CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOSTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
620 FOSTER CITY BOULEVARD
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Teleconference Location:
Vice Mayor/Vice President Suzy Niederhofer
Courtyard by Marriott Prague City Lobby/Business Area
Lucemburska Street 46, Prague, Czech Republic, 130 00
AGENDA
Monday, October 05, 2026 06:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AS CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO VICE
MAYOR/VICE PRESIDENT SUZY NIEDERHOFER TELECONFERENCING FROM LUCEMBURSKA STREET 46, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, 130 00
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY-ORG.ZOOM.US/J/82592136594.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING.
To Attend the Meeting in Person:
Locations: 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, California, 94404 Lucemburska Street 46, Prague, Czech Republic, 130 00
To Provide Public Comment in Person:
The public should fill out a Request to Speak Form. Forms will be accepted until the staff presentation on an agenda item ends, or until the public comment period on non-agenda items is closed. For special meetings, public comment is limited to item(s) on the agenda only.
To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:
To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercity-org.zoom.us/j/82592136594. To dial-in via phone: 1-669-444-9171 or 1-408-638-0968 and enter Webinar ID: 825 9213 6594 To Provide Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:
During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. Please clearly state your full
name for the record at the start of your public comment.
Written Public Comment Before the Meeting: Public comments may be submitted in advance at least two hours before the start time on the day of the meeting by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Public comment emails should clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda and include the submitter’s full name (Recommended but not required).
Written public comments received at least two hours before the start time on the day of the meeting will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be posted to the City’s website for viewing prior to the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A Proclamation Recognizing October 2026 as Domestic
Violence Awareness Month
A Proclamation Proclaiming October 8, 2026 as AgeUp Day Page 7 A Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 4-10, 2026 as "Fire Prevention Week"
Flock Quarterly Report
PUBLIC
Government Code Section 54954.2 E (3) precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during the “Public” portion of the agenda.
Information may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the appropriate City staff. FCMC 2.08.240 Addressing the Council. "...Each person desiring to address the Council shall step up to the public rostrum after being recognized to speak by the presiding officer, shall state his/her name and address for the record, state the subject he/she wishes to discuss, state who he/she is representing if he/she represents an organization or other persons and, unless further time is granted by majority vote of the Council, shall limit his/her remarks to three minutes. The City Council may vary the time limit for any speaker, if it deems this necessary." Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link
1. 2.
3. 4.
4.1 4.2
4.3 4.4
5.
and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people.
CITY/EMID CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council/EMID Board of Directors and will be enacted by one motion unless removed by a member of the Council/Board, staff, or public. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a citizen or a Council/Board member so requests. This section includes minutes, ordinances for adoption, resolutions for adoption, and other business as needed.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately after approval of the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.
Vote may be by roll call.
City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2026 Page 9 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Affordable Housing Development and Appropriation of $5,850,000 From the
Commercial Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137) to Account No. 137- 0847-419-42-51
ADOPT - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Issuance of a 2026-2027 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Affordable MultiFamily Rental Development; Approving an Appropriation of $5,850,000 From the Commercial Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137) to Account No. 137-0847-419-42-51; Authorizing the City Manager or Their Designee to Make Amendments to the NOFA Guidelines; And Finding the Request Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing to Hear and Consider Comments Regarding the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
ADOPT - 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
REPORTS
Response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
ACTION – By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report and Approve City’s
6. 6.1
6.2 7.
7.1 8.
8.1
Response to Grand Jury Report
Implementation of Assembly Bill 1572 Prohibiting the Use of Potable Water to Irrigate Nonfunctional Turf
ACTION - By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report and Provide Policy Direction
2026-2027 Winter Storm Preparedness Page 252
ACTION - By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
Implementation of Housing Element Programs - Supportive Housing and Rehabilitation of One of the City’s Existing Unit Purchase Program
ADOPT - 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)
ADOPT - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement With Generation Builders 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 $392,834.10; 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; 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 Finds the Actions Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities)
COMMUNICATIONS
City/District Warrants ACH were processed on September 4, 2026, and Warrants of Demands were Processed and Issued
8.2 8.3
9. 9.1
10. 10.1
on September 16, 2026
Information Item Only - No Action Required
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD
STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
City/District Manager and Council/EMID Board Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council/EMID Board requests for scheduling future items.
ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.
Any attendee wishing a reasonable accommodation at the meeting based on disability should contact the City Clerk’s Department at (650) 286-3250 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to ensure availability; requests made with less notice will still be considered, and the City will provide the requested accommodation or an effective alternative when feasible. The City has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolving any doubt in favor of accessibility. That procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation is available at the City Clerk’s Office. All meetings are conducted in a manner consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.
For City Council meetings, members of the public who wish to provide or receive language interpretation during the meeting using their own interpreter, another member of the public, or commercially available interpretation services may request reasonable assistance from the City Clerk Department at (650) 286-3250 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Reasonable assistance may include arranging space for an interpreter, allowing additional time for interpretation, or helping participants use personal equipment or reasonably access available facilities for interpretation services, provided the interpretation does not disrupt the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council or EMID Board regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda packet was distributed will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk Department at City Hall located at 610 Foster City Boulevard during normal business hours and at the meeting.
City Council meetings live and on-demand:
https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes; https://www.youtube.com/@CityofFosterCity https://www.fostercity.org/fctv (live only)
City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99: LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month; REPLAY next day at 1:00 pm (that week only) and Saturday at 5:00 pm (only on Saturday the week the actual meeting occurs)
11. 12.
Item 4.1
CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2026
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Regular Meeting of September 21, 2026 of the City Council of the City of Foster City, sitting as said Council and as ex officio the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, San Mateo County, California, by Mayor/President Art Kiesel.
This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.
ROLL CALL
The Communications Director/City Clerk/District Secretary called the roll:
PRESENT: Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Stacy Jimenez, Suzy Niederhofer, Patrick Sullivan, Phoebe Venkat, and Mayor/President Art Kiesel.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager; Benjamin Stock, City Attorney/District Legal Counsel; Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager; Sofia Mangalam, Deputy City Manager; Diane Pitman, Administrative Services Director; Thai-Chau Le, Interim Community Development Director; Nate Cruz, Finance Director; Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director; Cory Call, Police Chief; Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director; Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager; Frank Fanara, Parks Manager; Rob Lasky, IT Manager; Alexis Garcia-Dawson, Deputy City Clerk; Ryan
Michelsen, Video Technician; and Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk/District Secretary.
PUBLIC
The following people addressed the City Council in person:
1. Lois Freid, poet, shared a poem for Spinnaker Cove;
2. Stan Shimizu, regarding an environmental impact assessment for 815 Sea Spray Lane; and
Item 6.1
3. Jack Williams, representing the U.S Small Business Administration Office of Disaster Recovery, regarding disaster assistance to those affected by the Sea Spray Lane fire.
NEW BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT OF FIFTEEN MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-091. TAKEN OUT OF AGENDA ORDER.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Kiesel took this item out of agenda order.
Recreation Coordinator Koval Dietzman presented the staff report and introduced the members of the Youth Advisory Committee.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, seconded by Councilmember Venkat, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2026-091, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the Appointment of Fifteen Members to the Youth Advisory Committee.”
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Councilmember/Director Jimenez, seconded by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, approving the following items on the City/District Consent Calendar:
City/EMID Consent Calendar
1. City/EMID Regular Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2026;
2. City Resolution No. 2026-092, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the Established List of Five (5) Qualified Consultants to Provide Economic and Fiscal Analysis for Professional On-Call Services for Planning Division of the Community Development Department (CDD), Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Master Professional Services Agreement With Each Consultant on the List (DTA, Willdan Financial Services, BAE Urban Economics, Harris and Associates, and Economic and Planning Systems) With No Compensation Maximum for a Term of Five (5) Years, and Finding the Approval of the On-Call List and Master Professional Services Agreements Exempt Under CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3);”
3. City Resolution No. 2026-093, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Contract Amendment No. 3 to the Vendor Services Agreement With Julio’s Cleaning and Maintenance Services, Dated September 3, 2024, to Remove Janitorial Services for the Temporary Modular Recreation Center Facilities From the Scope of Work, Reducing the Annual Contract Amount by $16,686, From $306,347 to $289,661; And Finding Item 6.1
That Approval of the Amendment Is Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3);”
4. City Resolution No. 2026-094, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving and Adopting the Amended Pay Plan for Fiscal Year 2026- 2027, Effective September 9, 2026;”
5. EMID Resolution No. 3867, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Approving and Adopting the Pay Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2027, Effective September 9, 2026;”
6. City Resolution No. 2026-095,”A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the Appendix Dated September 21, 2026 to Update the Designated Positions in the Conflict of Interest Code and to Confirm the Designated Positions Required to Participate in AB 1234 Ethics Training;”
7. EMID Resolution No. 3868, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Approving the Appendix Dated September 21, 2026 to Update the Designated Positions in the Conflict of Interest Code and to Confirm the Designated Positions Required to Participate in AB 1234 Ethics Training”; and
8. EMID Resolution No. 3869, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Accepting the Work by Patriot Environmental Services for the Removal of the Underground Storage Tank as Part of the Emergency Generator Replacement Project (CIP 455-705) and Directing the District Secretary to File the Notice of Completion.”
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY (ASA) BUS PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AND THE SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,478 FOR THE 2026-2027 SCHOOL YEAR. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-096.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Kiesel removed this item from the Consent Calendar for public comment.
Fred Baer addressed the City Council in person.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Venkat, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2026-096, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving the After School Activity (ASA) Bus Program Funding Agreement Between the City of Foster City and the San Mateo Union High School District for a Contribution in the Amount of $23,478 to Fund the ASA Bus Program for the 2026-2027 School Year, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Funding Agreement, and Authorizing an Appropriation in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $23,478 to Item 6.1
the Community Benefits Program Fund, Account No. 005-0110-413-4251, to Fund the Contribution.”
LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR EARLY EDUCATION SERVICES, CERAMICS STUDIO OPERATIONS, AND CAFÉ OPERATIONS AT THE FOSTER CITY COMMUNITY CENTER. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-097. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-098. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Kiesel removed this item from the Consent Calendar at the request of staff.
Parks and Recreation Director Schweigart and Recreation Manager Oren presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2026-097, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a License Agreement With Bright Minds Collective LLC Dba Bright Horizon Chinese School for Early Education Services at the Foster City Community Center,” City Resolution No. 2026-098, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a License Agreement With Clayroom San Mateo LLC for Ceramics Studio Operations at the Foster City Community Center,” and City Resolution No. 2026-099, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a License Agreement With Kaizen Commons, LLC Dba Kaizen & Coffee for Café Operations at the Foster City Community Center,” with revisions to change the name of the vendor to “Kaizen Commons, LLC dba Kaizen & Coffee” and include that at the beginning on the first anniversary of the Commencement Date of the agreement and annually thereafter, the monthly minimum License Fee shall increase by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area.
REPORTS
DRAFT REPORT FOR REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC MARKET ANALYSIS. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2092.
Deputy City Manager Mangalam introduced Ken Hira, President of Kosmont Companies, who presented the report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Jimenez, seconded by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2092, receiving and accepting the Draft report for Real Estate Economic Market Analysis.
Item 6.1
INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN – FIRST YEAR IMPLEMENTATION ANNUAL REPORT. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2093.
Parks Manager Fanara introduced Dan Biteman, representing Wildlife Innovations, Inc., who presented the report.
Andrew Roy addressed the City Council via email.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Sullivan, seconded by Vice Mayor Niederhofer, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting Minute Order No. 2093, receiving and accepting the Integrated Adaptive Canada Goose Management Plan – First Year Implementation Annual Report.
RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION
PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY BY THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY RELATED TO THE 815 SEA SPRAY LANE STRUCTURE FIRE. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-100.
City Manager Chatwin presented the staff report.
Bridget Michelsen addressed the City Council in person.
Meenakshi Tripathi addressed the City Council via teleconference.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Venkat, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2026-100, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Ratifying the Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency by the City Manager of the City of Foster City Related to the 815 Sea Spray Lane Structure Fire.”
COMMUNICATIONS
CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.
City/District Warrant of Demands were Processed and Issued on August 27, 2026.
CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS, COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND
REQUESTS, AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
City/District Manager Chatwin shared that staff is preparing a report on the upcoming 2026-2027 winter storm season, and the item will be brought forth to Council at the Item 6.1
October 5, 2026 meeting. He encouraged residents to visit the www.fostercity.org/winterstorm to learn more about winter storm preparation.
Councilmember/Director Jimenez thanked staff for organizing the Donor Appreciation Event on September 17 and the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on September 19 for the new Community Center. She attended the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Board meeting on September 16. On September 20, she attended the Annual Community Bike Ride.
Vice Mayor/Vice President Niederhofer thanked staff for installing curb extensions along Beach Park Boulevard near Bowditch Middle School. On September 15, she attended the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Badge Pinning Ceremony and the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the opening of the Ronald C. Wornick Jewish Day School’s renovated spaces. She expressed appreciation to staff for organizing the Donor Appreciation and Ribbon Cutting events for the new Community Center.
Councilmember/Director Sullivan shared he will be attending the League of California Cities Annual Conference from September 22-25.
Councilmember/Director Venkat stated she attended the San Mateo Consolidated Firefighters’ Association annual Chili Cook Off event on September 12. She attended the Commute.org Board meeting on September 17. She wished everyone a Happy International Day of Peace and Yom Koppur.
Mayor/President Kiesel stated he attended the San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority Governing Board meeting on September 14, where they approved the final FY 2026-2027 budget. He attended the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Badge Pinning Ceremony and the Ronald C. Wornick Jewish Day School Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on September 15. On September 17, he attended the Donor Appreciation Event and the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Community Center on September 19. He announced he will be attending the League of California Cities Annual Conference from September 22-25.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Kiesel adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Item 6.1
DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Deputy City Manager
Thai-Chau Le, Interim Community Development Director
Nori Jabba, Housing and Sustainability Manager
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Affordable MultiFamily Rental Development
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution: (a) authorizing the issuance of a 2026-2027 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Affordable MultiFamily Rental Development (Attachment 2); (b) approving a supplemental appropriation of $5,850,000 from the Commercial Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137) to Account No.137- 0847-419-42-51; (c) authorizing the City Manager or their designee to make amendments to NOFA guidelines; and find the action exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Housing Element 2023-31 identifies the community’s housing needs, states the community’s goals and objectives for housing production, rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation to meet those needs, and defines the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives. It includes seven (7) goals, 37 policies, and 106 programs to be implemented over an 8-year period.
Item 6.2
Government Code Section 65400 requires each jurisdiction to prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR) on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element. Each jurisdiction’s APR must be submitted to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year.)
H-A-5-e: NOFAs for Affordable Housing. Develop a funding program and outline criteria and objectives for affordable housing developers to apply for Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) funded by the City’s Affordable Housing Funds.
Timeframe: Biannually beginning in 2024.
On September 3, 2024, the City Council authorized application for and receipt of 2024 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF) and approved specific underwriting guidelines for the three (3) loan programs, including Below Market Rate (BMR) Multifamily Rental Development Loan Program (Loan Program) for the implementation of the Housing Element programs.
Additionally, the City Council approved the transfer of $4,675,000 from Fund 137 to Fund 145 as matching funds for LHTF applications. However, in late 2025, staff learned that the City was not awarded funding.
In order to stay on track for the timely implementation of the Housing Element program stated above, staff has prepared a NOFA for the Affordable Multi-Family Rental Development (Attachment 2) and seeks authorization from the City Council for the issuance of a 2026-2027 NOFA. As of September 23, 2026, there is approximately $8,846,468.43 in Fund 137, and staff is recommending that $5,850,000 be made available for the NOFA program.
Staff is also seeking approval to authorize the City Manager or their designee to make amendments to 2026-2027 NOFA guidelines, as needed, provided such amendments remain consistent with the Housing Element objectives and applicable Fund 137 requirements.
BACKGROUND
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
A Notice of Funding Availability, or NOFA, is a document issued to announce the availability of grant or funding opportunities. The NOFA outlines the purpose of the funding, eligibility requirements, application procedures, and deadlines. NOFAs are used to solicit proposals for projects that align with the funding agency's goals and priorities.
History of the Development NOFA Program
On July 9, 2024, the HCD issued a NOFA for the 2024 Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program for $53 million in matching grants to established LHTFs. LHTF Program Item 6.2
requirements included that the funds be used to provide construction loans and/or permanent financing loans to pay for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing projects, emergency shelters, transitional housing, or affordable homebuyer/homeowner projects as well as to construct, convert, rehabilitate, and/or repair Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or Junior ADUs (JADUs). Subsequently, staff prepared the application and loan programs outline for the implementation of three (3) Housing Element programs for HCD LHTF NOFA, including:
• H-A-5-e: NOFAs for Affordable Housing
• H-D-4-b: ADU/JADU Financial Incentive Program
• H-B-2-a: Lower-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans
On September 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the application for the HCD NOFA and approved the Foster City LHTF specific underwriting guidelines for the three (3) loan programs noted above, including transfer of funds from Fund 137 to LHTF (Fund 145 as matching funds, contingent upon the City being awarded the HCD LHTF funding; and in the event that the grant is not awarded, approve the use of funds from Fund 137) and authorize the City Manager or his designee to make amendments to loan programs as needed, including loan amounts, and other amendments as needed for the implementation of the three (3) Housing Element programs.
The guidelines for the 2024 Loan Program were provided by HCD and required as part of the City’s LHTF NOFA funding application. The 2024 program guidelines were comprised of the Uniform Multifamily Regulations for all development projects and requirements set forth in the Local Housing Trust Fund Program Final 2020 Guidelines.
Since the grant was not awarded to the City, staff revisited the 2024 Loan Program guidelines for the preparation of the 2026-2027 NOFA. Staff applied the following objectives for revisions to the 2024 Loan Program guidelines and requirements for the 2026-2027 NOFA:
• Maximize the amount of funding to be provided through the NOFA while reserving adequate funding for other Housing Element programs.
• Provide flexibility to developers regarding site control status to encourage developers to apply even if they are in the early stages of the development process.
• Provide incentives for proposals that support other programs listed in the Housing Element, such as housing for special needs, accessible housing, and multi-family ADUs.
• Provide additional incentives for non-profit developers to promote 100% affordable projects.
• Clarify that inclusionary project proposals should align with the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program.
Item 6.2
• Provide incentives based on the number of units to maximize the number of units proposed.
The 2026-2027 NOFA retains most elements of the 2024 Loan Program guidelines, including continued use of the Uniform Multifamily Regulations and focus on rental housing. However, certain provisions of the 2024 Loan Program guidelines have been revised or added to meet the objectives listed above. The revisions have been discussed in detail in the Analysis section below.
Commercial Linkage Fee (Fund 137)
In 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance 606, establishing Chapter 17.88, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. This fee provides a mechanism for new commercial development to pay a fee to offset the impacts of the development on the need for affordable housing.
In recent times, the City Council has approved the following appropriations from this fund for implementation of various Housing Element programs, including:
• December 2025 - $861,750 for Home Rehabilitation Program • December 2025 - $17,500 for Minor Home Repair Program • May 2026 - $1,160,510 for the Affordable ADU Loan Program In 2024, the City Council approved H-A-5-e: NOFAs for Affordable Housing, City Council approved transfer of $4,675,000 from Fund 137 to Fund 145 as matching funds for LHTF applications, including $2,925,000 for the 2024 Loan Program. At the time, the total available funding for the program was $5,850,000, including $2,925,000 from HCD LHTF and $2,925,000 from City Fund 137.
Staff is requesting $5,850,000 for the City NOFA program consistent with the 2024 Loan Program.
As of September 23, 2026, there is fund balance of $8,846,468.43 and staff is anticipating $1.5M from Chess Hatch Phase I project to be added to this fund.
ANALYSIS
Revisions to the 2024 Program
The 2024 Loan Program guidelines provided construction or permanent loans to nonprofit or for-profit developers for new multi-family rental construction or rehabilitation projects with rent and income restrictions of at least 30% of units as extremely low-income units (<30% of Area Median Income (AMI)) and the remainder at low income of less than 60% of AMI. The maximum loan amount was $5,850,000 including the anticipated matching funds to be awarded by HCD through the LHTF NOFA. The 2024 Loan Program guidelines required the use of the Uniform Multifamily Regulations as the loan guidelines, underwriting standards, and procedures for approving and managing loans. The Item 6.2
guidelines provided incentives for deeper affordability and readiness; loan interest rates were 3% for market-rate developers and 1.5% for nonprofit developers.
The City’s 2026-2027 NOFA incorporates the 2024 Loan Program guidelines and includes three (3) primary revisions:
a) Revisions to Required Affordability Allocations
The 2024 Loan Program affordability allocation of 30% or more of the proposed development at extremely low-income level and the remaining units at 60% of AMI remains the same for 100% affordable projects and is a typical allocation for 100% affordable projects. However, for inclusionary BMR units, staff has revised the program guidelines to align with the affordability provisions specified in the Foster City Municipal Code, Chapter 17.90, which requires 10% of units to be very low income (<50% of AMI), 5% to be low income (<80% of AMI), and 5% to be moderate income (<120% of AMI).
b) Revisions to the Types of Projects Allowed Under the NOFA The 2024 Loan Program included both rehabilitation and new development projects. However, to support progress toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets, staff changed the guidelines to allow for new development projects only. However, if no proposals are received by December 31, 2027, upon authorization from the City Manager, staff may elect to revise the NOFA guidelines to also include rehabilitation projects.
The 2026-2027 NOFA has the opportunity to help the City in achieving its RHNA targets for very low-, low-, and moderate-income units by offering low interest loans to developers for qualifying projects.
c) Revisions to Scoring Proposals
The 2024 Loan Program scoring criteria were provided by HCD. For the 2026 program, staff developed a scoring program that includes elements from the 2024 program but also provides additional points for proposals that support one or more of 11 additional programs in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, including:
1. Multi-family ADUs (H-D-4-g, page HE-95)
2. ADUs in religious, institutional, or school sites (H-D-4-j, page HE-96)
3. ADUs in Religious and Institutional Uses and School Sites (H-D-4-j, Page HE-96
4. Residential uses on school sites (H-D-5-a, page HE-96)
5. Residential uses on Religious and Nonprofit-owned Sites (H-D-5-b, page HE-97)
6. Family Friendly Housing units of three (3) or more bedrooms (H-E-9-a, page HE-103)
Item 6.2
7. Small housing units of less than 500 square feet (H-E-9-b, page HE-103)
8. Facilities and Services for Special Needs (H-F-1-a, Page HE-105)
9. Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled (H-F-1-c, Page HE-106)
10.Extremely low Income Units for Special Needs (H-F-1-g, Page HE-107)
11.Supportive Housing (H-F-3-b, Page HE-109)
Attachment 3 includes a Table showing the comparison of guidelines for the 2024 Loan Program and 2026-2027 NOFA. The 2026-2027 Development NOFA includes a scoring rubric for proposals with a base score and a unit score. The maximum base score is 100 with additional points for units and units that meet preference criteria. Proposals must have a minimum base score of 70 points and a minimum of 16-unit points to be considered for an award.
NOFA process
1. Dedicated NOFA Webpage: Staff will create a dedicated webpage on the City’s website to provide information about the NOFA, including funding availability, eligibility requirements, application guidelines, deadlines, and submission requirements.
2. NOFA Posting and Outreach: Post the NOFA on the dedicated webpage and conduct advertising and outreach to potential developers to inform of the funding opportunity. Staff will also hold an informational meeting for interested parties on as needed basis.
3. Preliminary Application Submission and Review: Interested developers will be required to submit a preliminary application form
(https://forms.office.com/g/JBwaCF4tfi) at least ten (10) business days prior to submitting a final application. The preliminary application will enable staff to determine basic eligibility, project readiness and verify funding availability.
4. Full Application Submission: Eligible applicants will submit a complete application with the required supporting documents.
5. Staff Review: Staff will review the applications in the order received, verify compliance with and score applications based on the criteria. Staff will use the evaluation criteria for recommendations to the City Council.
6. City Council Review: Staff will present eligible applications and staff’s recommendations to the City Council on a semiannual basis, rather than bringing each application individually for consideration and approval of the award. However, if an eligible applicant has a time-sensitive project or funding need, staff may bring the application at a regular scheduled meeting outside the semiannual cycle. If no applications are ready for Council’s consideration, no NOFA-related item will be scheduled for City Council meeting.
7. Award Administration: Following City Council approval, staff will notify successful applicants, finalize funding agreements and coordinate disbursements of awarded funds on accordance with NOFA requirements. Staff will monitor project progress, ensure compliance with funding conditions, review documentation and oversee project closeout.
Item 6.2
Staff intends to pursue additional funding opportunities to increase the total funds available for the NOFA, such as an HCD NOFA (state or federal) and/or the County of San Mateo’s Winter NOFA. It shall be noted that the Uniform Multifamily Regulations (UMR) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 25, Section 8300 et seq.), effective November 15, 2017 apply to HCD multifamily housing loans, and the 2026-27 NOFA program guidelines may need to be revised to align with these NOFA opportunities.
As this is the first time staff will be implementing this process, the 2026-2027 NOFA guidelines and process may need amendments to improve program implementation, respond to funding sources guidelines, and address unforeseen circumstances.
Staff is requesting approval of the issuance of a 2026-2027 NOFA and $5,850,000 from Fund 137 for the NOFA program. In the event that an eligible application requests funding in excess of the available allocation, or if there is a funding shortfall, staff will present the application for consideration along with a request for supplemental appropriation.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The proposed use of funds does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065. Thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is requesting a supplemental appropriation of $5,850,000 for City NOFA program consistent with the 2024 Loan Program. As of September 23, 2026, there is fund balance of $8,846,468.43 and staff is anticipating an increase of $1.5M from Chess Hatch Phase I project to this fund.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental Development NOFA Attachment 3 - Summary of Revisions to Program Guidelines Item 6.2
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A 2026-2027 NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (NOFA) FOR THE AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT; APPROVING AN APPROPRIATION OF $5,850,000 FROM THE COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE FUND (FUND 137) TO ACCOUNT NO. 137-0847-419-42-51;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR ITS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO NOFA GUIDELINES; AND FINDING THE REQUEST EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3).
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is an integral part of the Foster City General Plan that identifies the City’s housing needs, states the City’s goals and objectives regarding housing production, rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation to meet those needs, and defines the policies and programs; and WHERAS, Government Code Section 65400 requires each jurisdiction to prepare an annual progress report (APR), due to the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) by April 1, on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element program H-A-5-e requires the City to develop a funding program and outline criteria and objectives for affordable housing developers to apply for NOFA funded by the City’s Affordable Housing Funds.; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a NOFA for the Affordable Multi-Family Rental Development; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting authorization for the issuance of a 2026-2027 NOFA and appropriation of $5,850,000 from the Commercial Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137) to Account No.137-0847-419-42-51; and
WHEREAS, staff is also seeking approval to authorize the City Manager or its designee to make amendments to NOFA guidelines, as needed, provided such amendments remain consistent with the Housing Element objectives and applicable Fund 137 requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby:
1. Approve the issuance of a 2026-2027 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Affordable Multi-Family Rental Development;
2. Approve an appropriation of $5,850,000 from the Commercial Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137) to Account No.137-0847-419-42-51;
Item 6.2
3. Authorize the City Manager to make amendments to NOFA guidelines, as needed, provided such amendments remain consistent with the Housing Element objectives and applicable Fund 137 requirements.
4. Find the request exempt from the CEQA pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15061(b)(3).
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on October 4, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_______________________
ART KIESEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 1
NOTICE OF FUNDING
AVAILABILITY
Multifamily Residential
Rental Development
Contact:
Nori Jabba
Housing and Sustainability Manager
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 2 City of Foster City Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA)
Multifamily Residential Rental Development
• Release Date: TBD
• Applications Due: Applications will be accepted through December 31, 2027, subject to the availability of funds.
How to Apply
Please submit a preliminary application form at least 10 business days prior to submitting your final application: https://forms.office.com/g/JBwaCF4tfi. The preliminary application will allow staff to verify funding available.
Please submit an electronic version of your final application via email to:
[email protected]
Subject Line: (your business name) – 2026-2027 Foster City Development NOFA Proposal
Questions/Comments Submitted to:
Nori Jabba, Housing & Sustainability Manager
Email: [email protected]
(650) 286-3230
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 3 Table of Contents
Contents
1. SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................4
2. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................4
3. GENERAL FUNDING PROVISIONS.......................................................................................6
4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................10
5. FUNDING SOURCES FOR THIS NOFA...............................................................................11
6. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................11
7. GENERAL CONDITIONS......................................................................................................12
8. TENTATIVE TIMELINE .........................................................................................................12
9. RELATED DOCUMENT LINKS.............................................................................................13
10. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................................13
11. DEVELOPER SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS ......................................................17
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF FUNDING AWARDS.....................................................21
13. QUESTIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT NOFA ...........21 EXHIBIT A: NOFA CHECKLIST..................................................................................................22 EXHIBIT B: PROGRAM AND UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES..................................................23 EXHIBIT C: SAMPLE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS..............................................................28
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 4 City of Foster City
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT NOFA
1. SUMMARY
The City of Foster City has funding of approximately $5,850,000 for affordable housing development available between the date of issuance of this Multifamily Residential Rental Development NOFA (“Development NOFA” or “NOFA”) and December 31, 2027, provided funding remains available. Funding is available as low-interest loans for development of new below market rate (BMR) multifamily rental housing. BMR housing includes moderate- and lower-income units.
Market-rate development projects with inclusionary BMR units as well as 100% affordable development projects are eligible for funding. However, funds awarded under this development NOFA must be used exclusively to fund BMR units. Interest rates for loans are one point five percent (1.5%) for nonprofit applicants and three percent (3%) for market rate developer applicants. All awards are subject to approval by the City Council.
This program implements Housing Element Program H-A-5-e, NOFAs for Affordable Housing (page HE-83).
H-A-5-e, NOFAs for Affordable Housing. Develop a funding program and outline criteria and objectives for affordable housing developers to apply for Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) funded by the City’s Affordable Housing Funds.
Funding is from the City’s Affordable Housing – Commercial Linkage Fee Fund 137.
The goal of this Development NOFA is to maximize development of new BMR rental housing in Foster City as part of the implementation of the City’s Housing Element and to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment target for the 2023-2031 planning cycle.
The Development NOFA has a rolling deadline. Applications will be accepted any time before June 30, 2027, provided funding remains available.
2. BACKGROUND
Incorporated in 1971, the City of Foster City is a planned community in San Mateo County, California. Foster City is a General Law City with a Council-Manager form of government. It is approximately four square miles, located about 25 miles south of San Francisco and 30 miles north of Silicon Valley and has easy access from Highway 101 and Highway 92.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 5 Foster City is a culturally diverse community of roughly 33,000 residents. It has limited space for growth in both residential and commercial areas. The developed portion of Foster City is protected from flooding by an approximately 43,000-linear-foot (8-mile) levee system that surrounds the City along the bayfront and an interior lagoon that serves as a drainage detention basin.
Location
Foster City is located midway between San Francisco and San Jose on the western shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, east of U.S. 101, which provides convenient access to the San Francisco Airport and San Francisco to the north and Santa Clara County to the south. The City is bisected by State Route 92 (the J. Arthur Younger Freeway), which runs between Half Moon Bay to the west and Highway 880 to the east via the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. The City encompasses 12,345 acres, of which 9,726 acres are part of San Francisco Bay and Belmont Slough, and 2,619 acres are land area.
History
Foster City began as reclaimed marshlands devoted to dairy farming and evaporation ponds. At the turn of the 20th century, the approximately 2,600 acres of tidal marshes now occupied by Foster City were owned by Frank Brewer and called Brewer Island.
Brewer eventually sold his land to the Leslie Salt Company and Schilling Estate Company. During the late 1950’s, T. Jack Foster, in association with Bay Area developer Richard Grant, purchased an option to acquire Brewer Island for the development of a complete community. In 1960, the California Legislature created the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), the state’s first such public agency.
The District was granted most of the governing powers associated with an incorporated municipality, except the powers to zone and approve development and certain police powers. A board of three directors representing the two landowners governed the District. Because San Mateo County retained the authority to approve development permits, T. Jack Foster prepared a master plan for the development of Brewer Island, which later became Foster City, and submitted it to the County in 1961.
The plan envisioned a self-contained community with a variety of housing types, waterfront lots and parks, an internal lagoon for drainage and public recreation, marinas, offices, stores, industry, and public services.
Foster City was virtually undeveloped in 1961 but experienced major growth in the 1970s and grew at a slower pace during the 1980s and 1990s. The original Master Plan estimated a population of 35,000 at buildout. The City’s population was determined to be 33,805 by the 2020 US Census. The most recent estimate by the California Department of Finance is 32,658 as of January 1, 2025.
For a detailed history of Foster City, see City of Foster City's FY 2026-27 & FY 2027- 28 Budget Page 22.
Housing Overview
As of January 1, 2025, the City had 13,811 housing units. The housing stock of Foster Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 6 City is aging, with 85% of units built between 1960 and 1999. In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings.
In Foster City, 38% of housing units are in complexes of five or more units, 35% are detached single-family homes, and 20% are attached single-family homes. Buildings of two to four units comprise just 7% of all housing units. In addition, the number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is beginning to increase due to recent state regulations that make building ADUs easier for homeowners. ADUs will create more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.
In the last fifteen years, Foster City has seen the development of several large apartment buildings and commercial development, including Foster Square, a mixeduse commercial project that includes 155 assisted living units (including 24 memory care units), 66 BMR apartments and 200 for-sale units along with up to 35,000 square feet of commercial, and the Pilgrim-Triton developments that included The Plaza, The Triton, 100 Grand, Laguna Vista, and 501 Pilgrim Drive, the 22-unit workforce housing development purchased by the City in 2022. In all, the Pilgrim Triton developments have provided 805 new housing units, of which 163 are below-market-rate units. The City’s workforce housing development includes eight rent-restricted units, and 14- income and rent-restricted units. The workforce housing units have a preference priority for first responders and city employees, and two of the units are fully accessible for those with disabilities. In total, the City of Foster City has 426 BMR rental units and seven (7) BMR owner-occupied units. With the adoption of the Housing Element in May 2023, which covers the period of 2023 – 2031, the number of housing units in the City of Foster City is expected to grow, and the City anticipates growth in the number of ADUs due to streamlining in state regulations. In addition, the City anticipates an increase in the rehabilitation of older units as the bulk of the housing stock continues to age. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment calls for the addition of 1,896 new housing units between 2023 and 2031.
See the 2025 Annual Report | Foster City, CA for more information about the City of Foster City.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 7
3. GENERAL FUNDING PROVISIONS
While this NOFA applies only to development of new affordable rental multifamily units, the City may re-issue this NOFA or issue a future NOFA that includes rehabilitation, preservation, conversion, or owner-occupied BMR development projects.
The City will provide funds in the form of low-interest loans for development projects of below market rate multifamily units in Foster City. While inclusionary market rate development projects may receive funding under this NOFA, funding provided by the City under this Development NOFA must be used exclusively for BMR units. Projects may consist of the following types of development.
a) New development of 10 or more multifamily market rate rental units with inclusionary BMR units; or 100% affordable rental multifamily projects of 10 or more units.
b) Expansion of an existing development of market rate multifamily rental units with inclusionary below market rate units, resulting in 10 or more units; or expansion of a 100% affordable development resulting in 10 or more units. c) Development of 10 or more multifamily or institutional/religious ADU projects with inclusionary below market rate units, or 100% affordable units.
Affordability Allocations
For market rate projects with inclusionary BMR units, at least 20% of units must be affordable units, as specified in Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 17.90.040. The current allocation of affordability is 10% very low income (<50% AMI), five percent (5%) low income (<80% AMI), and five percent (5%) moderate income (<120% AMI).
For projects in which the required percentage of BMR units results in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
For 100% affordable projects, at least 30% of units shall be very low income (<50% AMI) and the remainder shall be lower income (<60% AMI).
Provisions Regarding Loans
Interest rates for loans are one point five percent (1.5%) for nonprofit applicants and three percent (3%) for market rate developer applicants. All awards are subject to approval by the City Council.
Exclusions
Projects of fewer than 10 total units are not eligible.
Leveraging Funds
The City intends to apply for additional funding NOFAs to leverage funds made available through this Development NOFA, such as an HCD NOFA (state or federal) and/or the County of San Mateo’s Winter NOFA, if funding opportunities are available. Respondents should note that The Uniform Multifamily Regulations Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 8 (UMR) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 25, Section 8300 et seq.), effective November 15, 2017 apply to HCD multifamily housing loans, and NOFA program guidelines may differ from this Development NOFA ’s program guidelines and additional funding, if awarded, would be subject to the subsequent NOFA program guidelines.
Use of Funds for this Development NOFA
Funds for this Development NOFA may be used for the following purposes for new development projects:
o Predevelopment activities
o Construction
Preferences for Proposals for this Development NOFA
Proposals from nonprofit organizations and those building the following types of units will receive a preference in scoring:
• Supportive or special needs housing, especially for extremely low-income households
• Accessible or adaptable units
• Small units of less than 500 square feet
• Family friendly units of three (3) or more bedrooms
• Multi-family ADUs
• ADUs in religious, institutional, or school sites
The above-listed preferences support the following Housing Element Programs:
1. H-D-4-g, Multi-Family ADUs (Page HE-95)
2. H-D-4-j, ADUs and JADUs in Religious and Institutional Uses and School Sites, (HE-Page 96)
3. H-E-9-a, Family Friendly Housing (Page HE-103)
4. H-E-9-b Small Housing Units (Page HE-103)
5. H-F-1-a, Facilities and Services for Special Needs (Page HE-105)
6. H-F-1-C, Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled (Page HE-106)
7. H-F-1-g, Extremely low Income Units for Special Needs (Page HE-107)
8. H-F-3-b, Supportive Housing (Page HE-109)
Preferences for Occupancy of Below Market Rate Units
For BMR rental units, the City uses standard preferences for occupancy of BMR units:
Table 3. Foster City – Standard Preferences
Category Preference
1a Persons who are currently living in a BMR, deed-restricted unit in Foster City and have been so for at least 12 months, whose unit is subject to termination of affordability restrictions within three (3) years.
1 Persons who live and work in Foster City.
2 Persons who live in Foster City.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 9 3 Employees of the City of Foster City.
4 Classroom teachers who are employees of the San Mateo-Foster City School District, the San Mateo Union High School District, or the San Mateo County Community College District
5 Persons who work in Foster City
The City of Foster City reserves the right to change or modify these preferences in the future by City Council resolution, or as may be required by state law.
RHNA Targets, 2023-2031
The City of Foster City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Cycle and progress to date are shown in tables 4 and 5.
Table 4. RHNA Targets, 2023-2031
VERY LOW
<50% AMI
LOW
<80% AMI
MODERATE
<120% AMI
ABOVE
MODERATE
>120% AMI
TOTAL
UNITS
520 299 300 777 1,896
Table 5. Progress Toward RHNA Targets, 2023-2031 (as of 7/1/2026)
VERY LOW
<50% AMI
LOW
<80% AMI
MODERATE
<120% AMI
ABOVE
MODERATE
>120% AMI
TOTAL
UNITS
11 14 11 37 73
Project Location(s)
It is incumbent on the applicant to identify a site for development or redevelopment.
Links to the zoning map, affordable housing map, and opportunity sites map included in the City of Foster City’s Housing Element are attached as part of this Development NOFA below in Section 6. Proposed projects must be located within the boundaries of the City of Foster City. Applicants with full site control will receive a preference in scoring of the proposal. Applicants without full site control must be able to obtain site control within one (1) year of the Development NOFA application date and site control must be obtained prior to applying for subsequent matching funds. Approval of funds is conditioned on site control within the required one (1) year period; in the event applicants are not able to secure site control, funds will be reallocated.
Zoning
The project site must be properly zoned for the project.
Use of State Density Bonus
Developers may use the State Density Bonus law.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 10 CEQA Exemptions
Developers may use any applicable CEQA exemptions.
Income Limits
Income limits for occupants of affordable units shall be based on income limits as issued by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) in effect on the date that the household moves into the unit. Rental rates maximums shall be calculated for affordable units in effect on the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the development. Foster City uses the current year’s income limits from July 1 to June 30 of each year. Income Limits for July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, for the City of Foster City are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. HCD INCOME LIMITS 2026 – valid July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027 Affordability 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people 30% Extremely Low $44,150 $50,450 $56,750 $63,050 $68,100 $73,150 50% Very Low $73,550 $84,050 $94,550 $105,050 $113,500 $121,900 80% Low $117,700 $134,500 $151,300 $168,100 $181,550 $195,000 100% Median $140,050 $160,650 $180,700 $200,800 $216,850 $232,950 120% Moderate $168,650 $192,750 $216,850 $240,950 $260,250 $279,500 Rent Calculations
For rent calculations, developers should use 30% of AMI for extremely low-income units, 50% of AMI for very low-income units, 60% (50% income limits multiplied by
1.2) for low-income units, and 110% (100% income limits multiplied by 1.10) for moderate income units. Household size adjustments are one (1) person for a studio or junior one-bedroom apartment, two (2) people for a one-bedroom apartment, three (3) people for a two-bedroom apartment, and four (4) people for a three-bedroom apartment (er California Health and Safety Code Sections 50093, 50053, 50052.5, as may be amended, with adjustments for household size). A utility allowance must be applied. The City uses the San Mateo County Utility Allowance Schedule. If sewer charges are billed to tenants, an allowance for sewer must be estimated and included in the Utility Allowance, along with any other mandated charges. Utility Allowance schedules for Foster City are in effect July 1 to the following June 30 of each year.
For developers that will also be applying for state tax credits, the City will honor the income limits and effective dates issued by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for units to be proposed with tax credit financing. Rents will be restricted to the lesser of those calculated using HCD income limits and household size adjustments or TCAC rent limits.
4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
a) The project type is one of the following:
a. New development of 10 or more multifamily market rate rental units with inclusionary BMR units; or 100% affordable projects of 10 or more units.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 11 b. Expansion of an existing development of market rate multifamily rental units with inclusionary BMR units, resulting in 10 or more units or expansion of a 100% affordable development resulting in 10 or more units. c. New development of 10 or more multifamily or institutional/religious ADU projects with inclusionary BMR units, or 100% affordable units. b) Developer/applicant must meet all relevant local, state, and federal regulations for the project.
c) Developer may apply for additional funding with the City of Foster City if an opportunity arises.
d) Developer/applicant agrees to enter into a development or program agreement with the City for the proposed project, with terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon and final project approval by the City Council of the City of Foster City.
e) Developer must agree to all underwriting provisions unless exceptions are approved by the City Council.
f) Organization type – eligible applicants include for profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, joint ventures, joint powers authorities, or limited liability companies.
g) Experience – applicants must have demonstrated experience and capacity in the development of affordable housing. Applicants must have experience and capacity in at least three (3) projects.
h) Score – The applicant receives a base score of 70 points or more in the evaluation criteria listed in this Development NOFA.
5. FUNDING SOURCES FOR THIS NOFA
The sources of funding for this NOFA are generated by private market development through the payment of residential impact fees and/or commercial linkage fees, held in the City of Foster City’s Linkage Fee Fund (Fund 137). As such, the availability of funds may vary over time. Please contact staff at [email protected] to obtain the current funding level submitting your application. Please allow two (2) business days to obtain the amount available in the fund.
Foster City’s Linkage Fee Funds are limited to assisting with the production or rehabilitation of BMR housing units and/or the acquisition of existing at-risk units in the City. BMR housing includes moderate- and lower-income units.
6. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Preliminary application form (online form): https://forms.office.com/g/JBwaCF4tfi
2. Applications must be submitted to [email protected]. Please indicate “(your business name) - 2026-2027 Development NOFA Proposal” in the subject line.
3. Please refer to the attached Checklist (see Exhibit A) showing applicable required submittal items as specified in Section 10 of this Development NOFA
4. Required Items 1-26 as shown in Section 10 of this Development NOFA , as Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 12 applicable to the project
By submitting a Development NOFA application, each Applicant represents and warrants that its application is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Applicant has not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham application or any other person to refrain from submitting an application; and that the Applicant has not in any manner sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting an application.
7. GENERAL CONDITIONS
The City reserves the right to:
1. Reject any and all responses.
2. Negotiate with more than one developer.
3. Waive minor irregularities in a response.
4. Cancel, revise, or extend this solicitation.
5. Request additional information on any response beyond that required by this Development NOFA .
6. Modify the selection process outlined in this Development NOFA upon written notification to all respondents who have not been rejected at the time of modification.
7. Request substitution of subconsultants, if applicable.
Any such changes will be stated in an addendum to this Development NOFA Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this Development NOFA or should there be a need to clarify it, questions or comments regarding this Development NOFA may be submitted to Nori Jabba, Housing & Sustainability Manager ([email protected]) no later than June 15, 2027.
8. TENTATIVE TIMELINE
The tentative Development NOFA timeline is shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Development NOFA Timeline
NOFA ACTION DATE
NOFA issued TBD
NOFA Informational Meeting Upon request
Deadline for questions and
clarifications Within
Applications Due Rolling application deadline until December 31, 2027, provided funding remains available.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 13 How to Apply
Submit a preliminary application form at
https://forms.office.com/g/JBwaCF4tfi at least
10 business days prior to submitting your
application
Final applications must be submitted to
[email protected]
Interviews Scheduled within 30 days of application
submission
Developer selection
A staff recommendation will be prepared
within 90 days after submission of a proposal.
All selections require approval by the City
Council.
Execute Letter of Intent Within 60 days after approval by the City Council
9. RELATED DOCUMENT LINKS
The following links are provided to applicants. Please contact City staff if additional information is requested.
• Housing Element
• AB 130 - CEQA Exemption Law
• SB 131 – CEQA Exemptions
• Uniform Multi-Family Development California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 19, Section 8300 - Purpose and Scope | California Code of Regulations | Justia • LHTF HCD Program Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program | California Department of Housing and Community Development
• Zoning map
10. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Applicants should respond to this Development NOFA with a preliminary application submitted online indicating interest in applying and requesting a meeting for questions and answers prior to submitting a written application. Q&A will be posted on the City’s website on the Bids and RFP page: Bid Postings • Foster City, CA • CivicEngage. Applicants can then submit a written application by the submittal deadline that provides all required information. The application will be considered complete only when including all the items listed in Table 9, as applicable based on the type of project proposed. Required items include:
Table 9. Development NOFA Application Requirements
# Item Description
1 Title Page Include “Foster City 2026-2027 Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA” as the subject,
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 14 # Item Description
firm name, primary contact person, title, address,
telephone number, email address, and submittal
date.
2 Checklist Include the attached checklist showing which items are included and which are not applicable. See
Exhibit A.
3 Cover Letter Provide a cover letter with a statement of the Applicant’s interests, amount of funding requested,
summary of the project, number of units to be
constructed, a summary of Applicant’s
qualifications and pertinent areas of expertise, and
a description of the organization(s).
The cover letter should include a detailed list of all
persons included on the application, the full name
and address of each entity and contact person/title
for each entity. All persons with any interest in the
site and/or the project must be included. Failure to
include such parties will result in disqualification.
Any later addition of any person to the
developer/Applicant on the project must be
approved in writing by the City following a conflicts
check.
4 Conflicts of Interest
Disclosure
Applicants submitting applications in response to
this Development NOFA must disclose any actual,
apparent, direct or indirect, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist with respect to each
Applicant, its management, employees, or other
persons relative to the services to be awarded
pursuant to this Development NOFA. If an
Applicant has no conflicts of interest, a statement to
that effect shall be included in the cover letter.
5 Summary of
Proposed Project
Include type of project, site location, APN, existing
use, existing ownership, existing zoning, existing
number of market rate and BMR units, proposed
number of new units and breakdown of affordability
levels (including density bonus units), proposed
base density (before density bonus units),
overview of displacement/relocation plan, if
applicable, incomes served, occupancy status,
special populations served (if applicable),
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 15 # Item Description
commercial spaces (if any), on-site amenities,
neighborhood amenities, accessible units;
financing summary/proforma/budget and
anticipated or existing funding sources, timeline,
partnerships required to execute project,
community engagement summary, and other
relevant details, including sketches or renderings, if
available; map identifying location of projects.
6 Qualifications Provide a detailed overview of the Applicant’s experience and history in performing this type of
work in California in the last 10 years. Include a list of properties and number of units developed within
the last 10 years that include Applicant’s role,
sources, income levels served, special populations
served, and total development costs. For each
project, include key principals with contact
information.
7 Site Control Status Provide evidence or status of site control with a date that extends through the acquisition closing
(deed, purchase/option contract, lease, exclusive
negotiating agreement, Disposition and
Development Agreement) or status of site control
efforts.
8 Project Schedule Provide a project schedule listing key dates and milestones. Include information regarding turnover
of over-income tenants, if applicable, full lease-up,
including acquisition, funding applications,
inspections completed, acquisition closing, building
permits, etc.
9 Project Budget and
Cash Flow
Provide budget spreadsheets with unit mix by
bedroom type and income restriction, development
sources and uses, operating budget, 20-year cash
flow, and debt coverage ratios. Applicants should
provide the information in an Excel spreadsheet
(not a PDF) that provides substantially similar
information. Include existing rent roll if applicable,
and include lease start date, rent, and subsidy
information.
10 Project Financing Include details of any additional financing commitments or anticipated financing.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 16 # Item Description
11 Property
Management
Company
Provide a description of the existing or proposed
property management firm, including website link,
primary contact, and email. Also provide years of
experience and types of projects managed (if
applicable). Include similar information for
subconsultants you intend to use and the specific
tasks they will be performing.
12 Site Appraisal Provide an appraisal for the site dated within 60 days of the application.
13 Preliminary Title
Report
Provide a preliminary title report dated within 60
days of the application.
14 Requested Changes
to the City
Underwriting
Guidelines
List any requested revisions to the Underwriting
Guidelines. A redlined version is acceptable.
Guidelines will be provided in a Word document
upon request.
15 References Provide at least three relevant references. Include contact name, firm name, email, and telephone
number for each. Also include a brief description of
the relationship. The references must be for
projects listed under 6 Qualifications, above.
16 Financial Statements Include financial statements, audited, for the last three (3) years. Small organizations that do not
conduct audits must submit 3 years of their
financial statements (balance sheets and annual
profit and loss statements), and three most recent
years of their IRS Form 990. For individuals, 3
years of tax returns may be accepted.
17 Insurance
Certificates
Provide insurance certificates as specified in
Exhibit C and/or include a request for any changes.
18 Organization
Documents
Provide organization documents from the state,
organizational chart, non-profit status (if
applicable), and operating agreements for
partnerships.
19 Property Inspections Provide recent (last 60 days) inspection reports as applicable, depending on the project (lead,
asbestos, mold, seismic, structural) (if applicable).
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 17 # Item Description
20 Status of All Active
Planning
Applications or
Approvals
Provide application details, eTRAKiT numbers, etc.
(if applicable).
21 Operating Subsidy
Commitment
Provide details on subsidy commitments obtained
or planned (if applicable).
22 Supportive Services
Plan
Include plan and budget, including FTE, staff/client
ratios, types of onsite and offsite services,
memorandums of understanding between external
service provider, if applicable, and funding
commitment documents. (If applicable).
23 Relocation Plan Include relocation schedule, logistics, and budget (if applicable).
24 Physical Needs
Assessment/
Replacement
Reserve Analysis
include assessment/ analysis completed within six
(6) months prior to the application (if applicable).
25 Other Information Include any additional documents or materials that the applicant believes will assist the City in
evaluating the application (if applicable).
Applications should be straightforward, clear, concise, and specific to the information requested. For applications to be considered complete, the applicant must provide responses to all information requested. Submission to this Program is at the applicant’s expense and no part of the costs of preparation shall be reimbursed by the City.
Applications in whole or in part are not to be marked confidential or proprietary. The City may refuse to consider any application or part thereof so marked. Applications submitted in response to this Program may be subject to public disclosure. The City shall not be liable in any way for disclosure of any such records. Under the California Public Records Act, all documents submitted in response to this Program are considered part of the public record and will be made available to the public, upon request.
11. DEVELOPER SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS
The City will evaluate applications using the following criteria, provided funding remains available. In the event that multiple applications are received within a 30-day period, applications will be grouped for review and approval. Awards will be Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 18 proportioned based on base points and unit points.
General Evaluation Criteria
• The application must be complete.
• The funding request must be within the amount available for funding at the time of the request.
• The Applicant must meet the eligibility requirements as specified in this Development NOFA.
• All projects must meet the underwriting criteria outlined in Exhibit B, with any exceptions as noted in the application.
• Applicants with existing City loans or affordable housing covenants must be in good standing and in compliance with the City’s annual monitoring requirements. • Applicants must have site control as evidenced through a purchase and sale agreement, option, disposition and development agreement, exclusive negotiating agreement, or grant deed are acceptable forms of evidence of site control. Applicants with only an offer to purchase may be considered for funding, provided the Applicant can demonstrate that site control can be obtained within 12 months from the date of the Development NOFA application and before applying for subsequent matching funds. Final approval is contingent upon demonstrating site control as defined above.
• Requested funding must be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws. • Proposed Projects must have a total minimum project score of 86 total points, which will include a Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria base score of at least 70 points, and a unit score of at least 16 points (10 points for number of units and six (6) points for affordability).
Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria
Applications will be evaluated and scored based on compliance with the criteria shown in Table 10. Since projects are considered on a rolling basis, achievement of a particular score does not guarantee City Council approval of the Application or award of any funding, and scores among various applications that ultimately receive awards may vary.
Table 10. Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria
# Criterion Points
Base Points:
1 Organizational Capacity and Relevant Experience
The organization is well qualified to complete and operate the project, considering the years of relevant experience and the number of similar projects completed
15 2 Entity type
Nonprofit organizations receive 5 points. All others receive 0 points
5 3 Project Need 10
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 19 The project clearly addresses the housing goals and priorities listed in this Development NOFA and the City’s Housing
Element
4 Project Design and Financials
The project design is cost-effective, feasible, and conforms with the City’s Municipal Code, includes sustainability considerations, and is effective in meeting the stated goals and objectives. 10 5 Project Readiness
The project will be evaluated based on site control and financial readiness. The Applicant has additional funding in place; Applicant is ready and able to apply for other financing upon issuance of a conditional funding award; Applicant has site control.
10 6 Identified Matching Funds
Points are awarded based on the following formula for projects with identified matching funds:
• No match: 0 points
• 100% to 199% match: 5 points
• 200% or greater match: 10 points
10 7 Project Timeline
The project can deliver the units by 2031
• 100% of the proposed project – 10 points
• 51 to 99% of the proposed project – 8 points
• 26 to 50% of the proposed project – 6 points
• 1 to 25% of the proposed project – 4 points
• 0% of the proposed project – 2 points
10 8 Budget and Financial Management
Financial management points are based on clean financial audits and a strong record of financial and regulatory
compliance at other projects owned or managed by the
applicant.
15 9 Mix and Depth of Affordability
Projects meeting the 20% BMR affordability allocations as specified in Municipal Code chapter 17.90 (five percent (5%) of total project is moderate income; five percent (5%) of total project is low income; ten percent (10%) of total project is very low income) receive 10 points. Projects exceeding the above allocations receive 15 points. In the event the calculation results in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the next whole number.
15 Base Points Max 100
Unit Points:
10 Number of units to be preserved or built 10 points
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 20 (1 point for each unit) min.
11 Mix and Depth of Affordability
1 point for each moderate-income unit (<120% AMI for income, <110% AMI for rent)
2 points for each low-income unit (<80% of AMI for income, <60% AMI for rent)
3 points for each very low-income unit (<50% AMI for income and rent)
4 points for each extremely low-income unit (<30% of AMI for income and rent)
5 points for each acutely low-income unit (<15% of AMI for income and rent)
6 points
min.
12 Special Housing Element Programs - Preferences
1 point for each unit that meets one or more of the following Housing Element programs. Units that meet multiple programs will be given one (1) point for each applicable program. For example, if a unit meets programs 1, 7, and 9, it will score three (3) points.
1. Multi-family ADUs (H-D-4-g, page HE-95)
2. ADUs in religious, institutional, or school sites (H-D-4-j, page HE-96)
3. ADUs in Religious and Institutional Uses and School Sites (H-D-4-j, Page HE-96
4. Residential uses on school sites (H-D-5-a, page HE-96)
5. Residential uses on Religious and Nonprofit-owned Sites (H-D-5-b, page HE-97)
6. Family Friendly Housing units of three (3) or more
bedrooms (H-E-9-a, page HE-103)
7. Small housing units of less than 500 square feet (H-E-9-b, page HE-103)
8. Facilities and Services for Special Needs (H-F-1-a, Page HE-105)
9. Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled (H-F-1-c, Page HE-106)
10.Extremely low Income Units for Special Needs (H-F-1-g, Page HE-107)
11.Supportive Housing (H-F-3-b, Page HE-109)
Total Unit Points Minimum
of 16
Total Project Points Minimum
of 86
Applications must have a base score of at least 70 points and a unit score of at least 16 to be considered for an award.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 21 All applicants that meet the minimum score will be invited to an interview, provided funding remains available. The interview will help clarify each applicant's approach and qualifications for the proposed project or program. Based on the interviews and evaluation of the applications received, staff will be recommended to the City Council.
In the event that multiple applications are received within a 30-day period, applications will be grouped for review and approval. Awards will be proportioned based on base points and unit points.
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF FUNDING AWARDS
At the conclusion of the Application evaluation process, applicants will be notified by letter and email of the funding award recommendation(s), if any, by the City. To receive an award, City staff must make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. An approval by the City Council may be conditional and include requirements that must be met before final funding is approved.
13. QUESTIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THIS
DEVELOPMENT NOFA
The City of Foster City invites eligible applicants to apply for this Development NOFA. Should you have any questions, please contact Nori Jabba, Housing & Sustainability Manager, Tel. 650-286-3230, or email: [email protected]. --------------------END OF DOCUMENT-----------------
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 22 EXHIBIT A: NOFA CHECKLIST
Please check off all included items. Items not checked off will be considered not applicable based on the type of project.
1. Title Page
2. Checklist
3. Cover Letter of Interest
4. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
5. Summary of Proposed Project
6. Qualifications
7. Site Control Status
8. Project Schedule
9. Project Budget and Cash Flow
10. Project Financing
11. Property Management Company
12. Site Appraisal
13. Preliminary Title Report
14. Requested Changes to the City Underwriting Guidelines 15. References
16. Financial Statements
17. Insurance Certificates
18. Organization Documents
19. Property Inspections
20. Status of Planning Application or Approvals
21. Operating Subsidy Commitment
22. Supportive Services Plan
23. Relocation Plan
24. Physical Needs Assessment/Replacement Reserve Analysis 25. Other Information
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 23 EXHIBIT B: PROGRAM AND UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES
City of Foster City 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental Development NOFA Program and Underwriting Guidelines
These Guidelines are subject to change.
Final approval shall be granted by the City Council of the City of Foster City.
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
# Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
1 Purpose of Program To provide loans to developers of affordable multifamily rental housing for construction and/or
permanent financing.
2 Name of Program Foster City Multifamily Residential Rental Development NOFA Program
3 Type of Loan Construction or permanent
4 Payment Schedule Per CCR Title 25, Div. 1, Subchapter 19, Section 8300, Uniform Multifamily Regulations (UMRs).
5 Maximum Loan Amount $5,850,000 without matching funds 6 Maximum Funding
Request
Requests cannot exceed the funding available on
the date of the application. In addition, requests
cannot exceed $300,000 per BMR unit.
7 Maximum Number of
Loans
No limit
8 Loan Term 55 years
9 Interest 1.5% to 3% annual simple interest, paid from residual receipts:
• 1.5% for non-profit projects
• 3% for all other projects
10 Application Process Submit Preliminary Application form:
https://forms.office.com/g/JBwaCF4tfi at least 10
business days prior to submitting final application.
The preliminary application will allow staff to verify
funding available.
Submit final application to [email protected].
Specify “(your business name) - 2026-2027
Development NOFA Proposal” on subject line.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 24 # Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
11 Applicant Requirements Nonprofit or for-profit developer that commits to building 100% affordable developments or
inclusionary developments with BMR units,
consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 17.90.
Includes construction of multifamily ADUs. See
NOFA Instructions for additional requirements.
12 Application Deadline Rolling deadline until December 31, 2027 13 Awards Granted By City Council of the City of Foster City 14 Use of Funds Construction loans and/or permanent financing loans to pay for predevelopment costs, acquisition
costs, or other costs associated with new
development affordable rental projects.
15 Minimum number of total
units in project
10 units
16 Types of Projects • New development of 10 or more multifamily market rate rental units with inclusionary BMR
units; or 100% affordable projects of 10 or
more units.
• Expansion of an existing development of
market rate multifamily rental units with
inclusionary below market rate units, resulting
in 10 or more units or expansion of a 100%
affordable development resulting in 10 or
more units.
• Development of 10 or more multifamily or
institutional/ religious ADU projects with
inclusionary below market rate units, or 100%
affordable units.
17 Inclusionary Affordability
Requirements
• Projects with less than 20% below market rate
inclusionary units are not eligible for this
program.
• Inclusionary requirements are specified in in
Foster City Municipal Code Chapter
17.90.040. Allocations are as follows: at least
five percent (5%) of total project must be
moderate income; at least five percent (5%) of
total project is low income; at least ten
percent (10%) of total project is very low
income,
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 25 # Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
• For projects in which the calculation of BMR
units results in a fraction, the fraction shall be
rounded to the next whole number.
18 100% Affordable Project
Affordability
Requirements
At least 30% of units shall be for extremely low
income households (<30% of AMI) and the
remainder of units shall be for lower income
households with incomes below 60% of AMI.
Deeper income targeting is allowed.
19 Agency Providing
Program Oversight and
management
City of Foster City Community Development
Department (CDD)
20 Readiness Readiness preferred but applications will be accepted for projects without site control provided
site control can be obtained within 12 months of
NOFA application date.
21 Scoring Preferences More points for proposals that include units that support or more of 11 Housing Element
Programs, including supportive and special
needs housing, accessible and adaptable units,
family friendly units, multifamily ADUs, and ADUs
in religious, institutional, and school sites.
In addition, the Development NOFA includes
scoring preferences for 100% affordable projects
and nonprofit developers, deeper income
targeting, identified matching funds, and project
timelines that can deliver units within the Housing
Element cycle period ending in 2031.
Applicants also receive points for the number of
units to be developed.
22 Required Minimum Score 70 points base score and 16 points for unit score.
See NOFA instructions for more details.
23 Regulatory/Deed
Restriction Term
Applicants must execute a recordable instrument(s),
as required by the City, to ensure affordability of the affordable/BMR units for a period of no less than 55
years from the Certificate of Occupancy for new
construction.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 26 # Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
24 Income Limits The City uses HCD income limits for very low, low, and moderate incomes. Limits are in effect from
July 1 to June 30 each year.
25 Occupancy Requirements Occupancy shall match the City’s General Occupancy Requirements as stated in the City’s
Below Market Rate Rental Housing Program
Administrative Procedures and Guidelines.
Unit Size Minimum
Occupancy
Maximum
Occupancy
Studio 1 person 2 people
One-Bedroom 1 person 3 people
One-Bedroom
Plus Den
1 person 4 people
Two-Bedroom 2 people 5 people
Three-Bedroom 4 people 7 people
Four-Bedroom 6 people 9 people
Five-Bedroom 8 people 11 people
26 Maximum Rents
(including utility
allowances)
Maximum rents are calculated using the HCD
Income Limits and are pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 50093, 50053, and,
50052.5,. Rent maximums are based on 110%
income limits for moderate rents, 60% of AMI for
lower income rents, 50% of AMI for very low-income
rents and 30% of AMI for extremely low income
rent. Adjustment for household size is per Section
50053, which is one (1) person for a studio unit, two
(2) people for a 1-bedroom unit, three (3) people for
a 2-bedroom unit, and four (4) people for a 3-
bedroom unit.
27 Utility Allowance The City of Foster City uses the County of San Mateo’s Utility Allowance Schedule. Additional
mandatory charges such as use of a third-party
billing entity, requirement for renter’s insurance,
sewer charges, and other charges are included in
the Utility Allowance. Utility allowances are valid
from July 1 to June 30 each year.
28 Rent increases Limited to 5% per year during the deed restriction period for BMR units.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 27 # Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
29 City Monitoring Fee Per current Master Fee Schedule, except where not allowed by law (AB 2430).
30 Developer Fee 5% to 10% of total project costs, depending on project complexity and size. Any deferred developer
fees may be paid after all required operating costs
and asset management fees but prior to residual
receipts payments.
31 Prevailing Wage Prevailing Wage will be required for construction work associated with funding awarded under this
NOFA, unless the project meets an exemption
requirement.
32 Replacement Reserves Replacement reserve funding covers the cost of all repairs needed through year 15 of the project as
described in a Property Needs Assessment (PNA)
prepared by a qualified third-party consultant. The
reserve must include a 3% price escalator, if not
included in the PNA. The reserve can be funded
through an initial reserve deposit at acquisition or
loan closing, or through annual deposits from cash
flows (or a combination thereof). A minimum of
$500 per unit per year is required if the initial
reserve deposit does not cover 50% of the 15-year
PNA cost.
33 Capitalized Operating
Reserves
Minimum three (3) months’ expenses, including:
hard debt, monitoring fees, and replacement
reserves.
34 Vacancy Loss Percentage Minimum five percent (5%) for residential units and twenty percent (20%) for any commercial space, if
applicable.
35 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15, except for the purchase/restriction of existing units, which may have a DCR of 1.1 over the first
two years of the project and 1.15 thereafter.
36 Asset Management Fee Lesser of $1,000/unit per year or $25,000/year with a three-point five percent (3.5%) escalator.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 28 # Provision 2026-2027 Multifamily Residential Rental
Development NOFA
Program and Underwriting Guidelines
37 Subordination The City will subordinate its deed of trust to public and private lenders that require it as a condition of
funding. City will not subordinate its regulatory
agreement to any deed of trust but will subordinate
its regulatory agreement to a senior lender’s
regulatory agreement.
38 Insurance See Exhibit C
39 Hard Cost Contingency At least ten percent (10%) of hard costs, including general requirements, overhead, profit, and
contractor’s contingency.
40 Soft Cost Contingency At least five percent (5%) of all costs except acquisition, hard costs, reserves, and developer
fees.
41 Contingency Funds Contingency funds shall first be used to cover cost over runs, and the remainder shall be deposited into
the replacement reserve.
42 Relocation All temporary relocation of existing tenants due to an expansion project must follow local, state, and
federal relocation laws. Permanent displacement of
existing tenants is not allowed.
43 Property Welfare Tax Budget must clearly show when the property welfare tax exemption is expected to begin, if
applicable.
44 Other Provisions As specified in the California Uniform Multifamily Regulations
Uniform Multifamily Regulations | California
Department of Housing and Community
Development
EXHIBIT C: SAMPLE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTOR shall provide, in addition to the Certificates of Insurance, original Endorsement affecting the coverages specified in herein on the attached form. No substitute form will be accepted.
This is an Exhibit to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated Date of Agreement, by and between Developer Name, hereinafter referred to as "Developer”, and the City of Foster City, hereinafter referred to as "City", providing for professional services.
1. Developer's Duty to Show Proof of Insurance. Developer, in order to protect City and its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees against all claims and liability for death, injury, loss and damage as a result of Developer's acts, errors, or omissions in connection Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 29 with the performance of Developer's obligations, as required in this Agreement, shall secure and maintain insurance as described below. Developer shall not perform any work under this Agreement until Developer has obtained all insurance required under this section and the required certificates of insurance and all required endorsements have been filed with the City's authorized insurance representative, insurance Tracking Services Inc. (ITS). Receipt of evidence of insurance that does not comply with all applicable insurance requirements shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements set forth herein. The required documents must be signed by the authorized representative of the insurance company shown on the certificate. Upon request, Developer shall supply proof that such person is an authorized representative thereof, and is authorized to bind the named underwriter(s) and their company to the coverage, limits and termination provisions shown thereon, Developer shall promptly deliver to ITS a certificate of insurance, and all required endorsements, with respect to each renewal policy, as necessary to demonstrate the maintenance of the required insurance coverage for the term specified herein.
Such certificates and endorsements shall be delivered to ITS prior to the expiration date of any policy and bear a notation evidencing payment of the premium thereof if so requested. Developer shall immediately pay any deductibles and self-insured retentions under all required insurance policies upon the submission of any claim by Developer or City as an additional insured.
1.1 Insurance Requirements
☒ Commercial General Liability Insurance
Commercial General Liability Insurance including, but not limited to, Contractual Liability Insurance (specifically concerning the indemnity provisions of this Agreement with the City ), Products-Completed Operations Hazard, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy arising out of professional services rendered hereunder, Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death), and Property Damage for liability arising out of Developer's performance of services under this Agreement. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain no exclusions or limitation for independent contractors working on the behalf of the named insured. Developer shall maintain the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage for the longest period allowed by law following termination of this Agreement. The amount of said insurance coverage required by this Agreement shall be the policy limits, which shall be at least two million dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate.
*Please note, the City will require a separate additional insured endorsement for the Commercial General Liability policy, listing the “City of Foster City, its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees”.
☒ Business Automobile Liability Insurance
Automobile Liability Insurance against claims of Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death) and Property Damage covering any vehicle and/or all owned, leased, hired and nonowned vehicles used in the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall be at least two million dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence.
☒ Workers' Compensation Insurance
Developer shall submit written proof that Developer is insured against liability for workers' compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 3700 of the California Labor Code. `Subconsultants' employees, unless the Subconsultants' employees are covered by Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 30 the insurance afforded by Developer. If any class of employees engaged in work or services performed under this Agreement is not covered by California Labor Code section 3700, Developer shall provide and/or require each Subconsultant to provide adequate insurance for the coverage of employees not otherwise covered. Developer shall also maintain employer's liability insurance with limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury or disease.
☒ Professional Liability Insurance
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, for liability arising out of, or in connection with, all negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services to be provided under this Agreement, with no exclusion for claims of one insured against another insured, with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall not be less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate. ☒ Installation Floater
Installation Floater, covering the work performed under this Contract, against all risks of direct physical loss. The policy shall cover the Contractor’s labor, materials and equipment, including materials and equipment in transit or away from the project site, to be installed in the existing structure(s). The coverage shall be written for an amount equal to the initial contract amount plus the value of any subsequent change orders, subject to a deductible of not more than [$10,000] payable by Contractor.
☒ Cyber Liability Insurance
Cyber Liability Insurance, covering network risk and cyber liability (including coverage for unauthorized access, failure of security, breach of privacy perils, as well at notification costs and regulatory defense) in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. Such insurance shall be maintained in force at all times during the term of the Contract and for a period of two years thereafter for services completed during the term of the Contract.
1.2 Self-Insured Retention
Any self-insured retentions in excess of $100,000 must be declared on the Certificate of insurance or other documentation provided to City and must be approved by the City Risk Manager.
1.3 Claims-Made Basis Coverage
If any of the insurance coverages required under this Agreement is written on a claims-made basis, Developer, at Developer's option, shall either (i) maintain said coverage for at least five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement with coverage extending back to the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) purchase an extended reporting period of not less than five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement; or (iii) acquire a full prior acts provision on any renewal or replacement policy.
2. City as Additional Insured
On Developer's Commercial General Liability and Automobile policies, the City, its Council members, officers, directors, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insured's, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured.
Any endorsement shall be provided using one of the following three options: (i) on ISO form Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 31 CG 20 10 1 1 85; or (ii) on ISO form CG 20 37 10 01 plus either ISO form CG 20 10 10 01 or CG 20 33 10 01; or (iii) on such other forms which provide coverage at least equal to or better than form CG 20 10 1 1 85.
3. Insurance terms and conditions:
3.1 Cancellation of Insurance
The above stated insurance coverage required to be maintained by Developer shall be maintained until the completion of all of Developer's obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise indicated herein. Each insurance policy supplied by Developer shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after ten (10) days written notice by Developer in the case of non-payment of premiums, or thirty (30) days written notice in all other cases. This notice requirement does not waive the insurance requirements stated herein. Developer shall immediately obtain replacement coverage for any insurance policy that is terminated, canceled, non-renewed, or whose policy limits have been exhausted or upon insolvency of the insurer that issued the policy.
3.2 All insurance shall be issued by a company or companies admitted to do business in California and listed in the current "Best's Key Rating Guide" publication with a minimum rating of A-; VII Any exception to these requirements must be approved by the City Risk Manager.
3.3 If Developer is, or becomes during the term of this Agreement, self-insured or a member of a self-insurance pool, Developer shall provide coverage equivalent to the insurance coverages and endorsements required above. The City will not accept such coverage unless the City determines, in its sole discretion and by written acceptance, that the coverage proposed to be provided by Developer is equivalent to the above-required coverages.
3.4 For any claims related to the Agreement, the Developer’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Developer’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3.5 Insurance coverages in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Developer for any liability, whether within, outside, or in excess of such coverage, and regardless of solvency or insolvency of the insurer that issues the coverage; nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of this Agreement or otherwise in law.
3.6 Failure by Developer to maintain all such insurance in effect at all times required by this Agreement shall be a material breach of this Agreement by Developer. City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Developer resulting from said breach.
Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Developer, City shall deduct from sums due to Developer any premiums and associated costs advanced or paid by City for such insurance. If the balance of monies obligated to Developer pursuant to this Agreement are insufficient to reimburse City for the premiums and any associated costs, Developer agrees to reimburse City for the premiums and pay for all costs associated with the purchase of said insurance. Any failure by City to take this alternative action shall not relieve Developer of its obligation to obtain and maintain the insurance coverages required by this Agreement.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 32
3.7 Should any of the required insurance (other than errors and omissions insurance) be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defenses costs be included in such general aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limit specified above.
3.8 City may (but is under no obligation to) secure project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance, or administer an owner-controlled insurance Program ("OCIP"), in which case Developer and its subconsultants shall communicate this fact to their insurance carriers and request that the risk of this project be excluded from their practice policies. Developer's fees under this Agreement (and the fee of its subconsultants under subconsultant agreements) shall be reduced by the amount of insurance premiums that may be avoided by Developer and its subconsultants by virtue of the City's obtaining the project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance or administering an OCIP, and the exclusion of this project from coverage of Developer's and subconsultants policies. Developer and its subconsultants shall afford City access to their books and records and cooperate with City in verifying the amount of savings realized.
ATTACHED
1. Insurance Coverage Form
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 33 This INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM modifies or documents insurance provided under the following:
Named Insured: ____________________________________ Effective Work Date(s):
_____________
Description of Work/Locations/Vehicles:
___________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of Foster City (CITY)
610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404
Attention: Contract Administrator
Endorsement and Certificates of Insurance Required
The Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to damages and defense of claims arising from: (Check all that apply) Insurer Policy
No.
General Liability: (a) activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured, (b) products and completed
operations of the Named Insured, (c) premises owned,
leased occupied or used by the Named Insured, and/or (d) permits issued for operations performed by the Named
Insured. {Note: MEETS OR EXCEEDS ISO Form # CG
20 10 11 85}
Auto Liability: the ownership, operation, maintenance,
use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Named Insured, regardless of whether liability is attributable to the Named Insured or a
combination of the Named Insured and the Additional
Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
Other: [Cyber Liability, Installation Floater, etc.]
Certificates of Insurance Required (no endorsement needed) (Check all that apply)
Insurer Policy
No.
Workers Compensation: work performed by employees
of the Named Insured while those employees are engaged
in work under the simultaneous directions and control of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured.
Professional Liability:
PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTORY: This insurance is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of Additional Insureds.
SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST: The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured who is seeking coverage or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limit of liability.
Item 6.2
Foster City Multi-Family Residential Development NOFA 2026-2027 34 PROVISIONS REGARDING THE INSURED'S DUTIES AFTER ACCIDENT OR LOSS: Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.
CANCELLATION NOTICE. The insurance afforded by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (ten (10) days if canceled due to non-payment) by regular mail return receipt requested has been given to the Additional Insured. Such notice shall be addressed as shown above.
WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: The insurer(s) named above agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers and employees for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the CITY.
Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of the Policy other than as above stated.
SIGNATURE OF INSURER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER I, ______________________________________________________________(print/type name), warrant that I have authority to bind the above-named insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company.
________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (original signature required) ORGANIZATION: ________________________________________
TITLE: _____________________________
ADDRESS:___________________________________________________________________ TELEPHONE: ( ) _______________________
DATE ISSUED: _________________
Item 6.2
Attachment 3
Table 1. Development NOFA Program, Summary of Revisions to Program Provisions and Guidelines
Provision/Guideline
2024 Loan Program
Guidelines
2026-2027
NOFA Guidelines
Purpose of Program
To provide loans to
developers of affordable
multi-family rental housing
for construction and/or
permanent financing.
No change
Name of Program
BMR Multifamily Rental
Development Loan
Program
Foster City Multifamily Rental
Development NOFA Program
Type of Loan Construction or permanent No change
Payment Schedule
Per CCR Title 25, Div. 1,
Subchapter 19, Section
8300, Uniform Multifamily
Regulations (UMRs).
No change
Applicant
Requirements
Nonprofit or for-profit
developer that commits to
building 100% affordable
developments or
inclusionary developments
with BMR units, consistent
with Municipal Code
Chapter 17.90. Includes
construction of multi-family
ADUs.
No change
Affordability
Restrictions
30% of units must be <30%
AMI. Remainder must be
<60% AMI.
100% affordable projects:
same as 2024. BMR
Inclusionary projects must
align with FC MC 17.90: 20%
of project must be affordable,
with 5% moderate income, 5%
low income, and 10% very low
income
Fund Availability $5,850,000 (including 50%
matching City funds)
$5,850,000 using City Fund
137
Item 6.2
Attachment 3
Provision/Guideline
2024 Loan Program
Guidelines
2026-2027
NOFA Guidelines
Interest Rates
3% for developers and
1.5% for nonprofit
developers.
No change
Term 55 years No change
Program Oversight Community Development
Department (CDD) No change
Program
Management
CDD/County of San Mateo
(for NOFA issuance to
developers through the
County’s NOFA program)
CDD
Prevailing Wage
Required for all projects
(BMR portion for BMR
inclusionary projects).
No change
Maximum Number of
Loans No limit No change
Application Process
City-issued NOFA twice per
year with applications
managed through the
County of San Mateo NOFA
program until program
funds are expended.
Rolling deadline until
December 31, 2027, subject to
the availability of funds
and applications will be
managed by the City.
Types of Projects
Multi-family rental only
(includes Multi-Family
ADUs)
a. New development of 10 or
more multi-family market
rate rental units with
inclusionary BMR units; or
100% affordable projects
of 10 or more units.
b. Expansion of an existing
development of market
rate multi-family rental
units with inclusionary
below market rate units,
resulting in 10 or more
units or expansion of a
100% affordable
development resulting in
10 or more units.
c. Development of 10 or more
multi-family or institutional/
Item 6.2
Attachment 3
Provision/Guideline
2024 Loan Program
Guidelines
2026-2027
NOFA Guidelines
religious ADU projects with
inclusionary below market
rate units, or 100%
affordable units.
Use of Funds
Construction loans and/or
permanent financing loans
to pay for predevelopment
costs, acquisition costs, or
other costs associated with
development or
rehabilitation of affordable
rental projects.
Same as 2024 except funds
are for new development only,
not rehabilitation
Additional
Requirements,
Underwriting
Requirements
California Uniform
Multifamily Regulations No change
Readiness
Incentives for project
readiness (see scoring
preferences in program
guidelines).
Readiness preferred but
applications will be accepted
for projects without site control
provided site control can be
obtained within 12 months of
NOFA application date.
Scoring preferences
• Non-residential
matching funds – more
points for using
sources other than
residential Local
Impact Fees or In-Lieu
Fees.
• Deeper Income
Targeting – more
points for lower income
targeting.
• Readiness – points for
pipeline projects for
which the Applicant
has completed a first
Additional points for proposals
that include units that support
one of the listed 11 Housing
Element Programs, including
supportive and special needs
housing, accessible and
adaptable units, family friendly
units, multi-family ADUs, and
ADUs in religious, institutional,
and school sites.
In addition, the 2026-2027
NOFA includes scoring
preferences for 100%
affordable projects and
Item 6.2
Attachment 3
Provision/Guideline
2024 Loan Program
Guidelines
2026-2027
NOFA Guidelines
phase funding process
for multifamily rental
projects.
• Increasing the Supply
of Lower-Income
Rental Housing – more
points for units
restricted to <60% AMI.
• Community Need:
more points for having
a higher percentage of
lower-income
households paying
more than 50% of their
income for housing.
• Performance: for new
applicants – more
points to those who
have committed 40%
or more of local
Matching Funds.
nonprofit developers, deeper
income targeting, identified
matching funds, and project
timelines that can deliver units
within the Housing Element
cycle period ending in 2031.
Applicants also receive points
for the number of units to be
developed.
Income Limits
State of California Income
Limits issued by HCD
annually.
No change
Rent Limits
As per California Health
and Safety Code Sections
50093, 50053, 50052.5, as
amended, with adjustments
for household size.
No change
Utility Allowance
As issued by San Mateo
County annually. Utility
Allowance Schedules |
County of San Mateo, CA.
No change
Item 6.2
DATE: October 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
Laura Galli, Engineering Manager
Francine Magno, Senior Civil Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Adoption of the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Open a public hearing to:
a. Receive a presentation from the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project team; and
b. Receive public input regarding the final plan; and
2. Adopt the attached Resolution:
a. Approving and adopting the Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
b. Finding the plan to be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to public resources code section 21080.20 and CEQA Guidelines section 15306; and
c. Approval of Certain Traffic Studies and Planning Study Tasks Identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for Project Implementation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project Team, comprised of City staff and Fehr and Peers (F&P), have been developing the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), a comprehensive Item 7.1
plan to lay out the future of bicycling and walking in Foster City. The Final BPMP (Final Plan) consolidates the phases of work completed throughout the planning process, and includes existing conditions analyses, community feedback, policy recommendations, a recommended project list, and conceptual designs for seven (7) future projects.
Adoption of the attached resolution constitutes the City Council’s approval of the final plan. Staff is also requesting the City Council approval of staff’s recommendations for project implementation of the City’s first Class IV bicycle facility.
BACKGROUND
The Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was initiated in response to the July 2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report which essentially recommended every City should have an updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In August 2024, the City was approved to receive an allocation of $80,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, offsetting half of the project’s budget.
On November 4, 2024, the City Council adopted City Resolution 2024-116, approving the RFP for the BPMP and authorizing staff to begin consultant selection. On March 3, 2025, the Council awarded the contract to Fehr and Peers.
In April 2025, the project kicked off with Phase 1 – Existing Conditions, which ended in July 2025. In September 2025, as part of Phase 2 – Draft Projects and Programs, the project team sought feedback from the public on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian network maps.
On December 15, 2025, City Council received and accepted, by Minute Order, a status update on the progress of the development of the BPMP and provided general policy direction on the preliminary plan goals, policies, and prioritization methodology.
On May 4, 2026, the City Council attended a work session and provided feedback on the five (5) priority projects recommended by staff to advance to further conceptual development and added two (2) additional priority projects to be advanced.
On August 3, 2026, the City Council, by Minute Order, received a presentation on the Draft BPMP and opened a public hearing to receive feedback from the public.
From mid-July to mid-August, as part of Phase 3 - Draft and Final Plan, the Draft Plan was shared on the project website at Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | F&P Social Pinpoint for public comment and feedback through an online survey. The survey was closed on August 17, 2026, marking the end of Phase 3 public engagement.
During this period, the public was encouraged to comment on the Draft Plan and priority projects. The project team held two in-person engagement events at Off the Grid at Leo J. Ryan Park, on July 29, 2026 and August 5, 2026. This phase of engagement was Item 7.1
also supported by email blasts, continuous messaging on the City marquee, and posts to the City’s social media channels. A summary of Phase 3 engagement was added to the Final Plan in Appendix B.
A total of 55 responses and public comments were collected during the final public engagement phase. A summary of responses is included in Attachment 4. Key themes included overall plan and priority project support, desire for separated and protected bicycle lanes, concern over parking loss along corridors, and the desire for more informal trails to be highlighted within the plan. These comments were analyzed by both City staff and F&P, and relevant changes were incorporated into the Final Plan in Attachment 1.
Public engagement has been an important component of the BPMP throughout the whole process. Engagement strategies aimed to include the community throughout the plan development process, ensuring that the final BPMP will be based on community priorities, opinions, and feedback. Attachment 5 includes a summary of all completed outreach efforts.
ANALYSIS
The Final Plan (Attachment 1) is the culmination of approximately 18 months of technical analysis, community engagement, and collaboration between F&P and City staff. The Final Plan is a compilation of the work completed throughout the planning process. The sections of the Final Plan are identified below:
1. Vision – identifies Plan purpose and goals
2. Network Today – provides an overview of existing conditions
3. Community Feedback – overview of three engagement phases
4. Policy Recommendations – identifies goals, policies and strategies to guide future decisions, investments, and programs
5. Future Network – future bicycle and pedestrian networks (including maps)
6. Implementation Strategy – includes project prioritization, funding strategies, and next steps
The October 5, 20256 Council meeting provides a formal space for the City Council and community to directly comment on the specific recommendations outlined in the Final Plan. In addition to the approval of the BPMP, staff is requesting the City Council’s concurrence with staff’s recommendation on project prioritization for implementation of the BPMP. There is $325,000 budgeted in FY 2026-27 and $1,000,000 in FY 2027-28 for the first Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project as part of the Capital Improvement Program.
Seven (7) projects, which scored high on the project prioritization and were selected previously by City Council, went through a more in-depth evaluation. The table below identifies the seven (7) projects. The evaluation considered the previous project Item 7.1
prioritization scoring, which accounted for safety, connectivity, and feasibility. Feasibility considered existing site conditions, available right of way, space constraints, on-street parking impacts, and auto capacity (traffic volume impacts). Additionally, the evaluation considered public feedback received throughout all project phases, as well as staff’s understanding of the project’s overarching goals to develop a safe, well-connected, and sensitively designed bicycle and pedestrian network throughout Foster City. Particular consideration was given to projects that could be implemented efficiently by delivering improvements to the community in the near term relative to others.
Corridor Begin End Type of Facility Existing
Facility
Beach Park
Blvd
Gull Ave Foster City
Blvd
Class IV Class III
Beach Park
Blvd
Shell Blvd Foster City
Blvd
Class IV Class III
Edgewater Blvd City Limits E. Hillsdale
Blvd
Class IV Class II
Edgewater Blvd E. Hillsdale
Blvd
Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II
Gull Ave &
Marlin Ave
Beach Park
Blvd
E. Hillsdale
Blvd
Class III (Bike Blvd) Class III
Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park
Blvd
Class III (Bike Blvd) Class III
Foster City Blvd E. Hillsdale
Blvd
Beach Park
Blvd
Class IV Class III
Out of the seven (7) projects, staff recommends advancing the following scopes of work as the first project identified for implementation. These scopes will be incorporated into the currently approved Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project (CIP 301-732) and will include the following initial tasks:
1. Conduct a traffic study for Beach Park Boulevard, from Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard with an estimated cost of $250,000.
2. Conduct a traffic study for Beach Park Boulevard, from Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard with an estimated cost of $140,000.
The Beach Park Boulevard project from Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard includes reducing two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction to accommodate protected bike lanes (Class IV) and a turn lane. This project is recommended as it received the highest score in the project prioritization scoring and was consistently supported throughout the outreach process. The implementation of a Class IV will improve connectivity along the west side of the City, a known connector route to several schools and a commercial plaza. Additionally, it provides a direct protected bike route to the Bay Trail. The project is also highly feasible due to a generous amount of available Item 7.1
right of way. Separated bike lanes can be generally accommodated without parking loss on either side of the street. While the proposed layout calls for a lane reduction, staff does not anticipate a negative impact to the traffic volumes along the corridor. This will be further analyzed for confirmation as part of the traffic study.
The second Beach Park Boulevard segment from Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard also scored high on the project prioritization scoring and was supported throughout the outreach process. The cross section for this portion varies slightly from the first. The project also includes reducing two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction to accommodate protected bike lanes (Class IV). There is no turn lane within this segment as there is an existing raised median. The implementation of a Class IV will improve connectivity along the west side of the City, a known connector route to several schools and the Bay Trail. The project is highly feasible as there is no parking loss associated with the Class IV addition, due to no existing on-street parking currently. Similar to the first segment, the project calls for a lane reduction however staff does not anticipate a negative impact to the traffic volumes along the corridor. This will be further analyzed for confirmation as part of the traffic study.
Should there be available budget capacity and if the proposals for the work come in favorably and lower than anticipated, staff recommends the following project as the next alternate to consider implementing:
1. Pursue planning study for the Gull Avenue and Marlin Avenue Class III bike boulevard projects, with an estimated cost of $90,000.
While the Gull Avenue and Marlin Avenue projects did not receive as a high a score as Beach Park Boulevard, the type of improvements along this corridor require less intensive operational analysis (parking and traffic studies) and allow for improvements to be implemented sooner. The intent with Gull Avenue and Marlin Avenue project is to upgrade from a Class III bikeway (shared roadway facility) to a Class III bike boulevard.
A Class III bike boulevard is an enhanced version of a Class III bikeway that implements various traffic calming measures to further increase bicycle and pedestrian safety. The project scope primarily includes intersection improvements rather than substantial changes to the roadway cross section. Certain improvements, if opportunities arise, could be implemented via quick-builds. More importantly, these two streets are the main routes for students to get to the two schools in this area, which are Bowditch Middle School and Audubon Elementary School. Staff recommends prioritizing safety improvements around schools.
The proposed actions would kick-start progress on three (3) of the seven (7) priority projects. Following completion of the traffic studies and community outreach, CIP 301- 732 will proceed into design and construction phase of the Beach Park Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements project, which will serve as the City’s first Class IV bicycle facility.
Item 7.1
The attached resolution incorporates staff’s recommendation regarding the project proposed for initial implementation. If the City Council wishes to establish a different priority for project implementation, staff will require direction to revise the resolution accordingly.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The project is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.20, which states that CEQA does not apply to an active transportation plan, a pedestrian plan, or a bicycle transportation plan for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
Before determining that a project is exempt pursuant to section 21080.20, the lead agency must hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by the project to hear and respond to public comments. Publication of the notice shall be no fewer times than required by Section 6061 of the Government Code by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
A public hearing for the project was held on August 3, 2026 to receive feedback from the public on the Draft Plan. The October 5, 2026 City Council meeting acts as an additional public hearing to receive public feedback. City staff have prepared and published the required public hearing notice (Attachment 2). The recommended two initial tasks for traffic studies for the two (2) priority projects 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).
Upon adoption of the BPMP, each project identified in the BPMP will be evaluated, and, as applicable, the appropriate level of environmental analysis conducted in accordance with CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the BPMP. The approved FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 budget appropriated $325,000 and $1,000,000, respectively, to the BPMP which is sufficient to begin the recommended traffic studies.
Additional individual projects and recommendations identified in the BPMP will be scoped and budgeted through the City’s budget process and Capital Improvement Plan development.
Item 7.1
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Final Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Attachment 2 – Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 3 – Resolution
Attachment 4 – Summary of Responses
Attachment 5 – Summary of Community Engagement Efforts
Item 7.1
²þÁģšģ
Pedestrian
Master Plan
Foster City
October 2026
Draft Final of:
&°ÝģšģWÝá
Prepared by:
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
Table of Contents
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 8 A More Connected Bicycle Network............................................................................................................8 Safer, More Comfortable Places to Walk ....................................................................................................8 WݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģšģ/ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈ.....................................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: The Vision ...................................................................................................................10 About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan................................................................................................10 BPMP Goals................................................................................................................................................................12 Chapter 2: Network Today ..........................................................................................................14 Vehicle Volumes.......................................................................................................................................................15 Posted Speed ............................................................................................................................................................17 Collision History........................................................................................................................................................18 Where Do Collisions Occur? .........................................................................................................................18 Collision Severity ..............................................................................................................................................19 Existing Facilities.................................................................................................................................................... 20 Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................................................................................. 20 Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions....................................................................................................21 Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions.............................................................................................................22 Planning for the E-Bike Era ..................................................................................................................................23 Comfort and Connectivity................................................................................................................................... 24 Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter .................................................................................................... 24 Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress..................................................................................... 24 Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations....................................... 28 Chapter 3: Community Feedback.............................................................................................. 32 Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and Needs..............................................................................33 Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................................ 35 /È©ÎÝDzȪģè°ģWÁ
È............................................................................................................................................36 Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network..................................................................................................................36 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................................37 /È©ÎÝDzȪģè°ģWÁ
È............................................................................................................................................37 Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan......................................................................................................................37 Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................................ 38 /È©ÎÝDzȪģè°ģWÁ
È........................................................................................................................................... 38 °
ÚèÝģĕħģWÎÁ²þģZÎÇÇÈ
è²ÎÈá........................................................................................40 Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
Existing Policies and Programs ............................................................................................................................41 Policy Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 42 Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations ................................................................................................... 42 'Î
ÁģēħģᲪÈģø²è°ģ/ÈèÈè............................................................................................................................44 Goal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network............................................................................ 46 Chapter 5: Future Network.........................................................................................................49 Bicycle Network...................................................................................................................................................... 49 Bicycle Boulevards ...........................................................................................................................................51 Future Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................................................ 52 Future Pedestrian Network.................................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy ......................................................................................... 57 Project Prioritization...............................................................................................................................................57 Pedestrian Project Prioritization..................................................................................................................57 Bicycle Project Prioritization ....................................................................................................................... 59 Advancing Priority Projects..................................................................................................................................62 Project Types ....................................................................................................................................................63 Funding Strategy .....................................................................................................................................................78 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
Appendices
Appendix A. Benchmarking Assessment
Appendix B. Engagement Summaries
Appendix C. LTS and Connectivity Methodology Memorandum Appendix D. Bicycle Facility Prioritization Results
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
List of Figures
Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S. Census, 2024)............................................................... 14 Figure 2: Weekday Vehicle Volumes (Replica, 2024) ..........................................................................................16 Figure 3: Posted Speeds (Foster City, 2024) .........................................................................................................17 Figure 4: 2019-2024 Collisions by Mode (Foster City, accessed in 2025) .................................................. 18 Figure 5: 2019-2024 Collisions by Severity (Foster City, accessed in 2025)...............................................19 Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024).................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring..................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Scoring............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 9: Bicycle LTS Results ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 10: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Results ............................................................................................................27 Figure 11: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS .................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 12: Pedestrian Connectivity and LTS........................................................................................................... 30 Figure 13: Phase 1 Pop-up Engagement Event...................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Map of Community Concerns Received During Phase 1 ................................................................34 Figure 15: Phase 1 Engagement Comment Categories....................................................................................... 35 Figure 16: Process Used to Develop BPMP Goals, Policies, and Strategies..................................................40 &²ªìÝģĒĘħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģᲪÈģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈģìÁÁè²È-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance .49 Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network ............................................................................................................................ 53 &²ªìÝģēđħģ&ìèìÝģWáèݲ
Èģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģEèøÎݾ........................................................................................54 &²ªìÝģēĒħģDÈìģΩģý
ÇÚÁģ/ÈèÝáè²ÎÈģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèá ................................................................................... 55 &²ªìÝģēēħģWݲÎÝ²è²ąģWáèݲ
Èģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèá ..................................................................................................58 Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: California E-Bike Classifications................................................................................................................ 23 Table 2: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage........................................................................................................ 53 Table 3: Bicycle Projects Prioritization Criteria .................................................................................................... 59 Table 4: Bicycle Project Prioritization Results....................................................................................................... 60 Table 5. Potential Ways to Fund Priority Projects.................................................................................................79 Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 7
z
Chapter 1
The Vision
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 8
Executive Summary
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) aims to make walking and biking in Foster City safer, more convenient, and accessible for everyone. The BPMP identifies improvements to the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network and provides a framework for investing in improvements over the short and long term. The BPMP also supports safe and accessible mobility for people using a range of human-powered and electric rolling devices, including skateboards, scooters, and other emerging mobility technologies.
The BPMP looks at where walking and biking are working well today, where people experience challenges, and where improvements could make the biggest difference. /èģ²È販²áģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲè²áģèÎģ improve connections to schools, parks, neighborhoods, shopping areas, and other destinations throughout Foster City. The BPMP also provides a path for turning this vision into built projects by outlining priorities, potential funding opportunities, and steps for implementation.
Community input played an important role in shaping the BPMP. Through three online surveys, five community pop-up events, and presentations at multiple City Council and Traffic Review Committee meetings, the City received more than 300 comments from community members. This feedback helped identify community priorities and informed the recommendations included in the BPMP.
A More Connected Bicycle Network
The BPMP proposes a future bicycle network designed to make it easier and more comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to get around Foster City by bike. The proposed network increases the mileage of low-áèÝááģÁ
ááģ///ģ²þÁģÎìÁ÷
Ýáģ
ÈģÁ
ááģ/sģ²¾ø
þáģþ upgrading existing
facilities and proposing new facilities.
Facility Type Existing Mileage Future Mileage
Á
ááģ/ģ^°
ÝģháģW
è° 11.1 11.1
Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èá 5.7 0.1
Á
ááģ///ģ²¾ģZÎìèáģ
Èģ²¾ģ
Boulevards 11 5.5
Á
ááģ/sģ²¾ø
þá 0 13.4
Total Mileage 27.8 30.1
Safer, More Comfortable Places to Walk
The BPMP identifies intersections throughout Foster City where targeted pedestrian improvements could make it safer and more comfortable to cross the street and improve connections to important, everyday destinations, such as schools, parks, neighborhoods, and other community destinations.
Rather than prescribing a specific improvement for every intersection, the Plan identifies candidate locations for future evaluation and investment. This approach allows the City to consider the unique characteristics of each location and select improvements that best address the needs of people Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 9
walking, while also responding to roadway conditions and available space. /èģ ÁáÎģ
ÁÁÎøáģè°ģ²èþģèÎģ
bundle improvements with bigger capital projects as funding becomes available.
WݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģšģ/ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈ
Proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements were prioritized to help guide future investments and funding decisions. Pedestrian improvements were ranked into three tiers, while Bicycle improvements were individually scored to create a prioritized list.
Project prioritization helped identify corridors with the greatest potential benefit, additional considerations were used to select projects for further development. Considerations included community feedback, coordination with planned roadway repaving projects, and opportunities to further refine and illustrate new facility types in the City. Based on these factors, City Council selected seven priority projects to advance to conceptual designs. One of the seven projects combines improvements at Gull Avenue and Marlin Street with the connecting segment along Grebe Street. As a result, several priority projects are represented by six project groupings below:
x Beach Park Boulevard from Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard x 'ìÁÁģ÷ÈìģšģD
ÝÁ²Èģ^èÝèģÎÈÈèģ÷²
ģ'Ýģ^èÝè
x Edgewater Boulevard from E Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue x Edgewater Boulevard from City Limits to E Hillsdale Boulevard x Foster City Boulevard from E Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard x Beach Park Boulevard from Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard The plan presents concept designs for each of these priority projects to demonstrate how the BPMP recommendations could be incorporated into Foster City's existing transportation network. These concepts illustrate what future improvements could look like within Foster City's existing transportation network and provide a starting point for future project development, funding, and community discussion. They are not final designs and would be refined through future project development and design processes.
The BPMP provides a roadmap for a more connected Foster City, one where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient choices for everyday trips, and where people of all ages and abilities can easily connect to the places they want to go.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 10
Chapter 1: The Vision
About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Foster City possesses many characteristics that make walking, bicycling, and using a range of human-powered and electric rolling devices attractive ways to get around. The close proximity of homes, schools, shops, parks, and waterfront trails provides strong opportunities for getting around using these active modes, but barriers such as California State Route 92 (SR 92), major roadways, wide intersections, high vehicle speeds, and gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network can make some trips difficult or uncomfortable. As travel patterns and mobility needs continue to evolve, the City has an opportunity to build on its existing strengths while addressing these challenges.
The BPMP identifies policies, programs, and projects that support walking and biking in Foster City.
The BPMP is the City’s first unified effort to document walking and biking needs and opportunities citywide to guide future decision making to support access.
The BPMP is a long-term strategic planning document that outlines Foster City’s vision for improving connectivity, enhancing safety and comfort, and expanding transportation choices. /èģáÝ÷áģ áģ
ģ
roadmap for multi-year implementation of potential improvements based on technical analysis and community input. This plan will guide the establishment of infrastructure projects, policies, and programs over the next 10 years, evolving with the community.
The recommendations in this plan were developed through technical analysis and community engagement. Together, data analysis, community input, and industry best practices informed the vision presented in this plan. Prior to implementation of a recommended project, each will undergo project-specific engineering evaluation, including updated traffic studies, traffic counts, and targeted public outreach to specific stakeholders before design or construction commences.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 11
Guiding Vision
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
aims to make walking and biking in
Foster City safer,more convenient, and
accessible for everyone.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 12
BPMP Goals
The following three goals provide an overarching guide for the development of short- and long-range strategies that encourage walking and biking in Foster City. The goals draw from existing plans and policies, public feedback received, and consider current needs, demands, and challenges within the existing transportation network.
Goal 1: S
©ģZÎìèáģèÎģ;þģáè²È
è²ÎÈá
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities. 'Î
ÁģēħģᲪÈģø²è°ģ/ÈèÈè
Enhance walking and biking options by tailoring designs to the function and context of each roadway, accounting for roadway classification, adjacent land uses, and key destinations to ensure safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all.
'Î
ÁģĔħģ÷ÁÎÚģ
ģÎÈÈèģ
Èģ&Áý²ÁģEèøÎݾ
Advance a connected, adaptable, and regionally integrated system that supports walking and biking as an option for local travel and responds to evolving mobility needs.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 13
Chapter 2
Network
Today
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 14
Chapter 2: Network Today
The first step in developing the BPMP is to understand Foster City’s existing transportation network and the unique conditions that shape how people travel presently. The City’s planned peninsula layout—characterized by limited access points in and out of the City, an extensive lagoon system, and a highly interconnected street network—creates both constraints and opportunities for mobility.
Because travel routes are concentrated, predictable, and relatively flat, even small improvements to key corridors and crossings can have a significant, systemwide impact on safety and connectivity for people walking and biking. Additionally, as e-bikes continue to expand the distance and range of trips that can be made comfortably without a car, providing a safe and connected network will become increasingly important for residents traveling within the City and regionally.
Foster City’s demographics further
reinforce the importance of a multimodal
network that serves users of all ages and
abilities. Residents of Foster City include a
high proportion of both youth and seniors
with 22% of residents under the age of 18
and 18% over the age of 650F0F
1 . These groups
often have distinct mobility needs and
benefit from safe, comfortable, and
accessible walking and bicycling
infrastructure. At the same time, Foster
City is home to many families whose daily
travel patterns include a mix of local trips
and regional commuting. As shown in
Figure 1, while 59.3% of workers commute
by car, a notable 34.2% work from home1F1F
2,
increasing the likelihood of short, nonwork trips that rely on walking and biking within the City. Additionally, the majority of
Foster City's public and private elementary and middle schools are located south of SR 92, making this area a focal point for daily school-related travel by students and families. An existing Safe Routes to School program led by parents, teachers, and community leaders is already working to encourage more families to walk or bike to school. These characteristics create a strong opportunity for more local trips to be made by walking and biking, particularly for access to schools, parks, commercial areas, and other key destinations.
To inform the BPMP, the City assessed safety, accessibility, and connectivity across the existing network. This evaluation established a baseline of current infrastructure conditions, travel behavior, and unmet needs for active transportation. These findings directly informed the development of the 1 American Community Survey Five-Year Population Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), °èèÚáħIJIJ
è
ĥÈáìáĥªÎ÷IJè
ÁIJ^^dĖzēđēĕĥ^đĒđĒĬªűĒėđyyđđh^đėēĖĔĔęšű^ŭĖz
Ýŭáè²Ç
èáŭ^ì¼èŭd
Áá
2 American Community Survey Five-Year Commuting Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), °èèÚáħIJIJ
è
ĥÈáìáĥªÎ÷IJè
ÁIJ^^dĖzēđēĕĥ^đęđĒĬªűĒėđyyđđh^đėēĖĔĔęšű^ŭĖz
Ýŭáè²Ç
èáŭ^ì¼èŭd
Áá
51.8%
7.50%
2.90%
1.70%
1.80%
34.20%
Drive Alone Carpool
Public Transportation Walking
Other Work from Home
Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S.
Census, 2024)
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 15
future bicycle and pedestrian network, helping to guide facility selection, project prioritization, and implementation strategies that are responsive to Foster City’s unique context and mobility goals.
Vehicle Volumes
Vehicle volumes inform the comfort of people who are walking and biking. Vehicle volume is also one of two characteristics transportation planners and engineers use to select the appropriate type of treatments to create safe, comfortable walking and biking conditions. Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance2F2F 3 ĺ/-94) provides recommended
roadway treatments, such as bicycle facility types, based on vehicle speed and vehicle volume. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations3F3F
4 also uses vehicle speed and vehicle volume to indicate the types of appropriate crosswalk treatments.
Figure 2 shows weekday vehicle volumes (i.e., Annual Daily Traffic) based on the /-94 delineations of volume. High vehicular volumes in Foster City are concentrated on SR 92, Edgewater Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard.
3 ᲪÈģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈģìÁÁè²È-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance, Caltrans (2024), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf 4 'ì²ģ©ÎÝģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷²ÈªģWáèݲ
Èģ^
©èþģ
èģhÈÎÈèÝÎÁÁģÝÎáá²Èªģ>Î
è²ÎÈáĦģhĥ^ĥģKdģĺēđēēĻĦģ
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- đĚIJ^dWĹ'ì²Ĺ©ÎÝĹ/ÇÚÝÎ÷²ÈªĹWĹ^
©èþĹ
èĹhÈᲪĹ>ÎĹĔ-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 16
Figure 2ħģt¾
þģs°²ÁģsÎÁìÇáģĺZÚÁ²
ĦģēđēĕĻ
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 17
Posted Speed
The posted speeds in Foster City primarily fall into four categories: 25 miles per hour (mph) on local roads, 35 mph on major roads, 55 mph on freeways, and 15 mph on specific roads near schools when children are present. Error! Reference source not found. displays standard posted speeds citywide.
Like vehicle volumes, posted speed is an indication of safety, roadway comfort and, therefore, appropriate treatments. Posted speed is the additional ÎÈá²Ý è²ÎÈģ²Èģ/-94 bicycle facility
guidance and FHWA’s pedestrian crossing guidance.
Note: Posted speed limits are generalized for mapping purposes and may vary along individual corridor segments.
Figure 3ħģWÎáèģ^Úáģĺ&ÎáèÝģ²èþ, 2024)
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 18
Collision History
Where Do Collisions Occur?
Collision locations were reviewed for the most recent six years of data. There were a total of 59 collisions involving a pedestrian or bicycle between 2019-2024. During this period, collisions most often occur at intersections, along arterial roadways (i.e. major roadways that are typically wider and faster to efficiently move many vehicles) and near key destinations such as schools, parks, or business districts and commercial land use, as illustrated in Figure 4. /ÈèÝáè²ÎÈáģݲȪģèΪè°Ýģ people driving, walking, and biking, while arterial roadways carry a large share of the community's traffic and often have higher travel speeds. As a result, these locations experience more collisions than other parts of the transportation network.
This same six-year dataset was also used to inform the project prioritization process outlined in Chapter 6.
Figure 4: 2019-2024 Collisions by Mode (Foster City, accessed in 2025) Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 19
Collision Severity
From 2019-2024, 88% of collisions (approximately 52) involving people walking and biking resulted in an injury. This highlights the greater risk faced by these road users compared to people traveling in vehicles. Because people walking and biking do not have the external protection of a vehicle, they are more likely to be seriously injured when a collision occurs.
The Safe System Approach, adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, recognizes that all road users make mistakes and that the transportation system should be designed and operated to reduce the likelihood of severe injuries and fatalities. Consistent with this approach, the BPMP prioritizes strategies that prevent collisions from occurring in the first place by reducing conflict points between roadway users, lowering vehicle speeds, and improving the design of streets, intersections, and crossings.
A Note on Injury Collisions: Foster City Police Department collision records follow the California Highway W
èÝÎÁģÎÁÁ²á²ÎÈģ/È÷á貪
è²ÎÈģD
Èì
Áģ
Èģ²áè²Èªì²á°ģèøÈģ²È¼ìÝþģ
ÈģÈÎÈ-injury collisions. An injury
collision is any crash in which at least one person reports a physical injury, ranging from a complaint of pain to severe or fatal injuries. People walking and biking are particularly vulnerable because they lack the protection of a vehicle, meaning even minor crashes can result in significant physical, emotional, or financial impacts. The high rate of injury among pedestrians and bicyclists underscores the importance of preventing these collisions.
Figure 5: 2019-2024 Collisions by Severity (Foster City, accessed in 2025) Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 20
Existing Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network in Foster City is comprised of a combination of bicycle route treatments on local roads and arterials, bike lanes on select arterials, and the levee/bay trail which encircles the perimeter of Foster City. As illustrated in Figure 6, there are approximately 28 miles of existing bicycle facilities in Foster City:
x Á
ááģ/ģShared Use Paths: 11.1 miles of shared bi-directional space for people walking and biking. x Á
ááģ//ģ²þÁģ>
Ès: 5.7 miles of striped lanes for bikes next to vehicle travel lanes. x Á
ááģ///ģ²þÁģZÎìès: 11 miles of shared travel lanes for cars and bikes.
For more information on bicycle facility types and images, see Figure 18.
Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024) Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 21
Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions
Pedestrian crossings throughout Foster City vary in their design and level of comfort. The examples below highlight the range of existing conditions found today. Some crossings incorporate features that support comfortable and convenient access (shown on the right), while others highlight opportunities for improvement (shown on the left).
3B3BUncontrolled intersection
Crane Avenue
èģì¾ģÎìÝèģ
Èģ>ÎÎÈģÎìÝè
Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing
WÎÁ
ݲáģ÷nue at Castor Street
Highly visibility crosswalk and advanced yield
markings
4B4BStop-Controlled Intersection
Altair Avenue
èģ>ÎģÝive
Unmarked pedestrian crossing
Catamaran Street at Shell Boulevard
Visible (buffered) bike lane and standard
crosswalk striping
5B5BSignalized Intersection
Foster City Boulevard at Metro Center Boulevard
Limited crossings, long crossing distances, and
narrow pedestrian island
Eªø
èÝģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ
èģWÎÝèģZÎþ
Áģ÷
Marked crossings on all legs
No Crossing Marked
No Crossing Marked
Limited Crossings
Crossings Marked
Crossings Marked
Crossings Provided
Crane Ave
WÎÁ
ݲáģ÷
Altair Ave
Catamaran St
m
WÎÝèģZÎþ
Áģ÷
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 22
Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions
People biking in Foster City encounter a variety of roadway conditions, from busy corridors to quieter neighborhood streets. The examples below showcase common bicycle facilities used within the City.
While these facilities support bicycle travel, many rely primarily on pavement markings and provide little physical separation from vehicle traffic.
An all ages and abilities bicycle network is designed to be comfortable for a broad range of users, including children, older adults, families, and people who may not currently bike. Facilities that provide greater separation from vehicle traffic are generally more comfortable and appeal to a wider range of riders4F4F
5. The examples below illustrate both the existing bicycle network and opportunities to create a more connected and comfortable bicycling experience.
Arterial Roads
E Hillsdale Boulevard at Edgewater Boulevard
Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èáģø²è°ģ40 mph speed limit
Local Roads
Marlin Avenue at Surfperch Street
Á
ááģ///ģ²¾ģZÎìèģø²è°ģĔđģÇÚ°ģÚÎáèģáÚģÁ²Ç²è
5 Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO (2025), https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 23
Planning for the E-Bike Era
E-bikes are transforming how people travel. By reducing the physical effort required to ride, e-bikes make bicycling more accessible for people of all ages and abilities, enabling older adults, families with children, and others to travel farther, carry more, and choose bicycling for both everyday and recreational trips.
California law recognizes three classes of e-bikes, each with different operating characteristics and speed capabilities as shown in Table 1. Under state law, these e-bikes are generally treated as bicycles, meaning they are subject to the same rules of the road and are permitted on most bicycle ©
²Á²è²áģìÈÁááģÎè°Ýø²áģÝáèݲèĥģ/Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþĦģÁ ááģ3 e-bikes are prohibited on the Bay Levee
Trail. During development of this BPMP, community members frequently raised concerns about interactions between people walking, bicycling, and riding e-bikes along the trail, highlighting the importance of designing and managing shared-use facilities that are safe and comfortable for all users.
Table 1: California E-Bike Classifications
Classification áݲÚè²ÎÈ
Class 1 Operates via pedal-assist and has a max power speed of 20 mph Class 2 Operates via pedal-assist or throttle and has a max power speed of 20 mph
Class 3 Operates via pedal-assist and has a max power speed of 28 mph.
Riders must be at least 16 years of age.
A related challenge facing Foster City and communities across the country is the growing availability of higher-powered electric motorcycles ("e-motos") and other devices that are marketed or sold as e-bikes but do not meet California's legal e-bike definitions. These vehicles are capable of significantly higher speeds and have contributed to confusion around regulations, enforcement, and á
©ģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈĥģ/ÈģÝáÚÎÈáĦģè°ģ
Á²©ÎÝȲ
ģ>ª²áÁ
èìÝģ²áģÎÈá²Ý²ÈªģÇ
áìÝáģèÎģáèÝȪè°Èģ
consumer protections, improve labeling requirements, and better distinguish legal e-bikes from noncompliant electric vehicles, such as e-motos.
The community's feedback received as part of the BPMP reinforced that safely accommodating ebikes requires a layered approach. The foundation is a connected, comfortable, and predictable network that reduces conflicts. Complementing these infrastructure improvements, the plan recommends education and outreach strategies to promote safe bicycling and micromobility, including education on the safe operation of e-bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards. The plan also recommends exploring partnerships with local schools to establish an e-bike education, skills training, and permit program to help young riders understand applicable laws, ride responsibly, and build confidence before riding independently.
While this BPMP is centered on improving conditions for people walking and bicycling, its recommendations also establish a strong foundation for accommodating the continued growth of ebikes and other emerging micromobility devices. By prioritizing a connected, low-stress network and more comfortable crossings, the plan creates infrastructure that is resilient to changing travel behaviors and technologies. The City will continue to monitor travel and safety trends, including Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 24
tracking e-bike and scooter-related collisions separately, to help guide future investments and adapt as new mobility options emerge.
Comfort and Connectivity
Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter
Creating a walking and biking network that people enjoy and choose to use requires more than simply providing facilities, it requires thinking critically about which destinations people want to reach and whether they can be reached through routes that feel safe, comfortable, and connected.
Evaluating both comfort and connectivity helps identify:
x Where existing conditions currently support walking and bicycling; and x Where barriers discourage travel; and
x Where investments can most effectively improve access to key destinations.
The following maps present the outcomes of a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) and Connectivity Analysis.
Together these analyses identify destinations within the City where walking and biking improvements can expand access for all types of residents. By evaluating both the comfort of individual routes and how well those routes connect people to destinations, the analysis highlights gaps in the network and opportunities to create a more connected, accessible, and user-friendly transportation system.
Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress is a framework used to evaluate how comfortable a roadway segment or crossing feels for people to walk or bike. The framework recognizes that many people are unlikely to walk or bike along routes that feel stressful or unsafe due to roadway or intersection factors, such as vehicle speeds, vehicle volumes, number of travel lanes, lack of barrier between vehicles, and marked crosswalks. Understanding stress levels helps identify facilities that are comfortable for a wide range of users, including children, older adults, and people who are less confident walking or bicycling in traffic.
The following section describes Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS. Bicycle LTS is assigned to roadway segments. The LTS for roadways was evaluated by using characteristics of the road that influence a bicyclist’s perceived level of comfort/stress. Factors considered the number of travel lanes, facility type, bike width, parking lane width, and posted speed limit. Each of these characteristics contributed to the overall LTS score. Similarly, Pedestrian Crossing LTS is assigned to intersection crossings. The LTS for intersections was evaluated using characteristics of the intersection that influence pedestrians’ perceived level of stress and comfort. Factors that were considered were traffic controls, existing crossing treatments, crossing width, traffic volumes, and existing accessible ramps. The resulting LTS scores are classified into four categories, ranging from LTS 1 (lowest stress) to LTS 4 (highest stress), as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the LTS analysis. Various street design treatments can be used to lower LTS and improve comfort for people walking and biking. Potential treatments for Foster City streets are introduced in the Priority Projects in Chapter 5: Future Network.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 25
Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring
Figure 8ħģWáèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ģ^ÎݲȪ
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 26
Figure 9 displays the results of the bicycle LTS analysis. Most local neighborhood roads in Foster City have an LTS of 1 and are relatively comfortable for walking and biking. Major roadways such as Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard have LTS scores of 4, and are very low comfort given the high speeds and vehicular volumes. While parts of Edgewater Road, Shell Boulevard, Marsh Drive, Vintage Park Drive, and E 3rd Avenue have LTS scores of 3, they are currently only comfortable for the very confident bicyclists.
Figure 9ħģ²þÁģ>d^ģZáìÁèá
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 27
Figure 10 displays the results of the pedestrian crossing LTS analysis. The highest stress pedestrian crossings are largely located on Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Shell Boulevard and Beach Park Boulevard. Most local crossings have an LTS score of two, meaning they are generally comfortable for people walking, but need improvements to provide the most comfort for children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Figure 10ħģWáèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ>d^ģZáìÁèá
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 28
Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations While LTS measures the comfort of individual routes and crossings, connectivity evaluates how effectively those routes enable people to reach destinations. A well-connected network allows people to travel between homes, schools, parks, shopping areas, and community facilities using comfortable and direct routes. Conversely, gaps in the network may limit access even when destinations are geographically close.
The connectivity analysis evaluates how accessible key destinations are from surrounding areas using the existing walking and biking network. For each destination, the areas that can be reached within 5 minutes, 5–15 minutes, and 15–30 minutes by walking or biking were mapped. These areas, called travel sheds, show how far someone can travel along the current street, trail, and path network within a given amount of time. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the connectivity analysis.
Combining connectivity with LTS helps identify destinations that are already well-served by lowstress facilities, as well as destinations where access is constrained by high-stress routes or missing connections.
The destinations included in the analysis were informed by community feedback collected during Phase 1 engagement and include:
x Schools: Public and private schools
x Community Facilities: Access points to City
parks (including neighborhood and pocket parks) and
primary access points to regional parks/trails (levee
pedway). The City’s Community Center, Community
Center Annex, and Library are all within or nearby a City park and are included as part of this destination type. x Shopping Areas: Grocery stores, restaurants, and
small commercial areas
The following analysis was completed on public right-of-way only. Private roads were excluded because they are not owned and managed by the City. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the results of the combined LTS and Connectivity analysis, highlighting areas where strong low-stress connections already exist and areas where improvements could significantly enhance access to key destinations.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 29
Figure 11: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 30
Figure 12: Wáèݲ
ÈģConnectivity and LTS
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 31
Chapter 3
Community
Feedback
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 32
Chapter 3: Community Feedback
Community input is a critical part of bicycle and pedestrian planning because it brings real-world experience into the planning and engineering process. While data can identify roadway characteristics, traffic conditions, and network gaps, community members provide insight into how those conditions affect travel choices, perceptions of safety, and access to destinations.
The BPMP aims to create a network that reflects the needs and priorities of people who live and travel through Foster City. Community feedback was conducted in three phases and directly informed the following elements of the BPMP:
x Key Destinations included in the Connectivity Analysis (see Planning for the E-Bike Era x E-bikes are transforming how people travel. By reducing the physical effort required to ride, ebikes make bicycling more accessible for people of all ages and abilities, enabling older adults, families with children, and others to travel farther, carry more, and choose bicycling for both everyday and recreational trips.
California law recognizes three classes of e-bikes, each with different operating characteristics and speed capabilities as shown in Table 1. Under state law, these e-bikes are generally treated as bicycles, meaning they are subject to the same rules of the road and are permitted on most bicycle ©
²Á²è²áģìÈÁááģÎè°Ýø²áģÝáèݲèĥģ/Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþĦģÁ ááģĔģ-bikes are prohibited on the Bay Levee
Trail. During development of this BPMP, community members frequently raised concerns about interactions between people walking, bicycling, and riding e-bikes along the trail, highlighting the importance of designing and managing shared-use facilities that are safe and comfortable for all users.
Table 1: California E-Bike Classifications
Classification áݲÚè²ÎÈ
Class 1 Operates via pedal-assist and has a max power speed of 20 mph Class 2 Operates via pedal-assist or throttle and has a max power speed of 20 mph
Class 3 Operates via pedal-assist and has a max power speed of 28 mph.
Riders must be at least 16 years of age.
A related challenge facing Foster City and communities across the country is the growing availability of higher-powered electric motorcycles ("e-motos") and other devices that are marketed or sold as e-bikes but do not meet California's legal e-bike definitions. These vehicles are capable of significantly higher speeds and have contributed to confusion around regulations, enforcement, and á
©ģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈĥģ/ÈģÝáÚÎÈáĦģè°ģ
Á²©ÎÝȲ
ģ>ª²áÁ
èìÝģ²áģÎÈá²Ý²ÈªģÇ
áìÝáģèÎģáèÝȪè°Èģ
consumer protections, improve labeling requirements, and better distinguish legal e-bikes from noncompliant electric vehicles, such as e-motos.
The community's feedback received as part of the BPMP reinforced that safely accommodating ebikes requires a layered approach. The foundation is a connected, comfortable, and predictable network that reduces conflicts. Complementing these infrastructure improvements, the plan recommends education and outreach strategies to promote safe bicycling and micromobility, including education on the safe operation of e-bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards. The Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 33
plan also recommends exploring partnerships with local schools to establish an e-bike education, skills training, and permit program to help young riders understand applicable laws, ride responsibly, and build confidence before riding independently.
While this BPMP is centered on improving conditions for people walking and bicycling, its recommendations also establish a strong foundation for accommodating the continued growth of ebikes and other emerging micromobility devices. By prioritizing a connected, low-stress network and more comfortable crossings, the plan creates infrastructure that is resilient to changing travel behaviors and technologies. The City will continue to monitor travel and safety trends, including tracking e-bike and scooter-related collisions separately, to help guide future investments and adapt as new mobility options emerge.
x Comfort and Connectivity
x BPMP goals (see Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations)
x Future Network (see Chapter 5: Future Network)
x Priority Projects (see °
ÚèÝģėħģ/ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈģ^èÝ
èªþ)
Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and
Needs
The first phase of outreach occurred in
parallel with the existing conditions data
analysis. The project team sought feedback
about the most important concerns related
to walking and biking in Foster City, from
City-wide issues to spot-location concerns.
The Phase 1 engagement included an online
survey, one in-person public event at the
Foster City Family Movie Night, a
presentation to the City Council, and a
presentation to the Foster City Traffic
Review Committee. The survey was open
for six weeks, from May through mid-July
2025. Comments from the in-person event
were combined with the online survey
responses. Across all types of engagement,
staff had an opportunity to hear from
several families and get perspectives from
both youth and parents. Through the
surveys and other forms of engagement,
252 contribution points were collected to
show areas of concerns within the City.
Figure 14 shows the areas of concerns
based on the public comments received.
Comments are most dense along major corridors such as Foster City Boulevard, Shell Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard.
Figure 13: W°
áģĒģWÎÚ-up Engagement Event
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 34
Figure 14: Map of Community Concerns Z²÷ģìݲȪģW° áģĒ
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 35
Key Takeaways
The project team asked community members to provide feedback on the existing network. They chose to provide a comment within one of the five categories as shown in Figure 15.
Safety needs are where respondents noted concerns regarding safety for people walking and biking.
Pedestrian and biking gaps are where respondents noted a missing connection in facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes. Key destinations are where participants noted desired or missing access to a community destination such as a school or park. Other needs include all other comments related to walking and biking.
The community provided a broad range of feedback which followed five key themes.
1. Wáèݲ
Èģ^
©èþģ
Èģonnectivity
Comments highlighted respondents urgent desire for more visible, safe, and accessible crosswalks— particularly along Edgewater Blvd and near parks, schools, and apartments—due to high vehicle speeds and missing pedestrian infrastructure such as curb ramps, refuge islands, and flashing beacons. Residents noted that long stretches of busy roads lack safe crossing options, forcing people walking to take risks.
2ĥģdÝ
©©²ģ
ÁDzȪģ
Èģ^ÚģZìè²ÎÈ
Respondents requested measures such as roundabouts and lane reductions to address frequent speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving that endanger people walking and biking. Specific corridors included Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard. 3ĥģÎÈ©Á²èáģ
ÈģÎÈ©ìá²ÎÈģÝÎìÈģ^°
ÝģW
è°áģ
ÈģdÝ
²Áģè²Üìèè
Many respondents described “dangerous” or high-stress interactions on shared trails involving fastmoving e-bikes; however, community members often use the term "e-bike" broadly to describe a range of electric-powered devices, including higher-powered e-motos that are not legally classified 38%
19%
10%
6%
27%
Safety Need Pedestrian Gap Biking Gap Key Destinations Other Need Figure 15ħģW°
áģĒģȪ
ªÇÈèģÎÇÇÈèģ
èªÎݲá
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 36
as e-bikes. They expressed desire for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to reduce conflicts. Respondents’ concerns were especially focused on e-bike speeds on the levee and Bay Trail, with some users even suggesting restrictions on certain e-bike classes. 4ĥģWÝÎèèģ
ÈģÎÈÈèģ²¾ģ/È©Ý
áèÝìèìÝ
Although some respondents opposed bike lanes on major roads, many respondents supported protected facilities, citing gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and missing protected crossings as major safety issues. Respondents frequently requested working with private developments to close trail gaps around the Foster City lagoon and Bay Trail, noting that more people would bike if they felt safer or had more access to these routes.
5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
Some respondents opposed adding or widening bike lanes if it requires removing vehicle travel lanes or parking; respondents cited concerns about increased congestion, reduced driving space, and safety issues on certain arterial roads, such as Edgewater Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard they believe are unsuitable for cycling. Arterial roads are frequently mentioned as a concern due to high vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, and bike lanes here are perceived to have an impact on driver experience.
Informing the Plan
The five key themes above were instrumental in developing the goals and policies in Chapter 4:
Policy Recommendations which aim to be responsive to the community’s needs and concerns, addressing the most critical barriers to a safe, connected, and accessible network. Phase 1 also provided context for the existing conditions analysis outlined in Chapter 2: Network Today and additional places residents want to walk, bike, and roll to, which were incorporated as key destinations in the connectivity analysis.
Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network
Phase 2 engagement sought feedback from the community on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The network maps show the proposed walking and biking improvements, as outlined in Chapter 5: Future Network. The methods of engagement included an online survey, an inperson pop-up, and a focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for several schools in Foster City.
The online survey consisted of an interactive feedback map that was available from September to October 2025. The interactive feedback map received 113 contributions from 41 contributors. The top two contributors made up 36% of the online comments received. On September 21, 2025, the project team, including City Staff and the consultant team attended the Foster City Family Bike Ride to collect in-person feedback. During the pop-up, the project team spoke with approximately 75 residents. The third and final engagement activity of Phase 2 was a virtual focus group meeting held on October 16, 2025. All schools were invited to participate, and two parents attended representing students from Kids Connection Private School, Bowditch Middle School, and Audubon Elementary School.
Phase 2 included presentations at two Traffic Review Committee (TRC) meetings and two City Council meetings. The first TRC meeting occurred at the beginning of the engagement process and Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 37
focused on reviewing the planned outreach approach and providing input on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The second TRC meeting presentation occurred after public engagement activities were completed, and concentrated on reviewing community feedback, discussing revisions to the proposed future networks, and reviewing the project prioritization approach and results. Two City Council meetings were also attended during Phase 2. The first Council meeting occurred after public engagement activities and before project prioritization. The presentation focused on reviewing the proposed prioritization approach and confirming the goals and policies presented in Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations. The second Council meeting occurred after project prioritization was complete and the presentation focused on reviewing the results and selecting the priority projects to advance for conceptual design.
Key Takeaways
Overall, Phase 2 engagement demonstrated the public’s consensus about the need for pedestrian crossing improvements as proposed across Foster City. Community members identified crossing locations they wanted to be added to the network or made a higher priority. Crossings near schools and parks were highlighted by community members as being their highest priorities.
Input on the proposed future bicycle network varied greatly based on the facility and corridor. The majority of comments were related to Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Beach Park Boulevard, Shell Boulevard, and the Bay Trail/levee. Community members expressed interest in greater separation for bikes along Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard, which were previously planned to remain either Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Routes. Community members largely supported the proposed separated bicycle (Class IV) facilities on Beach Park Boulevard and Shell Boulevard, while comments on the Bay Trail/levee centered on conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and concerns about e-bike speeds.
Informing the Plan
The comments received on the proposed future networks directly influenced the final future bicycle network and priority pedestrian crossings presented in Chapter 5: Future Network Several changes were made to the proposed bicycle network, including revisions to the recommended facility types on Foster City Boulevard and E Hillsdale Boulevard from Class II/III to Class IV, after hearing from the public that Class IV facilities on these streets would feel more comfortable for all ages and abilities.
Phase 2 also informed which proposed improvements would advance to conceptual design and helped identify potential implementation and funding strategies.
Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan
Phase 3 engagement focused on gathering feedback on the priority projects presented in Chapter 6:
Implementation Strategy and draft BPMP. Engagement during this phase included online public review, a community survey, two community pop-ups, and a public hearing.
The draft BPMP was posted for public review on the project website alongside a survey that allowed the community to provide feedback on specific chapters. The City received 45 comments on the draft BPMP submitted online.
Additional opportunities for input were provided through two community pop-ups and a public hearing. Two community pop-ups were held at the Vibe Teen Center on July 29, 2026, and Off the Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 38
Grid on August 5, 2026. An official public hearing was held during City Council presentation on August 3, 2026. These engagement opportunities provided the community with multiple ways to review contents within the draft BPMP, comment on the proposed priority projects, and provide feedback before the plan was finalized.
Key Takeaways
Phase 3 engagement showed strong continued support for the BPMP’s direction, particularly for more separated bicycle facilities and improved pedestrian crossings near schools and parks.
Comments emphasized a desire for faster implementation, recommending that the City lean on lowcost quick build treatments to get improvements on the ground sooner rather than waiting for full capital projects. However, some community members raised concerns about potential changes to vehicle travel lanes and parking. Comments on specific policies, such as no right turn on red rules, ebike enforcement, and where bike lanes should sit relative to parked cars, also varied. A recurring theme was that informal routes people already rely on, including neighborhood cut throughs, the levee, and pocket park paths should be recognized and preserved as part of the network.
Informing the Plan
Comments received during the draft BPMP public review period informed revisions to the plan, including updates to the plan content, proposed bicycle network, and priority project cut sheets.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 39
Chapter 4
Goals and Policies
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 40
Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations
The BPMP vision is supported by a set of goals, policies, and strategies that will guide future decisions, investments, and programs. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for improving safety, comfort, accessibility, and connectivity for people walking and biking throughout Foster City.
The goals and policies presented in this chapter reflect community priorities, City objectives, and transportation planning best practices. Figure 16 illustrates how these elements work together to support the long-term vision of the BPMP.
Figure 16: WÝÎááģháģèÎģ÷ÁÎÚģWDWģ'Î
ÁáĦģWÎÁ²²áĦģ
Èģ^èÝ
課á
1. •Review and document City's existing bicycle and pedestrian efforts (plans, policies, and programs)
2. •Perform a benchmark assessment to evaluate existing efforts to date against current industry best practices
3. •Conduct public engagement to understand community needs and desires
4. •/È販þģ¾þģè°Çáģ
ÈģÎÇÇìȲèþģÚݲÎݲè²áģ©ÝÎÇģÚìÁ²ģȪ
ªÇÈè
5. •Re-evaluate project goals and develop policies and strategies to enhance bicycle and pedestrian activity/accessibility
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 41
Existing Policies and Programs
d°ģ'Î
ÁáģšģWÎÁ²²áģ÷ÁÎÚÇÈèģª
Èģø²è°ģ
ģÈ°Ç
ݾ²Èªģ
ááááÇÈè to gain a thorough
understanding of the current bicycle and pedestrian efforts in Foster City. The goal of the assessment was to provide a snapshot of the current practices that influence planning and implementation decisions and identify opportunities to institutionalize practices that support and advance the goals of the BPMP.
The complete Benchmarking Assessment can be found in Appendix A. The assessment evaluates the following categories:
1. s²á²ÎÈģšģ>
Ýá°²ÚħģCity leadership and interagency coordination commit to support the overarching goals of the BPMP and have established processes which support project advancement.
2. Community Engagement: Establish avenues to communicate progress and receive feedback from community members on key projects.
3.
è
ģÈ
Áþá²áħģLeverage data analysis tools to support ongoing project identification, prioritization, and tracking.
4. &ìȲȪģšģWÎÁ²þģ/ÈèªÝ
è²ÎÈħ Strategize for funding opportunities to maximize safety and connectivity benefits.
5. ì
è²ÎÈģšģÈ©ÎÝÇÈèħ Organize educational efforts to target the most vulnerable communities and enforcement efforts to cover the most dangerous locations.
6. /È©Ý
áèÝìèìÝģšģᲪÈħģDevelop projects to align with identified needs, integrate existing policies, and demonstrate potential improvements.
7. Speed šģKÚÝ
è²ÎÈáħģAlign vehicle roadway classification with target speeds, facility selection, and context sensitive design.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 42
Policy Recommendations
0B0BGoal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, shopping areas, community facilities, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities.
WÎÁ²þģĒĥĒ Eliminate bicycle and pedestrian crashes that cause fatalities and severe injuries.
Strategy 1.1.a: WݲÎÝ²è²ąģÚÝμèáģÎÈģÝÎ
ø
þáģ²È販²ģÎÈģè°ģ²èþŅáģ-²ª°ģ/ȼìÝþģ
Network from the Local Roadway Safety Plan5F5F
6 (LRSP), as updated, with particular
focus on roads with high volumes of vulnerable road users such as school-aged children, seniors, and people walking or biking.
Strategy 1.1.b: /È販þģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲè²áģèÎģ
Á²ªÈģÚÝμèģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģø²è°ģÚÝμèģ
locations highlighted in the LRSP, as updated.
WÎÁ²þģĒĥē Build and maintain a dense, low-stress network of on-and off-street bicycle facilities that seamlessly connect to key destinations.
Strategy 1.2.a: Evaluate the lowering of speed limits (based on state guidance and speed studies) on roadways providing access to schools and parks and along the -²ª°ģ/ȼìÝþģEèøÎݾģ²È販²ģ²Èģè°ģ>Z^WĦģ
áģ
ÚÚÝÎÚݲ
èĥ
Strategy 1.2.b: Prioritize infrastructure projects that close key walking and biking gaps or enhance high stress roads that provide access to key destinations. Use public input to help identify gaps and barriers to access.
Strategy 1.2.c: Where feasible, implement traffic calming measures in locations identified through the LRSP and existing Safe Routes to School initiatives, with an emphasis on areas within a ¼ mile of schools. Collaborate with residents and school communities to identify priority locations for improvements. Explore opportunities to participate in quick-build or pilot projects to test and evaluate the effectiveness of potential infrastructure changes.
6 CCAG. Local Roadway Safety Plan. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/28717_CCAGCountywide-LRSP-Foster-City-Chapter.pdf Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 43
WÎÁ²þģĒĥĔ ZìģÎÈ©Á²èáģèøÈģ²þÁģ
ÈģÚáèݲ
Èģ©
²Á²è²áģ
ÈģÎè°Ýģ÷°²ìÁ
Ýģ
travel.
Strategy 1.3.a: Establish an internal process for selecting bikeway types based on the Caltrans ᲪÈģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈģìÁÁè²ÈģĚĕ ĺ/ģĚĕĻģªì²Á²Èáģ©ÎÝģÁ
ááģ/Ħģ//Ħģ///Ħģ
Èģ/sģ²¾ø
þáĦģ²ÈÁì²ÈªģÎÈá²Ý
è²ÎÈģΩģÝÎ
ø
þģÎÈèýèĦģìáÝģÈáĦģ
Èģ
safety for people of all ages and abilities.
Strategy 1.3.b: Develop crosswalk guidelines for both controlled and uncontrolled intersections, incorporating FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations to inform improvements based on roadway context, traffic volumes, and pedestrian activity.
Strategy 1.3.c: Establish striping and signage standards for bikeway conflict zones at driveways, intersections, and loading zones, following guidance in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide.
Strategy 1.3.d: Continue efforts to implement Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413 - daylighting) by removing visual obstructions within 20 feet of the approach side of the crosswalks at intersections, in compliance with state law. Begin with locations near schools, parks, and areas with high volumes of vulnerable road users, and expand citywide with a commitment to daylight all intersections along the High /ȼìÝþģEèøÎݾ.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 44
1B1BGoal 2: Design with Intent
Enhance walking and biking options by tailoring designs to the function and context of each roadway, accounting for roadway classification, adjacent land uses, and key destinations to ensure safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all.
WÎÁ²þģēĥĒ Ensure that walking and biking infrastructure reflects the needs and constraints of each neighborhood.
Strategy 2.1.a: Reference design context and modal priorities, in accordance with
ÁèÝ
Èáģ/-94 and City Engineering Staff, when determining future roadway cross sections.
Strategy 2.1.b: Prioritize infrastructure upgrades that support children, older adults, and people with disabilities.
Strategy 2.1.c: Where feasible, coordinate infrastructure improvements with other ÝÁ÷
Èèģ²èþģÚÁ
ÈȲȪģ©©ÎÝèáĦģáì°ģ
áģ'ÝÈģ/È©Ý
áèÝìèìÝĦģW
ݾáģD
áèÝģWÁ
ÈĦģ
Èģ
General Plan.
WÎÁ²þģēĥē Engage residents in shaping active transportation solutions that work for their neighborhoods.
Strategy 2.2.a: Explore opportunities to host workshops or online surveys to gather input on preferred routes, safety concerns, and design ideas prior to project design. Look for ways to provide multiple opportunities for feedback throughout the planning and design process.
Strategy 2.2.b: Aim to partner with local schools, senior centers, neighborhood associations, and organized citizen groups to provide design input on improvements.
WÎÁ²þģēĥĔ ²ÝèģÝáÎìÝáģèÎģÁÎ
è²ÎÈáģø²è°ģè°ģªÝ
èáèģÈèøÎݾģª
ÚáģÎÝģá
©èþģÎÈÝÈáģ
for people walking and biking.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 45
Strategy 2.3.a: Maintain an annually updated map of infrastructure priorities that account for needs and network gaps.
Strategy 2.3.b: Pursue local, regional, and other applicable grant and funding opportunities focused on active transportation and Safe Routes to School.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 46
2B2BGoal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network
Advance a connected, adaptable, and regionally integrated system that supports walking and biking as an option for local travel and responds to evolving mobility needs.
WÎÁ²þģĔĥĒ Support the use of walking and biking for local trips.
Strategy 3.1.a: Coordinate improvement projects with the ADA Transition Plan to maximize benefits and make sure every project includes accessible ramps.
Strategy 3.1.b: Promote safe bicycling and micromobility through outreach channels and partner agencies, including education on safely using e-bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards.
Strategy 3.1.cħģ/ÈÎÝÚÎÝ
èģ©ÎÝģ
Èģ
©èÝģáèì²áģÎÈģ²þÁģ
ÈģÚáèݲ
Èģ
infrastructure projects to evaluate changes in vehicle volumes and vehicle speeds.
Strategy 3.2.d: Create a comprehensive network map illustrating primary bicycle and pedestrian routes, key destinations, transit access points, and linkages to adjacent communities.
WÎÁ²þģĔĥē Coordinate with local and regional agencies to create a network that extends beyond the City’s limits and continuously connects to adjoining communities.
Strategy 3.2.a: Participate in countywide and regional gap analyses to support seamless network connectivity.
Strategy 3.2.b: Collaborate on cross-jurisdictional projects and pursue joint funding opportunities.
Strategy 3.2.c: Explore opportunities to provide safer and improved access to transit stops.
WÎÁ²þģĔĥĔ Encourage the integration of new and evolving transportation modes, considering safety, accessibility, and infrastructure compatibility.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 47
Strategy 3.3.a: Explore the development of e-mobility design guidelines focused on defining appropriate areas for use, reducing conflicts for network users, and managing shared use paths with strategies such as wayfinding, minimum spacing for signage, supportive pavement markings, and recommended path speed limits.
Strategy 3.3.b: Look for ways to partner with schools to establish an e-bike training course and permit program.
Strategy 3.3.cħģ/È販þģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲè²áģèÎģÚÝÎ÷²ģáìÝģDzÝÎÇβÁ²èþģÚ Ý¾²Èªģ
èģ
key destinations like schools, parks, public buildings, apartments, and shopping centers. Collect input from residents and businesses to determine priority locations and other amenities of interest (e.g. bike repair stations).
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 48
Chapter 5
Future Network
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 49
Chapter 5: Future Network
This chapter presents the future bicycle and pedestrian networks for Foster City. The future networks build upon existing facilities and identify opportunities to improve connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping areas, and other key destinations.
The recommendations include both near-term and long-term improvements designed to create a more comfortable and connected experience for people walking and biking throughout the City.
Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network establishes a
low-stress network of bicycle facilities
that build upon the existing network to
provide continuous connections across
major corridors and collector streets.
Low-stress facilities are intended to be
comfortable for everyone, regardless of
age or ability.
The recommended facility types in the
future bicycle network align with Caltrans
guidelines for low-stress facilities based
on roadway characteristics such as
speeds, volumes, number of lanes, and
other key contextual factors. Figure 17
shows a chart from the Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance,
which informed the creation of the
Foster City future bicycle network. The
recommendations are also informed by
feedback from community engagement.
What do we mean by a low-stress and connected
network?
A low-stress and connected network is one that feels comfortable for all users. /è provides convenient connections to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and shopping centers.
Different streets require different types of bicycle facilities. On busier streets with higher vehicle volumes and speeds, greater separation from vehicles is needed to create a comfortable bicycling experience. The future bicycle network reflects these differences and aims to provide connected, low-stress routes throughout Foster City.
Figure 17:
ÁèÝ
ÈáģᲪÈģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈģìÁÁè²È-94 Complete
^èÝèáħģÎÈèýèì
ÁģᲪÈģ'ì²
È
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 50
Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 51
Bicycle Boulevards
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģìÝÝÈèÁþģ°
áģĒĒģDzÁáģΩģÁ
ááģ///ģ²þÁģZÎìèá, where bicycles share the travel lane with vehicles. While some of these routes will remain shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, the City intends to enhance them with features that improve comfort and better prioritize bicycle travel. These improvements may include traffic calming, speed and volume reduction measures, wayfinding signage, pavement markings, and intersection treatments. When a shared street is intentionally designed to create a more comfortable bicycling experience, it is commonly referred to as a bicycle boulevard (Class III).
Bicycle boulevards are a subtype of Class III facility, implemented on low-speed, low-volume neighborhood streets designed to provide comfortable bicycle connections between key destinations. Bicycle boulevards use a combination of improvements to enhance comfort and prioritize bicycle travel.
Common bicycle boulevard improvements are shown below.
^ÚģZìè²ÎÈģD
áìÝá to reduce vehicle
speeds
sÎÁìÇģZìè²ÎÈģD
áìÝá to encourage
traffic to use major roads
Wayfinding Signage to guide users along the
route
²þÁģÎìÁ÷
ÝģW
÷ÇÈèģD
ݾ²Èªá to
identify the route and increase awareness
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 52
Future Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network builds upon Foster City's existing bicycle facilities and identifies opportunities to improve connectivity and comfort to key destinations throughout the City. The network includes existing facilities, recommended new facilities, and corridors that need additional effort to study and determine feasibility before a preferred design can be identified and implemented.
Some future corridors may require changes to the existing roadway layout to provide bicycle facilities that better meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. On Figure 19, existing facilities are shown with solid lines, while proposed facilities and corridors for future study to determine feasibility are identified separately.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 53
Table 2: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage Future Mileage
Á
ááģ/ģ^°
ÝģháģW
è° 11.1 11.1
Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èá 5.7 0.1
Á
ááģ///ģ²¾ģRoutes and Bike
Boulevards 11 5.5
Á
ááģ/sģ²¾ø
þá 0 13.4
Total Mileage 27.8 30.1
Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 54
Future Pedestrian Network
The future pedestrian network shown in Figure 20 identifies intersections where targeted pedestrian improvements would enhance both comfort and connectivity. Rather than prescribing a single improvement at each location, the BPMP identifies candidate intersections for additional evaluation and investment. This provides the flexibility to implement improvements at each intersection based on its specific context. As the future network is implemented, the City will establish internal processes, design guidelines, and decision-making criteria to ensure intersection improvements are applied consistently. These standards will help to guide the appropriate treatments for various intersections based on the characteristics of the road, safety, and user needs.
Figure 20: Future Wáèݲ
Èģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèá Network
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 55
Pedestrian crossing improvements vary based on factors such as whether a traffic signal or stop sign are present, the number of vehicle lanes being crossed, the volume of vehicles, the speed of vehicles, and nearby destinations like bus stops, schools, parks, and stores. Figure 21 presents a menu of example improvements that may be considered to improve pedestrian safety, comfort, and accessibility at different crossing types. The improvements shown are illustrative and not intended to prescribe a specific treatment at each location. Final improvements selection should be determined during project development and design through site-specific engineering analysis and in accordance with applicable guidance, including FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations0F
7 , the California MUTCD1F
8, and City design standards2F9.
7 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, U.S. DOT (2022), https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 09/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf 8 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans (2026), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/2026/camutcd-2026-all.pdf 9 Streets Standard Details, Foster City,
https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/13691/streets_details_foster_cit y.pdf
Figure 21: Menu of Example Intersection Improvements
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 56
Chapter 6
Implementation
Strategy
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 57
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
The BPMP identifies a vision for a safer, more comfortable, and more connected transportation network, and this chapter outlines the steps to turn that vision into reality.
Because not all improvements can be implemented at once, projects were prioritized to help guide future investments and funding decisions. This chapter presents the prioritization approach, identifies the design options for the highest-priority projects, and outlines potential funding opportunities to support implementation. The recommendations in this plan are intended to serve as a long-term evolving framework.
Project Prioritization
The project prioritization approach helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit to the Foster City community and guides future investment decisions. Prioritizing projects helps to dedicate funding where it’s needed most and to package projects together for efficient and effective implementation.
Because pedestrian improvements primarily consist of localized crossing enhancements, they were grouped into three priority tiers based on their connectivity, proximity to key destinations, and alignment with planned bicycle facilities. Bicycle corridors were evaluated using a project-level scoring framework that allowed projects to be ranked relative to one another.
Pedestrian Project Prioritization
Pedestrian improvements were grouped into three priority tiers to identify crossings where safety and accessibility improvements could provide the greatest benefit. Particular emphasis was placed on crossings near schools, parks, and along major roadways or the Bay Trail. Some pedestrian crossings Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 58
that were not high stress, high connectivity, were added as priority improvements based on community feedback.
Whenever feasible, the City will seek to incorporate crossing improvements into street rehabilitation, larger roadway, and bicycle projects. Tier 1 locations should generally be implemented in conjunction with bicycle facility projects, while Tier 2 and Tier 3 locations may be advanced independently to address specific community needs or take advantage of pedestrian-focused funding opportunities. x Tier 1: Priority crossings (high stress, high connectivity crossings) on major roadways that provide access to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations. x Tier 2: Priority crossings (high stress, high connectivity crossings) located along bicycle corridors where coordination with proposed facilities may be needed. x Tier 3: All remaining high stress, high connectivity crossings identified through the analysis.
Figure 22 displays the results of the pedestrian improvements prioritization.
Figure 22ħģWݲÎÝ²è²ąģWáèݲ
Èģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèá
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 59
Bicycle Project Prioritization
Bicycle projects were evaluated using a scoring framework that considered safety, connectivity, and implementation feasibility. Projects that improve access to key destinations, improve safety, strengthen connections across major roadways, and can be implemented efficiently received higher scores.
Table 3 displays the prioritization criteria.
Table 3ħģ²þÁģWÝμèáģWݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģݲèݲ
Category Criteria
Safety
&
è
ÁģÎÝģ/ȼìÝþģ²þÁIJWáèݲ
ÈģÎÁÁ²á²ÎÈ (Foster City PD, 2019-2024)
All Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions (Foster City PD, 2019-2024) Level of Traffic Stress
Connectivity
Connectivity Score
d²ÝģĒģWݲÎݲèþģWáèݲ
Èģ/ÈèÝáè²ÎÈá
/ÈÝ
ááģÎÈÈè²÷²èþģ
ÝÎááģD
¼ÎÝģZÎ
áģ²Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģĺE Hillsdale
Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, SR 92) or Access to San Mateo Caltrain Access Project
Feasibility Available Right-of-Way
Estimated Costs
Table 4 presents the prioritization results. Both new facilities and facility upgrades are included in the prioritization results.
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
Table 4ħģ²þÁģWÝμèģWݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģZáìÁèá
WÝμèģ/ Corridor From To Future Facility Existing Facility dÎè ÁģWݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģ ScoreBPMP-06.a Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èģ 8BPMP-06.c Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave at 1900 block of Beach Park Boulevard
Á
ááģ/s Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
8 BPMP-05.a Edgewater Blvd /
D
ݲÈÝáģ/áÁ
ÈģBlvd
City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Á
ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èģ 7
BPMP-07.a Shell Blvd Metro Center Blvd Bounty Dr Á
ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģšģ// 7BPMP-09 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Á ááģ/// None 7BPMP-02.b Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Beach Park Blvd Á ááģ/sģ
pending feasibility
None 6
BPMP-05.b Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èģ 6BPMP-06.b Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
6 BPMP-07.b Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Á
ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģšģ// 6BPMP-08 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Á ááģ/sģ
pending feasibility
Á
ááģ//ģ 6
BPMP-02.a Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Á ááģ/s None 5BPMP-04 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èģ 5BPMP-10 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Á ááģ/// Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
5 BPMP-14 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Á
ááģ/// Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
5 Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan
WÝμèģ/ Corridor From To Future Facility Existing Facility dÎè ÁģWݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģ ScoreBPMP-19 Polynesia
Dr/Bounty Dr
Constitution Dr Foster City Blvd Á
ááģ/// None 5
BPMP-03 Vintage Park Dr Metro Center Blvd Foster City Blvd Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
4 BPMP-11 Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Á
ááģ/// Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
4 BPMP-12 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Á
ááģ/// Á
ááģ///ĥģ'ÝÈ-backed
sharrow
4 BPMP-17 Polaris Ave Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Á
ááģ/// None 4BPMP-18 Pilgram
Dr/Balclutha Dr
E Hillsdale Blvd Foster City Blvd Á
ááģ/// None 4
BPMP-13 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Á
ááģ/// None 3BPMP-01 E 3rd Ave City Limits Levee/Bay Trail Á ááģ/s None 2BPMP-05.c Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin St Á ááģ/s Á
ááģ//ģ²¾ģ>
Èģ 2BPMP-15 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Dr Á
ááģ/// None 2BPMP-16 Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Á ááģ/s None 2BPMP-06.d Beach Park Blvd /
Foster City Elementary
Virgo Ln Polaris Ave Á
ááģ/s None 1
Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 62
Advancing Priority Projects
While project prioritization helped identify corridors with the greatest potential benefit, additional considerations were used to select projects for further development. These considerations included community feedback received throughout the planning process, coordination with planned roadway repaving projects, and opportunities to further refine and illustrate new facility types in the City, such as protected bikeways and bicycle boulevards. Based on these factors, City Council selected seven priority projects to advance. One of the seven projects combines improvements at Gull Avenue and Marlin Street with the connecting segment along Grebe Street. As a result, the seven priority projects are represented by six project groupings below:
x Beach Park Boulevard from Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard x 'ìÁÁģ÷ÈìģšģD
ÝÁ²Èģ^èÝèģÎÈÈèģ÷²
ģ'Ýģ^èÝè
x Edgewater Boulevard from E Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue x Edgewater Boulevard from City Limits to E Hillsdale Boulevard x Foster City Boulevard from E Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard x Beach Park Boulevard from Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard The concept designs presented in this chapter demonstrate how the BPMP recommendations could be incorporated into Foster City's existing transportation network. These concepts are intended as a starting point for future project development rather than implementation-ready designs. Additional public engagement, engineering, analysis (such as parking and traffic operations), environmental review, and cost estimating will be required to refine each concept before implementation.
Alternative configurations and improvements may be studied as part of further planning analysis.
Advancement of these projects will also depend on future funding availability, including competitive ªÝ
Èèģ
ø
ÝáĦģ
Ú²è
Áģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèģWÝΪÝ
Çģĺ/WĻģ©ìȲȪĦģ
ÈģÎè°Ýģ
÷
²Á
Áģ©ìȲȪģáÎìÝáĥ
To support future project development, the concept designs were informed by industry guidance including:
x California Fire Code
x California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
x Caltrans D/ 94
x Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
x &-tģZÎ
ģ²èģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈ
Áģ'ì²
x Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 63
Project Types
As the priority projects are refined, implementation opportunities will be identified. Some projects may be completed using a quick-build approach, while others will be capital improvement projects.
Quick-Build
Quick-build is an approach to building
infrastructure using low-cost, shorter-term
materials to lessen construction impacts and
implementation timelines
Ú²è
Áģ/ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģWÝΪÝ
Çģĺ/WĻģWÝojects
/WģWÝμèáģ
ÝģèþÚ²
ÁÁþģì²Áèģø²è°ģÚÝÇ
ÈÈèģ
materials and may include modifications to the
curb line, utility work, an/or durable materials
such as concrete. Project elements could
include street trees, stormwater retention
features, lighting, and sidewalk improvements.
Item 7.1
Beach Park Boulevard
Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard
Existing
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design with Caltrans Design
Informational Bulletin 94.
• ĕģèÎģĔģÁ
ÈģÝÎÈĊªìÝ
è²ÎÈģ²áģÎÈá²Ýģ©
á²Áģ
where ADT falls below 25,000 ADT.
Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce posted speed limit
by at least 5 mph.
ģģģģ^ÎìÝħģ
Á²©ÎÝȲ
ģD
Èì
ÁģÎÈģhȲ©ÎÝÇģdÝ
©ĊģÎÈèÝÎÁģ÷²á
• Narrowing vehicle lanes reduces operating speeds
and provides space for multimodal improvements.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Raised crosswalks are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with posted speed limits of 30 mph
ÎÝģÁááĦģ
÷Ý
ªģ
²ÁþģèÝ
©Ċģ÷ÎÁìÇáģÁÎøģĚĦđđđģ
vehicles, and no direct access to a hospital.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
Beach Park Boulevard provides key connections to the
Bay Trail and several community destinations. The
current shared lane markings and four vehicle lanes on
Beach Park are high stress for people biking and rolling, and the existing crossings are long and uncontrolled
with high exposure for pedestrians.
Proposed*
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study1
$250k
Engineering
Design
$260k
Construction
Cost
$900k
Cross sections are shown looking north along Beach Park Boulevard ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Turn Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Bikeway
6’
Bikeway
3’ 3’ 6’
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Separated bikeway on the northbound side
Buffered bikeway on the southbound side
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply a four lane to three lane road diet and
narrow lane widths to manage vehicle speeds
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈáģ
È
Áþá²áĦģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈ
Item 7.1
'ìÁÁģ÷
D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷
Tarpon St
^øÎÝĊá°ģ^è
Halibut St
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷
^
ÈÝÁ²Èªģ^è
ªÝèģ^è
Teal St
'ìÁÁģ÷
N
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Gull Avenue (signal)
Curb extensions on Gull
Avenue
Leading pedestrian
intervals, bicycle signals,
and bicycle detection
Two stage left turn box
Bay Trail Access
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Teal Street, Egret Street, &
Sanderling Street
Raised refuge island
Halibut Street
Raised refuge island
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Side-street stop control with
existing RRFB
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Two stage left turn box
Curb extensions on Gull
and Marlin avenues
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Raised crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Raised crosswalk
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project
No Right Turn on Red
restrictions
d
ÝÚÎÈģ^èÝèģŒģ^øÎÝĊá°ģ^èÝè
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Raised refuge island
Item 7.1
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈ
Cross sections are shown looking north along Gull Avenue ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Bike Boulevards are appropriate on streets with an
average of less than 2,500 vehicles per day and a
posted speed of 20 miles per hour or less.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģᲪÈģ/È©ÎÝÇ
è²ÎÈ
ÁģìÁÁè²ÈģĚĕ
• Bike Boulevard treatments should include shared-lane
markings in the center of each lane, omit centerlines
ÁÎȪģDzģÁξĦģ
Èģ²ÈÁìģø
þĊȲȪģᲪÈáĥ
^ÎìÝħģEdKģhÝ
Èģ²¾ø
þģᲪÈģ'ì²
• Speed Cushions are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with an average of less than 3,500
vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 30 mph
or less. Volume reduction can be achieved when
installed as a series, spaced every 260’-500‘.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
Proposed*
Gull Avenue, Marlin Avenue, and Grebe Street are
neighborhood streets which run through residential uses and provide access to several schools and connections
to the Bay Trail. The existing streets have shared lane markings for bicycles, but lack speed or volume
management measures to support low-stress travel.
There are several locations missing marked crosswalks.
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study1
$90k
Engineering
Design
$340k
Construction
Cost
$1.34M
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Connected via Grebe Street
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.
Source: PROWAG
• Narrowing vehicle lanes reduces operating speeds
and provides space for multimodal improvements.
• ^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Following implementation, collect updated speed data
to evaluate whether operating speeds have decreased
to support a lower posted speed limit.
Speed cushions with cutouts for transit &
emergency vehicles (apply every
260’-500’)
Apply daylighting on approach to all
crossings
BLVD Use bike boulevard pavement
Ç
ݾ²Èªáģ
Èģø
þĊȲȪ
Existing
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
'ìÁÁģ÷
D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷
Tarpon St
^øÎÝĊá°ģ^è
Halibut St
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷
'ìÁÁģ÷
Grebe St
Crane St
Swan St
WÁÎ÷Ýģ^è
Ribbon St
^ìÝ©ÚÝ°ģ^è
N
Cod St
Surfperch Street and Cod Street
E²ª°ÎÝ°ÎÎģdÝ
©Ċģ
Circle
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard to
Catamaran Street
Repurpose excess
pavement width with
5’ bike lanes and 2’
buffer on both sides
Crane Street
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control*
Extend curb on northeast
corner to reduce receiving
lanes from 2 to 1
Existing side-street stop-control
High Visibility Crosswalks
Gull Avenue Midblock Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Beach Park Boulevard
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
across FCB
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Plover Street, Pompano Circle,
and Halibut Street
Existing side-street stop control
Advanced yield markings
and signage
High Visibility Crosswalks
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Raised refuge island
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project
*If traffic volumes indicate queuing could
become an issue, consider a yield- or
stop-controlled traffic circle at Mallard St.
Avocet Court & Swan Street
High visibility and raised
crosswalk
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Item 7.1
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈáģ
È
Áþá²áĦģÚ
ݾ²Èªģ
ÎìÚ
ÈþģáèìþĦģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈ
ēĥģZ
ȪģÝ©Áèáģ²©©ÝÈèģì²Á²ÈªģÇ
èݲ
ÁáĦģø²è°ģè°ģÁÎøĵÈģ²ÈÁì²Èªģģ
Üì²¾ģì²ÁģÇ
èݲ
Ááģ
Èģè°ģ°²ª°ĵÈģ²ÈÁì²Èªģ©ìÁÁģì²ÁģÎìèģΩģ
ÎÈÝèģ
ÈģÁ
Èá
ڲȪģÁÇÈèá
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
ÈĊèáĥ
Edgewater Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to Edgewater Park, schools, and
residential uses. There are two distinct cross sections.
From East Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard,
the street has four vehicle lanes, existing Class IIB
buffered bike lanes, parking, and limited marked
pedestrian crossings. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue,
there are four vehicle lanes, parking on the west side, and existing Class II bike lanes. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour. For both sections, the existing bicycle facility does not align with the speeds along the street, as recommended by Caltrans DIB-94.
Edgewater Boulevard
East Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class II and Class IV with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Narrowing vehicle lanes reduces operating speeds
and provides space for multimodal improvements.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.
Source: California Fire Code
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.
Source: PROWAG
• A parking study may be conducted to assess whether
nearby streets can accommodate parking displaced
by the proposed removal of on-street parking.
• Following implementation, periodically collect
updated speed data to assess changes in operating
speeds. If operating speeds remain higher than
appropriate for a Class III facility, additional speed
management measures should be considered to
create a more comfortable shared roadway
environment. If operating speeds are lower, consider
additional reductions to posted speed limit.
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study1
$240k
Engineering
Design
$650k
Construction
Cost2
$1.7-3.0M
Separated bikeways on the both sides
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
ÈĊèáĥ
Item 7.1
Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgewater Boulevard ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
6’ 11’
Existing (E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard) Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Existing to Remain (Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue) Bike
Lane
6’
Curb-to-Curb: 34’
Median
14’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 26’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Proposed (Regulus Street to Beach Park Boulevard)
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Parking
7’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
3’ 10.5’ 3’
Proposed (Hillside Boulevard to Regulus Street)*
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
ģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷
N
Áè
²Ýģ÷
ZªìÁìáģ^è
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷
WÎÝèģZÎþ
Áģ÷
ÎÎè°
þģ÷
Dorado Ln
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no right
turn on red restiction
Altair Avenue, Regulus Street
& Dorado Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Beach Park Boulevard
Existing signal
Boothbay Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Port Royal Avenue
Existing signal
Remove pork chop and
acceleration lane, subject to
ÎÈĊÝÇ
è²ÎÈģΩģ
Üì
èģ
intersection sight distance
Leading pedestrian
intervals, bicycle signals,
and bicycle detection
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Item 7.1
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈáģ
È
Áþá²áĦģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈĥ
ēĥģZ
ȪģÝ©Áèáģ²©©ÝÈèģì²Á²ÈªģÇ
èݲ
ÁáĦģø²è°ģè°ģÁÎøĵÈģ²ÈÁì²Èªģģ
Üì²¾ģì²ÁģÇ
èݲ
Ááģ
Èģè°ģ°²ª°ĵÈģ²ÈÁì²Èªģ©ìÁÁģì²ÁģÎìèĥ
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
The northern portion of Edgewater Boulevard is a six
lane arterial which connects Foster City to State Route
92. The current bike lanes are high stress for people
biking and rolling given that the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour and there are three vehicle lanes in each direction. The existing sidewalks are comfortable, but
crossings are long and lack separation in time for
pedestrians to cross Edgwater Blvd.
Design and Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements must be greater than
or equal to 20’ where buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.
Source: California Fire Code
• Narrowing vehicle lanes reduces operating speeds and
provides space for multimodal improvements.
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• While this segment provides direct access to SR-92,
èÝ
©Ċģ÷ÎÁìÇáģá°ÎìÁģģ÷
Áì
èģèÎģèÝDzÈģ
whether a reduced cross section is feasible, creating
greater consistency with adjacent roadway segments
and potentially improving safety outcomes.
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.
^ÎìÝħģ
Á²©ÎÝȲ
ģD
Èì
ÁģÎÈģhȲ©ÎÝÇģdÝ
©ĊģÎÈèÝÎÁģ÷²á
Edgewater Boulevard
City Limits to East Hillsdale Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Existing
Planning
Study1
$80k
Engineering
Design
$230k
Construction
Cost2
$750k-1.3M
Proposed*
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width
of 5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.
Source: PROWAG
Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgwater Boulevard Existing
Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane
6.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
2’ 10.5’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Vehicle Lane
10.5’
Bike
Lane
6.5’ 2’
Median
16’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷
^ZģĚēģZ
ÇÚá
N
DèÝÎģÈèÝģÁ÷
'
èø
þģÝ
City Limits
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Two stage left turn boxes
Gateway Drive
Existing side-street stop control
Apply yield markings across
conflicting westbound right
turn.
Metro Center Boulevard
Existing signal
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
State Route 92 Ramps
Existing signal
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Item 7.1
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈáģ
È
Áþá²áĦģÚ
ݾ²ÈªģáèìþĦģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈĥ
ēĥģZ
ȪģÝ©ÁèáģÚÎèÈè²
Áģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈģΩģÈøģᲪÈ
ÁáĦģø²è°ģè°ģÁÎøģ
Èģ²ÈÁì²ÈªģÈÎģÈøģᲪÈ
Ááģ
Èģè°ģ°²ª°ģÈģ²ÈÁì²ÈªģèøÎģÈøģᲪÈ
Ááħģ
ÎÈģ
èģD
ÝÁ²Èģ÷Èìģ
ÈģÎÈģ
èģ
°ģW
ݾģÎìÁ÷
Ýĥ
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Foster City Boulevard
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study1
$330k
Engineering
Design
$1.5M
Construction
Cost2
$3.4-5.7M
Foster City Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to commercial and residential uses.
There are two distinct cross sections. From E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive the street has four vehicle
lanes and parking lanes that transition to turn lanes at major intersections. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard there
are four vehicle lanes. For both sections, Class III Bike Route signs are present; however, this is not considered an appropriate facility under Caltrans DIB-94.
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV with Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• >
ÈģÝÎÈĊªìÝ
è²ÎÈģ²áģÎÈá²Ýģ©
á²Áģø°Ýģdģ
falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
ÝÎÈĊªìÝ
è²ÎÈĥģt¾
þģdģÎÈģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ
Boulevard ranges from approximately 10,000 vehicles
per day at the north end of the corridor to 2,500
vehicles per day at the south end (see Figure 2).
Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• t°²Áģè°²áģáªÇÈèģÚÝÎ÷²áģ
ááģèÎģ^ZĵĚēĦģèÝ
©Ċģ
volumes should be evaluated to determine whether a
reduced cross section is feasible, creating greater
consistency with adjacent roadway segments and
potentially improving safety outcomes.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.
Source: California Fire Code
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set back
2’ from the travel lane
^ÎìÝħģ
ÁèÝ
ÈáģdÝ
©Ċģ
ÁDzȪģ'ì²
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of 5’
and preferred width of 6’-8’.
Source: PROWAG
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Apply a four lane to two lane road diet
south of Bounty Drive
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Cross sections are shown looking north along Foster City Boulevard Bike
Lane
7’
Existing (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)
Proposed (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)*
Existing (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)
Proposed (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)*
Shoulder
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
6’ 11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’ 5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
ģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷
N
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷
ÁÁìè°
ģÝ
WÎÁþÈá²
ģÝ
ÎìÈèþģݲ÷
D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Two stage left turn boxes
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island Balclutha Drive & Polynesia Drive, & Bounty Drive
Existing signal
Bicycle signals and bicycle
detection
Remove right turn pocket
and prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Marlin Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Beach Park Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
Leading pedestrian intervals,
bicycle signals, and bicycle
detection
Separate conflicting
movements in time & no
right turn on red restiction
Leading pedestrian
intervals and automatic
pedestrian recall
Item 7.1
Ēĥģ/ÈÁìáģÎÇÇìȲèþģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģÎÚÝ
è²ÎÈáģ
È
Áþá²áĦģ
ÈģĒđƅģᲪÈ
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Cross sections are shown looking east along Beach Park Boulevard Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements*
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.
Beach Park Boulevard
Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard
Cost Estimates
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• >
ÈģÝÎÈĊªìÝ
è²ÎÈģ²áģÎÈá²Ýģ©
á²Áģø°Ýģ
ADT falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
ÝÎÈĊªìÝ
è²ÎÈĥģt¾
þģdģ²áģ
ÚÚÝÎý²Ç
èÁþģÁááģ
than 2,500 vehicles per day (see Figure 2).
Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.
Source: California Fire Code
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.
^ÎìÝħģ
Á²©ÎÝȲ
ģD
Èì
ÁģÎÈģhȲ©ÎÝÇģdÝ
©ĊģÎÈèÝÎÁģ÷²á
• Install marked crosswalks and associated crossing
treatments approximately every 500 feet and
consider crossings at locations with concentrated
pedestrian demand, such as trail connections, parks,
Planning
Study1
$140k
Engineering
Design
$700k
Construction
Cost
$3.9M
Bike
Lane
7’
Existing
Proposed*
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’ 5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Beach Park Boulevard west of Foster City Boulevard is a key east-west connector and provides access to
commercial and residential uses, as well as schools.
From Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard the street has four vehicle lanes and existing Class III bicycle
facilities. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour.
Design & Implementation Considerations
schools, transit stops, and commercial destinations.
Source: Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a minimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.
Source: PROWAG
Item 7.1
ݲè²ÎÈ
ÁģÚÁ
ÈȲȪĦģȪ
ªÇÈèĦģ
ÈģᲪÈģ²áģÈģèÎģÎÈĊÝÇģè°ģáÚ²ĊģÚÝμèģ©
èìÝáģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈĥ
Proposed Intersection Improvements*
^°ÁÁģÁ÷
N
ݾÈè²Èģ^è
Cutter St
t°Áģ-Îìáģ>È
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷
Shell Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals, bicycle signals,
and bicycle detection
Prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Two stage left turn boxes
Barkentine Street, Cutter Street,
& Wheel House Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
*Cost for signal installation included
in costs for Foster City Boulevard
Project.
Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 78
Funding Strategy
/ÇÚÁÇÈè²Èªģè°ģWDWģø²ÁÁģÝÜì²Ýģ
ģÎDzÈ
è²ÎÈģΩģÁÎ
Áģ©ìȲȪĦģÎÇÚè²è²÷ģªÝ
ÈèáĦģ
ÈģáèÝ
課ģ
coordination with other planned projects and investments. While project prioritization helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit, implementation opportunities often depend on factors such as roadway maintenance schedules, capital improvement projects, redevelopment activity, and available funding programs. Ýè ²Èģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáĦģáì°ģ
áģÁ
ááģ/sģ
facilities, require more resources, time, and feasibility studies than other types of improvements.
Table 5 identifies potential pathways for advancing a select number of priority projects and highlights opportunities to coordinate improvements with existing City projects, private development, quickbuild implementation strategies, and county, regional, state, and federal funding sources. x 5-Year Maintenance Alignment: /È販²áģø°è°ÝģÚ
÷ÇÈèģÝ°
²Á²è
è²ÎÈģÎÝģÎè°ÝģÚÁ
ÈÈģ
maintenance activities are anticipated within the next five years, creating opportunities to implement improvements more efficiently and at a lower cost. x WìÝáìģGrant Funding: /È販²áģø°è°Ýģè°ģÚÝμèģ²áģøÁÁģáì²èģ©ÎÝģÎÇÚè²è²÷ģáè èĦģݪ²ÎÈ
ÁĦģ
or federal grant programs based on project type, scale, and anticipated benefits. x WÝΪÝ
Çģ²Èģ&ìèìÝģ/W: /È販²áģø°è°Ýģè°ģÚÝμèģ²áģ
ÚÚÝÎÚݲ
èģ©ÎÝģ²ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈģè°ÝÎ쪰ģ
è°ģ²èþŋáģ©ìèìÝģ/WĦģ²è°Ýģ
áģ
ģáè
È
ÁÎÈģ
Ú²è
ÁģÚÝμèģÎÝģ²ÈģÎÎݲÈ
è²ÎÈģø²è°ģÎè°ÝģÚÁ
ÈÈģ
improvements.
x Quick-Build Opportunity: /È販²áģø°è°Ýģ
ÁÁģÎÝģÚÎÝè²ÎÈáģΩģ
ģÚÝμèģÎìÁģģ²ÇÚÁÇÈèģ
using lower-cost improvements such as pavement markings, signage, delineators, or temporary materials prior to full reconstruction.
Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 79
Table 5ĥģWÎèÈè²
Áģt
þáģèÎģ&ìÈģWݲÎݲèþģWÝμèá
WÝμèģ
Corridor
WÝμèģ
Limits
Estimated
Costs
5-Year
Maintenance
Alignment1
WìÝáìģ'Ý
Èèģ
Funding
WÝΪÝ
Çģ²Èģ
&ìèìÝģ/W
Quick Build
Opportunity
Beach
Park Blvd
Foster
City Blvd
to Gull
Ave
$1.4m X X
Beach
Park Blvd
Edgewater
Blvd to
Shell Blvd
$4.7m X X
Edgewater
Blvd /
Mariners
/áÁ
Èģ
Blvd
City Limits
to E
Hillsdale
Blvd
$1.0-
$1.5m X X
Edgewater
Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Boothbay
Ave
$2.3-
$3.9m X X
Foster
City Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Beach
Park Blvd
$4.6-
$7.8m X X
Gull Ave &
Marlin Ave
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Catamaran
St
$1.7m X X
1 Reflects the City's repaving plan as of July 2026. Planned maintenance activities are subject to change. /Èģ
²è²ÎÈģèÎģè°ģ©ìȲȪģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲè²áģÁ²áèģ
Î÷Ħģèhere are competitive regional and countywide
grants that the City may be well-positioned for, including C/CAG ²þÁģšģWáèݲ ÈģWÝΪÝ
Ç,
C/'ģ>Î
ÁģdÝ
ÈáÚÎÝè
è²ÎÈģ^Ý÷²áģšģ^þáèÇģD
È
ªÇÈèģĺd^^DĻģWÝΪÝ
ÇĦģ
ÈģSMCTA Measure
ģ>Î
Áģ^èÝèáģšģdÝ
ÈáÚÎÝè
è²ÎÈģWÝΪÝ
Ç. For state and federal grant opportunities, the City may be more competitive by partnering with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies.
Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 80
Next Steps
Foster City is already well positioned to begin implementation. Through the City’s Capital /ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèģWÝΪÝ
ÇĦģìÚÎDzȪģÝÎ
ø
þģÇ
²ÈèÈ
ÈģÚÝμèáĦģÝ÷ÁÎÚÇÈèģÎÚÚÎÝèìȲè²áĦģ
Èģ
potential competitive grant funding, the City has multiple pathways to advance some of the improvements identified in this plan. The prioritization scoring developed through the BPMP provide a starting point for future project development.
Community engagement throughout the BPMP planning process has revealed strong support for additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Foster City. Residents are highly invested in their City and want to make walking and biking easier for everyone. The City is exploring ways to continue to share updates and progress with the community through their website and other means. As implementation moves forward, it is recommended that the City continue to seek opportunities for community input to help shape and refine future walking and biking improvements. /ÇÚÁÇÈè
è²ÎÈģø²ÁÁģÈÎèģ°
ÚÚÈģ
ÁÁģ
èģÎÈĥģ/Èáè
Ħģ
°ģÎÇÚÁè crossing improvement, bicycle
boulevard, protected bikeway, and trail connection will contribute to a larger network that is safer, more comfortable, and more connected than it is today. As projects are delivered, residents will experience improved access to schools, parks, shopping areas, neighborhoods, and regional destinations.
The BPMP is not the end of a planning process; it is the beginning of a long-term investment in Foster City's future. By continuing to advance priority projects, pursue funding opportunities, and integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements systematically into everyday City projects, Foster City can deliver meaningful near-term improvements while building toward a community where walking and biking are safe, convenient, and accessible choices for everyone.
Item 7.1
Bicycle šģPedestrian Master Plan 81
Appendices
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY BiþÁģšģWáèݲ
È Master Plan
Appendix A.
Benchmarking Assessment
Item 7.1
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
The City and its leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.
City committed to eliminating all traffic fatalities and reducing non-fatal crashes by 50% by 2050.
LRSP X X
Establish performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress towards completion of the proposed network and implementation of programs and policies.
City does not appear to have performance metrics established for bike/ped projects completed, network mileage, and/or other performance metrics established.City committed to updating LRSP every 5 years, reporting to TSAC (Transportation Safety Advisory Committee) annually, and providing updates to Foster City Council. LRSP includes various metrics like crash data, # of trainings by city staff, # of LRSP project locations advanced through project development, etc.
LRSP X X
Interagency Coordination
Convene and participate in a multi-agency working group tasked with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's development, implementation, and monitoring, including representation from all relevant departments.
TRC is charged with development, implementation and monitoring of BPMP.City PW Directors is part of the C/CAG TAC. The TAC oversaw the development of the City's LRSP (along with other cities in SMC).As part of the TAC, the City also engaged with Caltrans in discussions and review of the draft D4 Bike PlanCity participates in MTC Quarterly Joint Partnership Local Streets and Roads Meetings.
City Staff X X X
Maintain an up-to-date website with implementation progress and provide opportunities for public input throughout all planning phases.
City recently launched a Social Pinpoint website that includes project information, schedule, upcoming events, and interactive map to provide feedback.City also has a BPMP site that can be leveraged in the long-term to support engagement, provide project updates, and monitor progress.
Social Pinpoint X XX
Integrate proactive and transparent safety analysis into all phases of facility design and implementation.
The LRSP includes proactive and transparent safety analysis, however, its not clear yet if this is informing facility design and implementation.
General Plan, Bike Network
Assessment, LRSP x X
Establish a process for public comment throughout the planning process.
Public engagement will be collected at multiple phases throughout the BPMP project.Engagement is often tailored by audience and topic. Focused on explanation and education.
Social Pinpoint
City Staff X XX
School & Youth Engagement Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program with dedicated funding and stakeholder engagement.
Foster City participates in the San Mateo County Safe Routes to School Program, which is a partnership between C/CAG and the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE). Conducted MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey in 2012 and 2016, with resulting recommendations tailored to each school.Completed SRTS Study in 2018 and identified safety improvements at schools in Foster City.Safe Routes to School program included as a goal in the following documents: General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and LRSP. LRSP outlines recommendations to continue participation in school safety assessments and School Travel Fellowship Program (funded through C/CAG, OTS, and San Mateo County Public Health). As well as developing implementation plans for improvements up to 1/4 mile from schools.
Climate Action Plan,
Local Roadway Safety Plan,
Foster City Bike Network
Assessment,
Safe Routes to School Study
Foster City Community
Development Page
(https://www.fostercity.org/co
mmdev/page/efficienttransportation), Safe Routes
to School Program website
(https://ccag.ca.gov/programs
/transportationprograms/safe-routes-toschool/)
X X X
Vision & Leadership
Leadership Commitment
Community Engagement
Public Engagement
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Item 7.1
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Network Monitoring Maintain a GIS inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and establish performance indicators to track plan implementation. City has data on traffic controls, posted speeds, and roadway classification, but is missing some key spatial datasets, such as volumes, # of lanes, dedicated crossings/crosswalks, observed speeds. X XX Proactively evaluate locations with high levels of traffic stress or known crash risk and prioritize improvements.
LRSP identified High-Injury Network for each mode and Priority locations (at intersections and segment level).Bike Network Assessment has map of existing bicycle facilities and level of traffic stress network map.
LRSP, Foster City Bike
Network Assessment XX
Leverage community-input to supplement data and identify missing pieces of users safety and comfort experiences (e.g. near miss experiences). City leverages SeeClickFix for community input. SeeClickFix X XXApply for grant programs and institutionalize funding for active transportation through CIP and other long-term budgeting tools.
General Plan identifies Capital Improvement Program as primary source for projects. Other plans mention federal, state, county and district funding programs for street and other transportation improvements.Potential funding sources mentioned in Caltrans D4 Bike Plan include: SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program) funding, One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program, the Active Transportation Program and Regional Measure 3.
Land Use and Circulation
Element, LRSP XX X
Prioritize implementation of projects that have the greatest potential to improve safety and increase walking and biking.
LRSP calls for emphasizing social equity and priority communities in funding prioritization of safety projects. Unclear based on document review, whether projects with greatest opportunity to improve or increase walking and biking are prioritized. City prioritizes student travel, but does not have dedicated CIP funds for implementing bike/ped improvements.
LRSP X XX
Development & Repaving Coordination
Leverage private development and repaving projects to implement planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Goal LUC-E-8-a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. Make it a condition of approval that new, large-scale developments address transit, biking and walking access to the site.Goal LUC-E-8-b. The City will establish standards for new development and redevelopment projects to support bicycle use.a. Develop standards for safe pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations, including:
i. “Complete Streets” policies that foster equal access by all users in the roadway design; (Complete)ii. Bicycle and pedestrian access internally and in connection to other areas through easements; (In practice)iii. Safe access to public transportation and other non-motorized uses through construction of dedicated paths; (Bus stops are on busiest streets with sidewalks connecting to "town center" area)iv. Safe road crossings at major intersections. (All our major intersections are signalized) Land Use and Circulation
Element X X
Funding & Policy Integration
Capital Planning & Grants
Data Analysis
Safety & Risk Assessment
Item 7.1
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Manage or fund education programs targeted at reaching the most vulnerable users.
City grant funds roadway safety education in schools (School Travel Fellowship Program). City Communications team has produced Rules of Road video.
LRSP
City Staff X XX
Leverage local partnerships with advocacy groups and local organizations to develop context-sensitive safety education and programs.
County Public Health and Police Department identified in LRSP. No reference to nongovernment agencies in documents reviewed. LRSP X XX Targeted Enforcement
Reallocate enforcement efforts to locations and behaviors most associated with crashes and serious injuries.
The Police Department is charged with enforcing policies and is as key partner with PW staff, however, capacity is generally enforcement is focused citywide and targeted enforcements are generally reactive (resident complaints, crash review, then targeted enforcement).Additionally, LRSP outlines targeted strategies, such as monitoring speeds on streets to raise awareness of speeding.
City Staff
LRSP XX
Designate modal priorities for corridors to guide selection of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Not current practice X XXEnsure cyclist and pedestrian accessibility is maintained and user safety prioritized during construction and road maintenance activities.
Contractors are always required to maintain ped/bike access and provide detours. Detailed in construction manuals and encroachment permits.
Construction Manual &
Encroachment Permit
Conditions
X X
Demonstration & Innovation Use demonstration projects to test new facility types, gather feedback, and build support for permanent implementation.
School Travel Fellowship Program allows groups to receive technical assistance on pilot projects and communication with the public, however, unclear not currently used in the City.
SRTS Annual Report
(https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/2.1-
A1-2022-2023-SRTS-AnnualReport_Final.pdf)
X X
Implement curbside and micromobility management strategies that support pedestrian and bicycle safety.
City identified goals to launch pilot a program to provide free or reduced-price access to e-bikes or other micro-mobility options to low-income residents and students. Minimal mention of parking or other curbside management strategies that impact safety and comfort for biking and walking.
Climate Action Plan X X
Leverage routine resurfacing projects to implement planned bike/ped facilities and network connectivity.
The Complete Streets Policy lists resurfacing, restriping, utility projects, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related features as strategies for implementing bike/ped projects.
Land Use and Circulation
Element X X XX
Speed Policy & Evaluation Evaluate speed setting opportunities using state or local guidance before design to ensure compatibility with safety goals. LRSP lists assessing posted speeds based on new allowable criteria as a goal, but not currently being implemented. LRSP X XX Align bicycle and pedestrian facility selection and design with targeted vehicle speed outcomes using context-sensitive geometric design. Is there a way to rephrase this benchmark? Not current practice X XX
Adopt bikeway design standards that consider facility selection and design based on roadway classification, volumes, and observed speeds.
City does not have specific bikeway design standards, but uses Highway Design Manual as standard operating practice. X X Speed & Operations
Street Design for Speed
Education & Enforcement
Outreach & Behavior Change
Infrastructure & Design
Facility ImplementationPolicy Integration
Item 7.1
FOSTER CITY BiþÁģšģWáèݲ
È Master Plan
Appendix B.
Engagement Summaries
Item 7.1
Foster City Bicycle š Pedestrian Master
Plan Phase 1 Engagement Summary
Overview
Phase 1 engagement included a Social Pinpoint survey and one in-person event. The survey was open for six weeks, from May through mid-July 2025. On June 12, 2025, the project team attended Foster City Family Movie Night, where participants completed an interactive map activity featuring the same questions as the online survey. Results from the event were combined with the online survey responses.
This survey gathered 252 contributions from 49 unique IP Addresses (proxy for contributors). The five most frequent IP Addresses represent 138 contributions, or 54.7% of total contributions. The mapping activity during the in-person event collected an additional 27 responses.
Figure 1: Comment Density from Phase 1 Engagement (All Categories) Item 7.1
Feedback was organized into the following categories:
x Safety Need: 38% (illustrated in Figure 2)
x Pedestrian Gap: 19% (illustrated in Figure 3)
x Biking Gap: 10% (illustrated in Figure 4)
x Key Destinations: 6%
x Other Need: 27%
Figures on the following pages illustrate the specific locations where feedback was identified. Areas identified as ‘Key Destinations’ were incorporated into the Connectivity Analysis to help the Project Team better understand where people want to walk or bike in Foster City. These locations were an input to the analysis which was the primary input for network development.
Figure 2: Map of Identified Safety Needs
Item 7.1
Figure 3: Map of Identified Pedestrian Gaps
Item 7.1
Figure 4: Map of Identified Bike Facility Gaps
Comment Themes
The following five comment themes were developed by reviewing and categorizing each comment by their primary sentiment. In instances when one contributor left several similar or duplicative comments, we consolidated such sentiments to one comment to avoid weighing any individual’s feedback heavier than others. Comments which did not pertain directly to the focus of this project were omitted from the development of the themes.
1. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
x There are many comments calling for more visible and safer crosswalks, especially along Edgewater Blvd, near parks, schools, and apartment complexes. x Missing or Inaccessible Crosswalks: Many high-traffic corridors lack safe, high-visibility crossings, especially Edgewater Blvd.
Item 7.1
x Many noted dangerous crossing conditions, with high vehicle speeds and a lack of pedestrian infrastructure like curb ramps, refuge islands, or flashing beacons. x Several comments emphasize the urgent need for crossings on long stretches of busy roads where pedestrians currently take risks.
2. Traffic Calming and Speed Reduction
x Comments request stop signs, roundabouts, lane reductions, and other measures to slow down vehicles, especially near schools and residential areas. x Speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving behavior were cited as regular threats to safety for people walking and biking.
x Comments identify several roads that have a speeding problem, including Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard.
3. Conflicts and Confusion Around Shared Paths and Trail Etiquette x Several comments describe dangerous interactions on shared trails, especially involving fastmoving e-bikes, scooters, and unaware pedestrians. x Users call for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to avoid conflicts.
x There’s widespread concern about e-bike speeds on the levee trail and Bay Trail, with some suggesting banning certain classes of e-bikes.
4. Protected and Connected Bike Infrastructure
x While there is opposition to bike lanes on main roads, many cyclists advocate for protected bike lanes, especially on bridges and connections to the Bay Trail. x Gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and lack of protected crossings are seen as major safety issues.
x Requests to close trail gaps—especially around Harbor Cove, Isle Cove, and the Bay Trail. x Supportive comments often note that more people would bike if they felt safer.
5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
x Several responses oppose adding or widening bike lanes, especially if it means removing car lanes or parking.
x Common reasons for opposing bike lanes include increased traffic congestion, reduced driving space, and perceived safety hazards for both drivers and cyclists. Some respondents believe that FC is not suited for bike commuting and perceive that bike lanes are underused compared to the impacts on vehicle traffic
x Roads like Edgewater, Hillsdale, and Beach Park Blvd are cited as poor candidates for bike lanes due to high vehicle speeds and volumes.
The findings from this outreach will not only inform network development, but as the Goals and Policies identified for the final plan.
Item 7.1
ģģ &ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²þÁģ
ÈģWáèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
ÈģřģĒģ
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²þÁģšģWáèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģ
WÁ
ÈģW°
áģēģȪ
ªÇÈèģ^ìÇÇ
Ýþģ
KèÎÝģēĘĦģēđēĖģ
Kò¤Øò¶¤ó
W°
áģēģȪ
ªÇÈèģáÎ쪰èģ©
¾ģ©ÝÎÇģè°ģÎÇÇìȲèþģÎÈģè°ģ©ìèìÝģÚÝÎÚÎáģ²þÁģ
Èģ
Úáèݲ
ÈģÈèøÎݾáĥģd°ģÇè°ÎáģΩģȪ
ªÇÈèģ²ÈÁìģ
ÈģÎÈÁ²Èģ^β
ÁģW²ÈÚβÈèģ²ÈèÝ
è²÷ģ
Ç
ÚڲȪģýݲáĦģ
Èģ²ÈĵÚÝáÎÈģÚÎÚĵìÚĦģ
Èģ
ģ©ÎìáģªÝÎìÚģÇè²Èªģø²è°ģÇÇÝáģΩģè°ģW
ÝÈèģ
d
°Ýģááβ
è²ÎÈģĺWdĻģ©ÎÝģá÷Ý
Áģá°ÎÎÁáģ²Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþĥģģ
d°ģ^β
ÁģW²ÈÚβÈèģ²ÈèÝ
è²÷ģÇ
Úģø
áģ
è²÷ģ©ÎÝģ
ģÇÎÈè°ĦģÁ
ìÈ°²ÈªģÎÈģ^ÚèÇÝģĒĚĦģēđēĖģ
Èģ
ÁÎá²ÈªģKèÎÝģēđĦģēđēĖĥģd°ģ²ÈèÝ
è²÷ģÇ
ÚڲȪģýݲáģݲ÷ģĒĒĔģÎÈèݲìè²ÎÈáģ©ÝÎÇģĕĒģ
ÎÈèݲìèÎÝáĥģd°ģèÎÚģèøÎģÎÈèݲìèÎÝáģÇ
ģìÚģĔėƅģΩģ
ÁÁģÎÇÇÈèáĥģKÈģ^ÚèÇÝģēĒĦēđēĖĦģè°ģ
ÚÝμèģè
ÇĦģ²ÈÁì²Èªģ²èþģ^è
©©ģ
Èģè°ģÎÈáìÁè
Èèģè
Çģ
èèÈģè°ģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ&
DzÁþģ²¾ģZ²ģ
èÎģÎÁÁèģ²ÈĵÚÝáÎÈģ©
¾ĥģìݲȪģè°ģÚÎÚĵìÚĦģè°ģÚÝμèģè
ÇģáÚξģø²è°ģ
ÚÚÝÎý²Ç
èÁþģĘĖģ
Ýá²Èèáĥģd°ģè°²Ýģ
Èģ©²È
ÁģȪ
ªÇÈèģ
è²÷²èþģΩģW°
áģēģø
áģ
ģ©ÎìáģªÝÎìÚģ°ÁģÎÈģKèÎÝģĒėĦģ
ēđēĖĥģÁÁģá°ÎÎÁáģøÝģ²È÷²èģèÎģÚ
Ýè²²Ú
èĦģ
ÈģèøÎģÚ
ÝÈèáģ
èèÈģÝÚÝáÈè²ÈªģáèìÈèáģ©ÝÎÇģ
;²áģÎÈÈè²ÎÈģWݲ÷
èģ^°ÎÎÁĦģÎø²è°ģD²Áģ^°ÎÎÁĦģ
ÈģììÎÈģÁÇÈè
Ýþģ^°ÎÎÁĥģ
!ȯ¯¤Ç¤Èã+¶È¢¶È¯Ý
d°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²ÈªģáìÇÇ
ÝþģΩģȪ
ªÇÈèģ©²È²Èªáģ²ÈÁìáģ©
¾ģ©ÝÎÇģ
ÁÁģȪ
ªÇÈèģ
è²÷²è²áĥģ
ÎÇÇÈèáģø°²°ģøÝģÈÎèģ²ÝèÁþģÝÁ÷
ÈèģèÎģ©
¾ģ
Îìèģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģÈèøÎݾģøÝģÎDzèèģ
©ÝÎÇģè°²áģáìÇÇ
Ýþĥģ
Wáèݲ
ÈģEèøÎݾģÎÇÇÈèáģ
K÷Ý
ÁÁĦģè°Ýģø
áģÎÈáÈáìáģ
Îìèģè°ģÈģ©ÎÝģÚáèݲ
ÈģÝÎáá²Èªģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģ
áģÚÝÎÚÎáģ
ÝÎááģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþĥģ&°ÝģšģWÝáģÎݪ
Ȳąģè°ģ©
¾ģ²ÈèÎģ©²÷ģ
èªÎݲáħģ
ªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģè°ģ
ÝÎáá²Èªģè²ÝĦģ²á
ªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģÝÎáá²Èªģè²ÝĦģÝÜìáèáģèÎģ
ģ
ģÝÎáá²ÈªģèÎģè°ģ
ÚÝÎÚÎáģ©ìèìÝģÈèøÎݾĦģ
ÈģáªÇÈèĵÝÁ
èģÎÇÇÈèáĥģģ
ªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģÝÎáá²Èªģd²Ýħģ
©²Èģ
áģ
Èģ²ÈèÝáè²ÎÈģÁÎ
è²ÎÈģè°
èģݲ÷ģ
ģÚÎá²è²÷ģÝáÚÎÈáģ©ÎÝģÝÎáá²Èªģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģ²Èģ
ÚÝÎÚÎáģ©ìèìÝģÈèøÎݾĥģ
•
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģ
Èģ
è
Ç
Ý
Èģ^è
• WÝÎÚÎáģÝÎáá²ÈªģÁÎ
è²ÎÈáģ²È販²ģ
ÁÎȪģ
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģèøÈģ^°ÁÁģÁ÷ģ
Èģ&ÎáèÝģ
²èþģÁ÷ģ
•
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģÝÎáá²ÈªáģÈ
Ýģè°ģ
þģdÝ
²Áģ
• ģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷ģ
Èģ^°ÁÁģÁ÷ģĺŭĒĻģ
• D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷Èìģ
ÈģWÎÇÚ
ÈÎģ²Ýģ
Item 7.1
ģģ &ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²þÁģ
ÈģWáèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģřģēģ
• &ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷ģ
ÈģD
ÝÁ²Èģ÷ģ
• &ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷ģ
ÈģÎìÈèþģÝģ
• WÝÎÚÎáģÝÎáá²ÈªģÁÎ
è²ÎÈáģ²È販²ģ
ÁÎȪģªø
èÝģèøÈģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷ģ
Èģ
°ģ
W
ݾģÁ÷ģ
• ªø
èÝģÁ÷ģ
Èģ
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģĺŭĒĻģ
• ªø
èÝģÁ÷ģ
ÈģÚÎÁÁÎģ>Èģ
• d
ÝÚÎÈģ^èģ
Èģ
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģ
• ^øÎÝ©²á°ģ^èģ
Èģ
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģģ
• ģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÁ÷ģ
Èģªø
èÝģÁ÷ģ
²á
ªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģÝÎáá²Èªģd²Ýģ
©²Èģ
áģ
Èģ²ÈèÝáè²ÎÈģÁÎ
è²ÎÈģè°
èģݲ÷ģ
ģÝáÚÎÈáģèÎģ
¼ìáèģè°ģ²È販²ģÚݲÎݲèþģ²Èģ
ÚÝÎÚÎáģ©ìèìÝģÈèøÎݾĥ
• -²ÁÁá
Áģ
Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģá°ÎìÁģģÇÎ÷ģèÎģd²ÝģĒģ
• DèÝÎģÈèÝģ
Èģè°ģĚēģZ
ÇÚáģá°ÎìÁģģÝÇÎ÷ģ©ÝÎÇģè°ģÚݲÎÝ²è²ą
è²ÎÈģè²Ýáĥģ
• DèÝÎģÈèÝģ
Èģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģá°ÎìÁģģd²ÝģĒģ
• ;²ÁÁÝģ
Èģ'ìÁÁģá°ÎìÁģģÇÎ÷ģèÎģd²ÝģĒģ
ZÜìáèģèÎģ
ģ
ģÁÎ
è²ÎÈģèÎģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģ©ìèìÝģÈèøÎݾħģ
©²Èģ
áģ
Èģ²ÈèÝáè²ÎÈģÁÎ
è²ÎÈģÈÎèģìÝÝÈèÁþģÁ²áèģø²è°²Èģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģ©ìèìÝģÈèøÎݾģ Èģ
ݲ÷ģÝÜìáèģèÎģģ²ÈÁìĥģEÎèħģÁÁģÁÎ
è²ÎÈáģýÚèģWÎÁ
ݲáģ÷ģݲ÷ģÎÈÁþģÎÈģĺĒĻģÝáÚÎÈáģ
èÎģģ
ĥ
• d
ÝÚÎÈģ^èģ
ÈģZ²ÎÈģ^èģ
• WÎÁ
ݲáģ÷ģ
èģè°ģá°ÎÎÁģÝÎáá²ÈªģĺDzÁξģÝÎáá²ÈªģÁ²¾ÁþģÈÎèģ²ÈÁìģ²Èģ>d^ģ Èģ
ÎÈÈè²÷²èþģ
È
Áþá²áĻģ
• ªø
èÝģÁ÷ģ
Èģ
©©²Èģ^èģ
• Ý
Èģ÷ģ
ÈģªÝèģ^èģ
• Ý
Èģ÷ģ
Èģ^ø
Èģ^èģ
• ^ø
Èģ^èģ
Èģ÷Îèģèģ
• D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷ģ
Èģ'Ýģ^èģ
•
°ģW
ݾģÁ÷ģ
ÈģÎÇÚ
ááģ>Èģ
• W²ÁªÝ²ÇģÝģ
Èģ'Ý
Èģ>Èģ
• WÎÝèģZÎþ
ÁģW
ݾģÈèÝ
Èģ
• W²ÁªÝ²ÇģÝģ
ÈģDèÝÎģÈèÝģÁ÷ģ
• D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷ģ
ÈģÎģ^èģ
• D
ÝÁ²Èģ÷ģ
Èģ'Ýģ^èģ
²è²ÎÈ
ÁģáªÇÈèĵÁ÷ÁģÎÈá²Ý
è²ÎÈáģ²È販²ħģģ
• á²Ýģ©ÎÝģø²Ýģá²ø
Á¾áģ
ÁÎȪģªø
èÝģÁ÷ģ
• á²ÝģèÎģ©ÎÝÇ
Á²ąģ
ģÚáèݲ
ÈģÎÈÈè²ÎÈģ©ÝÎÇģè°ģ>
ªÎÎÈģÚ
ÝèÇÈèáģèÎģÎ
èģW
ݾIJ&ÎáèÝģ
²èþģΪģW
ݾģ
• /ÇÚÝÎ÷ģÎÇ©ÎÝèģ©ÎÝģÚáèݲ
Èáģ
ÁÎȪģ&ÎáèÝģ²èþģÁ÷ģ
Èģ
ÝááģªÎÎáģÚÝÎÁÇáģ
ÁÎȪģ
Ú
è°ģĺŭĔĻģ
• /ÇÚÝÎ÷ģá²ø
Á¾áģÎÈģs²Èè
ªģW
ݾģè°ÝÎ쪰ģè°ģĚēģK÷ÝÚ
ááģģ
Item 7.1
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²þÁģ
ÈģWáèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
ÈģřģĔģ
²þÁģEèøÎݾģÎÇÇÈèáģd°ģ©ÎÁÁÎø²Èªģè
ÁģáìÇÇ
ݲąáģè°ģ©
¾ģݲ÷ģ©ÎÝģ
°ģ©
²Á²èþģÎÈģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģ²þÁģÈèøÎݾĥģd°ģÎÇÇÈèáģ©
ÁÁģ²ÈèÎģè°Ýģ
èªÎݲáħģªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģ©
²Á²èþĦģ²á
ªÝÇÈèģø²è°ģè°ģÚÝÎÚÎáģ©
²Á²èþĦģÎÝģáÎÇ谲ȪģDzáá²Èªģ©ÝÎÇģè°ģÈèøÎݾģ
ÝÎÇÇÈ
è²ÎÈáĥģģd
ÁģĒĥģ&
¾ģÎÈģ&ìèìÝģWÝÎÚÎáģ²¾ģEèøÎݾģ
^èÝèģE
Çģ WÝÎÚÎáģ &
²Á²èþģ ªÝģ ²á
ªÝģ ^ÎÇ谲ȪģD²áá²ÈªģÎÝģD²áģÎÇÇÈèģ
°ģW
ݾģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒđģÚÎÚÁģģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģģ ģ
þģdÝ
²ÁIJ>÷ģdÝ
²Áģ D
²Èè
²Èģý²áè²Èªģ Á
ááģ/ģ
ĔģÚÎÚÁģ
á¾ģ©ÎÝģø²Ýģ©
²Á²è²áģ
ÈģèèÝģáèݲڲȪģĔģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģø
þ©²È²Èªģ²ÇÚÝÎ÷ÇÈèáģēģÚÎÚÁģÝ
²áģÎÈÝÈáģ
Îìèģĵģ²¾á
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ĚģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģ
ģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģèèÝģÎÈÈè²ÎÈģ©ÎÝģ ²¾áģÎ÷Ýģè°ģݲªģ áèģ-²ÁÁá
ÁģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ
Á
ááģ//ģèÎģè°ģݲªĦģÁ
ááģ///ģ©ÝÎÇģݲªģèÎģ
°ģW
ݾģ
ĖģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģÎÈè²ÈìÎìáģÁ
ááģ/sģģēģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģÎÈè²ÈìÎìáģÁ
ááģ//ģ
ĔģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģÁ
ááģ/sģÎ÷Ýģè°ģݲªģ
ªø
èÝģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĔģÚÎÚÁģģ
ēģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģ
ģÁ
ááģ///ģĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģ
ģÁ
ááģ//ģ
^°ÁÁģÁ÷ģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģ ģ ģ°ááģݲ÷ģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģWÝáÎÈģ ģ ģDèÝÎģÈèÝģÎìÁ÷
Ýģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģ ģ ģ
Item 7.1
&ÎáèÝģ²èþģ²þÁģ
ÈģWáèݲ
ÈģD
áèÝģWÁ
Èģřģĕģ
^èÝèģE
Çģ WÝÎÚÎáģ &
²Á²èþģ ªÝģ ²á
ªÝģ ^ÎÇ谲ȪģD²áá²ÈªģÎÝģD²áģÎÇÇÈèģÝ
Èģ÷Èìģ EÎÈģ ģ ģ ēģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģèÝ
©©²ģ
ÁDzȪģ
Ç
áìÝáģģ
W²è
²ÝÈģݲ÷ģ Á
ááģ///ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģģ
ēģÚÎÚÁģ
á¾ģè°²áģÈÎèģèÎģģ
ģ²¾ģÝÎìèģĒģÚÝáÎÈģ
á¾ģ©ÎÝģÁ
ááģ/sģ
è
Ç
Ý
Èģ^èÝèģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģèÝ
©©²ģ
ÁDzȪģ
Ç
áìÝáģ
'ìÁÁģ÷Èìģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģèÝ
©©²ģ
ÁDzȪģs²Èè
ªģW
ݾģݲ÷ģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģģ ģ ģWÎÁ
ݲáģ÷Èìģ EÎÈģ ģ
ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģÎÈá²Ý
è²ÎÈģ©ÎÝģ²¾ģÁ
Èáģ
áèģĔÝģ^èÝèģ Á
ááģ/sģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģģ ģ ģW²ÁªÝ²Çģݲ÷ģ Á
ááģ//ģ ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģ²á
ªÝáģø²è°ģ Èģ©ÎÝģ²¾ģ©
²Á²èþģ^øÎÝ©²á°ģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģÁ
ááģ //ģ©
²Á²è²áģD
ÝÁ²Èģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ĒģÚÝáÎÈģÝÜìáèģÁ
ááģ //ģ©
²Á²è²áģd
ÝÚÎÈģ Á
ááģ///ģ ģ ēģÚÎÚÁģÝÜìáèģÁ
ááģ //ģ©
²Á²è²áģ
Item 7.1