant Units 112 338
Net Absorption (5) 5
Total Inventory
Total Rental Units 4,498 14,509
Total Condo Units 2,531 6,826
Total # of
Multifamily Units 7,039 21,335
 Major multifamily buildings in City
➢ Foster’s Landing (700 Bounty Dr., Class
C, market/affordable mix; garden
apartments; built 1987; 490 units)
➢ Isle Cove (846 Juno Ln.; Class B,
market-rate condos; built 1977; 451
units)
➢ Beach Cove Apts. (703 Catamaran St.;
Class C, market-rate, garden
apartments; built 1972; 416 units)
➢ The Plaza (1 Plaza View Ln.; Class A,
market/affordable mix; mid-rise
apartments; built 2013; 307 units)
 According to CoStar, there are currently no
multifamily residential buildings planned,
proposed, or under construction
 In the last 12 years, a total of 734 units
were built across 6 buildings. 3 buildings
(398 units) were for rent apartments, while
3 buildings (336 units) were for sale condos
 Current RHNA (6th Cycle, 2023-2031)
requirement of 1,896 total housing units
(including 819 affordable low and very-low)
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.) in buildings that contain 10 or more units, excluding condos and co-ops. Negative absorption means more residents vacated than moved into residential units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

Top: Foster Landing
Middle: Isle Cove
Above: The Plaza
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 111 Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. CoStar routinely scrubs their data and may re-list or re-classify space from one use to another. When CoStar does this reclassification, the data gets updated globally which may also appear adjusted in the historical baseline.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units Vacant %
Net
Absorp.

Units
Asking Rent
/ Unit
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 4,498 141 3.1% 2 $3,568 $4.10
2024 4,498 186 4.1% (15) $3,403 $3.91
2023 4,498 168 3.7% 18 $3,298 $3.79
2022 4,498 207 4.6% (26) $3,286 $3.77
2021 4,498 175 3.9% 0 $3,219 $3.70
2020 4,498 283 6.3% (25) $2,962 $3.40
2019 4,498 142 3.2% 67 $3,335 $3.83
2018 4,486 246 5.5% 6 $3,347 $3.84
2017 4,266 200 4.7% 30 $3,236 $3.74
2016 4,266 328 7.7% (76) $3,146 $3.64
2015 4,100 180 4.4% (7) $3,146 $3.68
2014 4,100 173 4.2% (31) $2,878 $3.36
2013 4,100 233 5.7% (20) $2,743 $3.20
SUBMARKET (3-MI. RADIUS)
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units Vacant %
Net
Absorp.

Units
Asking Rent
/ Unit
Asking Rent
PSF
2025 14,509 430 3.0% 163 $3,448 $4.05
2024 14,509 592 4.1% 639 $3,276 $3.85
2023 14,053 776 5.5% 62 $3,137 $3.67
2022 13,803 587 4.3% 154 $3,120 $3.64
2021 13,772 709 5.1% 422 $3,067 $3.57
2020 13,548 904 6.7% (197) $2,829 $3.32
2019 13,488 652 4.8% 437 $3,151 $3.70
2018 13,476 1,077 8.0% 212 $3,141 $3.69
2017 12,667 480 3.8% 158 $3,017 $3.57
2016 12,667 639 5.0% 59 $2,945 $3.49
2015 12,501 531 4.2% 348 $2,915 $3.46
2014 12,136 512 4.2% 195 $2,683 $3.18
2013 12,017 588 4.9% 285 $2,537 $3.01
RENTAL MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2026) FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 112 Vacancy Rates Asking Rent PSF

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius)
$3.00
$3.20
$3.40
$3.60
$3.80
$4.00
$4.20
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Foster City Submarket (3-Mi. Radius)
MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY (2013-2025) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 113

HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 114

HOSPITALITY MARKET
 To understand the hospitality market, below is a summary of levels of service hotels:
➢ A limited-service hotel is a budget-friendly hotel offering low-cost accommodations, minimal amenities, and typically do not offer a full-service restaurant. These hotels typically fall under economy, midscale, or upper midscale classes according to STR
➢ A select-service hotel offers more amenities than a limited-service hotel, such as small meeting spaces and a casual restaurant, but fewer features than a fullservice hotel. Select-service hotels are a blend of full- and limited-service hotels and are the fastest growing type of hotels being developed. These hotels typically are upper midscale or upscale class hotels
➢ A full-service hotel offers more services than a select- or limited-service hotel.

Such services could include larger banquet/conference space, restaurants/bars, shuttle services, laundry service, room service, expanded fitness centers, and spas.

Full-service can refer to different hotel types including boutique hotels and resorts and generally fall under upscale, upper upscale, and luxury class hotels  Economy hotels are patronized primarily through drive-by visitors, while large hotel chains have Rewards Programs with millions of loyal customers who search for those properties on the internet, thus increasing demand
 Examples of various hotels by class are highlighted in the table to the right. Note: STR hotel classes are typically grouped according to actual average room rates Class Hotels
Economy Motel 6, Studio 6, Red Roof Inn, Days Inn, Super 8 Midscale Best Western, Quality Inn, Extended Stay America Upper Midscale Hampton Inn & Suites, La Quinta Inn & Suites, Fairfield Inn & Suites, Holiday Inn
Upscale DoubleTree, Courtyard, Hyatt House, Homewood
Suites, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites
Upper Upscale Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott, Le Meridien, Embassy Suites, Westin, Wyndham Grand
Luxury JW Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, W Hotel, Shangri-La,
Langham, Four Seasons, Fairmont
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 115

HOSPITALITY MARKET
 Within a 3-mile radius from Foster City City Hall, there are a total of 18 existing operational hotels, 14 of which are chain or franchise hotels (totaling 2,446 rooms) and 4 are independently operated (totaling 149 rooms). The total number of rooms within a 3-mile radius is 2,595 rooms. There are three hotels with 621 rooms in the City.  94% of rooms within the 3-mile radius fall within chain/franchise hotels (2,446 rooms in 14 hotels), while 6% are within hotels that operate independently (149 rooms in six hotels). Of the total 2,595 rooms in the radius, 14% are economy class (377 rooms), 10% midscale (259 rooms), 12% upper midscale (302 rooms), 48% upscale (1,236 rooms), and 16% upper upscale (421 rooms). There are no luxury hotels currently operating in this submarket.  ADR and occupancy remain significantly below pre-Covid levels, indicating challenges to new hotel development  There are three hotels proposed within this radius. These include the following: a 104-room economy-class hotel in Redwood City servicing the Redwood Life Evolve science cluster and two midscale hotels – an 88-room Tru by Hilton in Belmont and a 151-room hotel at Metro Center (across from Costco) in Foster City.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 116

FOSTER CITY HOTEL

SUBMARKET MAP
(3-MILE RADIUS)
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online; CoStar;
Smith Travel Research (Accessed February 2026)
3-Mile
While the City only has three hotels Radius
totaling ~621 rooms, there are
18 operational hotels totaling 2,595
rooms, within 3-mile radius.
14 of which are chain or franchise
hotels (totaling 2,446 rooms) and 4 are
independently operated (totaling 149
rooms).

Locations of existing and
operational hotels within a 3-mile
radius of Foster City City Hall.

Hotels circled in red fall within
the City of Foster City.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 117 Source: Smith Travel Research (Accessed February 2026); Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.

Year Avg.

Occupancy
Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
Feb. ‘18 – Jan. ’19 80.7% $193.20 886,069 715,034 - $156.20 - Feb. ‘19 – Jan. ’20 78.4% $200.97 897,921 702,815 (1.7%) $157.81 1.0% Feb. ‘20 – Jan. ’21 38.1% $113.66 881,546 333,418 (52.6%) $45.92 (70.9%) Feb. ‘21 – Jan. ’22 49.0% $114.45 898,266 440,717 32.2% $56.32 22.6% Feb. ‘22 – Jan. ’23 61.8% $158.93 925,160 572,495 29.9% $99.13 76.0% Feb. ‘23 – Jan. ’24 68.7% $164.00 946,344 649,463 13.4% $112.80 13.8% Feb. ‘24 – Jan. ’25 73.7% $163.28 994,719 733,149 12.9% $120.49 6.8% Feb. ‘25 – Jan. ’26 73.8% $168.31 994,530 733,599 0.1% $124.11 3.0% Total Growth (%) (8.6%) (12.9%) 12.2% 2.6% - (20.5%) -
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – SUBMARKET (3-MI. RADIUS) Market Performance Summary
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 118 HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 3-MI. RADIUS
Performance by Month (Feb. 2025 – Jan. 2026)
Month Avg.

Occupancy ADR RevPAR
February 2025 70.5% $168.15 $118.49
March 2025 72.9% $166.09 $121.04
April 2025 72.4% $166.25 $120.31
May 2025 76.4% $167.09 $127.61
June 2025 80.4% $160.27 $128.92
July 2025 78.8% $159.83 $125.96
August 2025 78.3% $157.57 $123.41
September 2025 75.8% $176.55 $133.77
October 2025 77.8% $190.47 $148.27
November 2025 69.2% $172.27 $119.13
December 2025 64.1% $157.86 $101.16
January 2026 68.4% $177.30 $121.30
Average 73.8% $168.31 $124.11
Hotel performance has gradually improved since the COVID-19 pandemic, but occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR remain short of pre-pandemic numbers. June is the highest performing month in terms of occupancy.

Performance by Month (Feb. 2018 – Jan. 2019)
Month Avg.

Occupancy ADR RevPAR
February 2018 75.9% $189.67 $143.87
March 2018 80.2% $186.54 $149.54
April 2018 81.7% $188.19 $153.73
May 2018 85.0% $193.93 $164.84
June 2018 85.1% $192.79 $163.99
July 2018 85.8% $195.54 $167.75
August 2018 85.6% $192.99 $165.28
September 2018 85.9% $201.45 $173.14
October 2018 88.6% $210.13 $186.09
November 2018 74.9% $187.33 $140.34
December 2018 66.9% $171.19 $114.57
January 2019 72.5% $208.64 $151.26
Average 80.7% $193.20 $156.20
Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, hotels in the market area performed strongly nearly year-round, except for winter months (avg. occupancy from November to January was 71.4%). October was the most successful month.

Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed February 2026) Note: *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.

Performance by Month (Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 119 HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 3-MI. RADIUS
Source: Smith Travel Research (Accessed February 2026); Note: The data used in this analysis is reflective of the hotels that report monthly to STR.

Performance by Month
Month Avg.

Occupancy ADR RevPAR
February 2025 70.5% $168.15 $118.49
March 2025 72.9% $166.09 $121.04
April 2025 72.4% $166.25 $120.31
May 2025 76.4% $167.09 $127.61
June 2025 80.4% $160.27 $128.92
July 2025 78.8% $159.83 $125.96
August 2025 78.3% $157.57 $123.41
September 2025 75.8% $176.55 $133.77
October 2025 77.8% $190.47 $148.27
November 2025 69.2% $172.27 $119.13
December 2025 64.1% $157.86 $101.16
January 2026 68.4% $177.30 $121.30
Average 73.8% $168.31 $124.11
Day Avg.

Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Sunday 62.8% $144.03 $90.76
Monday 76.2% $182.16 $141.90
Tuesday 83.0% $194.44 $165.01
Wednesday 83.2% $193.39 $163.56
Thursday 73.0% $160.05 $118.07
Friday 68.4% $142.23 $97.22
Saturday 71.2% $132.54 $94.70
Average 74.0% $164.12 $124.46
Performance by Day of Week
Strong mid-week demand peaking Wednesday (likely due to business travelers). Less demand over the weekend.

Performance varies by season. Higher occupancy found in the summer and early fall months (highest occupancy in June). Generally, less occupancy in the winter months.

Performance by Month and Day of the Week
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 120

RETAIL & SHOPPING CENTERS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 121

GENERAL FUND

TAX REVENUES
FY 2024-2025
Source: Foster City ‘Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2025” (April 2026) Property Taxes in all forms represent

63.8% of City’s total general fund
revenues.

Revenue Category Revenue % Share of Total
Property Tax $44,552,026 63.8%
Sales & Use Tax $4,000,826 5.73%
Transient occupancy tax $4,178,480 5.98%
Franchise tax $1,421,690 2.04%
Property transfer tax $441,504 0.63%
Licenses and permits $7,789,649 11.16%
Intergovernmental $208,855 0.30%
Charges for current
services
$1,570,285 2.25%
Fines and forfeitures $34,505 0.05%
Investment and rental
income
$5,011,672 7.18%
Other $616,469 0.88%
Total $69,825,961 100%
Item 7.1

DRAFT Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed February 2026) FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 122 Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

Year City Subtotal County
Pool
City
Total
2012 $3,668,000 $469,000 $4,137,000
2013 $3,546,000 $495,000 $4,041,000
2014 $3,033,000 $471,000 $3,504,000
2015 $3,004,000 $488,000 $3,492,000
2016 $2,677,000 $531,000 $3,208,000
2017 $3,078,000 $600,000 $3,678,000
2018 $3,118,000 $671,000 $3,789,000
2019 $3,003,000 $711,000 $3,714,000
2020 $2,386,000 $870,000 $3,256,000
2021 $2,721,000 $792,000 $3,513,000
2022 $3,573,000 $952,000 $4,525,000
2023 $3,458,000 $873,000 $4,331,000
2024 $3,165,000 $835,000 $4,000,800
12-Year Growth (8.3%) 78.0% 1.5%
COVID-19 Effect
(2019-2020) (20.5%) 22.4% (12.3%)
CAGR (0.7%) 4.9% 0.1%
SALES TAX REVENUES BY YEAR (2012-2024)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
City Sales Tax and
Share of County Pool
FOSTER CITY FOSTER CITY County Pool
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 123

CITY RETAIL SALES BY CATEGORY BY YEAR
Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed February 2026) Notes: *Numbers reflected are in thousands of dollars. Other retail may include pet supply stores, tobacco stores, art dealers, etc. All other outlets refers to business to business or business to government transactions. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

Retail
Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 % Growth (2016-24)
2024 % of
Total
Motor Vehicle - - - - - - - - - - -
Home Furnishings $18,563,486 $28,661,230 $25,987,508 $18,113,668 $16,703,897 $22,713,792 $42,322,122 $41,467,388 $52,583,000 180% 15% Building Materials $1,888,044 $9,045,702 $0 $21,969 $97,307 $0 $15,586 $0 $8,605 (99%) 0% Food & Beverage $16,974,164 $16,722,812 $15,451,546 $15,826,527 $15,760,789 $14,946,619 $15,907,443 $15,971,881 $15,957,000 (6%) 5% Gas Stations $23,657,539 $26,138,536 $29,455,406 $28,630,574 $12,735,677 $21,755,077 $31,549,942 $28,792,347 $27,406,000 11% 8% Clothing Stores $539,933 $364,297 $179,451 $108,617 $148,343 $143,258 $97,215 $255,498 $203,400 (60%) 0.1% Gen. Merchandise $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,368,596 $100,784,000 - 29% Restaurants/Bars $48,944,297 $51,242,810 $58,810,964 $60,856,033 $38,682,655 $48,659,872 $68,121,253 $77,413,119 $73,322,000 58% 21% Other Retail $110,566,923 $112,694,991 $117,381,131 $116,646,545 $104,542,501 $111,903,862 $114,744,399 $58,570,510 $15,626,000 (88%) 5% Total Retail &
Food Services $221,134,386 $244,870,378 $247,266,006 $240,203,933 $188,671,169 $220,122,480 $272,757,960 $278,839,339 $285,890,000 30% 82% All Other Outlets $50,357,132 $60,951,264 $62,645,143 $47,674,854 $33,536,391 $46,497,672 $85,087,980 $75,577,473 $62,304,000 21% 18% TOTAL $271,491,518 $305,821,642 $309,911,149 $287,878,787 $222,207,560 $266,620,152 $357,845,940 $354,416,812 $348,197,000 27% 100% Sales tax has grown 4% annually – in line with inflation.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 124 ANNUAL SALES TAX REVENUES BY RETAIL CENTER / CATEGORY (2021-2025) $0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Marlin Cove Beach Park Plaza Foster Sqaure Metro Center Edgewater Gasoline Triton
• Foster Square retail has seen most
growth due to its slow leaseup
after completion in 2020
• Metro Center also showed solid
growth in taxable sales (up 42%)
• The data shows that Marlin Cove
and Edgewater have very low
taxable sales due to grocery
anchors and personal services
• Triton shows extremely high sales
typically associated with fast food /
drive thru establishments
• The other centers showed minimal
growth over the period
Source: Neumo; City of Foster City (Accessed March 2026) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 125 2025 TAXABLE SALES PSF BY RETAIL CENTER
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
Marlin Cove Beach Park Plaza Foster Sqaure Metro Center Edgewater Triton Source: Neumo; City of Foster City (Accessed March 2026) • Kosmont also examined the
taxable retail sales PSF to
measure the relative health of
each center
• The data shows that Marlin
Cove and Edgewater have very
low taxable sales due to grocery
anchors and personal service
tenants, while Triton shows
extremely high sales typically
associated with fast food / drive
thru establishments
• Beach Park Plaza is an anomaly
with under $200 in sales PSF/yr
for primarily restaurant space,
which would be too low to
justify reported retail market
rents of $40 PSF
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 126

RETAIL CENTER SALES TRENDS
Kosmont reviewed Neumo Sales Data for past five years to understand relative performance. Important to note that this data is taxable sales, so total grocery sales (only portion is taxable) and personal services (non-taxable) are not reflected.
 Citywide retail sales have grown 20% (e.g. 4% per year keeping up with inflation)  Foster Square retail has seen most growth due to its slow lease up after completion in 2020  Metro Center also showed solid growth in taxable sales (up 42%)  The other centers showed minimal growth over the period Kosmont also examined the taxable retail sales PSF to measure the relative health of each center (see slide 29)  The data shows that Marlin Cove and Edgewater have very low taxable sales due to grocery anchors and personal service tenants, while Triton shows extremely high sales typically associated with fast food / drive thru establishments
 Beach Park Plaza is an anomaly with under $200 in sales PSF/yr for primarily restaurant space, which would be too low to justify reported retail market rents of $40 PSF
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 127

VISITATION TRENDS AND RETAIL LEAKAGE
CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 128 0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Jan-19
May-19
Sep-19
Jan-20
May-20
Sep-20
Jan-21
May-21
Sep-21
Jan-22
May-22
Sep-22
Jan-23
May-23
Sep-23
Jan-24
May-24
Sep-24
Jan-25
May-25
Sep-25
Jan-26
Out-of-Market Visitors
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Jan-19
May-19
Sep-19
Jan-20
May-20
Sep-20
Jan-21
May-21
Sep-21
Jan-22
May-22
Sep-22
Jan-23
May-23
Sep-23
Jan-24
May-24
Sep-24
Jan-25
May-25
Sep-25
Jan-26
Inbound Commuters

OVERALL CITY VISITS PER MONTH
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
56% drop in visits from
February to April 2020
79% drop in visits from
February to April 2020
Out-of-Market Visitors and Inbound Commuters (1/1/29 – 2/28/26) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 129

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
Notes: Visit numbers include out of
market visitors, employees, and residents
in the last 12-month period.

City of
Foster City
Costco Wholesale

2.6M visits (18th percentile)
Edgewater Place

1.0M visits
The Marketplace at Metro Center

2.9M visits Key Tenant: Safeway
Safeway
18th in visits out of 240 Safeways in CA

1.5M visits
Marlin Cove
968,100 visits
Key Tenant: 99 Ranch Market
Foster Square
930,200 visits
Key Tenant: Starbucks
Leo J. Ryan Park
569,200 visits (92nd percentile statewide)
Osaka Marketplace*
422,800 visits
Mariners Point Golf Center
348,500 visits
99 Ranch Market
38th in visits out of 38 99 Ranch Markets in CA
325,500 visits (2nd percentile, 1st nationwide)
Top In City Locations by Number of Visits
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 130

CITY OF

FOSTER CITY

TOP VISITED

IN CITY LOCATIONS
3/1/25 TO 2/28/26
Location Visitors
(residents)
Visitors
(inbound
commuters)
Visitors
(out-ofmarket
visitors)
Total Visits
(all visitor
types)
The Marketplace at Metro Center
977 E. Hillsdale Blvd. 27,900 4,600 365,200 2,900,000
Costco Wholesale
1001 Metro Center Blvd. 21,700 4,200 414,400 2,600,000
Safeway1
921 E. Hillsdale Blvd. 25,600 3,600 194,700 1,500,000
Edgewater Place Shopping Center
919 Edgewater Blvd. 21,000 3,000 296,100 1,000,000
Marlin Cove
1070 Foster City Blvd. 19,700 2,500 179,700 968,100
Foster Square
707 Thayer Ln. 21,300 3,200 200,700 930,200
Leo J. Ryan Park*
650 Shell Blvd. 31,900 - 174,300 569,200
Osaka Marketplace2
919 Edgewater Blvd. 15,900 1,800 140,300 422,800
Mariners Point Golf Center
2401 E. 3rd Ave. 2,500 460 77,400 348,500
99 Ranch Market3
1070 Foster City Blvd. 11,900 1,200 80,600 325,500
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
Notes: Sorted by total number of visits to in-market locations (e.g., locations within the City of Foster City). The total visits column for inmarket locations reflects the total visits by visitors, employees, and residents. Visitors (residents) column reflects the number of Foster City residents who went to these locations at least one time during the 12- month period. Visitors (inbound commuters) represents the number of visitors who work in the City but live outside of the City. Visitors (out-ofmarket visitors) represents the number of visitors who are visiting locations within the City, but neither live nor work in the City. -------------------------------------------------
*This data was not readily available. An estimate of the number of residents visiting Leo J. Ryan Park was taken from number of visitors living in 94404 (Foster City)

1. Safeway located within The Marketplace at Metro Center

2. Osaka Marketplace located within Edgewater Place. Osaka Marketplace replaced Lucky Supermarket in Dec. 2025

3. 99 Ranch Market located within Marlin Cove
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 131

CITY OF

FOSTER CITY

TOP VISITED

OUT-OF-MARKET

LOCATIONS
3/1/25 TO 2/28/26
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
Notes: Sorted by total number of visits to in-market locations (e.g., locations within the City of Foster City). The total visits column for inmarket locations reflects the total visits by visitors, employees, and residents. Visitors (residents) column reflects the number of Foster City residents who went to these locations at least one time during the 12- month period. Visitors (inbound commuters) represents the number of visitors who work in the City but live outside of the City. Visitors (out-ofmarket visitors) represents the number of visitors who are visiting locations within the City, but neither live nor work in the City. -------------------------------------------------

1. Target and The Home Depot located within Bridgepointe Shopping Center

2. Trader Joe’s located within Concar Shopping Center
Location
Residents
who visit at
least once
Total Visits
by Residents
Visitors
(inbound
commuters)
Visitors
(out-ofmarket
visitors)
Bridgepointe Shopping Center
3000 Bridgepointe Pkwy. 29,000 213,800 7,500 795,600
Hillsdale Shopping Center
60 31st Ave. (San Mateo) 26,700 165,300 5,900 767,600
Target1
2220 Bridgepointe Pkwy 24,200 123,300 4,700 475,400
Concar Shopping Center
666 Concar Dr. (San Mateo) 15,000 95,200 3,100 303,700
Places at Bay Meadows Shopping
Center 1010 Park Pl. (San Mateo) 17,400 88,100 2,900 290,300 Serramonte Center
3 Serramonte Center (Daly City) 9,100 78,800 3,500 585,400 The Home Depot1
2001 Chess Dr. (San Mateo) 16,500 70,300 3,200 222,100
Trader Joe’s2
1820 S. Grant St. (San Mateo) 11,100 65,600 1,800 163,500 Borel Square Shopping Center
59 Bovet Rd. (San Mateo) 7,300 58,000 1,900 197,600
Redwood City Plaza
2300 Middlefield Rd.
(Redwood City)
7,200 56,500 1,900 277,000
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 132 TOP 10 OUTSIDE SHOPPING AREAS
Rank Location City Anchor Tenants /
Major Retail # of Residents # of Visits Average annual Visits per Person 1 Bridgepointe Shopping Center San Mateo Target, The Home Depot, Hobby Lobby, Nordstrom Rack, Marshalls, Total Wine & More, Ross, Petco 29,000 213,800 7 2 Hillsdale Shopping Center San Mateo Macy’s, Nordstrom, Cinepolis, Ana Furniture, Barnes & Noble, Gap, DSW, H&M, Uniqlo, Trader Joe’s 26,700 165,300 6 3 Target* San Mateo N/A 24,200 123,300 5
4 Concar Shopping Center San Mateo Ross, TJ Maxx, Trader Joe’s 15,000 95,200 6 5 Places at Bay Meadows San Mateo Crunch Fitness, Whole Foods Market 17,400 88,100 5 6 Serramonte Center Daly City
Macy’s, Target, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Dave & Buster’s, Nordstrom Rack, Ross, Crunch Fitness, Burlington, TJ
Maxx, World Market, H&M
9,100 78,800 9
7 The Home Depot* San Mateo N/A 16,500 70,300 4
8 Trader Joe’s** San Mateo N/A 11,100 65,600 6
9 Borel Square Shopping Center San Mateo 24 Hr. Fitness, CVS Pharmacy 7,300 58,000 8 10 Redwood City Plaza Redwood City Costco, Outdoor Supply Hardware 7,200 56,500 8 Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
Note: *Target and The Home Depot are located at Bridgepointe Shopping Center. **Trader Joe’s located at Concar Shopping Center.

Top 10 Areas Where Foster City Residents Shop Outside of the City (by Number of Visits, 1/1/25 to 12/31/25)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 133

RETAILER MAP
Source: Placer.ai, ESRI Business Analyst
Online (Accessed March 2026)
The points on the map show the top retail
centers where Foster City residents shop
outside of the City. Numbers are ordered
by the number of visits made by Foster City
residents to these locations.

Shopping centers in San Mateo are within a
ten-minute drive time just west of the City’s
boundaries (along CA-92 / US-101).

Residents will travel within a 20-minute
drive time to reach major regional centers
(such as the Serramonte Center in Daly
City) or the Costco-anchored Redwood
City Plaza.
1, 3, 7
10 5
6 4, 8
9 2
City of
Foster
City
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 134

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Demographic Highlights
Total Visits 1.6 million
Avg. Days Spent in Market 146.8
Total Visitors 10,900
Average HH Size 2.66
Most Common Ethnicity White (35.9%)
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 58.8%
Median HH Income $160,300
Average HH Income $222,900
Source: Placer.ai; STI Popstats 2024 (Accessed March 2026) Notes: Inbound commuters refer to people who come to the City for work. This does not include the number of resident workers. Median and average visit length is unavailable for employees.

Visitor Household Incomes
< $50,000 14.9%
$50,000 - $100,000 15.9%
> $100,000 69.2%
Ethnicities
White 35.9%
Asian 32.7%
Hispanic 21.1%
Other 7.2%
Black 3.2%
Education Levels
High School or Less 21.5%
Some College/Associates 19.7%
Bachelor’s or Higher 58.8%
Inbound Commuter Demographics (3/1/25 to 2/28/26)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 135

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Top 10 Inbound Commuter Origins (Zip Codes)
Zip Code City / Area
Serviced
# of Visits by Inbound
Commuters
94403 San Mateo 172,000
94401 San Mateo 127,000
94010 Hillsborough 60,700
94402 San Mateo 58,000
94002 Belmont 51,900
94070 San Carlos 38,600
94061 Redwood City 35,900
94030 Millbrae 31,000
94066 San Bruno 30,800
94015 Daly City 30,000
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
▪ 31% of inbound commuters live within 3 miles of the City; ▪ 39% of inbound commuters live between 10 and 30 miles away ▪ Top 10 origins are listed in the table below by zip code Inbound Commuter Analytics (3/1/25 to 2/28/26)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 136

TRADE AREA

RETAIL LEAKAGE
(1/1/25 TO
12/31/25)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed March 2026)
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number (leakage). Data reflects all consumers (residents + visitors) within the City. *Auto dealer sales could reflect satellite office where sales are reported to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Categories with high leakage include:
• Clothing stores
• Limited- and full-service restaurants,
• Sporting goods
• Health and personal care stores, and
• Auto parts / accessories stores.

UNMET RETAIL DEMAND BY RETAIL CATEGORY (WITHIN TRADE AREA) Retail Category Supply (Sales) $ Demand $ Surplus / Leakage $ Online Sales Leakage Potential
Gasoline Stations 167.4 M 80.4 M 87.0 M Low
Building Material & Supply Stores 81.2 M 47.0 M 34.2 M Low Grocery Stores 94.0 M 90.6 M 3.4 M Low
Department Stores 19.0 M 16.9 M 2.1 M Varies
Electronics & Appliance Stores 12.2 M 10.8 M 1.4 M High Book, Periodical, & Music Stores 1.3 M 1.7 M (0.4 M) High Bars / Drinking Places 0.7 M 4.2 M (3.5 M) Low
Sporting Goods / Hobby Stores 4.8 M 9.6 M (4.8 M) High
Automotive Parts / Accessories 10.0 M 14.9 M (4.9 M) Low Home Furnishings Stores 1.6 M 7.6 M (6.0 M) Medium
Limited-Service Restaurants 46.3 M 63.1 M (16.8 M) Low
Health & Personal Care Stores 26.5 M 47.8 M (21.3 M) Medium Full-Service Restaurants 38.7 M 62.5 M (23.8 M) Low
Clothing Stores 7.9 M 32.9 M (25.0 M) High
Other Gen. Merchandise Stores 37.2 M 91.4 M (54.2 M) Medium Auto Dealers* 94.5 M 167.8 M (73.3 M) Low
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 137 C. OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY, STAKEHOLDER, AND CITY COUNCIL INPUT CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 138 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 139

CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK / DIRECTION
City Council Interviews, March 25-26, 2026
▪ City is safe, family-oriented, “sleepy,” with strong
parks, youth sports, food trucks, and concerts.
▪ Traffic, limited access points, weak wayfinding/signage, aging infrastructure, and high business operating costs. ▪ Make City more business-friendly, grow sales tax
revenue, and strengthen gathering places.
▪ Expand pop-ups, kiosks, food trucks, farmers’ markets, and explore loan/incubator programs.
▪ Focus on neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants,
family services, and destination uses rather than
competing with Bridgepointe.
▪ Desire for quality restaurants, waterfront dining, bars, and evening activity (e.g., fresh fish restaurant,
golf-course bar/restaurant).
▪ Develop a “mini-downtown” civic heart — centered
around Metro Center, Community Center, lagoon, and
adjacent commercial areas.
▪ Opportunity Sites - Metro Center/lagoon area,
Edgewater Place, Beach Park Plaza, Foster City Square,
101 Lincoln, Hatch Drive sites, 303 Vintage, 1601
Beach Park, Visa pad, industrial areas,
office-to-residential conversions, golf course.
▪ Evaluate office-to-residential conversion and added
housing at Metro Center, Edgewater, and Beach Park
Plaza (mixed Council views).

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 140 CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK / DIRECTION (CONTD.)
▪ Foster City Square repositioning — seen as
underperforming; consider pop-ups, kiosks, activation,
or rethinking City ownership strategy.
▪ Edgewater Place challenges/opportunities —
Waterfront potential, but constrained by ownership,
high rents/CAM, access, and past housing opposition.
▪ Infrastructure constraints — 50-year-old
water/electric systems may limit redevelopment
feasibility.
▪ Revenue-generating opportunities — hotels,
higher-value redevelopment, City property investment,
improved signage, billboards, sales, property and TOT
tax generating uses.
▪ Community needs — more teen activities, quality
restaurants, childcare/preschools, and inclusive spaces for seniors and diverse population.
▪ Engagement strategy — use multiple channels,
including three local Facebook groups, to gather
resident input.
▪ Action-oriented staff report — practical, site-specific, and tailored to City (avoid “cookie-cutter”
approaches).

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 141 CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK / DIRECTION (CONTD.)
Council Update #1 April 20, 2026
▪ Impact of Noise Ordinance
▪ Impact of Hillsdale Mall and Bridgepointe on City
▪ Food Hall and other concepts
▪ Potential for Foster City High School
▪ Location for “Downtown Core”
Council Update #2 July 20, 2026
▪ Sites like Sea Cloud and community gathering
spaces as opportunities
▪ Mariners Point Golf Course and Sea Cloud as
opportunity sites
▪ Consider destination theme that gives visitors a
reason to visit the City
▪ Steps for implementing concepts like Container
Village, food hall
▪ Explore tourism and marketing strategies
▪ Housing as an important issue
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 142 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 143

OUTREACH EFFORTS
▪ More than 10,000 community members were reached
via the City’s email newsletter, with strong
engagement indicated by 27% open rates (the industry
average is 20-30%)
▪ More than 21,000 community members were reached
via Facebook and Instagram
▪ Social content generated 70 impressions (likes,
shares, link clicks) across platforms
▪ Direct personal emails to business and economic
development stakeholders
▪ Outreach through Parks and Recreation Department
and Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee
(SCAC) channels
▪ Flyers posted at community facilities and public
locations throughout town
▪ Direct coordination with Foster City Chambers
▪ A-frames placed at the Library, Off-the-Grid events
and Levee
▪ Flyers distributed to businesses in shopping centers
▪ Marquee
▪ Recology flyer
To reach a broad cross-section of the community, outreach materials including a survey, workshop information, project webpage, and flyers were distributed through multiple channels. These efforts included:

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 144

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In-person Community Meeting
34 Engaged
Project Website
244 informed; 1,400 views
Community Survey
134 Engaged
Virtual Community Meeting
15 Engaged
Focus Group Meetings (Small Business)
4 Meetings (In-person and Virtual)
Stakeholder Meetings
17 Meetings (In-person and Virtual)
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 145

ROLE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

ENGAGEMENT
Population and
Psychographic
Data
Citywide Real Estate
Assessment
City Retail and
Shopping
Centers
City Council
Interviews AND
Update #1
Community
Meetings
Focus Group
Meetings
Stakeholder
Interviews
Community Survey

SELECTION OF

OPPORTUNITY
SITES

COMMUNITY
NEEDS

EDUCATION
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 146 IN-PERSON COMMUNITY MEETING – APRIL 27, 2026
▪ Commercial Market & Land Use — Residents want to understand why retail vacancy is higher than in peer cities; long-standing vacancies like OSH and Edgewater Place Center; how to identify the best uses for underperforming sites; strong desire for more local shopping, dining, and small businesses, while split views on mixed-use development. ▪ Housing & Community Composition — Split views on whether the City has too much or needs more housing; Residents noted the lack of a long-term plan connecting housing, schools, retail, and services, and asked if seniors are adequately represented in the Analysis.
▪ Waterfront & Lagoon System — The lagoon is an underutilized asset; explore revenue-generating opportunities, more community gathering spaces, cafés, and low-cost entertainment along the water; how the lagoon can be leveraged for recreation / economic activity.
▪ Transportation & Mobility — Concerns about transit options in the City. Daytime mobility challenges, especially for seniors and workers. Transportation challenges may be limiting access to businesses, contributing to retail vacancy.
▪ Community Life & Events — Desire for more events,
entertainment, and a stronger sense of place. Suggestions included adjusting existing events (e.g., Off the Grid) and adding more family-friendly and senior-friendly activities.
▪ Economic Strategy & Implementation — Residents want
actionable outcomes. How the City plans to attract unique, community businesses, how recommendations will fit into a broader economic strategy, and what the fiscal impacts might be — including effects on City revenues, property taxes, home values, and comparisons to peer cities.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 147 VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING – MAY 14, 2026
▪ Waterfront & Lagoon System — Evaluate the lagoon’s
impact on residential property values, commercial/waterfront restaurants, gathering spaces, and recreational tourism. They also asked how the lagoon system aligns with the needs of major employers like Gilead, Visa, and Zoox.
▪ Opportunity Sites & Land Use — Which sites are being
considered for redevelopment and exploring a true downtown district. They specifically asked about the OSH site and the former marina site, and whether Foster City could pursue a transformative redevelopment similar to Bay Meadows or the Hillsdale Mall evolution.
▪ Real Estate Trends — Residents want a deeper breakdown of where residents work, beyond listing top employers. They asked why Foster City’s real estate appreciation has lagged San Mateo over the past five years, what factors play a role, and which neighborhoods are appreciating or stagnating.
▪ Golf Course — Residents questioned whether the
municipal golf course pays market-rate rent and whether the land could be used more intensively for family-friendly or revenue-generating purposes.
▪ Education & Community Composition — A
recurring question was whether the City could support its own high school and how that would fit into long-term
planning.
▪ Economic Resilience — Residents expressed concern
that Foster City may be too dependent on a small number of major employers and asked what would happen if
biotech activity slows.
▪ Analysis Timeline — Residents requested clarity on
when the Analysis’ conclusions will be delivered and when new development activity could realistically begin
afterward.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 148

COMMUNITY RETAIL SURVEY
Kosmont prepared a survey for residents to identify shopping patterns and preferences. The City posted the survey online and promoted it to the community.

Q1. Which of the following best describe your connection to Foster City? Q2. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for grocery shopping? Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 149

COMMUNITY RETAIL SURVEY
Q3. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for pharmacy? Q4. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for sit-down restaurants? Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 150

COMMUNITY RETAIL SURVEY
Q5. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for fast food/quick restaurant? Q6. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for personal services (spa/salon etc.)?
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 151

COMMUNITY RETAIL SURVEY
Q7. In the past 3 months, how often have you visited commercial areas in Foster City for other services? (specify the use/business)
Q8 . Which of the following retail/dining trends, you would like to see in Foster City? (select up to 3) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 152

COMMUNITY RETAIL SURVEY
Q9. What should the City prioritize to improve local shopping and commercial areas in Foster City? (select up to 3) Q10. What type of businesses/uses are most needed in Foster City? (select up to 3) Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 153

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY SURVEY COMMENTS
▪ Need for a downtown core — Strong desire for a walkable, vibrant district where dining, shopping, and services are clustered rather than spread out.
▪ More dining, shopping, and services — Residents want
more restaurants, cafés, nightlife, grocery options, and everyday retail to reduce the need to leave Foster City for basic needs.
▪ Vacant commercial spaces — Concern about empty office buildings and long-standing vacancies at OSH and
Edgewater Place, with calls for action to reactivate these sites.
▪ Better public transportation — Requests for improved
transit within Foster City and stronger connections to
nearby cities, along with safer, more walkable routes.
▪ More community events and gathering spaces — Desire for more places and programs that bring people together,
including family-friendly, teen-friendly, and multigenerational spaces.
▪ Activate the lagoon and waterfront — Interest in more waterfront dining, outdoor seating, beautification, and social spaces that make the lagoon a true community
destination.
▪ Consider enhancements that build on the golf course’s success — Residents are open to opportunities that
complement and strengthen the golf course’s existing
recreational value.
▪ Benefits of a local high school — Curiosity about whether Foster City could support its own high school and how it might strengthen community identity and serve families.

Q11. Is there anything else you would like to share?
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 154

MAJOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES
Activate the waterfront and lagoon
Need for better public transportation
Concern about vacant office space
Concern about vacant spaces at OSH &
Edgewater Place
Need for more community events / gathering
spaces
Lack of dining, nightlife, shopping and services
in the City & opportunity to create a
“Downtown Core”
Enhance the use of Mariners Point Golf Course
Benefits of a local high school
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 155

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW THEMES
From the 17 stakeholder meetings with Kosmont representatives, other opportunity sites were raised, business opportunities and challenges were discussed including:
 Metro Center was mentioned as a redevelopment opportunity / potential downtown site  Commercial/retail development in R&D industrial district was mentioned  Redevelopment of older multifamily apartments into higher density mixed-use  Chamber of Commerce concern about inconsistent enforcement of signage and noise ordinance rules, community opposition to development due to traffic concerns, little or no justification of high CAM costs for retail tenants  Mixed-use development along lagoon
 Need for better public transportation
 Lack of dining options in the City
 Opportunity to create a “downtown core”
 Increase the use of Mariners Point Golf Course land
 Benefits of a local high school
 Permit processing delays
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 156 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS D. THEMES AND CONSIDERATIONS
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 157

THEMES AND CONSIDERATIONS
This section addresses questions raised by the City Council during Update #1 and provides preliminary recommendations for themes and opportunity sites.

Considerations include:
▪ Impact of Noise Ordinance
▪ Impact of Hillsdale Mall and Bridgepointe redevelopment on Foster City ▪ Food Hall and other concepts (shown in more detail in Section 4 of this Report) ▪ Feasibility of a High School
▪ Location for “Downtown Core”
See separate sections following
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 158 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

IMPACT OF NOISE ORDINANCE
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 159

IMPACT OF NOISE ORDINANCE
 The City noise ordinance in Municipal Code 17.68.030 states "It is the policy of the City that the public peace, health, safety, tranquility and general welfare of residential districts and the community as a whole requires protection from unnecessary, excessive, unreasonable and annoying noises..."
 Decibel Restrictions Permitted continuous noise levels differ by time of day. For one- or two-family residential zones, sounds should generally not exceed 60 dBA between 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. ➢ Normal conversation at a distance of 3-5 feet would be approximately 60 dBA so outdoor dining should not be a problem for homes over 50 yards away.
➢ The City website needs to clearly explain these limits.  According to Chamber of Commerce, restaurants have had neighborhood complaints about outdoor dining that resulted in enforcement actions. They mentioned perceptions about business operating hours can be more restrictive than actual rules, causing some businesses to avoid operating in the evenings due to fear of complaints. It is perceived that enforcement focuses more on keeping peace, rather than following the actual rules. This has led to businesses closing earlier, limiting nightlife options for residents.  Kosmont suggests the City consider modifying 50 dBA limit till later hours on weekend evenings. Another option would be to install plexiglass barriers on outdoor patios directly across from homes on the Lagoon.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 160 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

IMPACT OF HILLSDALE MALL AND BRIDGEPOINTE

REDEVELOPMENT ON FOSTER CITY
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 161

BRIDGEPOINTE AND HILLSDALE REDEVELOPMENT
How the Theme / Consideration Was Identified
 Stakeholder input
➢ City Council Input
Kosmont’s Analysis shows that Foster City has limited retail, dining and recreational venues to serve the wide demographic resident mix. This is likely due to the fact that two major shopping centers, providing close to 2 million SF of retail, dining and entertainment venues have been located within 2 miles of City Hall since the City founding 50 years ago, providing relatively easy access for residents.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 162

BRIDGEPOINTE SHOPPING CENTER
Bridgepointe Shopping Center, immediately north along Hwy 92 in San Mateo, is today a 500,000 SF power center developed following the failure of Fashion Island to attract sufficient customers. Hahn Company sold the original mall in 1986, but the new owners were unsuccessful, with the Center seeing an 80% vacancy rate. It was sold again to Sand Hill Properties, which rebuilt it as a power center. Today’s tenants include:
 Target and Nordstrom Rack
 Home Depot
 Marshalls and Ross Dress 4 Less
 BJ’s Brewery & Restaurant, Lazy Dog and Benihana
The San Mateo Housing Element currently lists Bridgepoint as an opportunity site for 300+ housing units, but there are legal issues related to the 1997 contract and economics make redevelopment infeasible in near term. Owner has submitted plans to redevelop the ice rink site as general retail.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 163

HILLSDALE MALL
Hillsdale Shopping Center is today a 1.3 million SF regional mall, originally built by Bohannon Family in the early 1950s as an open-air center with over 170 stores. After the Hahn Company built Fashion Island on Bridgepointe Parkway in 1982, Bohannon demolished the open-air center and built a two-level enclosed mall, with four major department stores as anchor tenants. It has undergone continuous renovation and reinvestment adding luxury movie screens, food court, and California’s first Nordstrom store. The adjacency of Hillsdale with its collection of high-quality retail, restaurant and entertainment on the major north-south Highway 101 presents extreme competition to Foster City’s ability to attract regional retail tenants.

The following quality retailers are located in the Center:
 Macy’s and Nordstrom
 Cinepolis Theaters
 Pinstripes Bowling
 Trader Joe’s
 Cheesecake Factory
There is a $1 billion redevelopment plan to add 1,670 housing units, 8- to 10-story office buildings and remove a portion the interior mall that will reduce retail competition and increase retail demand.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 164

HILLSDALE MALL REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
 The existing North Block Retail at Hillsdale Mall (12.03 acres of the 44.69-acre property) will remain
 Demolition of 1,490,331 square-foot existing commercial buildings and garages  Up to 2,059,000 GSF of net new commercial development  Up to 2,390,800 GSF of net new residential space containing up to 1,670 residential units  A new low-rise Retail Village will be integrated to the existing North Block Retail  The new Commercial and Office uses, ranging from eight to ten stories, are proposed along El Camino Real
 The western portion of the site will feature three-story townhomes adjacent to existing singlefamily residences, while five- to eight-story Images are from City of San Mateo website
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 165

IMPACT OF HILLSDALE MALL REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
 The planned redevelopment of Hillsdale Shopping Center could have mixed implications for Foster City. ➢ The proposed reduction in traditional enclosed-mall retail space may lessen direct competition for certain regional retail tenants, potentially creating opportunities for Foster City to attract businesses seeking locations on the Peninsula.
➢ At the same time, the addition of approximately 1,670 housing units and new office development would increase the surrounding customer and employee base, which could generate additional demand for retail, dining, personal services, and entertainment uses throughout the broader trade area, including Foster City. The increased number of residents and workers could generate additional demand for regional-serving anchors such as Costco and Safeway in Foster City.
➢ However, the redevelopment may also reinforce Hillsdale’s role as a major mixed-use regional destination. New housing and office use, combined with its established retail, dining, and entertainment offerings and direct access to Highway 101 and Caltrain, could strengthen the center’s overall market position and continue to be significant competition for destination-oriented retailers, restaurants, and entertainment operators.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 166 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

FOOD HALLS AND OTHER CONCEPTS
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 167

NEW EXPERIENTIAL RETAIL CONCEPTS BLENDING
ENTERTAINMENT, FOOD, DRINK Characteristics Examples
Movie Theater Delivering an improved / luxury theater experience – better seating, design, and food / beverage Cinepolis, Alamo Drafthouse
Bowling Upscale and engaging lounge format Lucky Strike, Bowlmor Small format
sports / activities
Often bar-wrapped concepts that blend activities with technology and hospitality – social sports, rock climbing, ax throwing, laser tag, and trampoline parks
Puttshack, Spin Ping Pong, Bat Box, Beat,
Chicken N Pickle
Large format
conversions
Convert large vacant bldgs. into indoor / outdoor facilities that often offer a variety of activities and sports such as mini-golf, rock wall climbing Elev8 Fun, Launch Entertainment, FunBox
Franchise
Gaming and
Arcades
Arcades, escape rooms, arcade bars, pinball, virtual reality gaming, and esports Barcade, Beat the Bomb
Personalized Retail
Services
Clothing, accessories, and technology stores that offer showrooms, in-store services and customization Nordstrom Neighborhood
Curated Food
Halls
Food centers with diverse / curated / boutique / local businesses, small stalls, restaurants, bars, common area tables and gathering places Rodeo 39 Public Market, Anaheim Packing
House, Eataly
Interactive
Exhibits Art installations, galleries, and other cultural offerings Department of Wonder, Area15 Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 168 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

FEASIBILITY OF A HIGH SCHOOL
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 169

FEASIBILITY OF A HIGH SCHOOL
How the Theme / Consideration Was Identified
 Stakeholder input
➢ Community Meeting
➢ Community Survey
➢ City Council Input
 A major theme Kosmont heard from stakeholders and the community at large was the desire to have a high school campus in Foster City, as the master plan for the City envisioned and land was donated to the San Mateo School District on the east side of Foster City Blvd.
 Quality schools often can provide community amenities and improve local home values.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 170

HIGH SCHOOL
Historical and Governance Research
 In the late 1970’s, demographic shifts saw a major decline in school enrollment in the Peninsula, while Proposition 13 tax reductions caused uncertainty in long-term funding - causing the District to cancel any expansion plans.  San Mateo redeveloped the main campus in 2000-05 into a modern school with capacity for ~1,500 students to serve both cities and decided the Foster City land was “surplus” and disposed of the property selling the site to a housing developer for Foster Square and giving the City 11-acre site which it leased, then sold to the Peninsula Jewish Community Center.

Demographic & Enrollment Analysis
 San Mateo High School enrollment has fluctuated between 1,400 and 1,800 students for the past 50 years.  SMHS enrollment has declined in past five years, as in most urban areas of the State, due to smaller family sizes, significant out-migration of families to more affordable areas such as Central Valley and Sacramento area.  State projections foresee a 10% decline in Bay area enrollment in the next 10 years.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 171 HIGH SCHOOL – CASE STUDY
 As part of the Opportunity Site assessment,
Kosmont researched the amount of land
needed for a standard high school campus and
estimated construction costs, by researching
recent school construction and California
Department of Education – Guide to School
Site Analysis and Development
 Emerald High School was just opened in
Dublin CA after a several year construction
project on a 25-acre site. The construction
budget with classrooms to serve up to 2,500
students and provide a 600-seat performing
arts facility was over $300 million.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 172

FEASIBILITY OF A HIGH SCHOOL
Key Findings for Foster City : What We Learned
 Land constraints in Foster City — No large enough developable parcels remain to accommodate a high school.
 Financial constraints — Could require $200M+ capital cost.  Enrollment constraints — Declining regional school-age population.  Governance constraints — SMUHSD control; no guarantee of a Foster City district formation.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 173 CITY OF FOSTER CITY – REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS

LOCATION FOR A DOWNTOWN CORE
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 174

DOWNTOWN CORE
How the Theme / Consideration Was Identified
 Stakeholder input
➢ Community Meeting
➢ Community Survey
➢ City Council Input
 The community has expressed strong interest in developing a “Downtown Core” to be an outdoor gathering place with
shopping, dining and entertainment for residents.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 175

DOWNTOWN CORE
Historical and Case Study Research
 Foster City was originally planned as a suburban community with neighborhood grocery-anchored shopping centers and a commercial center on the north side of Highway 92.  The road system consists of four- and six-lane high volume roadways providing access to small internal streets for half a dozen different residential neighborhoods. This road system is not ideal for typical downtowns with pedestrian-friendly environment.
 Foster Square development was originally envisioned to include a commercial center, but development economics pressured developer to reduce commercial space.
 Many communities do not have a downtown core and have attempted to create a “downtown gathering place” as their city was built decades ago as a residential suburban community. Kosmont is currently working with the city of Eastvale, a high-income suburb in Riverside County. The City arranged to acquire a ~15-acre site to build a new civic center with an adjacent retail and dining town center around outdoor space. Kosmont is also working with City of Mission Viejo, which acquired a vacant department store to reimagine into a destination for their residents.  Kosmont has herein shared some examples of projects built to create a “downtown gathering place.” Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 176 CASE STUDY – EMERYVILLE PUBLIC MARKET
 Emeryville Public Market was created in 1988 as part of a major revitalization project to transform industrial
warehouses into a bustling community hub.
 It houses 15-20 food vendors of local food business and communal spaces with frequent event and music
programming.
 The food hall is a part of a larger 15 acre warehouse conversion project that is now a mixed-use district with national brands, health and wellness services, apartments and retail shops.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 177 CASE STUDY – MAIN STREET CUPERTINO
 Main Street Cupertino was a 2016 purpose-built
“downtown” developed by Sand Hill Property to
give the suburban community a central gathering
place.
 Set on 18 acres, Main Street is a mixed-use
complex of 100,000 SF including hotel, apartments,
office and retail space centered around an
expansive town square and park.
 Outdoor spaces frequently host gatherings and
seasonal events like summer concert series.
 This downtown area leverages a mix of local and
national brands and walkable design to attract
regional visitors from the Bay Area.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 178 CASE STUDY – DOWNTOWN BREA BIRCH STREET
 The City of Brea acquired property along Birch Street to create a downtown area, aiming for a walkable, well-designed area with a mix of land uses and a sense of place. The development includes three nodes: Existing Gateway Center, Ash Street Cottages and Birch Street Promenade (pedestrian-oriented retail and entertainment).
 The area includes office space, restaurants, ~200 housing units, and entertainment venues (comedy club, music clubs, movie theater).
 The street features some on-street parallel parking, but the majority of parking is provided by two structured parking garages built by the City behind the buildings to encourage people to park once and walk throughout the downtown area.  The City worked with developer CIM Group and architects to create a varied, interesting streetscape that feels like it was developed over a longer period of time.
 The project has won multiple awards, including the 2001 California Redevelopment Association Award of Excellence in Community Revitalization. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/foster-distinctive-communities-downtown-brea-brea-california Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 179 Residential
Condos Rodeo 39
Public Market
CASE STUDY – VILLAGE CENTER / RODEO 39 (STANTON, CA)
While a food hall case study,
Village Center / Rodeo 39 is also
an example of an experiential
retail and residential project that
can serve as a gathering place for
the community.

Allowing 200 market rate condos
was key to the financial feasibility
of the redevelopment project and
provides 16 hours per day
activity.

Rodeo 39 public market has been
considered a great success with
the local community embracing
the eclectic and engaging venues.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 180 CASE STUDY – PALISADES VILLAGE (PACIFIC PALISADES, CA)
 Palisades Village is a ~187,000 SF retail development on ~4 AC in the downtown area of Pacific Palisades, a wealthy suburban community. Built in 2018, the outdoor shopping area was designed to have the look and feel of a typical Main Street.  Palisades Village is anchored by an Erewhon grocery store and Bay Theater. The center is also home to a variety of small / boutique retailers, quick dining, restaurants, and services (~45 businesses).

Larger retailers include Sephora, Lululemon, Saint Laurent.  A brick walkway runs throughout the project and functions as a pleasant, walkable promenade lined by retailers, sidewalk dining, and small park areas.
 The project was designed by Gensler / Elkus Manfredi Architects for developer Rick Caruso.

Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 181

DOWNTOWN CORE OPTIONS
Opportunity Areas:

While many individuals expressed desire for Kosmont to “think big” ignoring major financial and other constraints, this Analysis focuses on relatively realistic options that can be achieved in next five years.

1. Leo J Ryan Park, home of the new $50 million community center, and the numerous activities centered around the Lagoon area is a potential foundation for a Downtown Core, as the most City community events already occur here.

2. Edgewater Place, could be reimagined as a downtown village as it is most accessible commercial center with adjacency to waterfront.

Sources: Recreation Center Rebuild Project (https://rebuildtherec.org/en/) Top: Renderings of the new community center.

Bottom: Edgewater Place
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 182

REIMAGINING LEO J RYAN PARK

AS DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
Why Leo J Ryan Is a Strong Candidate
▪ Central location — New community center
located along the central lagoon, making it
physically and visually the city’s centerpiece.
▪ Waterfront adjacency — A defining feature
that further anchor Foster City’s identity.
▪ Community demand — Residents
consistently express desire for dining, gathering
spaces, and a walkable destination.
▪ Gathering Hub — The City’s most
successful community events already occur
here, reinforcing its role as the natural
gathering place.

Photo: New Community Center
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 183 REIMAGINING LEO J. RYAN PARK

AS DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
What Could be Done?
▪ Support regular food service at the Community
Center through the café and dedicated food truck
infrastructure.
▪ Consider a semi-permanent container village to
replace the infrequent Off the Grid food trucks.
▪ Add a floating restaurant or wharf on Lagoon.
▪ Coordinate programming across the Community
Center, lagoon, Foster Square, and City Hall to help
create a more active, connected area.
▪ Introduce lighting and signage to connect with
Foster Square and the parking field— murals,
sculptures, and branded wayfinding “village” identity.
▪ Upzone the multifamily sites along Lagoon for higher
density if mixed-use commercial.

Photo: Off the Grid
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 184

REIMAGINING EDGEWATER PLACE
AS DOWNTOWN VILLAGE Why Edgewater Place Is a Strong
Candidate
▪ Strong local positioning — Positioned
near the lagoon, major arterial, and
established neighborhoods.
▪ Waterfront adjacency — A defining
feature that further enhance Foster City’s
identity as a waterfront community.
▪ Community demand — Residents
consistently express desire for dining,
gathering spaces, and a walkable destination.
▪ New momentum — New tenants are
bringing fresh energy to Edgewater, with
more on the way. Photo: North view of Edgewater Place
Item 7.1

DRAFT FOSTER CITY REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS | 185

REIMAGINING EDGEWATER PLACE

AS DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
What Could be Done?
▪ Add outdoor dining and café zones — encourage
restaurant seating into sidewalks and decks.
▪ Install pedestrian lighting and landscaping — string
lights, trees, planters, and benches to create a warm
evening atmosphere.
▪ Introduce public art and signage — murals,
sculptures, and branded wayfinding that signal a
“village” identity.
▪ Facade refresh program — coordinated paint,
awnings, and signage upgrades to unify appearance.
▪ Encourage local experiential tenants; cafés, wine
bars, artisan shops and coworking.
▪ Better activate and utilize the lagoon frontage.

Item 7.1

DATE: September 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Frank Fanara, Parks Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan – First Year Implementation Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the annual report on the first year of implementation of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan by Wildlife Innovations, Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and accept the annual report for the implementation of the City’s Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan (Plan).

The annual report summarizes the first year of work completed by Wildlife Innovations, Inc. following execution of the professional services agreement on August 4, 2025. The program focused on seven priority parks: Leo J. Ryan Park, Gull Park, Catamaran Park, Sea Cloud Park, Edgewater Park, Marlin Park, and Erckenbrack Park. Year-one efforts included program development, monitoring, data collection, hazing and deterrence, GPS tracking, nesting surveillance, regulatory compliance, and adaptive management.

Item 7.2

During the first year, Wildlife Innovations conducted 675 hazing events displacing 5,580 Canada geese from priority park areas. The annual report provides documentation and comprehensive evaluation of several hazing tools that were deployed, including a trained dog team, remote-controlled amphibious device, handheld laser, drone, remotecontrolled boats, and audio deterrent system. The remote-controlled amphibious device performed best overall due to its ability to operate on both land and water, while the trained dog team remained one of the strongest tools for land-based hazing.

The program showed measurable reductions in goose-related impacts. Scat transect data showed a 70 percent decline at treatment parks compared to a 14 percent decline at control parks, providing the strongest evidence that hazing contributed to reduced goose activity beyond seasonal changes alone.

In addition to Wildlife Innovations’ year-one implementation work, regional egg addling efforts continued under a separate contractor. In 2026, the regional program documented 656 eggs addled across 135 nests, a decrease from 863 eggs across 175 nests in 2025 and 888 eggs across 239 nests in 2024. Under stable survey effort, the consistent three-year decline in nests and eggs likely reflects addling-driven suppression of recruitment into the local breeding population, the clearest signal that reproductive management is reducing conflict-driving goose numbers and supporting its continued use.

Year 2 will prioritize closing remaining exclusion gaps at the Leo J. Ryan boardwalk and along fence lines at Gull, Marlin, and Erckenbrack, alongside deepened HOA coordination to secure continued goose nest reporting and access near Leo J. Ryan, where site fidelity makes nest reuse likely in 2027. Monitoring will continue across point count, scat transect, and GPS methods to build a multi-year baseline, with GPS collar and banding deployment expanded as possible within the program resources. The program will also evaluate habitat modifications at city parks, starting with Erckenbrack, Marlin, and Gull, refine hazing tools and strategies adaptively, and consider phased hazing expansion to Boothbay pending CEQA review. Regional outreach and public education on nest reporting and seasonal goose behavior will expand in parallel to support these efforts.

BACKGROUND
Resident Canada geese have created ongoing challenges in Foster City parks, open spaces, beaches, sports fields, walkways, and lagoon-adjacent areas. These impacts include turf damage, fecal accumulation, maintenance concerns, water quality concerns, and conflicts with recreational use of public spaces.

In response, the City developed the Plan to provide a comprehensive, humane, science-based, and non-lethal framework for managing goose-related impacts. The Item 7.2

Plan focuses on monitoring, deterrence, habitat modification, aversive conditioning, localized reproductive control, adaptive management, and public education.

On December 2, 2024, the City Council adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Plan. On August 4, 2025, the City entered into a professional services agreement with Wildlife Innovations, Inc. to implement the Plan through a pilot program focused on seven priority parks.

The priority parks were selected based on lagoon proximity, recreational use, presence of geese on athletic fields or beaches, and history of goose-related impacts. These parks include Leo J. Ryan Park, Gull Park, Catamaran Park, Sea Cloud Park, Edgewater Park, Marlin Park, and Erckenbrack Park.

ANALYSIS
The first year of implementation focused on establishing the program in the field and collecting the data needed to evaluate and refine management strategies. Wildlife Innovations used several monitoring methods, including field observations, point count surveys, scat transect surveys, digital camera surveillance, and GPS collar data. These tools helped identify where and when geese were using City parks, how they responded to deterrence methods, and how activity shifted during different seasonal periods.

Formal hazing began in January 2026. During the reporting year, Wildlife Innovations conducted 675 hazing events and displaced 5,580 geese from the priority park areas.

The program evaluated multiple hazing and deterrence tools, including the trained dog team, remote-controlled amphibious device, remote-controlled boats, handheld laser, drone, and audio deterrent system. The annual report found that most tools were effective when matched to the appropriate site conditions, but the remote-controlled amphibious device was the most effective and versatile because it could operate across both land and water. This was particularly important because geese often moved from turf or shoreline areas into adjacent water, requiring follow-up hazing to fully move them away from the park area.

The trained hazing dog team also proved to be a valuable tool, particularly in turf and lawn areas. The combination of land-based hazing and water-based follow-up was one of the clearest lessons from year one and supports the continued use of multiple tools rather than relying on a single method.

The annual report also documented measurable reductions in goose-related impacts.

Scat transect data provided the strongest evidence of program effectiveness, showing a 70 percent decline at treatment parks compared with a 14 percent decline at control parks. Point count surveys and camera monitoring also generally supported reductions in goose activity at most treatment parks, although results varied by location and season.

Item 7.2

Leo J. Ryan Park was the primary exception during the molt period, when goose activity increased due to shoreline access and the tendency of flightless geese to remain near water and adjacent feeding areas. This finding helped identify the need for additional molt-specific strategies at Leo J. Ryan Park, including continued evaluation of habitat modifications, such as fencing to exclude geese, landscaping changes, and passive measures to deter geese.

Nesting surveillance was also an important component of year-one implementation.

Wildlife Innovations used drone surveys, thermal imaging, field observations, a nesting habitat suitability model, and public reports through SeeClickFix to identify and evaluate nesting activity. During the nesting season, Wildlife Innovations evaluated six active Canada goose nests in Foster City, five of which were located on private HOA property near Leo J. Ryan Park. This reinforced the importance of community reporting, private property coordination, and early nest management to reduce successful hatching and limit future site fidelity.

The City’s current implementation efforts also build on long-standing regional egg addling work that has been conducted for more than a decade under a separate contractor. In 2026, the regional program documented 656 eggs addled in 135 nests.

This was fewer than the 863 eggs addled in 175 nests in 2025 and fewer than the 888 eggs addled in 239 nests in 2024. Although annual nesting activity can vary with habitat conditions, weather, and other factors, this consistent three-year decline is a positive indicator rather than a sign of reduced program effort or coverage. Since survey effort was generally the same across all three years, the trend likely reflects an actual reduction in nesting activity within the program area. Because resident Canada geese exhibit strong nest-site fidelity, successful hatches suppressed by addling in prior years reduce the number of geese recruited back into the local breeding population; the declining nest and egg counts therefore may reflect fewer breeding pairs attempting to nest, not just lower success per attempt. This compounding, population-level effect is the clearest signal that reproductive management is reducing the size of the resident goose population driving conflict in the program area, and supports the continued use of reproductive management as part of the City's broader non-lethal conflict mitigation strategy.

Consistent with the program's adaptive management framework, these Year 1 findings reflect expected first-year refinement rather than programmatic shortcomings. Field deployment of the RC boat and RCAD equipment surfaced real-world range and saltwater-corrosion limitations, the kind of tool performance data an adaptive program is specifically designed to generate and act on before scaling deployment. Likewise, the detection of overnight roosting via supplemental night cameras, and the resulting shift to sunrise/sunset and weekend coverage, is adaptive monitoring functioning as intended:
new field information was incorporated into methodology in real time rather than waiting for a subsequent reporting cycle. The remaining fencing gaps and the postponed Item 7.2

habitat-modification and audio-deterrent testing at Erckenbrack and Marlin reflect a deliberate, phased rollout that prioritized sites with consistent goose presence, allowing effort to be sequenced based on Year 1 evidence rather than committed prematurely.

Similarly, the finding that land-based hazing alone is insufficient without a paired waterbased tool is precisely the kind of empirical, first-year result an adaptive framework is built to produce and carry forward into Year 2 strategy Based on year-one findings, Wildlife Innovations recommends continued monitoring, additional GPS collaring and banding, refinement of hazing strategies, stronger coordination with HOAs and adjacent property owners, continued public education, and evaluation of habitat modification and exclusion opportunities. Year two will continue to focus on adaptive management and improving the timing, location, and effectiveness of program tools based on observed goose behavior and field data.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2024090125) was approved by the Council and filed with the State on September 5, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and accepting the annual report.

Work completed during the reporting period was performed under previously approved appropriations for implementation of the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Wildlife Innovations Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan Project Implementation Annual Report
Attachment 2 - Regional Goose Control Report of Activity Item 7.2

INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Annual Report
(04 August 2025 – 30 June 2026)
Submitted to:

City of Foster City
Submitted by:

Wildlife Innovations, Inc.

DUNS: 081042844
CAGE: 81PJ1
EIN: 82-3456892
24 August 2026
Item 7.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................................................III LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................................................III SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................4 SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................5 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM ........................................................................................................8 SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS..........................................................8 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW........................................................................................................................................8 CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) SURVEILLANCE AND BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................9 NESTING BIRD AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE ......................................................................13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT..............................................................................................................................................13 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION................................................................................................................................17 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................... 18 SEASONAL TRENDS .......................................................................................................................................................20 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................22 INFLUENCE OF SHORELINE FENCING .................................................................................................................................24 TRACKING CAGO HOME RANGE AND SEASONAL SPACE USE WITH GPS TRANSMITTERS ............................................................25 SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY............................................................... 31 HAZING EFFORT SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................32 HAZING EFFECTIVENESS BY METHOD (DEPLOYMENT LEVEL) .................................................................................................33 EVENT-LEVEL HAZING OUTCOMES...................................................................................................................................34 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PATTERNS IN HAZING EFFORT .......................................................................................................35 POINT COUNT SURVEY DATA..........................................................................................................................................36 SCAT TRANSECT DATA...................................................................................................................................................37 CAMERA OCCUPANCY DATA...........................................................................................................................................38 COMPARING PROGRAM CONTRIBUTIONS ACROSS MONITORING METHODS ............................................................................39 SECTION VII: CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) NESTING SUMMARY ................................................................................ 43 SECTION VIII: PROGRAM ADAPTIONS MADE DURING YEAR 1.............................................................................. 47 SECTION IX: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2.................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVATIONS DURING ALL SEASONS FOR Y1.......................... 52 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS PER SEASON......................................................................... 59 APPENDIX C: HEATMAPS OF CITYWIDE CANADA GOOSE OBSERVATIONS IN DIFFERENT SEASONS ...................... 65 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX E: SEASONAL RANGE MAPS FOR GPS COLLARED CANADA GEESE........................................................ 77 APPENDIX F: CEQA MONITORING, MITIGATION AND REPORTING SUMMARY ..................................................... 88 Item 7.2

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MAP OF PRIORITY PARKS, IDENTIFIED IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA ................................................................................7 FIGURE 2. NESTING HABITAT SUITABILITY MODEL FOR CANADA GEESE (CAGO) IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA....................................12 FIGURE 3. PHOTO OF WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS DOG TEAM........................................................................................................15 FIGURE 4. PHOTO OF WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS DOG TEAM HAZING CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OUT OF CATAMARAN PARK......................16 FIGURE 5. PHOTO OF THE AUDIO DETERRENT SYSTEM DEPLOYED AT GULL PARK...........................................................................17 FIGURE 6. CITYWIDE HEATMAP OF CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVATIONS RECORDED DURING YEAR 1............................................19 FIGURE 7. AVERAGE CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVED PER DAY, BY MONTH .............................................................................20 FIGURE 8. AVERAGE CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVED PER PARK-DAY, BY PARK AND SEASON ......................................................21 FIGURE 9. CAMERA OCCUPANCY RATE FOR CANADA GEESE (CAGO), BY PARK, SEASON, AND TIME OF DAY.........................................23 FIGURE 10. AVERAGE CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVED PER POINT COUNT SURVEY, BY PARK AND SEASON ....................................24 FIGURE 11. SCAT PILE DENSITY BY TRANSECT SUBSTRATE TYPE DURING MOLT ...............................................................................25 FIGURE 12. COLLARED CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) A07 WITH HER GOSLINGS AT CATAMARAN PARK IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA............26 FIGURE 13. MAP OF CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) A03 MOVEMENT DURING NESTING SEASON............................................................28 FIGURE 14. MAP OF CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) A05 MOVEMENT DURING NESTING SEASON............................................................29 FIGURE 15. MAP OF CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) A03 RANGE DURING MOLT SEASON ......................................................................30 FIGURE 16. MAP OF CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) A05 RANGE DURING MOLT SEASON......................................................................31 FIGURE 17. PERCENT OF HAZING DEPLOYMENTS BY METHOD, PER PARK ......................................................................................33 FIGURE 18. CANADA GEESE (CAGO) BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE TO HAZING BY METHOD AND SUBSTRATE (DEPLOYMENT LEVEL) ................34 FIGURE 19. CANADA GEESE (CAGO) HAZING EVENTS BY PARK, TIME OF DAY, AND SEASON.............................................................36 FIGURE 20. AVERAGE CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVED PER POINT COUNT SURVEY, BY PARK AND SEASON....................................37 FIGURE 21. CANADA GEESE (CAGO) SCAT PILE DENSITY BEFORE AND AFTER HAZING, BY PARK.........................................................38 FIGURE 22. CAMERA OCCUPANCY RATE FOR CANADA GEESE (CAGO), BEFORE AND AFTER HAZING, BY PARK.....................................39 FIGURE 23. PERCENT DECLINE IN EACH METHOD'S CORE METRIC, TREATMENT VS. CONTROL PARKS ..................................................41 FIGURE 24. MONTHLY CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) HAZING EVENTS BY TREATMENT PARK..................................................................42 FIGURE 25. AVERAGE CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVED PER PARK-DAY, BEFORE AND AFTER HAZING. ............................................43 FIGURE 26. MAP DEPICTING THE LOCATIONS OF CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) NESTS IDENTIFIED AND MANAGED WITHIN FOSTER CITY.........44 FIGURE 27. THE HSUS CANADA GOOSE EGG ADDLING PROTOCOL FLOAT TEST ILLUSTRATION ........................................................45 FIGURE 28. CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) NEST WITH INCUBATING PARENT ON ROCKY SUBSTRATE.........................................................46

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CANADA GEESE (CAGO) SCAT PILES OBSERVED BY TRANSECT AND SEASON......................................................................22 TABLE 2. NESTING AND MOLT SEASON RANGES FOR CANADA GEESE (CAGO) COLLARED WITHIN FOSTER CITY...................................27 TABLE 3. CANADA GEESE (CAGO) BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE TO HAZING BY METHOD AND SUBSTRATE (EVENT LEVEL) .............................35 TABLE 4. BACI MODEL RESULTS FOR CANADA GEESE (CAGO) ACTIVITY, BY MONITORING METHOD..................................................41 Item 7.2

4 SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with Canada Geese (Branta canadensis; hereinafter “CAGO” or “geese”), particularly from fecal accumulation in public parks and waterways, Foster City contracted Wildlife Innovations (WI) to implement a comprehensive, adaptive, and site-specific pilot program consistent with the City's CAGO Management Plan. The pilot program is being conducted within seven (7) priority parks; including treatment and multiple control parks within the city. The contract was executed on 04 of August 2025, and WI began building the project structure directly following contract signature. Field work did not start until later. Therefore, this report details the efforts and data collected during year one of this pilot program (Y1; 10 September 2025 through 30 June 2026). Effort during Y1 references three Reporting Periods in some parts of this report, as those periods were relevant to contracting periods. Those are Reporting Period 1 (04 August 2025 through 31 – December 2025; RP1), Reporting Period 2 (01 January 2026 – 31 March 2026; RP2), and Reporting Period 3 (01 April – 30 June 2026; RP3).

During Y1, WI implemented and evaluated a suite of active hazing techniques to reduce CAGO presence within priority parks. A total of 675 hazing events were conducted, collectively displacing 5,580 geese from priority park areas. Methods deployed included a trained hazing dog team, a Remote-Controlled Amphibious Device (RCAD), a handheld laser, an aerial drone, remotecontrolled boat(s), and an audio deterrent system. Each method was applied with applications customized to environmental conditions and site-specific circumstances, and the strengths and limitations of each tool were recorded during each application. Many events incorporated multiple tools deployed consecutively, because a coordinated land-and-water approach proved most effective to fully displace CAGO from priority parks and adjacent water areas.

When evaluated individually, all tools elicited a displacement response, although the strength, effectiveness, and distance displaced varied by method. Testing indicated the RCAD performed best overall, with its ability to operate across both land and water likely a primary contributing factor. The audio deterrent and drone, despite similar cross-substrate capability, produced lower displacement rates than all other methods. Although continued testing and refinement will clarify which methods perform best under specific site and environmental conditions, supporting a more targeted hazing approach and more durable outcomes, collectively, these efforts produced measurable reductions in CAGO presence across priority parks, substantiated by direct observations, scat surveys, and camera surveillance. Additionally, due to site and condition specific variation in effectiveness, results support that a diverse set of tools are needed to be effective across all conditions and areas.

Based on known CAGO biology, seasonal fluctuations were expected to affect the Foster City CAGO population and park use. Breeding and nesting geese (~Feb–May) typically show strong site fidelity, concentrating movement around defended nest areas rather than dispersing widely in search of forage and nest sites. Once flightless during molt (~Jun–Jul), geese remain restricted to safe sites near water and cover, sustaining a locally visible population within city parks. As flight returns in fall (~Aug–Oct), geese range more widely in search of forage, before activity settles again through winter around the season's most reliable food and water sources. Because these seasonal fluctuations in park use were expected independent of management actions, it was important to maintain untreated "control" parks, allowing comparison between treatment and control areas to isolate treatment effects from underlying seasonal biology.

Since hazing began, treatment parks have generally shown greater declines in CAGO activity than control parks, with scat transect data providing the strongest evidence of a hazing effect (a Item 7.2

5 70% decline at treatment parks compared to 14% at control parks) and point count data showing a directionally consistent pattern, supporting that hazing contributed a measurable effect beyond seasonal change alone. Leo J. Ryan was the primary exception to this trend, due to a sharp increase in activity during molt pointing to a need for molt-specific adaptations to management strategies at that site. This is consistent with a separate finding that parks with beach or shoreline fencing showed substantially lower molt-period scat accumulation than unfenced shoreline areas like Leo J. Ryan, suggesting that fencing is an important strategy to prevent geese from walking into parks or walking between park areas (e.g. shore to lawn) during the flightless molt period in the future.

During late December of 2025, seven CAGO were captured within priority parks and fitted with GPS transmitters. During January, one collared individual was subsequently harvested through legal hunting activities in the surrounding area, and the transmitter was recovered and returned to WI. Movement data from the remaining six collared individuals revealed meaningful shifts in area use during the following months, likely attributable to a combination of seasonal movement patterns and behavioral responses to hazing. During May, another collared CAGO was struck and killed by a car on Foster City Boulevard. During June 2026, WI captured additional geese when molting and deployed/redeployed three additional GPS collars. This capture effort brought the total number of geese captured and banded during Y1 to 20. These findings informed hazing efforts during Y1 and will continue to guide adaptive management in subsequent programmatic periods. Collectively, transmitter data has contributed to a refined understanding of regional population structure, enabling a more targeted hazing approach going forward.

WI also conducted targeted nesting goose surveys, monitoring, and nest removal. A CAGO nesting habitat suitability model that incorporated vegetation and water feature data was used to create a map of suitable nesting areas within and near Foster City. That map was used to identify high-priority areas to search for active goose nests. WI used a thermal imaging camera aboard a drone to detect nesting geese during subsequent nesting surveys conducted. The public also reported additional nests through the city's See-Click-Fix platform, with submissions routed through the park's maintenance department to WI for timely follow-up.

During Y2 of the pilot project, WI will continue to develop the program, with particular focus on molt-specific management at Leo J. Ryan, broader outreach and engagement with HOAs and neighboring cities to support program collaboration, and public education on topics such as nest reporting, goose seasonal behavior, and program updates. Monitoring of CAGO within Foster City will continue through point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and GPS transmitter data. WI will coordinate with Foster City park staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications, and will continue to refine management efforts, including modifying hazing tools and strategies to increase effectiveness.

SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
Foster City is located 17 miles south of San Francisco on the western shore of San Francisco Bay, where nearby protected lands, including Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and Eden Landing State Ecological Reserve, provide extensive foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for CAGO. As a result of available habitat within this area, and modifications to the habitat by humans that resulted in removal of many natural predators that would likely have helped to regulate the CAGO population, reduction in recreational hunting, and milder weather associated with climate change, an unnatural, nonmigratory population of resident CAGO has become established in the southern part of San Francisco Bay and may be growing. As a result of the growing resident population of CAGO, cities in the region are being forced to seek solutions to mitigate conflicts Item 7.2

6 stemming from property damage and human-CAGO conflicts.

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

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

This program focused on CAGO management within seven (7) priority parks selected based on lagoon proximity, presence of youth athletic fields, and conflict history (Fig.1). Work conducted included applying conflict mitigation measures and evaluating the effects at the following parks:

Leo J. Ryan, Gull, Catamaran, Sea Cloud, Edgewater, Marlin, and Erckenbrack.

Erckenbrack and Marlin were identified as priority parks but received no hazing during most of Y1, since both were instead selected for habitat modification and the audio deterrent system. By the time these treatments were ready for deployment, goose presence on the Erckenbrack and Marlin lawns had become too inconsistent to adequately evaluate either treatment's effectiveness.

As a result, the planned temporary habitat modifications at Erckenbrack were postponed until goose presence there is regular enough to support a meaningful before/after comparison.

Hazing at Marlin began in late April, following installation of the audio deterrent system at Gull Park. However, low and irregular goose presence limited the amount of hazing conducted, producing too small a dataset for inclusion in the hazing evaluations presented here; Marlin hazing results will be reported separately in a subsequent report.

CAGO surveys were also conducted at Boothbay Park, a non-priority control park, to monitor goose presence, but no hazing was conducted there. Results of goose presence were compared between parks where hazing was conducted (hereinafter "treatment parks") and parks where hazing was not conducted (hereinafter "control parks") to control for natural variations in goose presence.

Item 7.2

7 Figure 1. Map of Priority Parks, identified in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

8 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM
Objectives for the program included:

1. Implement frequent hazing and deterrence of CAGO at priority parks using a variety of techniques and devices;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During Y1, WI staff were typically on-site around 40 hours per week, with the flexibility to adapt schedules based on project needs. During the molt period when goose presence intensified within priority parks, WI increased efforts up to seven (7) days per week to effectively repel geese from parks. The WI PM conducted site visits, as needed, to lead capture, banding and transmitter deployments on geese, attend meetings with the city, to provide additional support for on-site biologists, and to help steer other parts of project development and operations.

Data Collection and Review
Cellular cameras and digital data collection systems, on mobile devices, were used for recording all CAGO survey data and management activities in the field. Customized databases and data collection forms for this project were developed by WI, allowing for digital collection of georeferenced information such as location, CAGO abundance and behavior, management techniques deployed, and observed responses. Data collection protocols were developed and used to promote standardization. These data were downloaded into spreadsheets and mapping programs for analysis, mapping, and summary.

This report organizes Y1 efforts into three Reporting Periods: Reporting Period 1 (RP1; 04 August – 31 December 2025), Reporting Period 2 (RP2; 01 January – 31 March 2026), and Reporting Period 3 (RP3; 01 April – 30 June 2026). Additionally, because variations between seasons strongly influences CAGO behavior and land use within Foster City, we also summarized survey and hazing data by four periods relevant to CAGO biology (Rutledge et al. 2015): nesting (01 February – 31 May), molt (01 June – 15 July), post-molt 1 (16 July – 31 October), and post-molt 2 (01 November – 31 January). For simplicity, post-molt 1 and post-molt 2 are referred to as "Fall" Item 7.2

9 and "Winter," respectively, throughout the remainder of this report.

Observations, camera surveillance detections, point count surveys, and hazing applications were also summarized by park, observation type, month, and other relevant categories to support interpretation of results. CAGO data were classified within six time periods to characterize activity patterns: morning (0600–0959), midday (1000–1359), afternoon (1400–1759), evening (1800– 2159), night (2200–0159), and pre-dawn (0200–0559; Rutledge et al. 2015). For some data types, no data were recorded within some time periods due to personnel schedules, camera’s ability to effectively survey for CAGO during periods of low light or darkness, and other factors, therefore figures reporting data for some types do not include time periods that were not sampled by the particular survey method.

Data was reviewed continuously, at different levels during Y1, and again and more thoroughly at the conclusion of the first contract year, to ensure accuracy and to evaluate results of management efforts. Program effectiveness was evaluated using metrics such as reductions in CAGO presence and scat within priority parks, property damage, and public complaints, and with consideration of results from water quality testing provided by the city, although multiple variables may affect water quality results. Results are presented herein in tabular, graphical, and georeferenced formats.

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

WI personnel recorded all CAGO observed while conducting work within priority parks and while transiting between parks within city limits. Observations recorded outside of formal survey periods (e.g. point count and transect surveys) were recorded as “non-survey” observations (OBS). When CAGO were observed, the number observed, their behavior, whether they were banded or not, and the location was recorded and georeferenced. The “OBS” dataset may be biased high, as when cameras detected CAGO, personnel often responded to the location, observed, counted and evaluated the behavior of individuals present, and recorded OBS. Since those OBS influenced where and when hazing and other management was conducted, they are important for the program and therefore are reported herein. However, due to bias associated with sampling, OBS data were excluded from evaluations of CAGO trends in response to hazing. For those comparisons, only data with standardized sampling effort, namely Point Count Surveys (PCS), Scat Transects (ST), and Camera Surveillance (CAM), were used.

Cellular Camera Surveillance — During RP1, WI installed 12 digital cameras in priority parks and recorded presence and behavioral data, to help steer CAGO aversive conditioning efforts for the duration of the project. Cameras were set to take time-lapse photos at 15-minute intervals. Photos were reviewed using a mobile app, while WI personnel were conducting field work in the city, and uploaded and analyzed in more detail via desktop computer. Most camera settings remained unchanged during RP3, with a few exceptions: cameras at Gull Beach and Marlin Beach were set to capture images overnight, and cameras were relocated from Sea Cloud to Erckenbrack Beach and from Edgewater to the boat dock at Boat Park, and an additional camera was also added along the boardwalk next to The Vibe at Leo J. Ryan, for relatively short periods to monitor for night roosting and support testing of deterrence methods. Data collected by cameras that were only operated for short periods were not analyzed and summarized within this report.

Additionally, WI developed and tested AI-driven programs for image recognition to identify and Item 7.2

10 evaluate possible integration avenues for CAGO surveillance and pre- and post-treatment evaluations. A minimum detection threshold of more than three geese per photo was applied, such that only photos meeting this threshold were classified as a confirmed CAGO detection (present), reducing false positives from ambiguous images. Establishing this threshold was necessary due to current limitations with the development of AI software to support this type of image review. Detection accuracy varied by park, with the AI-assisted tool's occupancy classifications estimated at 70–90% correct depending on park-specific conditions such as lighting, vegetation, camera angle, and distance from geese photographed. Despite current limitations, the AI enabled effective review of the large number of camera images and provided sufficient accuracy to support program needs. All camera occupancy figures reported herein reflect this AI-assisted classification method. For each photo, WI recorded park, camera location, time, whether geese were present using the threshold, and number of geese. Data processed was restricted to a daylight survey window (sunrise to sunset, plus a 30-minute buffer on each end), calculated separately for each date and camera location, and each photo's timestamp was assigned to one of the same time blocks used for other observational data.

Occupancy was the most applicable way to use camera data to assess how often and when geese were present at a site. Because each photo was marked as either showing geese present (true) or not present (false) based on the detection threshold of more than three geese, occupancy for a given park, month, or season was calculated by counting the number of "true" photos for that park and time period, then dividing by the total number of photos taken during that same period.

Point Count Station Surveys — 13 Point Count Station (PCS) locations (Appendix D) were used to record and evaluate the behavior of CAGO. Each PCS location was typically surveyed once per workday as a standardized protocol, meaning any given station reflected a single brief observation period rather than continuous monitoring. A fixed-point survey was conducted by a biologist at PCS locations for a period of three (3) minutes and the location, number of CAGO observed or heard, and their behavior, were recorded during the survey. Surveys were conducted within specific time periods to identify and evaluate CAGO presence and use of priority parks, in time and space. By continuing to conduct pre- and post-treatment PCS, comparisons of CAGO presence will be used to help evaluate and describe the effectiveness of the habitat modifications and were used to evaluate and describe effectiveness of hazing methods applied.

Scat Transect Surveys — A total of 28 Scat Transect Surveys (STS; 30m in length and 1m in width) were used to monitor CAGO presence during Y1 (Appendix D). During each STS, a biologist walked each transect line while counting and recording all CAGO scat piles present within the transect area. WI reduced STS survey frequency during RP2 to twice weekly, with one survey conducted at the beginning and the second at the end of each week. After doing months of these surveys we realized that more frequent surveying was not necessary to adequately monitor changes in scat presence, and reduced frequency would allow more time for active management efforts. Scat survey data was used to help evaluate presence of and impacts by CAGO to priority parks pre- and post-treatment and will also be used to evaluate effectiveness of the habitat modifications and additional hazing tools.

GPS Transmitters — All captured CAGO were examined for health, aged, sexed, and their morphological measurements recorded. CAGO were banded with a service band, an alphanumeric auxiliary band (yellow over black), and some receiving a GPS neck collar. Capture, banding, and the placement of transmitters was conducted under state and federal permits, and banding information was reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory (managed by the US Geological Survey).

Item 7.2

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

Transmitters were monitored at regular intervals to ensure function, and to adjust the programming as needed. During Y1 data was downloaded periodically and mapped to evaluate CAGO movements in response to hazing, and to evaluate where GPS collared CAGO nested.

Data summary provided in this report includes all geese monitored using GPS collar technology.

Home range is the estimation of the geographic area that an animal utilizes in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young (Burt 1943). To calculate and map home ranges for collared geese across different seasons, we used multiple spatial analysis tools within ArcGIS Pro version 3.6 (ESRI, Redlands, CA), including the Analysis, Data Management, and Spatial Analyst toolboxes, organized and executed using ModelBuilder. Prior to analysis, all GPS telemetry data were reprojected into Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 10N) coordinates to ensure accurate distance and area calculations. To estimate the full extent of seasonal space use, we calculated a minimum convex polygon (MCP). To identify core use areas, we used a kernel density estimation (KDE) with an automatically calculated bandwidth (Rutledge et al. 2015).

Canada Goose Nest Surveys — During CAGO nesting season, WI designed and conducted CAGO nest surveys based on a nesting habitat suitability model (ESRI, Redlands, CA) and based on previous observations of habitat and goose behavior (Fig. 2). The model pulled data from two publicly available datasets: vegetation data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), and water feature data from San Mateo County's open GIS data portal. Areas where suitable nesting vegetation, including grasslands, shrub patches, mudflats, and wetland-fringe plant communities occurred in close proximity to water were identified as high-priority nesting habitat for CAGO.

Search strategies were developed to effectively survey the areas of suitable habitat on foot or with the drone using both standard and thermal camera lenses. WI utilized the drone's thermal imaging camera to survey nesting habitat and prioritized nesting habitat areas near parks where conflicts with goose presence were reported as high. Flights were conducted regularly throughout the nesting season, typically during early morning hours when thermal contrast between incubating female geese and the surrounding environment was greatest. Upon nest confirmation, the drone was used to monitor incubation progress and inform timely management decisions.

Thermal imaging proved particularly valuable for locating nests in areas inaccessible or impractical to survey on foot. All flight operations were conducted by certified personnel, in compliance with FAA Part 107 regulations, and coordinated with San Carlos Airport traffic control throughout the season.

Item 7.2

12 Figure 2. Nesting Habitat Suitability Model for Canada Geese (CAGO) in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

13 Nesting Bird and Special Status Species Surveys for CEQA Compliance In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to minimize disturbance to non-target species, and when hazing or deterrence activities were active within each park, WI conducted nesting bird surveys at each priority park at least once per week during the nesting season (15 February through 31 August). Surveys consisted of 20-minute observation periods structured in two phases: the first 10 minutes were spent stationary to passively detect bird activity, followed by a slow, deliberate 10-minute walk to visually inspect vegetation, ground cover, other features with nesting potential and to further investigate potential nesting behavior if observed from the fixed position portion of each survey. High-powered optics and audible calls were used to confirm species identifications, and all birds were documented, with separate records logged for individuals associated with active or suspected nests. If nesting activity was identified, nesting buffers were implemented and hazing applications were modified or suspended to prevent disturbance until identified nesting behavior was no longer detected.

Special-status species surveys were also conducted at Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Gull parks, which contain beach habitat with potential to support nesting Western Snowy Plover (Anarhynchus nivosus; WSPL). These surveys were initiated on 15 March and will continue until 15 September. Surveys were conducted for a duration of 20-minutes and were focused within open sandy areas and shoreline features consistent with WSPL nesting habitat.

Outside of formal point count survey periods, WI staff were vigilant throughout all program operations for signs of disturbance (e.g. alarm calls, flushing, diving, etc.) to nesting birds or special status species. If any signs of disturbance were identified, protocol was to suspend activities and conduct a full survey for nesting activity. If nesting activity was detected during the follow-up survey, appropriate mitigation measures were to be implemented.

Adaptive Management
On 12 January 2026, WI began formal testing and evaluation of site-specific hazing and deterrence application procedures. All events followed a standardized behavioral assessment protocol. For the purpose of this report, a hazing event refers to a single continuous hazing effort targeting one (1) group of geese, which may have involved multiple sequential tool applications.

Each individual tool application within an event was recorded as a deployment (e.g. the dog team pushing geese from a lawn to adjacent water followed by an RC boat completing dispersal constitutes one (1) event comprising two (2) deployments).

Prior to each hazing event, observers recorded a count of all CAGO present and recorded their location, group size, behavior, and bands for birds that were banded. Hazing events were then logged separately, capturing the location, group size, banding information, pre-event behavior, deployment substrate (lawn, beach, water, or other), tool applied, and the time for geese to vacate the site. When multiple attempts or additional tools were required, supplementary fields were recorded within the same event entry. During the initial phase of evaluating hazing tools, a primary tool or multiple tools were identified based on site and tool characteristics and utilized for each treatment park to attempt to separate results by tool. However, when primary tools were not effective, additional tools were applied when environmental conditions limited use, or initial application failed to produce displacement. Goose response to each hazing application was categorized into one of five outcomes:

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

2. Partial Group Left: One or more geese of the group were displaced from the site while Item 7.2

14 others remained at the original location

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

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

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

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

Deployment of the RCAD was subject to environmental and wildlife considerations. Due to its lightweight, and high-profile structure, the RCAD is susceptible to capsizing in wind and is considered inoperable at wind speeds of 10 mph or greater. To avoid capsizing, WI personnel implemented a protocol to use a hand-held wind meter to assess conditions prior to each RCAD deployment. Additionally, the RCAD was not used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators were to suspend use at any time based on observed wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns.

Remote-controlled Boat — WI acquired a high-speed remote-controlled boat (hereinafter “RC boat”), as an additional water-based hazing tool to address gaps where methods such as the dog team were ineffective and when wind or other environmental conditions limited RCAD deployment. Though lacking the RCAD's predator-like qualities, operators employed similar techniques during deployment of the RC boat in water, including S-curve patterns to corral CAGO and sharp accelerations to simulate a predatory attack. As with the RCAD, the RC boat was not to be used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators suspended use of the RC boat when wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns occurred.

Drone — During Y1, WI expanded drone operations across multiple project applications.

The drone was equipped with daytime and thermal imaging cameras, a two-way speaker, and multi-color strobe lights, with its appearance modified to enhance CAGO response. Foster City falls within semi-complicated airspace, including Class B and Class D designations, each requiring different coordination protocols. WI maintained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization through the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system with multi-month access for up to seven (7) days per week, coordinated with San Carlos Air Traffic Control (ATC) before and after each flight day, and communicated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to maintain compliance. During Y1, drone flights were conducted in most priority parks and over the Lagoon.

Drone hazing flights were conducted at various altitudes and speeds applied in unpredictable patterns to mimic avian predator movement and maximize disturbance to loafing and foraging geese. The drone was particularly effective for covering large areas and accessing water bodies, dense vegetation edges, and other locations impractical or unsafe for personnel and the dog Item 7.2

15 team. To reinforce predator association, WI broadcasted predator vocalizations through the drone's integrated speaker during hazing flights, testing calls from Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, Coyote, and domestic dog.

Dog Team — During Y1, WI trained, managed, and deployed the dog team as one of the most effective hazing tools available (Fig. 3–4). The dog's appearance and directed movement closely simulates the behavior of a natural predator such as a coyote or wolf, eliciting a stronger fear response in CAGO than what is typical of most dogs. WI directed the dog to initiate each hazing event with a slow, low-profile stalk, with head down, and gaze focused on the targeted group of geese, before executing a full-speed chase on command to simulate a predatory attack.

The flush and chase are timed to occur when geese are most vocal and alert, maximizing the behavioral impact to targeted geese. The dog team was applied across a variety of substrates and customized strategies were developed for use during different levels of human activity and other environmental factors. While the dog was used to patrol the shoreline portions of priority parks, due to low profile when swimming in the water, the dog was less effective hazing geese on water and therefore was typically not used to pursue geese into the water.

Figure 3. Photo of Wildlife Innovations Dog Team.

Item 7.2

16 Figure 4. Photo of Wildlife Innovations Dog Team hazing Canada Geese (CAGO) out of Catamaran Park.

Handheld Laser — During Y1, WI deployed a portable, high-intensity green laser as a land-based hazing tool across priority parks. Green wavelengths are used because CAGO see this color more clearly, making the beam highly visible across many conditions. Geese perceive the moving beam as a solid, approaching physical object similar to an oncoming predator, triggering a behavioral response. WI personnel directed the beam to impact the ground near each targeted group of CAGO and slowly moved it toward them, adjusting distance, angle, and duration based on group size, site conditions, and responsiveness of the targeted geese while ensuring that the laser did not make physical contact with the birds. The laser was not deployed over open water because of safety considerations associated with reflecting off of the water and making contact with unintended targets as a result.

Habitat Modifications — During RP1, WI designed and recommended temporary habitat modifications for Foster City, and a testing plan was developed with city staff for Erckenbrack Park. CAGO presence there was irregular through RP2 and RP3 due to nesting and molting seasons. WI will consult with the city again during RP4 to deploy and evaluate the habitat modification testing once CAGO activity resumes at Erckenbrack Park or a comparable park.

Audio Deterrent — The audio deterrent system, comprised of a battery-powered audio player and four speakers mounted high within a tree, was deployed within Gull Park during RP3 (April 2026; Fig.5). The audio deterrent can either be set to operate on a timer, with randomized durations between and during playing goose alarm calls from the speakers. During Y1, when camera surveillance indicated that geese were present within Gull Park, Wi approached the park from a concealed direction, located the geese and made preliminary behavior assessments.

Item 7.2

17 Following those assessments, the audio deterrent was triggered via remote control, and the reaction of the geese was recorded within behavioral response categories. Since CAGO presence was intermittent at Gull Park during nesting season and during the molt, only limited testing was possible during Y1. Testing of the audio deterrent will continue during Y2.

Figure 5. Photo of the Audio Deterrent System deployed at Gull Park.

Public Outreach and Education
During RP1, WI worked with city representatives to develop information that was delivered to citizens in the form of a city website update and customized signs that described components of the program were placed within priority parks. During RP2, WI met with Foster City representatives to evaluate and develop additional outreach and program support materials.

Specifically, a nest identification pamphlet for CAGO and informational content for inclusion on Item 7.2

18 the City’s website were developed and shared with the public during RP2. CAGO nest identification and reporting information was shared on the city’s CAGO Management Program website, and the public was directed to use the See-Click-Fix app to efficiently report suspected CAGO nests.

During Y1, WI and Parks representatives provided updates regarding the program’s development during city council meetings on February 17th, 2026, and again on June 15th, 2026. On June 2nd, WI and Parks representatives also provided an internal update at the Parks and Recreation Committee regular meeting. Additional public outreach consisted of conversations with park users when encountered during project operations.

SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
General observations (OBS), point count surveys (PCS), scat transect surveys (ST), digital camera surveillance, and GPS collar deployments were used to assess CAGO activity, continuously evaluate program effectiveness, and adapt management efforts. Each method captured CAGO presence and response to management in a different but complementary way, and together they provided a comprehensive picture of program effectiveness. Data reported herein were collected between 10 September 2025 and 30 June 2026.

During Y1 of this pilot management program, CAGO were observed within priority parks, nonpriority parks, lawn areas adjacent to roadways, and select non-city properties, including apartment complexes (Fig. 6–7). In total, WI personnel recorded 19,930 CAGO during fieldwork conducted across Foster City, encompassing both survey and non-survey observations. The majority of observations (81.5%; n = 16,246 CAGO) occurred within priority parks, although greater survey efforts were invested at these sites. CAGO were detected in all parks surveyed during Y1.

A total of 2,141 PCS were conducted at 13 point-count stations across eight parks (both treatment and control), detecting 8,647 CAGO, while 2,853 scat transect surveys across 28 transects recorded 16,075 scat piles (Table 1). Twelve cameras deployed across city parks captured 163,052 photos, of which 8,953 (5.5%) detected CAGO.

Item 7.2

19 Figure 6. Citywide Heatmap of Canada Geese (CAGO) Observations recorded during year 1.

Item 7.2

20 Figure 7. Average Canada Geese (CAGO) observed per observation day, by month, from Observational data (October 2025–June 2026; September excluded due to limited early-program surveys). Values were calculated by summing total CAGO observed each month and dividing by total days worked. Days worked ranged from 17 (November) to 29 (June). June's higher count reflects increased weekend survey effort that month.

Seasonal Trends
For all monitoring techniques, CAGO activity exhibited a consistent seasonal pattern, with peak activity in fall, a decline through winter, minimum activity within city parks during nesting, and a rebound during the molt period (Fig. 8).

Mean CAGO abundance per park-day (OBS) was highest during fall (x̄ = 36.0 geese/park-day), declining through winter (x̄ = 18.6) and nesting (x̄ = 10.4), before rebounding sharply during molt (x̄ = 22.3), driven primarily by Leo J. Ryan's pronounced molt-period surge in goose presence (79 geese/park-day; Fig. 8). PCS data followed a similar trend, with mean CAGO abundance highest during fall (x̄ = 9.9 CAGO/survey), approximately twice that recorded during winter (x̄ = 5.3 CAGO/survey), and declining further during nesting (x̄ = 1.8 CAGO/survey) before increasing during molt (x̄ = 2.3 CAGO/survey). Camera occupancy followed a comparable seasonal trend (fall = 9.5%, winter = 7.8%, nesting = 3.2%, molt = 5.0%). Scat density, by contrast, declined through nesting and did not rebound during molt (fall x̄ = 0.36 piles/m², winter x̄ = 0.22 piles/m², nesting and molt x̄ = 0.08 piles/m², respectively). Camera detections and scat deposition were similarly concentrated within the fall to early winter period, with peak monthly camera goose occupancy occurring in December (12.0%; n = 1,581 qualifying photos) and peak scat deposition occurring in October and December (31.9% and 31.4% of all Y1 scat piles, respectively; combined Item 7.2

21 63.3% of the annual total).

Figure 8. Average number of Canada Geese (CAGO) observed per park-day, by park and season, from Observational (OBS) data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). For each park and season, total CAGO observed was divided by the number of distinct observation days at that park during that season, producing an average count per day surveyed ("park-day").

Item 7.2

22 Table 1. Number of Canada Goose scat piles observed during Scat Transect (ST) surveys, by transect and season (October 2025–June 2026). Each cell represents the sum of all scat piles recorded during all surveys of that transect during the specified season.

Transect ID Fall 2025 Winter 2025/2026 Nesting 2026 Molt 2026 Total BoothbayST1 92 50 16 1 159
BoothbayST2 849 510 411 23 1793
BoothbayST3 90 19 60 1 170
CatamaranST1 72 32 2 0 106
CatamaranST2 209 187 71 27 494
CatamaranST3 22 8 7 4 41
EdgewaterST1 114 73 10 1 198
EdgewaterST2 688 750 7 0 1445
EdgewaterST3 189 289 31 1 510
ErckenbrackST1 245 94 21 5 365
ErckenbrackST2 10 2 1 3 16
ErckenbrackST3 211 88 50 93 442
GullST1 609 903 233 0 1745
GullST2 28 3 1 2 34
GullST3 127 77 28 21 253
LeoST1 0 7 36 123 166
LeoST2 9 438 20 21 488
LeoST3 0 1 8 62 71
LeoST4 0 9 5 13 27
LeoST5 0 1 0 87 88
LeoST6 59 28 0 0 87
MarlinST1 574 1303 864 8 2749
MarlinST2 20 9 56 1 86
MarlinST3 320 119 199 32 670
SeaCloudST1 181 1114 30 25 1350
SeaCloudST2 115 292 4 0 411
SeaCloudST3 253 1180 99 11 1543
SeaCloudST4 49 435 64 20 568
Total 5,135 8,021 2,334 585 16,075
Spatial and Temporal Distribution
Point count, camera, and scat transect data indicated corresponding spatial patterns among parks for the majority of the year. Boothbay, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater collectively accounted for 71.4% of all CAGO PCS observations during fall, winter, and nesting; Boothbay, a control park that did not receive hazing, recorded the highest single-survey PCS count (n = 105). Marlin recorded the highest camera occupancy rate of any park (11.0%) and led all parks in monthly camera occupancy ranking in six of the 10 surveyed months, with occupancy concentrated primarily during fall across all times of day (Fig. 9). In contrast, Leo J. Ryan ranked among the lowest parks across nearly all metrics during this period, including mean PCS count (x̄ = 1.3 CAGO/survey), camera occupancy (4.4%), and scat density (fall = 0.02 piles/m², winter = 0.06 piles/m², nesting Item 7.2

23 = 0.01 piles/m²), indicating minimal park use outside the molt period.

This spatial pattern reversed during molt. PCS data showed a shift and increased CAGO activity to Leo J. Ryan and Erckenbrack (beach not lawn), which together accounted for 76.2% of moltperiod observations (n = 420). Camera data corroborated this shift, with Leo J. Ryan rising to become the leading park for camera surveillance-based occupancy during molt (10.7%), driven primarily by a morning spike (18%; Fig. 9), which was the single highest occupancy value recorded for that park across all season-time combinations. The spike in early morning observations there during the molt was associated with over-night roosting that was initiated after dark when hazing could not be conducted. To prevent his in the future, WI recommended exclusion and deterrence measures for Leo J. Ryan further in this report.

Figure 9. Camera occupancy rate (percentage of photos with a Canada Goose (CAGO) detection) by park, season, and time of day, from Camera Surveillance data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). Each cell represents the average occupancy rate for that park, season, and time-of-day combination, calculated as the number of photos with a CAGO detection divided by the total number of photos taken during that combination; darker shading indicates higher occupancy. Boothbay was excluded, as it has no camera installed. Time blocks are defined as morning (0600–0959), midday (1000–1359), afternoon (1400– 1759), evening (1800–2159).

Scat transect data showed the same pattern: scat density at Leo J. Ryan during molt (0.23 piles/m²) increased to the highest recorded value among all parks, nearly eight times the site's mean density during the remainder of the year (0.03 piles/m²). Together, these three independent data sources reinforced a consistent seasonal redistribution in site use coinciding with the flightless molt period.

Individual parks varied considerably in both total PCS activity and seasonal composition (Fig. 10).

Boothbay recorded the highest overall average survey counts, driven primarily by a large Fall Item 7.2

24 contribution, followed by a cluster of mid-range parks (Edgewater, Sea Cloud, Marlin, and Gull) with more evenly distributed seasonal counts. Erckenbrack stood out for the proportion of its activity concentrated during Molt relative to other seasons, while Catamaran and Leo J. Ryan recorded the lowest overall averages, with Leo J. Ryan's activity comprised disproportionately of Molt-period observations relative to its low counts in other seasons.

Figure 10. Average Canada Geese (CAGO) observed per Point Count Survey (PCS), by park and season, collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026), split into Treatment and Control parks (dashed line).

For each park and season, the total number of CAGO counted was divided by the number of surveys conducted at that park during that season, producing an average count per survey; stacked bar segments represent each season's contribution to the park's total, colored as shown in the legend.

Influence of Shoreline Fencing
Since geese cannot fly during the molt, fencing placed strategically can be an effective means of preventing geese from walking from the water to beach, and from the beach to lawn areas to forage. Some parks have fencing that was installed for this reason, others do not. Parks with that type of fencing had lower scat density during the molt season (Fig. 11). Scat density at Leo J.

Ryan during molt (0.227 piles/m²) was approximately six times greater than at Catamaran (0.038 piles/m²), with occupancy following the same pattern (60.0% vs. 29.6%); although both parks contain shoreline-adjacent walkways, Catamaran's shoreline is fenced, whereas Leo J. Ryan's is not. A similar pattern was observed at the three (3) parks with adjacent beach habitat (Erckenbrack, Marlin, and Gull), where fencing separated lawn from beach, and where scat densities were disproportionately concentrated along beach transects relative to land transects (beach and lawn; Erckenbrack: 0.344 vs. 0.015 piles/m², 95.6% higher on beach; Marlin: 0.119 vs. 0.017 piles/m², 85.7% higher; Gull: 0.088 vs. 0.004 piles/m², 95.5% higher), with occupancy following the same pattern. These findings support that fencing may restrict CAGO movement during the flightless molt period, effectively resulting in geese using unfenced areas of waterItem 7.2

25 adjacent parks.

Figure 11. Canada Goose scat pile density (piles/m²) by transect substrate type (Lawn, Walkway, Beach) during Molt, from Scat Transect (ST) data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). Density was calculated as total scat piles divided by the number of surveys and transect area (30 m² per transect) for each park-substrate combination. Marlin, Gull, and Erckenbrack have fencing separating their beach transects from land (Lawn and Walkway); Leo J. Ryan, Catamaran, and Sea Cloud are shoreline parks without a beach, but Catamaran and Sea Cloud have shoreline fencing while Leo J. Ryan does not.

Tracking CAGO Home Range and Seasonal Space Use with GPS Transmitters On 30 and 31 December 2025, WI captured, banded, and deployed GPS transmitters on seven (7) CAGO. Of those, two (2) were recovered following mortality of the CAGO: one (1) legally harvested by a hunter near Bair Island (A02, 1/3/2026) and a second killed by a vehicle strike on Foster City Boulevard (A06, 5/18/2026). On 24 April 2026, WI captured one (1) additional goose, a nesting female in Foster City and deployed a new GPS collar (Fig. 12). On 16 June 2026, WI conducted an additional capture effort during the flightless molt period, banding 11 additional geese, deploying two (2) new GPS collars, and redeploying one (1) of the collars recovered after a mortality event. All deployed transmitters functioned as scheduled, providing reliable location data and partitioned into four (4) seasons for analysis, based on dates identified by (Rutledge et al. 2015). Due to differences between total number of days surveyed, and number of days surveyed within some seasons due to deployment or mortality dates, for the following analysis, data from six (6) collars was able to be analyzed for molt season, and data from five (5) collars was able to be analyzed for nesting season.

The date range for these seasons was developed to be applicable for a large population of CAGO.

Although the actual dates that comprised individual CAGO nesting and molting can vary from these defined date ranges, the data points were unlikely to affect the overall trends depicted within the maps.

Comparisons for two individuals are made within this section, A03 and A05, as their movement data provided strong examples of trends observed with other collared geese, and are relevant to Item 7.2

26 program management efforts. Home Range maps for the remaining collared individuals are provided in Appendix E.

Figure 12. Collared Canada Goose (CAGO) A07 with her goslings at Catamaran Park in Foster City, California.

Nesting Season Home Range – Nesting season includes the period during which CAGO pair with mates, select nesting habitat, construct nests, and incubate eggs. GPS data indicated that two (2) of the collared birds nested at or near Bair Island (A05, A04), one (1) nested at the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve (A01), one (1) left Foster City and moved to Alameda Navy Base to nest (A00), one (1) bird nested within Foster City (A07), and one (1) may not have nested (A01). The fate of those nests could not be determined through GPS data alone.

Home range estimates during the nesting season aligned with CAGO behavior documented through other survey and surveillance methods, with collared individuals exhibiting substantially larger home ranges during the early part of nesting season, consistent with movement associated with mate-seeking and habitat selection (Table 2). Nesting season home ranges varied widely among collared individuals, from 11.64 mi² (A03) to 113.66 mi² (A01), with a mean of 51.4 mi² among the five (5) individuals with sufficient nesting-season data (insufficient data were available for A07). Spatial patterns also varied: some individuals remained local to Foster City (Fig. 13–16), while others exhibited broader southern-bay movement, including excursions to Alameda and Bair Island (Appendix E).

Year 1 GPS collar data confirm that CAGO using Foster City during the molt period nest primarily outside the city, at Bair Island, the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, and other nearby areas, Item 7.2

27 although a few geese were also documented nesting within Foster City. This indicates that most conflict-causing geese are recruits from these off-site colonies rather than geese that nested within Foster City. Because reproductive success at these sites directly drives the number of flightless, brood-rearing geese that later disperse into Foster City, egg addling at Bair Island remains a cost-effective, source-level complement to in-park hazing and other management strategies implemented within the city and therefore should be continued. Expanding addling to the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve and Belmont Slough (both confirmed nesting sites for the same collared population), would help close remaining recruitment pathways for the group of CAGO using Foster City. Adding support from modernized methods to nest searching and addling efforts within Bair Island, such as drone nest surveys to improve nest detection and GPS mapping of all detected nests, would further strengthen trend tracking, improve efficiency and effectiveness, offering the most direct means of reducing CAGO conflicts within Foster City by targeting them at their source.

Molt Season Home Range – During the flightless molt period, GPS collar data indicated that four (4; A01, A03, A05, A07) of the collared birds spent the molt period within Foster City, one (A04) molted in San Mateo, and one (1) remained at Alameda for the molt period (A00). A majority of collared birds utilized Foster City as a molting location, reflecting the favorable habitat conditions provided by city parks, including abundant grass forage and proximity to water. Despite ranging widely across eastern San Mateo County during the beginning of the nesting season, molt-season home ranges declined markedly relative to nesting-season ranges (Table 2). Moltseason home ranges varied from 0.26 mi² (A01) to 2.49 mi² (A00), with a mean of 1.16 mi² across all six (6) collared individuals, an approximately 44-fold reduction relative to the mean nestingseason range. Among the five individuals with paired nesting- and molt-season data, individual reductions in home range size ranged from 86.8% (A05) to 99.8% (A01).

GPS collar data indicate that Foster City is a preferred molting location for CAGO, supporting prioritization of molt-specific strategies within the program. The data also show that CAGO using Foster City for different purposes (foraging, loafing, molting) move regionally, and nearly all nest outside the city. This may support that many of the conflict-generating geese in Foster City were not born there, and that conflicts with resident CAGO are ultimately driven by regional rather than local factors. Conflict mitigation efforts should therefore be pursued at the regional level to be most effective.

Table 2. Nesting and Molt Season Ranges for Canada Geese (CAGO) collared within Foster City.

CAGO Auxiliary Band
#
Nesting Season Home
Range
Molt Season Home
Range Age & Sex
A00 84.14 Square Miles 2.49 Square Miles Adult Female
A01 113.66 Square Miles .26 Square Miles Adult Female
A03 11.64 Square Miles .88 Square Miles Adult Female
A04 31.99 Square Miles .51 Square Miles Adult Female
A05 15.5 Square Miles 2.04 Square Miles Adult Male
A07 Deployed at end of nesting .76 Square Miles Adult Female Item 7.2

28 Figure 13. Map depicting the movement and congregation of Canada Goose (CAGO) A03 transmitter data during the nesting season.

Item 7.2

29 Figure 14. Map depicting the movement and congregation of Canada Goose (CAGO) A05 transmitter data during the nesting season.

Item 7.2

30 Figure 15. Map depicting the range of Canada Goose (CAGO) A03 during the molt season.

Item 7.2

31 Figure 16. Map depicting the molt season range of Canada Goose (CAGO) A05.

SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY Evaluation of hazing effectiveness was based on camera surveillance, point count surveys (PCS), and scat transect data, each of which applied a fixed, measurable level of effort across pre-hazing and active hazing periods and therefore supported direct comparison of CAGO activity between conditions. Observation (OBS) data were excluded from this evaluation: because OBS effort was not standardized (observations were prompted by camera detections or made opportunistically during routine patrols rather than collected over a defined duration or area), detections were biased toward times and locations where geese were already known or suspected to be present.

Incorporating OBS data alongside the effort-controlled methods would have overstated apparent CAGO activity and confounded interpretation of treatment effects.

OBS data nonetheless retain value in a descriptive capacity. Because observations were not constrained to fixed survey windows or locations, they captured spatial and temporal patterns in CAGO presence that the more structured methods, by design, were not positioned to detect.

These patterns are presented separately below as complementary context to the treatment-effect results that follow. At treatment parks, hazing was implemented using a range of tools selected according to site-specific conditions.

Item 7.2

32 Hazing Effort Summary
Hazing tools applied generally produced meaningful behavioral responses in geese, though some tools excelled on certain substrates more than others. The dog team performed especially well at parks without adjacent water features, producing high land-based full flush rates, while the RCAD stood out as the most versatile tool overall given its high effectiveness on both land and water.

The audio deterrent, by contrast, produced little discernible response, though overall, most tools produced meaningful hazing effects when matched to appropriate site conditions Based on documented CAGO biology, seasonal fluctuations in CAGO presence were expected across all of the parks, emphasizing the importance of including control parks (where hazing was not conducted) to allow for comparisons between treatment and control parks, to better describe the effects of hazing on goose presence, in relation to natural seasonal changes in goose presence. Results across all methods indicated reductions in CAGO presence at treatment parks (Catamaran, Edgewater, Gull, Leo J. Ryan, and Sea Cloud), where hazing began January 12, 2026, that generally exceeded declines at control parks (Boothbay, Erckenbrack, and Marlin (prior to April 27, 2026)), though the strength and consistency varied by method. This suggests hazing had a greater effect on goose presence rather than seasonality alone at most treatment parks; however, Leo J. Ryan stood out as a consistent outlier, driven by its molt-period activity surge, which offset or reversed this pattern in several methods. Scat transect data showed the clearest, statistically significant hazing effect (p = 0.0054), the only method to reach significance; PCS and camera occupancy data showed a similar, though non-significant, trend. Excluding Leo J. Ryan, camera occupancy also aligned with the hazing-effect pattern shown by scat and PCS data.

These results emphasized the need for additional molt-specific adaptations to the program for Leo J. Ryan during Y2.

During Y1, WI conducted 675 hazing events (defined as a single continuous effort targeting one group of geese, potentially incorporating multiple tools applied sequentially), collectively displacing 5,580 geese from priority park areas. Tools deployed included the dog team (n = 285), remote-controlled amphibious device (RCAD; n = 382), handheld laser (n = 209), aerial drone (n = 38), and remote-controlled (RC) boat (n = 64). Tool use varied by park across Y1, with the dog team, RCAD, laser, and drone used at every treatment park to varying degrees, while the audio deterrent (used only at Gull) and RC boat (used at every treatment park except Edgewater) saw more limited or park-specific use. Tool selection at each park reflected a combination of sitespecific conditions and constraints on tool deployment (e.g., equipment status, weather, or season) and shifted as needed throughout the year (Fig. 17).

Item 7.2

33 Figure 17. Percent of hazing deployments by method, per park, from formal hazing events (January 12, 2026 onward for all treatment parks). A deployment is counted each time a specific tool is applied during a hazing event; a single event may include multiple deployments if more than one tool was used. For each park, the percentage shown is the number of deployments of that method divided by the total number of deployments at that park, across all tools.

A recurring behavioral pattern observed was that CAGO displaced from land frequently retreated to adjacent water rather than vacating the park entirely. In these instances, a secondary waterbased hazing method was required to achieve full displacement; without this follow-through, geese typically staged at the water's edge and re-entered the park shortly after hazing pressure ceased. This land-to-water dynamic informed adaptation and development of the multi-tool hazing strategy applied across Foster City parks. Deployment-level effectiveness (each individual tool application within an event) is reported below to capture per-application performance and eventlevel outcomes, are reported separately (Table 3).

Hazing Effectiveness by Method (Deployment Level)
Hazing efficacy varied substantially by tool and substrate (Fig. 18). The RCAD achieved the highest deployment-level success of any method, producing a full flush in 97.5% of water-based applications (n = 163) and prompting continued pursuit onto water in 94.1% of land-to-water retreat events (n = 218), largely eliminating the need for a secondary tool following retreat. The RC boat also performed strongly on water (n = 64), achieving a full flush in 70.3% of applications, though its partial-response rate was substantially higher than the RCAD's (26.6% vs. 1.8%), resulting in more frequent follow-up hazing. Among land-based tools, the handheld laser (n = 209) and dog team (n = 283) produced the strongest results, with full flushes in 63.2% and 57.2% of applications, respectively; dog teams performed best in parks lacking adjacent water refuge, while laser efficacy declined on bright, sunny days. The aerial drone showed more mixed results, achieving a full flush in only 32.3% of land deployments (n = 31) and 14.3% over water (n = 7), Item 7.2

34 with early signs of habituation observed among banded individuals. The audio deterrent was the weakest tool evaluated (n = 11): no deployment produced a full flush, and 63.6% elicited no reaction at all.

Figure 18. Canada Goose behavioral response to hazing, by method and substrate, reported at the deployment level (January 12, 2026–June 2026 for all treatment parks). For each method-substrate combination, the percentage shown is the number of deployments resulting in each outcome (Full Flush, Retreated to Water, Partial/Transited, No Reaction) divided by the total number of deployments of that method on that substrate. Sample sizes (n) reflect that total.

Event-Level Hazing Outcomes
Whereas deployment-level results (above) reflect per-application performance, event-level outcomes capture the cumulative result of an entire hazing effort, including cases where multiple deployments or tools were used sequentially to achieve full displacement (Table 3). At the event level, RCAD applications on water achieved a full flush from a standalone method in 100% of events (n = 19). The handheld laser achieved a standalone full flush in 61.1% of land-based events (n = 162), and the dog team achieved a standalone full flush in 54.5% of land-based events (n = 235); however, the dog team required repeated application of the same method in only 14.5% of events, compared with 66.3% for RCAD on land (n = 199), indicating that while the RCAD frequently required repeated passes, it never required a different tool altogether (0% of land events).

By contrast, the audio deterrent system and water-based drone deployments showed the weakest event-level performance: 100% of audio deterrent events (n = 11) and 75% of water-based drone events (n = 4) ultimately required a different tool to achieve full displacement, and neither method achieved a standalone full flush in any event. Land-based drone events (n = 31) similarly Item 7.2

35 underperformed relative to other land-based tools, with 32.3% requiring a different tool and 32.3% ending in geese retreating to water as a final, unresolved outcome, which was the highest finalretreat-to-water rate among land-based methods.

Table 3. Canada Goose behavioral response to hazing by method and substrate, where hazing was initiated, reported at the event level (January 12, 2026–June 30, 2026). An event is defined as a single continuous hazing effort targeting one group of geese, which may involve one or more sequential tool deployments. "Full Flush from Standalone Method" reflects the percentage of events in which a single tool application, with no follow-up deployment, achieved a full flush. "Repeated Same Method" and "Needed Different Tool" reflect the percentage of events in which the initial tool was reapplied or a different tool was used, respectively, to pursue full displacement. "Retreated to Water," "Transited in Park," and "No Reaction" reflect the final outcome recorded for the event, regardless of how many tools were used.

Outcome
Dog
Team
Land
RCAD
Land
RCAD
Water
Laser
Land
RC
Boat
Water
Drone
Land
Drone
Water
Sound
System
Land
Number of
Events 235 199 19 162 9 31 4 11
Full Flush
from
Standalone
Method

54.5% 29.1% 100% 61.1% 55.6% 32.3% 0% 0%
Repeated
Same
Method to
Achieve
Full Flush

12.3% 65.3% 0% 17.3% 33.3% 0% 0% 0%
Needed
Different
Tool to
Achieve
Full Flush

12.8% 0% 0% 9.3% 0% 25.8% 75% 100%
Retreated
to Water
as Final
Reaction

19.6% 4.5% 0% 9.9% 11.1% 32.3% 25% 0%
Transited
in Park as
Final
Reaction
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
No
Reaction
as Final
Reaction

0.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.7% 0% 0%
Temporal and Spatial Patterns in Hazing Effort
Hazing effort was not evenly distributed across time of day, season, or park, as hazing was conducted in response to CAGO detected on camera or CAGO observed when patrolling parks (hazing conducted beginning 12 January 2026; Fig. 19). During nesting season, hazing effort was concentrated in morning and midday hours (42.9% and 38.1%, respectively), and at Leo J. Ryan, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater (32%, 26%, and 17%, respectively), which generally correlated with Item 7.2

36 when goose activity was highest. During molt, hazing effort shifted disproportionately to Leo J.

Ryan Park due to increased goose presence there, which accounted for 74.2% of all molt-period hazing events (n = 115), 41.7% of which occurred during morning hours, followed by midday (22.6%), and afternoon (16.5%) events. Additionally, Leo J. Ryan comprised 88.0% (n = 22) of all evening hazing events. During this time personnel schedules shifted to address these observed peaks.

Figure 19. Canada Goose (CAGO) hazing events by park, time of day, and season, from formal hazing events (January 12, 2026 onward for all treatment parks). Each cell represents the total number of hazing events recorded for that park, season, and time-of-day combination, with darker shading indicating a higher event count. Time blocks are defined as: morning (0600–0959), midday (1000–1359), afternoon (1400– 1759), evening (1800–2159).

Point Count Survey Data
Treatment parks averaged a 68% decline in geese per survey via PCS, compared with a 20% average decline at control parks, a 48-percentage-point differential (Fig. 20). This gap suggested that hazing efforts contributed to goose displacement beyond the effects of seasonal behavioral change alone. Although this treatment effect did not reach statistical significance in the mixedeffects model (estimate = −0.43, SE = 1.21, p = 0.72; Table 4), the consistent direction and magnitude of the difference pointed toward hazing having an effect. Additional monitoring will continue to examine this trend.

Given that Leo J. Ryan is the only park driving the positive observational trend, we interpret this divergence as an outlier displaying site- and season-specific effect, which should be evaluated independently vs collaboratively with the other sites when assessing overall management efficacy across treatment parks. Surveillance will continue, with hazing pressure adjusted as needed to Item 7.2

37 sustain the reductions documented here.

Figure 20. Average Canada Geese (CAGO) observed per Point Count Survey (PCS) before and after hazing began, by park, from PCS data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). For each park, "before" and "after" values represent the average number of CAGO observed per survey for that period.

Marlin is included only as a control-period comparison, using data prior to its April 28, 2026 hazing start; no post-hazing data for Marlin is shown. "Treatment avg decline" and "Control avg decline," shown above each group, represent the average percent decline from the pre- to post-hazing period across the parks in that group, calculated individually per park and then averaged.

Scat Transect Data
Scat transect surveys provided an additional method for evaluating hazing effects on CAGO presence. WI recorded 13,557 scat piles across 1,617 pre-hazing surveys (8.4 piles/survey) and 2,423 piles across 1,182 post-hazing surveys (2.0 piles/survey). A 75.5% reduction in scat deposition rate was identified following the onset of hazing. Mean scat pile counts declined at every treatment park, averaging 70% versus 14% at control parks (Fig. 21). Declines were most pronounced at Edgewater (95.6%, from 12.2 to 0.5 piles/survey), Sea Cloud (86.5%), and Gull (74.3%), and Leo J. Ryan showed the smallest treatment-park decline (20.1%).

Leo J. Ryan's modest decline is consistent with the molt-period activity surge documented elsewhere in this report but likely understates actual use of the park. Program staff and City reports documented scat accumulation there during molt, prompting a city contractor to pressure wash the area, removing scat between surveys and lowering recorded counts independent of actual goose activity, a confounding factor that was unique to this park.

Among control parks, scat counts declined 65.5% at Erckenbrack and 31.2% at Boothbay, while Marlin increased 53%, a mixed pattern consistent with seasonal variation. The magnitude of decline at treatment parks exceeded what seasonal variation alone would predict, supporting Item 7.2

38 hazing as a contributing factor to the treatment–control difference.

Figure 21. Canada Geese (CAGO) scat pile density (piles/survey) before and after hazing began, by park, from Scat Transect (ST) data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). For each park, "before" and "after" values represent the average number of scat piles per survey for that period. For all parks except Marlin, the cutoff is January 12, 2026; Marlin is included only as a control-period comparison, using data prior to its April 28, 2026 hazing start. "Treatment avg decline" and "Control avg decline," shown above each group, represent the average percent decline from the pre- to post-hazing period across the parks in that group, calculated individually per park and then averaged.

Camera Occupancy Data
Camera surveillance was the only monitoring method to provide continuous, automated coverage independent of active field survey effort. Because Boothbay has no camera installed, a robust treatment-versus-control comparison was limited to the remaining camera-equipped parks, with Erckenbrack and Marlin serving as the available control comparisons. System-wide camera occupancy declined from 10.1% pre-hazing to 3.3% post-hazing, a 67.3% reduction.

This decline was not uniform across parks. Sea Cloud (94%) and Edgewater (90%) showed the steepest declines, while Leo J. Ryan's occupancy more than doubled (2.5% to 5.1%), again reflecting the molt-period activity surge documented elsewhere in this report (Fig. 22). Because of this reversal, treatment parks as a group averaged only a 41% decline, 24 percentage points below the 65% average decline at the two available control-park comparisons (Erckenbrack: 59%; Marlin: 72%). Excluding Leo J. Ryan, however, the remaining treatment parks averaged a 77.3% decline, exceeding the control average and consistent with the treatment effect observed in the scat and PCS data. This aligns with the BACI model results (Table 4), which, by incorporating a random intercept per site, weighed Leo J. Ryan's reversal differently than a simple unweighted average across parks. Continued monitoring in Y2 will help clarify whether the Leo J. Ryan pattern Item 7.2

39 persists.

Once Leo J. Ryan's molt-period reversal is accounted for, camera data were broadly consistent with the pattern seen in the other monitoring methods: most treatment parks declined more than the control average, with Leo J. Ryan the clear exception. Because camera surveillance captures goose activity at a timing and temporal resolution the other methods cannot match, it also allows WI to better identify optimal windows for hazing deployment. WI recommends continuing, and potentially expanding, camera monitoring in Y2.

Figure 22. Camera occupancy (percentage of photos with a Canada Geese (CAGO) detection) before and after hazing began, by park, from Camera Surveillance data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). Boothbay was excluded, as it has no camera installed. For each park, "before" and "after" values represent the average daily occupancy rate for that period, calculated by taking the sum of daily occupancy percentages and dividing by the number of survey days in that period. For all parks except Marlin, the cutoff is January 12, 2026; Marlin is included only as a control-period comparison, using data prior to its April 28, 2026 hazing start. “Treatment avg decline" and "Control avg decline," shown above each group, represent the average percent decline from the pre- to post-hazing period across the parks in that group, calculated individually per park and then averaged.

Comparing Program Contributions Across Monitoring Methods Descriptive declines in CAGO activity following hazing diverged by monitoring method: PCS and scat transect data both showed a larger decline at treatment parks than at control parks, whereas camera-based occupancy declined more at control parks than at treatment parks (Fig. 23). BACI mixed-effects models testing the Group × Period interaction identified a significant treatment effect for scat transect data only (Table 4), consistent with a greater decline in CAGO activity at treatment relative to control parks following hazing onset. Neither the PCS nor camera occupancy models reached statistical significance, though point estimates from both were in the direction Item 7.2

40 consistent with a treatment effect.

These differences reflect the complementary rather than redundant roles the four Y1 monitoring methods played, and no single method would have adequately supported the program and conclusions that were able to be drawn from the combined data sources. PCS and scat transect surveys, conducted with fixed, defined effort at established stations and transects, provided the standardized data needed for the direct statistical comparison above. Camera surveillance offered a different kind of value: continuous, automated coverage independent of field-staff scheduling, and a level of temporal resolution the other methods cannot match. That resolution lets WI identify not just where, but when hazing is most warranted, including triggering staff to conduct OBS in areas where most needed, including the discovery of nocturnal CAGO roosting behind fecal accumulation at Leo J. Ryan and other locations. Additionally, camera data can inform which hazing tool best fits a given moment, such as prioritizing RCAD deployment on water, where it achieved the highest single-method success rate recorded (97.5% full flush), or scheduling handheld laser use outside bright, sunny conditions, when its efficacy is reduced. The camera model’s group-level reversal was driven almost entirely by Leo J. Ryan; excluding that park, the remaining treatment parks averaged a 77.3% decline, exceeding the control average and consistent with the camera model's direction despite its lack of significance.

OBS data, though excluded from formal treatment-effect evaluation because detection effort was neither fixed nor independent of prior detections, proved essential for exactly the real-time responsiveness the other three methods cannot provide. OBS monitoring first identified the moltperiod surge in CAGO activity at Leo J. Ryan, prompting a corresponding increase in hazing effort there (Fig. 24) and explaining a 71% increase in average daily CAGO counts at that park even as every other treatment park declined. That single, well-documented exception then reappears across the other three methods, as the smallest scat decline among treatment parks (20.1%, further confounded by City pressure-washing between surveys), the only camera occupancy increase (2.5% to 5.1%), and the reason treatment-park averages shift substantially depending on whether Leo J. Ryan is included (Fig. 25).

That convergence is the clearest demonstration of why all four methods matter together. No single method identified and explained the Leo J. Ryan pattern with full confidence on its own: OBS flagged the behavioral shift, hazing-effort records show WI's operational response, and PCS, scat, and camera data each independently confirmed that this one park was behaving differently from the rest of the treatment group. Where the methods agree, as at Edgewater, Sea Cloud, and Gull, that agreement strengthens confidence that hazing, rather than incidental seasonal change, drove the observed declines; where they diverge, that site-specific dynamic warrants closer management attention. PCS and scat transects provide the statistically defensible backbone of this evaluation, camera surveillance adds the temporal precision needed to refine tool selection and timing, and OBS supplies the adaptive, real-time awareness that let WI respond to emerging patterns within the season. Together, they provide a more complete and more actionable picture of park-level goose activity than any single method could provide, directly underpinning the adaptive management approach applied throughout Y1
Item 7.2

41 Table 4. Results of BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) mixed-effects models testing whether Canada Goose activity changed differently in treatment versus control parks after hazing began, for the three monitoring methods that could be statistically evaluated (October 2025–June 2026). Each model included Group (Treatment/Control), Period (Pre/Post), their interaction, and a random intercept per site. Estimate, standard error (SE), and p-value reflect the Group × Period interaction, testing whether treatment parks changed differently over time than control parks. A negative estimate means treatment parks declined more than controls ("Consistent" with a hazing effect); a positive estimate means treatment parks declined less, or increased, relative to controls ("Opposite" direction). Significance threshold: p < 0.05.

Metric Direction Estimate SE p_value Significant
Point Count Surveys (PCS)
Consistent
(Treatment declined
more than Control)
-0.43 1.21 0.7234 No
Scat Transects
Consistent
(Treatment declined
more than Control)
-3.47 1.25 0.0054 Yes
Camera Occupancy (%)
Consistent
(Treatment declined
more than Control)
-0.76 1.24 0.5392 No
Figure 23. Percent decline from pre- to post-hazing (before vs. on/after January 12, 2026) in each method's core metric at Treatment versus Control parks: mean CAGO count per survey, mean scat pile density, and % of camera-days with a CAGO detection.
.

Item 7.2

42 Figure 24. Monthly hazing events conducted against Canada Geese (CAGO) at the five Treatment-group parks (Catamaran, Edgewater, Gull, Leo J. Ryan, and Sea Cloud), January –June 2026. Values represent the total count of hazing events recorded per park per month following the hazing start date of January 12, 2026.

Item 7.2

43 Figure 25. Average Canada Geese (CAGO) observed per park-day, before and after hazing began, by park, from Observational (OBS) data collected during Year 1 (October 2025–June 2026). For each park, "before" and "after" values represent the total number of CAGO observed divided by the number of distinct survey days for that period, producing an average count per park-day. For all parks except Marlin, the cutoff is January 12, 2026; Marlin is included only as a control-period comparison, using data prior to its April 28, 2026 hazing start. "Treatment avg decline" and "Control avg decline," shown above each group, represent the average percent decline from the pre- to post-hazing period across the parks in that group, calculated individually per park and then averaged.

SECTION VII: CANADA GOOSE (CAGO) NESTING SUMMARY
WI conducted 30 drone survey flights during the nesting season, each ranging from approximately 10 to 20 minutes in duration. Flights targeted parks and areas identified as suitable nesting habitat by the nesting habitat suitability model, refined through ground-truthing and on-foot habitat surveys, with coverage prioritized where habitat characteristics indicated the greatest likelihood of nest establishment. WI also investigated CAGO nesting reports submitted by residents through the City's SeeClickFix application.

During the nesting season, six (6) active CAGO nests were evaluated by WI staff in Foster City.

Five (5) of the six (6) active nests were located within private HOA complexes near Leo Ryan Park (Fig. 26), requiring owner permission to access. WI did not conduct any nest surveys on private property without approval from owners and relied on reporting through the See-Click-Fix system or other reports from citizens for nest detections on private property. WI staff observed early-stage goslings during the nesting season, supporting that at least some nests within Foster City were neither detected nor treated. Broods of goslings were observed in or adjacent to areas where survey access was not authorized, and nest totals reported here should therefore be considered a minimum count.

Item 7.2

44 Figure 26. Map depicting the locations of Canada Goose (CAGO) nests identified and managed within Foster City.

For nest management, WI generally followed recommendations provided within the Canada Goose Egg Addling protocol published by the Humane Society of the United States. The protocol recommends that eggs are treated within early stages of incubation (generally before day 14) to avoid addling eggs with highly developed embryos. To determine incubation stage, WI staff Item 7.2

45 floated eggs following a standard field method in which an egg's buoyancy and orientation in water indicate embryonic age (Fig. 27). Eggs from all nests of unknown incubation stage were floated before treatment decisions were made.

Figure 27. The HSUS Canada Goose Egg Addling Protocol Float Test Illustration.

Community involvement in nest detection can contribute to program objectives in reducing reproductive success and site fidelity, particularly on private property where goslings may imprint on the surrounding environment and become a long-term management challenge through fulltime presence or by returning year after year (e.g. for nesting or molting). These five (5) nests reported in private HOA complexes, were not in areas typically identified as suitable habitat (i.e. rocky substrate, planter boxes, mulch) (Fig. 28). WI recommends that the City continue to promote the SeeClickFix platform for nest reporting during subsequent years of the program, and through more public outreach and education, encourage more citizens and HOA’s to participate by monitoring their properties for and reporting nests detected.

In one response to a SeeClickFix report, a pair of CAGO was said to be nesting outside of the kitchen window of an apartment, and when the elderly woman that lived at the location attempted to enter or exit the front door to the residence, the CAGO acted aggressively and attacked the woman. WI responded to investigate and located an active CAGO nest with female incubating eggs and the male standing guard. WI recommended removing the nest to mitigate the conflicts and to be consistent with program objectives, but the owners did not want the nest to be managed; however, they did allow WI staff to attach a GPS collar to the incubating female. This provided a unique opportunity to monitor and track the development of the goslings as they left the nest Item 7.2

46 location and began moving around Foster City and in response to the management program. The goslings that hatched from that nest were identifiable as their mother was banded and wearing a GPS collar (A07). That group was observed within the lagoon by Leo J. Ryan and within Leo J.

Ryan Park many times during the months following hatching from the nest, and through the molt period, requiring repeated hazing to attempt to mitigate conflicts and reduce fecal deposits from this group. Further, this entire group is likely to exhibit site fidelity, resulting in more elevated levels of hazing and deterrence to be required in future seasons. This example emphasizes the importance of egg addling and nest removal as essential components of a successful CAGO conflict mitigation program.

Figure 28. Canada Goose (CAGO) nest with incubating parent on rocky substrate.

Item 7.2

47 SECTION VIII: PROGRAM ADAPTIONS MADE DURING YEAR 1
Potential adaptions were generated and reviewed continuously during Y1, and those with potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and also feasible within the scope, were implemented within the program. Although many program adaptations were implemented during Y1, some of the more significant adaptations are summarized below.

1. To address RCAD limitations during periods of high wind and to compliment dog team hazing efforts on land by providing another option for hazing in water, WI purchased and tested a small RC boat as a supplemental on-water hazing tool. Testing confirmed the boat added useful capability but was constrained to a range of roughly 200 m by its stock remotecontrol/receiver units. Based on this result, and on the hypothesis that a larger boat would have a greater deterrent effect on CAGO, WI purchased a second, larger and faster RC boat paired with an extended-range remote-control/receiver system, increasing effective operating range to over 500 m.

2. Repeated RCAD use in the City's saltwater lagoon caused some electronic components to fail repeatedly. WI replaced the affected components, developed de-salting cleaning and maintenance protocols, and further armored select components against corrosion and other saltwater-related impacts, expanding durability, reducing WI efforts in repair and replacement and gaps in deployment.

3. In response to CAGO fecal accumulation on the boardwalk and grass area in front of The Vibe, other areas of Leo J. Ryan, the beach at Erckenbrack Park, and the dock at Boat Park, WI conducted follow-up investigation and more focused management. Because standard daytime observations did not explain the accumulation, WI:
i. Added supplemental cameras to determine when geese were using these areas and found that CAGO were roosting there overnight, in some cases not arriving until the middle of the night;
ii. Adapted schedule to conduct sunrise and sunset surveys and weekend surveillance and hazing to expand knowledge of CAGO site-specific use and reduce gaps of coverage in responses to individuals and gaggles with aggressive attachment to foraging on this site; and
iii. Developed and began testing additional passive deterrence strategies intended to repel geese overnight and reduce fecal accumulation without requiring an active responder presence. These included four (4) device types were tested: a solarrecharged, battery-operated yellow flashing light; a battery-operated unit emitting bright, multicolored LED light in random patterns and directions; additional construction lighting; and an outdoor laser projector, aimed at the ground, capable of emitting different colors and movement patterns. Evaluation of those methods will be presented in detail in future reporting.

4. Most of the Leo J. Ryan shoreline consists of a vertical lagoon bulkhead that prevents geese from moving from the water onto the boardwalk or park edges during the flightless molt. The adjacent HOA properties, however, have more gently sloped shorelines that allowed CAGO to exit the water there and walk into the park. WI recommended fencing along the park's southwest and southeast borders to close this access point to flightless geese. The city hired a contractor and installed fencing in both locations. Following installation of the fences, nearly all CAGO were prevented from entering the park from those directions when flightless during Item 7.2

48 peak molt. As Y1 results identified molt-period aggregation at Leo J. Ryan as the primary driver of increased goose use at a treatment park, WI will continue to develop management approaches specific to this period, considering the future results of light deterrence and possible implementation of exclusion devices.

5. Although Erckenbrack is identified as a priority park, hazing methods were not applied here during Y1, as this park was identified as one of the best candidates for testing the efficacy of habitat modifications in reducing CAGO activity. However, due to the absence or very low presence of CAGO activity in the lawn areas of Erckenbrack where habitat modifications were planned, WI recommended postponing the habitat modifications and hazing efforts until CAGO activity became more predictable, allowing for a better evaluation of the effect of habitat modifications. This approach was approved by City staff and implementation of temporary habitat modifications is planned for a later phase of the program. Since hazing was not conducted at Erckenbrack it was utilized as a control park for strengthening evaluation of management techniques in other priority parks.

6. Like Erckenbrack, Marlin Park was identified as one of the best priority parks to test the effectiveness of specific habitat modifications to deter CAGO, and testing of the audio deterrent system was planned here. However, like Erckenbrack, CAGO activity within the lawn areas (most appropriate areas for proper evaluation of the audio deterrent) were inconsistent to support effective evaluation of the impact of the audio deterrent for the early part of Y1.

Additionally, once WI felt CAGO presence was regular enough, presence of an active nest by a MBTA protected species prevented installation of the audio deterrent there. Since the audio deterrent was not installed at Marlin Park, and due to size and layout of the park, it is a potential alternative for habitat modification testing to deter CAGO. CAGO presence within the lawn areas at both parks (Erckenbrack and Marlin) will be monitored closely in the coming months for CAGO to return to using them after the molt period.

7. During Y1, WI began investigating what would be needed to conduct drone surveys to locate and map CAGO nests within both Redwood Shores and Bair Island Ecological Reserves.

During conversations with CDFW, it was determined that a special drone survey permit was needed for each Reserve, which would require an application and a fee. A separate permit would be required to access and addle CAGO nests within each Reserve. Due to that and since the time needed to search even part of one of the reserves is likely to be extensive and may have therefore reduced efforts available for other parts of the program, the permits and effort were not pursued during Y1. Following results from GPS collars which indicated that collared birds nested within both Reserves, obtaining the permits and budgeting time to search and map CAGO nests within both should be considered during future years of the program.

8. Because complete surveillance of City waterways would require an effort well beyond the scope of the current contract (and is precluded in some locations by existing access authorizations) and comprehensive nest searching would have resulted in substantial reductions to hazing and monitoring activities, WI developed a CAGO nesting suitability map to concentrate search effort in areas with the highest probability of nest establishment.

Item 7.2

49 SECTION IX: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2
Based on lessons learned from Y1 WI recommends exploring the following adaptions to improve program effectiveness during Y2:
1) Fencing:
a. Install CAGO exclusion measures along the Leo J. Ryan boardwalk: Leo J. Ryan supports the highest molt-period goose use of any treatment park, and geese access the boardwalk and adjoining lawns directly from the lagoon during the flightless period. During the latter part of the molt season in Y1, the City installed fences at the southwest and southeast borders of Leo J. Ryan, at the borders with adjacent properties. These fences prevented CAGO from walking into Leo J. Ryan using the routes excluded by the fencing. However, as CAGO began regrowing flight feathers, some were observed flapping enough to move from the water to the boardwalk directly. A single chain strung between wooden posts currently runs along a portion of the boardwalk, but WI observations indicate the chain is mounted high enough that geese pass beneath it when flapping up from the water. WI recommends adding a second chain below the existing one to close this gap. Where a second chain is not feasible, or along boardwalk sections lacking the chain railing entirely, a decorative railing could be designed to deter movement from water to boardwalk while preserving the park's aesthetic character.
b. Close existing fence gaps at Gull, Marlin, and Erckenbrack parks: Fencing at the rear of the beaches at these three parks largely prevented geese from moving from beach to lawn during the Y1 molt period. Gaps remain, however, at both ends of the fence lines at Marlin and Gull, where fencing meets adjacent private property. At Erckenbrack, fencing was installed around rear-beach benches, leaving openings large enough for geese to walk beneath the benches and through the fence line. WI recommends closing these gaps to more completely exclude geese from park lawns during the flightless period. 2) Nest Surveying and Egg Addling: Y1 GPS collar and nest searching/reporting data show most geese causing conflicts in Foster City do not nest within city limits.

GPS data confirmed molt-period visitors nested at Bair Island, Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, Belmont Slough, and other locations. a. Continue nest searching and egg addling within areas of Foster City as possible, on public property, and encourage private property owners to participate and report active nests found.
b. Continue nest searching and egg addling at Bair Island, incorporating modernized survey methods (e.g., drone surveys) and improved data collection to track nesting activity for long-term trend analysis and inform adaptive management, and to improve addling efficiency where possible. c. Expand nest searching and egg addling to Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, both sides of Belmont Slough, and O’Neil Slough, as possible. 3) Outreach and coordination:
a. Build on Y1 outreach to support regional program collaboration to assist with Item 7.2

50 public education addressing nest reporting, seasonal goose behavior, and wildlife feeding.
b. Further develop working relationships with HOAs and private property owners directly adjacent to City parks, with priority on parcels bordering Leo J. Ryan.

With the help of HOAs, target 100% treatment of all nests discovered, as broods observed at Leo J. Ryan during Y1 confirm that geese nesting on nearby parcels (including a nest that WI was not given permission to treat) move their young into the park for rearing, placing a portion of local reproduction beyond the reach of current nest management. Canada Geese show strong fidelity to nest sites where they have previously bred successfully, so these nesting locations are likely to be reused in the 2027 breeding season. Securing permission to access adjacent parcels before that season would allow nest treatment at the sites contributing goslings to Leo J. Ryan.
4) Monitoring:
a. Continue monitoring/surveillance efforts through point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and GPS transmitter data, establishing the second year of the baseline needed to distinguish program effects from interannual variation in regional goose abundance.
b. Continue to capture and band as many geese as possible within Foster City, and within nearby cities if possible. Additionally, conduct GPS collaring of a minimum of five (5) additional geese per year, maintaining a continuously tracked subset of the population large enough to detect emerging trends in individual and group space use and to inform adaptive adjustments to nest searching and aversive conditioning.

Home range analysis revealed substantial individual and seasonal variation in CAGO movement, with regional movement peaking during nesting season—the same period when nest searching and aversive conditioning are most active and most dependent on current knowledge of bird locations. Point count, scat transect, and camera data likewise indicate shifting patterns of park and adjacent land use over the reporting period. Sustaining and expanding GPS and banding deployment is essential to track these dynamics at the resolution the program requires
5) Habitat Modification: Coordinate with Foster City park staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications at select priority sites once CAGO activity is optimal for evaluation.
6) Adaptive management: Continue refining hazing tools and deployment strategies based on Y1 and future performance data. Through our observations and reports from city staff during Y1, WI has identified core conflict areas that were utilized by CAGO during their various biological seasons. Given this information, we have a better understanding of which deterrents will be more applicable at different parks and different times of the year. Analysis of multiple years of data will likely increase understanding and ability to predict goose presence, which could reduce hazing required to achieve city goals for CAGO activity, through identification of more efficient and/or effective management strategies.

Item 7.2

51 7) Evaluate and Consider Expansion of Hazing Areas: Consider implementing hazing at Boothbay Park in the future. While currently serving as a control park to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, hazing at the park may benefit the overall goals of the project in a more direct capacity. A review of the project’s CEQA documents will be required before implementation, but there may be an opportunity to introduce hazing to the park in a limited capacity following evaluation under CEQA.

Item 7.2

52 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE (CAGO) OBSERVATIONS DURING ALL SEASONS FOR Y1
Appendix A-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

53 Appendix A-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

54 Appendix A-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

55 Appendix A-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

56 Appendix A-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Leo Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

57 Appendix A-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

58 Appendix A-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during all survey and non-survey periods at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

59 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS PER SEASON Appendix B-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

60 Appendix B-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

61 Appendix B-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

62 Appendix B-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Leo Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

63 Appendix B-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

64 Appendix B-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during hazing events per season at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

65 APPENDIX C: HEATMAPS OF CITYWIDE CANADA GOOSE OBSERVATIONS IN

DIFFERENT SEASONS
Appendix C-1. Heatmap of Canada Geese observations during the nesting season in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

66 Appendix C-2. Heatmap of Canada Geese observations during the molt season in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

67 Appendix C-3. Heatmap of Canada Geese observations during the fall season in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

68 Appendix C-4. Heatmap of Canada Geese observations during the winter season in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

69 Appendix C-5. Heatmap of Canada Geese observations during the entire year in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

70 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS
Appendix D-1. Locations of CAGO and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

71 Appendix D-2. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

72 Appendix D-3. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

73 Appendix D-4. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

74 Appendix D-5. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

75 Appendix D-6. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

76 Appendix D-7. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.

Item 7.2

77 APPENDIX E: SEASONAL RANGE MAPS FOR GPS COLLARED CANADA GEESE Appendix E-1. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A00 throughout the molt season surrounding Alameda.

Item 7.2

78 Appendix E-2. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A00 throughout the nesting season.

Item 7.2

79 Appendix E-3. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A01 throughout the molt season surrounding Leo. J Ryan Park.

Item 7.2

80 Appendix E-4. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A01 throughout the nesting season.

Item 7.2

81 Appendix E-5. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A03 throughout the molt season surrounding the Foster City lagoon.

Item 7.2

82 Appendix E-6. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A03 throughout the nesting season.

Item 7.2

83 Appendix E-7. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A04 throughout the molt season surrounding Bair Island Ecological Reserve.

Item 7.2

84 Appendix E-8. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A04 throughout the nesting season.

Item 7.2

85 Appendix E-9. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A05 throughout the molt season.

Item 7.2

86 Appendix E-10. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A05 throughout the nesting season.

Item 7.2

87 Appendix E-11. Seasonal range map depicting the density and range of A07 throughout the molt season.

Item 7.2

88 APPENDIX F: CEQA MONITORING, MITIGATION AND REPORTING SUMMARY As a result of nuisance issues surrounding Canada geese in the City of Foster City (City), the City planed to implement an Integrated and Adaptive Canada Goose (CAGO [Branta canadensis]) Management Plan (Plan). CAGO have become a nuisance in the City, especially during molting season (generally from early June through August). The number of CAGO within the City has increased over the years and due to several factors most birds have become residents and no longer migrate (move from one region or habitat to another according to the season). The overall increase of CAGO in the City has resulted in birds utilizing parks, walkways, sports fields, playgrounds, human recreational areas, and beaches. CAGO gaggles (groups of geese) form in select areas around Foster City and this growth in the number of individuals has resulted in a substantial increase in feces. Due to the proximity of parks along the lagoon system that runs through the City, the CAGO excrement is thought to contribute to high levels of Escherichia coli (E.coli) in the water. This has created a potential public health hazard, thereby diminishing the community’s ability to safely enjoy outdoor recreational areas.

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City was the Lead Agency in the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and any additional environmental documentation required for the implementation of the plan, which is known as the project (Project). The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project and has determined that an IS/MND would ensure compliance with CEQA on all environmental issues associated with the Project. With mitigation measures implemented, there would not be a significant effect on the environment.

The purpose of the IS/MND was to identify any potential environmental impacts from the Project and to mitigate these potential impacts. The following methods were identified and implemented to prevent potential disturbance. The findings and mitigation measures stemming from the IS/MND and the mitigation measures applied as a part of the Program to comply with the findings of the IS/MND are summarized in the following sections.

MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED
Among the environmental factors potentially affected, three groups were identified involving at least one impact that was identified as “Potentially Significant Impact.” These groups were Aesthetics, Biological Resources and Cultural Resources.

Biological Resources
This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from Project implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based upon results of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory of rare and endangered plants, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database searches. In addition, a Habitat Assessment Report for Select Parks in Foster City, CA was completed by Sohcahtoa LLC in 2024. The assessment focused on potentially occurring special-status wildlife species. Several species are known from the region and could occur in suitable habitats in the vicinity but are not expected to be adversely affected by the Project Although several of these species could occur in the Project area, most of these species were determined to not be adversely affected by implementation of the Project. Species that may be affected are mostly limited to birds that could occur in the lagoon and bayside areas that interface with the parks. Several species, including special-status bird species as well as migratory bird species protected by the MBTA were identified. Furthermore, due to various federal and state depredation orders that authorize specific management actions for Canada geese, CAGO would Item 7.2

89 be exempt from protection for the identified Project operations as authorized within conditions identified in those regulatory documents.

Project activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs in park and lagoon areas. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could result from the operation of the Project included the destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and the abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging.

MM BIO-1 — Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors – If Project work is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local native avian species (typically February 15 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the Project boundaries, where possible) the Project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are found, Project activities may proceed. If an active nest is located during the pre-activity survey, Project activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the Project schedule
Cultural Resources
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. The city is located in an urban area and is largely developed. As the city has been subject to continuous urban development over the past century, any existing archaeological or paleontological resources would likely be located in areas where development has already occurred.

MM CUL-01 - Accidental Discovery of Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological — If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Community Development Director immediately notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the find, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones).

Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal and other refuse. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the analysis and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the Foster City Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains. Adverse effects to such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible (as determined by the City, in conjunction with the qualified archaeologist), the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, avoidance of project impacts on the deposit shall be the preferred mitigation. If adverse effects on the deposits cannot be avoided, such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in Item 7.2

90 accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; preparation of a brochure for public distribution that discusses the significance of the archaeological deposit; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological material sat a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the deposit is implemented prior to the resumption of actions that could adversely affect the deposit.

MM CUL-02 - Human Remains — If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be directed and the County Coroner and the Community Development Director immediately notified. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The project sponsor shall also be notified.

Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The project sponsor shall comply with these recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the project sponsor, the Foster City Community Development Department, the MLD, and the Northwest Information Center.

Aesthetic Resources
This section provides a description of existing visual conditions near the Project site and an assessment of changes to those conditions that would occur from implementation of the project.

Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on site reconnaissance. Effects of the Project on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the following: a project’s physical characteristics and potential visibility, the extent to which the project’s presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment where it would be located, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have in areas where project facilities would potentially alter existing views. The aesthetic quality of a community is composed of visual resources, which are physical features that make up the visible landscape, including land, water, vegetation, and the built environment (e.g., buildings, roadways, and structures).

MM AES-01 – Use of Mylar Balloons and Mylar Tape — The use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape to a maximum of two weeks of continuous use with a minimum two-week period of non-use. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION METHODS IMPLEMENTED
In compliance with findings of the IS/MND completed for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to minimize disturbance to non-target species, and when hazing or deterrence activities were active within each park, WI conducted nesting bird surveys at each priority park at least once per week during the nesting season (15 February through 31 August). Surveys consisted of 20-minute observation periods structured in two phases: the first Item 7.2

91 10 minutes were spent stationary to passively detect bird activity, followed by a slow, deliberate 10-minute walk to visually inspect vegetation, ground cover, other features with nesting potential and to further investigate potential nesting behavior if observed from the fixed position portion of each survey. High-powered optics and audible calls were used to confirm species identifications, and all birds were documented, with separate records logged for individuals associated with active or suspected nests. If nesting activity was identified, nesting buffers were implemented and hazing applications were modified or suspended to prevent disturbance until identified nesting behavior was no longer detected.

Special-status species surveys were also conducted at Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Gull parks, which contain beach habitat with potential to support nesting Western Snowy Plover (Anarhynchus nivosus; WSPL). These surveys were initiated on 15 March and will continue until 15 September. Surveys were conducted for a duration of 20-minutes and were focused within open sandy areas and shoreline features consistent with WSPL nesting habitat.

Outside of formal point count survey periods, WI staff were vigilant throughout all program operations for signs of disturbance (e.g. alarm calls, flushing, diving, etc.) to nesting birds or special status species. If any signs of disturbance were identified, protocol was to suspend activities and conduct a full survey for nesting activity. If nesting activity was detected during the follow-up survey, appropriate mitigation measures were to be implemented.

RESULTS OF MITIGATION IMPLEMENTED
The following sections summarize survey and mitigation efforts conducted as a part of the Project to comply with the findings of the IS/MND conducted for the Project.

Aesthetic Resources
No mylar balloons or mylar tape was used for project activities during the year, and therefore, no impacts were observed or reported.

Biological Resources
In accordance with MM-BIO-1, Special Status Species and Nesting Bird Surveys were conducted throughout the program area following the methods identified above. In total 502 nesting bird surveys and 70 special status species surveys were conducted. No special status species were identified during surveys, and the locations where nesting birds were identified were provided with an appropriate buffer to prevent any disturbance until nesting behavior was no longer detected during surveys. The locations where nesting activity or active nests were identified were monitored outside of formal surveys to monitor for changes in status. During periods where no program operations were conducted, biological surveys were suspended on a park-by-park basis until program operations were resumed. Prior to resuming program operations at parks where operations were temporarily suspended, surveys were conducted to prevent any disturbance to potentially nesting birds who may have established nests while operations and surveys were suspended.

As a result of mitigation measures implemented under MM-BIO-1, no take was documented or suspected as a result of program operations.

Cultural Resources
No ground disturbance was conducted as a part of the program. No cultural artifacts were found, and no human remains were observed, so no actions were taken or reported.

Item 7.2

Chris Rudnicki
44 West 41st Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
[email protected]
415-999-4452
Frank Fanara, Parks Maintenance Manager June 30, 2026
City of Foster City Page 1 of 6
100 Lincoln Drive
Foster City, CA 94061
Invoice # FC2026-1
Account # 00105204524251
Invoice for Services
Date Activity Dollars
7-1-25 – 6-30-26 Regional Goose Control Project
o Foster City
o City of Belmont
o Redwood City
o City of San Mateo
• Control – (1/4 Share per Scope of Work)
o Regional Goose Nest Site Searches

Objective Facilitator
o Egg Addling - Season Totals (Note: Hatched Nests Not Included in Nest Count) ▪ 2026 Nesting Season – 656 eggs addled in 135 Nests - (4.86 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2025 Nesting Season – 863 eggs addled in 175 Nests - (4.93 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2024 Nesting Season – 888 eggs addled in 239 Nests - (3.71 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2023 Nesting Season – 991 eggs addled in 237 Nests - (4.18 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2022 Nesting Season – 1011 eggs addled in 234 Nests - (4.32 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2021 Nesting Season – 1006 eggs addled in 201 Nests - (5.00 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2020 Nesting Season – 986 eggs addled in 197 Nests - (5.01 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2019 Nesting Season – 1138 eggs addled in 214 Nests - (5.32 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2018 Nesting Season – 723 eggs addled in 180 Nests - (4.02 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2017 Nesting Season – 932 eggs addled in 169 Nests - (5.51 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2016 Nesting Season – 682 eggs addled in 135 Nests - (5.05 Eggs p/nest) ▪ 2015 Nesting Season – 528 eggs addled in 131 Nests - (4.03 Eggs p/nest)

Staged 2nd Kayak
Above Tide Line for
Next Addling Day’s
Uber Ride Back to
Kayak #1
Walked & Kayaked
154 miles
Item 7.2

6-30-26 / Page 2 of 6 / Act # 00105204524251 / Invoice FC2026-1 7-1-25 – 6-30-26 Regional Goose Control Project – Continued from Page 1 • Control – Continued
o Egg Addling - Continued
Early Season Nests Covered Awaiting Laying of Entire Clutch Prior to Incubating (Yes, the Second Nest is Topped with a Light Bulb)
Full Clutches Laid, Nests Lined with Down, Incubated, and Addled (Note: End Nest is Covered with Down while Mama Eats & Poops) • Inspections & Evaluations – (1/4 Share per Scope of Work) o Regional Gosling Counts 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 ▪ Port of Redwood City 19 17 45 38 49 24 23
▪ Redwood Shores 21 24 18 25 22 16 30
▪ Foster City 18 16 26 24 16 6 14
▪ Belmont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
▪ San Mateo 13 20 13 39 35 9 14
▪ Cal Water’s Bear Gulch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 71 77 102 126 122 55 81
19 of Port of RWC’s & 4 of 13 San Mateo Goslings Imprinting on Respective Sites (Unsure Where They are Transitioning from, But Imprinting is Powerful) Item 7.2