Foster City City Council
October 5, 2026

ģģ &ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
ÈģřģĖģ
^ìÇÇ
ÝþģΩģ&™’
“¾ģ©ÝÎÇģ&Γìáģ'ÝÎìÚģDè²Èªģ
d°ģ©Î“ìáģªÝÎìÚģǝè²Èªģø²è°ģǝǒÝáģΩģ谝ģW
ݝÈèģd
“°Ýģ
ááΓ²
è²ÎÈģĺWd
Ļģ©ÝÎÇģá÷Ý
Áģ&ÎáèÝģ
²èþģᓰÎÎÁáģ©ÎÁÁÎø™ģ
ģ™²©©ÝÈèģ©ÎÝÇ
èģè°
Èģ谝ģ²ÈèÝ
“è²÷ģÇ
ÚڲȪģýÝ“²áģ
șģÚÎÚĵìÚģ÷Èèĥģ;þģ
²ÈᲪ°èáģ©ÝÎÇģ谝ģ™²á“ìáá²ÎÈģ
ݝģáìÇÇ
ݲą™ģ’ÁÎøħģ
• WݲÎݲèþģ^ªÇÈèáģ©ÎÝģ^“°ÎÎÁģ^
©èþģ
R -²ÁÁá™
ÁģÁ÷™ħģs°²“Áģáڝ™²Èªģ²áģ
ģèÎÚģ“ÎȓÝÈĥģd°ģ“ÎÝݲ™ÎÝģÚÝÎ÷²™áģ™²Ý“èģ
““ááģ
èÎģ;²™áģÎÈȝ“è²ÎÈģ^“°ÎÎÁģ
șģ谝ģÇ
²Èģá°ÎÚڲȪģ
ݝ
áģ
șģÁ²’Ý
Ýþģø°²“°ģ
ݝģ’Îè°ģ

ݝ
áģ©ÝÜìÈèÁþģ÷²á²è™ģ’þģþÎìè°ģÎÈģ’²¾áĥģ
R 
“°ģW
ݾģÁ÷™ħģ
Èģ²ÇÚÎÝè
Èèģáè왝ÈèģÝÎìèģø°ÝģÇ
Èþģ“ìÝݝÈèÁþģݲ™ģÎÈģ谝ģ
Კø
Á¾ģÎÝģ
ÁÎȪģ谝ģÁ÷Ħģ’ìèģÎÈÁþģø°ÝģÝ
ÇÚáģÚÝÎ÷²™ģ
““ááĥģW
Ý貓²Ú
ÈèáģÈÎ蝙ģ
è°
èģ
™™²ÈªģÇÎݝģÝ
ÇÚáģøÎìÁ™ģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ģ
““áᲒ²Á²èþĥģ
R 'ìÁÁģ
÷ħģdÝ
©©²“ģ“
ÁDzȪģ²áģȝ™™Ħģáڝ“²
ÁÁþģȝ
Ýģ谝ģDz™ĵ’ÁΓ¾ģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģ’þģ

ì™ì’ÎÈģÁÇÈè
Ýþģ^“°ÎÎÁĥģd°Ýģ²áģÈÎģèÝ
©©²“ģ“ÎÈèÝÎÁģ’èøÈģ-²ÁÁá™
ÁģÁ÷™ģ
șģ谝ģ
Dz™ĵ’ÁΓ¾ģ“ÝÎáá²ÈªĦģÁ
™²ÈªģèÎģ™
ȪÝÎìáÁþģ°²ª°ģ÷°²“Áģáڝ™áĥ
• ÝÎáá²Èªáģ/™È販²™ģ
áģ
ȪÝÎìáģÎÝģ²ÈģE™ģΩģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèħģ
R D²™ĵ’ÁΓ¾ģ“ÝÎáá²ÈªģÎÈģ^ø
Èģ^èģ
R /ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģΩģ쓾ģèģ
șģÝ
÷ģ
÷ģ
R D²™ĵ’ÁΓ¾ģ“ÝÎáá²ÈªģÎÈģ'ìÁÁģ
÷Ħģø°ÝģÚ
ݝÈèáģݝÚÎÝ蝙ģè°
èģ
ģᓰÎÎÁģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģªì
ݙģ
°
áģ’ÈģáèÝ쓾ģÇìÁè²ÚÁģè²Çáĥģ
F¤úã
[ã¤ÖÝ

d°ģÚÝ읓èģè
Çģø²ÁÁģÚݝáÈèģ谝ģ©™’
“¾ģèÎģ²èþģÎìȓ²Áģ
șģ²èþģáè
©©ĥģ²èþģáè
©©ģø²ÁÁģ谝Èģ
™èÝDzȝģø°è°Ýģ谝ģ²ÈÚìèģá°ÎìÁ™ģ²È©ÎÝÇģ
Èþģ“°
ȪáģèÎģ谝ģ©²È
Áģ©ìèìݝģȝèøÎݾĥģ
ģ©²È
Áģ©ìèìݝģ
ȝèøÎݾģø²ÁÁģ’ģ™èÝDzȝ™ģ²ÈģÁ
èģt²ÈèÝģēđēĖIJēđēėĥģ
Item 7.1

FOSTER CITY Bi“þ“ÁģšģW™áèݲ
È Master Plan
Appendix C.

LTS and Connectivity
Methodology Memorandum
Item 7.1

Memo
Date: 7/21/2025 (revised 8/14/2025)
To: Foster City; Claire McWilliams
From: &°ÝģšģWÝáĨģ
ȪÁ²“
ģZΓ°

șģݲÈģ&ÝªìáÎÈ
Subject: Methodology – Level of Traffic Stress and Connectivity Analysis (DRAFT) Introduction
d°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģǝÇÎģ™è
²Ááģthe Foster City 尝ݝ²Èģݝ©Ýݝ™ģèÎģ
áģłè°ģ²èþŃĻģ²“þ“Á
ș W™áèݲ
Èģ
D
áèÝģWÁ
ÈģĺWDW) >÷ÁģΩģdÝ
©©²“ģ^èݝááģ
șģÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²áĥģd°²áģ
È
Áþá²áģø
áģ“Îșì“蝙ģèÎģ
²™È販þģÁΓ
è²ÎÈáģø²è°²Èģ谝ģ²èþģø°Ýģ’²“þ“Áģ
șģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ©
“²Á²è²áģ
șģȝèøÎݾģÈ°
ȓÇÈès
“
ÈģÚÝÎ÷²™ģ谝ģªÝ
èáèģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģèÎ ¾þ ÷Ýþ™
þģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáĥģd°ģ
È
Áþá²áģݝáìÁèáģ°²ª°Á²ª°è
’²“þ“Á ᝪǝÈèáģ
șģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ“ÝÎáá²Èªáģø²è°ģ°²ª°ģÁ÷ÁáģΩģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģèÎģ
ģ÷
ݲèþģΩģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģ
ÎÝģ
èèÝ
“è²ÎÈáģ÷²
ģÁÎøģáèݝááģ©
“²Á²è²áĦģ
șģÚ
ÝèáģΩģ谝ģ²èþģè°
èģÇ
þģ°
÷ģ°²ª°ģÁ÷ÁáģΩģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģ
ÎÝģ
èèÝ
“è²ÎÈáĦģ’ìèģ
ÁÎȪģ°²ª°-áèݝááģ©
“²Á²è²áĥ
Level of Traffic Stress
d°ģ©²Ýáèģ
È
Áþá²áģڝݩÎÝǝ™ģ²È“Á왝™ģ谝ģ>evel of Traffic Stress (LTS)Ħģø°²“° ²áģ ģ©Ý
ǝøÎݾģ©ÎÝģ
÷
Áì
è²Èªģ谝ģáì²è
’²Á²èþģ
șģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝèģÁ÷ÁģΩģÝÎìèáģ©ÎÝģ÷ìÁȝÝ
’ÁģȝèøÎݾ ìáÝáĥģ/èģ²áģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģ
ìșÝáè
ș²Èªģè°
èģڝÎÚÁģ
ݝģìÈÁ²¾ÁþģèÎģìáģÝÎìèáģè°
èģ©ÁģèÎÎģáèݝáá©ìÁģÎÝģìÈá
©ģ™ìģèÎģÝÎ
™ø
þģ
ÎÝģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģ“Îș²è²ÎÈáĥģd°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģᝓè²ÎÈģ™á“ݲ’áģ²“þ“Áģ>d^ șģW™áèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ĥģ
²“þ“Áģ>d^ģ²áģ
áᲪȝ™ģèÎģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèáĦģø°Ý
áģW™áèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ģ²áģ
áᲪȝ™ģèÎģ
²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģ“ÝÎáá²Èªáĥ
>d^ģá“ÎݲȪģ²áģ“Á
áᲩ²™ģ²ÈèÎģ©ÎìÝģ(4) “
蝪ÎݲáģÝ
Ȫ²Èªģ©ÝÎÇģ>d^ģĒģĺÁÎøáèģáèݝááĻģèÎģ>d^ģĕģĺ°²ª°áè
áèݝááĻĦģ
áģ™á“ݲ’™ģ²ÈģFigure 1
șģFigure 2ĥģLTS 1
șģēģ
ݝģ“ÎÈᲙÝ™ģªÈÝ
ÁÁþģÁÎø-áèݝááĦģ
șģ
>d^ģĒģ²áģ“ÎÈᲙÝ™ģ
ÚÚÝÎÚݲ
èģ©ÎÝģ
ÁÁģ
ªáģ
șģ
’²Á²è²áĥģ>d^ģĔģ
șģĕģݝÚݝáÈèģ°²ª°Ýģáèݝááģ’²“þ“Áģ
©
“²Á²è²áģ
șģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ“ÝÎáá²Èªáĥģ>d^ģá“Îݝáģ
ݝģ“
Á“ìÁ
蝙ģáÚ
Ý
èÁþģ©ÎÝģ’²“þ“Áģ©
“²Á²è²áģ
áģ
ᝪǝÈèáģ
șģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ“ÝÎáá²Èªáģ
áģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáĥ
The ²“þ“Áģ>d^ģǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģì᝙ģø
áģ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģ’þģÝĥģWèÝģ'ĥģ&ìÝè°ģΩģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþĥ1

/è “ÎÈᲙÝáģý²áè²ÈªģÝÎ
™ø
þģ“°
Ý
“èÝ²á貓áģá쓰ģ
áģáڝ™ģÁ²Ç²èáĦģ谝ģ
ÇÎìÈèģΩģÇÎèÎÝģ÷°²“ÁģèÝ
©©²“Ħģ
谝ģÈìǒÝģΩģèÝ
÷ÁģÁ
ȝáĦģ’²¾ø
þĺáĻĦģ
șģÎÈ-áèݝèģÚ
ݾ²Èªģ“°
Ý
“èÝ²á貓áĥ d°ģW™áèݲ
Èģ>d^ģ
1 &ìÝè°ĦģWèÝĦģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþģĺēđēēĻ °èèÚáħIJIJڝèÝ©ìÝè°ĥá²èáĥÈÎÝ谝 áèÝÈĥ™ìIJÁ÷Á-of-traffic-stress/
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 2
ǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģì᝙ģø
áģ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģ’þģ谝ģÈèÝģ©ÎÝģW™áèݲ
Èģ
șģ²“þ“Á²áèģ^
©èþĥ2 /èģ“ÎÈᲙÝáģ
ý²áè²ÈªģÝÎ
™ø
þģ“°
Ý
“èÝ²á貓á á쓰ģ
áģ谝ģÈìǒÝģΩģèÝ
÷ÁģÁ
ȝáĦģÇÎèÎÝģ÷°²“ÁģèÝ
©©²“Ħģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģ
èݝ
èǝÈèáĦģ
șģ

-
““áᲒÁģÝ
ÇÚáĥģ
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
²“þ“Áģ>d^ģ
È
Áþá²áģ²áģ
Èģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°ģèÎģÇ
ÚڲȪģ谝ģáì²è
’²Á²èþģΩģáèݝèáģ
șģΩ©-street Ú
è°á ’
᝙ģÎÈģ
谝ģڝݓ²÷™ģáèݝááģÁ÷ÁáģΩģݲ™²ÈªģÎÈģ谝ģý²áè²Èªģ“Îș²è²ÎÈáģÚݝáÈèģ ÁÎȪģ
ÁÁģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèáģ²Èģ
谝ģȝèøÎݾĥ d°Ýģ
ݝģá÷Ý
Áģǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°áģ
÷
²Á
’ÁĦģ°Îø÷ÝģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþ’s
ǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģø
áģ™èÝDzȝ™ģ©
ᲒÁģª²÷Èģ谝ģ²èþŅáģ™
è
ģ
÷
²Á
’²Á²èþĥĔ
&²ªìݝģ1ĥģ²“þ“Áģ>÷ÁģΩģdÝ
©©²“ģ^èݝáá

Data Used
There are á²ýģÝÎ
™ø
þģ“°
Ý
“èÝ²á貓áģì᝙ģ
áģ÷
ݲ
’ÁáģèÎģ™èÝDzȝģ谝ģ²“þ“Áģ>d^ģᝪǝÈè scoreĥģ
These ÷
ݲ
’Ááģ
șģáÎìݓá
ݝģÁ²á蝙ģ²Èģd
’Áģ1ĥģ
2 °èèÚáħIJIJøøøĥڝ™’²¾á
©èþĥÎݪIJĹ©²ÁáIJ쪙IJĘĒ™Ėđ“ĹĕĖĔĔę©ęėėĘĘĕ™ĚĘę©““đꓒĘĖđ’ė’Ēĥڙ© Ĕ °èèÚáħIJIJڝèÝ©ìÝè°ĥá²èáĥÈÎÝ谝
áèÝÈĥ™ìIJÁ÷Á-of-traffic-stress/
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| Ĕ
Table 1: Bicycle LTS Variables
s
ݲ
’Á ^Îìݓ

d ZÚÁ²“
ģdÝ
ÈáÚÎÝè
è²ÎÈģ
è

ıģΩģdÝ
÷Áģ>
ȝá City of Foster City
²¾ø
þģ&
“²Á²èþ
²èþIJÎìÈèþģ
ááΓ²
è²ÎÈģΩģ'Î÷ÝÈǝÈèáģ
ĺIJ
'ĻģΩģ^
ÈģD
èÎģÎìÈèþ
șģ²èþģΩģ
Foster City
²¾ģ>
ȝģt²™è° &°ÝģšģWÝá
W
ݾ²Èªģ>
ȝģt²™è° ĺ
™¼
“ÈèģèÎģ
ģ²¾ģ>
ȝĻ &°ÝģšģWÝá
Wosted ^ڝ™1 ²èþģΩģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģĺ^ڝ™ģ>²Ç²èĻ
1 d°ģ>d^ģǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģݝÜì²ÝáģÚݝ÷
²Á²Èªģáڝ™ģ™
è
Ħģø°²“°ģ谝ģ²èþģ™ÎáģÈÎèģ“ìÝݝÈèÁþģ°
÷ģݝ
™²Áþģ
÷
²Á
’Áĥģ

áģ
ģݝáìÁèĦģ谝ģ
È
Áþá²áģø²ÁÁģ²È²è²
ÁÁþģݝÁþģÎÈģÚÎá蝙ģáڝ™ģÁ²Ç²èáĥģ&°ÝģšģWÝáģ²áģýÚÁÎݲȪģ谝ģÚÎáᲒ²Á²èþģΩģ ÷
Á²™
è²Èªģ
ÝèÝ²
Áģáڝ™áģìá²Èªģšd^ģ™
è
Ħģ’ìèģè°²áģø²ÁÁģ’ģ™èÝDzȝ™ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģ谝ģ²È²è²
ÁģÝìÈģΩģ谝ģ
È
Áþá²áĥ
LTS Score Assignment
d°ģè
’Ááģ’ÁÎøĦģ©ÝÎÇģÝĥģWèÝģ'ĥģ&ìÝè°ģΩģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþ >d^ģDè°Î™ÎÁΪþĦģøÝģì᝙ģèÎģ
classify roadway ᝪǝÈèģáèݝááģ²Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģ÷
ݲ
’Ááģ™á“ݲ’™ĥ
Table 2: Bikes in Mixed Traffic
Posted Speed (mph)
EìǒÝģΩģ>
ȝá
d 0 - ēĔĥĖ ēĔĥĖģ- ēęĥĖ ēęĥĖģ- ĔĔĥĖ ĔĔĥĖģ- ĔęĥĖ ĔęĥĖģ- ĕĔĥĖ ĕĔĥĖģ- ĕęĥĖ ĕęĥĖģŭ hÈÁ
ȝ™ģē-ø
þģáèݝèģĺÈÎģ
“ÈèÝÁ²ÈĻ
0 - 750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
751 - ĒĦĖđđ LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĒĦĖđĒģĔĦđđđ LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ĔĦđđĒģŭ LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2-ø
þģø²è°ģĒģÁ
ȝģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈģ

șģ“ÈèÝÁ²È
0 - ĒĦđđđ LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĒĦđđĒģĒĦĖđđ LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 4
ĒĦĖđĒģŭ LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
ēģè°ÝìģÁ
ȝáģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈ
0 - ęĦđđđ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
ęĦđđĒģŭ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Ĕŭģè°ÝìģÁ
ȝáģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈ
Èþģ
d >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
^Îìݓħģ&ìÝè°ĦģWèÝĦģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþģĺēđēēĻ
Table 3: Conventional Bike Lanes, Advisory Bike Lanes, and Shoulders Not Adjacent to a Parking Lane
Posted Speed (mph)
EìǒÝģΩģ>
ȝá ²¾ģÁ
ȝģ
width 0 - ēęĥĖ ēęĥĖģ- ĔĔĥĖ ĔĔĥĖģ- ĔęĥĖ ĔęĥĖģ- ĕĔĥĖ ĕĔĥĖģ- ĕęĥĖ ĕęĥĖģŭ Ēģè°ÝìģÁ
ȝģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈģÎÝģ
“ÎÈèÝ
©ÁÎøģÁ
ȝ
ėģŭģ©è LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
Ŵģėģ©è LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ēģè°ÝìģÁ
ȝáģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈ
ėģŭģ©è LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
Ŵģėģ©è LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ĔŭģÁ
ȝáģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈ
Èþģø²™è° >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 ^Îìݓħģ&ìÝè°ĦģWèÝĦģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþģĺēđēēĻ
Table 4: Conventional Bike Lanes and Advisory Bike Lanes alongside a Parking Lane Posted Speed (mph)
EìǒÝģΩģÁ
ȝá
²¾ģÁ
ȝģݝ
“°ģűģ
’²¾ģŭģÚ
ݾ²ÈªģÁ
ȝģ
width
0 - ēęĥĖ ēęĥĖģ- ĔĔĥĖ ĔĔĥĖģ- ĔęĥĖ ĔęĥĖģŭ
Ēģè°ÝìģÁ
ȝģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈģÎÝģ“ÎÈèÝ
©ÁÎøģÁ
ȝ
ĒĖģŭģ©è LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
< 15 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
1-ø
þģÇìÁè²Á
ȝ
ĒĖģŭģ©è LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
< 15 ft >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
2-ø
þĦģēģÁ
ȝáģڝÝģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈ
ĒĖģŭģ©è LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
< 15 ft >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
other 2-ø
þģÇìÁè²Á
ȝ
Èþ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
^Îìݓħģ&ìÝè°ĦģWèÝĦģEÎÝ谝
áèÝÈģhȲ÷Ýá²èþģĺēđēēĻ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 5
Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress
W™áèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ģ
È
Áþá²áģ²áģ
Èģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°ģèÎģÇ
ÚڲȪģ谝ģáì²è
’²Á²èþģΩģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ“ÝÎáá²Èªá
’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģڝݓ²÷™ģáèݝááģÁ÷ÁáģΩģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģ
ģáèݝè ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģý²áè²Èªģ“Îș²è²ÎÈáģÚݝáÈèģat

ÁÁģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáģ²Èģ谝 ȝèøÎݾĥģ>²¾ 谝ģ²“þ“Áģ>d^ģǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþĦ 谝ݝģ ݝģá÷Ý
Áģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ
“ÝÎáá²ÈªģLTS ǝè°Î™ÎÁΪ²áģì᝙ģ²ÈģÚÝ
“貓ĥģd°ģǝè°Î™ÎÁΪþģ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģ’þģ谝ģÈèÝģ©ÎÝģ
W™áèݲ
Èģ
șģ²“þ“Á²áèģ^
©èþĦ Úì’Á²á°™ ²Èģ9ìÁþģēđēĕĦģ²áģ“ìÝݝÈèÁþģ谝 ’áèģáè
èģΩģ谝ģÚÝ
“貓ģ
ª²÷Èģ谝ģ™
è
ģ
÷
²Á
’²Á²èþģ©ÎÝģè°²áģÚÝ읓èĥ4
Figure 2. Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress
Data Used
d°Ýģ
ݝģá²ýģĺėĻģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģ“°
Ý
“èÝ²á貓áģì᝙ģ
áģ÷
ݲ
’ÁáģèÎģ™èÝDzȝģ谝ģW™áèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ
>d^ģá“Îݝĥģd°áģ÷
ݲ
’Ááģ
șģtheir áÎìݓáģ
ݝģÁ²á蝙ģ²ÈģTable 5ĥ
Table 5: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Variables
s
ݲ
’Á ^Îìݓ
dÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ City of Foster City
ÝÎáá²Èªģdݝ
èǝÈèá ²èþģΩģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģIJģ&°ÝģšģWÝá
ÝÎáá²Èªģt²™è°ģĺ>
ȝáĻ City of Foster City
4 °èèÚáħIJIJøøøĥڝ™’²¾á
©èþĥÎݪIJĹ©²ÁáIJ쪙IJĘĒ™Ėđ“ĹĕĖĔĔę©ęėėĘĘĕ™ĚĘę©““đꓒĘĖđ’ė’Ēĥڙ© Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| ė

d ZÚÁ²“
ģdÝ
ÈáÚÎÝè
è²ÎÈģ
è

ÝÎáá²Èªģ>Γ
è²ÎÈá KڝÈģ^èݝèģD
Ú


ģ
““áᲒÁģZ
ÇÚá City of Foster City
LTS Score Assignment
d°ģè
’ÁáģÎÈģ谝ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģÚ
ªáģøÝģì᝙ģèÎģ“Á
áᲩþģᝪǝÈèģáèݝááģ²Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģ
÷
ݲ
’Ááģ™á“ݲ’™ģ²Èģ谝ģᝓè²ÎÈģ
’Î÷ĥ
Table 6 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Crossing Width Raised Refuge Island
and Curb Extension(s)1
Raised Refuge Island
only
Curb extension
only None
dÝ
©©²“ģ^²ªÈ
Á
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĖŭģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
^èÎÚģ^²ªÈ
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕŭģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
W™áèݲ
Èģ-þ’ݲ™ģ

“ÎÈ
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕŭģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
1 Z
²á™ģݝ©ìªģ²áÁ
șáģÇìáèģ’ģėģ©èģø²™ģø²è°ģ
ģÚ°þᲓ
ÁģĺÝ
²á™Ļģ’
ÝݲÝĥ
^Îìݓħģĺ^þ™Èþģ^ø²©èĦZÝèģ9ĥģ^“°È²™ÝĦ;þÁģEÁáÎÈĦģēđēĕĻ Table 7 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
dÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ ÝÎáá²Èªģt²™è° Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ/áÁ
șģ

șģìݒģýèÈá²ÎÈĺáĻ
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ/áÁ
șģ
ÎÈÁþ
ìݒģýèÈá²ÎÈģ
ÎÈÁþ EÎȝ
dÝ
©©²“ģ^²ªÈ
Á 1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 7
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĖŭģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
^èÎÚģ^²ªÈ
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
W™áèݲ
Èģ-þ’ݲ™ģ

“ÎÈ
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
^Îìݓħģĺ^þ™Èþģ^ø²©èĦZÝèģ9ĥģ^“°È²™ÝĦ;þÁģEÁáÎÈĦģēđēĕĻ Table 8 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
dÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ dÝ
©©²“ģ^ڝ™1 ÝÎáá²Èªģt²™è°
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģ
șģìݒģ
ýèÈá²ÎÈĺáĻ
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģÎÈÁþ
ìݒģýèÈá²ÎÈģ
ÎÈÁþ2 EÎȝ
EÎģdÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ
ŶģēđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
21-ēĖģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
Z
Ú²™ģ&Á
ᰲȪģ

“ÎÈá
ŶģēđģÇÚ° 1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 8
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
21-ēĖģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
1 Wݝ÷
²Á²Èªģĺ
“èì
ÁĻģęĖè°ģڝݓÈè²Áģáڝ™ģá°ÎìÁ™ģ’ģì᝙ģ²©ģ
÷
²Á
’Áģ™
è
ģý²áèáĥģ/©ģÈÎèĦģìáģ
Èģáè²Ç
èģΩģ
Úݝ÷
²Á²Èªģáڝ™ģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģÚÎá蝙ģáڝ™ģÁ²Ç²èĥ
2 -²ª°ģ÷²á²’²Á²èþģ“ÝÎááø
Á¾áģ²È“Á왝ģ“ÎÈè²ÈÈè
ÁĦģÁ
™™ÝĦģ
șģą’Ý
ģáèþÁģÇ
ݾ²Èªáĥģ^ÎÁ²™ģ’
Ýáģè°
èģÝìÈģ
ڝÝڝș²“ìÁ
ÝģèÎģèÝ
©©²“ģ
ݝģÈÎèģ“ÎÈᲙÝ™ģèÎģ’ģ°²ª°ģ÷²á²’²Á²èþģÇ
ݾ²Èªá
^Îìݓħģĺ^þ™Èþģ^ø²©èĦZÝèģ9ĥģ^“°È²™ÝĦ;þÁģEÁáÎÈĦģēđēĕĻ Table 9 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Medium traffic Volume (2,500-7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
dÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ dÝ
©©²“ģ^ڝ™1 ÝÎáá²Èªģt²™è°
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģ
șģìݒģ
ýèÈá²ÎÈĺáĻ
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģÎÈÁþ
ìݒģýèÈá²ÎÈģ
ÎÈÁþ2 EÎȝ
EÎģdÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ
Ŷģē5 ÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
Z
Ú²™ģ&Á
ᰲȪģ

“ÎÈá
Ŷģē5 ÇÚ° 1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| Ě
Crossing Treatments
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
^Îìݓħģĺ^þ™Èþģ^ø²©èĦZÝèģ9ĥģ^“°È²™ÝĦ;þÁģEÁáÎÈĦģēđēĕĻ Table 10 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
dÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ dÝ
©©²“ģ^ڝ™1 ÝÎáá²Èªģt²™è°
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģ
șģìݒģ
ýèÈá²ÎÈĺáĻ
Z
²á™ģZ©ìªģ
/áÁ
șģÎÈÁþ
ìݒģýèÈá²ÎÈģ
ÎÈÁþ2 EÎȝ
EÎģdÝ
©©²“ģÎÈèÝÎÁ
Ŷģē5 ÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Z
Ú²™ģ&Á
ᰲȪģ

“ÎÈá
Ŷģē5 ÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4
ēė-ĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 10
ĕŭ Á
ȝá >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
ųĔđģÇÚ°
1-ēģÁ
ȝá LTS 2 >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ
ĔģÁ
ȝá >d^ģĔ >d^ģĔ LTS 4 LTS 4
ĕŭ Á
ȝá LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
^Îìݓħģĺ^þ™Èþģ^ø²©èĦZÝèģ9ĥģ^“°È²™ÝĦ;þÁģEÁáÎÈĦģēđēĕĻ Data Gaps š Assumptions Made
d°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģᝓè²ÎÈģ™á“ݲ’áģª
Úáģ²Èģ谝ģCity-ÚÝÎ÷²™™ģ™
è
ģ
șģ
ááìÇÚè²ÎÈs
ÚÚÁ²™ģèÎģ谝ģ™
è
ģ
èÎģ“ÎÇÚÁèģ谝ģLTS
È
Áþá²áĥ
x ²¾ģ>
ȝģt²™è°ħģt²™è°ģ
șģ’ì©©Ýģ™èÝDzȝ™ģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ'ÎΪÁģ
Ýè°ģdá¾èÎÚģݝ÷²øĥ
x KÈ-^èݝèģW
ݾ²ÈªģWݝáÈ“ģ
șģt²™è°ħģèÝDzȝ™ģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ'ÎΪÁģ
Ýè°ģ™á¾èÎÚģݝ÷²øĥ
x D
ݾ™ģÝÎáá²ÈªáħģKڝÈģStreet M
ÚĦ
ģ“ÝÎø™áÎìݓģ™
è
áèĦģø
áģì᝙ģ
áģ谝ģ’
áĥģ²èþģ^è
©©ģ
validated
șģݝ÷²á™ 
“°ģÇ
ݾ™ģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ
ģ'ÎΪÁģ
Ýè°ģ™á¾èÎÚģݝ÷²øģ
ș
²Èáè²èìè²ÎÈ
Áģ¾ÈÎøÁ™ªģΩģ²È©Ý
áèÝì“èìݝģÎÈģ谝ģªÝÎìșĥ
x
÷Ý
ªģ
²ÁþģdÝ
©©²“ģĺ
DTĻħģ>÷Ý
ª™ģa ’²ªģ™
è
ģ÷È™ÎÝģ™
è
áèĦģø°²“°ģÚÝÎ÷²™™ģ
Èģ
ªªÝª
蝙ģ
“ÎìÈèģΩģ÷°²“Ááģ
ÁÎȪģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèáĥ
ÝèÝ²
ÁáģøÝģ÷
Á²™
蝙ģø²è°ģ“ÎìÈèáģ
á
÷
²Á
’ĥ
x EìǒÝģΩģ>
ȝáħģ
ÚÚÁ²™ģ
ģìȲ÷Ýá
Áģ
ááìÇÚè²ÎÈģè°
èģall arterials have ĕģÁ
ȝģ“ÝÎáá-ᝓè²ÎÈáģø²è°ģ
2 Á
Èá ²Èģ
“°ģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈģ
șģÁΓ
ÁģÝÎ
™áģ°
÷ģ
ģēģÁ
ȝģ“ÝÎááģᝓè²ÎÈģø²è°ģ1 Á
ȝģ²Èģ
“°ģ™²Ý“è²ÎÈĻĥģ
²èþģ^è
©©ģ÷
Á²™
蝙ģ
șģݝ÷²á™ģ
ÁÁģ
áᲪÈǝÈèáģè°ÝÎ쪰ģ
ģ'ÎΪÁģ
Ýè°ģ™á¾èÎÚģݝ÷²øģ
șģ
²Èáè²èìè²ÎÈ
Áģ¾ÈÎøÁ™ªģΩģ²È©Ý
áèÝì“èìݝģÎÈģ谝ģªÝÎìșĥ
x Limited-
““ááģ°²ª°ø
þáģ
șģÝ
ÇÚáģĺĥªĥģ
ÁèÝ
Èáģ©
“²Á²è²áĻģøÝģý“Á왝™ģ’“
ìáģ谝þģÚÝΰ²’²èģ
ڝ™áèݲ
Èģ
șģ’²“þ“Áģ
““ááĥ
Connectivity Analysis
Kȓģ谝ģ>d^ģ
È
Áþá²áģø
áģ“ÎÇÚÁè™Ħģ²èģáÝ÷™ģ
áģ
ģ¾þģ²ÈÚìèģ©ÎÝģ谝ģáì’áÜìÈèģÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²áĥģ
d°²áģ
È
Áþá²áģ ÷
Áì
ès °Îøģ
““áᲒÁģ
ģ ÷
ݲèþģ Ωģ ¾þģ ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģ
ݝģ ©ÝÎÇģ áìÝÝÎìș²Èªģ
ݝ
áĦģ ÎÝģ
ŊèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áĥŊģd°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáģøÝģì᝙ģèÎģ²™È販þģø°Ýģ
““ááģ
șģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ÷²
ģ
low-stress ᝪǝÈèáģ
șģ“ÝÎáá²Èªá á°ÎìÁ™ģ’ģÚݲÎÝ²è²ą™ħ
x Schools: Wì’Á²“ģ
șģÚݲ÷
è schools
x Community Facilities:
““ááģÚβÈèáģèÎģ“²èþģÚ
ݾáģĺ²È“Á왲Ȫģȝ²ª°’ÎÝ°ÎΙ
ș ÚΓ¾è Ú
ݾáĻ

șģÚݲÇ
Ýþģ
““ááģÚβÈèáģèÎģݝª²ÎÈ
ÁģÚ
ݾáIJèÝ
²Ááĥģd°ģ²èþŅáģÎȝģZ“ݝ
è²ÎÈģÈèÝĦģÎȝģ
ÎÇÇìȲèþģÈèÝĦģ
șģÎȝģ>²’Ý
Ýþģ
ݝģ
ÁÁģø²è°²ÈģÎÝģȝ
ݒþ
ģ²èþģÚ
ݾģ
șģare ²È“Á왝™ģ
áģÚ
ÝèģΩģ
è°²áģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĥ
x Shopping Areas: 'ÝÝÝþģáèÎݝáģ
șģsmall commercial areas
²“þ“Áģ>d^ģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ģ
ݝģ
È
Áþą™ģ©ÎÝģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģáÚ
Ý
èÁþĥģd°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ

È
Áþá²áģڝݩÎÝǝ™ģ©ÎÝģ²“þ“Áģ>d^ģ
ááìǝ™ģ
Èģ
÷Ý
ªģ’²¾²Èªģáڝ™ģΩģĒđģDzÁáģڝÝģ°ÎìÝĦģǝ
ȲȪģ
谝ģ
È
Áþá²áģ
ááìǝ™ģ谝ģ
÷Ý
ªģڝÝáÎÈģø²ÁÁģèÝ
÷Áģ©²÷ģDzÁáģÎÈģ谝²Ýģ’²“þ“Áģ²ÈģĔđģDzÈìèáĥģt°²Áģ

“èì
Áģáڝ™áģÇ
þģ÷
Ýþģ©ÝÎÇģڝÝáÎÈģèÎģڝÝáÎÈĦģè°²áģ
÷Ý
ªģø
áģáÁ“蝙ģ©ÎÝģÚÁ
ÈȲȪģÚìÝÚÎáá
șģ

Á²ªÈáģø²è°ģ’áèģÚÝ
“貓áģ©ÎÝģ“ÎÈᲙÝ²Èªģ
ÁÁģ
ªáģ
șģ
’²Á²è²áĥģ'²÷Èģ谝ģ“ÎÈáèÝ
²È™ģݝáÎìݓáĦģ谝ģ
City’s áÇ
ÁÁģá²ąĦģ
șģ谝ģÁ²Ç²è™ģÈìǒÝģΩģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáģ²È“Á왝™ģ²Èģ谝ģ
È
Áþá²áĦģ谝ģڝ™áèݲ
Èģ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 11
“ÝÎáá²Èªģø
áģ
áᲪȝ™ģ谝ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“ÎݝģΩģ谝ģȝ
ݝáèģroadway ᝪǝÈèĥģd°²áģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°ģ

““ÎìÈèáģ©ÎÝģ谝ģ°²ª°áèģ“ÎȓÈèÝ
è²ÎÈģΩģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģø²è°²Èģ
ģª²÷Èģ
ݝ
ĥ
&ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦģè°ÝģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģøÝģ
ááá᝙ģ
șģá“Îݝ™ĥģ²¾ģèݲÚáģø²è°²Èģ
“°ģèÝ
÷Áģ
ᰝ™ģøÝģ
áᲪȝ™ģèÎģ
ÁÁģÝÎ
™áģø²è°ģÎÝģø²è°Îìèģ’²¾ģ©
“²Á²è²áģĺá²È“ģ’²“þ“Á²áèáģ“ÎìÁ™ģÚݝáìÇ
’Áþģá°
ݝģ
谝ģÝÎ
™ģø²è°ģ÷°²“ÁáĻĥ
Analysis Inputs
The “ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²á ìás èøÎģÚݲÇ
Ýþģ²ÈÚìèá: LTS 噝á“ݲ’™ģ
’Î÷Ļģtravel sheds
șģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ
èþڝáĥģ
áè²È
è²ÎÈģdþڝáģ
ݝģ“ÎÇÚݲ᝙ģΩģáڝ“²©²“ģÁ
șģìááģÎÝģÚÁ
“áģè°
èģ
èèÝ
“èģڝÎÚÁģ
șģªÈÝ
èģèݲÚáĥģ
See Table 6 ©ÎÝģ 谝ģ ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ èþڝáģ áÁ“蝙ģ
șģ 谝²Ýģ áÎìݓáĥģThree (Ĕ) dáè²È
è²ÎÈģ èþڝáģ øÝģ
áÁ“蝙ģèÎģݝÚݝáÈèģ÷Ýþ™
þģÚÁ
“áģø°ÝģڝÎÚÁģÇ
þģ“ìÝݝÈèÁþģ’²¾IJø
Á¾ èÎģÎÝģøÎìÁ™ģÇÎݝģÁ²¾Áþģ
’²¾IJø
Á¾ èÎģ²©ģ谝þģ“ÎìÁ™ģªèģèÎģ谝ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģÎÈģ
ģÁÎøģáèݝááģ’²“þ“Á ÎÝģڝ™áèݲ
È ÈèøÎݾĥģ
Table 11: Data Sources for Destination Types
Destination Type Layer Name Source
Schools Schools City of Foster City
Community Facilities
W
ݾá City of Foster City
>²’Ý
ݲá City of Foster City
ÎÇÇìȲèþIJZ“ݝ
è²ÎÈģÈèÝá City of Foster City
Shopping Areas
'ÝÝÝþģ^èÎݝá &°ÝģšģWÝá
;þģ^°ÎÚڲȪģ
ݝ
á City of Foster City

áģÚ
ÝèģΩģW°
áģĒģÈª
ªÇÈèģ
“è²÷²è²áĦģ谝ģWÝ읓èģd
Çģ“ÎÁÁ“蝙ģ“ÎÇÇìȲèþģ²ÈÚìèģÎÈ ¾þģ
™áè²È
è²ÎÈá 谝þģ
““ááģ’þģø
Á¾²ÈªģÎÝģ“þ“Á²Èªĥģd°áģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáģøÝģ谝Èģ÷
Á²™
蝙ģ
ª
²Èáèģ
ÁΓ
è²ÎÈáģÚÝÎ÷²™™ģ’þģݝᲙÈèáģè°ÝÎ쪰ģ™²ª²è
Áģ
șģ²È-ڝÝáÎÈ Èª
ªÇÈèģè
“貓áĥ
Analysis Approach
d°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²áģø
áģ“Îșì“蝙ģìá²Èªģ谝ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģáèÚáħ
x Step 1: ÷ÁÎÚģ’²“þ“Á
șģڝ™áèݲ
È travel sheds for all three (Ĕ) ™áè²È
è²ÎÈ èþڝáĥģTravel
ᰝ™áģøÝģ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģ’
᝙ģÎÈģ谝ģ“ÈèÝβ™ģΩģ
ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈĥģ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 12
x Step 2: 
Á“ìÁ
èģ
ģłèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“ÎݝŃģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈè
șģ“ÝÎáá²Èª ø²è°²Èģ谝ģ
èÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģΩģ
ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈ èþڝĥ
x Step 3: 
Á“ìÁ
èģ
ģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģᝪǝÈè
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈ á“Îݝģ’þģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝģ’èøÈģ
0-1
x Step 4: Îǒ²Èģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝŅáģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģᝪǝÈèģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģscore to arrive

èģ谝ģł“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“ÎݝŃģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģᝪǝÈèĥģ^²È“ģ谝ݝģ
ݝģthree (ĔĻģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáĦģ谝ģ
Ç
ý²ÇìÇģá“Îݝģ©ÎÝģ
ÈþģᝪǝÈèģ²áģĔĥ5 EÎèħģ/Èģ谝ģø²ª°è™ģý
ÇÚÁĦģø°ÝģᓰÎÎÁáģ
ݝģ
ø²ª°è™ģèø²“Ħģ谝ģÇ
ý²ÇìÇģá“Îݝģ²áģ©ÎìÝģĺĕĻĥ
^èÚáģĒģè°ÝÎ쪰ģĕģ
ݝģ™á“ݲ’™ģ²Èģ™è
²Áģ²Èģ谝ģᝓè²ÎÈáģ’ÁÎøĥ
Step 1: Develop Travel Sheds for all Destinations
T°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģè°Ýģ’²“þ“Á
șģڝ™áèݲ
È travel sheds øÝģ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģfor all three(Ĕ) ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ
èþڝá è°ÝÎ쪰Îìèģthe City: 0-ĖģDzÈìèáĦģųĖ-ĒĖģDzÈìèáĦģ șģųĒĖ-ĔđģDzÈìèáĥģdÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģ
ݝģ™Ý
øÈģ

ÝÎìșģ谝ģÁ
șģìáģ“ÈèÝβ™ĥģ
See Figure 1 ©ÎÝģ
Èģý
ÇÚÁ three travel sheds ™÷ÁÎڝ™ģ©ÎÝģ
ģÁ²’Ý
Ýþģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈĥģ
&²ªìݝģĔħģý
ÇÚÁģWìÁÁ™ģ ©ÝÎÇģWݝ÷²ÎìáģWÝ읓èģof a icycle Travel Sheds for a City >²’Ý ÝþĦģ >²ª°èģÁìģűģđ-5
DzÈìèáĦģ
ݾģÁìģűģųĖ-ĒĖģDzÈìèáĦģ
șģD
ªÈè
ģűģųĒĖ-ĔđģDzÈìèá
5 EÎèģ è°
èģ
ÁÁģ ÝÎ
™ø
þģ ᝪǝÈèá
șģ ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá received a “ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ á“Îݝģ ©ÎÝģ  “°ģ ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ èþڝģ
’èøÈģđ-Ēĥģd°ģá“Îݝáģ
ݝģ谝ÈģáìÇǝ™ģìÚģ©ÎÝģ谝ģthree (ĔĻģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáĥģd°²áģÚÝÝááģݝÚݝáÈèáģÜì
Áģ
ø²ª°èģÚÁ
“™ģÎÈģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĥģ/èģ²áģÚÎáᲒÁģèÎģø²ª°èģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáģ™²©©ÝÈèÁþģ²©ģ“ÎÇÇìȲèþģ÷
Áìáģ
²È™²“
èģ
ģ°²ª°ÝģÇÚ°
á²áģ²áģÚÁ
“™ģÎÈģ
ģ“Ýè
²Èģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĥģ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| ĒĔ
Step 2: Travel Shed Scores by Destination Type
d°ģȝýèģáèÚģwas ڝݩÎÝǝ™ģ ©ÎÝģ
“°ģof the three (Ĕ) ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝs áÚ
Ý
èÁþĥģ^²È“ģ谝ݝģ
ݝģ
Ç
Èþģtravel sheds ©ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦģ谝ݝģ
ݝģÇ
ÈþģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģè°
èģÎ÷ÝÁ
ÚģÎȝģ
ÈÎ谝Ýĥģ
&ÎÝģ
“°ģ²È™²÷²™ì
Áģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģĺ²Èģ谝ģᓰÎÎÁáĦģÚ
ݾáĦģÁ²’Ý
ݲáĦģ
șģá°ÎÚڲȪģ
ݝ
ģèþڝáĻĦģ谝ģÝÎ
™ø
þģ
ᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá ø²è°²Èģè°
èģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈŅáģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģøÝģ
áᲪȝ™ģ
ģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“Îݝģ
áģ
follows:

Travel Shed Score for Each Segment and Intersection
x 0 – ĖģDzÈìèáģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™s űģ
ÁÁģᝪǝÈèáģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáģø²è°²Èģ
ģĖ-DzÈìèģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģ
ݝģ

áᲪȝ™ģ
ģdÝ
÷Áģ^°™ģ^“ÎݝģΩģĔ
x >5 – ĒĖģDzÈìèáģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģűģ
ÁÁģᝪǝÈèáģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáģø²è°²Èģ谝ģªÝ
èÝģè°
ÈģĖģ– 15-
DzÈìèģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģ
ݝģ
áᲪȝ™ģ
ģ^“ÎݝģΩģē
x >15 – ĔđģDzÈìèáģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģűģ
ÁÁģᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá ø²è°²Èģ谝ģªÝ
èÝģè°
ÈģĒĖģ– ĔđDzÈìèģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģ
ݝģ
áᲪȝ™ģ
ģ^“ÎݝģΩģĒ
Step 3: Calculate Normalized Segment Score
&ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦģ谝ģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“ÎݝáģøÝģáìÇǝ™ģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģ²È™²÷²™ì
ÁģÝÎ
™ģᝪǝÈèģ
șģ
²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģ²Èģ 谝ģ ȝèøÎݾĥģ“
ìáģ 谝ݝģ
ݝģ ÈìǝÝÎìáģ ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģfor 
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ èþڝĦģ
Èģ
²È™²÷²™ì
ÁģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈè
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈ Á²¾Áþģ©
ÁÁáģ²ÈèÎģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™áģ©ÎÝģá÷Ý
Áģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģø²è°²Èģ
谝ģá
ǝģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦģݝ“²÷²ÈªģÚβÈèáģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ĥģ
&ÎÝģ²ÁÁìáèÝ
è²ÎÈĦģ“ÎÈᲙÝģ
ģroadway ᝪǝÈèģȝ
ÝģÇìÁè²ÚÁģschoolsĥģ^ìÚÚÎáģè°
èģ谝ģroadway
ᝪǝÈèģ²áģø²è°²Èģthe travel sheds of á²ýģĺė) school ™áè²È è²ÎÈ èþڝáĦ ݝáìÁè²Èªģ²Èģ谝ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģèÝ
÷Áģ
sheds:
x t²è°²Èģđ-5 DzÈĥ űģ1 ™áè²È
è²ÎÈ(s)
x t²è°²ÈģųĖ-15 DzÈĥ ű2 ™áè²È
è²ÎÈá
x t²è°²ÈģųĒĖ-Ĕđ DzÈĥ űģĔ ™áè²È
è²ÎÈá
d°ģÚÝÝááģΩģ“
Á“ìÁ
è²Èªģ谝ģtotal travel shed score for this roadway ᝪǝÈèģ²áģ™á“ݲ’™ģ²È Table 7ĥ
Table 12: Total Travel Shed Score for a Roadway Segment in the Described Example Travel
Shed
Score for each Segment in
Travel Shed
Quantity of Destinations within
Travel Shed
Total Travel
Shed Score
0-5 mins Ĕ * 1 ű Ĕ
>5-15
mins
2 * 2 ű 4
>15-30
mins
1 * Ĕ ű Ĕ
Travel Shed Score 10
^Îìݓħģ&°ÝģšģWÝáģĺēđēĕĻ
/Èģè°²áģý
ÇÚÁĦģ谝ģᝪǝÈèģøÎìÁ™ģݝ“²÷ģ
ģschool ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝģèÎè
ÁģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“ÎݝģΩģ10ĥģ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 14
Kȓģè°²áģáìÇÇ
è²ÎÈģÚÝÝááģ²áģ“ÎÇÚÁèģ©ÎÝģ
ÁÁģᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈs ’þģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦ the
total score ©ÎÝģ
“°ģᝪǝÈèģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈ ²áģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģ’þģ™²÷²™²Èªģ谝ģèÎè
ÁģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“Îݝģ’þģ
the °²ª°áèģèÎè
Á èÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“Îݝģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĥģd°ģݝáìÁèģø²ÁÁģ
Ýݲ÷ģ
èģ
ģá“Îݝģ’èøÈģ
0-Ēĥģ
ÎÈè²Èì²Èªģø²è°ģ谝ģý
ÇÚÁģ
’Î÷ĦģáìÚÚÎáģ谝ģ°²ª°áèģtotal ᝪǝÈèģèÝ
÷Áģᰝ™ģá“Îݝģ²áģ20 for the
schools ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĦģ谝Èģ谝ģý
ÇÚÁģroadway ᝪǝÈèģ
’Î÷ģøÎìÁ™ģ°
÷ģ
ģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģá“ÎݝģΩģ
10/20űđĥĖĥģ

ÁÁģᝪǝÈèáģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáģø²ÁÁģ’ģ
áᲪȝ™ģ
ģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģá“Îݝģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝĥģ
Step 4: Calculate the Connectivity Score
dÎģ“
Á“ìÁ
èģ谝ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“Îݝģ©ÎÝģ
“°ģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈè
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈĦģ谝ģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģèÝ
÷Áģ
ᰝ™ģá“Îݝáģ ©ÎÝģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ èþڝģ
ݝģáìÇǝ™ĥģdÎģìșÝáè
șģ°Îøģ è°²áģÚÝÝááģ²áģ
ÚÚÁ²™ģ èÎģ
ģ
roadway ᝪǝÈèĦģ᝝ģý
ÇÚÁģ’ÁÎøħ
&ÎÝģ²ÁÁìáèÝ
è²ÎÈĦģ“ÎÈᲙÝģthe roadway ᝪǝÈè ©ÝÎÇģ
’Î÷ģÇ
þģ°
÷ģݝ“²÷™ģ谝ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģÈÎÝÇ
Á²ą™ģ
á“Îݝáģ’þģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝħ
Table 13: Normalized Score by Destination Type for Described Example Destination Type Normalized Score
Schools đĥĖ
Community Facilities đĥĒ
Shopping Areas đĥēĖ
Total Connectivity Score 0.85
/Èģè°²áģý
ÇÚÁĦģ谝ģá
ÇÚÁģÝÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèģ°
áģ
ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“ÎݝģΩģđĥęĖģÎìèģΩģ
ģèÎè
ÁģΩģĔĦģø²è°ģ

ģá“ÎݝģΩģĔģ’²Èªģ谝ģ°²ª°áèģÚݝ©Ýݝ™ģá“Îݝģø°Èģ
ll ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝáģ
ݝģø²ª°è™ģÜì
ÁÁþĥģ
d°ģWÝ읓èģd
Çģ°
áģÎìèÁ²È™ģèøÎ ÚÎèÈè²
Á
ÚÚÝÎ
“°áħģt²ª°è™Ħģø°ÝģᓰÎÎÁáģ
ݝģø²ª°è™ °²ª°Ýģ
è°
Èģ谝ģÎ谝Ýģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģèþڝsĦģ
șģhÈø²ª°è™Ħģø°ÝģÜì
Áģø²ª°èģis ÚÁ
“™ģÎÈģ
“°ģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈģ
èþڝĥģTable 9 ™á“ݲ’áģ°Îøģè°²áģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°ģ²ÇÚ
“èáģ谝ģ°²ª°áèģÚÎáᲒÁģá“Îݝģ
șģǝ™²
Èģá“Îݝĥ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| 15
Table 14: Results for Connectivity Analysis by Approach, Weighted vs Unweighted Analysis Type
Unweighted; Max Possible Score=3 Weighted; Max Possible Score=4 Highest
Score Median Score Highest Score Median Score
Bike LTS/Connectivity ēĥęĔ ĒĥēĔ ĔĥęĔ ĒĥėĔ
Ped LTS/Connectivity ĒĥĚē đĥęđ ēĥėė ĒĥĒĒ
Analyzing Connectivity By LTS

ģ ÚݲÇ
Ýþģ ÚìÝÚÎáģΩģ ™÷ÁÎڲȪģ “ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ á“Îݝáģ ©ÎÝģ ÝÎ ™ø
þģ ᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá is to
ìșÝáè
șģø°²“°ģᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá ÚÝÎ÷²™ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²ÎÈáģèÎģ°²ª°ģÁ÷ÁáģΩģĺÎÝģÇ ÈþĻģ÷Ýþ™
þģ
™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģ
șģèÎģø°
èģýèÈèģڝÎÚÁģ“
È ø
Á¾ģÎÝģ’²¾ģèÎģè°Îáģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáĥģÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“Îݝáģ©ÎÝģ

“°ģᝪǝÈèģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈģ“
Èģ’ģ©ìÝ谝Ýģ“ÎÈèýèì
Á²ą™ģè°ÝÎ쪰ģ谝²Ýģݝáڝ“è²÷ģ>d^ģá“ÎݝáģèÎģ
ÚÝÎ÷²™ģè°²áģ
™™²è²ÎÈ
ÁģÁ
þÝģΩģ²È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈĥ
/™
ÁÁþĦģÝÎ
™ø
þáģè°
èģ°
÷ģ°²ª°ģÁ÷ÁáģΩģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģøÎìÁ™ģ’ģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝè
’ÁģèÎģø
Á¾ģÎÝģ’²¾ ÎÈ or have

ģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝè
’ÁģÚ
Ý
ÁÁÁģÝÎìèģ
șģ“ÝÎáá²Èªģø°Èģݲ™Ýá ÎÝģø
Á¾Ýá °
÷ģèÎģ
ÚÚÝÎ
“°ģ°²ª°ģáèݝááģ©
“²Á²è²áĥģ
d°²áģ“Îǒ²È
è²ÎÈģΩģ°²ª°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
șģ°²ª°ģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝèģĺ>d^ģĒģÎÝģēĻģݝáìÁèáģ²Èģø
Á¾²Èªģ
șģ“þ“Á²Èªģas a
÷²
’Á
șģ
èèÝ
“è²÷ travel ÎÚè²ÎÈĥģ
-²ª°ģ>d^ģĺÎÝģìȓÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áģø
Á¾²Èªģ
șģ“þ“Á²Èªģ“Îș²è²ÎÈáĻģø
áģ™©²È™ģ
áģ
ÈģLTS score ªÝ
èÝģè°
Èģ
ēĦģ
șģÁÎøģ>d^ģĺ“ÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áģø
Á¾²Èªģ
șģ“þ“Á²Èªģ“Îș²è²ÎÈáĻģø
áģ™©²È™ģ
áģÁááģè°
ÈģÎÝģÜì
ÁģèÎģēĥ
-²ª°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģø
áģ™©²È™ģ
áģ
ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģá“Îݝģ
’Î÷ģ
÷Ý
ªģĺĔĻĦģ
șģÁÎøģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
áģ
ģ
á“Îݝģ’ÁÎøģ
÷Ý
ªĥģ
^ªÇÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá øÝģáÎÝ蝙ģ²ÈèÎģÎȝģΩģ©ÎìÝģ“
蝪Îݲáħ
x High Connectivity and High LTSħģZÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèáģ
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈáģø°Ýģ谝ݝģ
ݝģÇ
Èþģ
™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģȝ
ÝĦģ’ìèģ谝ģÝÎìèģ²áģìȓÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áĥģģ
x High Connectivity and Low LTSħģZÎ
™ø
þģᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá ø°Ýģ谝ݝģ
ݝģÇ
Èþģ
™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģȝ
ÝĦģ
șģ谝ģÝÎìèģ²áģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áĥ
x Low Connectivity and High LTSħģZÎ
™ø
þáģø°Ýģ谝ݝģ
ݝģ©øģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģȝ
Ýģ谝ģᝪǝÈè

șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈĦģ
șģ谝ģÝÎìèģ²áģìȓÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áĥģģ
x Low Connectivity and Low LTS: ZÎ
™ø
þáģø°Ýģ谝ݝģ
ݝģ©øģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģȝ
Ýģ谝ģᝪǝÈè

șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈĦģ’ìèģ谝ģÝÎìèģ²áģ“ÎÇ©ÎÝè
’Áĥģģ
/Èģ ªÈÝ
ÁĦģ ²ÇÚÝÎ÷²Èªģ 谝ģ >d^ģ ²Èģ 谝ģ °²ª°ģ “ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþIJ°²ª°ģ >d^ģ “ 蝪ÎÝþģ øÎìÁ™ģ Á²¾Áþģ ݝáìÁèģ ²Èģ 谝ģ
ªÝ
èáèģá°²©èģ©ÝÎÇģ™Ý²÷²ÈªģèÎģø
Á¾²Èªģ
șģ“þ“Á²Èªĥģ
Item 7.1

&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²“þ“Áģ
șģW™áèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģ| Ēė
Next Steps
d°ģÚìÝÚÎáģΩģè°²áģ
È
Áþá²áģ²áģèÎģ²™È販þģÁΓ
è²ÎÈáģ²Èģ谝ģ²èþģø°Ýģ’²“þ“Á
șģڝ™áèݲ
È facilities
or ȝèøÎݾģÈ°
ȓÇÈèáģ“
ÈģÚÝÎ÷²™ģ谝ģªÝ
èáèģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģèÎģ÷Ýþ™
þģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáĥģd°ģ

È
Áþá²áģ°²ª°Á²ª°èáģᝪǝÈèá
șģ²ÈèÝᝓè²ÎÈá ø²è°ģ°²ª°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģèÎģ™áè²È
è²ÎÈáģ
șģ²™È販²áģ²©ģ
谝ݝģ²áģ
ģÁÎøģáèݝááģȝèøÎݾģ
÷
²Á
’ÁģèÎģ
““ááģ谝áģ
ݝ
áĥ

áģÚ
ÝèģΩģ谝ģȝýèģáèÚáĦģ谝ģWÝ읓èģd
Çģø²ÁÁģ’ģ÷
Áì
è²Èªģ谝ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²áģø²è° ý²áè²Èªģ
ȝèøÎݾ data èÎģìșÝáè
șģª
Úáģ
șģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲ貝áģ²Èģ谝ģ“ìÝݝÈèģȝèøÎݾĥģd°ģÚݲÇ
Ýþģ²ÈèÈèģø²ÁÁģ’ģ
èÎģìșÝáè
șģ²©ģ
ݝ
áģø²è°ģ°²ª°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģ
ݝģ
““áᲒÁģ÷²
ģ
ģÁÎøģáèݝááģȝèøÎݾĦģ²è°Ýģ
ÁÎȪģ谝ģ
°²ª°ģ“ÎÈȝ“è²÷²èþģᝪǝÈèģÎÝģ÷²
ģ
ģÁÎøģáèݝááģÚ
Ý
ÁÁÁģáèݝèĥ d°²áģø²ÁÁģ’ģ
ģ“ݲ貓
Áģ²ÈÚìèģèÎģȝèøÎݾģ
™÷ÁÎÚǝÈèģèÎģ’ģ“ÎÇÚÁè™ģ
áģÚ
ÝèģΩģd
á¾ģėĥ
Item 7.1

FOSTER CITY Bi“þ“ÁģšģW™áèݲ
È Master Plan
Appendix D.

Bicycle Facility
Prioritization Results
Item 7.1

FOSTER CITY Bike Ped Master Plan
Bicycle Facility Prioritization Approach
Category Criteria Proposed Scoring ApproachSafety
Bike/ped KSI collision along facility 1 = 1+ bike/ped KSI collisions on facility Non-severe bike/ped collision along facility 1 = 3+ bike/ped collision on facilityLevel of Traffic Stress 1 = LTS >3 for more than 50% of facility Connectivity
Connectivity Score 1 = High connectivity for >50% of facilityTier 1 Priority Intersections 1 = 1+ tier 1 intersections on facilityIncreases connectivity across major roads in FC (Hillsdale, FCB, Hwy 92) or access to San Mateo Caltrain Access Project 1 = Does provide connection over major road
Feasibility
Complexity 1 = Project can be implemented with no changes to auto capacity or parkingEstimated costs 1 = Can be implemented with repaving or other routine maintenance activities Item 7.1

Corridor Begin End Type of Facility Existing Facility Project Type Fatal or Injury
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Collision
Bicycle Pedestrian
Collision
Level of Traffic
Stress Connectivity Priority Intersections Major Roads Connections Right-of- Way Estimated Costs Total Score Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 Shell Blvd Metro Center Blvd Bounty Dr Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Edgewater Blvd / Mariners Island Blvd City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility Class II Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 10 0 6 Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6Polynesia Dr/Bounty Dr Constitution Dr Foster City Blvd Class III N/A New Facility 1 0 0 1 1 01 1 5 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Pilgram Dr/Balclutha Dr E Hillsdale Blvd Foster City Blvd Class III N/A New Facility 1 0 0 1 0 01 1 4 Polaris Ave Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4Vintage Park Dr Metro Center Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Class III N/A Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin St Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Item 7.1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Foster City will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Monday, October 5, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. to consider the following:

A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FOSTER CITY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (“PLAN”) AND FIND THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.20
The Final BPMP is a citywide effort to lay out the future of bicycling, walking, and rolling in Foster City. The Final Plan consolidates the work completed throughout an 18- month planning process and is now ready for adoption and implementation. A public hearing was held on August 3, 2026 in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21080.20 to hear and respond to public comments. PRC Section 21080.20(a)(1) specifically exempts Active Transportation Plans from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The draft final BPMP can be reviewed online at: https://fostercitymy.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/fmagno_fostercity_org/IQApL7yL5UAcRLWIAZ0- nXtxAfPjeMpwlcGDAw4qWZgQvj8?e=P2KLO5.

SAID PUBLIC HEARING will be held as a hybrid meeting in-person and by teleconference/video conference, subject to appropriate regulations. The meeting address is 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. Final meeting location(s) and teleconference/video conference information will be listed on the agenda which will be published not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

The public may participate by submitting comments via email to [email protected] or by providing live verbal public comment by joining the meeting via teleconference and/or video conference, or in person. Instructions on how to join the meeting are included in the top portion of the agenda posted at:
www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND. __________________________ Priscilla Schaus City Clerk/District Secretary
Dated: September 15, 2026
Posted/Published: September 23, 2026
Item 7.1

RESOLUTION NO. _______

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

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FOSTER CITY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN; FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.20 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15306;

AND APPROVAL OF CERTAIN TRAFFIC STUDIES AND PLANNING STUDY TASKS

IDENTIFIED IN THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN FOR PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the development of the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) aims to address bicycle and pedestrian safety needs throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the project team conducted extensive public engagement across three phases from April 2025 through August 2026, including online surveys, public workshops, committee reviews, and stakeholder meetings; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2026, and October 5, 2026, the City Council held noticed public hearings, in a manner consistent with Government Code section 6061, to receive public feedback and input on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby resolve, find and determine as follows:

1. The Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, attached hereto, is hereby adopted and approved; and

2. The project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.20 as an active transportation, pedestrian, or bicycle plan for the restriping of streets, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing, and related signage, and all required public notice and hearing provisions have been satisfied. Additionally, the two initial tasks for traffic studies and potential planning study for Gull Avenue and Marlin Avenue Class III bike boulevard projects, included in the approved Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project (CIP 301-732), are exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15306 (Information Collection).

Item 7.1

3. City staff will advance the following scope of work as the first project identified for implementation. The scope will be incorporated into the currently approved Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project (CIP 301-732) and will include the following tasks:
a. A traffic study for Beach Park Boulevard, from Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard;
b. A traffic study for Beach Park Boulevard from Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard;
c. A potential planning study for Gull Avenue and Marlin Avenue Class III bike boulevard projects as budget and staff capacity allows.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 5th day of October, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
Item 7.1

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan - Response Matrix to Comments Received During Public Review of Draft Plan The following workbook documents comments received during Phase 3 Engagement of the BPMP during public review period for the Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, along with the City's response to each comment and how it was addressed in the final plan.

Comment Related Section in the PlanReceived Date Source Action Category
City Response / How Reflected in the Plan
Support for class iv lanes due to observed speeding Priority project 5-Aug Off the Grid (8/5) Agreement with Elements of the Plan This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Request to teach bike safety in school Priority Project 5-Aug Off the Grid (8/5) General Comment / Future Consideration This recommendation has been incorporated into the plan.

Preference stated for separated bike lane Priority Project 5-Aug Off the Grid (8/5) Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

General support for separated bike lanes. Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) Agreement with Elements of the Plan
Improvements were added at Avocet Court and Swan Street. Improvements at the remaining requested intersections would trigger a curb ramp requirement and were not added at this time.

Expressed concern over high speeds along Beach Park Boulevard Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Express overall concern with vehicular infrastructure and impacts (emissions); Does not favor any additional vehicular infrastructure; Concerned that there is concern over potential parking loss. Doesn't agree that we should worry about impeding on cars
Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3)
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Along Beach Park Blvd, consider relocating the 4-way stops to Tarpon and Swordfish Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Concern that after the installation of improvements along Gull/Marlin, drivers will revert to taking Crane instead Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Disagreement with Elements of the Plan This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Support with having an additional bike lane along Beach Park Boulevard, in addition to the levee/bay trail Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Agreement with Elements of the Plan This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Consider alternating between a travel lane and parking lane around schools. Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Asking to consider future development impacts when impacting project needs. Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Consider bike/ped connectivity to the City's interior lagoon. Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Recommended Revisions to the Plan
The City agreed with the recommendation to consider improvements at this intersection or another traffic control device. This change has been incorporated into the final plan.

Concern with losing lanes due to ppl needing to leave in an emergency. Would like to see alternates to address that. Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council Disagreement with Elements of the Plan This comment was noted for the record. No changes were made to the plan in response.
recommend studying traffic impacts in neighborhoods at different times (particularly cul de sacs during school drop-off hours) Priority Project 3-Aug Public Hearing (8/3) - Council General Comment / Future Consideration This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

The city should prioritize implementation of Class IV bike lanes and the priority projects not only as a BPMP project but also as part of the 2024 CAP update.

The top thing that people wanted to see in the 2024 CAP survey was better bike and ped infrastructure. This fulfills so many of our goals in the General Plan, and is especially important as a sixth grader was hit today by a car at a crosswalk near Bowditch. The ADT map shows clearly that Beach Park is way too wide and has excess capacity in need of a road diet. Every delay is more close calls and injuries of foster city residents
Entire plan/Other Aug 17, 2026,
04:29 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment did not result in a change to the plan document, as it will be addressed during design of the individual project.

Love it. Chapter 1: The Vision Aug 17, 2026,
04:14 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Please keep the Foster City BLVD sidewalk parking. Nighttime parking is congested around the block: Hillsdale Blvd, Comet Drive, Foster City Drive, and Polynesia Drive.
pg 69
Chapter 6:

Implementation Strategy
Aug 14, 2026,
05:09 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
The City noted that the plan already shows local trails within the interior of the lagoon area. No changes were made to the plan in response to this comment.

Item 7.1

Make it simple so that everyone finds it easy to understand. Simple. Chapter 1: The Vision Aug 14, 2026, 10:52 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Two thoughts. First, we need to outlaw "right turn on red". As a pedestrian, I have to be aware of the cars turning right on red lights as they do not look to their right for pedestrians - they only look left for oncoming cars.

Second, please do not remove parking on our streets, such as Edgewater Blvd south of Hillsdale. Removing parking will not eliminate cars, it will just push them elsewhere, so you are not "solving" a problem, you are just relocating it.

Entire plan/Other Aug 14, 2026,
08:57 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Concerned about permanent barriers with the new bikeped plan. Do not feel they are necessary, green lanes are sufficient. Consider the percentage of cars vs bikes and making barriers and in some cases removal auto lanes seems to favoring the bikes. While I know that the bikes/peds are an increasing, would much prefer that they obey the current laws rather than making them new spaces to drive. We see on a daily basis the the laws are ignored.

We have seen the permanent barriers in place in other cities and see quite a bit of tire marks on them. They are very difficult to see in the dark and rain. The expense of these permanent barriers does not appear to be worth it as bikers are not currently using them and use the drive lanes and sidewalks.

Chapter 3: Community
Feedback
Aug 12, 2026,
04:53 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

As a long-time Foster City resident, I am strongly opposed to the proposed project, particularly the reduction of vehicle lanes, elimination of parking spaces, and further reductions in traffic speeds.

I support bicycle safety and believe Foster City should be a safe community for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike. However, I do not believe that reducing vehicle capacity and eliminating needed parking is the appropriate solution.

Before committing approximately $3 million of taxpayer money to these changes, I believe the City should demonstrate that the benefits justify both the cost and the disruption to residents. How many cyclists currently use these routes on an average weekday? How many additional cyclists does the City realistically expect these changes to attract? What percentage of Foster City residents will actually benefit from this expenditure? These are important questions when deciding how to allocate limited public resources.

There are many infrastructure needs that I believe should have a higher priority.

We have roads that need repair, areas where streets puddle and flood during heavy rain, traffic signals that could be better timed, and opportunities for improved landscaping and beautification. I would much rather see taxpayer dollars directed toward projects that benefit a broader percentage of Foster City residents.

I am also concerned about the effect of reducing vehicle lanes. Removing a traffic lane does not necessarily remove the cars that currently use that lane.

Those vehicles may simply spend more time sitting in traffic, increasing congestion and potentially creating additional problems on surrounding streets.

Before eliminating lanes, the City should provide residents with a detailed traffic analysis showing what will happen to vehicle travel times and congestion during peak periods.

The proposed loss of parking is another major concern. Existing street parking is Entire plan/Other Aug 11, 2026,
05:48 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Item 7.1

I live on Grunion Court and feel a traffic light at the corner of Foster City Blvd. and Marlin is not necessary. The corner is only busy when kids are going to school from approx. 7:45am - 8:15 am. However if the city is concerned about traffic flow, a stop sign should be placed on Marlin Ave at Halibut St. Allow me to say that intersection is more hazardous to both motorists and bicyclists. Traffic backs up from Swordfish all the way to Foster City Blvd in both directions at that time. Ever try to turn left onto Marlin from Halibut? One could sit at the corner for several minutes before there's an opening or a good samaritan allows one to turn left. A light at Foster City Blvd. will not change that. As for another light at Beach Park and Foster City Blvd., that's crazy. The only time I saw more than 1 car waiting at the stop sign was the resurfacing of Foster City Blvd a few weeks ago.

I drive Beach Park Blvd. quite often and many times I'm the only car on the road.

There are too many lights on Foster City Blvd. as it is. With the light at Polynesia, and they're not in sync, it could take upwards of 10 minutes to get to Highway 92 West because one would sit at every red light on Foster City Blvd.

And it's less than a coouple miles!
I feel asking those who actually travel those roads should be asked their opinions.

Chapter 3: Community
Feedback
Aug 11, 2026,
06:11 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

I don’t want any more bike paths in Foster City. Bikers can use the levee.

Thanks
Margaret Fieler
Entire plan/Other Aug 10, 2026,
03:16 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Bike lanes r more important and they need to put safely Chapter 3: Community Feedback
Aug 06, 2026,
09:47 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.
-Page 58, Beach park Blvd, consider having bike lanes for both direction on the bay side followed by parking, both side of traffic and parking again. That will avoid all driveways and intersection issues for bike riders:
parking/vehicle lane/turn lane/vehicle lane/parking/barrier/bikeway/bikeway -Several of the proposal that are too low priority to be funded soon shoudl be accelerated by finding all exploring all means of funding (i.e. all work in teh industrial section, north of 92, should explore contribution by companies that woudl benefit from easier bike commutes for their employees).

Chapter 6:

Implementation Strategy
Aug 03, 2026,
09:10 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted for the record. No changes were made to the plan in response.

As a frequent biker living around hillsdale and edgewater intersection, I am encouraged by the desire to improve the roads for bike participation. Foster City has a great opportunity to encourage more biking as the streets are wide, smooth, flat, and well organized. This would reduce car traffic and pollution.

Some suggestions I have include: 1) bike lines protected by parked cars, rather than bike lines on the outside of the cars close to the street, particularly along a) Polaris and Altair ave, where I bike frequently to get to Arcturus park and b) east hillsdale east of foster city boulevard. Additionally, some sidewalks do not have ramps on Polaris street which makes it difficult for my children to bike on the sidewalk. 2) Along hillsdale, an ability to go both directions on the same side of the road. It takes a while to cross hillsdale so for a short trip, it's not convenient to cross sides, then cross sides back again. 3) Signs to watch for bikers for cars who are turning right on red.

Chapter 1: The Vision Aug 03, 2026,
10:13 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted for the record. No changes were made to the plan in response.

Item 7.1

The plan is very exciting and looking at the right things from a well informed and effective point of view. Many of the right solutions are being proposed. One main thing that I am inclined to disagree on is what sounds like a laser focus on building a specific priority network first. I also want to advocate for building the fastest, cheapest, and most impactful interventions quickly. Paint is not a barrier, for example, but it will still be essential to build a community understanding that bikes are here and to share the road everywhere as well. A lot of green paint is needed. That said, yes, also give us the traffic calming, the raised crosswalks, the daylighting. Give us leading pedestrian intervals, no rights on red. Give us the Idaho stop law. Give us planters and bollards to harden bike lanes. Give us bike lockers. Maybe even find a street or two to close to vehicle traffic. 🫣 Entire plan/Other Jul 31, 2026,
10:58 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

This is not a user friendly survey. Do better! Entire plan/Other Jul 31, 2026, 01:27 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website General Comment / Future Consideration This comment was noted for the record. No changes were made to the plan in response.

The northbound lane of Beach Park from FC Blvd to Birgdeview Park should be converted into a high speed bicycle travel lane. The 2 southbound lanes can be converted into 1 northbound 1 southbound.

This will also help to address the very large problem of people double parking on Beach Park for Bowditch pickup, and the extreme number of people making illegal u-turns.

It worked during the levee construction, bring it back! Chapter 5: Future Network Jul 30, 2026,
01:37 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.
super disappointed that the sidewalk work done at the intersection of Baclutha and FCB did nothing to address the feedback that the offset crosswalks feel less safe. why wasn't the design of the newer crosswalk at Polynesia and FCB copied? similarly, if we want to be pedestrian (and by extension, driver) friendly, crosswalks should trigger automatically instead of requiring a button push ... and the timer end should coincide with the accompanying light change. as a pedestrian, I feel safer jay-walking across our streets (including FCB) than using marked crosswalks.

Entire plan/Other Jul 30, 2026,
01:23 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
The configuration was explored but was not preferred from an intersection operations perspective. Additional design alternatives may be explored in future phases.

Appendix A
Some of the cells need to be expanded. Entire plan/Other Jul 29, 2026, 06:57 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Improvements maybe considered at a future planning and design phase.

Appendix D - Please provide more explanation. How did you arrive at only these categories? What about community input? What about ADT or projected ADT in the next 5 to 10 years? I need a definition of what is meant by each of these categories. What is meant by a 0 or 1? Why would we prioritize Beach Park Blvd when the ADT is less than 2500 trips?
Entire plan/Other Jul 29, 2026,
06:55 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Additional information on Quick Build projects were added to the final plan. 1) Under "Where do Collisons Occur?" can you provide the percentage of collisions that occurred outside of key destinations?
2) I am also confused by the Figure 4 title. Why does it say (Foster City, 2025) if it's 5 year data?
3) Figure 7 in LTS 2 has a misplaced quotation mark.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 29, 2026,
06:36 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

The draft plan appears well thought out and I like the addition of Class lV bike lanes. I ride a bicycle 80% of the time in FC. I use a bicycle to go to Costco, Safeway, run errands, visit friends and go to parks to play pickleball. Most of my friends (65+) also live in FC and never get out of their cars. Thats the problem.

They will drive from Farragut Park to go to Port Royal or Baffin HOA pickleball courts, or to Leo Ryan. That is one of the major factors and needs to be addressed. Incentives need to be explored once along with the master plan to get people out of their cars. Build incentives based on how often they use bicycles or walk to destinations. It is interesting to see that many immigrants, Hispanic, Asian and Indians use bicycles or walk to their destinations. We need to encourge this - lower carbon footprint, health benefits and $$ saving.

Chapter 3: Community
Feedback
Jul 29, 2026,
06:30 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
Other considerations might be explored in a future design phase. No changes were made to the current plan.

Item 7.1

There is no mention of the Pilgrim-Harvester Trail. Are there more trails like this in Foster City? I would imagine there are people who use these trails to get to school.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 29, 2026,
06:08 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This change has been incorporated into the plan.

Please match the colors in Figures 7 and 8 to what is shown in the maps in Figure 9 and 10 for consistency. Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 29, 2026, 06:03 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan
This change has been incorporated into the plan.

It would be helpful to understand what policies our neighboring cities and towns have done and its effectiveness. For example, San Mateo has completed 3 phases of Slow for Students. Phase 1 was public elementary and middle schools, completed Summer 2023. Within 500 ft of schools, the speed limit is 15 MPH, within 500 - 1000 ft the speed limit is 25 MPH. Have we asked: 1) what effect they have seen and 2) the ROI on it.

Chapter 4: Policy
Recommendations
Jul 29, 2026,
06:00 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
Additional explanation was provided in Appendix D.

I would like to see more detailed information surrounding the schools, major parks, and shopping areas. Like Figure 3 but zoomed into these key destinations so that we can understand what is the posted miles per hour in these areas.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 29, 2026,
05:53 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
Additional information was added to the plan to help with understanding I cycle nearly exclusively in FC. We do an OK job, but could do better! This roads in this town were designed for cars that go much slower than today's. Please consider the safety of our cyclists by providing protected bike lanes! I have been run off the road by a DHL delivery truck because he didn't want to share the road/bike lane. And the lost opportunity of not adding this during the repaving of Foster City Blvd is nearly unconscionable. Also, the reduction of bike lane to "sharrow" lane on the rainbow bridge east bound on Hillsdale Blvd between Pilgrim and Gull is TREACHEROUS! We can do better here!! The cars have no visibility when coming over the bridge to find a bike lane added. It's very scary to use.

Chapter 3: Community
Feedback
Jul 29, 2026,
03:01 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No specific action was needed.

The draft bike - pedestrian master plan, is incomplete and fails to study, mitigate, make findings, make recommendations for existing known hazardous safety conditions on E. 3rd Avenue for an existing posted bike route on the street in a posted 45 MPH traffic speed without any marked bike lane. For clarity, this is an existing public safety hazard the draft Master Plan is completely void of the existing hazardous condition.

This extremely hazardous condition violates the 3 feet Law for Motorists and Bicycles in January 2023, California amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

The new law (AB. 1909). Therefore the draft plan is incomplete and not addressing this known hazard creates substantial liability on Foster City.

There are no sidewalks. There are crosswalks that terminate to no sidewalk on the east side of E. 3rd Avenue.
3 ft. Rule – Motorists must yield at least 3 feet between their vehicle and a bicyclist on all roadways. This rule was amended by State legislation through Assembly Bill 1909, approved by the Governor in 2022, and commencing January 2024.

Additionally, this bill requires a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.

The New 3’ Law for Motorists and Bicycles in January 2023, California amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC). The new law (AB. 1909) requires all motorists to give a bicyclist three feet of clearance when passing on the left-hand side of the bicyclist or (depending on the width of the road) reduce speed appropriately, when passing. (See CVC: 21750 (b) (c) (d)). This is particularly crucial on narrow two-lane roads where there are many reports of bicyclists being forced off the road or hit by motor vehicles.

Entire plan/Other Jul 29, 2026,
12:09 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
Informal trails were added to the network.

Item 7.1

1. Desperate need for an RFFB and crosswalk at beach Park and cutter. There is no way for students riding bikes to get across to the bay trail to get to Bowditch.

Traffic calming on beach park also. Ensure there are safe crossings throughout FC to get to the bay trail.

2. When I was teaching kids to bike to school, there are cool little cut through paths around FC and near several parks. These paths should be considered as opportunities for wayfinding and to create a safe bicycle network in FC. These valuable paths should continue to be maintained.

Chapter 5: Future Network Jul 28, 2026,
06:19 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This change has been incorporated into the plan.

Type IV on Beach Park Blvd needs a review. It's going to be highly inconvenient for homeowners in that area to get in and out of their driveways, leading to more accidents. Also, it will definitely lose a lot of parking. Not an acceptable design at all.

Chapter 4: Policy
Recommendations
Jul 27, 2026,
07:37 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
The City determined that adding a detailed comparison of neighboring cities' speed-limit policies would not add sufficient value to the plan at this time. // No changes were made to the current plan.

Neighborhood #1 is +/- ignored. Makes sense. City saw to it to ignore that area as part of the repaving. So why not continue to ignore it. Best argument EVER for district elections. No council member from that area = the plan puts kids at risk biking to school esp. how to get to Bowditch and brewer island. Also the highest % of kids who live in apartments & have more limited access to cars.

Chapter 5: Future Network Jul 27, 2026,
12:07 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
City identified more opportunities within this community. Changes are reflected in update.

Figure 12 is missing key bike paths. It is missing the connection from Neighborhood #1 to the bridge. 37°33'23.0"N 122°15'33.0"W between 951 & 947 Lureline. Everyone uses that path to avoid FC Blvd etc.... Also the map misses the pocket park paths... if you are on those paths during school commute times they are full of kids. (Polynesia-Chrysopolis Trail and the Harvester Pilgrim /Pilgrim - Balclutha Trail(s)). These paths need to be acknowledged. They are used, they are maintained, and they are PROTECTED for kids on bikes and pedestrians. This is really lacking in the analysis and summary. There are other key paths in other parts of the city. I don't know them all but one example is 37°32'31.3"N 122°16'23.5"W Hatteras Ct to Pensacola St. This little path was even a MAJOR subject in the Recall Election. It is how seniors get through the neighborhood and how kids get through and avoid the more busy and congested Port Royal Ave. You've got to acknowledge these cut throughs as they are how people actually USE the streets & they are assets the city still has to maintain and manage. Use them. They are cheap protected safe zones.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 27, 2026,
11:56 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Comment reflects support for the planned Hillsdale Boulevard bicycle facility improvements. No changes were made to the plan, as this is already addressed by the proposed Hillsdale project.
pg 28... kids don't navigate to sea cloud like this. They hop onto the levee and then off at sea cloud. Many many people use the levee as a safe route (even if it takes more distance) and it isn't on this report. e.g. if you live on the islands a lot of those kids will go East to levee and then south on levee into sea cloud. It is insane to think people go all the way over to Pitcairn to get to sea cloud. That is just cars. Report also misses how kids navigate from Bowditch. If you are at Sunfish park you will see lots of kids cutting through that park (and other parks) as cut throughs OFF OF streets as those paths are essentially protected, safe, and shorter distance than risking car streets.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 27, 2026,
11:40 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
The City determined that East 3rd Avenue does not meet the plan's criteria for a high-stress, high-connectivity crossing location, and noted that any needed safety improvements would be addressed during future project development. No changes were made to the current plan document.

Figure 6 does not conform to the bike ped infrastructure presented to planning commission in re: hotel project @ shell & metro Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 27, 2026, 11:30 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website Disagreement with Elements of the Plan Improvements are planned at the Beach Park Boulevard/Cutter Street intersection and wayfinding is included in the plan's goals and policies.

FC has lowered speed limits around many schools to 15mph. It is important to note this as the distance between these speed limits change is ... extensive along the streets & very confusing. 35 25 15 25 back to 35
https://www.facebook.com/FosterCityPolice/posts/-safer-school-zones-in-fostercity-to-improve-safety-for-students-and-families-t/1383898140447602/ Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 27, 2026,
11:28 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Future alternatives will be explored.

Maps include Kids Connection but does NOT include PJCC Preschool / Wornick Day School, Odyssey Day school, Kindercare, and Island United's school. All of these are places people walk or bike kids.

Chapter 2: Network Today Jul 27, 2026,
11:26 AM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Additional facilities were added.

Item 7.1

Edgewater to Regulus proposed implementation would remove all current parking on both side of the street. This is a location where dozens of residents park their car on a daily basis. Removing these parking spots is not a viable option for the city and the residents - this needs to be re-reviewed completely. Additionally some other implementation strategy suggests removing car lanes by 50%. This will create significant additional traffic throughout the city including more pollution, noise, and annoyance for the community. Reducing speed and enforcing speed prior doing these changes will already reduce the amount of collisions especially when people go 40 or over during school time when speed is posted at 25 during those time.

Chapter 6:

Implementation Strategy
Jul 23, 2026,
11:38 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
Informal trails were added to the network.

I am concerned about the lanes that are marked for both Bicycles and cars and would prefer there was a separate bike lane, so it would be less confusing as to whether the car can pass the slower bicycle or has to wait for it.

Entire plan/Other Jul 23, 2026,
07:02 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
This change was not made; the network analysis was limited to the public right-of-way, and this limitation is noted in the plan text preceding the figures. adding a bike lane to Hillsdale Blvd would not be smart. Are you kidding me! The traffic is already bad and you want to make it worse! Chapter 1: The Vision Jul 23, 2026, 06:52 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Disagreement with Elements of the Plan
Development-related bicycle infrastructure requirements cannot be tied to a plan that has not yet been adopted. No changes were made to the current plan.

Make the pedway simple. It is confusing to many people. How about one center line. Cyclists and pedestrians remain to the right. Cyclists should be encouraged to call out, "On your left", before passing. The beige crumbled rock is a ridiculous waste of space. Signage is essential. Stenciled on the asphalt and maybe a few poles with meaningful instructions. The pedway behind Port Royal has only a center line and has worked well for years. Signage has all but faded out.

Bicyclists and motorized vehicles are the biggest dangers. Speeding, carelessness and no warnings given.

Marvin Berkson
Chapter 4: Policy
Recommendations
Jul 23, 2026,
06:08 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
No other changes were made to the plan.

The “no turn on red” proposals are not necessary in themselves. Drivers are already meant to stop and yield to pedestrians and cyclists at these points. They can be encouraged to with things like flashing arrows and reconfiguring turns to be sharper. Requiring vehicles to stop and wait at red lights before turning right when there are no pedestrians or cyclists crossing will increase dwell time, noise, idling and pollution.

Chapter 5: Future Network Jul 23, 2026,
06:07 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Additional schools were added to the plan maps.

I support and agree with the general priorities of both pedestrian and bicycle lane improvements. However, I think designers are making the typical mistake of putting bike lanes, event if they're separated, between parked cars and traffic, as shown on the proposal on page 59. Serious accidents occur because drivers do not always look for bicycles when opening their doors, causing injury to cyclists.

By placing parked cars between car traffic and the bicycles would not only reduce this problem, but provide a physical barrier. No explanation is given as to why the superior separation is only done on one side of the street and almost all other proposals for similar changes have bike lanes protected by physical barriers or parked cars.

I am thrilled to see the proposal to reduce the car traffic lanes from 2 to 1 on Beach Park Blvd, as I am a regular cyclist and runner through this section and the traffic has never warranted 4 lanes, so
I also object to yet another all-way traffic control light being added, when there are other, possibly better solutions. The addition of lights on Beach Park Blvd and Shell Blvd (previously a 4-way stop sign) have made life worse for everyone (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists), all because of careless drivers during the school commuting hours. The rest of the time, there are substantial wait periods to cross or turn, and drivers tend to speed up when the light is amber/yellow. As a cyclist, pedestrian, and driver, I would be unhappy with even more traffic lights for intersections with little traffic flow.

Chapter 6:

Implementation Strategy
Jul 21, 2026,
09:17 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Additional design alternatives may be explored in future phases.

Item 7.1

I fully support the creation of Class IV bike lanes and virtual elimination of the terrible Class II bike "lanes" (which often end up forcing cyclists onto sidewalks).

I also support better pedestrian crossings, especially Bulb Outs for intersections with high discomfort, such as Shell & Catamaran (on a weekly basis, I am almost struck by cars failing to completely Stop and look for pedestrians about to enter the cross walk, especially from the Northeast corner going South).

Chapter 5: Future Network Jul 21, 2026,
09:01 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
Shared lanes are only proposed for roadways with low vehicle volumes and speed. No changes were made to the current plan.

I think policies other than the FHWA and CalDOT should be considered, as these tend to deemphasize solutions that may be disliked by drivers, e.g., roundabouts, which are not mentioned at all in the FHWA's "Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety", and only mentioned in passing in CalDOT's "DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN-94 COMPLETE STREETS: CONTEXTUAL DESIGN GUIDANCE" document. Roundabouts would not only improve traffic flow in locations such as Shell & Catamaran, they can—if designed correctly—increase safety for pedestrians.

Chapter 4: Policy
Recommendations
Jul 21, 2026,
08:57 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
A bicycle facility already exists on Hillsdale Boulevard today. No changes were made to the current plan.

I have been biking in FC since 1975. During the pandemic I rode daily on Beach Park where one traffic lane was closed--it brought out families and was safe. Why not open that lane on weekends most of the year? Now I am afraid of the designated 11 miles of bike lanes that share the slow lane with traffic. I do NOT ride fast, maybe 3 to 4 mph and worry that a distracted driver going 35 MPS + will come upon me and hit me. It is nice you want more bike lanes, but the ones sharing the lane with cars are NOT safe. And, traveling in the strees such as Catamaran near the park and on Beach Park from Edgewater to the bay is definitely not safe. I would ride more if it were safer.

I also find that at several intersections cars do not stop or follow one another making a turn even tho I have the light. I usually walk my bike at those intersections. Having more lanes designated for cars and bicycles does not make sense to me.

And, as a driver, I see people of all ages riding e-bikes and bikes with no helmet flying down and across streets, not obeying signals. I recently followed an e-bike, driver without helmet, going 25 mph in the fast lane on Edgewater. They should not have been there. Can you tighten e-bike rules?
Chapter 3: Community
Feedback
Jul 19, 2026,
02:24 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Just build something, please. This is government inefficiency at its finest.

The plan is irrelevant as I assume you will have meetings on all of the various projects when they arise.

Entire plan/Other Jul 13, 2026,
08:16 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
Future alternatives will be explored.

Executive summary is needed to provide a whole snapshot in a few pages.

Include top line numbers, total network mileage today vs future, the 7 priority projects, and a full plan cost estimate.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Revised plan to include additional explanation for why specific configuration was detailed. Future design phase may explore different configuration.

P. 19, while unmarked crossings can be dangerous in certain cases, it is unrealistic to have crosswalks on every residential road. Also worth noting that under CVC 21950 every intersection is a legal crosswalk whether marked or not.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted in support of the plan. No changes were made to the plan in response.

P. 19, limited crossings at FCB and Metro Center are to allow optimal traffic flow in an already congested intersection. Recommend this be explained clearly, that vehicle movement is prioritized here and if pedestrian movement is emphasized it will slow vehicle movement, which is good for safety but will create more backup and degraded LOS. This tradeoff should be stated as policy in Chapter 4.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Figure 16 needs to be higher up, perhaps in the executive summary, to lay out the approach taken to get to this result. Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026, 04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan This comment reflects support for even more protected bicycle facilities. No changes were made to the current plan.

Goal 2, design with intent, needs a nod to limited City bandwidth and dollars to deliver projects. Follow prioritization and keep looking for ways to package projects together. Tie this to the full cost estimate ask below so the caveat lands with real numbers behind it.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Item 7.1

Policies do not have any timelines, even rough ones, or specifics to achieve.

Suggest rough phase buckets instead of calendar dates since funding is grant dependent: near term 0–3 years, mid term 3–7 years, long term 7+ years, tied to the funding pathways in Table 4.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Added Executive Summary.

Table 1 has a lot of Class IV mileage on it. Should be called out to be expensive and caveated that if road diets are needed, more future studies and outreach shall be done.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Figure 20 includes a large number of priority crossing improvements. Is that really achievable? Would like a rough per-intersection cost range and comparison against realistic annual CIP capacity for pedestrian projects. If the math shows a decades-long backlog, that should be stated plainly.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Chapter 6 introduction should include a nod to this plan being meant to be updated periodically, with an implementation strategy that evolves as the City begins to implement it. Suggest tying the update cadence to the LRSP's 5-year cycle.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Added Executive Summary.

P. 53, 4th paragraph, first sentence has a "(?)" at the end, needs to be removed or updated with a citation before this goes back out for Phase 3. Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026, 04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Added language to Chapter 6.

Table 3 prioritization should have a column for whether a road diet is needed, and a column for whether parking removal is needed. Both are major feasibility flags that should be visible in the scoring table.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website
Agreement with Elements of the Plan
The City determined that specific implementation timelines should not be included in the plan's policies. No changes were made to the current plan.

Priority projects call for 10-foot vehicle lanes. We should make clear that is tighter than most roads currently are, which will slow traffic but may feel uncomfortable to users while they adjust.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Added information in the plan that this is aspirational and that implementation will require additional resources and time.

P. 61, many identified intersections along Beach Park for raised crossings and curb extensions have storm drain catch basins that could conflict. Ensure estimates account for redesign, contouring, or flow-through options, and include drainage and grading redesign in subsequent planning studies.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Priority crossing improvements are intended to be bundled with bicycle facility projects where possible, rather than delivered as a stand-alone cost analysis. No changes were made to the current plan.

P. 73 and 75 call out redevelopment activity as a possible funding avenue but don't provide examples. Expand on how this is possible and include a policy to help the City implement bike/ped requirements during redevelopment. Cite General Plan Goals LUC-E-8-a and LUC-E-8-b and consider BPMP facility gaps as part of development review.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan A planning horizon has been added.

I would like to see an overall cost estimate in today's dollars for implementing the full plan. Council and residents should know what level of investment is needed to bring this plan to fruition.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website General Comment / Future Consideration This change has been incorporated into the plan.

Outreach and feedback may be dominated by a relatively small number of bicyclecentric users. The Plan's Phase 2 data shows the top two contributors made up 36% of interactive-map comments. Recommend an outreach limitation disclosure and broader outreach before final design on road diet segments.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Road diet and parking removal feasibility are addressed through the 'Right-ofWay' column in Appendix D. No additional changes were made to the current plan, as this is already addressed in Appendix D.

Quick-build material maintenance and ownership isn't assigned anywhere.

Delineators, flex posts, and temporary curb require maintenance, street sweeping access, and eventual replacement. Table 4 addresses capital delivery but not ongoing O&M. Quick builds should also only be implemented when permanent implementation is expected within approximately five years.

Entire plan/Other Jul 21, 2026,
04:50 PM Social Pinpoint Project Website Recommended Revisions to the Plan Added text to the plan that narrower lanes support safer behavior.

Support for proposed project improvements at Foster City Blvd and Polynesia Priority Project 29-Jul Vibe Teen Center Event (7/29) Agreement with Elements of the Plan
This item has been reviewed; the plan's cost estimates include a drainage contingency, and asphalt raised crosswalks are not expected to require additional drainage work.

Request for bike detection loops on Beach Park Blvd & Comet Dr Priority Project 29-Jul Vibe Teen Center Event (7/29) Recommended Revisions to the Plan No changes were made to the current plan.

Expressing unlawful and unsafe activity, such as donuts, speeding on Beach Park Blvd, and illegal U-Turns at Bowditch. Expresses plenty of ROW for implementation, and wants to consider a median at Bowditch to prevent illegal UTurns Priority Project 29-Jul Vibe Teen Center Event (7/29)
General Comment / Future Consideration
This comment was noted for the record and may be considered during future studies, projects, or implementation efforts. No changes were made to the current plan.

Item 7.1

Request for enhancing cross treatments and ADA curb ramps at various intersections: Tarpon & Ribbon St, Marlin Ave & Grebe St, Grebe St & Gull Ave, Avocet Ct, and along Tarpon St. Expresses unsafeness of riding bike on street due to speeding cars, explains why riding on sidewalk is more favorable.

Expresses how residential delivery trucks are large, feels unsafe on the road Priority Project 29-Jul Vibe Teen Center Event (7/29)
Recommended Revisions to the Plan
Outreach language was clarified. This change has been incorporated into the plan.

Blind spot between Beach Park Blvd and Dorado Ln, due to cars in the way Priority Project 29-Jul Vibe Teen Center Event (7/29) General Comment / Future Consideration More information on quick build treatments was added to the plan.

Item 7.1

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

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

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

Link to project website
6/13/2025 Phase 1 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 6/23/2025 Phase 1 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 1 Survey Reminder 6/30/2025 Phase 1 Flyers Levee Kiosks Link to project website 7/3/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey Reminder 7/10/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey Reminder 7/16/2025 Phase 1 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 1 Survey Reminder 7/18/2025 Phase 1 Social Media Facebook Phase 1 Survey Reminder 8/14/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Instagram Mayoral Minute 9/11/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Phase 2 Event Reminder
9/11/2025 Phase 2 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 9/17/2025 Phase 2 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 2 Event Reminder 9/17/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey Reminder 9/18/2025 -
10/20/2025
Phase 2 Online Survey Social Pinpoint Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
9/21/2025 Phase 2 In-person
Event
Boothbay Park Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle
Networks
9/22/2025 Phase 2 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 2 Survey Reminder 9/25/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle
Networks
10/2/2025 Phase 2 Press Release Online Phase 2 Survey Reminder 10/7/2025 Phase 2 PRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Project Update and Draft
Networks
10/7/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey Reminder 10/13/2025 Phase 2 Social Media Facebook Phase 2 Survey Reminder 10/15/2025 Phase 2 IDEC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Goals and Policies
Item 7.1

10/16/2025 Phase 2 Virtual Event Online Focus Group
(PTAs)
Safe Routes to School and Draft
Networks
11/20/2025 Phase 2 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Goals and Policies and Project
Prioritization
12/15/2025 Phase 2 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Goals and Policies and Project
Prioritization
4/30/2026 Phase 3 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Priority Projects
5/4/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Work Session
Emergency
Operations Center
Priority Projects
7/9/2026 Phase 3 TRC Meeting Council Chambers
Conference Room
Draft Plan and Priority Projects
7/13/2026 –
8/17/2026
Phase 3 Online Survey Social Pinpoint Draft Plan and Priority Projects 7/13/2026 Phase 3 Messaging FC Marquee Link to project website 7/14/2026 –
8/17/2026
Phase 3 Social Media Facebook Phase 3 Outreach Reminders 7/16/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Event Reminder
7/23/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Event Reminder
7/29/2026 Phase 3 In-person
Event
The VIBE Teen
Center/Off the Grid
Draft Plan and Priority Projects
7/30/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey and Public Hearing Reminder
7/31/2026 Phase 3 Social Media Instagram Video
8/3/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Draft Plan and Priority Projects
8/5/2026 Phase 3 In-person
Event
Off the Grid Draft Plan and Priority Projects
8/6/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey Reminder 8/13/2026 Phase 3 Email Blast Email to Mailing List Phase 3 Survey Reminder 10/5/2026 Phase 3 City Council
Meeting
Council Chambers Final Plan
Item 7.1

DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Cory Call, Police Chief
DEPARTMENT: Police Department
SUBJECT: Review and Approve the City’s Response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council by Minute Order, review and approve the City of Foster City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”, filed on August 3, 2026 and authorize its submission to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury by the requested date of November 2, 2026.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On August 3, 2026, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (SMCCGJ) filed a report titled “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” The report addresses the use, oversight, data sharing, auditing, contractual provisions, and retention of automated license plate reader (ALPR) information by San Mateo County law enforcement agencies, including the Foster City Police Department (FCPD or “Department”). The City’s response to the report was prepared for submission to the Civil Grand Jury and addresses each finding and recommendation applicable to Foster City.

The City’s response addresses Findings F3 through F9. The City disagrees wholly with Finding F3, disagrees partially with Findings F4 and F7, and agrees with Finding F5, F6, F8 and F9.

Item 8.1

For F3, the response states that FCPD disagrees wholly with the finding and disputes it in its entirety. The City and the FCPD has never shared ALPR information with private university security entities. The two community colleges with which our data was previously shared were the Sequoias Community College District CA Police Department and the West Valley-Mission Community College CA District Campus Police Department. Both agencies are considered “public agencies” and were therefore permitted to receive the data pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1798.90.55(b).

The response explains that, during the Civil Grand Jury’s review, the FCPD Flock Transparency Portal was not configured to display agencies with which ALPR data was shared, and the FCPD did not provide a network sharing report. The absence of this information may have contributed to the FCPD being included in this finding. The Department has since taken steps to ensure the transparency portal accurately identifies agencies with which ALPR information is shared.

For F4, the response states that FCPD partially disagrees with this finding because the Department has conducted and documented biannual (twice per calendar year) ALPR audits as part of its internal administrative processes since the Department started using Flock cameras in 2022.During the Civil Grand Jury’s review, the FCPD was requested to provide, “A copy of [our] most recent audit report.” Therefore, the FCPD provided only one audit memorandum.

As a result, the response acknowledges that the materials provided to the SMCCGJ did not fully demonstrate that the FCPD has been consistently conducting the required audits in accordance with Department policy. Providing just the most recent audit report as requested by the SMCCGJ may have contributed to the FCPD being included in this finding.

For F7, the draft response states that FCPD partially disagrees with the finding because it has followed the data sharing procedures established in its ALPR policy, requiring outside agencies requesting system access to complete a Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letter before access is approved or denied. The FCPD maintains the signed letters as internal administrative records. The FCPD acknowledges, however, that it did not provide supporting Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury as part of the records produced for its review. Per the SMCCGJ’s original request, Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters were not requested.

As a result, the records provided did not substantiate that the required agreements had been obtained, even though the Department had retained the applicable documentation in its internal records.

For F5, F6, F8 and F9, the City agrees with the Civil Grand Jury’s findings based on the representations contained in the Civil Grand Jury Report.

For F9, the FCPD’s contract, practice, and system configuration were consistent with the 30 day retention period, but the written policy did not clearly document that requirement.

Item 8.1

The City’s response also addresses the Civil Grand Jury Recommendations R3 through R9. Recommendations R3, R4, and R7 will not be implemented because the Department believes they are not warranted based on existing practices. The Department has, however, taken steps to improve transparency regarding ALPR data sharing relationships. The FCPD has also conducted and documented biannual audits since 2022.

R5 has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 90 days of the submission of the Civil Grand Jury response by updating the biannual audit reports to include language reflecting compliance with applicable California law and the Department’s ALPR policy.

R6 will be implemented within 90 days of submission of the Civil Grand Jury response.

Although the current vendor contract is not scheduled for renewal for several years, the FCPD will work with FLOCK during that period to develop and incorporate contractual language addressing compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting disclosure of ALPR data to unauthorized third parties prior to renewal.

R8 will be implemented within 90 days of submission of the Civil Grand Jury response through establishment of criteria and procedures governing approval of in-state ALPR data sharing requests and the continuation or termination of existing data sharing relationships.

R9 has already been implemented through an update to the ALPR policy explicitly stating that Flock deletes all footage on a rolling thirty (30) day basis. The FCPD’s practice and system configuration were consistent with the 30-day retention period, but the written policy did not clearly document that requirement.

Proposed Response to Findings and Recommendations:

The proposed response provides the City’s position on each Civil Grand Jury findings and recommendations and identifies whether each recommendation will be implemented, has been implemented, or will not be implemented. The response is intended to provide a clear explanation of FCPD’s existing practices and the actions the Department will take in response to the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations to maintain transparent operation of ALPR system consistent with public safety, privacy, and applicable law.

Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the City of Foster City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” Following City Council approval, staff will submit the City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury by the requested date of November 2, 2026.

Item 8.1

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with responding to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, or with any of the actions the FCPD may take in response to the report.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety and Social Equity

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
Attachment 2 - Proposed Response of the Foster City Police Department to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
Attachment 3 - ALPR Policy #472
Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 1
Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras
Properly Tended?
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
2025-2026
Release Date: August 3, 2026
Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 2
ISSUE | SUMMARY | BACKGROUND | METHODOLOGY | DISCUSSION | FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS | REQUEST FOR RESPONSES | RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | BIBLIOGRAPHY | APPENDIX
ISSUE
Over the past year, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have come under increasing public scrutiny. This report examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

SUMMARY
Automated License Plate Readers have become widely deployed in SMC, with more than 500 cameras now in operation by law enforcement agencies (LEAs) within the County. The rapid increase in ALPR deployment has been accompanied by California legislation governing ALPR use, and also by increased media coverage of alleged violations. Over the past year, SMC LEAs have made notable operational improvements, particularly with respect to out-of-state data sharing. Most changes were driven by stronger default compliance made by Flock Safety (Flock), now the dominant ALPR platform among the SMC operators reviewed. But SMC ALPR operators continue to have many of the same operational deficiencies identified by a 2019 California State Audit that investigated four operators elsewhere in California. Many of the required policy documents are deficient or need significant revision to accurately reflect current operations, and audit materials produced were inconsistent in scope and rigor. Although the materials reviewed did not identify current sharing by SMC operators with out-of-state entities, most operators did not document criteria, process, or controls governing in-state sharing in a manner sufficient to demonstrate compliance with law. This report presents findings and recommendations to promote transparent operation of ALPR systems consistent with public safety, privacy, and applicable law.

BACKGROUND
Automated License Plate Readers
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are camera-based systems that automatically capture and analyze license plates on passing vehicles. Cameras are typically located at fixed roadside locations along high-traffic corridors, major intersections, city entry/exit routes, areas with high crime rates, and transportation infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, freeways). These systems combine high-speed cameras, infrared illumination, and optical character recognition software to convert license plate images into searchable digital data. Law enforcement agencies use ALPR systems to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to criminal investigations, generate investigative leads, and assist in locating missing persons. When connected through regional or national networks, ALPR systems allow investigators to reconstruct vehicle movements across jurisdictions.

Digital imaging, optical character recognition, and large-scale data storage allow ALPR systems to process large numbers of license plates quickly and automatically. Modern systems can read thousands of plates per hour and store the results in databases that investigators can search later.

When a motor vehicle is detected by an ALPR as it passes through the camera's field of view, a digital record is generated recording the vehicle's license plate number, an image of the plate, a Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 3
contextual image of the vehicle (make, model, color, etc.), the date and time of the scan, the location of the camera, and the identification number of the camera device. Once the image is captured, the digital record is immediately transmitted to a cloud-based database that compares the scanned license plate and other vehicle data against law enforcement watch lists, often referred to as “hot lists,” that may include information on vehicles that have been reported stolen, those associated with criminal investigations, outstanding warrants, or connected to missing persons or Amber Alerts.

When a match occurs, the system can send an alert to officers or dispatch centers in real time.

ALPR cameras are usually deployed as part of a network such that when the same vehicle is detected by multiple cameras, investigators can analyze those detections to determine travel routes and timelines. By default, only data captured by cameras within that local jurisdiction are available.

LEAs typically elect to contribute their data to regional databases or multi-jurisdictional systems that allow sharing across multiple cities, counties, or states. The ability to share data among multiple jurisdictions is more effective in assisting law enforcement in their investigations as suspects rarely limit their travel within a single jurisdiction.

As of March 30, 2026, more than 582 ALPR cameras were deployed across SMC. These cameras are operated by municipal police departments within their respective jurisdictions and by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) in unincorporated areas and in jurisdictions where the Sheriff provides contracted law enforcement services. The only police department in SMC with no ALPR cameras is Broadmoor.

Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
Atherton 53 Earliest in SMC, 2020.

Belmont 10
Brisbane 16
Burlingame 18
Colma 11
Daly City 44
East Palo Alto 25
Foster City 20
Half Moon Bay 14 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO.

Hillsborough 22
Menlo Park 32
Pacifica 10
Redwood City 25
San Bruno 54
San Mateo 66
Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 4
Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office
109 Includes unincorporated SMC (except
Broadmoor), Portola Valley, San Carlos
and Millbrae.

South San Francisco 37
Woodside 26 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO
Key Issue
ALPRs and the sharing of image data across jurisdictional lines have created controversy with respect to issues of privacy. While not the focus of this report, some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that vehicle tracking could affect freedom of association if it reveals attendance at protests, political meetings, or religious gatherings (First Amendment).

Others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) question whether large-scale tracking of vehicle locations over time could constitute a search under constitutional law (Fourth Amendment).

While the focus of this report is not to investigate the constitutional issues surrounding ALPRs, data sharing among law enforcement agencies has become a significant public concern and has, in some communities, resulted in the suspension or termination of ALPR programs. Although no such actions have occurred in SMC, several Bay Area jurisdictions—including Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz—have discontinued their use of ALPR systems.

This report evaluates, based on records obtained during the investigation, whether SMC LEAs satisfy California law governing the use of ALPR systems and the sharing of ALPR data. Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires APLR operators to implement and publicly post a usage and privacy policy. This report also evaluates whether the policies produced accurately describe actual operations.

Legislative Framework
California has enacted legislation governing the use of ALPR systems, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and limitations on data sharing. The primary statutory framework was enacted by Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) (Stats. 2015, Ch. 532), codified at Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55.

Effective January 1, 2016, SB 34 imposes requirements governing the collection, storage, access, and sharing of ALPR data. SB 34 applies to both operators of ALPR systems and entities that access ALPR data. Among other requirements, ALPR operators must adopt written usage policies, maintain detailed audit logs, implement reasonable security measures, and provide an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing an ALPR program. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance on SB 34 in Information Bulletin No. 2023-DLE-06.

In addition to SB 34, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) (Stats. 2017, Ch. 495), known as the California Values Act (Gov. Code § 7284 et seq.) restricts the use of state and local law enforcement resources for Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 5
federal immigration enforcement purposes. SB 54 limits the sharing of certain information with federal immigration authorities and reinforces the principle that local law enforcement data systems, including ALPR databases, must not be used in a manner inconsistent with California law. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance clarifying these restrictions in Information Bulletin No. 2025-DLE-08.

In 2025, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 274, which would have imposed additional restrictions and oversight. The bill proposed limiting retention periods for non-matching records and expanding state-level review of ALPR use. However, SB 274 was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who concluded that SB 274 did “not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety,... particularly with respect to cold cases.” Collectively, these statutes establish a legal framework that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and restricted data sharing, while placing primary responsibility for compliance on individual law enforcement agencies.

Data Sharing and Side-Sharing
The effectiveness of ALPR systems depends in large part on the ability of LEAs to share data across jurisdictions. Within most ALPR platforms, each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks that govern both system configuration and data sharing. Agencies may control which other agencies can discover their networks and whether access requests are automatically approved or require explicit authorization. Once access is granted, authorized users from another agency may query shared ALPR data without further approval.

While this model enhances investigative capability—particularly in cases involving vehicles that travel across jurisdictional boundaries—it also places responsibility on each agency to ensure that data sharing practices comply with California law. Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b) provides that a public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. The SMCCGJ found that data sharing practices vary widely among agencies, with some limiting access to nearby jurisdictions and others permitting broad sharing within the state. The decentralized nature of these sharing controls creates a structural risk:
compliance with California law depends not on system-enforced restrictions, but on how individual agencies configure and manage their networks. As a result, even where written policies are compliant, system configurations may permit data sharing practices that are inconsistent with statutory requirements. In general, as the size of a network increases and more law enforcement agencies are granted access, the risk of misuse correspondingly increases.

A related concern is the practice commonly referred to as “side-sharing.” For purposes of this report, “side-sharing” refers to the practice in which a California ALPR operator conducts a network query on behalf of an organization that is not authorized to access the data directly—typically an out-ofstate or federal agency—and then provides the results outside of the ALPR system. In such cases, audit records reflect that the query was initiated and used by a California agency, when in fact the request originated from, and the results were delivered to, an external entity.

Because the ALPR audit logs reviewed by the SMCCGJ record only the identity of the querying agency and do not capture the ultimate recipient of the data, side-sharing is inherently difficult to detect. Activity that appears compliant on its face may, in fact, circumvent the restrictions imposed by California law, including limitations on sharing ALPR data with entities outside the state.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 6
Side-sharing may involve attempts to access ALPR data outside of established sharing arrangements, including by law enforcement personnel who do not have authorized access. For example, a federal immigration agency may seek to obtain ALPR data from a California jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions imposed by SB 54. Such access could be facilitated by directly contacting personnel within a California LEA and requesting that they conduct an ALPR query on behalf of the external agency.

This issue has been the subject of media reporting and public concern, although verification in specific instances is challenging due to the limitations of available audit data. Media coverage of public statements by certain law enforcement officials has further highlighted the potential risk.

The SMCCGJ found that existing controls to prevent or detect improper data sharing, including sidesharing, are limited. While the ALPR platform provides audit logs, role-based access controls, and, more recently, anomaly detection tools, these features rely on agency-level oversight and do not provide a comprehensive or system-enforced safeguard. There is no centralized mechanism to prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of an unauthorized entity or to ensure that query results are used solely for authorized purposes.

As a result, compliance with California law in this area depends largely on the policies, training, and oversight practices of individual agencies. In the absence of stronger technical controls or more robust audit capabilities, the risk of unauthorized data access—whether through misconfiguration or side-sharing—remains a significant concern.

Flock Safety
Flock Safety is the largest provider of ALPR systems in the United States and the primary provider of ALPR systems used by LEAs in SMC. The company provides both the physical camera infrastructure and a cloud-based software platform that enables agencies to collect, store, search, and share vehicle detection data. This represents a significant market shift from Vigilant Solutions, who was the most common provider in 2019.

Note that while nearly all ALPR cameras in SMC are provided by Flock, Pacifica also operates 4 Axon mobile cameras that were not investigated by SMCCGJ. Also, ALPR data collected by Flock cameras may also be forwarded to intelligence fusion systems that include other types of surveillance data. Some SMC LEAs use C3.ai, and SMC has recently funded a pilot with Peregrine Systems. These systems are capable of sharing data among agencies and across state boundaries but were not investigated by SMCCGJ and have not received wide media attention.

Flock cameras are typically installed at fixed locations such as major intersections, highways, and entry or exit points to a community. These cameras do not continuously track vehicles; rather, they capture individual “snapshots” or detections as vehicles pass through a camera’s field of view. Each detection includes a license plate number, vehicle characteristics (such as make, color, and body type), and metadata including the date, time, and location of the observation.

This information is transmitted to Flock’s cloud-based platform, where it is indexed and made searchable. Authorized users access the system through a web-based interface, allowing them to query historical detections or monitor real-time alerts. For example, agencies may create “hotlists” of vehicles of interest—such as stolen vehicles or those associated with criminal investigations— which trigger notifications when detected by any connected camera.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 7
A key feature of the system is its ability to aggregate data across multiple cameras and jurisdictions.

While a single camera provides only a point-in-time observation, multiple detections across different locations can allow investigators to infer travel patterns or identify a vehicle’s movement over time.

All user activity—including searches, alerts, and administrative actions—is recorded in audit logs.

These logs are intended to support oversight and accountability by providing a record of how the system is used. Although Flock hosts the data and provides the technical infrastructure, each customer agency retains control over its own data and is responsible for determining who may access it and under what conditions.

Data Sharing Framework
A defining feature of the Flock platform is its ability to facilitate data sharing among law enforcement agencies. This capability is implemented through a system of configurable “Networks,” which function as both administrative groupings and sharing mechanisms. Each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks and determines whether those networks are visible to other agencies within the platform. When a network is made visible, other agencies may discover it— typically through a map-based interface—and request access.

These access requests are routed to a designated administrator within the owning agency. Depending on how the system is configured, the administrator may review and approve each request individually, or the system may automatically approve requests based on predefined criteria. Once access is granted, users from the approved agency can query the shared data directly, without needing to request permission for each individual search.

This model allows investigators to search for vehicles across jurisdictional boundaries, which can be particularly useful in cases involving regional travel or coordinated criminal activity. At the same time, it introduces complexity, as each agency must determine which other agencies should be granted access and under what conditions.

Agencies can limit sharing in several ways, including restricting access to specific agencies, geographic regions, or operational groupings. Importantly, sharing permissions are not transitive: if Agency A shares data with Agency B, and Agency B shares data with Agency C, Agency C does not automatically gain access to Agency A’s data.

Private entities, such as commercial businesses or homeowners’ associations, participate in the system differently. Their cameras are not visible within the shared network interface, and they do not independently request access to law enforcement data. Instead, data from private cameras is typically shared directly with local LEAs through arrangements managed with Flock outside the standard user interface.

While this network-based architecture enables collaboration and enhances investigative capabilities, it also places primary responsibility on each agency to manage its sharing relationships in a manner consistent with applicable laws and local policy.

Concerns
Beginning in 2025, a number of media reports and public records analyses brought increased attention to the use of ALPR systems, particularly with respect to how data was being shared among law enforcement agencies. These reports identified instances in which California agencies had configured their systems in a manner that allowed access to ALPR data by out-of-state entities, a practice inconsistent with California law.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 8
Within SMC, the Menlo Park Police Department acknowledged prior instances in which ALPR data had been shared across state lines. Similar issues were identified in other jurisdictions throughout California, suggesting that these were not isolated occurrences but rather reflected broader challenges in how the systems were configured and used.

In addition to concerns regarding system configuration, analysis of audit data highlighted issues related to how queries were conducted and documented. In some cases, users entered generalized descriptions such as “Investigation,”1 without specifying a particular law enforcement purpose.

While such entries are not necessarily improper, they limit the ability of agencies, auditors, and the public to determine whether queries were conducted for authorized purposes.

Taken together, these findings raised questions not only about compliance with legal requirements, but also about the adequacy of system controls and oversight mechanisms. They also underscored the degree to which proper use of the system depends on both technical configuration and user behavior.

System Controls and Vendor Response
In response to these concerns, Flock implemented a series of changes beginning in 2025, aimed at reducing the likelihood of improper data sharing and improving the ability of agencies to monitor system use. These changes reflect a shift from a system that relied heavily on user discretion to one that incorporates more structured controls and constraints.

One of the most significant changes involved restrictions on data sharing across state lines. Prior to 2025, agencies had broad discretion to configure sharing relationships, including the ability to enable “Nationwide” access or establish direct connections with out-of-state agencies. Although such configurations were inconsistent with California law, they were technically permitted within the system.

To address this issue, Flock implemented a phased set of changes. Nationwide sharing was first disabled by default in February 2025 and then permanently removed in March 2025, eliminating the ability for California agencies to broadly expose their data to agencies outside the state. In June 2025, Flock further restricted sharing by disabling the ability to create new out-of-state sharing relationships.

Importantly, these changes did not automatically terminate existing shared relationships. Instead, Flock undertook a process of customer outreach and education, encouraging agencies to review and modify their configurations. As a result, most agencies voluntarily discontinued such arrangements, although some pre-existing relationships remain subject to ongoing legal proceedings. As of this writing, the City of El Cajon is the only California agency with ALPR network sharing relationships extending outside the state. In October 2025, the California Attorney General filed an action against El Cajon alleging non-compliance with SB 34; the case is currently in litigation.

In addition to changes in sharing controls, Flock introduced enhancements aimed at improving how system use is documented and monitored. Historically, users were able to enter free-form text to 1 Analysis done by the SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the “Reason” for performing the query.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 9
describe the purpose of a query in a “Reason” field. In practice, this resulted in inconsistent and often vague entries2, limiting the effectiveness of audit review.

In December 2025, Flock augmented this approach by requiring users to select an “Offense Type” from a standardized list3based on National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) codes.

Within California, categories inconsistent with SB 54 are disabled. This change provides a more consistent framework for documenting queries and enables more meaningful analysis of system use.

Many agencies have supplemented this requirement by mandating the entry of a case number, linking each query to a specific investigation. This case number is useful for auditing queries within a department but is ineffective for analysis of network queries as LEAs in California do not share a common case management system.

Flock also expanded its audit and monitoring capabilities. Audit logs continue to record all user activity, but additional tools have been introduced to support review. Activity logs track changes to system configuration, including modifications to sharing settings, while the Transparency Portal allows agencies to publish usage statistics and audit summaries.

In April 2026, Flock introduced “Audit Assistance,” an automated tool that analyzes system activity and identifies patterns that deviate from an agency’s typical usage. These alerts are intended to assist administrators in identifying potential misuse, including unusual query patterns or activity that may warrant further review (side-sharing).

Additional controls have been implemented to restrict system access and reinforce appropriate use.

These include limitations on “guest” users outside the agency’s domain and role-based access controls that allow agencies to tailor system permissions based on user responsibilities. Flock’s terms of service also prohibit use of the system on behalf of unauthorized individuals or agencies.

While these changes represent meaningful improvements, they are primarily designed to support and guide user behavior rather than to enforce compliance directly. As such, their effectiveness depends on how agencies configure and use the system.

Training and Compliance Support
Flock provides training on system operation, legal use, and compliance requirements as part of its onboarding process. Agencies may supplement this training with local policies, procedures, and internal controls tailored to their operational environment. While these resources support compliance, they do not substitute for agency responsibility to ensure that system use is consistent with applicable laws and policies.

Remaining Limitations
Notwithstanding these enhancements, important limitations remain in the system’s ability to prevent or detect improper use.

First, while audit logs provide a record of which agency conducted a query and when it occurred, they do not capture how the resulting information is ultimately used or shared. This means that even 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. Numeric strings typically correspond to sections of California penal code, but many LEA’s listed a crime category such as “theft” or “burglary”.

The SMCCGJ found no accepted usage of the “Reason” field across or even within LEAs. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 10
where a query appears appropriate on its face, there is no direct way to determine whether the results were subsequently provided to an unauthorized party.

Second, the system does not technically prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of another individual or agency (side-sharing). Although such conduct may violate policy or law, it is not inherently detectable through system controls alone. As a result, certain forms of misuse— particularly those involving indirect access—are difficult to identify through audit data.

Finally, the effectiveness of audit and monitoring tools depend on active review by agency personnel. Identifying potential issues requires not only access to audit data but also the time, expertise, and judgment to interpret that data. This introduces variability in how different agencies monitor system use and respond to potential concerns.

These limitations illustrate that, while system-level controls can reduce risk, they cannot fully eliminate it. Effective oversight requires a combination of technical controls, clear policies, and consistent enforcement.

Conclusion
Flock has implemented a number of substantive changes to its platform in response to concerns regarding data sharing and legal compliance. These changes have improved transparency, standardized key aspects of system use, and provided agencies with additional tools to monitor activity.

At the same time, the system continues to rely heavily on agency-level decisions regarding configuration, access, and oversight. Certain risks—particularly those associated with indirect or unauthorized use—cannot be fully mitigated through system design alone.

As a result, responsibility for ensuring compliance with Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 ultimately rests with each individual law enforcement agency. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends not only on the capabilities of the technology but also on how it is implemented and governed at the local level.

METHODOLOGY
To determine whether ALPR operators in SMC comply with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies, the SMCCGJ began by reviewing the content available on the public websites of each LEA in the County. Most LEA websites include information regarding ALPR usage and transparency, often with a link to the agency’s Flock Transparency Portal, which is maintained by Flock on behalf of its customers.

The SMCCGJ issued document requests to all ALPR operators in SMC, seeking ALPR policies, recent audit reports, current Flock contracts, and any supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with California law and agency policy. Findings based on nonproduction reflect the absence of responsive records produced to the SMCCGJ, not a conclusive determination that no responsive record exists.

The SMCCGJ was able to identify an ALPR policy document for every SMC ALPR operator, which guided the examination of compliance with that policy. For some operators we were provided an organization audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated within that LEA. The organization audit was visually reviewed in a spreadsheet, which is feasible for what is at most a few hundred rows. Some operators provided a network audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated by Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 11
other Flock customers on that operator’s data. As the network audit report can be quite large (upwards of 25,000/month), analysis of this data was carried out by first loading it into a database.4 The SMCCGJ examined network sharing reports from the operators that provided them. This information is also publicly available through Flock Safety’s Transparency Portal. The network sharing reports identify the agencies and entities with which each operator shares ALPR data.

The SMCCGJ conducted interviews with several LEAs in SMC, with representatives of Flock, and with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).The SMCCGJ collected media reports related to ALPR implementations in SMC, in the state of California, and nationwide.

DISCUSSION
Public Interest
Issues related to the use of ALPR systems have received significant public attention in both SMC and throughout California. Several communities within the County have debated canceling their ALPR contracts or exploring alternative provider. As of this date, all have decided to continue operations with Flock. An article on ALPR usage published by Palo Alto Online on December 29, 2025, was the publication’s most-downloaded article of the year.

For the general public, it can be difficult to determine the root cause of security breaches reported in the media. Coverage has variously attributed these incidents to product design limitations, accidental or intentional misconfiguration, and inadequate operator training. As discussed earlier in this report, ALPR system functionality has evolved in response to public concerns, with enhancements intended to facilitate compliance with applicable laws.

Sharing Within San Mateo County
This investigation found that the extent of data sharing among SMC ALPR operators varies significantly, with the number of network sharing relationships ranging from three in Woodside to 335 in San Bruno. During the course of this investigation, one SMC operator reduced the scope of their network sharing after evaluating the public safety value of broader data access against local privacy considerations. Some LEAs felt that broad access was valuable in addressing the pattern of crimes committed in their community. Others felt that sharing too broadly would not solve more crimes and could risk losing the support of their local community.

As of December 2025, no SMC operators were found to be sharing ALPR data with entities outside California. The investigation did identify instances in which SMC operators shared ALPR data with private organizations, specifically security agencies serving Stanford University and University of the Pacific. Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), a public agency may share ALPR information only with another “public agency” and only as otherwise permitted by law. The materials produced did not establish that the private university security recipients meet the definition of a “public agency” or that an applicable statutory exception authorizes the sharing. It remains the responsibility of each LEA to determine whether such entities qualify as public agencies under applicable law. If deemed public agencies, these entities would be subject to the same statutory and policy requirements governing ALPR use.
4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value format, was then bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and then queried using the Structured Query Language.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 12
The table below summarizes these findings.

Operator Network
Shares
2/26/2026
Network
Shares
4/13/2026
Private University
Security Shares
4/13/2026
Apparent Sharing
Guideline
Atherton 315 317 2
Belmont 157 145 2 Adjacent Counties
Brisbane 93 92 1 50-mile radius
Burlingame Not available 357 2
Colma 321 326 2
Daly City Not available Not available not available Flock portal is not enabled.

East Palo Alto 303 308 2
Foster City Not available Not available Not available Flock portal excluded network sharing report.

Half Moon Bay Not available 290 0
Hillsborough 303 318 2
Menlo Park 247 242 1
Pacifica 276 283 2
Redwood City 102 100 1 Bay Area Counties
San Bruno 331 335 2
San Mateo 283 280 0
San Mateo County
Sheriff's Office
299 300 2 Reduced in February to
adjacent Counties.

South San Francisco 15 15 0 San Mateo County
Woodside 3 3 0 Adjacent towns
Public Commentary
Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(a), a public agency that operates an ALPR system must provide the opportunity for public comment. The SMCCGJ did not identify any instances in which ALPR cameras were deployed without the required public notice and discussion.

ALPR Policies
California law requires each ALPR operator to adopt a written ALPR policy and to post that policy in a conspicuous manner (Civ. Code, §§ 1798.90.53(a)–(b); 1798.90.51 (a)–(b)). The California Department of Justice provides a model ALPR policy template, which agencies may adopt or Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 13
modify. Some departments also utilize policy templates developed by Lexipol, a provider of standardized law enforcement policy materials.

The following section evaluates each SMC law enforcement agency’s ALPR policy, including whether it is conspicuously posted, and assesses whether the agency’s actual operations are consistent with its stated policy.

Summary Matrix of ALPR Policy and Operational Findings
Policy Posting and Currency. Most LEAs and police departments provided an ALPR policy in response to the SMCCGJ document request. The SMCGJ reviewed each policy for alignment with the policy templates and guidance provided by the State of California and Lexipol. The SMCCGJ also reviewed each department’s public website to determine whether the policy was conspicuously posted in accordance with California DOJ guidance 2023-DLE-06, and whether the publicly posted version matched the version provided in response to the document request.

Audit Practices. The SMCCGJ requested copies of recent audit reports from each LEA. Where an audit frequency was specified in an agency’s ALPR Policy, the SMCCGJ reviewed the materials provided to determine whether audits appeared to have been conducted at the stated intervals. The SMCCGJ also examined the contents and scope of each audit report.

For purposes of this investigation, a “strong” audit is one that substantiates compliance with both applicable California law and each material element of the LEA’s stated ALPR Policy. California law requires a policy to describe monitoring and “a process for periodic system audits,” but does not prescribe a uniform audit report format or methodology. The labels “strong,” “partial,” and “weak” are assessment terms used in this report and are not statutory classifications.

In the absence of meaningful audit controls, the public has limited assurance that an agency’s stated policies are being consistently implemented in practice. By contrast, a “weak” audit examines only selected legal or policy elements and does not comprehensively evaluate operational compliance.

Finally, the SMCCGJ reviewed whether audit reports were made available to the public or presented to the relevant city, town, or county governing body.

Data Retention. Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2)(D) requires each ALPR policy to specify a data retention period after which ALPR data will be deleted unless it is associated with an active investigation or otherwise retained pursuant to law. The SMCCGJ compared the retention period stated in each agency’s ALPR policy with the retention period displayed on Flock’s Transparency Portal and, where available, the retention provisions contained in the agency’s Flock contract.

Matching retention periods were classified as “consistent,” while differing retention periods were classified as “inconsistent.” We did not examine in detail the process by which Flock deletes data after the stated retention period, as this topic has been addressed by third-party audits.

Data Sharing Process. Each policy must describe criteria and a process for sharing ALPR data. We examined this statement to ensure that it prohibits the sale of ALPR data, out-of-state sharing, sharing to private parties, and usage for other than valid law enforcement purposes. We examined any written guidelines and processes for receiving and approving requests for sharing data, and for any documentary evidence supporting the implementation of that process. Most policies included the sharing process description and documented from templates, but our interviews and document requests did not find an LEA who followed the process described in this “Template.” Several LEAs described the sharing process provided by the Flock platform, which is what we heard described Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 14
during interviews as the adopted process. The LEAs with outdated policies described an outdated sharing process mediated by NCRIC. No LEA’s policy described guidelines for ALPR data sharing within California, though several outlined coherent criteria for what sharing requests to approve.

Contract Terms. The SMCCGJ reviewed the 14 Flock contracts provided in response to its document requests. One contract included an addendum with California compliance provisions (“CA terms”) requiring Flock to adhere to California law governing the protection, access, and disclosure of ALPR data maintained on behalf of California LEA customers, consistent with recommendations previously issued by the California State Auditor.

The absence of express contractual compliance terms does not itself establish a violation of California law, which applies regardless of contract language. In this report, the presence or absence of such terms is evaluated as an additional contractual compliance control.

The table below summarizes the SMCGJ’s assessment of ALPR policy compliance and operational alignment among LEAs in SMC.

Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Atherton Not conspicuous;
current, but with
multiple versions
Strong;
published in
Council
Minutes
Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Belmont Conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
Brisbane Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template No CA
terms
Burlingame Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided
Colma Not conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Template CA terms
included in
addendum
Daly City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong, regular
audit; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
East Palo Alto Conspicuous;
current
Partial; publicly
posted
Consistent Not
described
No CA
terms
Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 15
Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Foster City Conspicuous;
current, but broken
link to policy
Audit reports
not provided.

Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Hillsborough Not conspicuous;
Outdated (NCRIC
references)
Audit reports
not provided.

Consistent Outdated No CA
terms
Menlo Park Not conspicuous;
current
Weak;
published in
City Council
minutes.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Pacifica Conspicuous;
current
Brief, but
strong; not
published
Consistent Flock Contract
not
provided
Redwood City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
San Bruno Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
San Mateo Conspicuous;
current
Weak; not
published
Consistent Template No CA
terms
SMC Sheriff's
Office
Conspicuous;
current
Partial;
published in
BOS minutes.

No stated
retention
Template No CA
terms
South San
Francisco
Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Woodside Conspicuous (via
SMC SO) and
current
Strong;
published in
Town Council
minutes
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided.

As shown above, while several agencies demonstrate strong alignment between policy and operational practices, others exhibit deficiencies in audit procedures, inconsistencies in stated data retention practices, and incomplete or inaccurate documentation of data-sharing processes and decisions. These findings highlight the absence of standardized ALPR governance and oversight practices across SMC.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 16

FINDINGS
This section summarizes findings based on evidence produced or otherwise reviewed by the SMCCGJ. The accompanying table identifies the findings assigned to the governing body of each LEA based on the evidence described in this report.

F1. The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

F2. The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.

F3. The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

F5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

F7. The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.

F8. The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

F9. The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While the recommendations below are generally applicable to all LEAs in SMC, some recommendations have already been implemented by some LEAs. The accompanying table identifies the recommendations directed to the governing body of each LEA reviewed by the SMCCGJ.

R1. The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).

R2. The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

R3. The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 17
R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R6. Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

R8. The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Respondent Findings Recommendations
Atherton Town Council F1, F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 Belmont City Council F3, F6, F8 R3, R6, R8
Brisbane City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Burlingame City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Colma City Council F1, F3, F5, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 Daly City City Council F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 East Palo Alto City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Foster City City Council F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Half Moon Bay Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Hillsborough Town Council F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Menlo Park City Council F1, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Millbrae City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Pacifica City Council F3, F5, F6, F8 R3, R5, R6, R8
Portola Valley Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Redwood City F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 San Bruno City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 San Carlos City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 18
Respondent Findings Recommendations
Ken Binder, San Mateo County
Sheriff
F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9
San Mateo City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 South SF City Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8
Woodside Town Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides as follows (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable with an explanation therefor.

Under Penal Code section 933(c), the governing body of a public agency must respond within 90 days after the grand jury submits its final report, and an elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility under Penal Code section 914.1 must respond within 60 days regarding matters under that officer’s or agency head’s control.

Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Automated License Plate Readers, Report 2019-118, California State Auditor, February 2020.

California Automated License Plate Reader Data, 2023-DLE-06, California Department of Justice.

National Crime Information Center Administration of Warrants, 2025-DLE-08, California Department of Justice, April 7, 2025.

A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection, Report of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2016–2017.

FOOTNOTES
1 Analysis done by SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the Reason for performing the query. 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value (CSV) format, bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and analyzed using the Structured Query Language (SQL).
5 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2025/11/05/east-palo-alto-leaders-push-back-on-license-plate-readers-amid-privacyconcerns/ 6 https://www.coastsidenews.com/news/half-moon-bay-to-revisit-license-plate-reader-program-and-ice-policies/ 7 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2025/12/29/the-years-biggest-stories/ Item 8.1

2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 20
Appendix A - Flock Safety Offense Types
Item 8.1

September 17, 2026
Hon. Rachel Holt
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 8th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RE: Response of the Foster City Police Department to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” Honorable Judge Holt;
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced Civil Grand Jury Report filed on August 3, 2026. The City of Foster City’s response to both the findings and recommendations are detailed below.

Responses to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Findings:

F3. The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).
• Response to F3:

The City of Foster City disagrees wholly with the finding and F3 is disputed in its entirety. The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department (FCPD) have never shared Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) information with private university security entities. The two community colleges with which our data was previously shared were the Sequoias Community College District CA Police Department and the West Valley-Mission Community College CA District Campus Police Department. Both agencies were considered “public agencies” and were therefore permitted to receive the data pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1798.90.55(b).

During the Civil Grand Jury’s review, the FCPD’s Flock Transparency Portal was not configured to display the agencies with which ALPR data was shared. As a result, the FCPD was unable to use the Transparency Portal to provide a complete, publicly accessible list of agencies with which it had established data-sharing relationships. The absence of this information may have contributed to the FCPD being included in this finding. FCPD also did not supply the Civil Grand Jury with a network sharing report.

Had FCPD’s sharing function been enabled, the Transparency Portal would have provided a means to verify the agencies with which the FCPD shares ALPR data and would have demonstrated that private university security entities were not among those agencies.

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.
• Response to F4:

Item 8.1

The City of Foster City disagrees partially with this finding. The FCPD has conducted and documented biannual (twice per year) ALPR audits as part of its internal administrative processes since 2022.

During the Civil Grand Jury’s review, the FCPD was requested to provide, “A copy of [our] most recent audit report.” Therefore, the FCPD provided only one audit memorandum. As a result, the materials provided for review did not fully demonstrate that the FCPD has been consistently conducting the required audits in accordance with Department policy. The absence of multiple recent audit reports may have contributed to the FCPD being included in this finding.

The FCPD’s audit process was in place and had been followed throughout this period. Providing the additional audit reports would have allowed the FCPD to demonstrate that the required audits had been conducted consistently and that the agency remained in compliance with its policy.

F5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy. • Response to F5:

The City of Foster City agrees with this finding because as indicated above, FCPD only provided one audit memorandum during the Civil Grand Jury’s review period.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.
• Response to F6:

The City of Foster City agrees with this finding, relying on the Civil Grand Jury’s representations in their report.

F7. The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained. • Response to F7:

The City of Foster City disagrees partially with the finding. The FCPD has followed procedures established in its ALPR policy regarding requests from outside agencies seeking access to FCPD ALPR data. The policy requires each requesting agency to complete a Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letter prior to the FCPD providing access.

FCPD has maintained the signed Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters as internal administrative records.

These records document the agencies that have been provided with access have signed the letters demonstrating that the required documentation was executed and completed as part of the agency’s data sharing process.

FCPD acknowledges, however, that it did not provide supporting Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters to the Civil Grand Jury as part of the records produced for its review. Per the SMCCGJ’s original request, Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters were not requested. As a result, the records provided did not substantiate that the required agreements had been obtained.

Item 8.1

F8. The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships. • Response to F8:

The City of Foster City agrees with this finding, relying on the Civil Grand Jury’s representations in their report.

F9. The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract. • Response to F9:

The City of Foster City agrees with this finding, relying on the Civil Grand Jury’s representations in their report.

Responses to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Recommendations:

R3. The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship. • Response to R3:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. However, the FCPD has since reviewed this issue and took immediate steps to ensure that its ALPR transparency portal accurately identifies agencies with which ALPR information is shared. This will provide greater transparency to the public and allow the FCPD to more readily demonstrate that its data sharing practices comply with applicable laws and Department policy.

R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.
• Response to R4:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted as the FCPD has been conducting ALPR audits at the frequency required by its published policy since the ALPR program began.

Since 2022, the FCPD has conducted and documented biannual ALPR audits as part of the agency’s internal administrative processes. These audits are maintained as internal administrative records and are conducted in accordance with the FCPD’s ALPR policy.

The FCPD believes its inclusion in this recommendation may have resulted from audit documentation that was not provided during the Civil Grand Jury’s review rather than from a Item 8.1

failure to conduct the required audits. FCPD’s existing audit process was in place and had been followed throughout the period reviewed.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy. • Response to R5:

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 90 days of the submission of the Civil Grand Jury response. The FCPD will update and include language in the bi-annual audit reports to reflect compliance with applicable California law and the Department’s ALPR policy.

R6. Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.
• Response to R6:

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 90 days of the submission of the Civil Grand Jury response. Although the current contract is not scheduled for renewal for several years, the FCPD will work with the vendor during this 90-day period to develop and incorporate appropriate contractual language addressing compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting the vendor from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.
• Response to R7:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The FCPD followed the data sharing relationship procedures outlined in the FCPD ALPR policy, which requires outside agencies requesting system access to complete a Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letter before approval will be granted.

The FCPD has maintained the signed Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters as internal administrative records. These records document the agencies that have requested access have signed the letters demonstrating that the required documentation was executed and completed as part of the agency’s data sharing process.

The FCPD acknowledges, however, that it did not provide supporting Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letters to the Civil Grand Jury as part of the records produced for its review. As a result, the records provided did not substantiate that the required agreements had been obtained.

R8. The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships. • Response to R8:

Item 8.1

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 90 days of the submission of the Civil Grand Jury response. The FCPD will establish criteria and procedures governing the approval of in state ALPR data sharing requests and the continuation or termination of existing data sharing relationships. The FCPD anticipates completing these updates within 90 days of the submission of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury response.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations. • Response to R9:

The recommendation has been implemented, and language was added to the FCPD ALPR policy explicitly stating Flock deletes all footage on a rolling thirty (30) day basis.

The FCPD’s practice and system configuration were consistent with the 30-day retention period, but the written policy did not clearly document that requirement.

Item 8.1

Policy
472
Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 1 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
472.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture, storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. 472.2 DEFINITIONS
(a) Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR): A device that uses cameras and computer technology to compare digital images to lists of known information of interest.
(b) ALPR Operator: Trained Department members who may utilize ALPR system/ equipment. ALPR operators may be assigned to any position within the Department, and the ALPR Administrator may order the deployment of the ALPR systems for use in various efforts.
(c) ALPR Administrator: The Administrative Bureau Captain or the Chief’s designee, serves as the ALPR Administrator for the Department. (d) Hot List: A list of license plates associated with vehicles of interest compiled from one or more databases including, but not limited to, NCIC, CA DMV, Local BOLO's, etc.
(e) Vehicles of Interest: Including, but not limited to vehicles which are reported as stolen; display stolen license plates or tags; vehicles linked to missing and/ or wanted persons and vehicles flagged by the Department of Motor Vehicle Administration or law enforcement agencies.
(f) Detection: Data obtained by an ALPR of an image (such as a license plate) within public view that was read by the device, including potential images (such as the plate and description of vehicle on which it was displayed), and information regarding the location of the ALPR system at the time of the ALPR's read. (g) Hit: Alert from the ALPR system that a scanned license plate number may be in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or other law enforcement database for a specific reason including, but not limited to, being related to a stolen car, wanted person, missing person, domestic violation protective order or terrorist-related activity.
472.3 ADMINISTRATION
The ALPR technology, also known as License Plate Recognition (LPR), allows for the automated detection of license plates along with the vehicle make, model, color and unique identifiers through the Foster City Police Department’s ALPR’s system and the vendor’s vehicle identification technology. The technology is used by the Foster City Police Department to convert data associated with vehicle license plates and vehicle descriptions for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 2 persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction, and stolen property recovery.

All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the ALPR Administrator. The ALPR Administrator will assign members under his/her command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data. 472.3.1 ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
The Administrative Captain shall be responsible for developing guidelines and procedures to comply with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system or to collect ALPR information.
(b) Training requirements for authorized users.
(c) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws. (d) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code § 1798.90.52.
(e) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (f) Working with the Custodian of Records on the retention and destruction of ALPR data. (g) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the department’s website.
472.4 OPERATIONS
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below. Department members shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
(a) An ALPR shall only be used for official law enforcement business. (b) An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation; reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.
(c) Partial license plates and unique vehicle descriptions reported during major crimes should be entered into the ALPR system in an attempt to identify suspect vehicles. (d) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training.
(e) If practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR alert. Once an alert is received, the operator should confirm that the observed license plate from the system matches the license plate of the observed vehicle. Before any law enforcement action is taken because of an ALPR Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 3 alert, the alert will be verified through a CLETS inquiry via MDC or through Dispatch.

Members will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR alert unless it has been validated. Because the ALPR alert may relate to a vehicle and may not relate to the person operating the vehicle, officers are reminded that they need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. (For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, Officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.) (f) Hot Lists. Designation of hot lists to be utilized by the ALPR system shall be made by the ALPR Administrator or his/her designee. Hot lists shall be obtained or compiled from sources as may be consistent with the purposes of the ALPR system set forth in this Policy. Hot lists utilized by the Department's LPR system may be updated by agency sources more frequently than the Department may be uploading them and thus the Department's LPR system will not have access to real time data. Occasionally, there may be errors in the LPR system’s read of a license plate. Therefore, an alert alone shall not be a basis for police action (other than following the vehicle of interest). Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an alert, Department members shall undertake the following:

1. Verification of status on a Hot List. An officer must receive confirmation, from a Foster City Police Department Communications Dispatcher or other department computer device, that the license plate is still stolen, wanted, or otherwise of interest before proceeding (absent exigent circumstances).

2. Visual verification of license plate number. Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the image of the license plate number captured (read) by the LPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding.

Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as a Hot Plate (hit) in a specific BOLO (be on the lookout) list are required to make a reasonable effort to confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle.

3. Department members will clear all stops from hot list alerts by indicating the positive ALPR Hit, i.e., with an arrest or other enforcement action. If it is not obvious in the text of the call as to the correlation of the ALPR Hit and the arrest, then the Department member shall update with the Communications Dispatcher and original person and/or a crime analyst inputting the vehicle in the hot list (hit).

4. General Hot Lists (SVS, SFR, and SLR) will be automatically downloaded into the ALPR system a minimum of once a day with the most current data overwriting the old data.

5. All entries and updates of specific Hot Lists within the ALPR system will be documented by the requesting Department member within the appropriate general offense report. As such, specific Hot Lists shall be approved by the ALPR Administrator (or his/her designee) before initial entry within the ALPR system. The updating of such a list within the ALPR system shall thereafter be Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 4 accomplished pursuant to the approval of the Department member's immediate supervisor. The hits from these data sources should be viewed as informational; created solely to bring the officers attention to specific vehicles that have been associated with criminal activity.

All Hot Plates and suspect information entered into the ALPR system will contain the following information as a minimum:
• Entering Department member's name
• Related case number
• Short synopsis describing the nature of the originating call (g) Training. No member of this Department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing Department-approved training. (h) Login/Log-Out Procedure. To ensure proper operation and facilitate oversight of the ALPR system, all users will be required to have individual credentials for access and use of the systems and/or data, which has the ability to be fully audited.

Permitted/Impermissible Uses. The ALPR system, and all data collected, is the property of the Foster City Police Department. Department personnel may only access and use the ALPR system for official and legitimate law enforcement purposes consistent with this Policy.

The following uses of the ALPR system are specifically prohibited:
(a) Invasion of Privacy: Except when done pursuant to a court order such as a search warrant, is a violation of this Policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s )are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment). (b) Harassment or Intimidation: It is a violation of this Policy to use the ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group.
(c) Use Based on a Protected Characteristic. It is a violation of this policy to use the LPR system or associated scan files or hot lists solely because of a person's, or group's race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by law.
(d) Personal Use: It is a violation of this Policy to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists for any personal purpose.
(e) First Amendment Rights. It is a violation of this policy to use the LPR system or associated scan files or hot lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights.

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to:
• Criminal prosecution,
• Civil liability, and/or
Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 5 • Administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies. 472.5 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION
The Administrative Captain is responsible for ensuring systems and procedures are in place for the proper collection, storage, retention, and deletion of ALPR data.

ALPR data collected by Department operated systems will be transferred to the designated storage system in accordance with Department procedures.

The ALPR system has a 30-day rolling retention period. ALPR data is automatically deleted when it reaches 30 days old. Data will not be retained beyond 30 days unless it is associated with an active investigation, has become or is reasonably believed to become evidence in a criminal or civil action, is subject to a discovery request, or is otherwise required to be retained by law or lawful process.

When ALPR data must be retained beyond 30 days, the applicable data shall be preserved in accordance with Department evidence and records retention procedures. When appropriate, the data shall be downloaded from the ALPR system and booked into evidence or otherwise preserved in an approved manner.

ALPR data shall not be retained beyond the 30-day period solely for convenience or general information purposes.
472.6 ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARDS
All data will be closely safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means.

The Foster City Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) All ALPR data downloaded to the mobile workstation and in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time (Civil Code § 1798.90.52). Passwords are required to be changed periodically. Employees that leave the City will have all access immediately revoked.
(b) All non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data shall be processed in accordance with applicable law.
(c) Members approved to access ALPR data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or department-related civil or administrative action.

Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 6 (d) Such ALPR data may be released to other authorized and verified law enforcement officials and agencies for legitimate law enforcement purposes. (e) ALPR system audits should be conducted on a regular basis. (f) Every ALPR Detection Browsing Inquiry must be documented by either the associated Foster City Police case number or incident number, and/or a reason for the inquiry.

For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy. 472.7 ALPR DATA DETECTION BROWSING AUDITS
Agency Audit:

It is the responsibility of the Administrative Captain or the Chief's designee to ensure that an audit is conducted of ALPR detection browsing inquiries at least twice during each calendar year.

The Department will audit a sampling of the ALPR system utilization from the prior six-month period to verify proper use in accordance with the above authorized uses. The audit shall randomly select at least 10 detection browsing inquiries conducted by department employees during the preceding six-month period and determine if each inquiry meets the requirements established in policy section 472.5(e).

The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected.

After review by the Chief of Police, Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be filed and retained.

Outside Agency Audit:

It is also the responsibility of the Administrative Captain, or the Chief's designee, to ensure that audits of outside agency access to the ALPR system are conducted at least twice each calendar year. Each audit will be a review of all outside agencies' browsing inquiries of the ALPR system from the prior six-month period to ensure that access and use by outside agencies comply with all authorized purposes, applicable policy, and any related data-sharing agreements. Search criteria should include the following minimum set of keywords, but not limited to: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (I.C.E.), Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) (C.B.P.), Homeland Security (HSI) (H.S.I.), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (I.N.S.) , NCRIC, and Western States Information Network (WISN). for each search.

The audit findings shall be documented in an internal memorandum to the Chief of Police.

The memorandum will identify any improper access or data misuse so corrective action can be taken immediately. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and all associated documentation shall be filed and retained in accordance with the Department's records retention schedule and applicable state law.

Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 7 472.8 RELEASING ALPR DATA
The ALPR data may be shared only with public agencies and only as otherwise permitted by law (Civil Code § 1798.90.55).

For purposes of this section, a public agency is limited to California state or local agencies, including law enforcement agencies, and does not include out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies (Civil Code § 1798.90.5).

The following procedures are guidelines for ALPR requests:
(a) The agency makes a written request for the ALPR data that includes:

1. The name of the agency.

2. The name of the person requesting.

3. The intended purpose of obtaining the information.
(b) The request is reviewed by the Administrative Services Division Commander or the authorized designee and approved before the request is fulfilled. (c) The approved request is retained on file.

Requests for ALPR data by non-California public agencies will be processed as provided in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55). 472.9 TRAINING
The Training Manager should ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access the ALPR system (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
472.10 POLICY
The policy of the Foster City Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this Department. Because such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review.

The Foster City Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the city or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

The Foster City Police Department does not permit the sharing or use of ALPR data gathered by the city or its contractors/subcontractors for the purpose of investigating and/or participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion or gender affirming treatment, or for obtaining an abortion or any type of gender affirming treatment in the state of California, that is lawful under the laws of the state of California, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1242 (which amends Sections 629.51, 629.52, 638.50, 638.52, 1269 (b), 1524, 1524.2, and Item 8.1

Foster City Police Department
Foster City PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/09/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Foster City Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 8 1551 of, and adds Sections 1546.5 and 13778.2 to, the Penal Code). Additionally, the Foster City Police Department does not permit providing ALPR data to any law enforcement agency or a federal law enforcement agency for the purposes of investigating out of state abortion laws or laws related to gender affirming treatment.

Item 8.1

DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Yelena Cappello, Principal Management Analyst
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Report on the Implementation of Assembly Bill 1572 Prohibiting the Use of Potable Water to Irrigate Nonfunctional Turf

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) by Minute Order, receive and accept an informational report on the implementation of Assembly Bill 1572, which prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf and provide direction and feedback (if any) on the draft ordinance adding Chapter 8.81 — Prohibition of Potable Water Use for Non-Functional Turf Irrigation within Title 8 of the EMID Code before the ordinance is brought back for adoption on November 16, 2026.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assembly Bill 1572, California Water Code Section 10608.14, requires public water systems to revise their regulations by January 1, 2027, to prohibit the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf in accordance with phased compliance deadlines established by State law. A draft ordinance that substantially mirrors the State requirements is attached to this report, for review prior to the anticipated adoption on November 16, 2026.

Item 8.2

BACKGROUND
In 2024, the California State Legislature adopted Water Code section 10608.14 (Assembly Bill (AB) 1572 (2023)), which bans the use of treated drinking (potable) water to irrigate nonfunctional (defined below) mowed grass, also known as “turf,” on commercial, institutional, and industrial properties. As part of the requirements of AB 1572, all water suppliers in California must revise their regulations to incorporate the requirements of the bill by January 1, 2027. The prohibition does not apply to individual residential yards. However, common areas of homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and common interest developments are subject to the requirements beginning in 2029.

The law is implemented in phases as follows:
• State, local government, and public agency properties buildings beginning January 1, 2027.
• Institutional properties and all commercial and industrial properties, beginning January 1, 2028.
• All common areas of properties of HOAs, and common interest developments beginning January 1, 2029.
• All properties owned by local governments, local public agencies, and public water systems in a disadvantaged community, beginning January 1, 2031, or when funding is available.

The law includes definitions for terms to help clarify intent and implementation, including:
• “Nonfunctional turf” means any turf that is not functional turf, and includes turf located within street rights-of-way and parking lots. Examples of nonfunctional turf may be decorative lawn along sidewalks, building edges, or fences, parking lots, or unused areas in entry signage zones.
• “Functional turf” means a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space.
• “Community space” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for civic, ceremonial, or other community events or social gatherings.
• “Recreational use” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for recreation, including, but not limited to, sports fields, golf courses, playgrounds, picnic grounds, or pet exercise areas. This recreation may be either formal or informal.

Item 8.2

The regulation also includes an exception for the use of potable water to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf plantings, or to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need.

ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance is intended to incorporate the requirements of State law into the EMID Code and will substantially mirror the requirements and exemptions established by the State. As a result, the primary implementation process will focus on how affected customers identify nonfunctional turf, document applicable exemptions, address site-specific landscape and irrigation conditions, and understand EMID's compliance and enforcement process.

A draft ordinance incorporating the AB 1572 requirements into the EMID Code is included as Attachment 1. Because EMID ordinances do not require two readings, staff is presenting the draft ordinance to the Board at the October 5, 2026 meeting, as an informational item before bringing it forward for consideration for adoption.

The October 5, 2026 discussion is intended to introduce the State requirements to the Board, outline staff's proposed implementation approach, and provide an opportunity for Board feedback before the ordinance is finalized.

Customer Outreach
Staff anticipates that customer outreach will continue following adoption of the ordinance and in advance of each applicable State compliance deadline. Outreach will focus on helping affected customers understand and implement the requirements established by State law.

Staff intends to conduct targeted outreach with homeowners associations (HOAs), property managers, commercial customers, and other affected property owners.

This may include informational meetings and/or individual site visits addressing topics such as:
• Definitions of functional and nonfunctional turf;
• Applicable compliance dates and affected property types; • Common examples of functional and nonfunctional turf; • Exemptions and allowable uses of potable water under State law, including trees and other perennial nonturf plantings;
• Clarification that AB 1572 does not require removal or replacement of nonfunctional turf, but prohibits its irrigation with potable water; • Tools available to help customers understand and manage outdoor water use; and
• Frequently asked questions, educational materials, and other implementation resources, such as examples of landscape alternatives to traditional turf.

Item 8.2

Feedback and recurring questions received through these meetings will be used to refine EMID's Frequently Asked Questions, customer guidance, notices, forms, and other implementation materials. This approach will allow staff to address practical and site-specific questions.

Information regarding AB 1572 has already been added to EMID's website, including links to the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) nonfunctional turf portal, which provides resources tailored to HOAs, commercial properties, and other affected entities to assist with compliance with AB 1572.

Attachment 2 includes a draft Frequently Asked Questions document developed in response to questions staff has received from customers preparing for the new requirements. The FAQ is intended to be a living document that can be updated as additional implementation questions arise.

EMID also partners with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to provide Waterfluence services to irrigation customers. Waterfluence assists customers with managing outdoor water use through site-specific water budgets, mapping tools, an online portal for tracking water consumption, and landscape audits that identify water-efficiency opportunities and best practices.

Waterfluence is also developing a mapping tool intended to assist customers with identifying potential nonfunctional turf areas on their properties. These resources will supplement EMID's outreach and provide customers with additional tools to evaluate their landscapes and prepare for compliance.

Enforcement Approach
The EMID service area is estimated to include approximately 112 commercial irrigation accounts across 58 property owners and 68 HOAs/common interest developments that may be affected by AB 1572. These properties include approximately 104 acres of total turf; however, this figure includes both functional and nonfunctional turf and does not represent the amount of turf subject to the irrigation prohibition.

Staff proposes that enforcement of the AB 1572 ordinance follow the existing process and penalties provided in Section 8.80.190 of the EMID Code – Outdoor Water Conservation in Landscaping. Under the existing process, a property owner may first be issued a notice of correction and provided up to 90 days to take corrective action. Continued noncompliance may be subject to the penalties provided under the Code, including fines.

Consistent with the proposed education-focused implementation approach, initial efforts would emphasize customer notification, guidance on available resources, and voluntary correction before formal enforcement measures are pursued. Staff will further develop notices and procedures, following adoption and will refine those materials based on questions and issues identified through stakeholder outreach.

Item 8.2

Landscape Conversion and Conservation Resources
AB 1572 does not require property owners to remove or convert nonfunctional turf.

It only prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate such turf. However, conversion of nonfunctional turf to water-wise landscaping may provide additional benefits, including reduced water use, support for pollinators and habitat, and improved soil health.

EMID offers a variety of rebates and conservation resources to help customers reduce water use, including smart irrigation controller rebates, landscape water-use audits, educational resources, and turf replacement incentives. EMID partners with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to offer rebates through the Lawn Be Gone program, which provides financial assistance for voluntary conversion of lawn to water-wise landscaping.

Under EMID’s current program parameters, Lawn Be Gone provides a lifetime rebate of up to $10,000 for irrigation customers and $5,000 for residential customers. The program provides an existing resource for customers who choose to replace turf with living, water-wise landscapes, which may reduce outdoor water demand while also supporting pollinators, habitat, and improved soil health.

Approximately $30,000 of the $250,000 budgeted for conservation programs in FY 2026-27 is currently allocated to the Lawn Be Gone program. Staff is evaluating whether increased participation may warrant allocating additional funding to the program within the existing conservation budget. Staff will continue to promote Lawn Be Gone, along with EMID’s other conservation rebates and resources, as part of AB 1572 outreach and implementation.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This informational report is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that receiving this informational report will have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this informational report. There is no net increase to the $250,000 currently budgeted in the Account 401-0960-461-42-79 – Rebates and Water Conservation Program.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Sustainability
Facilities and Infrastructure
Item 8.2

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Draft Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Draft Frequently Asked Questions
Item 8.2

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADDING CHAPTER 8.81 — PROHIBITION OF POTABLE WATER USE FOR NONFUNCTIONAL TURF IRRIGATION—OF TITLE 8, WATER AND SEWER SERVICE OF THE ESTERO

MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROHIBITING THE USE OF POTABLE

WATER FOR THE IRRIGATION OF NONFUNCTIONAL TURF ON COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL (CII) PROPERTIES, HOMEOWNERS’

ASSOCIATIONS (HOAS), COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS (CIDS), AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 1572 (AB 1572) AND CALIFORNIA WATER CODE § 10608.14

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has determined that the use of potable water for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf (NFT) contributes to inefficient water use and conflicts with long-term water sustainability goals;
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1572 (AB 1572), signed into law on October 13, 2023, added Section 10608.14 to the California Water Code, which establishes a timeline for banning potable water irrigation of NFT across commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential common areas;
WHEREAS, public water systems, including public water suppliers, are required to revise their ordinances, regulations, or policies by January 1, 2027, and communicate these changes to their customers to comply with Water Code Section 10608.14; and WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 375, authorizes the Estero Municipal Improvement District to establish water conservation programs and prohibit wasteful uses of water; and
WHEREAS, the Estero Municipal Improvement District is required to align its water use policies with state conservation mandates, reduce dependence on potable water, and promote sustainable landscaping practices.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:

Item 8.2

Chapter 8.81

PROHIBITION OF POTABLE WATER USE FOR NONFUNCTIONAL TURF

IRRIGATION

8.81.010 Title

8.81.020 Purpose

8.81.030 Applicability

8.81.040 Definitions

8.81.050 Prohibition on potable water use for non functional turf irrigation

8.81.060 Exemptions

8.81.070 Enforcement and Penalties

8.81.080 Public Education and Outreach

8.81.090 Severability

8.81.100 Effective Date

8.81.010 Title
The ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Estero Municipal Improvement District Prohibition on Use of Potable Water for Non Functional Turf Irrigation Ordinance."

8.81.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the efficient use of potable water, reduce unnecessary outdoor water use, and support the District’s long-term water conservation goals by prohibiting the irrigation of nonfunctional turf with potable water, consistent with California Assembly Bill 1572 and California Water Code Section 10608.14.

Nonfunctional turf is defined herein, and generally refers to turf that is not used for recreation, community gathering, or other functional purposes, including ornamental turf in rights-of-way, parking lots, and other areas not accessible or intended for active use.

This Ordinance is intended to preserve potable water supplies for beneficial uses, encourage the transition to climate-appropriate landscaping, and implement state water conservation requirements.

8.81.030 Applicability
Item 8.2

This Chapter applies to the use of potable water furnished by the District for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on covered properties within the District’s service area.

8.81.040 Definitions
For purposes of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Common areas” means that portion of a common interest development or of a property owned or managed by a homeowners’ association or a community service organization or similar entity that is not assigned or allocated to the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual dwelling unit within the property, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(g), as may be amended. (b) “Common interest development” shall be defined as in California Civil Code section 4100, as may be amended, and includes:

1. A community apartment project.

2. A condominium project.

3. A planned development.

4. A stock cooperative.
(c) “Community service organization or similar entity” is defined as in California Civil Code section 4110, as may be amended, and means a nonprofit entity, other than an association, that is organized to provide services to residents of a common interest development or to the public in addition to the residents, to the extent community common area or facilities are available to the public. “Community service organization or similar entity” does not include an entity that has been organized solely to raise moneys and contribute to other nonprofit organizations that are qualified as tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and that provide housing or housing assistance.
(d) “Community space” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for civic, ceremonial, or other community events or social gatherings, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(j), as may be amended.
(e) “Disadvantaged community” means a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(l), as may be amended.
(f) “District” means the Estero Municipal Improvement District.

Item 8.2

(g) “District Service Area” means that real property within San Mateo County that are provided services by the District, as more fully described in Estero Municipal Improvement District Code, Article 1, Section 1,
(h) “Functional turf” means a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(m), as may be amended. Turf enclosed by fencing or other barriers to permanently preclude human access for recreation or assembly is not functional turf.
(i) “Homeowners’ association” means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development, as defined in California Civil Code section 4080, as may be amended.
(j) “Nonfunctional turf” means any turf that is not functional turf, and includes turf located within street rights-of-way and parking lots, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(u), as may be amended.
(k) “Potable water” means water that is suitable for human consumption, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(x), as may be amended. (l) “Recreational use area” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for recreation, including, but not limited to, sports fields, golf courses, playgrounds, picnic grounds, or pet exercise areas, as defined in California Water Code section 10608.12(aa), as may be amended. This recreation may be either formal or informal.
(m)“State Water Board” means California State Water Resources Control Board

8.81.050 Prohibition on potable water use for non functional turf irrigation (a) The use of potable water for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, other than a cemetery, and on properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities is prohibited as of the following dates:
(1) All properties within the District Service Area owned by the State of California’s Department of General Services, beginning January 1, 2027.

Item 8.2

(2) All properties within the District Service Area owned by local governments, local or regional public agencies, and public water systems, except those specified in paragraph (5), beginning January 1, 2027.
(3) All other institutional properties and all commercial and industrial properties within the District Service Area, beginning January 1, 2028. (4) All common areas of properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities within the District Service Area, beginning January 1, 2029.
(5) All properties owned by local governments, local public agencies, and public water systems in a disadvantaged community within the District Service Area, beginning January 1, 2031, or the date upon which a state funding source is made available to fund conversion of nonfunctional turf on these properties to climate-appropriate landscapes, whichever is later.

8.81.060 Exemptions
The following uses of potable water shall be exempt from this prohibition:
(a) Irrigation necessary to sustain trees and perennial non-turf plantings including, but not limited to, groundcovers, flowering plants, ornamental grasses, native wildflowers, and fern and shade plants..
(b) Potable water use required for immediate health and safety concerns, such as fire suppression or erosion control.
(c) Cemeteries.
(d) Functional turf, including parks, recreational areas, sports fields, and turf used for agricultural purposes.

8.81.070 Enforcement and Penalties
The enforcement process and penalties for violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be the same process and penalties as those described in section 8.80.190 of the Estero Municipal Improvement Code, per California Water Code Section 10608.14, as amended, and to the extent permitted by law.

8.81.090 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The District Board does hereby declare that it should have Item 8.2

adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

8.81.100 Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption and shall be enforced in accordance with the compliance deadlines specified herein.

This Ordinance was introduced, read, passed and adopted on the X day of X, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ART KIESEL, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
Item 8.2

DRAFT AB 1572- Non Functional Turf Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is AB 1572?
California Water Code section 10608.14 (Assembly Bill (AB) 1572 (2023)), prohibits using drinking water to irrigate nonfunctional mowed grass (defined below) located on properties by the following timelines:
• January 1, 2027 - Properties owned by local governments, public agencies, and public water systems, except for those in a disadvantaged community.
• January 1, 2028 - Commercial, industrial, and remaining institutional (CII) properties.
• January 1, 2029 - Homeowners’ associations, common interest developments*, and community service organizations.
• January 1, 2031 or when funding is made available - Properties owned by local governments, public agencies, and public water systems in a disadvantaged community, or the date upon which a state funding source is made available to fund conversion of nonfunctional turf on these properties to climate-appropriate landscapes, whichever is later.
• The California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) may postpone a compliance deadline by up to three years upon a showing of good cause, including economic hardship, critical business need, and potential impacts to human health or safety. Details on this process will be forthcoming from the State Water Board.

2. What is nonfunctional vs functional turf?
• “Functional turf” means a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space.
• “Nonfunctional turf” means any turf that is not functional turf, and includes turf located within street rights-of-way and parking lots. Examples of nonfunctional turf may be decorative lawn along sidewalks, building edges, or fences, parking lots, or unused areas in entry signage zones. • “Community space” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for civic, ceremonial, or other community events or social gatherings.

Item 8.2

• “Recreational use” means an area designated by a property owner or a governmental agency to accommodate human foot traffic for recreation, including, but not limited to, sports fields, golf courses, playgrounds, picnic grounds, or pet exercise areas. This recreation may be either formal or informal.

3. Does the turf need to be replaced with water-wise landscaping? The regulation does not require the conversion of nonfunctional turf to drought tolerant or another type of landscaping. However, conversion to water-wise landscaping has several benefits, including:
• Saves water and supports long-term supply reliability • Makes landscapes more resilient during drought
• Reduces irrigation runoff and overspray
• Supports trees, pollinators, habitat, and healthier soil • Can reduce mowing, fertilizer, and maintenance needs

4. Does the nonfunctional turf ban apply to residential properties? What about HOAs or common interest developments?
The regulation does not apply to individual residential yards. However, common areas, including those within HOAs, are subject to AB 1572. Common areas are portions of a property that are not assigned or allocated to the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual dwelling unit within a property. (10608.12.(g) “Common area” means that portion of a common interest development or of a property owned or managed by a homeowners’ association or a community service organization or similar entity that is not assigned or allocated to the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual dwelling unit within the property.)

5. Will placing a bench on turf make the turf functional? No single feature, such as the presence of a bench, automatically determines whether turf is functional. Functional turf must be located in an area designated for recreational use or as a community space. EMID may consider the designated use of the area, accessibility, and other site conditions when determining whether turf meets the statutory definition.

6. Who determines if turf is functional or nonfunctional? Item 8.2

A property owner or governmental agency may designate an area for recreational or community use consistent with the definitions established by State law (see 10608.12 section (j) and (aa)). EMID may request additional information regarding the use of an area when it is unclear whether the turf meets the definition of functional turf.

7. Do we need to stop watering trees with potable water? AB 1572 allows the use of potable water to the extent necessary to maintain the health of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings. This exception applies even when trees or perennial plants are located within or adjacent to an area of nonfunctional turf. 10608.14. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the use of potable water is not prohibited by this section to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf plantings, or to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need.

8. Who must self-certify compliance with the nonfunctional turf ban to the State Water Board?
Owners of commercial, industrial, and institutional properties with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated area, excluding cemeteries, must certify compliance to the State Water Board beginning June 30, 2030, and every three years thereafter through 2039.

Owners of homeowners associations, common interest developments, community service organizations, and similar entities with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area must certify compliance beginning June 30, 2031, and every three years thereafter through 2040.

Additional information regarding the State Water Board’s certification process will be provided as it becomes available.

Item 8.2

DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: 2026-2027 Winter Storm Preparedness

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council of the City of Foster City/Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District, by Minute Order, receive and accept an informational report on the preparations for the 2026-2027 Winter Storm Season.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Works conducts year-round maintenance and preparedness activities to ensure that the City’s infrastructure and operations are ready for the winter storm season. The 2026-2027 winter season is anticipated to bring the potential for periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall, which can place increased demands on the City’s storm drain system, pump stations, and wastewater infrastructure. In preparation, the City is expanding its typical winter storm readiness efforts beyond routine infrastructure maintenance. Enhanced preparation includes increased coordination among City departments and emergency response partners, additional planning for sanitary sewer overflow response, increased weatherproofing of City facilities, procurement of additional emergency supplies, and contractor resources, and expanded public outreach. Preparations are supplemented by ongoing Capital Item 8.3

Improvement Project work that improve the capacity, reliability, and redundancy of the City’s stormwater and wastewater systems.

BACKGROUND
Foster City’s stormwater management system relies on storm drains, catch basins, pumps, and the lagoon to collect and discharge stormwater. The City’s wastewater collection system, buildings, roadways, and other infrastructure may also be affected during periods of significant rainfall, particularly when storms occur over multiple days. Also, storm events may result in downed trees and roadway obstructions, increased emergency response call volumes, impacts to parks and City facilities, and increased demands on staff and equipment.

Public Works maintains a year-round program of inspection, preventive maintenance, equipment testing, and emergency preparedness. Routine activities include but are not limited to: clearing storm drain catch basins, maintaining wastewater lift stations, testing generators, inspecting City buildings, servicing pumps and equipment, monitoring fuel supplies, and maintaining emergency response materials. Approaching storm season, the lagoon is lowered to its winter operating level, the City’s self-service sandbag station is resupplied with increased frequency, emergency contacts and response procedures are reviewed, and preparedness information is provided to residents and homeowners.

ANALYSIS
Winter 2026-2027 is forecast to include El Niño conditions. Prolonged or heavy rainfall in Foster City can place greater demands on the City’s storm drain system, pumps, and lagoon. Compared with a typical winter, an El Niño winter may have increased potential for localized flooding, storm drain backups, and sanitary sewer overflows. To prepare, staff is intensifying several aspects of its annual preparation program.

Stormwater Conveyance System
The Foster City Lagoon is an important component of the City’s stormwater management system. Prior to the winter storm season, the lagoon is typically lowered to provide additional capacity to receive stormwater runoff.

Staff may lower the lagoon to its winter operating level earlier in the season and lower the lagoon further when warranted by forecasted rainfall and system conditions to provide additional stormwater storage capacity.

Staff will provide additional public communication regarding lower lagoon levels and potential impacts to recreational boating. Residents with boats or other recreational Item 8.3

vessels will be encouraged to account for lower water levels and secure vessels appropriately.

Sanitary Sewer Response Planning
Periods of prolonged rainfall can increase flows into the wastewater collection system and place additional demands on lift stations and other wastewater infrastructure. Staff has established emergency response options should system capacity be exceeded during a significant storm event. This includes mutual aid resources and contractor assistance. These measures are intended to establish operational responsibilities in advance so that staff can respond quickly and effectively if additional response actions are needed during a storm.

City Facility Weatherproofing
Building Maintenance staff will perform additional inspections and weatherproofing of City facilities to reduce water intrusion and storm-related damage. Activities include inspections of buildings, evaluation of generators and emergency power systems, and stocking materials such as tarps, flood barriers, portable lighting, and emergency supplies.

Procurement of Additional Supplies and Contractor Resources Staff reviewed inventories and is procuring additional supplies, including fuel for vehicles and emergency equipment, such as generators, to ensure lagoon and wastewater pumps can operate during power outages. Staff is also reviewing existing emergency on-call contracts and conducting a Request for Proposals process to establish additional contractor resources that may be needed for winter storm response.

Increased Public Outreach
Staff is prepared for increased public outreach regarding lagoon conditions and general storm preparations. Enhanced outreach will also emphasize actions residents and property owners can take in advance of storms, provide information regarding available City services and resources. Additionally, staff will recommend residents sign up for and utilize reporting services such as Foster City Access and SMC Alert, which are useful in receiving and providing real-time updates during severe weather. Furthermore, staff will encourage private entities such as Homeowners Associations to inspect and maintain private storm drains, catch basins, drainage facilities, sanitary sewer systems, trees, and other infrastructure that could contribute to flooding or property damage. The City will also update its winter storm preparedness webpage and provide residents with information regarding sandbags, lagoon conditions, reporting storm-related problems, power outages, and emergency preparedness.

Capital Improvement Projects to Support Resilience
Item 8.3

In addition to seasonal preparedness, the City continues work on capital projects that improve the long term reliability and resilience of stormwater and wastewater infrastructure. For example, Foster City Levee Improvements Project, completed in 2024, protects the perimeter of the City against storm surge and wave runup. In progress or planned projects also include the Lagoon Pump Station Rehabilitation and Capacity Enhancement Project, which will add pumping capacity and redundancy; the Emergency Generator Replacement Project, which will provide backup power at key wastewater lift stations; and the Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Improvements – Phase 6 Project, which will rehabilitate and upgrade several lift stations. These projects are not expected to be completed in advance of the 2026- 2027 storm season, but will strengthen the system in the long term.

Seasonal preparations and long-term capital investments strengthen the City’s ability to reduce risk, maintain critical services, and respond effectively during significant storm events.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This informational report is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it involves an informational report and administrative activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this information report.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
Item 8.3

DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager
Sofia Mangalam, Deputy City Manager
FROM: Thai-Chau Le, Interim Community Development Director Nori Jabba, Housing and Sustainability Manager
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Implementation of Housing Element Programs- Supportive Housing and Rehabilitation of One of the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the following:
(1) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1): a) authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Housing Choices (Attachment 1a) for five (5) years to administer the Supportive/Special Needs Housing Program (Supportive Housing) for the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP) unit located at 398 Chesapeake Avenue (Unit), in an amount not to exceed $45,000 ($9,000 per year); b) approve supplemental appropriations from various funds for the agreement and payment of utilities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026- 2027 and 2027-2028, and c) and find the actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities); and
(2) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 2): a) authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Generation Builders (Attachment 2a) for overseeing and performing construction and rehabilitation services for the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP) unit located at 398 Chesapeake Avenue (Unit), in an amount not to exceed Item 9.1

$392,834.10; b) approve a project contingency in the amount of $40,000 with authority given to the City Manager for additional work up to the contingency amount, if necessary; c) approve a supplemental appropriation of $432,834.10 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing (LMIHF) Special Revenue Fund to Account No. 122-0832-463-42-87 for the Agreement and contingency; and d) find the actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2023-31 Housing Element contains two (2) programs specific to Supportive Housing/Special Needs. The first program (H-E-1-a) is to implement tenant preferences for the City-owned EUPP units so that when vacancies occur, housing providers have an opportunity to propose renting the unit to provide Supportive Housing. The second program (H-F-1) is to provide facilities and services for those with special needs.

Earlier in 2026, one (1) of the six (6) City-owned EUPP units at 398 Chesapeake Avenue became vacant, providing an opportunity to begin transitioning the Unit for Supportive Housing.

On February 2, 2026, the City Council held a study session to discuss implementation of the two (2) Housing Element Programs and considerations for the type of Supportive Housing to be provided at the Unit. The City Council, via Minute Order No. 258, confirmed staff’s approach regarding supportive housing, specifically targeting supportive housing agencies that serve those with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, as well as victims of domestic violence, and provide housing for individuals, families, or those benefiting from a group home setting.

Subsequently, staff issued two (2) separate Requests for Proposals (RFP) pertaining to the provision of Supportive Housing for the Unit, including:
 RFP for Supportive Housing/Special Needs providers; and  RFP for qualified general contractors interested in overseeing and performing construction and rehabilitation services
By April 1 of each year, the City must submit its Annual Progress Report (APR) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The APR reports progress to date for implementation of all Housing Element goals and programs. In order to stay on track for the timely implementation of the two (2) programs stated above, staff requests that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into two (2) agreements and approve supplemental appropriations associated with the agreements:

Item 9.1

(1) Housing Choices for providing Supportive Housing for five (5) years in an amount not to exceed $45,000; and
(2) Generation Builders for the rehabilitation of the Unit in an amount not to exceed $392,834.10 including a project contingency in the amount of $40,000 with authority given to the City Manager to execute agreement amendment, change orders, or additional required work, up to the contingency amount, if necessary.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Element is an integral part of the Foster City General Plan that identifies the community’s housing needs, states the community’s goals and objectives regarding housing production, rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation to meet those needs, and defines the policies and programs. The chapter containing Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs forms the housing policy roadmap for the City and describes the implementation measures that the City needs to undertake in the planning period 2023

31. The two (2) programs relevant to this staff report are as follows:

1. Program H-E-1-a Existing Unit Purchase Program-Opportunities for Supportive Housing.

Implement the tenant preferences adopted in January 2023 for the Existing Unit Purchase Program (City-owned units) so that when vacancies occur, housing providers have an opportunity to propose renting the unit to provide supportive housing for people with disabilities and if no acceptable proposals are received, then continue to maintain the existing units owned by the City as rentals for large very low- and low-income families.

Quantified Objective: One (1) unit converted to supportive housing by 2031

2. H-F-1-a Facilities and Services for Special Needs.

Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors, extremely low-income households and persons, farmworkers, people with developmental disabilities, and persons with disabilities through an expedited permit review process. Proactively contact non-profit service providers and developers for persons with disabilities and other special needs groups on annual basis to inquire about their needs and notify them about funding opportunities, as they become available.

Performance Metric(s): Facilitate development of at least one (1) new facility Earlier in 2026, one (1) of the six (6) City-owned EUPP units became vacant, providing an opportunity to begin transitioning the Unit for Supportive Housing.

Item 9.1

The City’s definition for Supportive Housing is specified in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 17.04.020 and description of Special Needs groups are included in the Housing Element Program H-F-1. Special Needs groups were identified as a result of the Housing Needs Assessment (Housing Element 2023-2031, Appendix A) prepared during the Housing Element preparation.

On February 2, 2026, a City Council study session was held to discuss transitioning the Unit to Supportive Housing to meet those specific special needs groups fulfill the goals of two (2) Housing Element programs stated above. Subsequently, staff began working on a multi-step process required for transitioning the Unit for Supportive Housing use as shown in Figure 1 below.

Steps in the Implementation Process for Housing Element programs There are nine (9) steps involved in implementation of the two (2) Housing Element programs, as summarized in Figure 1. This staff report covers step 5.

Figure 1. Steps to convert the Unit for Supportive Housing use The process began soon after the unit at 398 Chesapeake Avenue became vacant, as detailed below:
 Step 1 (Completed): On January 13, 2026, City staff comprising of the building inspector and Housing and Sustainability Manager and the property manager (HHAV) conducted an inspection of the unit to assess the work required for Item 9.1

rehabilitation of the unit. It was determined that the unit needs replacement of the roof, interior and exterior painting, plumbing upgrades, mechanical system work, appliance replacements, replacement of insulation, an electrical panel upgrade, and other minor repairs/replacements. Based on the inspection report, staff prepared a draft rehabilitation plan for inclusion in the RFP for supportive/special needs housing.
 Step 2 (Completed): On February 2, 2026, a City Council study session was held to discuss consideration for supportive housing. The City Council confirmed staff’s approach regarding supportive housing, specifically targeting supportive housing agencies that serve those with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, as well as victims of domestic violence, and provide housing for individuals, families, or those benefiting from a group home setting.
 Steps 3 (Completed): On February 25, 2026, staff issued an RFP (Attachment 3) requesting proposals from qualified Supportive Housing agencies interested in administration, the placement or referral of eligible households for supportive housing, and the provision and/or coordination of supportive services.  Step 4 (Completed): On August 20, 2026, staff issued RFP (Attachment 6) requesting proposals from qualified general contractors interested in overseeing and performing construction and rehabilitation services for the unit.  Step 5: This staff report pertains to Step 5 of the process and upon approval of the requested agreements by the City Council, step 5 will be deemed complete.  Step 6: Rehabilitation work of the unit will commence following the execution of the Agreement with Generation Builders and is expected to be completed in six (6) months or less.
 Step 7: Following completion of the rehabilitation work, Housing Choices will fill the unit with a qualified special needs household and provide ongoing supportive services for the occupants.
 Step 8: City staff will monitor the supportive housing services on as needed basis and the City’s contracted property management firm will continue to manage the unit. Housing Choices will assume some day-to-day property management services for the property. The property management services agreement will be amended accordingly.

ANALYSIS
A) Selection of Supportive Housing Provider
On February 25, 2026, staff issued an RFP (Attachment 3) to solicit proposals from Supportive Housing agencies/providers.

The RFP was advertised in the following ways, soliciting responses:

1. Staff emailed the RFP to multiple agencies, including Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), Housing Choices, the County of San Mateo, HIP Item 9.1

Housing, Kainos Home and Training Center, and Partners & Advocates for Remarkable Children and Adults (PARCA).

2. Posted on City’s RFP webpage.

Staff received responses from two (2) providers, including Housing Choices and PARCA.

Both agencies provide housing and supportive services for those with developmental disabilities and coordinate with Golden Gate Regional Center, a state agency that provides support and services for those with developmental disabilities under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act.

Staff evaluated the proposals based on 11 criteria as outlined in the RFP, including the range of supportive services that the agency provides, whether the agency had identified potentially eligible households to occupy the unit; costs to the City for program administration and any specifically requested tenant improvements (excluding requests for reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities), and other criteria. The proposals, evaluation, and scoring sheet for both providers are included in Attachment 4.

Staff determined that both proposals received met all program requirements as described in Housing Element programs and as specified in the RFP.

While either agency would satisfy the requirements for implementation of Housing Element Programs H-E-1-a and H-F-1-a, staff recommend the proposal from Housing Choices, due to the substantially lower total expense to the City. Housing Choices’ proposal also includes certain administrative property management services, including leasing coordination, resident communication, occupancy monitoring, move-ins/moveouts, coordination of maintenance requests with the City’s designated property management or maintenance providers, and affordable housing compliance. Housing Choices will coordinate with the City’s contracted Property Management firm, and the City will amend the existing property management contract with the contracted property management firm to reflect the work to be done by Housing Choices.Table 1 shows the cost comparison between the two proposals below.

Item 9.1

Table 1. Cost Comparison .

Cost Category Housing Choices PARCA
Annual Administration Fees $5,160 $68,220
Property Management Fees $3,840 n/a
Annual City-Paid Utilities (Estimate) $5,000 $12,000
Total Annual Cost to the City $14,000 $80,220
Additional Capital Improvements* $0 $251,100
*PARCA’s proposal would result in an estimated additional $251,100 in capital expenses: $43,100 in unit modifications and $208,000 in reasonable accommodation improvements for a disability, consisting of conversion of the garage to a two-bedroom, one-bath ADA-accessible ADU and expansion of the driveway.

It should be noted that the costs associated with the reasonable accommodation request were not excluded in the scoring of the proposal.

Housing Choices
Housing Choices is a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1997. The agency provides a variety of services for supportive housing, including helping those with developmental disabilities secure housing, supporting housed individuals retain their housing and obtain need supportive services, and case management for homeless individuals. Housing Choices also partners with developers and municipalities to encourage inclusion of units for those with disabilities in development agreements for new rental housing construction.

Housing Choices will fill the unit with referrals from Golden Gate Regional Center, a state agency that provides services and support under the Lanterman Development Disabilities Services Act to support individuals with developmental disabilities in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. Households may be comprised of either an individual with developmental disability and their family, or a household of unrelated individuals, each with a developmental disability.

Housing Choices will also provide case management for the household to ensure that the individuals with developmental disabilities receive needed support services and pay rent, utilities, and other bills on time. Housing Choices would also manage program compliance and day-to-day property management and will coordinate with the City’s contracted property manager for repairs and maintenance.

Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into agreement with Housing Choices for providing Supportive Housing services in an amount not to exceed $45,000 for five (5) years ($9,000 per year) for program administration and property management. In addition, as a condition of the agreement, the City would cover the cost of water, sewer, and trash for the unit, which requires a supplemental appropriation of $5,000 per fiscal year. This would result in a total annual cost to the City of $14,000.

Item 9.1

Since the agreement with Housing Choices is for a five (5) year term, the cost of the agreement and City-paid utilities for subsequent FYs will be included in the subsequent proposed budgets.

B) Selection of a Contractor for Rehabilitation of the Unit To implement the Supportive Housing and Special Needs housing program, rehabilitation of the Unit is needed due to wear and tear after a long-term tenancy of 10 years and due to the age of the property (55 years old, built in 1971).

On January 13, 2026, an initial building inspection was conducted to assess the scope of rehabilitation work. Following the inspection, staff developed a draft rehabilitation plan (Attachment 5) for inclusion in the RFP for soliciting proposals for rehabilitation of the Unit.

On August 20, 2026, staff issued an RFP requesting proposals from qualified general contractors interested in overseeing and performing construction and rehabilitation services for the Unit.

The RFP (Attachment 6) was advertised in the following ways to solicit responses:

1. Posted on City’s RFP webpage

2. Staff also emailed the RFP to 20 general contractors in the Bay Area Staff received one (1) response, from Generation Builders, located in Burlingame. The firm has been in business since 2022 and specializes in commercial and residential remodeling and new construction.

Staff evaluated the response using a scoring sheet that included six (6) criteria, including:

1. Quality and completeness of the proposal; and

2. Costs to the City associated with the Proposed Scope of Work; proposals will be ranked in order from lowest to highest cost; and

3. Experience providing the services included in the proposal; and

4. Experience working with municipalities; and

5. Quality of references provided; and

6. The number and extent of exceptions to RFP requirements, if any Staff recommends Generation Builders for rehabilitation of 398 Chesapeake Avenue due to their experience working for a local jurisdiction, and excellent references. The scoring sheet for the proposal can be found in Attachment 7. Table 2 shows the cost associated with the proposal.

Table 2. Rehabilitation Costs for 398 Chesapeake Avenue Description of Work Cost ($)
Item 9.1

Base Cost
Work included in the draft rehabilitation plan $256,785.70 Additional Necessary Improvements
a. Waterproof vinyl blank flooring replacement (1,150 SF) to ensure flooring longevity and reduce wear and tear $15,264.28
a. Improve access to attic by relocating access point from master bedroom closet to main hallway (current access is very limited) b. Garage improvements to assist with energy efficiency, pest control, and safety: conceal wires, add drywall, paint
$1,575.72
$5,009.77
a. Remove bathroom skylight due to age, condition, and risk of leakage $1,939.27
a. Replace screens for patio door and all windows due to wear and tear of existing screens
b. Full remodel of both bathrooms rather than simple upgrades and repairs to due age and condition of current finishes and fixtures and plumbing
c. Installation of interior sprinkler systems, including upgraded water line and meter to provide additional life safety protections $1,868.10
$47,632.73
$62,758.53
Total Additional Improvements $136,048.40
Contract Amount $392,834.10
City’s Additional Contingency $40,000.00
Total Budget Needed for Project $432,834.10
The base cost includes plumbing and electrical upgrades, a new roof, replacement of appliances, bathroom and kitchen refresh and repair, exterior and interior painting.

Additional necessary improvements as listed above were determined upon further inspections and discussions with the contractor. The contingency will be used at the City Manager’s discretion to cover the cost of additional work deemed to be necessary in the event that asbestos abatement is required, or other unforeseen necessary costs to complete the project to be performed by a third-party vendor. The contingency amount is not included in the Agreement with Generation Builders.

Next Steps
Rehabilitation of the Unit will commence immediately upon execution of the Agreement and appropriation of funds. It is estimated to take six (6) months or less.

Item 9.1

Once the rehabilitation work nears completion, staff will coordinate with Housing Choices in finding a qualified household to occupy the Unit (Step 8) for the Program. Rent will be set according to BMR Guidelines and terms of the Agreement with Housing Choices.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The approval of the Agreement with Housing Choices and the Agreement with Generation Builders for rehabilitation work are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, California Code of Regulations section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) which covers the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing facilities when there is negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use. In this case, the unit at 398 Chesapeake will continue to be used for affordable housing and the rehabilitation work will involve negligible or no expansion of use.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed resolutions have a combined fiscal impact of $446,834.10 in FY 2026-27 and $14,000 in FY 2027-28. See Table 3 below for details.

Table 3. Request for Appropriations of Funds for Agreements Item From Fund To Account FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28
Supportive Housing
Administrative
Fees
General
Fund
Reserve*
001-0815-419-42-51 $5,160 $5,160
Property
Management
Fees
Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-51 $3,840 $3,840
Utilities Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-48 $5,000 $5,000
Total $14,000 $14,000
Rehabilitation of the Unit
Rehabilitation
Agreement
Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-87 $392,834.10 -
Item 9.1

Contingency Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-87 $40,000
Total $432,834.10

TOTAL FISCAL
IMPACT $446,834.10 $14,000
Fund 122 currently has a fund balance of $2.8 million as of September 17, 2026.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution for Agreement with Housing Choices Attachment 1a – Agreement with Housing Choices
Attachment 2 – Resolution for Agreement with Generation Builders Attachment 2a – Agreement with Generation Builders
Attachment 3 – RFP for Supportive and Special Needs Housing Attachment 4 – Scoring Sheet and Responses to RFP for Supportive Housing Attachment 5 – Draft Rehabilitation Plan for 398 Chesapeake Attachment 6 – RFP for Rehabilitation of 398 Chesapeake Avenue Attachment 7 – Scoring Sheet and Responses to RFP for Rehabilitation Item 9.1

RESOLUTION NO. ______

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING CHOICES FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO ADMINISTER THE SUPPORTIVE/SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING PROGRAM (SUPPORTIVE HOUSING) FOR THE CITY’S EXISTING UNIT PURCHASE PROGRAM (EUPP) UNIT LOCATED AT 398 CHESAPEAKE AVENUE (UNIT), IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $45,000 ($9,000 PER YEAR); B)

APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM VARIOUS FUNDS FOR THE AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF UTILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2026-2027 AND 2027-2028, AND C) AND FIND THE ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1-EXISTING FACILITIES)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the 2023-31 Housing Element contains two (2) programs specific to Supportive Housing/Special Needs, including H-E-1-a to implement tenant preferences for the City-owned EUPP units so that when vacancies occur, housing providers have an opportunity to propose renting the unit to provide Supportive Housing and H-F-1 to provide facilities and services for those with special needs; and WHERAS, earlier in 2026, one (1) of the six (6) City-owned EUPP units at 398 Chesapeake Avenue became vacant, providing an opportunity to begin transitioning the Unit for Supportive Housing; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2026, a City Council study session was held to discuss transitioning the Unit to Supportive Housing to meet those specific special needs groups and fulfill the goals of two (2) Housing Element programs; and WHEREAS, subsequently, staff issued an Request for Proposals (RFP) pertaining to the provision of Supportive Housing for the Unit; and WHEREAS, staff received responses from two (2) providers, and evaluated the proposals based on 11 criteria as outlined in the RFP, including the range of supportive services that the agency provides, whether the agency had identified potentially eligible households to occupy the unit; costs to the City for program administration and any specifically requested tenant improvements (excluding requests for reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities), and other criteria; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending entering into an agreement with Housing Choices for providing Supportive Housing services in an amount not to exceed $45,000 for five (5) years ($9,000 per year) for program administration and property management; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the agreement, the City would cover the cost of water, sewer, and trash for the unit, which requires a supplemental appropriation of $5,000 per fiscal year; and
Item 9.1

WHEREAS, staff is recommending appropriations from various funds for the agreement and payment of utilities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 and the cost of the agreement and City-paid utilities for subsequent FYs will be included in the subsequent proposed budgets.

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

1. Authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Housing Choices in a form substantially similar to Exhibit A, attached hereto, with minor amendments which may be approved by the City Attorney, for a term of five (5) years to administer the Supportive/Special Needs Housing Program (Supportive Housing) for the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program (EUPP) unit located at 398 Chesapeake Avenue (Unit), in an amount not to exceed $45,000;

2. Approve supplemental appropriations from various funds for the agreement and payment of utilities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 as follows:

Item From Fund To Account FY 2026-
27 FY 2027-28
Administrative
Fees
General
Fund*
001-0815-419-42-51 $5,160 $5,160
Property
Management
Fees
Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-51 $3,840 $3,840
Utilities Fund 122 122-0832-463-42-48 $5,000 $5,000
Total Fiscal
Impact $14,000 $14,000

3. Find the approval of the Agreement with Housing Choices and the supplemental appropriations exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities).

Item 9.1

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on October 5, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________

ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
Item 9.1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR

CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACTOR FOR

SUPPORTIVE AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FOR 398 CHESAPEAKE AVENUE, FOSTER CITY
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the _____ day of ____________, 2026 by and between the City of Foster City hereinafter called "CITY" and Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Inc. hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR".

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

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

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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

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

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

2. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall shall expire on October 6, 2031. . (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY may with or without cause, direct CONTRACTOR to suspend, delay or interrupt Services, in whole or in part without cause of time as CITY may determine in its sole discretion. (c) CITY may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for default, should CONTRACTOR commit a material breach of this Agreement, or part thereof, and not cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days of the date of CITY’s written notice to CONTRACTOR demanding such cure, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be liable to CITY for all loss, cost, expense, damage and liability resulting from such breach and termination. (d) CITY may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for convenience, whenever CITY determines that such termination is in CITY’s best interests, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to recover its costs expended up to the termination date plus reasonable profit thereon to the termination date as this Agreement would otherwise provide, but may recover no other Item 9.1

1 cost, damage or expense. CONTRACTOR shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and CONTRACTOR’s failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material breach of this Agreement.

3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for all services performed by CONTRACTOR hereunder within 30 days of receipt of a monthly invoice in an amount as set forth in Exhibit “B” hereof, attached hereto, for which services hereunder shall be diligently performed as set forth in Exhibit “A” hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($45,000) for administrative fees as set forth in Exhibit “B”. Invoices for amounts in excess of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($45,000) shall not be paid unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by the City Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $50,000 or more) evidenced by motion duly made and carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRACTOR represents that it has reviewed Exhibit A and that in its professional Item 9.1

2 judgment the Services to be performed under this Agreement can be performed for a fee within the maximum amount set forth in the Compensation Schedule established in Exhibit A and within the times specified for each individual Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Compliance with Laws; Prevailing Wage. CONTRACTOR shall carry out, and shall use its best efforts to ensure that its employees, volunteers, contractors and subcontractors carry out, the design and construction of all Project activities funded hereunder in conformity with all applicable State of California Labor Code requirements; the City zoning and development standards; building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes; all other provisions of the City of Foster City Municipal Code (“Code”); all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., Government Code Section 4450, et seq., Government Item 9.1

3 Code Section 11135, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, et seq.; that all contractors or subcontractors hired by CONTRACTOR are licensed in the State of California; and that all activities funded hereunder are only performed on property located within the CITY’s corporate limits.

In the performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall have the status of an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee, agent or officer of the CITY. To the extent State prevailing wage laws apply to the Project, CONTRACTOR shall ensure that it complies with prevailing wage requirements in connection with the design, construction, and/or installation contemplated hereunder (the “Work”), that no less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holidays and overtime work, for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Work shall be paid to all workers, laborers and mechanics employed in the execution of the Work by CONTRACTOR, contractors and subcontractors doing or contracting to do any part of the Work. Copies of such prevailing rate of per diem wages are available at:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

To the extent applicable, CONTRACTOR, its contractors and subcontractors, shall comply with all requirements of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections: 1773.2 (regarding posting wage determinations at each job site); section 1776 (regarding the certification, maintenance, and availability for inspection of payroll records); section 1777.5 (regarding employment of apprentices); section 1810 (regarding a legal day’s work as 8 hours of labor); and section 1775 (regarding penalties for violations).

CONTRACTOR shall defend, with counsel reasonably acceptable to CITY, indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against any Claims arising out of CONTRACTOR’s failure to comply with State of California Labor Code requirements pertaining to the design and construction of the Work. Further, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees with respect to all final judgments or settlements in actions brought by any “contractor” in which City is (i) determined to be an “awarding body” and (ii) damages are awarded, pursuant to Labor Code sections 1726 or 1781. CONTRACTOR’s defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations under this section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR hereby waives, releases and discharges the Indemnitees from any and all present and future Claims arising out of or in any way connected with CONTRACTOR’s obligation to comply with all State of California Labor Code requirements pertaining to the design and construction of the Work. This release applies to all potential future claims by CONTRACTOR on behalf of itself and its agents, representatives, assigns, heirs, spouses, successors-in-interest, executors, administrators, employees, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and vendors (“Releasors”), agrees to waive any and all rights pursuant to Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads as follows:
“A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”
CONTRACTOR shall include within each of its contracts, subcontracts, and within any Item 9.1

4 other agreements with Releasors involved in the Work, a release in favor of the Indemnitees substantially identical to this Section 11.

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

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

CONTRACTOR’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

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

If CONTRACTOR is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONTRACTOR’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed CONTRACTOR’s proportionate percentage of fault.

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

CONTRACTOR shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five (5) years Item 9.1

5 following completion of this project or service. In the event CONTRACTOR fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the CITY at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by CONTRACTOR.

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

15. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The CONTRACTOR will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONTRACTOR shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The CONTRACTOR agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

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

CITY:

City of Foster City
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404-2299
Attention: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONTRACTOR:

HOUSING CHOICES
3460 W. Bayshore Road, Suite 205
Palo Alto, Ca, 94303
Phone Number:
408-406-0551
Email Address:

[email protected]
Contact, Dennise Jauregui, Executive Director

17. Non-Assignment. CONTRACTOR may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City, which may be granted or denied in its sole discretion. Subject to the foregoing restrictions on assignment, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon CITY and CONTRACTOR and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

Item 9.1

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

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

20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the County of San Mateo, California. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules.

Any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California unless the parties agree otherwise in a written amendment to this Agreement.

In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

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

22. Conflict of Interest. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it presently has no interest, and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of work and services required under this Agreement.

Without limitation, CONTRACTOR represents to and agrees with CITY that CONTRACTOR has disclosed any potential conflict of interest, and will have no future conflict of interest, in providing CITY services hereunder, including but not limited to, any interest (financial, share ownership, shared management, shared directors, or reporting responsibilities) CONTRACTOR may presently have, or will have in the future, with respect to any other person or entity (including but not limited to potential suppliers, vendors, consultants, contractors, or regulatory agency) which may have an interest in the subject matter of the Services.

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

CITY shall not be responsible for any damage to persons or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by CONTRACTOR, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented or loaned to CONTRACTOR by CITY. The acceptance or use of such equipment by CONTRACTOR or any of its employees shall be construed to mean that CONTRACTOR accepts full Item 9.1

7 responsibility for and shall exonerate, indemnify, defend (using Counsel of City’s reasonable choice) and save harmless CITY from and against any and all claims for any damage or injury of any type, including attorneys' fees, arising from the use, misuse or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the CONTRACTOR, its employees, CITY employees or third parties, or to property belonging to any of the above.

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

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

25. Force Majeure. Except for defaults of subconsultants at any tier, neither party shall be liable for any excess costs if the party’s failure to perform the Agreement arises from causes beyond the party’s control and without the fault or negligence of the party who failed to perform, including without limitation failure to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts (Force Majeure), provided the other party receives written notice of such force majeure event no later than five (5) calendar days after commencement of such force majeure event. Force majeure events include the following:

Acts of God, fires, floods, earthquake, other natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics (other than COVID-19 or variants), wars, abnormal weather conditions, nuclear accidents, strikes, lockouts, freight embargos, interruptions in service by a regulated utility, or governmental statutes or regulations enacted or imposed after the fact (together, “force majeure events”). The spread or effects of Covid-19, and any variants thereof, can be reasonably anticipated and do not constitute a force majeure event. Tariffs imposed by the US government, and any resulting supply disruptions do not constitute a force majeure event.

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

27. No Third-Party Beneficiary. It is the intention of the parties that under no circumstances are any rights created for persons or entities who are not parties to this Agreement under a third- party beneficiary theory or under any other theory of law.

28. Attorney’s Fees. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

29. Authority. The parties each represent that the signatory has the authority to bind each respective entity, and assents to each and every term contained within this Agreement.

30. No Joint Venture. It is expressly understood and agreed that neither party shall become as a result of this Agreement a partner of the other nor a joint venturer with the other party Item 9.1

8 in the conduct of such party’s business or otherwise. This Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture, or association as between CITY and CONTRACTOR.

31. Severability. Should any provision of any of this Agreement be found invalid by a court or other body of competent jurisdiction, said invalidity or ineffectiveness shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement which shall remain in force to the maximum extent possible.

32. Further Assurances. From and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the parties agree to do such things, perform such acts, and make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper and usual to timely complete the actions contemplated by this Agreement.

33. Interpretation. The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this Agreement and that the rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any document executed and delivered by either party in connection with this Agreement. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not be used to interpret such Agreement. The defined terms in this Agreement shall apply equally to both the singular and the plural forms of the terms defined. Whenever the context may require, any pronoun shall include the corresponding masculine, feminine and neuter forms. The words “include” and “including” shall be deemed to be followed by the phrase “without limitation.” The words “approval,” “consent” and “notice” shall be deemed to be preceded by the word “written.”

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

35. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different Parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

Item 9.1

9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated: ___________________________________
Art Kiesel, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dated: ___________________________________
Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock, City Attorney

CONTRACTOR
Dated:

Dennise Jauregui, Executive Director
[email protected]

Item 9.1

10 EXHIBIT A
Foster City Supportive and Special Needs Housing Program

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

DELIVERABLES FOR

SUPPORTIVE AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION This Exhibit A provides the description of services to be provided, payments, projects and schedule and deliverables for the Supportive and Special Needs Housing Program for the City of Foster City pursuant to the Agreement between the City of Foster City and Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Inc. (“Housing Choices”), dated ____________, 2026.

1. UNITS COVERED BY THIS EXHIBIT A
398 Chesapeake Avenue, Foster City

2. SCHEDULE
Housing Choices will commence work, as defined in Tasks and Deliverables below, approximately 60 days prior to the estimated occupancy date, which shall be provided in writing (email is acceptable) by the City of Foster City. The schedule for initiation of services, including filling of the unit is incumbent upon completion of rehabilitation of the unit.

3. PAYMENT
Housing Choices will submit invoices on a monthly basis following the notice to commence work as described in the Schedule above. Invoices shall be subject to fees as outlined in Exhibit B of this Agreement.

4. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
a) Overview
Housing Choices will implement the City of Foster City’s Supportive and Special Needs Housing Program under the Supportive Housing Placement and Services model (“Program”), providing comprehensive housing placement, program administration, and individualized supportive services for residents with developmental disabilities at the 398 Chesapeake Avenue unit identified above. The Program is more thoroughly described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference.

The Program will serve households that include at least one individual with a developmental disability, consistent with the City’s eligibility requirements. Housing Choices will utilize a flexible housing approach, offering either a shared housing model or a family-based placement, depending on the needs of eligible households and the characteristics of the available unit.

For the 398 Chesapeake Avenue unit identified above, Housing Choices will evaluate qualified applicants and determine the most appropriate placement model:
• A shared housing model, in which individual adults with developmental disabilities live together in a supportive, community-integrated environment; or • A family-based placement, in which a family household includes at least one member with a developmental disability and benefits from stable, affordable Item 9.1

11 housing and coordinated supportive services.

This flexible approach allows Housing Choices to maximize occupancy, ensure the best fit for the unit, and respond effectively to the City’s goals and the needs of the community.

Housing Choices maintains a robust pipeline of individuals and families seeking affordable housing in San Mateo County, with approximately 350 clients currently engaged in housing navigation services via its housing coordination program. Based on a preliminary review, at least five households appear to meet the eligibility criteria for the City’s available unit, with full screening to be conducted upon award. This positions Housing Choices to meet the City’s goal of timely lease-up.

Housing Choices will be responsible for:

1. Identifying and screening eligible households;

2. Facilitating placement into the unit in coordination with the City;

3. Providing administrative property management services, including leasing coordination, resident communication, occupancy monitoring, move-ins/moveouts, termination of tenancy, and coordination of maintenance requests with the City’s designated property management or maintenance providers;

4. Providing ongoing individualized supportive services and service coordination;

5. Ensuring compliance with all program requirements, including income eligibility, occupancy standards, and annual recertification;

6. Maintaining program records and providing required reporting to the City.

7. Housing Choices will provide day-to-day administrative property management functions and will coordinate closely with the City’s contracted property management firm or designated maintenance providers for repairs, physical maintenance, and capital improvements to ensure clear communication, efficient issue resolution, and a high-quality resident experience.

Repairs, maintenance, landscape maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital improvements necessary for the unit at 398 Chesapeake Avenue, shall remain the responsibility of the City.
b) Expected Program Outcomes
• Timely placement of eligible household into City-owned unit at 398 Chesapeake Avenue.
• Stable housing for residents with supportive service needs. • Strong housing retention and reduced risk of homelessness. • Effective day-to-day property management with clear maintenance coordination. • Strong stewardship of City housing assets.
• A scalable program model that supports future expansion of supportive housing opportunities in Foster City.

5. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES
Task 1: Program Initiation and Program Management
Item 9.1

12 Schedule: within 10 business days of notice to commence work.

At the start of the project, Housing Choices will participate in a kick-off meeting with City staff to review objectives, roles, communication procedures, and reporting expectations. The Housing Choices will work with staff to refine and confirm the Program timeline. Ongoing Program management responsibilities include regular check-ins, progress updates, coordination, budget tracking, and responsive communication.

Services to be provided:

Future Unit Expansion and Continuous Improvement
• Scale services as additional City-owned units are designated for the Program over time.
• Participate in regular meetings with City staff to evaluate progress and refine operations.
• Incorporate resident and City feedback to strengthen program effectiveness. • Recommend strategies to improve occupancy, resident success, and long-term program sustainability
Task 2: Program Administration
Housing Choices will manage all Program administration tasks, selection/referral of eligible households or groups of occupants for eligible target population(s), as applicable; payment of rent to the City of Foster City and payment of utilities or ensuring that the tenant pays rent and utilities, as applicable; and, coordination and/or administration of supportive housing services, as applicable. Housing Choices is responsible for developing and maintaining all household eligibility applications, as applicable, coordinating documentation, and managing the household applicant process or group selection from initial inquiry through placement/referral.

Services to be provided:

Program Administration and Coordination
• Serve as the City’s program operator for designated supportive and special needs housing units.
• Coordinate regularly with City staff regarding vacancies, referrals, occupancy, resident needs, and program performance.
• Establish clear procedures for communication, approvals, reporting, issue resolution.
• Support implementation of the City’s Housing Element goals related to supportive housing and special needs populations.

Referrals, Outreach, and Applicant Selection
• Conduct outreach to Regional Centers, referral partners, county agencies, social service
• providers, and community-based organizations serving people with developmental disabilities.
• Maintain an applicant pipeline of eligible households in need of supportive housing.
• Accept and review referrals on an ongoing basis for available units. • Verify household eligibility, including income requirements and any programspecific criteria established by the City.

Item 9.1