Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, April 15, 2025

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION AMENDED
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 15, 2025, 6:30 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This meeting will be held virtually and in- person at the Council Chambers located on 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. The virtual portion of this City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

The public may participate in the City Council Meeting via Zoom Meeting or by attending inperson in the Council Chambers at 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Community members may provide comments by emailing [email protected], submitting a speaker card at the meeting, or using the RAISE HAND feature when the Mayor or City Clerk call for public comment. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.

Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81382386420
Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+ 1 346 248 7799 or
+ 1 253 215 8782 or
+ 1 312 626 6799 or
+ 1 929 205 6099 or
+ 1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 813 8238 6420
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2025 Agenda
1 1

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Arbor Day Proclamation
Recommendation:

Present the proclamation.

3.2 Adopt Two Publicly Available Compensation Schedules for Amended FY 2024-25
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution approving the two Publicly Available Compensation Schedules for Amended FY 2024-25.

3.3 SAFER Bay Project (City Project No. SP-02C) Phase 1 Design Award Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a contract amount of $3,076,619, and to establish a 10% contingency of $ 307,661.90, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $3,384,280.90 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the SAFER Bay Flood Control Project (SP-02C) – Phase 1 south of Bay Road; and

2. Finding that the proposed action is within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject project, and as such no new environmental document would be required, and additionally, it does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.4 Cash report for February 2025
Recommendation: Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report East Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2025 Agenda
2 2

3.5 City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation:

Adopt April 1, 2025, City Council Meeting Minutes.

3.6 Jon Johnston Proclamation
Recommendation: Present the proclamation.

4. CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Sister City International Special Presentation
Recommendation: Receive presentation on potential Sister City Partnership with Tonga.

8. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO THE EAST PALO

ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING

9. APROVAL OF THE EPASD BOARD MEETING AGENDA

10. APPROVAL OF EPASD BOARD MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR

10.1 Cash Disbursement Report for February 2025
Recommendation: Accept the cash disbursement report required pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 6794.

11. EPASD BOARD MEETING CLOSED SESSION

12. EPASD BOARD MEETING PUBLIC COMMENT

13. EPASD BOARD MEETING POLICY AND ACTION

14. EPASD BOARD REPORTS

15. ADJOURN EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING

AND RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

16. PUBLIC HEARINGS

17. POLICY AND ACTION
East Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2025 Agenda 3 3

17.1 Sidewalk Vending Analysis
Recommendation:

Receive an analysis of the sidewalk vending’s and provide direction to staff to ensure the health and safety of the community while supporting micro business owners and entrepreneurs.

17.2 Strategies for the City to Better Address Tier 3 Code Violations Recommendation:

Review the potential strategies for the City to better address Tier 3 Code violations and provide direction on the Council’s preferred strategy or alternatives.

17.3 Illegal Fireworks Ordinance
Recommendation:

By motion:

1. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance repealing Article I (FIREWORKS) of Chapter 8.20 (Fireworks and Explosives) of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and add a new Article I (Fireworks) governing the use and possession of illegal fireworks by occupants and owners of real property; and

2. Find that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment, or is otherwise exempt under 15378 (regulatory actions), Section 15061(b)(3) (no significant environmental impact), and Section 15183 (actions consistent with the general plan and zoning).

18. COUNCIL REPORTS

19. ADJOURNMENT
East Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2025 Agenda
4 4
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.

The City Council meeting packet may be reviewed by the public in the Library or the City Clerk's Office. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the front counter at the City Clerk's Office, 2ND Floor, City Hall, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 during normal business hours. Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office at (650) 853-3127 no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

POSTED: April 4, 2025
AMENDED: April 8, 2025
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
Upcoming meetings:

Study Session April 22, 2025 6:00 PM
Regular Meeting May 6, 2025 6:30 PM
Budget Meeting May 13, 2025 6:00 PM
East Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2025 Agenda
5 5
CONSENT ITEM 3.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Arbor Day Proclamation
Recommendation
Present the proclamation.

Attachments

1. Proclamation
6 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF

EAST PALO ALTO CELEBRATING ARBOR DAY
WHEREAS, in 2025, the City of East Palo Alto established a special day in April to be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees, now observed around the world; and WHEREAS, trees in East Palo Alto can be a solution to combating climate change by sequestering carbon, reducing the erosion of our precious topsoil, cutting heating and cooling costs, moderating the temperature, cleaning the air, producing life-giving oxygen, and providing habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, trees in our City and beyond deserve recognition for providing us countless amenities, for enhancing our livelihoods, beautifying our community, providing shade, and being a source of joy.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Martha Barragan, Mayor of the City of East Palo Alto, do hereby proclaim, April 25 as ARBOR DAY in the City of East Palo Alto, and I urge all citizens to support efforts to protect trees and our urban canopy, as well as enjoy their presence in our community.

Dated: April 15, 2025
Martha Barragan, Mayor
7 CONSENT ITEM 3.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Shiri Klima, Assistant City Manager
Ana M Torres-Mondragon, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Two Publicly Available Compensation Schedules for Amended FY 2024-25 Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the amendment for two Publicly Available Compensation Schedules for FY 2024-25.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Background
Compensation consisting of salary and benefits paid to employees of the City of East Palo Alto is governed by the City’s Municipal Code, personnel policies, negotiated and authorized memoranda of understanding with the three employee bargaining units (MEA, SEIU, POA), authorized compensation for unrepresented employees, and authorized contractual agreements with the City Manager and City Attorney. As a member of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the City also is subject to applicable provisions of the Public Employee Retirement Law (PERL) referenced in the California Government Code and the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

In accordance with East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.8.110, the City’s Personnel Policies and Procedures approved by the City Council on August 28, 1985 (Resolution #00210) Rule

3.9.01 states: “annually, the City Council shall establish the pay range and steps assigned to each classification in the City service.” The City maintains a Classification and Compensation 8 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
Schedule inclusive of all authorized employee classifications. This includes the salary ranges that depict salary steps associated with such authorized classifications.

In addition to local policy requirements, CCR Title 2, Section 570.5 requires the City adopt a publicly available pay schedule for purposes of determining the amount of “compensation earnable” pursuant to California Government Code Sections 20630, 20636, and 20636.1.

Generally, compensation earnable is calculated using employee payrate and special compensation earned while working for the contracting agency (the City). It is paramount to have a properly adopted and administered pay schedule to assure both transparency and the accuracy of employee retirement benefits.

The City’s Compensation Schedule is required to meet eight criteria contained in CCR Title 2, Section 570.5, including that the schedule must be approved by the governing body (City Council). The schedule must be publicly accessible and available for auditing purposes for at least five years. The schedule also requires the following: position titles; payrates for each position (ranges or steps); the time bases for how pay is calculated (i.e., hourly, bi-weekly, etc.); payrates’ effective dates; and any applicable revision dates. The schedule may not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the payrates.

Analysis
The City is presenting for adoption an amendment for Fiscal Year 2024-25 City of East Palo Alto Compensation Schedule reflecting the following:

Citywide Update:
 Police Recruit
Amending the title from Police Trainee to Police Recruit  Captain
Reclassifying Commander (eliminated 2/15/25) to Captain (effective 2/16/25)  Chief Building Official
Increased pay by 10%
 Information Technology Specialist I/II
New pay scales because it is a newly created classification  Recreational Leader I FT and PT
Aligned pay scale with wage ordinance
 Special Projects Manager (2 Year LTD)
Establishing pay scale
 Paralegal
Legal Secretary (eliminated 1/4/25) to Paralegal (effective 1/5/25)  Assistant City Manager/ Assistant General Manager
Title update
 Finance Director/ District Treasurer
Title update, change in pay scale
9 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
 Public Works Director/ District Engineer
Title update, change in pay scale
 Accountant Senior (effective 10/13/25)
Change in pay scale because classification is expected to have accounting knowledge for special districts and because this classification was not part of the compensation study in 2020
Contractual Staff Update:
 City Manager/General Manager
Title update, change in pay scale. On March 18, 2025, the City Council authorized an amendment of the employment agreement between Melvin E. Gaines for the position of City Manager/General Manager with the City of East Palo Alto. The amendment replaced the termination of his term of employment from January 30, 2026, to January 30, 2029. His total and final compensation under this amendment is $317,212, effective the next pay period after the Effective Date (of January 30, 2025).
 City Attorney/District Counsel
Title update, change in pay scale. On March 18, 2025, the City Council authorized an amendment of the employment agreement between John D. Lê for the position of City Attorney/District Counsel with the City of East Palo Alto. The amendment replaced the termination of his term of employment from January 9, 2026, to January 9, 2029, the elimination of this cost of living adjustment (COLA), and added ICMA 457 employer contributions in lieu of medical coverage. His total and final compensation under this amendment is $300,030, effective January 9, 2025.  No other terms of employment in their respective agreements have changed.

To remain in compliance with the City compensation ordinance, personnel policies, and CCR Title 2, Section 570.5, staff is presenting the revised FY 2024-25 Annual Compensation Schedule. The City is presenting for adoption the Amended Fiscal Year 2024-25 Compensation Schedules for all city classifications and one for the two contractual employees per SB 1344.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact is associated with approval of the schedules.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
10 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the entitlement involves a personnel contract, the Levine Act is not applicable.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution.

1. Resolution Attachment A: FY 2024-25 Contractual Compensation Schedule (Amended)

2. Resolution Attachment B: FY 2024-25 Citywide Compensation Schedule (Amended) 11 DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2025 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

ADOPTING THE AMENDMENT FOR TWO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE COMPENSATION SCHEDULES FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024-25
WHEREAS, in accordance with East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.80.110 (Compensation plan), the City’s Personnel Policies and Procedures approved by the City Council on August 28, 1985 (Resolution #00210) Rule 3.9.01 states that “annually, the City Council shall establish the pay range and steps assigned to each classification in the City service”; and WHEREAS, the City maintains a Compensation Schedule inclusive of all authorized employee classifications, which includes the salary ranges that depict salary steps associated with such authorized classifications; and
WHEREAS, as a member of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the City also is subject to applicable provisions of the Public Employee Retirement Law (PERL) referenced in the California Government Code and the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City’s Compensation Schedule is required to meet eight criteria contained in 2 C.C.R. §570.5: it must be approved by the governing body (City Council);the schedule must be publicly accessible and available for auditing purposes for at least five years; the schedule is required to include position titles, payrates for each position (ranges or steps), the time bases for how pay is calculated (i.e., hourly, bi-weekly, etc.), payrates’ effective dates, and any applicable revision dates; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the City Council authorized an amendment of the employment agreement between Melvin E. Gaines for the position of City Manager/General Manager with the City of East Palo Alto, which amendment replaced the termination of his term of employment from January 30, 2026, to January 30, 2029, and determinates his total and final compensation is $317,212, effective the first pay period after the Effective Date; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the City Council authorized an amendment of the employment agreement between John D. Lê for the position of City Attorney/District Counsel with the City of East Palo Alto, which amendment replaced the termination of his term of employment from January 9, 2026, to January 9, 2029, eliminated the cost of living adjustment (COLA), added ICMA 457 employer contributions in lieu of medical coverage, and determined his total and final compensation is $300,030, effective January 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, to remain in compliance with City compensation ordinance, personnel policies, and 2 CCR §570.5, staff is presenting the amended FY 2024-25 Annual Compensation Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this action: and 12 DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2025 2 of 2

2. Adopts the amended Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Compensation Schedules, which are attached hereto as Attachments A and B and incorporated herein by this reference; and

3. The proposed action is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378(b)(2), in that it is government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan. Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
13 City Manager (Contractual) Resolution Resolution Effective 86-2024 24-2025 1/30/2025
Hourly 128.5695 152.5058
Bi-Weekly 10,285.56 12,200.46
Monthly 22,285.38 26,434.33
Annual 267,424.57 317,212.00
City Attorney (Contractual) Resolution Resolution Effective 86-2024 25-2025 1/9/2025
Hourly 118.8361 144.2452
Bi-Weekly 9,506.89 11,539.62
Monthly 20,598.25 25,002.50
Annual 247,179.02 300,030.00

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
(Rates Effective 5/26/2024, Except as Noted)
14 Accountant I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 36.9381 38.7850 40.7242 42.7604 44.8984
Bi-Weekly 2,955.05 3,102.80 3,257.94 3,420.83 3,591.88
Monthly 6,402.60 6,722.73 7,058.86 7,411.81 7,782.40
Annual 76,831.18 80,672.74 84,706.37 88,941.69 93,388.78 Accountant II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 40.8116 42.8522 44.9948 47.2445 49.6068
Bi-Weekly 3,264.93 3,428.17 3,599.58 3,779.56 3,968.54
Monthly 7,074.01 7,427.71 7,799.10 8,189.05 8,598.50
Annual 84,888.14 89,132.54 93,589.17 98,268.63 103,182.06 Accountant Senior (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 47.4664 49.8398 52.3318 54.9483 57.6958
Bi-Weekly 3,797.32 3,987.18 4,186.54 4,395.87 4,615.66
Monthly 8,227.52 8,638.89 9,070.84 9,524.38 10,000.60
Annual 98,730.21 103,666.72 108,850.06 114,292.56 120,007.19 Accountant Senior (MEA) Effective
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 10/13/2024
Hourly 49.8398 52.3318 54.9483 57.6958 60.5806
Bi-Weekly 3,987.18 4,186.54 4,395.87 4,615.66 4,846.44
Monthly 8,638.89 9,070.84 9,524.38 10,000.60 10,500.63
Annual 103,666.72 108,850.06 114,292.56 120,007.19 126,007.55 Account Technician I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 30.8644 32.4076 34.0280 35.7294 37.5158
Bi-Weekly 2,469.15 2,592.61 2,722.24 2,858.35 3,001.27
Monthly 5,349.82 5,617.31 5,898.18 6,193.09 6,502.74
Annual 64,197.86 67,407.75 70,778.14 74,317.05 78,032.90 Account Technician II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 33.1792 34.8381 36.5800 38.4091 40.3295
Bi-Weekly 2,654.33 2,787.05 2,926.40 3,072.72 3,226.36
Monthly 5,751.06 6,038.61 6,340.54 6,657.57 6,990.45
Annual 69,012.70 72,463.34 76,086.50 79,890.83 83,885.37 Administrative Assistant (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 37.0222 38.8733 40.8170 42.8578 45.0007
Bi-Weekly 2,961.78 3,109.86 3,265.36 3,428.63 3,600.06
Monthly 6,417.18 6,738.04 7,074.94 7,428.69 7,800.12
Annual 77,006.17 80,856.48 84,899.30 89,144.27 93,601.48 Assistant City Manager / Assistant General Manager (Executive) (formally known as Assistant City Manager)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 96.0628 100.8659 105.9092 111.2047 116.7649

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
(Rates Effective 5/26/2024, Except as Noted)
15 Bi-Weekly 7,685.02 8,069.27 8,472.74 8,896.38 9,341.19 Monthly 16,650.88 17,483.43 18,357.60 19,275.48 20,239.25 Annual 199,810.60 209,801.13 220,291.19 231,305.75 242,871.04 Assistant to the City Manager (Non Bargaining - MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 66.6845 70.0187 73.5196 77.1956 81.0554
Bi-Weekly 5,334.76 5,601.50 5,881.57 6,175.65 6,484.43
Monthly 11,558.64 12,136.57 12,743.40 13,380.57 14,049.60 Annual 138,703.69 145,638.87 152,920.82 160,566.86 168,595.20 Assistant Engineer (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.3340 46.5507 48.8782 51.3221 53.8882
Bi-Weekly 3,546.72 3,724.05 3,910.26 4,105.77 4,311.06
Monthly 7,684.56 8,068.79 8,472.22 8,895.84 9,340.63
Annual 92,214.69 96,825.43 101,666.70 106,750.03 112,087.53 Assistant Planner (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 43.5648 45.7430 48.0301 50.4317 52.9532
Bi-Weekly 3,485.18 3,659.44 3,842.41 4,034.53 4,236.26
Monthly 7,551.22 7,928.79 8,325.23 8,741.49 9,178.56
Annual 90,614.69 95,145.43 99,902.70 104,897.84 110,142.73 Associate Engineer (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 51.3222 53.8883 56.5827 59.4119 62.3825
Bi-Weekly 4,105.78 4,311.06 4,526.62 4,752.95 4,990.60
Monthly 8,895.85 9,340.64 9,807.67 10,298.06 10,812.96
Annual 106,750.17 112,087.68 117,692.06 123,576.66 129,755.50 Associate Planner (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 47.6317 50.0133 52.5140 55.1397 57.8967
Bi-Weekly 3,810.54 4,001.07 4,201.12 4,411.18 4,631.73
Monthly 8,256.17 8,668.98 9,102.43 9,557.55 10,035.43
Annual 99,074.03 104,027.73 109,229.12 114,690.57 120,425.10 Building Inspector I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 42.7770 44.9159 47.1617 49.5197 51.9957
Bi-Weekly 3,422.16 3,593.27 3,772.93 3,961.58 4,159.66
Monthly 7,414.68 7,785.42 8,174.69 8,583.42 9,012.59
Annual 88,976.18 93,424.99 98,096.23 103,001.05 108,151.10 Building Inspector II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 47.9042 50.2994 52.8144 55.4551 58.2278
Bi-Weekly 3,832.33 4,023.95 4,225.15 4,436.41 4,658.23
Monthly 8,303.39 8,718.56 9,154.49 9,612.21 10,092.82
Annual 99,640.70 104,622.73 109,853.87 115,346.56 121,113.89 16 Building Inspector / Neighborhood Preservation Officer I (SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 49.1935 51.6532 54.2359 56.9476 59.7950
Bi-Weekly 3,935.48 4,132.26 4,338.87 4,555.81 4,783.60
Monthly 8,526.88 8,953.22 9,400.88 9,870.93 10,364.47
Annual 102,322.52 107,438.65 112,810.58 118,451.11 124,373.67 Building Inspector / Neighborhood Preservation Officer II (SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 55.0898 57.8442 60.7365 63.7733 66.9619
Bi-Weekly 4,407.18 4,627.54 4,858.92 5,101.86 5,356.96
Monthly 9,548.89 10,026.34 10,527.65 11,054.03 11,606.74 Annual 114,586.69 120,316.03 126,331.83 132,648.42 139,280.84 Building Permit Technician (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 32.0708 33.6743 35.3581 37.1260 38.9823
Bi-Weekly 2,565.66 2,693.95 2,828.64 2,970.08 3,118.58
Monthly 5,558.94 5,836.89 6,128.73 6,435.17 6,756.93
Annual 66,707.27 70,042.64 73,544.77 77,222.01 81,083.11 Chief Building Official (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 73.3528 77.0204 80.8715 84.9150 89.1608
Bi-Weekly 5,868.22 6,161.64 6,469.72 6,793.20 7,132.86
Monthly 12,714.49 13,350.21 14,017.72 14,718.61 15,454.54 Annual 152,573.82 160,202.51 168,212.64 176,623.27 185,454.44 City Clerk- Public Information Officer (Non Bargaining - MEA) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 56.8130 59.6537 62.6364 65.7682 69.0566
Bi-Weekly 4,545.04 4,772.30 5,010.91 5,261.46 5,524.53
Monthly 9,847.60 10,339.97 10,856.97 11,399.82 11,969.81 Annual 118,171.14 124,079.70 130,283.68 136,797.87 143,637.76 City Engineer (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 77.0441 80.8963 84.9411 89.1882 93.6476
Bi-Weekly 6,163.53 6,471.70 6,795.29 7,135.05 7,491.81
Monthly 13,354.31 14,022.03 14,723.13 15,459.28 16,232.25 Annual 160,251.72 168,264.30 176,677.52 185,511.40 194,786.97 Community & Economic Development Director (Executive)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 86.7244 91.0607 95.6137 100.3944 105.4141
Bi-Weekly 6,937.95 7,284.85 7,649.10 8,031.55 8,433.13
Monthly 15,032.24 15,783.85 16,573.04 17,401.69 18,271.78 Annual 180,386.83 189,406.17 198,876.48 208,820.30 219,261.32 Community Services Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 56.3607 59.1787 62.1377 65.2445 68.5068
Bi-Weekly 4,508.86 4,734.30 4,971.01 5,219.56 5,480.54
Monthly 9,769.19 10,257.65 10,770.53 11,309.06 11,874.51 Annual 117,230.25 123,091.76 129,246.35 135,708.66 142,494.10 17 Community Services Officer (PT) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 31.6657 33.2490 34.9115 36.6570 38.4899
Bi-Weekly 1,139.97 1,196.96 1,256.81 1,319.65 1,385.64
Monthly 2,469.93 2,593.42 2,723.09 2,859.25 3,002.21
Annual 29,639.11 31,121.07 32,677.12 34,310.98 36,026.53 Community Services Officer (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 31.6657 33.2490 34.9115 36.6570 38.4899
Bi-Weekly 2,533.26 2,659.92 2,792.92 2,932.56 3,079.19
Monthly 5,488.72 5,763.16 6,051.32 6,353.88 6,671.58
Annual 65,864.69 69,157.93 72,615.83 76,246.62 80,058.95 Deputy City Attorney I (Non Bargaining - MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 55.5487 58.3262 61.2425 64.3046 67.5198
Bi-Weekly 4,443.90 4,666.09 4,899.40 5,144.37 5,401.59
Monthly 9,628.45 10,109.87 10,615.36 11,146.13 11,703.44 Annual 115,541.35 121,318.41 127,384.33 133,753.55 140,441.23 Deputy City Attorney II (Non Bargaining - MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 69.1667 72.6250 76.2562 80.0691 84.0725
Bi-Weekly 5,533.33 5,810.00 6,100.50 6,405.52 6,725.80
Monthly 11,988.89 12,588.33 13,217.75 13,878.64 14,572.57 Annual 143,866.66 151,059.99 158,612.99 166,543.64 174,870.82 Deputy City Clerk (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 39.4458 41.4181 43.4890 45.6634 47.9466
Bi-Weekly 3,155.66 3,313.44 3,479.12 3,653.07 3,835.73
Monthly 6,837.27 7,179.13 7,538.09 7,914.99 8,310.74
Annual 82,047.20 86,149.56 90,457.04 94,979.89 99,728.88 Director of Finance (Executive)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 88.7526 93.1902 97.8497 102.7422 107.8793
Bi-Weekly 7,100.20 7,455.21 7,827.97 8,219.37 8,630.34
Monthly 15,383.78 16,152.96 16,960.61 17,808.64 18,699.08 Annual 184,605.31 193,835.57 203,527.35 213,703.72 224,388.90 Director of Finance / District Treasurer (Executive) Effective Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 10/13/2024
Hourly 92.1429 96.7500 101.5875 106.6669 112.0003
Bi-Weekly 7,371.43 7,740.00 8,127.00 8,533.35 8,960.02
Monthly 15,971.44 16,770.01 17,608.51 18,488.93 19,413.38 Annual 191,657.23 201,240.09 211,302.09 221,867.20 232,960.56 Electrician - Apprentice (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 42.7186 44.8545 47.0973 49.4521 51.9247
Bi-Weekly 3,417.49 3,588.36 3,767.78 3,956.17 4,153.98
Monthly 7,404.56 7,774.79 8,163.53 8,571.70 9,000.29
Annual 88,854.70 93,297.44 97,962.31 102,860.43 108,003.45 18 Electrician - Journeyman (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 45.1408 47.3978 49.7677 52.2561 54.8689
Bi-Weekly 3,611.26 3,791.83 3,981.42 4,180.49 4,389.51
Monthly 7,824.40 8,215.63 8,626.41 9,057.73 9,510.61
Annual 93,892.86 98,587.50 103,516.88 108,692.72 114,127.36 Electrician - Lead (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 48.3199 50.7359 53.2727 55.9363 58.7332
Bi-Weekly 3,865.59 4,058.87 4,261.82 4,474.91 4,698.65
Monthly 8,375.45 8,794.23 9,233.94 9,695.63 10,180.42
Annual 100,505.43 105,530.71 110,807.24 116,347.60 122,164.98 Environmental Services Aide PT (0.45 FTE, 936 Hrs) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 26.5887 27.9181 29.3140 30.7797 32.3187
Bi-Weekly 957.19 1,005.05 1,055.30 1,108.07 1,163.47
Monthly 2,073.92 2,177.61 2,286.49 2,400.82 2,520.86
Annual 24,887.00 26,131.35 27,437.91 28,809.81 30,250.30 Environmental Services Aide FT (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 26.5887 27.9181 29.3140 30.7797 32.3187
Bi-Weekly 2,127.09 2,233.45 2,345.12 2,462.38 2,585.50
Monthly 4,608.70 4,839.14 5,081.10 5,335.15 5,601.91
Annual 55,304.44 58,069.66 60,973.14 64,021.80 67,222.89 Executive Assistant to the City Manager (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 42.2552 44.3680 46.5864 48.9157 51.3615
Bi-Weekly 3,380.42 3,549.44 3,726.91 3,913.26 4,108.92
Monthly 7,324.24 7,690.45 8,074.98 8,478.72 8,902.66
Annual 87,890.89 92,285.43 96,899.70 101,744.69 106,831.92 Financial Service Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 64.0405 67.2425 70.6046 74.1348 77.8416
Bi-Weekly 5,123.24 5,379.40 5,648.37 5,930.79 6,227.33
Monthly 11,100.35 11,655.36 12,238.13 12,850.04 13,492.54 Annual 133,204.17 139,864.38 146,857.60 154,200.48 161,910.50 Fiscal Analyst (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 53.9050 56.6003 59.4303 62.4018 65.5219
Bi-Weekly 4,312.40 4,528.02 4,754.42 4,992.14 5,241.75
Monthly 9,343.54 9,810.72 10,301.25 10,816.31 11,357.13 Annual 112,122.46 117,728.58 123,615.01 129,795.76 136,285.55 Grants Coordinator (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 40.4220 42.4431 44.5653 46.7935 49.1332
Bi-Weekly 3,233.76 3,395.45 3,565.22 3,743.48 3,930.66
Monthly 7,006.48 7,356.80 7,724.64 8,110.88 8,516.42
Annual 84,077.75 88,281.64 92,695.72 97,330.51 102,197.04 Housing Project Manager (MEA)
19 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 54.4718 57.1954 60.0552 63.0580 66.2109
Bi-Weekly 4,357.75 4,575.63 4,804.42 5,044.64 5,296.87
Monthly 9,441.79 9,913.87 10,409.57 10,930.05 11,476.55 Annual 113,301.42 118,966.50 124,914.82 131,160.56 137,718.59 Housing Specialist I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 35.5998 37.3798 39.2488 41.2112 43.2718
Bi-Weekly 2,847.99 2,990.38 3,139.90 3,296.90 3,461.74
Monthly 6,170.63 6,479.17 6,803.12 7,143.28 7,500.44
Annual 74,047.61 77,749.99 81,637.49 85,719.37 90,005.34 Housing Specialist II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.4733 46.6970 49.0318 51.4834 54.0576
Bi-Weekly 3,557.87 3,735.76 3,922.55 4,118.67 4,324.61
Monthly 7,708.71 8,094.14 8,498.85 8,923.79 9,369.98
Annual 92,504.49 97,129.72 101,986.20 107,085.51 112,439.79 Housing & Economic Development Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 66.6844 70.0186 73.5196 77.1955 81.0553
Bi-Weekly 5,334.75 5,601.49 5,881.56 6,175.64 6,484.42
Monthly 11,558.63 12,136.56 12,743.39 13,380.56 14,049.59 Annual 138,703.55 145,638.73 152,920.67 160,566.70 168,595.04 Human Resource Manager (Non Bargaining - MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 66.0263 69.3276 72.7940 76.4337 80.2554
Bi-Weekly 5,282.10 5,546.21 5,823.52 6,114.70 6,420.43
Monthly 11,444.56 12,016.79 12,617.63 13,248.51 13,910.93 Annual 137,334.70 144,201.43 151,411.50 158,982.08 166,931.18 Human Resources Technician I (Non Bargaining - SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 40.2128 42.2235 44.3347 46.5514 48.8790
Bi-Weekly 3,217.03 3,377.88 3,546.77 3,724.11 3,910.32
Monthly 6,970.23 7,318.74 7,684.68 8,068.91 8,472.35
Annual 83,642.72 87,824.86 92,216.10 96,826.91 101,668.25 Human Resources Technician II (Non Bargaining - SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.2342 46.4459 48.7682 51.2066 53.7669
Bi-Weekly 3,538.73 3,715.67 3,901.45 4,096.53 4,301.35
Monthly 7,667.26 8,050.62 8,453.15 8,875.81 9,319.60
Annual 92,007.08 96,607.44 101,437.81 106,509.70 111,835.18 Information Technology Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 72.8354 76.4771 80.3010 84.3160 88.5318
Bi-Weekly 5,826.83 6,118.17 6,424.08 6,745.28 7,082.55
Monthly 12,624.80 13,256.04 13,918.84 14,614.78 15,345.52 Annual 151,497.57 159,072.45 167,026.07 175,377.37 184,146.24 Information Technology Specialist I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
20 Hourly 35.5998 37.3798 39.2488 41.2112 43.2719
Bi-Weekly 2,847.99 2,990.38 3,139.90 3,296.90 3,461.74
Monthly 6,170.63 6,479.17 6,803.12 7,143.28 7,500.44
Annual 74,047.61 77,749.99 81,637.49 85,719.37 90,005.34 Information Technology Specialist II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.4733 46.6970 49.0318 51.4834 54.0576
Bi-Weekly 3,557.87 3,735.76 3,922.55 4,118.67 4,324.61
Monthly 7,708.71 8,094.14 8,498.85 8,923.79 9,369.98
Annual 92,504.49 97,129.72 101,986.20 107,085.51 112,439.79 Kitchen Aide - (0.5 FTE, 1040 Hrs) (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 18.3108 19.2264 20.1877 21.1971 22.2569
Bi-Weekly 732.43 769.05 807.51 847.88 890.28
Monthly 1,586.94 1,666.28 1,749.60 1,837.08 1,928.93
Annual 19,043.24 19,995.41 20,995.18 22,044.94 23,147.18 Legal Assistant (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Eliminated
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 1/4/2025
Hourly 38.6129 40.5436 42.5708 44.6993 46.9343
Bi-Weekly 3,089.04 3,243.49 3,405.66 3,575.95 3,754.74
Monthly 6,692.91 7,027.56 7,378.93 7,747.88 8,135.28
Annual 80,314.93 84,330.68 88,547.21 92,974.58 97,623.30 Maintenance Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 64.8645 68.1078 71.5131 75.0888 78.8432
Bi-Weekly 5,189.16 5,448.62 5,721.05 6,007.10 6,307.46
Monthly 11,243.19 11,805.35 12,395.61 13,015.39 13,666.16 Annual 134,918.23 141,664.14 148,747.35 156,184.72 163,993.95 Maintenance Worker I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 29.0730 30.5266 32.0530 33.6556 35.3384
Bi-Weekly 2,325.84 2,442.13 2,564.24 2,692.45 2,827.07
Monthly 5,039.32 5,291.28 5,555.85 5,833.64 6,125.32
Annual 60,471.81 63,495.40 66,670.17 70,003.67 73,503.86 Maintenance Worker II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 32.3140 33.9297 35.6262 37.4075 39.2779
Bi-Weekly 2,585.12 2,714.37 2,850.09 2,992.60 3,142.23
Monthly 5,601.09 5,881.15 6,175.20 6,483.96 6,808.16
Annual 67,213.09 70,573.75 74,102.43 77,807.56 81,697.93 Maintenance Worker III (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 35.9957 37.7955 39.6853 41.6695 43.7530
Bi-Weekly 2,879.66 3,023.64 3,174.82 3,333.56 3,500.24
Monthly 6,239.26 6,551.22 6,878.78 7,222.72 7,583.85
Annual 74,871.07 78,614.62 82,545.36 86,672.62 91,006.25 Management Analyst I (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.8851 47.1294 49.4859 51.9602 54.5582
21 Bi-Weekly 3,590.81 3,770.35 3,958.87 4,156.81 4,364.65 Monthly 7,780.09 8,169.09 8,577.55 9,006.43 9,456.75
Annual 93,361.08 98,029.13 102,930.59 108,077.12 113,480.97 Management Analyst II (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 53.9050 56.6002 59.4302 62.4018 65.5219
Bi-Weekly 4,312.40 4,528.02 4,754.42 4,992.14 5,241.75
Monthly 9,343.53 9,810.71 10,301.24 10,816.31 11,357.12 Annual 112,122.38 117,728.49 123,614.92 129,795.67 136,285.45 Neighborhood Preservation Officer I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 36.0005 37.8005 39.6905 41.6750 43.7588
Bi-Weekly 2,880.04 3,024.04 3,175.24 3,334.00 3,500.70
Monthly 6,240.08 6,552.08 6,879.69 7,223.67 7,584.86
Annual 74,880.95 78,625.00 82,556.25 86,684.06 91,018.26 Neighborhood Preservation Officer II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 41.2527 43.3154 45.4811 47.7552 50.1430
Bi-Weekly 3,300.22 3,465.23 3,638.49 3,820.42 4,011.44
Monthly 7,150.47 7,508.00 7,883.40 8,277.57 8,691.45
Annual 85,805.69 90,095.98 94,600.77 99,330.81 104,297.35 Nutrition Site Supervisor (0.75 FTE, 1560 Hrs) (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 22.3576 23.4755 24.6492 25.8817 27.1758
Bi-Weekly 1,341.46 1,408.53 1,478.95 1,552.90 1,630.55
Monthly 2,906.49 3,051.81 3,204.40 3,364.62 3,532.85
Annual 34,877.84 36,621.73 38,452.82 40,375.46 42,394.23 Office Assistant (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 27.8971 29.2919 30.7565 32.2944 33.9091
Bi-Weekly 2,231.77 2,343.36 2,460.52 2,583.55 2,712.73
Monthly 4,835.50 5,077.27 5,331.13 5,597.69 5,877.58
Annual 58,025.95 60,927.24 63,973.61 67,172.29 70,530.90 Paralegal (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Effective
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 1/5/2025
Hourly 42.4742 44.5979 46.8278 49.1692 51.6276
Bi-Weekly 3,397.94 3,567.83 3,746.22 3,933.53 4,130.21
Monthly 7,362.19 7,730.30 8,116.82 8,522.66 8,948.79
Annual 88,346.32 92,763.63 97,401.81 102,271.90 107,385.50 Planning Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 68.0464 71.4487 75.0211 78.7722 82.7108
Bi-Weekly 5,443.71 5,715.90 6,001.69 6,301.78 6,616.86
Monthly 11,794.71 12,384.44 13,003.66 13,653.85 14,336.54 Annual 141,536.47 148,613.29 156,043.95 163,846.15 172,038.46 Planning Permit Technician (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 32.0708 33.6743 35.3581 37.1260 38.9823
Bi-Weekly 2,565.66 2,693.95 2,828.64 2,970.08 3,118.58
22 Monthly 5,558.94 5,836.89 6,128.73 6,435.17 6,756.93 Annual 66,707.27 70,042.64 73,544.77 77,222.01 81,083.11 Police Chief (Executive )
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 96.9544 101.8021 106.8922 112.2368 117.8487
Bi-Weekly 7,756.35 8,144.17 8,551.38 8,978.95 9,427.90
Monthly 16,805.43 17,645.70 18,527.99 19,454.39 20,427.11 Annual 201,665.17 211,748.43 222,335.85 233,452.64 245,125.28 Police Captain (Non Bargaining - MEA) Effective
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 2/16/2025
Hourly 87.5677 91.9461 96.5434 101.3706 106.4361
Bi-Weekly 7,005.42 7,355.69 7,723.47 8,109.64 8,515.12
Monthly 15,178.40 15,937.32 16,734.19 17,570.89 18,449.44 Annual 182,140.81 191,247.84 200,810.22 210,850.72 221,393.25 Police Commander (Non Bargaining - MEA) Eliminated
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 2/15/2025
Hourly 76.2675 80.0809 84.0849 88.2891 92.7036
Bi-Weekly 6,101.40 6,406.47 6,726.79 7,063.13 7,416.29
Monthly 13,219.70 13,880.68 14,574.72 15,303.45 16,068.62 Annual 158,636.36 166,568.18 174,896.59 183,641.42 192,823.49 Police Officer (POA) Effective
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G 7/7/2024 Hourly 48.1552 50.5629 53.0911 55.7456 58.5329 61.4596 63.6106 Bi-Weekly 4,045.03 4,247.29 4,459.65 4,682.63 4,916.76 5,162.60 5,343.29 Monthly 8,764.24 9,202.45 9,662.58 10,145.70 10,652.99 11,185.64 11,577.14 Annual 105,170.89 110,429.43 115,950.90 121,748.45 127,835.87 134,227.66 138,925.63 Police Records Clerk I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 29.6525 31.1352 32.6919 34.3265 36.0428
Bi-Weekly 2,372.20 2,490.81 2,615.35 2,746.12 2,883.43
Monthly 5,139.77 5,396.76 5,666.60 5,949.93 6,247.43
Annual 61,677.28 64,761.14 67,999.20 71,399.16 74,969.12 Police Records Clerk II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 32.9347 34.5814 36.3105 38.1260 40.0323
Bi-Weekly 2,634.77 2,766.51 2,904.84 3,050.08 3,202.58
Monthly 5,708.67 5,994.11 6,293.81 6,608.50 6,938.93
Annual 68,504.09 71,929.29 75,525.76 79,302.05 83,267.15 Police Records Supervisor (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 41.3285 43.3950 45.5647 47.8430 50.2351
Bi-Weekly 3,306.28 3,471.60 3,645.18 3,827.44 4,018.81
Monthly 7,163.61 7,521.80 7,897.89 8,292.78 8,707.42
Annual 85,963.38 90,261.55 94,774.63 99,513.36 104,489.02 Police Sergeant (POA) Effective
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G 7/7/2024 Hourly 57.8253 60.7166 63.7524 66.9400 70.2870 73.8014 76.3844 Bi-Weekly 4,857.32 5,100.19 5,355.20 5,622.96 5,904.11 6,199.31 6,416.29 Monthly 10,524.20 11,050.41 11,602.93 12,183.08 12,792.24 13,431.85 13,901.96 23 Annual 126,290.44 132,604.96 139,235.21 146,196.97 153,506.82 161,182.16 166,823.54 Property and Evidence Technician (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 36.2950 38.1097 40.0152 42.0160 44.1168
Bi-Weekly 2,903.60 3,048.78 3,201.22 3,361.28 3,529.34
Monthly 6,291.13 6,605.69 6,935.97 7,282.77 7,646.91
Annual 75,493.59 79,268.27 83,231.69 87,393.27 91,762.94 Public Works Director (Executive)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 90.5422 95.0693 99.8228 104.8139 110.0546
Bi-Weekly 7,243.37 7,605.54 7,985.82 8,385.11 8,804.37
Monthly 15,693.98 16,478.68 17,302.61 18,167.74 19,076.13 Annual 188,327.75 197,744.14 207,631.34 218,012.91 228,913.56 Public Works Director / District Engineer (Executive) Effective Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 10/13/2024
Hourly 94.3721 99.0907 104.0453 109.2475 114.7099
Bi-Weekly 7,549.77 7,927.26 8,323.62 8,739.80 9,176.79
Monthly 16,357.83 17,175.73 18,034.51 18,936.24 19,883.05 Annual 196,294.01 206,108.71 216,414.15 227,234.86 238,596.60 Public Works Supervisor (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 52.2482 54.8606 57.6036 60.4838 63.5080
Bi-Weekly 4,179.86 4,388.85 4,608.29 4,838.71 5,080.64
Monthly 9,056.35 9,509.17 9,984.63 10,483.86 11,008.05
Annual 108,676.24 114,110.05 119,815.55 125,806.33 132,096.65 Recreation Leader I FT (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 17.4500 18.3250 19.2386 20.2006 21.2106
Bi-Weekly 1,396.00 1,465.80 1,539.09 1,616.04 1,696.85
Monthly 3,024.67 3,175.90 3,334.70 3,501.43 3,676.50
Annual 36,296.00 38,110.80 40,016.34 42,017.16 44,118.07 Recreation Leader I (0.45 FTE, 936 Hrs) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 17.4500 18.3250 19.2386 20.2006 21.2106
Bi-Weekly 628.20 659.70 692.59 727.22 763.58
Monthly 1,361.10 1,429.35 1,500.61 1,575.65 1,654.43
Annual 16,333.20 17,152.20 18,007.33 18,907.76 19,853.12 Recreation Leader II FT (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 18.6202 19.5512 20.5288 21.5553 22.6330
Bi-Weekly 1,489.62 1,564.10 1,642.30 1,724.42 1,810.64
Monthly 3,227.51 3,388.88 3,558.33 3,736.24 3,923.06
Annual 38,730.09 40,666.60 42,699.93 44,834.92 47,076.67 Recreation Leader II (0.45 FTE, 936 Hrs) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 18.6202 19.5512 20.5288 21.5553 22.6330
Bi-Weekly 670.33 703.84 739.04 775.99 814.79
Monthly 1,452.38 1,525.00 1,601.25 1,681.31 1,765.38
Annual 17,428.54 18,299.97 19,214.97 20,175.72 21,184.50 24 Recreation Program Coordinator (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 35.9439 37.7410 39.6281 41.6095 43.6900
Bi-Weekly 2,875.51 3,019.28 3,170.25 3,328.76 3,495.20
Monthly 6,230.27 6,541.78 6,868.87 7,212.31 7,572.93
Annual 74,763.21 78,501.37 82,426.44 86,547.76 90,875.15 Rent Stabilization Administrator (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 65.8954 69.1902 72.6497 76.2822 80.0963
Bi-Weekly 5,271.64 5,535.22 5,811.98 6,102.58 6,407.71
Monthly 11,421.88 11,992.97 12,592.62 13,222.25 13,883.36 Annual 137,062.53 143,915.66 151,111.44 158,667.01 166,600.36 Rent Stabilization Program Coordinator I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 37.0222 38.8733 40.8169 42.8578 45.0007
Bi-Weekly 2,961.77 3,109.86 3,265.36 3,428.62 3,600.05
Monthly 6,417.18 6,738.03 7,074.94 7,428.68 7,800.12
Annual 77,006.11 80,856.41 84,899.23 89,144.19 93,601.40 Rent Stabilization Program Coordinator II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.4733 46.6969 49.0318 51.4834 54.0575
Bi-Weekly 3,557.86 3,735.75 3,922.54 4,118.67 4,324.60
Monthly 7,708.70 8,094.13 8,498.84 8,923.78 9,369.97
Annual 92,504.38 97,129.59 101,986.07 107,085.38 112,439.65 Secretary I (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 28.4139 29.8346 31.3263 32.8926 34.5373
Bi-Weekly 2,273.11 2,386.77 2,506.10 2,631.41 2,762.98
Monthly 4,925.07 5,171.33 5,429.89 5,701.39 5,986.46
Annual 59,100.88 62,055.93 65,158.72 68,416.66 71,837.49 Secretary II (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 31.6525 33.2351 34.8969 36.6417 38.4738
Bi-Weekly 2,532.20 2,658.81 2,791.75 2,931.34 3,077.90
Monthly 5,486.43 5,760.75 6,048.79 6,351.23 6,668.79
Annual 65,837.18 69,129.04 72,585.49 76,214.77 80,025.51 Senior Accounting Technician (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 35.6676 37.4510 39.3236 41.2897 43.3542
Bi-Weekly 2,853.41 2,996.08 3,145.88 3,303.18 3,468.34
Monthly 6,182.39 6,491.51 6,816.08 7,156.89 7,514.73
Annual 74,188.66 77,898.09 81,792.99 85,882.64 90,176.77 Senior Engineer (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 64.8645 68.1077 71.5131 75.0888 78.8432
Bi-Weekly 5,189.16 5,448.62 5,721.05 6,007.10 6,307.46
Monthly 11,243.18 11,805.34 12,395.60 13,015.38 13,666.15 Annual 134,918.13 141,664.04 148,747.24 156,184.60 163,993.83 25 Senior Management Analyst (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 59.2955 62.2603 65.3733 68.6419 72.0740
Bi-Weekly 4,743.64 4,980.82 5,229.86 5,491.36 5,765.92
Monthly 10,277.88 10,791.78 11,331.37 11,897.94 12,492.83 Annual 123,334.61 129,501.34 135,976.41 142,775.23 149,913.99 Senior Planner (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 54.0181 56.7190 59.5550 62.5327 65.6593
Bi-Weekly 4,321.45 4,537.52 4,764.40 5,002.62 5,252.75
Monthly 9,363.14 9,831.29 10,322.86 10,839.00 11,380.95 Annual 112,357.65 117,975.53 123,874.31 130,068.03 136,571.43 Support Services Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 58.9082 61.8536 64.9463 68.1936 71.6033
Bi-Weekly 4,712.66 4,948.29 5,195.70 5,455.49 5,728.26
Monthly 10,210.75 10,721.29 11,257.36 11,820.22 12,411.24 Annual 122,529.06 128,655.51 135,088.28 141,842.70 148,934.83 Utility Manager (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 72.9746 76.6233 80.4545 84.4772 88.7011
Bi-Weekly 5,837.97 6,129.87 6,436.36 6,758.18 7,096.09
Monthly 12,648.93 13,281.38 13,945.45 14,642.72 15,374.86 Annual 151,787.21 159,376.57 167,345.40 175,712.66 184,498.30 Van Driver (0.5 FTE, 1040 Hrs) (SEIU)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 24.3106 25.5261 26.8024 28.1426 29.5497
Bi-Weekly 972.42 1,021.05 1,072.10 1,125.70 1,181.99
Monthly 2,106.92 2,212.26 2,322.88 2,439.02 2,560.97
Annual 25,283.02 26,547.18 27,874.53 29,268.26 30,731.67 Assistant to the City Manager (LTD) (Temporary - Non Bargaining) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 65.0580 68.3109 71.7264 75.3128 79.0784
Bi-Weekly 5,204.64 5,464.87 5,738.11 6,025.02 6,326.27
Monthly 11,276.72 11,840.55 12,432.58 13,054.21 13,706.92 Annual 135,320.63 142,086.66 149,190.99 156,650.54 164,483.07 Deputy City Manager (Limited Duration)
Hourly 92.4575 97.0804
Bi-Weekly 7,396.60 7,766.43
Monthly 16,025.97 16,827.27
Annual 192,311.60 201,927.18
Human Resources Technician I (18 Month LTD) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 40.2128 42.2235 44.3347 46.5514 48.8790
Bi-Weekly 3,217.03 3,377.88 3,546.77 3,724.11 3,910.32
Monthly 6,970.23 7,318.74 7,684.68 8,068.91 8,472.35
Annual 83,642.72 87,824.86 92,216.10 96,826.91 101,668.25 Temporary and Limited Duration Classifications
26 Human Resources Technician II (18 Month LTD) (Non Bargaining - SEIU) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.2342 46.4459 48.7682 51.2066 53.7669
Bi-Weekly 3,538.73 3,715.67 3,901.45 4,096.53 4,301.35
Monthly 7,667.26 8,050.62 8,453.15 8,875.81 9,319.60
Annual 92,007.08 96,607.44 101,437.81 106,509.70 111,835.18 Management Analyst I (1 Year LTD) (Non Bargaining - MEA) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 44.8851 47.1294 49.4859 51.9602 54.5582
Bi-Weekly 3,590.81 3,770.35 3,958.87 4,156.81 4,364.65
Monthly 7,780.09 8,169.09 8,577.55 9,006.43 9,456.75
Annual 93,361.08 98,029.13 102,930.59 108,077.12 113,480.97 Management Analyst II (1 Year LTD) (Non Bargaining - MEA) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 53.9050 56.6002 59.4302 62.4018 65.5219
Bi-Weekly 4,312.40 4,528.02 4,754.42 4,992.14 5,241.75
Monthly 9,343.53 9,810.71 10,301.24 10,816.31 11,357.12 Annual 112,122.38 117,728.49 123,614.92 129,795.67 136,285.45 Non Sworn Investigators (Not to exceed 960 hours) (Temporary) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 36.3204 38.1364 40.0432 42.0454 44.1477
Bi-Weekly 1,341.06 1,408.11 1,478.52 1,552.45 1,630.07
Monthly 2,905.63 3,050.91 3,203.46 3,363.63 3,531.81
Annual 34,867.58 36,610.96 38,441.51 40,363.59 42,381.77 27 Police Officer PT- Cold Case Investigator (0.45 FTE, 936 Hrs) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 42.2756 44.3894 46.6089 48.9393 51.3863
Bi-Weekly 1,521.92 1,598.02 1,677.92 1,761.82 1,849.91
Monthly 3,297.50 3,462.37 3,635.49 3,817.27 4,008.13
Annual 39,569.98 41,548.48 43,625.90 45,807.20 48,097.56 Police Recruit (0.5 FTE) (Temporary - Non Bargaining)
(formally known as Police Officer Trainee)
Hourly 30.0000
Bi-Weekly 2,400.00
Monthly 5,200.00
Annual 31,200.00
Special Projects Manager (960 HRS Limited Duration)
Hourly 65.1000 69.3300
Bi-Weekly 2,403.69 2,559.88
Monthly 5,208.00 5,546.40
Annual 62,496.00 66,556.80
Special Projects Manager (2 Year LTD - 960 HRS)
Hourly 65.1000 69.3300
Bi-Weekly 2,403.69 2,559.88
Monthly 5,208.00 5,546.40
Annual 62,496.00 66,556.80
Utility Manager (6-Month LTD) (Temporary - Non Bargaining) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 72.9746 76.6233 80.4545 84.4772 88.7011
Bi-Weekly 5,837.97 6,129.87 6,436.36 6,758.18 7,096.09
Monthly 12,648.93 13,281.38 13,945.45 14,642.72 15,374.86 Annual 151,787.21 159,376.57 167,345.40 175,712.66 184,498.30 28 CONSENT ITEM 3.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Husam Aburabi, Special Project Manager
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: SAFER Bay Project (City Project No. SP-02C) Phase 1 Design Award Recommendation

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a contract amount of $3,076,619, and to establish a 10% contingency of $307,661.90, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $3,384,280.90 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the SAFER Bay Flood Control Project (SP-02C) – Phase 1 south of Bay Road; and

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Promote Health & Public Safety.

Background
The Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation along the Bay (SAFER Bay) is a multi-jurisdictional, public-private collaboration aimed at protecting communities and critical infrastructure in East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto from the increasing risks of 29 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
sea level rise and tidal flooding. This regional effort is designed to enhance flood resilience while integrating environmental restoration and public engagement.

The City of East Palo Alto is advancing efforts to complete the design and entitlement process for the segments of the SAFER Bay Project located along its shoreline. Once implemented, the project will reduce flood risks for the City’s most vulnerable areas (the Ravenswood neighborhood, the Weeks Street neighborhood, the Baylands, the Cooley Landing area, Kavanaugh Tract, Clarke Avenue area, University Village, and the Pulgas Avenue corridor), ultimately removing them from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) 100- year floodplain designation and improving long-term resilience against climate change impacts.

This large-scale infrastructure project includes the construction of approximately one mile of earthen levee with an embedded floodwall and living shoreline features. In addition to engineered flood protection, the project incorporates habitat restoration, aiming to restore tidal wetlands and enhance ecological functions in the Bay. A key component of the initiative is an inclusive public outreach strategy, ensuring clear communication and meaningful engagement with residents who will be most directly affected by the project’s construction and long-term impacts.

By combining flood risk reduction, environmental stewardship, and community driven planning, the SAFER Bay Project represents a forward-thinking approach to climate adaptation and infrastructure resilience in the region. The project includes levee improvements, habitat restoration, public access enhancements, and coordination with multiple regulatory and community stakeholders.

The project has been designed up to a 30% stage through a separate contract with HDR, Inc. under the management of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA).

However, HDR was not selected through a federally compliant process for procurement, which is necessary for FEMA funding.

The new scope of work covers:
 Final Design Services (30% to 100%) for flood protection levees, including geotechnical analysis, structural design, and civil site work for Phase 1 – south of Bay Road.  Interior Drainage Planning, including hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, outfall assessments, and preliminary pump station sizing.
 Environmental Compliance Support, such as preparation of permit applications and technical documentation for CEQA/NEPA, BCDC, RWQCB, and USACE.  Right-of-Way Coordination to identify required property access and easements.  Utility Relocation Planning in coordination with utility providers.  Community outreach and Stakeholder Engagement to support inclusive design, access features, and resilience planning.
 Construction Phasing Strategy to align with funding deadlines, FEMA compliance, and long-term maintenance goals.

Analysis
30 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) on December 17, 2024, for engineering design services.

City staff advertised the RFP in the newspaper, on the City website, and reached out to several consultants qualified for this work. The original proposal deadline was January 17, 2025; however, the City did not receive any submissions. City staff extended the deadline to February 14, 2025, and two firms showed interest. Four addendums were issued to address inquiries during the advertising period and two proposals were received by the deadline.

The two proposals, one from BKF and one from Sherwood Design Engineers (Sherwood), were evaluated and ranked by four City staff members from the Public Works Department and one representative from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA).

The rankings were based on a comprehensive review of the written proposals (50%), followed by oral presentations and interviews (50%). While both proposals were of high quality, Sherwood scored higher during the interview process. The panel’s independent scoring and evaluation resulted in Sherwood receiving the highest overall ranking.

Sherwood Design Engineers initially proposed a cost of $3,387,326. Through negotiations and clarification of work tasks, the City successfully reduced the final cost to $3,076,619.

A summary of the rankings/cost is provided in the table below.

COMPANY
SCORE

PROPOSAL & ORAL

INTERVIEW
BKF 81
Sherwood Design Engineers 88
Sherwood Design Engineers brings extensive expertise in flood protection levee design, including geotechnical analysis, structural engineering, and civil site development. For the SAFER Bay Project – Phase 1, Sherwood proposed a comprehensive and well-integrated approach. Its strengths in coastal resilience, permitting, and infrastructure engineering position Sherwood to effectively achieve project objectives while maintaining regulatory compliance, controlling costs, and fostering community engagement. Also, Sherwood is the Civil Engineer for Harvest Properties’ Landing Project, which lies within the vicinity of the City’s Safer Bay project.

The scope of the contract includes, but is not limited to, the following:
 Project Management
 30% Design Review & Revision – Assess existing design documentation and update project plans
 Geotechnical Investigation & Data Collection – Conduct field studies, soil sampling, and seismic assessments
31 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
 60% Design & Permit Coordination – Finalize design elements and secure necessary approvals
 90% & 100% Design Deliverables – Prepare final construction plans, cost estimates, and bid documents
 Bidding & Construction Support – Assist the City during contractor selection and project implementation
Next Steps
The SAFER Bay Project – Phase 1 for the City of East Palo Alto is currently in the design and pre-construction phase, with all work funded through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) required to be completed by October 17, 2026, and the overall grant performance period ending December 1, 2026. Key milestones include final design consultant selection in early 2025, followed by design development, environmental permitting, and right-of-way coordination through 2025 and 2026. The project aims to complete 100% design by mid-to-late 2026.

Construction activities are not included in this phase and will occur after the close of the Phase 1 funding period, pending separate funding and approvals.

MILESTONE TARGET DATE
Final Design Consultant Selection Early 2025
Begin Final Design & Engineering April 28, 2025
Environmental Permitting (e.g., BCDC, RWQCB, USACE) 2025-2026 Right-of-Way Coordination & Utility Planning 2025-2026
100% Design Completion October 2026
Construction Bid & Award Prep December 1, 2026
Fiscal Impact
There is no budget amendment needed by this action. SFCJPA SFER Bay project Phase 1 is included in the FY 2024-25 Capital Budget.

FEMA has approved and obligated HMGP funds for the City of East Palo Alto’s SAFER Bay Project – Phase 1 (HMGP DR-4344-541-93R). The total project cost is $4,649,240, including a 75% federal share of $3,486,930 and a 25% non-federal match of $1,162,310. An additional $156,323 has been obligated to cover Subrecipient Management Costs at 100% federal share.

These funds are now available for eligible disbursements.

The new total, following negotiations with Sherwood, falls below the combined funding available.

Under the funding agreement, FEMA will cover 75% of the new project cost, or $2,538,210.68, while the City of East Palo Alto is responsible for the remaining 25%, totaling $846,070.23. This cost share will support Phase I of the project, scheduled for implementation during 2025 and 2026.

Project Phase Federal Share Non-Federal Share
(East Palo Alto) Total Project Cost
32 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
Phase I, Supplement 3019 $2,538210.68 $846,070.23 $3,384,280.90 Management Cost $156,323 $0 $156,323
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this City Council agenda item by posting it on the City’s official bulletin board outside the City of East Palo Alto City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303.

Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action involves a contract that was publicly bid.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Environmental
The SAFER Bay Project is subject to environmental review under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Specifically, an Program Environmental Impact Report is being prepared for the SAFER Bay Project, which will form the basis of work under to this project. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), “later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” Furthermore, sub-subsection 15168(c)(2) states that if the lead agency finds pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) that no subsequent EIR would be required, “the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, once an EIR has been certified, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required. Based on the analysis, the proposed action would not result in a new significant impact not identified in the Program EIR. No mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that differ from what was evaluated or are now considered to be feasible.

Thus, the proposed action will have adequate environmental coverage by the Program EIR as it involves engineering services necessary to implement the project described therein.

Additionally, and as a separate basis, the proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Attachments
33 CONSENT ITEM 3.3

1. Resolution

2. Sherwood Proposal

3. Sherwood Fee Table

4. FEMA Approval Package
34 Resolution No. xx-2025 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. xx – 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD, NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT

WITH SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS IN A FORM TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,076,619.00 AND TO ESTABLISH A 10% CONTIGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $307,661.90 FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED OF $3,384,280.90 TO PROVIDE CIVIL

ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SAFER BAY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto has identified flood risks for the City’s most vulnerable areas (the Ravenswood neighborhood, the Weeks Street neighborhood, the Baylands, the Cooley Landing area, Kavanaugh Tract, Clarke Avenue area, University Village, and the Pulgas Avenue corridor); and
WHEREAS, the Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation along the Bay (SAFER Bay) Project (Project) aims to ultimately removing the City’s most vulnerable areas from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) 100-year floodplain designation and improving long-term resilience against climate change impacts; and WHEREAS, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds from FEMA, under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), were issued on September 1, 2022, to support the construction of a flood protection levee aimed at protecting vulnerable areas from sea level rise; and WHEREAS, the City's application as subapplicant was selected and awarded $3,486,930.00 for design costs and $156,323.00 for subrecipient management costs for the Project; and WHEREAS, as part of the design process, the City will oversee consultants managing the flood protection levee project's design, drainage planning, environmental compliance, right-of-way coordination, utility relocation, community engagement, and construction phasing to ensure alignment with project goals and regulatory requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals on December 17, 2024, and on February 14, 2025, the City received two (2) proposals; and
WHEREAS, City staff reviewed, interviewed, and ranked the two proposals, and selected Sherwood Design Engineers as the highest-ranked consultant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to award, negotiate and execute an agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for $3,076,619, and to establish a 10% contingency in the amount of $307,661.90, for a not-to-exceed total of $3,384,280.90 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the SAFER Bay project; and 35 Resolution No. xx-2025 2 of 2

3. Finding that the proposed action is within the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject project, and as such no new environmental document would be required, and additionally, it does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
36 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

SAFER BAY PROJECT

DESIGN, PERMITTING & BID SUPPORT
(PHASE 1 - SOUTH OF BAY ROAD)
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. SP-02C | FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
37 00 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
2 City of East Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Husam Aburabi
Project manager
[email protected] February 14th, 2025
RE: SAFER BAY PROJECT DESIGN, PERMITTING AND BID SUPPORT (PHASE 1 - SOUTH OF BAY ROAD)
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. SP-02C
Dear Husam Aburabi,
From our original founding in San Francisco, CA, Sherwood has been devoted to leaving the world a better place than we found it. For over two decades, Sherwood has built a diverse portfolio of projects in California and around the world focused on sustainable infrastructure, integrated water management, and regenerative design.

The successful delivery of our projects comes from dedicated and skilled principals, project managers, and design engineers who are passionate about the work we do.

Our approach to civil engineering attracts exceptional talent that allows us to build teams that combine high technical aptitude with the organizational and communication skills necessary to support complex projects. We believe that our approach to project design and client/team engagement is unique, and improves the experience of the design team and quality of the final product. Sherwood takes pride in our work and the impact that it has on the communities we work in. This work has included many projects directly adjacent to the San Francisco Bay (see enclosed project map) addressing the complex challenges presented by sea level rise in vulnerable areas.

From our experience working on a new plaza and ferry terminals at the SF Ferry Building, which involved hardened structures built to accommodate future sea levels, to years working with private developers and public agencies in East Palo Alto developing a range of options to address sea level rise adjacent to delicate wetlands, we have learned that one of our most valuable roles is to curate and facilitate solutions involving multiple complex factors. Working with our team of experts and the City of East Palo Alto team, Sherwood will lead the civil engineering design and the overall management of the project, which we anticipate will require both a tightly organized structure and the creative flexibility necessary to respond to a diverse range of inputs and unanticipated conditions.
38 00 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
3 Cody Anderson, PE
Managing Principal
2548 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
[email protected]
415.548.2029
Sonya Gabrielson, PE, WEDG
Sr. Project Manager / Main Point of Contact
2548 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
[email protected]
415.510.2621
Our civil engineering team, based out of our San Francisco headquarters, has direct experience working with various Bay Area cities/counties, One Shoreline, San Francisquito Creek JPA, San Mateo County, and the BCDC to creatively address the interface of the bay and land, and how that needs to adapt over time. Through this experience, we have learned that solutions are not as simple as creating levee alignments, as factors including environmental concerns, impact to stormwater outflows, conflicts with buried utilities, adjacencies to existing development, and access to the bay must be considered. Our assembled team of consultants is local, experienced working on similar projects, and equally dedicated to generating the best possible outcomes for this project.

The effort in front of us demands that we are exceptional in our communication and technical design. We know that our responsibility is to deeply understand all aspects of a project, identify potential solutions, communicate options clearly, and facilitate solutions that ultimately end up in detailed drawings and specifications that get permitted and constructed efficiently.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our qualifications for this critically important project. Please review the attached proposal, which will remain valid for 180 days after submission. We look forward to discussing how the Sherwood Team can support the City of East Palo Alto in this endeavor.

Sincerely,
39 TABLE OF CONTENTS05
17 34
36 37
39 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH

KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND

TEAM EXPERIENCE

REFERENCES

MANPOWER ALLOCATION

SCHEDULE
40 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
5 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Inspired by the Resilient By Design Bay Area (RBD)
and Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) projects, the East
Palo Alto SAFER Bay Project (Project) will be a key
portion of the Strategy to Advance Flood protection,
Ecosystems Restoration, and Recreation along San
Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay). SAFER Bay serves as a
multi-jurisdictional and public-private collaborative
project to protect communities and critical
infrastructure from sea level rise and tidal flooding
in East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. We
understand the City of East Palo Alto (City) now aims
to complete the design and entitlement process for the
portions of the SAFER Bay Project located on the City’s shoreline, which will deliver increased flood protection to the City’s lowest lying areas, removing them from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
flood map’s 100-year inundation zone.

This large-scale infrastructure project proposes
approximately 1 mile of earthen levee with an
embedded floodwall and living shoreline. Equally
key to the traditional engineered infrastructure will
be habitat restoration to return this portion of the
Bay to its natural wetland state as well as clear and
compassionate public outreach designed to solicit and
accommodate input from the residents who will be
most directly impacted by construction of the Project.

To meet these diverse programmatic needs, Sherwood
Design Engineers (Sherwood) has assembled a
team of eight closely interwoven and technically vast
expert consulting firms: WRA to guide the extensive
permitting, biology, restoration, and landscape scopes; Geosyntec to provide geotechnical analysis and
engineering; COWI for floodwall structural engineering; Belle Haven Community Development Fund on the
front lines of community outreach; CirclePoint to
shepherd CEQA permitting; Mark Thomas & Co for
topographic survey; Currie and Brown to provide cost
estimating; and Sherwood’s steady hand for civil
engineering, weaving each discipline and stakeholder’s
input into a cohesive final product. Collectively, these firms will be referred to as the Sherwood Team.

We understand that our team will need to build on a
breadth of existing work for the greater SAFER Bay
Project, including ongoing work being led by the San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA)
and their consultant team to complete the design and
obtain all regulatory approvals for the SAFER Bay East
Palo Alto subset of the overall SAFER Bay Project. Our
team has experience working on similar projects both
in the San Francisco Bay region and across the U.S.,
including conceptual design associated with private
development projects (currently inactive) which helped
to set the SAFER alignment, a floodwall project at the
San Francisco International Airport to protect critical infrastructure, and several which have been permitted
through the San Francisco Bay Restoration Regulatory
Integration Team (BRRIT). will enable us to anticipate
design considerations, construction methods, and
species constraints before they happen, keeping the
Project delivery nimble and on schedule.

PROJECT APPROACH
Following the Preliminary Technical Scope provided
in the Request for Proposals and Addendums 1-4,
the Sherwood Team will collaborate with the City to
execute a rigorous and methodical Project delivery.

Our proven process for delivering civil engineering
services to address waterfront resilience integrates
innovative strategies that go beyond traditional
shoreline fortification in order to adapt communities,
relocate critical infrastructure, and support thriving
native ecosystems. By following this process, we can
emphasize the benefits of nature-based solutions
and community-centered strategies that will result
in more resilient communities in Cooley Landing and
the surrounding areas. Our experience has shown us
that rather than being solely a technical process of
assessment and design, bayfront resilience is at its
core about education and outreach. The critical thread
through all phases is conveying technical observations
and strategies in a way that is legible by the public,
empowering the community to be informed and
engaged participants.
41 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
6 While the Sherwood Team recognizes the effort
involved in the preparation of the previous design
documentation, project delivery methods and timeline,
and general approach to executing this vital Project,
there are a few areas where there is opportunity for
Project improvements and critical considerations that
will impact the flow of the Project. It’s understood
that the Project schedule is built upon completing
the Phase 1 Scope of Work as defined in the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program DR-4344-541-93R to ensure
the funds are not de-obligated. This requires that the
Geotechnical Investigation mobilize and finish as soon
as possible under typical Project design progression.

That said, the Sherwood Team identified that the
Federal Geotechnical Permits will take 4-6 months to
receive which overlaps with the endangered Ridgway’s
Rail nesting season in the schedule. Therefore, the
Design Team proposes to progress the design,
including Geotechnical and Structural Engineering,
through 30% Design Documentation based on existing
geotechnical information and mobilize the fieldwork
in September to support the execution of the 60%
Design Documentation phase as shown in the provided
Project Schedule. In response to the RFP requests to
provide services such as executing the design and
restoration of Ponds R1, R2, and SF2. While this is a
lofty goal, the Sherwood Team proposes to review
these scopes as part of the Basis of Design and
identify which scopes within the restoration of Ponds
R1, R2, and/or SF2 might be able to be executed on the
final design budget. Similarly, upon review of the final accepted design bid and design budget, the Sherwood
Team will review and confirm its ability to deliver
Construction Administration services.

Our team has also identified potential areas of design
improvement that will help control construction costs,
minimize fill in the Bay, create 10: ecotone levee
habitat, and improve the final user experience. These
elements will be incorporated into our 30% document
review and revision in order to put the optimal design
in place for refinement in the DD and CD phases of
work.

TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Task 1 will initiate the Project with clear and
methodical Project Management by starting off with
a well agendized kickoff meeting to set the stage for
consistent expectations and procedures throughout
the duration of the project. Subsequent subtasks,
including work plan development and additional
dedicated meetings, are designed to provide feedback
loops throughout the Project in a way that supports
overall development.

Subtask 1.1. Work Plan and Schedule
The Project Design Work Plans shall include Project
objectives, requirements, constraints, a detailed Project Schedule (showing major tasks and deliverables),
a breakdown of the Sherwood Team’s costs for the
major tasks, a list of the Sherwood Team members
and their roles and responsibilities, communication
protocols (internal and external), document control
procedures, and other administrative procedures.

Subtask 1.2 Set-up and Maintain Project Files
Leveraging Sherwood’s modern Project Information
Management tools, we will set up and maintain project
files, inclusive of agreements, correspondence, and
copies of draft and final technical work products, to be shared with the City.

Subtask 1.3 Invoicing
With experience working for a range of public and
private clients, Sherwood is well versed in providing
monthly invoices which meet detailed review criteria.

Working closely with the City, we will submit monthly
invoices along with back-up details and progress
reports to indicate work accomplished during the
preceding month detailing personnel and costs.

Additionally, a forecast of work anticipated, issued to be mitigated, and upcoming schedule will be provided.

Subtask 1.4 Project Meetings
The Sherwood Team views meetings as critical
to success of the Project. A kickoff meeting will
be held to introduce key City of East Palo Alto and
Sherwood Team members to one another, acquaint
all participants with the purpose of and expectations
42 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
7 for the Project, describe team members’ roles and
responsibilities, describe Project procedures, and
summarize scope and schedule.

Sherwood Team attendance at the Kickoff Meeting is
anticipated to represent leadership from each key area
of contribution.

Subsequent recurring meetings will be held biweekly
with City staff and monthly with the Project
Development Team. Sherwood will schedule these
meetings, provide agendas to ensure they are run
efficiently, and circulate minutes after each meeting.

Subtask 1.5 Quality Management Plan
In collaboration with the City, the Sherwood Team will
develop a Quality Management Plans (QMP) to ensure
quality control procedures occur for deliverables and
quality assurance is woven into each task and decision
made. This QMP will describe specific procedures to
be implemented, quality policies, and how to use the
plan. It will also outline the process to be followed
should any disputes between the parties arise at the
team level.

Subtask 1.6 Preliminary Schedule
Building on the work started in subtask 1.1, the
Sherwood Team will prepare a program level schedule
to meet the CalOES grant deadlines provided. The
Phase 1 Scope of Work will complete by 10/17/2026,
deliverables and reimbursement claims are due to
CalOES-HMGP by 11/1/2026, and the Approved
Phase 1 Period of Performance shall run through
12/1/2026. In addition to meeting these firm funding
dates, the schedule will provide key milestones for
environmental process, detailed design, and estimates
for construction, commissioning, and testing.

TA S K 2 . U T I L I T I E S C O O R D I N AT I O N

AND INVESTIGATION
During Task 2, the Sherwood Team will coordinate to
ensure all existing utilities are identified, coordinated, and integrated into the levee design process to avoid
potential conflicts during construction. These services will include:

Subtask 2.1 Utility Research and Mapping
Led primarily by Mark Thomas & Co surveyors, the
Sherwood Team will conduct a site visit to assess
the existing terrain, surface features, boundaries, and vegetation. Sherwood Team GIS analysis will also
review existing baseline data collected by the SFCJPA
consultant team and process it for use for the City’s
Project. Base map preparation will conform to City and
FEMA standards for GIS Products, where applicable.

The Sherwood Team understands that previous work
has been completed in support of this project, it is
assumed that all that work will be provided (Aerial
Mapping, Ortho Photos, etc) and reviewed by the
Sherwood Team. If it is determined that the previous
work requires refinement, an additional scope will be
defined and submitted.

Mark Thomas will use USA North to retrieve a list of
utilities that may be affected by the project. Based
on the list, Mark Thomas will send out utility request
letters (“A” letters). Mark Thomas will then create and update a utility matrix for the project to track the status of record requests.

Mark Thomas will take the provided Utility mapping
and compile it into a utility base map to facilitate
design efforts. Underground utility mark out and
detection is included under this scope of work.

Mark Thomas SUE field crews will set markings
for non-gravity flow utilities derived from either
electromagnetic induction or GPR reading. Field survey
crews will collect these marks to be included in the
base map.

Mark Thomas will perform a field survey to collect
pertinent accessible above ground features which will
43 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
8 be located and documented to augment the aerial
survey using conventional ground survey techniques.

Ground visible features to be captured include, but are not limited to trails, levee slopes, washouts, hinge/top and toes if not inundated, sidewalks, curb and gutter,
driveways, curb ramps, fences, private utilities, storm and sewer facilities, trees, street lighting, signing,
striping, and markings within the project limits. Storm and sewer will be dipped to determine invert elevations and pipe diameters within the streets around the site.

Field crews will rely upon markings on utility feature
lids. No utilities will be dipped other than sewer and
storm.

TA S K 3 . D ATA C O L L E C T I O N A N D

INVESTIGATIONS
As part of Task 3, the Sherwood Team will conduct
Data Collection and Investigations as appropriate to
ascertain the geotechnical data to design the proposed
levees, characterize the natural ecology of the
disturbed area, and design appropriate flood mitigation in the context of minimizing environmental impact.

These services will include:

Subtask 3.1 Review Existing Geotechnical Data
Led primarily by Geosyntec Consultants, the Sherwood
Team will collate and review the previously collected
geotechnical data to inform the early stages of the
design. The field investigation program will build on
the first phase of geotechnical exploration recently
completed by HDR as detailed in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report for South of Bay Road provided as
part of the RFP (HDR 2024). The data collected during
this initial phase of investigation, which includes mud rotary borings and CPT to fill in data gaps along the
alignment, will be key in developing the Geotechnical
Investigation Plan and informing the design directly.

The proposed explorations will include a combination
of borings and cone penetration tests (CPTs) with a
CPT/boring pair to be performed at intervals along the
alignment to allow the CPT results to be correlated
with the physical samples obtained from the borings.

In support of this RFP, explorations are assumed to
include approximately 10 borings or CPTs to a depth
of approximately 70 feet with the goal of filling in data gaps to complete the final design. The exploration will be performed using a mud rotary drill rig to collect
soil samples for appropriate laboratory design to
support the analysis and design of the proposed flood
protection system.

We note that, in accordance with the Geotechnical
Levee Practice Standard Operating Procedure 3 (SOP
3) (USACE, 2022), explorations to support final design
along the proposed levee and floodwall alignments
should be performed with a maximum of 500 feet
longitudinal spacing, and that where possible, the
explorations will be performed in triplet along the
proposed centerline, waterside toe, and landside
toe. The current scope of work assumes that in
general, borings on the waterside are not feasible
due to burdensome and time prolonged permitting
requirements. The explorations are intended to fill
in data gaps and meet the 1 exploration per 500
foot longitudinal spacing recommended by USACE,
although not all levee stations are available for
explorations to be performed in triplet.

Subtask 3.2 Conduct Geotechnical Field
Investigations
Geosyntec Consultants will prepare the proposed
Geotechnical Investigation Plan for review and
approval by the Client. Upon approval, Geosyntec
will provide field oversight of the drillers, Pitcher
Services of East Palo ALto to ensure the Geotechnical
Investigations are conducted in accordance with
the Geotechnical Investigation Plan and to ensure
compliance with best practices for reducing
environmental impacts.

Geosyntec will subcontract Pitcher Drilling, a C-57
licensed driller from East Palo Alto, California, to
perform the mud rotary borings and CPT soundings, to
explore subsurface conditions at the site. The drilling subcontractor will advance the mud-rotary borings and
CPTs as indicated in the Geotechnical Investigation
Plan to profile foundation conditions beneath the
proposed levee embankment and as needed to provide
input for the design of the floodwalls. Soil sampling
44 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
9 is anticipated to consist of the collection of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Modified California (ModCal), and Shelby tube samples. Consistent with the workplan provided in the RFP, samples are anticipated
to be collected at 2.5-foot to 5-foot intervals,
although the sample interval may be adjusted in the
field depending on actual conditions encountered.

Geosyntec has assumed that investigation derived
waste (IDW) generated during drilling operations
(e.g., soil cuttings, drilling mud, and excess grout) will be contained in 55-gallon steel drums, which will be
analyzed in accordance with California regulations
prior to disposal.

To support seismic site classification, shear wave
velocity measurements will be performed in a subset
of the CPT soundings. The depth to groundwater will
be estimated by pausing the CPTs within coarsegrained soil units, if present, and carrying out a porewater pressure dissipation test.

At the completion of each exploration, the boring
will be backfilled with grout in accordance with San
Mateo County regulations. As this work may impact
trails in the area, appropriate measures will be taken
to safely detour vehicle and pedestrian traffic around
the work area. On paved areas, surface completion of
the borings and CPTs is assumed to consist of cold
patching with asphalt, and we have assumed that
concrete coring or patching is not required.

At the conclusion of the sampling program, Geosyntec
will deliver the geotechnical samples to their laboratory testing subcontractor to perform the tests necessary
and agreed to as outlined in RFP subtask 3.2.

In support of the levee and floodwall design, a series of analyses will be performed for seepage, slope stability, settlement, liquefaction, and lateral capacity estimates.

The geotechnical report will include a location plan of borings and CPT soundings and logs, discussion of
initial groundwater level observations, recommended
levee design slopes and foundation preparation, and a
discussion of potential geotechnical and/or geological
conditions and/or hazards which may affect Project
planning, schedule, cost, design, or construction.

Subtask 3.3 Geotechnical Permitting
Geosyntec will lead the local permitting process for
the Geotechnical Investigation. A County of San Mateo
Environmental Health Services subsurface drilling
permit will be obtained for each of the drilling locations.

Where necessary, a City encroachment permit, USFWS
Special Use Permit, San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission plan review, and a
Nationwide Permit Preconstruction Notification will
be submitted and/or obtained. WRA will prepare
the necessary Regional, State, and Federal permit
applications and lead agency negotiations to obtain all necessary environmental approvals for Geosyntec to
commence with geotechnical investigations. This task
assumes permits will be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
and California State Lands Commission (SLC). The
Federal Permits are anticipated to take 4-6 months,
which significantly impacts the design schedule.

Geotechnical permitting is not anticipated from the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
or from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC).

Subtask 3.4 Species Protection
WRA will review the available information to identify
habitats for local endangered species, such as
the saltmarsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail,
and potentially the Burrowing Owl. WRA will then
document Avoidance and Minimization Measures
appropriate for the field conditions and based on the
draft Geotechnical Investigation Plan developed by
Geosyntec. Draft documentation of the Avoidance
and Minimization Measures will be provided for Client
review upon request. In general, the saltmarch harvest
mouse will require monitored vegetation clearing for
drilling ingress, rig setup, operations, and egress. The Ridgway’s rail nesting season from February 1 through
August 30 presents significant and timely permitting
challenges creating a strongly preferred field work
window September 1 through January 31. The
Burrowing Owl will only require mitigation if identified in the vicinity of the site, though it does present
permitting complications. A Burrowing Owl survey has
45 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
10 been included in the scope of work.

Subtask 3.5 Impact Monitoring
WRA will mobilize to the Project Site concurrently with Geotechnical mobilization to ensure the Avoidance and
Minimization Measures document is reviewed with and
implemented appropriately by the field crew. WRA will
observe vegetation clearance to monitor the presence
of saltmarch harvest mouse habitat and ensure that
there are not impacts to Ridway’s Rail or Burrowing
Owls not previously identified in Subtask 3.4. WRA will then perform three site visits to verify the Avoidance
and Minimization Measures are continuously in use
and that there have been no significant impacts upon
completion of the field work.

TA S K 4 . B A S I S O F D E S I G N A N D

CALCULATIONS
Subtask 4.1. Design Criteria Memorandum
The Design Criteria Memorandum (DCM) will define
the basic criteria and guidance that will be utilized
during design. It will include basic operations
requirements, Project performance requirements, and
other stakeholders’ design criteria as identified by
the City. The DCM will document geotechnical, civil,
structural, electrical, mechanical, hydrologic and/or
hydraulic standards to be used in the analyses and
design. Pertinent codes and references will be cited.

The Design Criteria Memorandum will be issued in
Draft form and updated as design progresses through
the various design stages.

Subtask 4.2. Basis of Design Report
The Sherwood team will prepare a full Basis of Design
Report to define the technical requirements and
parameters for the entire Project including the fields
of civil, geotechnical, structural, hydrologic, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, controls, instrumentation,
maintenance, and others, as appropriate.

The Basis of Design Report may include but is
not limited to the following: description of the
general arrangement of existing and new Project
facilities; summary of the pertinent findings of field
investigations; basis for material properties for use in analyses; construction materials source assessment
(on-site and commercial); foundation characterization
to assess excavation requirements and foundation
acceptance criteria; groundwater dewatering
requirements; civil and geotechnical design of the
Project elements for analyses; design of disposal sites; hydraulic and structural design of various elements;
mechanical and electrical facilities design; and access roadwork.

The Basis of Design Report will also preliminarily
review the feasibility of tying the levee into high
ground north of Bay Road at Tara Street, south of Bay
Road to the west, south of Bay Road to the east, or
some other alternative location with a combination
of levee, flood walls, raised grade, and/or deployable
barriers to ensure this levee reach is not bypassed by
floodwaters to the north. Alternatives will also consider flood protection elements to the current 100-year
floodplain elevation with alignment and foundational
considerations to allow for a supplemental, raised
flood barrier in the future an additional 3.5 feet in
elevation to account for Sea Level Rise.

In addition, the Sherwood Team will explore
alternatives to the Levee cross section at a number of
typical locations to improve the efficacy, environmental impact, cost effectiveness, and beneficial use of the
levee reach. Based on the current levee cross sections, a hybrid levee and floodwall system is the only
consideration. The Design Team believes this design
can be modified to provide 10:1 ecotone levee on the
water side for ecological benefit, while reducing the
impacted area and fill requirements by lowering the fill elevation on the waterside. This resultant flood barrier will still function as a combined floodwall and levee
but rely less on the typical levee section. Changes of
this nature will need to be coordinated with all relevant stakeholders, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers.

Finally, the inclusion of restoration at Ponds R1, R2,
and SF2 will be evaluated for the Basis of Design
Report. While this Proposal does not include the
design of all restoration activities as part of the
scope, a Feasibility Analysis has been included to
determine if Tidal Marsh Restoration, Managed Pond
46 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
11 Enhancements, and/or Habitat Transition Zones can
be included in the Project’s design and construction
budget. While the design and construction of the
levees around the PG&E infrastructure in Pond 2 would
be difficult to implement on a finite budget, there could be sufficient budget to implement the Tidal Marsh
Restoration in Ponds R1 and R2 and/or the Managed
Pond Enhancements in Pond SF2.

Subtask 4.3 San Francisco Bay and Interior Drainage
Analysis
This subtask involves developing a detailed hydrologic
and hydraulic (H&H) computational model to assess
interior drainage and flood risks behind the proposed
levee. The model will incorporate existing FEMA flood
hazard zones, surface runoff conditions, and current
storm drainage infrastructure within the project area,
while also accounting for the influence of the San
Francisco Bay. The model will evaluate both baseline
and future flood conditions, integrating design storm
scenarios (50-year, 100-year, and 500-year events) as
well as projected sea level rise. The model’s spatial
extent will include the bay, surface flows, and interior storm drainage systems, ensuring a comprehensive
assessment of flooding risks for both current and
future conditions.

Hydrologic modeling will simulate rainfallrunoff processes and watershed inflows, using meteorological and hydrologic data to assess
surface flow patterns. This phase will also evaluate
the capacity of the interior stormwater drainage
network, analyzing infrastructure such as pipes,
culverts, and pump stations under extreme storm
events. Concurrently, hydraulic modeling will focus
on flow routing, tidal influences from the bay, and
the performance of the levee system. The model will
identify potential risks of interior flooding and ponding, especially in low-lying areas where drainage may be
constrained.

The model will be run for multiple storm scenarios and
future sea level rise projections, assessing the levee’s ability to manage floodwaters and identifying areas of
vulnerability. The evaluation will include overtopping
potential, backflow effects, and the drainage network’s capacity. Floodplain mapping will highlight the extents and depths of flooding in different storm conditions,
and the model will quantify risks related to interior
ponding, stormwater overflow, and levee performance.

The subtask will culminate in design recommendations
aimed at improving interior drainage and mitigating
flood risks. Potential interventions may include
upgrades to stormwater systems, new levee
infrastructure, and climate adaptation strategies to
manage the impacts of sea level rise and intensified
storm events. A final report will summarize the
findings, present flood maps, and provide detailed
recommendations for enhancing flood resilience in the
project area.

TA S K 5 . P R E PA R AT I O N O F T H E

P L A N S , S P E C I F I C AT I O N S , A N D

ESTIMATES
Subtask 5.1 Project Understanding and Site
Assessment
Upon Project initiation and acceptance of the Work
Plan, the Sherwood Team will create the Design
Criteria Memorandum to develop knowledge of the
technical aspects of the Project from the 30% Design
Documentation, while simultaneously reviewing the
available information to identify key aspects to be
coordinated with the appropriate stakeholders. Any
deviations from the previous design documentation
will be flagged for review with stakeholders to
review the implications and impacts of those
recommendations holistically.

Subtask 5.2 Design Development
The designs developed as part of this Project will
meet all relevant local, state, and federal regulations and include sustainable design practices and habitat
restoration. This Subtask will continuously be
addressed in Tasks 6, 7, and 8.

Subtask 5.3 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
The Sherwood Team will coordinate with the Client
to coordinate any special requirements or formatting
of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)
beyond the stated Caltrans specification standards.
47 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
12 Any special requirements or formatting for Bidding
Documentation will be requested of the Client to
ensure that development of the 30% PS&E and beyond
consider and include those requirements to prevent
onerous late stage deliverable updates for compliance.

The Sherwood Team will prepare and submit sample
drawings and specifications for City review and
approval to ensure that Drafting Standards are being
adopted into the plan set and the specifications follow Caltrans Specification standards.

Subtask 5.4 Permitting and Compliance
Phase I (South of Bay Road) is being analyzed at a
Project Level analysis in SFCJPA’s Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The Draft EIR is anticipated to be available for public review in August 2025, whereas
the Final EIR is anticipated to be certified in December 2025. Provided no significant changes are made to
the Phase I project description analyzed in SFCJPA’s
EIR, the EIR should be sufficient to cover the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for the
City’s Phase I project, with no additional CEQA review
required. However, if changes to the Phase I project
characteristics and/or boundaries change, the City
may be required to do some level of supplemental
CEQA analysis to SFCJPA’s EIR, either in the form of an EIR Addendum, Supplemental EIR, or Subsequent EIR.

The Sherwood Team, led by Circlepoint, will evaluate
the latest progress of the SFCJPA’s EIR and assess
its impacts on the Phase 1 schedule and provide
the City with a recommendation on whether
SFCJPA’s EIR will provide full coverage of the CEQA
requirements for the City’s Phase I project or if
some level of supplemental CEQA analysis would be
required. This recommendation will be in the form
of an Environmental Document Strategy Report and
submitted to the City. The Circlepoint team will meet
with the City to present the recommendations and
prepare meeting minutes and action items.

Separately, this task includes time for the Sherwood
team, led by WRA, to review, understand and resolve
potential differences between permits issued to the
SFCJPA based on the 30% design package and needs
arising from the 60% and 90% design iterations. Upon
receipt of the 30% design package and submitted
permit applications from SFCJPA, WRA will develop
a baseline summary of permit applications including
impact estimates, summarized avoidance and
minimization measures, and mitigation approach.

At the 60% design stage, the baseline summary will
be updated, accounting for the updated status of
the SFCJPA’s permit applications. This update will
include findings with regard to whether or not the 60%
design package remains consistent with the permit
applications and/or any regulatory permits that have
been issued at the time of 60% design completion. The
same permit memorandum update will be provided
at completion of the draft 90% design package. The
goal of these evaluations is to determine if and when
permit amendments or new regulatory approvals may
be necessary to implement the City’s Project due to
potential changes to project design. Scope and fee for
preparing new regulatory permitting applications or
requests for permit amendments are not included in
this scope of work.

Subtask 5.4.1 Addendum to SFCJPA’s Final EIR
(Optional Task included in Scope)
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides
that a lead agency “shall prepare an addendum
to a previously certified EIR if some changes or
additions are necessary but none of the conditions”
that necessitate preparation of a subsequent EIR (as
described in Section 15162) have occurred. Under
this task, Circlepoint will prepare an Addendum to the
SFCJPA Final EIR which will consist of the updated
project description, a comparison of the new project
description and the EIR project description, and an
analysis of the potential impacts that could occur
under the revised project description including the
use of a checklist similar to the Initial Study Checklist provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

The EIR Addendum completed in Subtask 5.5.1
will either conclude that there are no substantial
changes proposed by revised project that will require
major revisions to the certified EIR, or preparation
of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects
48 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
13 or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No public circulation of the Addendum is required; however, Circlepoint will
prepare a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) and file
it with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.

Subtask 5.4.2 Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (Optional Task excluded from Scope)
If the EIR Addendum completed in Subtask 5.5.1
concludes that there are substantial changes requiring
major revisions to the certified EIR, Circlepoint will be able to provide a subsequent or supplemental EIR, due
to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. At this time, Subtask 5.4.2 is excluded from the Proposal, as such
major revisions are not expected.

If this Optional Task is coordinated and authorized,
Circlepoint will lead the efforts including development of a technical memo summarizing any gaps and
information needs and recommended strategies
for completing the CEQA and NEPA work, update
the Project Description, provide and publish the
Notification of Preparation, prepare or coordinate
any additional Environmental Investigations and
Studies, provide Project Scoping, generate, coordinate
with stakeholders, and issue a Draft SEIR, assist the
City in holding a Draft SEIR Public Meeting, conduct
Stakeholder Outreach, prepare and issue a Final SEIR.

Subtask 5.5 Public Engagement
The Public Outreach Subtask, spearheaded by a local
community group, will integrate with the broader
SAFER Bay outreach initiatives already established by
the SFCJPA and others. It will bolster these efforts
with educational and trust-building events specifically tailored for the Project. Task 5.5, under the leadership of the Belle Haven Community Development Fund
(CDF), will empower frontline communities to
implement equitable solutions that promote both
resilience and justice.

Belle Haven CDF will lead Community Outreach and
Communication developing the coordinated strategy
for outreach, develop engaging and informative
materials, facilitate Public Meetings, develop digital
tools to broaden the Project’s reach, while providing
multilingual outreach services. Stakeholders will
be identified and analyzed to effectively inform and
build relationships for the exchange of information
and ideas in a collaborative manner. Feedback
mechanisms will be created to receive, collate,
and interpret all Public Engagement to effectively
implement the data gathered into the Project design.

TA S K 6 . 3 0 - P E R C E N T D E S I G N

REVIEW AND TECHNICAL MEMOS
Subtask 6.1. Design Analysis Report
The Sherwood Team will thoroughly review the
previously prepared 30% Design documents by others
and utilize these documents to evaluate the need for
a revised set of 30% PS&E. A Design Analysis Report
will be prepared to establish the criteria to justify
resubmission of 30% Design Documentation such
as consistency with project objectives, feasibility,
regulatory compliance, stakeholder input and cost
estimates. The Design Analysis Report will evaluate
the previous documentation based on that criteria
and evaluate design alternatives that may also justify
resubmission of 30% PS&E. As a starting point to
prepare a revised 30% plans, specification, cost
estimate, and construction schedule, incorporating
any revisions that may be necessary based on the
Basis of Design documents. The plans will include the
detailed design elements, at a 30% level of design. The specifications will include general specifications (frontend documents) and detailed outlines of the technical specifications. Cost estimates at the 30% level of
design will correspond to Class 3 as defined by AACE
and will be prepared in Microsoft Excel. A construction schedule will also be prepared.

Subtask 6.2. Review Technical Memorandum
Quantity Takeoffs and Cost Estimates
In addition to reviewing the previously prepared
designs, the Sherwood Team will review the Quantity
Takeoffs and Cost Estimates to ensure the feasibility
of completing the Project on budget and identify
quantities, unit rates, or scope omissions that impact
the previously prepared cost estimates.
49 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
14 Subtask 6.3. Review Technical Specifications and
BOD
Based on the Design Analysis Report findings, the
Sherwood Team will identify the specific issues with
the previously prepared technical specifications and
issue any necessary updated technical specifications
for review and incorporation in the 60% PS&E.

Subtask 6.4. Final 30% Design Plans and
Specifications
After reviewing the Design Analysis Report with the
Client, the determination will be made as to whether
or not the 30% PS&E will need to be revised and
resubmitted prior to proceeding with the 60% PS&E.

If the Design Analysis Report does not determine that
resubmission is required, any identified issues will
be addressed directly in the 60% PS&E. Based on the
review of the available 30% Design Documentation,
the Sherwood Team believes there will be sufficient
enough changes in the design approach to be reviewed
and coordinated with the Client to justify resubmitting the 30% PS&E. Therefore, the Proposal includes scope
and fee to provide this service, which the Sherwood
Team will prepare once the need is agreed upon.

T A S K 7 . 6 0 - P E R C E N T P L A N S ,

SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES
Subtask 7.1 Response to 30% PS&E Comments
If the 30% PS&E are required to be reissued, the Design Team will review the Comments made by the Client on
the resubmitted documentation and provide a detailed
Response to Comments document. Any comments
not sufficiently addressed will be discussed in
proceeding meetings and incorporated into the design.

Subtask 7.2 Levee Engineering Analysis
Upon the acceptance of the 30% PS&E and
coordination of any alternatives in the Basis of Design Report, the Design Team will prepare an detailed
engineering analysis of the levee typologies along the
length of the Project reach, identifying the elevations, depths, thicknesses, volumes, slopes, and extents that
define each typology for review by the stakeholders.

The outcome of the Levee Engineering Analysis will be
a report with structural calculations supporting each
levee typology and consistency with the established
Design Criteria Memorandum. The Sherwood Team
has accounted for an independent, 3rd party review of
the design based on the importance of the design.

Subtask 7.3 Quantity Take-offs and Cost Estimates
As the Draft 60% Design Drawings are finalized,
Currie and Brown will provide detailed quantity takeoffs of all scope items and prepare an AACE Class 2 construction cost estimate. The cost estimate
will be delivered concurrently with the 60% Design
Documentation. Any significant departures from
previous cost estimates will be specifically identified and brought to the attention of the Client for
discussion in subsequent discussions.

Subtask 7.4 Design Review Workshop
Approximately halfway through the implementation
of the 60% design, a Design Review Workshop will be
scheduled with the Client and appropriate stakeholders
to review key considerations for incorporation into the 60% PS&E. These considerations will build upon the
Basis of Design Report and Design Analysis Report
further refine and finalize changes to the 30% design
documentation. The Design Review Workshop will
be documented and outcomes will be thoroughly
investigated and implemented. Any outcomes from
the Workshop that are not implemented will be
documented for stakeholder review and comment.

Subtask 7.5 60% Plans, Specification and Cost
Estimate
The Sherwood team will prepare and submit 60%
drawings and specifications. The drawings, sections,
and details will address all scope identified in the
RFP, be in compliance with all local, state, and federal requirements, and constitute a permit set of drawings
for submission to all requisite agencies. These
plans will address utility upgrades and coordination,
earthwork analysis, environmental and biological
impact minimization, structural details, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing design, landscaping and
irrigation design, maintenance and protection of traffic, and all other scope determined to be appropriate
during the design development. The submittal will
50 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
15 address the review comments in the 30% Design
Comment Resolution Document.

Subtask 7.6 SWPPP Report
Based on the 60% Design scope, a Draft Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed
in accordance with the California State requirements
for review by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Draft SWPPP will include all narratives, figures,
calculations, and supporting documentation for permit
based on the 60% Design. The SWPPP will be finalized
based on the 90% Design Documentation.

TA S K 8 . 9 0 - P E R C E N T P S & E A N D
100-PERCENT PS&E
Subtask 8.1 Response to 60% PS&E Comments
The Design Team will review the Comments made
by the Client upon their review of the 60% PS&E and
provide a detailed Response to Comments document.

Any comments not sufficiently addressed will be
discussed in proceeding meetings and incorporated
into the design.

Subtask 8.2 Design Calculations and Reports
In support of the 90% PS&E, the Design Team
will issue a compilation of technical reports and
supporting design calculations. This will enumerate
the calculations made in support of critical design
considerations and build upon previously documented
engineering analysis. This subtask will include items
such as the finalized Levee Engineering Analysis,
a Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Report, hydraulic
calculations for any pumped systems, irrigation
calculations, and any other pertinent calculations or
reports associated with the previously defined scope
of work. Traffic studies, calculations, and reports are not included in this Proposal.

Subtask 8.3. 90% Plans, Specification and Cost
Estimate
The Sherwood team will prepare and submit 90%
drawings, specifications, and an AACE Class 1
construction cost estimate. The submittal will be a
complete drawing and specification set at or near
the level of completion for construction. The cost
estimate will be based on an updated, detailed
logical work breakdown structure based on the 90%
plans and specifications. The submittal will address
the comments in the Design Comment Resolution
Document. The 90% plans will include clear delineation
of existing property lines and final take lines (i.e., rights of way, easements, or property acquisitions) needed
for Project construction and/or ongoing maintenance
or access. Consultant will finalize right of way mapping and plats and descriptions for necessary acquisitions.

The Sherwood team will review 60% PS&E Submittal
comments and prepare responses. Coordinate and
resolve design comments and issues from comments
received from the City, stakeholders and resource/
regulatory agencies and coordinate design with all
agencies and update PS&E, cost/quantity take-offs
by incorporating comments from 60% review. This
submittal will represent complete checked plans,
specifications, quantities and cost estimates, ready for final City review.

Design calculations will include all analysis and
computations that were necessary in designing the
structures or elements of the Project. Independent
check calculations will include all analysis and
computations that are necessary to independently
check all aspects of the design shown on the
unchecked details. Results from the check calculations
will be compared with the design. Discrepancies shall
be resolved between the designer and checker and the
resolutions documented.

An independent check will be performed by a third
party, not previously involved with the Project, for
the design calculations, plans, specifications, and
estimate prior to the 90% submittal. Independent
check and the Sherwood team will prepare a comment
resolution form detailing comments and responses.

The Sherwood team will prepare a 90% Design Plan
Set in AutoCAD following City of Menlo Park design
standards. If major comments are received and these
comments result in significant rework/revisions,
the Sherwood team will address the comments and
resubmit the 90% Design Submittal for review before
proceeding to finalize the contract documents.
51 WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
16 Subtask 8.4 Preliminary SWPPP
Approximately halfway through the implementation of
the 90% design, the SWPPP will be updated to reflect
the current project design in accordance with the
requirements of the State General Construction Permit
and the State Water Resources Control Board.

Subtask 8.5 Design Review Workshop
Approximately halfway through the implementation
of the 90% design, a Design Review Workshop will be
scheduled with the Client and appropriate stakeholders
to review key considerations for incorporation into
the 90% PS&E. These considerations will build upon
the 60% design documentation and will be the final
opportunity to implement changes in the design that
do not incur impactful changes to the permitting
documentation. The Design Review Workshop will
be documented and outcomes will be thoroughly
investigated and implemented. Any outcomes from
the Workshop that are not implemented will be
documented for stakeholder review, and comment.

Subtask 8.6 Response to 90% PS&E Comments
The Design Team will review the Comments made
by the Client upon their review of the 90% PS&E and
provide a detailed Response to Comments document.

Any comments not sufficiently addressed will be
discussed in proceeding meetings and incorporated
into the 100% PS&E.

Subtask 8.7 100% PS&E
Final Design to be completed under Task 8.7 will
begin upon acceptance of the 90% PS&E response
to comments. Changes made for the 100% PS&E
will address Client comments and any remaining
permitting agency requirements as it is anticipated
some of those may lag beyond the 90% deliverable.

This Final Design Set will be fully completed, signed,
and sealed, accompanied by a Class 1 AACE Engineer’s
Cost Estimate.

Subtask 8.8 Operations and Maintenance Guidance
Manual
The Sherwood Team will prepare an Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Guidance Manual in order to
communicate key Project information to Operations
and Maintenance individuals to ensure proper
operation and appropriate maintenance of the facility
and long-term protection of the asset.

Subtask 8.9 Bidding Support
Upon advertisement of the Project bid, the Sherwood
Team will provide the requisite services in support
of the City. These services are anticipated to include
responding to bidder’s questions regarding the Bid Set
within 2 business days of receipt, maintaining a log of the questions and responses, and noting whether any
questions require the preparation of addenda to the
Bid Set. A pre-bid conference including a site visit will be attended, where documents will be distributed to
potential bidders.

After the questions and pre-bid conference have been
concluded, the Sherwood team will prepare the bid
document addenda or letter of clarification as required, noting any impacts to construction schedule or cost.

These addenda will be submitted to the City for
approval. Changes may also be deferred until the bid is awarded and issued as a Construction Change Order.

Subtask 8.10 Revised Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis
A revised Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis will be
provided based on the 90% design deliverables from
Task 8.1. This analysis will comply with all FEMA
requirements and demonstrate the Project’s costeffectiveness for federal funding purposes. Future risk reduction benefits will be compared to the costs and
deemed cost effective when the BCR is 1.0 or greater.
52 SUBCONSULTANTS

KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
17 SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS
PRIME: CIVIL ENGINEERING
CODY ANDERSON P.E., LEED AP Principal In Charge
SONYA GABRIELSON P.E., WEDG Project Manager / Main Point of Contact JOSEPH ALBANI M.S. , P.E. QAQC
RAMY AZAR P.E.. LEED SITES AP Senior Engineer
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL

DEREK MORLEY PE
Sr. Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer

MATT WEIL PE, GE
Project Manager/Geotechnical Engineering
CHRIS HUNT PhD, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer

PITCHER SERVICES, LLC
Subconsultant: Drilling Services

WRA, INC

PERMITTING/ BIOLOGY/ RESTORATION

JUSTIN SEMION
PWS, Principal

LIZ ALLEN
Regulatory Permitting Specialist / Marine
Biologist

CIRCLEPOINT
CEQA

GEOFFREY REILLY
Project Manager

MATTHEW MOORE
Deputy Project Manager
COWI

STRUCTURAL

JAMES CONNOLLY PE, SE, LEED AP, DPE
Structural Engineering Lead

ANDY ESPINOZA PE
Structural Engineer

MARK THOMAS

SURVEYING AND MAPPING

TRAVIS BOHAN PLS
Survey Manager

CURRIE & BROWN

COST ESTIMATING

CHAD CHAPMAN LEED-AP
Director / Chief Estimator

BELLE HAVEN COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT FUND

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

JUANITA CROFT
Advisory Board Chair /
Community Project Lead

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
53 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
18 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
20 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
11 years

EDUCATION
University of California
Berkeley, B.S. in
Environmental Science

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Licensed Professional
Engineer, State of California
CODY ANDERSON, P. E . , L E E D A P
PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE | S H E R W O O D D E S I G N

ENGINEERS
Cody Anderson will serve as Managing Principal Engineer on this project. He has successfully led civil and multidisciplinary teams on public and private projects including campuses of various types, residential developments, and resorts, nearly all of which involve thoughtful integration of green infrastructure. Cody’s background in technical site civil engineering design combined with his ability to connect all project disciplines through clear and thoughtful communication make him a valuable contributor to a design team. Through his experience on a range of unique projects requiring complex creative problem solving, close collaboration with design partners, and a keen eye for detail, Cody has developed a working style that helps create success for all project stakeholders.

Cody has over 10 years of direct experience working on projects adjacent to the SF Bay and tidally influenced channels and has worked cooperatively with various agencies to develop creative, resilient, and practical strategies for protecting properties from the impacts of medium and long-term sea level rise. He currently serves as the alternate civil engineer on the BCDC Design Review Board and is dedicated to improving the resilience of communities throughout the Bay Area.

Role: Cody will be providing key design oversight and direction, as well as directing the team on overall conceptualization and implementation of sustainable engineering design. He will lead internal team design meetings and work with the Project Manger as the leader of key presentations to the Client and stakeholders

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Harvest Properties, East Palo Alto, CA
Emerson Collective, East Palo Alto, CA
Pier 70 Development, San Francisco, CA
Ferry Building and Plaza Expansion Project, San Francisco, CA Genentech Sea Level Rise Analysis, South San Francisco, CA Exploratorium Improvements and Expansion Project, San Francisco, CA Marin Country Day School, Corte Madera, CA
Dunphy Park, Sausalito, CA
54 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
19 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
14 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
4 years

EDUCATION
University of Washington
B.S. in Civil Engineering

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Registered Professional
Engineer, State of California

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Waterfront Alliance, WEDG
Associate
SONYA GABRIELSON, P. E . , W E D G
PROJECT MANAGER / MAIN POINT OF CONTACT |

SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS
Sonya serves as a Senior Project Manager in Sherwood’s San Francisco office. She has extensive design experience in coastal resiliency projects, parks, mixed-use developments, transportation and utility improvement projects for public and private clients. She has proven success in delivering projects from master planning and concept design through final construction documentation and administration.

Sonya’s project experience includes work on the Genentech South San Francisco Sea Level Rise Master Plan, a custom analysis and suite of recommendations for the 200-acre bay-front campus; Stanford Health Care Sustainable Landscape Guidelines, a blueprint for ecologically sensitive landscape improvements in the face of water stress; and Rebuild by Design - Hudson River, a community-scale coastal resilience project retrofitting 10,000 linear feet of floodwall in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Her expertise in waterfront engineering extends beyond project work to her training, accreditation, and volunteer review position with the Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG) program, a resilient rating system for projects at the water’s edge. Through this exposure, Sonya will bring to the table extensive strategies and insight to Sherwood’s collaboration with the Design Team.

Role: Sonya coordinates and collaborates closely with the client and the design team to ensure project deliverables are completed on time and on budget.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Genentech Sea Level Rise Analysis, South San Francisco, CA Exploratorium Improvements and Expansion Project, San Francisco, CA Rebuild by Design Hudson River*
South Battery Park City Resiliency Project*
*Project completed prior to Sherwood
55 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
12 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
3 years

EDUCATION
University of Connecticut
M.S. in Civil & Environmental
Engineering
Northeastern University
B.S. in Civil & Environmental
Engineering

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Registered Professional
Engineer: New York and
Massachusetts
Institute for Sustainable
Infrastructure: Envision
Sustainability Professional
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Urban Land Institute
JOSEPH ALBANI, M . S . , P. E .

TECHNICAL ADVISOR | S H E R W O O D D E S I G N

ENGINEERS
Joe Albani has over 12 years of consulting civil engineering experience.

He has worked on a variety of projects from planning through construction phases on scopes ranging from coastal flood management infrastructure to large scale stormwater management to urban infill development to exurban hospitality projects. His project work includes site civil engineering design, grading, stormwater management, coastal and riverine flood resiliency, permitting, and construction administration.

Joe’s background focuses on managing large scale infrastructure and land development projects across the Rural-Urban Continuum for municipal, institutional, and private clients. Joe’s experience includes projects in the northeastern U.S., western U.S., and Caribbean. Joe specializes in sustainable infrastructure, flood resiliency and mitigation, and green infrastructure design previously serving as Project Manager and Design Manager of municipal projects constructing living shorelines in tidal environments, flood prevention systems adjacent to heavily developed neighborhoods, and installing stormwater retention practices on public lands.

His key project experiences included site layout, grading, and earthwork analysis; stormwater management calculations and design; and water, drainage, and sanitary sewer infrastructure layout and sizing. His detailed experience includes the design of green infrastructure design solutions, such as bioretention, porous pavements, green roofs and rainwater harvesting, while his resiliency and mitigation experience includes the design of coastal seawalls, deployable barriers at the site and neighborhood scale, and natural flooding attenuation designs like stream daylighting and living shorelines.

Role: Joe will ensure that all deliverables from Sherwood undergo and complete a rigorous quality control and quality assurance programs prior to delivery to the Client.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
North Shore Bulkhead Project, Long Beach, NY*
Cloudburst Mitigation BRIC Project, Brooklyn, NY
Red Hook Coastal Resiliency Project, New York, NY*
Island End River Coastal Flood Resilience Project, Everett, MA* JFK International Airport Storm Surge Protection, Queens, NY* Hurricane Harvey FEMA 406 Mitigation, Houston, TX*
Hurricane IDA FEMA 406 Mitigation, Houston, TX*
* Project Experience Prior to Sherwood
56 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
21 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
11 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
8 years

EDUCATION
Notre Dame UniversityLouaize, Zouk Mosbeh
Lebanon, B.S. in EngineeringCivil

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Licensed Professional
Engineer, State of California
US Green Building Council
LEED Accredited Professional
RAMY AZAR, P. E . , L E E D S I T E S A P
SENIOR ENGINEER | S H E R W O O D D E S I G N

ENGINEERS
Ramy Azar has over a decade of design and construction experience and a strong background working on projects at various scales. He has delivered on multi-Billion dollar projects in California and New York and specializes in site grading, utility design, stormwater management LID/ BMPs and roadway design.

Ramy has experience deliverying site-wide infrastructure and utility projects for higher education campuses especially in the CSU and UC systems. His projects include provided design support for the 180- acre University of California, Merced 2020 project, and has continued to support the campus through the Campus Utility Master Plan and pending updates to the Architectural Master Plan and led the efforts for site design for Cal Poly SLO Frost Center. His other project experience includes civil design for the multi-award winning Francisco Park project, pro-actively working to keep construction costs down through creative design approaches for grading and drainage, extensive coordination with various city agencies to achieve compliance/approvals, and facilitating win-win solutions between a broad range of stakeholders.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
EPA Harvest_Levee alignment and layout for EPA SAFER Bay Road South Reach, East Palo Alto CA
Emmerson Collective_Levee Alignments and negotiations with SFJPA for Bay Road North reach, East Palo Alto CA
Levis Plaza Ground water and flood mitigation for existing buildings due to sea water rise, San Francisco, CA
57 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
22 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
24 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
23 years

EDUCATION
Presidio Graduate School,
MBA, Sustainable Management
University of Michigan,
BS, Resource Ecology and
Management

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Wetland Scientist
(#2072)

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Professionals , Member, Port of
San Francisco Waterfront Plan
Resilience Advisory Team
Restoration Subcommittee
Member, Subtidal Habitats
Goals Project, California
Coastal Conservancy, Member,
Bay Planning Coalition
(Dredging and Beneficial Reuse
Committee)

JUSTIN SEMION, PWS
P R I N C I PA L | W R A , I N C
Justin Semion is a Principal Aquatic Ecologist at WRA who has managed hundreds of diverse projects involving regulatory permitting, restoration and habitat management, habitat mitigation planning and monitoring.

His broad environmental science expertise includes eelgrass and subtidal estuarine habitats, wetland delineation, ecosystem functions and services evaluation, rare and endangered species surveys and evaluations, vegetation ecology. Justin’s experience with environmental permitting includes Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permits, Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, Endangered Species Act Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat consultations, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Certifications, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreements, and San Francisco Bay Dredge Material Management Office (DMMO) permits, as well as implementing permit compliance, mitigation and monitoring requirements of these permits.

Role: Justin will be the Principal in Charge of the project for WRA, responsible for establishing regulatory strategy and informing design for ecologically sensitive areas.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Port of San Francisco, Seawall Resiliency Project, San Francisco, CA Children’s Health Council, San Francisquito Creek Bank Restoration, Palo Alto, CA
Silicon Valley Clean Water, Conveyance System RESCU Program, Redwood City, CA
Silicon Valley Clean Water 48-inch Force Main Replacement, Redwood City, CA
Silicon Valley Clean Water Inner Bair Island Restoration Project – Area D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan, Redwood City, CA California Coastal Conservancy Bel Marin Keys Unit V Restoration, Novato, CAAh ok
58 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
23 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
8 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
5 years

EDUCATION
Northeastern University, MS,
Marine Biology
The College of William & Mary,
BS, Biology

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Certified Caulerpa Surveyor,
NOAA Fisheries, 2024
AAUS Scientific SCUBA Diver,
2016
CPR, First Aid, and Oxygen
Administration for Professional
Divers Certification, 2016

LIZ ALLEN

R E G U L AT O R Y P E R M I T T I N G S P E C I A L I S T / M A R I N E B I O L O G I S T | W R A , I N C .

Liz specializes in eelgrass and wetlands regulatory permitting and holds an M.S. in Marine Biology. Her master’s thesis focused on the microbial communities of Northern California eelgrass beds. Liz also has expertise in fish physiology, oyster reef ecology, invertebrate community structures, and marine mammal monitoring. The technical skills Liz developed earlier in her career as a research technician, field biologist, and science writer inform her efficient, detail-orientated approach to regulatory permitting.

At WRA, Liz prepares regulatory permit applications and consultation materials for agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Liz also oversees the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including chapters and sections on biological resources and other technical subjects.

Role: Liz will be the lead biologist and regulatory permitting specialist for the Menlo Park SAFER Bay Project. In this role, Liz will leverage her breadth of experience working on projects along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, including the Restore Hayward Marsh Project, which involves levee removal, breaching, and reconfiguration; creation of nesting islands for Western snowy plover; and coordination with the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT).

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
East Bay Regional Park District, Restore Hayward Marsh, Hayward, CA City of South San Francisco, Oyster Point Harbor Master Road Spit Site Development Project, South San Francisco, CA
City of San Leandro, San Leandro Shoreline Park, San Leandro, CA WETA, Vallejo Ferry Terminal Reconfiguration, Vallejo, CA City of Berkeley, Berkeley Pier with Ferry Access, Berkeley, CA 59 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
24 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
30 Years

YEARS WITH FIRM
6 years

EDUCATION
MS, Geotechnical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley
BS, Civil Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer (PE),
California, Number 57796

D E R E K M O R L E Y, PE

S E N I O R G E O T E C H N I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E V I E W E R | GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, INC.

Derek Morley, PE, has over 30 years of experience in geo-civil engineering projects and engineering management for dams, levees, and other water and power facilities. He also has experience with transportation, industrial, military, and semi-public infrastructure. He provides program management, project planning and project management, technical leadership and oversight, risk assessment and risk-informed decision making (RIDM), design and design team leadership, and construction support services. He is known for creative planning and execution leadership, developing approaches that transform challenging situations into successful trajectories to project delivery. He has provided peer review of projects for public agencies and private entities; assisted legal counsel in evaluating project design, construction practices, and performance of constructed works; and developed organizational strategy, operations processes, and optimization tools.

Role: Mr. Morley is a California-licensed Professional Engineer with over 30 years of experience in geo-civil engineering projects for dams, levees, and other water resources infrastructure. He has a strong background in geotechnical engineering, and his primary area of focus is dam and levee safety evaluations and modification projects. He is a FERC-approved Independent Consultant. As a senior reviewer for the project, he will provide technical leadership and oversight, leveraging his experience as Geosciences Branch Chief for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and his work on State-Federal Project levees throughout the Central Valley, as well as other flood control levees and related facilities in the Bay Area and southern California.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Sites Reservoir Project Regulating Reservoirs, Glenn and Colusa Counties, CA
Huntington Reservoir Dams Stability Assessment, Sierra Nevada Mountains, CA
Oroville Spillways Emergency Response and Recovery, Oroville, CA 60 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
13 Years

YEARS WITH FIRM
3 years

EDUCATION
MS, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California, Davis
BS, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California, Davis

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer (PE),
California, Number 79072.

Geological Engineer (GE),
California, Number 3093

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
CalGeo Emerging
Geoprofessionals, Treasurer
OTHER
8-Hour Nuclear Density Gauge
(US DOT and IATA) Certified

MATT WEIL, PE, GE

P R O J E C T M A N A G E R / G E O T E C H N I C A L
E N G I N E E R I N G L E A D | G E O S Y N T E C C O N S U LT A N T S , I N C .

Matthew (Matt) Weil has over 13 years of experience in geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing, analysis, design, construction oversight, project management, and team management. He is both academic and pragmatic, technically proficient and management adept, innovative and respectful of the experience of others.

Role: Mr. Weil is a senior geotechnical engineer in Geosyntec’s Davis Office and a registered California professional engineer and geotechnical engineer. His 14-year career has primarily focused on levee and dam projects throughout California. As the geotechnical engineering lead, Mr.

Weil will be responsible for developing and executing the geotechnical exploration program, leading the team performing geotechnical seepage and stability analyses for the levees, and providing geotechnical recommendations to the design team in support of the levee/floodwall design.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Sites Reservoir-Regulating Reservoir Feasibility Design, Colusa and Glenn Counties, CA
Levee Vulnerability Study, San Joaquin County, CA
Oroville Emergency Recovery: Spillways, Oroville, CA
Contra Loma Dam Evaluation, Antioch, CA
I Street Bridge Replacement, Sacramento, CA
Geotechnical Design for Earthen Embankment Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, San Jose, CA
Small Communities Flood Risk Reduction Program (DWR), Central Valley, CA
61 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
26 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
25 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
25 years

EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geotechnical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley
M.S., Geotechnical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley
B.S., Civil Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Civil Engineer (P.E.),
California, Number C63283;
Utah, Number 10085291-2202
Professional Geotechnical
Engineer (G.E.), California,
Number GE2821

C H R I S H U N T, PHD, PE, GE

SENIOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEWER
| G E O S Y N T E C C O N S U LT A N T S , I N C .

Dr. Hunt has over 25 years of experience managing and supporting a variety of geotechnical projects. His project portfolio includes dam safety reviews as well as seepage and stability evaluations for dams and levees, and he has facilitated Potential Failure Mode Analysis (PFMA) workshops for numerous dams. He has analyzed and developed mitigation measures for landslides in bedrock, colluvium, and man-made fill, including probabilistic evaluation of landslide potential. Dr. Hunt has performed geotechnical investigations and provided recommendations for facilities subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and other seismic hazards. He has participated in design optimization projects, feasibility studies, and peer review projects addressing issues related to the presence of peats, soft clays, loose sands, and waste. In addition, Dr.

Hunt has been an active participant in state-of-the-art research in new methods of liquefaction mitigation using biological methods, including serving as founding member and past chair of the Industry Advisory Board for the National Science Foundation sponsored Center for Biomediated and Bio-inspired Geotechnical. At locations in Canada, Mexico, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Guyana, Dr. Hunt evaluated geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of large infrastructure projects, including refineries and airports, on soft compressible clays and other challenging soils.

Role: Dr. Hunt has performed geotechnical investigations and participated in design optimization projects, feasibility studies, and peer review projects addressing issues related to the presence of peats, soft clays, loose sands, and waste. As a senior reviewer, he will utilize his extensive experience in the SF Bay Area related to challenging soil conditions and his involvement in multidisciplinary levee and shoreline projects to guide the geotechnical and design efforts for the levee/floodwall design.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Levee Vulnerability Study, San Joaquin County, CA
San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Program, San Francisco, CA Hamilton Field Levee Evaluation, Novato, CA
2023 Part 12D Safety Review for Thermalito Complex Dams, Butte County, CA
2022 Director’s Safety Review Board (DSRB), Upper Feather River Dams, Plumas County, CA
Part 12D Safety Reviews for Thirteen Dams, Drum-Spaulding Project, Haas-Kings Project, Potter Valley Project, Feather River Project, Pit River Project, McCloud-Pit Project, Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project, CA Dam Safety Program Support, CA
62 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
27 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
24 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
24 years

EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley,
USA
M.S., Structural Engineering
University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana
B.S., Civil Engineering

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer: CA
C64532, CA S5037, WA 44361,
FL 69287, TX 104429, SC 41204
LEED Accredited Professional
2009Diplomate, Port
Engineering (D.PE)

J A M E S C O N N O L LY, P E , S E , L E E D A P, D P E S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R I N G L E A D | C O W I Mr. Connolly has more than 20 years of experience as a structural engineer, with specializations including shoreline protection systems involving structures such as seawalls, concrete retaining walls, passive flood gates, deployable barriers, and stormwater outfall structures.

He also has extensive experience in the design of piers, wharves, outfalls and port facilities. His specialization includes assessment of existing terminal components, preliminary design services to support environmental permitting, and design-build construction procurement on marine/waterfront structure projects.

Role: As Structural Engineering Lead, James will oversee structural engineering and design of shoreline protection systems and flood control elements, including, but not limited to, levees and floodwalls.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
SFO Shoreline Protection Program, San Francisco, CA
IHNC - GIWW Floodgate Approach Walls; New Orleans, LA
Mission Bay Ferry Landing, San Francisco, CA
Islais Creek Shoreline Protection; San Francisco, CA
Coast Guard Station Humboldt Bay Shoreline Protection; Humboldt, CA San Francisco Naval Shipyard Gunnery Pier and Seawall Repair; San Francisco, CA
Pier 43 Bay Trail Link Project; San Francisco, CA
Alameda Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal, Alameda, CA
63 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
28 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
18 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
15 years

EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley,
Ph.D. Structural Engineering
University of California, Berkeley,
M.Sc., Structural Engineering
University of California, Davis,
B.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer, California
76385

ANDY ESPINOZA, PE
S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R | C O W I
Mr. Espinoza has extensive experience as a structural engineer in the design and retrofit of shoreline and flood protection systems.

His experience also includes design and engineering of waterfront structures such as wharves and quaywall for US Navy, including in Micronesian islands of Yap and Palau and at Naval Base San Diego. He also has experience in design and analysis of reinforced concrete bridge structures in seismic areas.

Role: As Structural Engineer, Andy will assist with design of shoreline protection systems and flood control elements, including, but not limited to, levees and floodwalls.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
USACE Galveston District - Port Arthur and Vicinity Coastal Storm Risk Management A-E Design, Port Arthur, TX
NYCEDC - Tompkinsville Esplanade and Pier, Staten Island, NY WETA - Richmond Ferry Terminal, Richmond, CA
National Parks Service Statue of Liberty Ferry Terminal, New York City, NY
Port of San Francisco Pier 48, San Francisco, CA
NOAA – Pier Romeo Design-Build Recapitalization Project, North Charleston, SC
64 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
29 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
33 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
1 years

EDUCATION
BA,Resource and Environmental
Geography, Spanish Minor, San
Diego State University, 1989

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP), CalTrans
Local Assistance Training
Certification, NWETC NEPA
Certification: Writing the Perfect
EA/FONSI or EIS

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Professionals, American
Planning Association, American
Public Works Association,
Floodplain Management
Association, Sonoma County
Alliance Environmental
Committee

G E O F F R E Y R E I L LY
PROJECT MANAGER | CIRCLEPOINT
Geoff Reilly is a Senior Principal with over 30 years of experience in the preparation and management of environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA, NEPA, Caltrans Local Assistance, CalOES, FEMA, CWSRF, etc. He has a broad knowledge of environmental and regulatory issues that affect land development and has successfully managed the environmental review process for many complex and controversial projects. He has acted both as project manager and principal writer for a wide variety of projects, including bridge replacements and retrofits, roadway improvements, water and sewer infrastructure, flood control, climate resiliency, restoration, residential subdivisions, commercial retail and office developments, mixed-use projects, institutions, trails and recreational amenities, and industrial facilities.

Geoff has supervised the preparation of all types of CEQA and NEPA documents for both public and private sector clients, including initial studies, mitigated negative declarations, environmental assessments, EIRs, EISs, categorical exemptions and exclusions, supplemental environmental review, constraints analyses, technical background reports, expert witness testimony, and third-party review. He has also prepared many Program EIRs for Master Plans, Specific Plans and General Plan Updates throughout California.

Role: Geoff will lead the environmental documentation process, ensuring compliance with all relevant local, state, and federal regulations, including CEQA and the CEQA guidelines and FEMA requirements.

He will oversee impact analyses, mitigation planning, and permitting efforts while coordinating with regulatory agencies, technical teams, and key stakeholders. Additionally, Geoff will manage project schedules, budgets, and quality control to ensure that environmental considerations are effectively integrated into the overall project development.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project IS/MND and Regulatory Permits, East Palo Alto, CA
Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant Primary Outfall Replacement, Santa Clara County, CA
San Francisquito Creek Bank Restoration, Palo Alto, CA
Coyote Creek Sediment Removal Project, Marin County, CA Wetlands Habitat Restoration Project, Chelsea, Hercules, CA Mill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Pathway, Marin County, CA Palo Alto Embarcadero Way Trash Capture Device Project, Palo Alto, CA 65 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
8 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
2 years

EDUCATION
Master of Urban Planning
(MUP), San José State
University, 2022
B.A. in Political Science,
University at Albany, 2014

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Address Geocoding with ArcGIS
Georeferencing Raster Data
with ArcGIS
Editing in ArcGIS Desktop

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)

MATTHEW MOORE
DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER | CIRCLEPOINT
A recent addition to Circlepoint’s Environmental Services Group, Matthew uses his powerful blend of experience in the environmental, legal, and political realms to provide holistic and innovative solutions to CEQA/ NEPA compliance. Matthew holds a Bachelor’s in Political Science and a Master’s in Urban Planning with a focus on Environmental Planning, and formerly served as a legal analyst for the federal government and as a representative for both California and New York state legislators.

Since entering the environmental consulting field, he has managed numerous CEQA/NEPA documents for a wide variety of developments, including mixed-use infill, residential, commercial, office, manufacturing, education, and public facility projects as well as active transportation infrastructure, ecological restoration, and citywide plans and policies.

Role: Matthew will support the Project Manager by managing specific aspects of the environmental review process, assisting in coordinating technical studies and CEQA sections, and stakeholder engagement. He will play a key role in tracking deliverables, maintaining communication among project teams, and ensuring that environmental documentation aligns with project goals and timelines. Matthew may also assist with targeted tasks related to public outreach and agency coordination to facilitate the environmental review and approval process.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
650 Clark Way Creek Bank Stabilization Phase II IS/MND, City of Palo Alto, CA
Block 21 IS/MND, City of San Mateo, CA
2023-2031 Housing Element IS/MND, City of San Bruno, CA Gilroy Data Center EIR, Amazon Data Services
SR 262 (Mission Boulevard) Cross Connector Project PA/ED, Alameda CTC
Diridon Station Preliminary Business Case, Caltrain
66 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
31 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
18 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
8+ years

EDUCATION
BS in Civil and Geomatics
Engineering, California State
University, Fresno, 2009

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA PLS 8965

TRAVIS BOHAN, PLS
SURVEY MANAGER | MARK THOMAS
Travis has 18 years of experience in land surveying. He manages all phases of survey in support of transportation, bridge, pipeline design and construction. His work includes survey support and construction staking for sewer pipe replacements, gas line replacements, bridge widening and replacement, interchanges, and streetscape improvements. Travis’ experience includes survey support and construction staking for a wide range of projects from Interchanges and grade separations to gas lines and water lines. Along with topographic and control surveys, boundary resolution, underground utility mapping including plan and profiles, preparation of legal descriptions and plats for right of way and easement acquisitions and has coordinated and completed multiple GPS and conventional control surveys in support of aerial topographic mapping, boundary and construction work.

Role: Mark will be support on survey related services.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Monument Reset At San Mateo Drive And Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park , CA
Hunters Point Substation, San Francisco, CA
PG&E On Call Survey, Various Locations
Atherton Civic Center, Atherton, CA
Valley Water Calero Dam, Santa Clara County, CA
Bascom Avenue Complete Streets, San Jose, CA
Northern Receiving Station High Voltage Direct Current (Hvdc) Project, Newark, CA
67 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
32 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
12 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
12 years

EDUCATION
Master of Urban Planning
(MUP), San José State
University, 2022
B.A. in Political Science,
University at Albany, 2014

JUANITA CROFT

A D V I S O R Y B O A R D C H A I R / C O M M U N I T Y P R O J E C T LEAD | BELLE HAVEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FUND
Juanita is one of the founders of BHCDF and has served as the Advisory Board Chair for 12 years. For 11 years, she has administered and implemented the Menlo Park Belle Haven Mini-Grant Program.

As a grant writer, she has successfully funded other projects for the community.

More recently (2022), Juanita worked with the CRC on the Menlo Park Environmental Justice & Safety Element Update for the General Plan.

BHCDF was responsible for organizing the first focus group. We curated the information, prepared presentations and activities and generated reports from the data gathered.

The CRC also introduced her to the Safer Bay organization in 2022 as well. Since then, Juanita has participated in their Advisory Committee and other events.

In partnership with Belle Haven Empowered, host the Kitchen Table Chats. She has provided information on resources and projects that affect the Belle Haven neighborhood. When needed will help put together workshops to train the community (English & Spanish speakers) in how to make public comments using a variety of media channels.

Role: Juanita will serve as the Project Lead overseeing the implementation of all of the tasks covered in the scope of work under Section E, Public Outreach, of the project as outlined in the RFP.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Menlo Park Environmental Justice & Safety Element Update for the General Plan – Menlo Park, CA
68 KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
33 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
27 years

YEARS WITH FIRM
7 years

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Associate of Applied Science
(AAS) Architectural Drafting
and Estimating Technology,
Dunwoody Institute,
Minneapolis, MN

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEEDAP) US Green Building Council American Society of
Professional Estimators (ASPE)
past Viking Chapter President

CHAD CHAPMAN, LEED-AP
D I R E C T O R , C H I E F E S T I M AT O R | C U R R I E & B R O W N Chad is our national chief estimator and a recognized industry expert in the delivery of cost estimates. During his 25 years in the construction industry, Chad has led cost consulting teams on projects and programs ranging in value from $100,000 to more than $60 billion across a wide range of sectors.

Chad’s leadership in project benchmarking and data analytics helps our clients understand where their costs should be in comparison to the wider market. His role includes the provision of best practices, cost estimating, cost modeling, benchmarking, location indexing and normalization, escalation and market-specific surveys for clients.

Chad is the former president of the local ASPE Viking Chapter and former instructor of estimating technology at Dunwoody Industrial Institute in Minneapolis, MN.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Moffett Place, Sunnyvale, CA
Moffett Towers II, Sunnyvale, CA
Texas Medical Center (TMC3), Houston, TX
Swarthmore College Water Infrastructure Project, Swarthmore, PA US Land Port of Entry, Van Buren, ME
Antarctica Infrastructure Modernization of Science (AIMS) McMurdo Station, Antarctica
Leidos Engineering, Palmer Pier, Anvers Island, Antarctica US Land Port of Entry, Warroad, MN
US Land Port of Entry, Van Buren, ME
Texas Medical Center (TMC3), Houston, TX
Hennepin County, Minnesota Twins Stadium Site, Minneapolis, MN Atlanta Braves Stadium (Suntrust Park), Atlanta, GA
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, TX
Louis Armstrong International Airport, (MSY), New Orleans, LA Moffet Federal Airfield, Sunnyvale, CA
Northwest Corridor Bus Rapid Transit, Minneapolis, MN
69 TEAM EXPERIENCE
34 14
1990 Bay Road,
1175 Weeks Street &
1250 Weeks Street
East Palo Alto, CA Pre-Application / 20 February 2020
Morris Adjmi Architects
www.ma.com
Owner: Designer: Architect of Record: Civil Engineer: Landscape Architect:

Harvest Properties
www.harvestproperties.com
DGA Architects
www.dgaonline.com
Sherwood Design Engineers
www.sherwoodengineers.com
HOOD Design Studio
www.hooddesignstudio.com
Structural Engineer:

KPW Structural Engineers
www.kpw.com
Mechanical Engineer:

Integral Group
www.integral.com
Parking Consultant:

Watry Design, Inc.
www.watrydesign.com
Trail View

GENENTECH SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE STUDY
South San Francisco, CA | Client: Genentech Biotechnology | 2022 - 2024 | Staff:

Cody Anderson, Sonya Gabrielson
Conducted a detailed vulnerability assessment of the campus with a variety of building and utilities at risk of Sea Level Rise. The study defined a framework to take a proactive approach to campus development along their vulnerable shoreline at the San Francisco Bay.

PETALUMA SEA LEVEL RISE + CLIMATE CHANGE WHITE PAPER
Petaluma, CA | Client: City of Petaluma | 2022 - 2023 | Staff: Sebastian Bertsch Sherwood developed a White Paper summarizing the potential impacts of flooding and climate change on the City. Using locally developed SLR models and California guidance documents, Sherwood provided an intuitive Risk-Based Matrix for designers to use when determining which flood scenarios for city development.

RESILIENT BY DESIGN: ISLAIS CREEK
San Francisco, CA | Client: SF Planning Dept, Port of SF, Rockefeller Foundation | 2018 - 2019 | Staff: Cody Anderson
The team was tasked with co-creating resilient, community-based solutions to social and economic stressors in addition to environmental risks of sea level rise, storm surge flooding, and liquefaction.

EPA HARVEST - THE LANDING
East Palo Alto, CA | Client: Harvest Properties | 2019 - 2025 | Staff: Cody Anderson, Ramy Azar
Sherwood is providing site civil drainage and grading, stormwater management and improvements on utilities. This project has involved heavy coordination with the City’s utility agencies to collaborate on a resilient solution for relocation of existing easements that help to address sea level issues.

INDIA BASIN SHORELINE PARK
San Francisco, CA | Client: San Francisco Recreation and Park Dept., The Trust for Public Land | 2016 - 2024 | Staff: Cody Anderson
Sherwood supported the integration of the landscape design and ecological restoration strategy with stormwater management. The outcome is a restored bay front that is adapted to the rising water levels while supporting important habitat and wetland function.
70 TEAM EXPERIENCE
35 RESTORATION OF HAYWARD MARSH COMPLETED BY WRA
Hayward CA | Client: East Bay Regional Park District | 2020 - Ongoing | Staff: Liz Allen | Ref: Chris Barton, [email protected], 510.544.2319 Restoration of approx. 145 acres of wastewater treatment ponds constructed along the Hayward Regional Shoreline. The primary goals of this project are to enhance wildlife habitat, plan for sea-level rise, improve public access, and improve the District’s management abilities.

SAN FRANCISCO SEAWALL PROGRAM COMPLETED BY WRA
San Francisco, CA | Client: Port of San Francisco | 2017 - Ongoing | Staff: Justin Semion, PWS | Ref: Brad Benson, [email protected], 415.819.1759 WRA is responsible for evaluation of ecological risks along the waterfront arising from potential earthquake and sea level rise vulnerability, as well as identifying potential opportunities for habitat enhancement as part of the projects that are identified by the program.

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK BANK STABILIZATION COMPLETED BY WRA Palo Alto, CA | Client: Children’s Health Council School | 2017 - 2022 | Staff: Justin Semion, PWS | Ref: Terry Boyle, [email protected], 650.688.3602 WRA worked with CHC to evaluate and select design alternatives, complete a geotechnical solution and integrate bioengineering approaches into the final bank stabilization. WRA prepared design plans and hydraulic modeling of the creek.

SIERRA POINT SITE COMPLETED BY GEOSYNTEC
San Francisco, CA | Client: Healthpeak Properties, Inc. | 23 Acres | 2008 - Ongoing | Staff: Derek Morely, Matt Weil, David Umberg, Chris Hunt The overall site development plan consists of the construction of five three- to fourstory buildings, a multilevel above ground parking garage, surface parking, as well as miscellaneous site improvements including pavements, landscaping, utilities and upgrades to perimeter features along the San Francisco Bay

SFO SHORELINE PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPLETED BY COWI
San Francisco, CA | Client: SF International Airport | 2020 - Ongoing | Staff: James Connolly | Ref: Rinaldi Wibowo, [email protected], (650) 821-9463 In 2010, the City and County of San Francisco, including the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), joined the FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.

COWI is the Lead JV Partner for the design and modification of the shoreline protection systems that will provide flood protection of the Airport campus. 71 REFERENCES
36 CLIENT REFERENCES
Genentech Sea Level Rise Resilience Study
Sophie Martin, AICP,
Director of Site Planning
Genentech
[email protected]
(415) 710-2974
East Palo Alto Harvest: The Landing
Jake Albinin
Construction & Development Director
Harvest Properties, Inc.
(510) 844-4068
Petaluma Sea Level Rise + Climate Change White
Paper
Gina Benedetti-Petnic, P.E.

Assistant Director
City of Petaluma
Public Works and Utilities
[email protected]
(707) 778-4311
India Basin Shoreline Park
David Froehlich
SF Recreation and Parks
[email protected]
(628) 652-6649
RELEVANT PROJECT MAP OF SHERWOOD’S WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN THE BAY AREA 72 37

RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Phase/Task Sherwood Design Engineers (PRIME) WRA COWI CirclePoint Principal Sr Project
Manager
Project
Manager
Project
Strategist
Project
Engineer
Design
Engineer II
Design
Engineer I
Principal /
Director
Senior
Associate Associate SeniorScientiest Scientist
Senior
Technicia
n
Technicia
n
GIS
Professio
nal II
Clerical
Support Proj. Director Assoc. Proj.Director
Senior
Engineer
Senior
Engineer Specialist CAD Proj.Coordinator. PIC/PM Deputy PM Sr.

Associate
Associate
Planner
Assistant
Planner
Graphics
Director
Project
Accountant
Senior
Principal
Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Task 1 Project Management 68 240 0 0 136 4 40 20 30 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 146 0 10 0 0 40 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 Task 2 Utilities Coordination and Investigation 22 64 0 0 136 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 4 12 0 0 80 0 0 14 30 0 16 85 35 40 12 8 2 8 16 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Task 4 Basis of Design and Calculations 24 56 0 88 104 40 80 10 16 28 12 0 28 12 8 5 2 12 24 64 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Task 5 Preparation for the PS&E 44 168 0 88 144 160 0 8 16 20 0 0 30 40 12 6 18 104 104 152 248 140 24 62 108 60 120 56 16 8 8 Task 6 30-Percent Design Reviews and Technical Memos 32 88 0 0 112 160 120 6 8 15 0 0 15 10 0 3 12 92 96 112 248 80 8 8 Task 7 60-Percent Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 52 200 0 64 272 428 456 8 12 68 0 0 108 30 0 4 14 92 96 192 248 80 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Task 8 90-Percent PS&E and 100-Percent PS&E 116 308 0 124 580 536 524 17 42 80 0 0 111 0 0 0 33 236 260 340 592 240 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Task 1.1 Work Plan and Schedule 8 40 4 2 4 8
Task 1.2 Set-up and Maintain Project Files 20 24 40 4
Task 1.3 Invoicing 64 40
Task 1.4 Project Meetings 40 80 80 20 30 2 2 2 2 140 14 14 6 Task 1.5 Quality Management Plan 16 24 24
Task 1.6 Preparation of Preliminary Schedule 4 12 8 2 2 Task 2.1 Utility Research and Mapping 8 16 40
Task 2.2 Coordination with Utility Providers 2 8 40
Task 2.3 Site Investigation 8 8 16 16
Task 2.4 Conflict Analysis and Mitigation 16 24 24
Task 2.5 Documentation and Reporting 4 16 16 40
Task 3.1 Review Existing Geotechnical Data 2 4 40 2 8 16 40 4 Task 3.2 Conduct Geotechnical Field Investigations 15
Task 3.3 Geotechnical Permitting 2 8 40 10 20 35 35 12 4 Task 3.4 Species Protection
Task 3.5 Environmental Impact Monitoring 4 10 16 50 40 4 Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 8 16 8 40 40 6 12 20 12 20 12 8 5 4 8 24 20 4 Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 16 40 80 64 40 40 4 4 8 8 2 8 16 40 20 4 Task 5.1 Project Understanding and Site Assessment 4 24 24 24 40 2 8 8 24 40 20 8 22 28 20 40 24 4 Task 5.2 Design Development 8 40 24 40 40 4 8 8 24 40 40 8 4 Task 5.3 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 16 40 24 40 40 8 80 80 80 160 80 8 Task 5.4 Permitting and Compliance 8 40 8 40 40 8 16 20 30 40 12 6 Task 5.5 Public Engagement and Stakeholder Coordination 8 24 8 4 8 8 24 8 40 80 40 80 32 16 8 Task 6.1 Design Analysis Report 8 16 16 6 8 15 15 10 3 2 8 8 24 80 Task 6.2 Review Technical Memorandum Quantity Estimates 8 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 6.3 Review Technical Specs and BOD 8 16 40 40 40 2 4 8 8 8 8 Task 6.4 Final 30% Plans and Specs 8 40 40 120 80 8 80 80 80 160 80 8 40 80 40 80 32 16 8 Task 7.1 Responses to Comments on 30% Plans 4 16 16 16 2 4 8 24 40 Task 7.2 Levee Engineering Analysis 16 16 24 40 80 40 49 Task 7.3 Quantity Take-offs and Cost Estimates 4 16 16 24 40 2 2 8 8 Task 7.4 Design Review Workshop 4 8 4 4 4 8 8 8 8
Task 7.5 60% Design Plans and Specs 40 120 64 180 320 360 6 10 60 100 30 4 8 80 80 80 160 80 8 8 Task 7.6 SWPPP Report 24 40 40 16
Task 8.1 Responses to Comments on 60% Plans 8 24 40 40 2 4 8 24 40 Task 8.2 Design Calculations and Reports 24 24 40 24 24 4 8 8 80 120 12 Task 8.3 90% PS&E 24 96 40 120 240 300 8 10 38 55 8 80 80 80 160 80 8 4 Task 8.4 Preliminary SWPPP 16 40 24
Task 8.5 Design Review Workshop 4 8 4 4 8 8 8 8
Task 8.6 Final Comment Responses 4 8 16 16 2 4 8 24 40
Task 8.7 100% PS&E 26 64 48 64 160 3 8 20 30 13 120 120 96 200 160 16 4 Task 8.8 Operations and Maintenance Guidance Manual 4 48 24 4 12 10 14 4 8 8 16 Task 8.9 Bidding Support 2 16 48 24 2 12 12 12 8 20 20 8 8 Task 8.10 Revised Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis 24 48 80 180 80 40 0 TOTAL 362 1,136 0 364 1,564 1,408 1,220 83 154 211 30 85 329 134 34 26 83 690 596 910 1,376 540 112 76 122 60 120 56 16 8 130 73 38

RESOURCE ALLOCATION MANPOWER ALLOCATION
Phase/Task CirclePoint Geosyntec Mark Thomas Belle Haven Community Development Fund Currie and Brown PIC/PM Deputy PM Sr.

Associate
Associate
Planner
Assistant
Planner
Graphics
Director
Project
Accountant
Senior
Principal
Sr. Geotech
Engineer/
Project
Manager
Sr. Staff
Professional
Project
Administrato
r
Senior
Designer
Survey
Division
Manager
Survey
Manager II
Project
Surveyor II Lead Survey Survey TechII
2 Person
Field Crew
Senior Proj
Coordinator
SUE 1
Person Crew Project Lead ProjectManager
Community
Worker
Community
Worker
Chief
Estimator
Lead
Structural
Estimator
Lead Civil
Estimator
Structural
Estimator
Civil
Estimator
Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Task 1 Project Management 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 47 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 0 8 10 10 10 0 0 Task 2 Utilities Coordination and Investigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 72 66 24 145 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 40 180 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 4 Basis of Design and Calculations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 28 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 Task 5 Preparation for the PS&E 62 108 60 120 56 16 8 8 28 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 120 200 200 4 8 8 12 12 Task 6 30-Percent Design Reviews and Technical Memos 8 12 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 24 24 Task 7 60-Percent Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 167 358 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 20 24 72 80 Task 8 90-Percent PS&E and 100-Percent PS&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 86 98 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 30 36 104 120 Task 1.1 Work Plan and Schedule 16 16 8
Task 1.2 Set-up and Maintain Project Files 4 10 5
Task 1.3 Invoicing
Task 1.4 Project Meetings 14 14 6 37 15 32 32 10 10 10
Task 1.5 Quality Management Plan
Task 1.6 Preparation of Preliminary Schedule
Task 2.1 Utility Research and Mapping 4 8 10 40
Task 2.2 Coordination with Utility Providers 0
Task 2.3 Site Investigation 2 64 56 24 105 120
Task 2.4 Conflict Analysis and Mitigation 0
Task 2.5 Documentation and Reporting 0
Task 3.1 Review Existing Geotechnical Data 4 6 30 5
Task 3.2 Conduct Geotechnical Field Investigations 15 34 150 5 Task 3.3 Geotechnical Permitting
Task 3.4 Species Protection
Task 3.5 Environmental Impact Monitoring
Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 4 20 30 2 4 4
Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 4 8 16
Task 5.1 Project Understanding and Site Assessment 22 28 20 40 24 4 20 30 Task 5.2 Design Development 4 8 16
Task 5.3 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 4 8 8 12 12 Task 5.4 Permitting and Compliance
Task 5.5 Public Engagement and Stakeholder Coordination 40 80 40 80 32 16 8 80 120 200 200 Task 6.1 Design Analysis Report
Task 6.2 Review Technical Memorandum Quantity Estimates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 24 24 Task 6.3 Review Technical Specs and BOD 8 12 20
Task 6.4 Final 30% Plans and Specs 40 80 40 80 32 16 8
Task 7.1 Responses to Comments on 30% Plans
Task 7.2 Levee Engineering Analysis 49 135 326
Task 7.3 Quantity Take-offs and Cost Estimates 8 20 24 72 80 Task 7.4 Design Review Workshop
Task 7.5 60% Design Plans and Specs 8 32 32 64
Task 7.6 SWPPP Report
Task 8.1 Responses to Comments on 60% Plans
Task 8.2 Design Calculations and Reports 12 50 60
Task 8.3 90% PS&E 4 8 20 24 8 20 24 72 80
Task 8.4 Preliminary SWPPP
Task 8.5 Design Review Workshop
Task 8.6 Final Comment Responses
Task 8.7 100% PS&E 4 28 18 4 10 12 32 40
Task 8.8 Operations and Maintenance Guidance Manual
Task 8.9 Bidding Support
Task 8.10 Revised Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis
TOTAL 76 122 60 120 56 16 8 130 408 748 30 88 6 72 66 24 145 120 0 0 128 168 200 208 38 80 90 212 236 74 39

RESOURCE ALLOCATION
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors 1 PHASE 1 411 days Fri 3/21/25 Fri 10/16/26 2 Task 1 Project Management 411 days Fri 3/21/25 Fri 10/16/26 3 1.0 Kick off meeting 1 day Fri 3/21/25 Fri 3/21/25 4 1.1 Project Design Work Plan 19 days Mon 3/24/25 Thu 4/17/25 3 5 1.2 Set-up an Maintain Project Files 410 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 10/16/26 3 6 1.3 Invoicing 371 days Tue 4/15/25 Tue 9/15/26 7 Monthly Invoices 371 days Tue 4/15/25 Tue 9/15/26 26 1.4 Progress Meetings 371 days Tue 4/22/25 Tue 9/22/26 27 Monthly Invoices 371 days Tue 4/22/25 Tue 9/22/26
46 1.4 One-on-One Meetings with City of
East Palo Alto
391 days Mon 4/7/25 Mon 10/5/26
47 Biweekly City One-on-Ones 391 days Mon 4/7/25 Mon 10/5/26 88 1.5 Quality Management Plan 30 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 5/2/25 3 89 1.6 Prepare Project Schedule 30 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 5/2/25 3 90 Task 2 Utilities Coordination and Investigation 65 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 6/20/25 91 2.1 Utility Research and Mapping 15 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 4/11/25 3 92 2.2 Coordination with Utility Providers 20 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 5/9/25 91 93 2.3 Site Investigation 40 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 5/16/25 3 94 2.4 Conflict Analysis and Mitigation 12 days Mon 5/19/25 Tue 6/3/25 93 95 2.5 Documentation and Reporting 13 days Wed 6/4/25 Fri 6/20/25 94 96 Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 135 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 9/26/25 97 3.1 Review Existing Geotechnical Data 15 days Mon 3/24/25 Fri 4/11/25 3 98 3.2 Conduct Geotechnical Field Investigations15 days Mon 9/1/25 Fri 9/19/25 97,103,100FS+10 days,101FS+10 days,102FS+10 days 99 3.3 Geotechnical Permitting 100 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 8/29/25 100 3.4.1 County Health Department 15 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 5/2/25 97 101 3.4.2 Federal Permits (ACOE, USFWS,NMFS) 90 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 8/15/25 97 102 3.4.3 State/Regional Permits 40 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 6/6/25 97 103 3.4.4 Ridgway's Rail Nesting Period
Moratorium (Feb.1-Aug. 31)
100 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 8/29/25 97
104 3.4 Species Protection 50 days Mon 4/14/25 Fri 6/20/25 103SS,100SS,99SS,101SS,102SS 105 3.5 Environmental Monitoring 20 days Mon 9/1/25 Fri 9/26/25 98SS 106 Task 4 Basis for Design and Calculations 75 days Mon 4/21/25 Fri 8/1/25 107 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 30 days Mon 4/21/25 Fri 5/30/25 3FS+20 days 108 4.2 Basis of Design Report 30 days Mon 6/23/25 Fri 8/1/25 95,107 109 Task 5 Preparation for the PS&E 96 days Fri 3/21/25 Fri 8/1/25 110 5.1 Project Understanding and Site Assessment 30 days Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/11/25 107 111 5.2 Design Development 30 days Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/11/25 107 112 5.3 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 30 days Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/11/25 107 113 5.4 Permitting and Compliance 30 days Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/11/25 107 114 Task 5.4 Permitting and Compliance 458 days Tue 5/6/25 Thu 2/4/27 115 5.4.0 Receive and Review CEQA Draft EIR 10 days Fri 8/1/25 Thu 8/14/25 116 5.4.0 Receive and Review CEQA Final EIR 10 days Mon 12/1/25 Fri 12/12/25 117 Task 5.4.1 Environmental Impact Report
Addendum (IF REQUIRED)
40 days Mon 2/2/26 Fri 3/27/26 147,116
118 Task 5.4.2 Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (IF REQUIRED)
458 days Tue 5/6/25 Thu 2/4/27
129 5.5 Public Outreach 332 days Mon 5/19/25 Tue 8/25/26 3FS+40 days 130 Outreach Meetings 332 days Mon 5/19/25 Tue 8/25/26
137 Task 6 30% Plans, Specifications, and
Estimates
35 days Mon 8/4/25 Fri 9/19/25
138 6.1 Design Analysis Report 15 days Mon 8/4/25 Fri 8/22/25 108 139 6.2 Review Technical Memo Quantities Estimate 15 days Mon 8/4/25 Fri 8/22/25 108 140 6.3 Review Technical Specs and BOD 15 days Mon 8/4/25 Fri 8/22/25 108 141 6.4 Final 30% Plans and Spec 20 days Mon 8/25/25 Fri 9/19/25 139 142 Task 7 60% Plans, Specifications, and
Estimates
95 days Mon 9/22/25 Fri 1/30/26
143 7.1 30% Response to Comments 15 days Mon 9/22/25 Fri 10/10/25 141 144 7.2 Levee Engineering Analysis 50 days Mon 9/22/25 Fri 11/28/25 98 145 7.3 Quantity Take-offs and Cost Estimates 25 days Mon 12/29/25 Fri 1/30/26 147FF 146 7.4 Design Review Workshops 10 days Mon 12/1/25 Fri 12/12/25 147FF-35 days 147 7.5 60% Plans, Specification and Cost Estimate 80 days Mon 10/13/25 Fri 1/30/26 143 148 7.6 SWPPP Report 25 days Mon 12/29/25 Fri 1/30/26 147FF 149 Task 8 90% and 100% PS&E 165 days Mon 3/2/26 Fri 10/16/26 150 8.1 60% Response to Comments 15 days Mon 3/2/26 Fri 3/20/26 147FS+20 days 151 8.2 Design Calculations and Reports 70 days Mon 3/23/26 Fri 6/26/26 150 152 8.3 90% PS&E 70 days Mon 3/23/26 Fri 6/26/26 150
153 8.4 Preliminary SWPPP 20 days Mon 3/23/26 Fri 4/17/26 150 154 8.5 Design Review Workshop 10 days Mon 5/11/26 Fri 5/22/26 152FS-35 days 155 8.6 Final Comment Responses 10 days Mon 7/20/26 Fri 7/31/26 152FS+15 days 156 8.7 100% PS&E 40 days Mon 6/29/26 Fri 8/21/26 152,154FF-20 days 157 8.8 Operations and Maintenance Guidance
Manual
60 days Mon 4/6/26 Fri 6/26/26 152FF
158 8.9 Bidding Support 40 days Mon 8/24/26 Fri 10/16/26 156 159 8.10 Revised Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis 40 days Mon 6/1/26 Fri 7/24/26 147 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 2, 2025 Qtr 3, 2025 Qtr 4, 2025 Qtr 1, 2026 Qtr 2, 2026 Qtr 3, 2026 Qtr 4, 2026 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress

Page 1 ends

Project: SAFER EPA Gantt_Sherw
Date: Thu 2/13/25

PROJECT SCHEDULE
75 SAN FRANCISCO (HQ)
2548 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415.677.7300

SANTA CRUZ
1525 Seabright Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
831.426.9054

NEW YORK
315 West 35th Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10001
212.972.1400

ATLANTA
675 Ponce De Leon Avenue NE, Suite
8500,
Atlanta, GA 30308
678.935.9507

LOS ANGELES
654 N Spring Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
323.920.0390
SONOMA
625 2nd Street, Suite 209
Petaluma, CA 94952
707.780.1742
NAPA
1665 2nd Street
Napa, CA 94559
707.780.1742

COSTA RICA
Ezcazú Village, Building #2, 2nd Floor,
Trejos Montealegre, Ezcazú, San José,
Costa Rica
www.sherwoodengineers.com
76 P
hase/TaskSherwood WRACOWICirclePointGeosyntecMarkThomasBelleHavenCDFCurrie&BrownTOTAL Task1ProjectManagement$122,440$15,549$48,910$7,434$18,955$0$4,040$8,100$225,428 Task2UtilitiesCoordinationand Investigation$70,180$0$-$0$0$159,368$0$0$229,548 Task3DataCollectionand Investigations$15,080$46,527$15,050$0$194,679$0$0$0$271,336 Task4BasisofDesignandCalculations$166,260$24,600$28,670$0$19,820$0$0$2,080$241,430 Task5PreparationforthePS&E$141,560$24,214$157,546$84,468$19,820$0$22,600$6,900$457,108 Task630-PercentDesignReviewsandTechnical Memos$31,580$11,292$49,574$0$10,060$0$0$5,740$108,246 Task760-PercentPlans, Specifications, andEstimates$402,720$42,392$158,394$0$152,725$0$0$25,240$781,471 Task890-PercentPS&Eand100-PercentPS&E$350,760$52,242$270,220$0$56,230$0$0$32,600$762,052 Task1.1WorkPlanandSchedule$13,640$0$3,694$0$0$0$1,480$0$18,814 Task1.2Set-upandMaintainProjectFiles$17,900$0$0$0$4,660$0$0$0$22,560 Task1.3 Invoicing$16,320$0$4,760$0$0$0$0$0$21,080
Task1.4ProjectMeetings$51,600$15,549$39,410$7,434$14,295$0$2,560$8,100$138,948 Task1.5QualityManagementPlan$16,800$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$16,800 Task1.6PreparationofPreliminarySchedule$6,180$0$1,046$0$0$0$0$0$7,226 Task2.1UtilityResearchandMapping$15,720$0$0$0$0$9,758$0$0$25,478 Task2.2CoordinationwithUtilityProviders$11,700$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$11,700 Task2.3Site Investigation$11,480$0$0$0$149,610$0$0$161,090 Task2.4ConflictAnalysisandMitigation$14,280$0$0$0$0$0$0$14,280 Task2.5DocumentationandReporting$17,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$17,000 Task3.1ReviewExistingGeotechnical Data$10,580$0$15,050$0$7,520$0$0$0$33,150 Task3.2ConductGeotechnical Field Investigations$0$0$0$0$187,159$0$0$0$187,159 Task3.3Geotechnical Permitting$4,500$23,254$0$0$0$0$0$0$27,754 Task3.4SpeciesProtection$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Task3.5Environmental ImpactMonitoring$0$23,273$0$0$0$0$0$0$23,273 Task4.1DesignCriteriaMemorandum$24,920$19,264$10,760$0$13,020$0$0$2,080$70,044 Task4.2BasisofDesignReport$63,280$5,336$17,910$0$6,800$0$0$0$93,326 Task4.3SanFranciscoBayand InteriorDrainageAnalysis$78,060$0$78,060 Task5.1ProjectUnderstandingandSiteAssessment$26,240$20,058$26,276$13,020$0$0$85,594 Task5.2DesignDevelopment$35,240$24,236$6,800$0$0$66,276 Task5.3Plans, Specifications, andEstimates$37,880$101,264$0$6,900$146,044 Task5.4PermittingandCompliance$31,640$24,214$0$58,192$0$0$114,046 Task5.5PublicEngagementandStakeholderCoordination$10,560$11,988$22,600$0$45,148 Task6.1DesignAnalysisReport$6,060$11,292$15,746$0$0$0$0$0$33,098 Task6.2ReviewTechnical MemorandumQuantityEstimates$6,060$0$0$0$0$0$0$5,740$11,800 Task6.3ReviewTechnical SpecsandBOD$10,060$0$6,726$0$10,060$0$0$0$26,846 Task6.4Final 30%PlansandSpecs$9,400$0$27,102$0$0$0$0$0$36,502 Task7.1ResponsestoCommentson30%Plans$29,840$0$14,438$0$0$0$0$0$44,278 Task7.2LeveeEngineeringAnalysis$69,880$0$21,400$0$119,845$0$0$0$211,125 Task7.3QuantityTake-offsandCostEstimates$21,200$4,200$0$0$0$0$0$25,240$50,640 Task7.4DesignReviewWorkshop$5,060$0$8,852$0$0$0$0$0$13,912 Task7.560%DesignPlansandSpecs$254,500$38,192$113,704$0$32,880$0$0$439,276 Task7.6SWPPPReport$22,240$0$0$0$0$0$0$22,240
Task8.1ResponsestoCommentson60%Plans$19,660$0$14,438$0$0$0$0$0$34,098 Task8.2DesignCalculationsandReports$24,300$0$38,980$0$30,210$0$0$0$93,490 Task8.390%PS&E$100,840$22,346$101,264$0$13,120$0$0$18,840$256,410 Task8.4PreliminarySWPPP$13,060$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$13,060
Task8.5DesignReviewWorkshop$4,260$0$8,852$0$0$0$0$0$13,112 Task8.6Final CommentResponses$10,160$0$14,438$0$0$0$0$24,598 Task8.7100%PS&E$57,340$12,284$71,844$0$12,900$0$0$13,760$168,128 Task8.8OperationsandMaintenanceGuidanceManual $14,820$8,854$7,052$0$0$0$0$0$30,726 Task8.9BiddingSupport$18,540$8,758$13,352$0$0$0$0$40,650 Task8.10RevisedBenefit-CostRatioAnalysis$87,780$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$87,780 TOTAL$1,300,580$216,816$728,364$91,902$472,289$159,368$26,640$80,660$3,076,619 SAFER Bay East Palo Alto - Revised Fee Proposal v2
Sherwood Design Engineers
March 26, 2025
77 U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Region 9
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, California 94607
www.fema.gov
September 1, 2022
Mark S. Ghilarducci, Director
Governor’s Authorized Representative
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Reference: Application Approval, HMGP DR-4344-541-93R
City of East Palo Alto
SAFER Bay Mitigation Project, Phase 1
FIPS Code: 081-20956, Supplement 319
Dear Mark Ghilarducci:

We approve and issue Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds for City of East Palo Alto, HMGP DR-4344-541-93R, SAFER Bay Mitigation Project, Phase 1.

The total project cost for Phase 1 is $4,649,240. As shown in the enclosed Obligation Report - Supplement 319, we are obligating $3,486,930 for the 75 percent Federal share; the 25 percent nonFederal share is $1,162,310. We are obligating $156,323 for the 100% Federal share Subrecipient Management Costs. These funds are available in SmartLink for immediate and eligible disbursements. The following is a summary of the approved funding:

Project Phase: Federal Share: Non-Federal Share: Total Project Cost:

Phase 1,
Supplement 319
$3,486,930.00 $1,162,310.00 $4,649,240.00
Management Cost $156,323.00 $0.00 $156,323.00
This HMGP project approval and obligation of funds are subject to the following conditions:

1. Scope of Work (SOW) – The City of East Palo Alto is to construct a 6,800 feet of new coastal flood protection levees and 5,300 feet of transitional ecotone habitat in East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. To further engineering designs, the City of East Palo Alto is to conduct subsurface exploration at 15 sites along the proposed levee alignment. Geotechnical exploratory boring will occur at seven sites and cone penetration testing (CPT) will occur at eight sites. The borings will be drilled 60-70 feet deep, using truck-mounted drill rigs and CPT rigs for drivable locations and track-mounted rigs for locations that are more difficult to access. Drill cuttings and fluids will be contained in drums and transported to a nearby temporary storage area. All work will be conducted outside of special status species windows and when water levels are at their lowest in the summer.
78 Mr. Ghilarducci
September 1, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

The following Phase 1 activities and deliverables are expected:

Phase 1 Activity Estimated Timeline
Project Description Development 24 Months
Engineering and Design 24 Month
Regulatory Permitting 24 Months
Please provide the above-referenced deliverables once completed to the assigned FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistant (HMA) Specialist for review and inclusion within the official grant file.

2. Phase 1 Completion Date – The work schedule included with the project application indicates that Phase 1 will take 24 months to complete. Please inform the sub-recipient that work completed after the disaster period of performance (POP) is not eligible for federal funding, and that federal funds may be de-obligated for work completed outside the POP when there is no approved time extension.

3. Phase 2 Approval – Please inform the sub-recipient that Phase 2 approval is contingent on programmatic review and Environmental and Historical Preservation (EHP) approval. Phase 2 activities may not commence until written approval has been received. Any Phase 2 activities completed prior to approval may be de-obligated. In addition, if Phase 2 is unapproved, federal funds may be de-obligated for previously completed Phase 1 activities.

4. Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) – Phase 1 is determined that the project is covered by Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) N8 for "Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas." CATEX N8 Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas. Federal assistance for new construction and associated site preparation activities in undisturbed or undeveloped areas when the activities comprise less than one acre and follow best management practices to control noise, water, and air pollution. This category does not apply to new construction in undisturbed or undeveloped floodplains, wetlands, or seaward of the limit of moderate wave action (or V zone when the limit of moderate wave action has not been identified). This CATEX covers the range of activities typically necessary for new construction, including field work (e.g., borings, site inspection) and temporary staging and use of construction equipment and vehicles. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal assistance including funding. Please reference the enclosed REC for further information.

5. Standard Conditions – This project approval is subject to the enclosed Standard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Conditions, amended August 2018. Please note that federal funds may be de-obligated for work that does not comply with these conditions.

If you have any questions or need further assistance please contact Aaron Lim, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Specialist, by email [email protected], or phone (510) 627-7036. 79 Mr. Ghilarducci
September 1, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

Sincerely,
Kathryn Lipiecki
Director, Mitigation Division
FEMA Region 9
Enclosures (4):

Obligation Report - Supplement 319
Project Management Report
Record of Environmental Consideration (REC)
Standard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) Conditions
cc: Jennifer Hogan, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Jacy Hyde, Ph.D., Branch Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Robert McCord, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, FEMA Region 9 for
80 Obligation

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY HMGP-OB-01
State Recipient
Disaster
No
Supplemental
No
Action
No
State
Application ID
Amendment
No
FEMA
Project No
4344 - 0 541 1 319 CA Statewide
Subrecipient: East Palo Alto Project Title : East Palo Alto, SAFER Bay Project Subrecipient FIPS Code: 081-20956
93 R
9:32 AM
8/30/2022
FY
Subrecipient Management
Project Amount Cost Amount Total Obligation IFMIS Date IFMIS Status $3,486,930.00 $156,323.00 $3,643,253.00 08/29/2022 Accept 2022 Comments
Comment: Approved funding for HMGP 4344-541-93R East Palo Alto-SAFER Bay Project-$3,486,930.00 Date: 08/29/2022 User Id: SSCOTT39

STEVEN SCOTT

AARON LIM
Authorization
Preparer Name:

HMO Authorization Name:

Preparation Date: 08/29/2022
HMO Authorization Date: 08/29/2022
Total Amount
Previously Allocated
Total Amount
Previously Obligated
Total Amount
Pending Obligation
Total Amount Available
for New Obligation
$0.00 $0.00 $3,486,930.00 $3,486,930.00

Page 1 of 1 ends

FEMA
Project Number
Amendment State Recipient
Number
Disaster App ID
Number
93 -R
East Palo Alto
081-20956
Subrecipient:

FIPS Code: Project Title : East Palo Alto, SAFER Bay Project 4344 0 541 CA Statewide
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY HMGP-AP-01

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
08/30/2022
9:34 AM
Project Management Report
Approved Amounts
Total Approved
Net Eligible
Total Approved
Non-Fed Share Amount
Federal
Share Percent
Non-Federal
Share Percent
Total Approved
Federal Share Amount
$4,649,240.00 75.000000000 $3,486,930.00 25.00000000 $1,162,310.00 FY
Allocations
Allocation
Number
IFMIS
Status
Proj Alloc Amount
Fed Share
IFMIS
Date
Submission
Date

ES/DFSC
Support Req
ID

ES/DFSC
Amend Nr
Total
Alloc Amount
Subrecipient
Management Cost
133 A 08/29/2022 08/29/2022 2022 4781432 21 $3,486,930.00 $156,323.00 $3,929,312.47 Total $3,486,930.00 $156,323.00 $3,929,312.47
Obligations
Action
Nr
IFMIS
Status
IFMIS
Date
SFS
Amend
Number
Submission
Date FY
SFS
Support
Req ID
Project Obligated
Amt - Fed Share
Total Obligated
Amount
Subrecipient
Management Cost
Suppl
Nr
1 A 08/29/202208/29/2022 2022 7802192 0 319 $3,486,930.00 $156,323.00 $3,643,253.00 Total $3,486,930.00 $156,323.00 $3,643,253.00
Work Schedule Status
Amend # Description Time Frame Due Date Revised Date Completion Date 0 Project Management (phase 1) 36 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Environmental Permits (phase 1) 17 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Public Outreach (phase 1) 17 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Engineering and Design (phase 1) 17 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Property Acquisition (phase 2) 2 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Construction (phase 2) 17 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 0 Close-out (phase 2) 1 Month 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 Approved
Project Title :

Recipient Place Code :

Recipient Place Name :

Recipient County Code :

Recipient County Name :

Recipient :

Project Closeout Date :
81 San Mateo
Statewide
East Palo Alto
0 00/00/0000
East Palo Alto, SAFER Bay Project
Subrecipient Place Code :

Subrecipient Place Name :

Subrecipient County Code :

Subrecipient County Name :

Subrecipient :
20956
East Palo Alto
San Mateo
81 East Palo Alto
Approval Status: Approved
Mitigation Project Description
Amendment Status :

Page 1 of 1 ends

04/12/2022 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
19:00:44

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

HMGP-4344-0093-CA (4344-541-93) (1)
SAFER Bay (Phase 1)
Non Compliant Flag:

Level:

EA Draft Date: EA Final Date:

EA Public Notice Date: EA Fonsi
EIS Notice of Intent EIS ROD Date:

No
CATEX
Comment The City of East Palo Alto (Subapplicant) proposes to construct the SAFER Bay Project, which would consist of 6,800 feet of new coastal flood protection levees and 5,300 feet of transitional ecotone habitat in East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. To further engineering designs, the City proposes to conduct subsurface exploration at 15 sites along the proposed levee alignment. Geotechnical exploratory boring would occur at seven sites and cone penetration testing (CPT) would occur at eight sites. The borings would be drilled 60-70 feet deep, using truckmounted drill rigs and CPT rigs for drivable locations and track-mounted
rigs for locations that are more difficult to access. Drill cuttings and fluids would be contained in drums and transported to a nearby temporary storage area. All work would be conducted outside of special status species windows and when water levels are at their lowest in the summer. The approximate midpoint of the project area is latitude/longitude: 37.47725, -122.128861.

FEMA has determined that the project is covered by Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) N8 for "Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas." CATEX N8 Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas. Federal assistance for new construction and associated site preparation activities in undisturbed or undeveloped areas when the activities comprise less than one acre and follow best management practices to control noise, water, and air pollution. This category does not apply to new construction in undisturbed or undeveloped floodplains, wetlands, or seaward of the limit of moderate wave action (or V zone when the limit of moderate wave action has not been identified). This CATEX covers the range of activities typically necessary for new construction, including field work (e.g. borings, site inspection) and temporary staging and use of construction equipment and vehicles.
- joneal4 - 03/08/2022 23:28:23 GMT

NEPA DETERMINATION
Catex Category Code Description Selected
(*n8) Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas. Federal assistance for new construction and associated site preparation activities in undisturbed or undeveloped areas when the activities comprise less than one acre and follow best management practices to control noise, water, and air pollution. This category does not apply to new construction in undisturbed or undeveloped floodplains, wetlands, or seaward of the limit of moderate wave action (or V zone when the limit of moderate wave action has not been identified). This CATEX covers the range of activities typically necessary for new construction, including field work (e.g. borings, site inspection) and temporary staging and use of construction equipment and vehicles.
*n8 Yes

CATEX CATEGORIES
Extraordinary Circumstance Code Description Selected ?
No Extraordinary Circumstances were selected

EXTRAORDINARY
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 1 of 5 83 04/12/2022 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
19:00:44

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

HMGP-4344-0093-CA (4344-541-93) (1)
SAFER Bay (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
Clean Air Act (CAA) Project is located in a non-attainment area The project is located in San Mateo County that is within a nonattainment area for PM 2.5 (2006)
and 8 hr Ozone (2008, 2015) according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA):
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anay
o_ca.html updated February 28, 2022. Based on
the scope of work, the potential emissions from
project activities are clearly below de minimis
thresholds for the General Conformity Rule.

Thus, the project is exempt from a conformity
determination. See condition. - joneal4 -
03/08/2022 23:36:19 GMT
Completed
Coordination required with applicable state
administering agency - Review concluded
Completed
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA)
Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit
or otherwise protected area - Review
concluded
Completed
Clean Water Act (CWA) Project would not affect any water of the U.S. - Review concluded
Per the attached September 1, 2020 letter from
the US Army Corps San Francisco District to the
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(File Number 2019-00346S) and supporting
documentation, the Corps indicated that there
are "...no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located
within the proposed project sites; therefore, the
proposed project will not result in the placement
of fill materials within waters or wetlands subject
to Corps regulation. No DA permit would be
required." - joneal4 - 03/08/2022 23:29:44 GMT
Completed
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
Project is located in a coastal zone area
and/or affects the coastal zone
The Undertaking occurs within a coastal zone,
and Geotechnical boring activities will not have a
reasonably foreseeable effect on a coastal use
or resource. See Condition. - joneal4 -
03/08/2022 23:35:19 GMT
Completed
State administering agency does not require
consistency review - Review concluded
Completed
Executive Order 11988 -
Floodplains
Located in floodplain or effects on
floodplain/flood levels
The temporary boring is located within an AE, a
Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain,
base floodplain), per Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panel 06081C0307F, dated 04/05/2019.

The proposed action is not likely to result in any
potential direct impacts that would adversely
affect the natural values and function of
floodplains. - joneal4 - 03/23/2022 18:12:30 GMT
Completed

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW / EXECUTIVE ORDER
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 2 of 5 84 04/12/2022 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
19:00:44

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

HMGP-4344-0093-CA (4344-541-93) (1)
SAFER Bay (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
No adverse effect on floodplain and not
adversely affected by the floodplain - Review
concluded
Completed
Executive Order 11990 -
Wetlands
Located in wetlands or effects on wetlands Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapper viewed on 03/01/2022, the project
adjacent to a designated wetland. The proposed
action is not likely to result in any potential direct
impacts that will adversely affect the natural
values and function of wetlands. Per the
September 1, 2020 letter from the US Army
Corps San Francisco District to the San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (File
Number 2019-00346S) and supporting
documentation, the Corps indicated that there
are "...no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located
within the proposed project sites; therefore, the
proposed project will not result in the placement
of fill materials within waters or wetlands subject
to Corps regulation. No DA permit would be
required." - joneal4 - 03/23/2022 18:10:12 GMT
Completed
Possible adverse effect associated with
constructing in or near wetland
Completed
Review completed as part of floodplain
review - Review concluded
Completed
Executive Order 12898 -
Environmental Justice for Low
Income and Minority Populations
Low income or minority population in or near
project area
According to the Environmental Protection
Agency's Environmental Justice Screening and
Mapping Tool (Version 2.0), there are minority or
low-income populations within 1 mile of the
project area. However, this project would not
result in disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on low income or minority populations. -
joneal4 - 03/23/2022 18:10:44 GMT
Completed
No disproportionately high and adverse
impact on low income or minority population -
Review concluded
Completed
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or
indirectly by the federal action
Comment: Informal Consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was
concluded on 2/09/2022 (USFWS). Per the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter of
concurrence, it was determined the proposed
actions May Affect but are Not Likely to
Adversely Affect the Salt marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris), Ridgway's rail
(Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), California least tern
(Sterna antillarum browni) and Western snowy
plover (Charadrius nivosus
Completed
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 3 of 5 85 04/12/2022 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
19:00:44

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

HMGP-4344-0093-CA (4344-541-93) (1)
SAFER Bay (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
nivosus) and have No Effect on Western Snowy
Plover designated critical habitat. See Condition
and Attachments. - joneal4 - 04/07/2022
18:52:37 GMT
May affect, but not likely to adversely affect
species or designated critical habitat (FEMA
determination/USFWS/NMFS concurrence
attached) - Review concluded
Completed
Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA)
Project does not affect designated prime or
unique farmland - Review concluded
The project is located in Urban or Built-up Land
and Other Land categories according to the
California Important Farmland Finder. As a
result, the project would not result in the
conversion of, or other adverse impacts to, prime
or unique farmland. - joneal4 - 03/08/2022
23:36:47 GMT
Completed
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA)
Project does not affect, control, or modify a
waterway/body of water - Review concluded
Completed
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Project located within a flyway zone The project is in the Pacific Flyway; however, based on the activities associated with this
scope of work, there is (likely) no potential for
take of migratory birds. - joneal4 - 03/08/2022
23:37:02 GMT
Completed
Project does not have potential to take
migratory birds - Review concluded
Completed
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management
Act (MSA)
Project not located in or near Essential Fish
Habitat - Review concluded
Completed
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
Applicable executed Programmatic
Agreement. Activity meets Programmatic
Allowance (enter date and # in comments) -
Review concluded
The Undertaking was reviewed by Allison Miller
Simonds, who meets the applicable Secretary of
the Interior Professional Qualifications in
accordance with Stipulation I.B.1.a of the
Programmatic Agreement among the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES) signed October 30, 2019. The Undertaking
complies with Second Tier Programmatic
Allowance II.A.5.b (geotechnical coring
investigations within previously disturbed soils)
(Appendix B) of the Agreement. Thus, the
Undertaking does not require SHPO review or
notification per Stipulation II.A.1 of the
Agreement. - amillers - 03/08/2022 18:16:41
GMT
Completed
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 4 of 5 86 04/12/2022 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
19:00:44

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

HMGP-4344-0093-CA (4344-541-93) (1)
SAFER Bay (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(WSR)
Project is not along and does not affect Wild
and Scenic River - Review concluded
According to the National Wild and Scenic River
System database, the closest National Wild and
Scenic River is Tuolumne and Merced and is
more than 100 miles east of the project area. -
joneal4 - 03/08/2022 23:37:44 GMT
Completed
Special Conditions required on implementation of Projects:

Executive Order 11990 - Wetlands
Best Management Practices The Subapplicant shall ensure that best management practices are implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation to surrounding, nearby or adjacent wetlands. This includes equipment storage and staging of construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation to ensure that wetlands are not adversely impacted per the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The Subapplicant is responsible for complying with all applicable subparts of the Clean Air Act. Failure to comply with this condition may jeopardize federal assistance, including funding. Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Any changes to the scope of work must be resubmitted to FEMA and the California Coastal Commission prior to initiation of any work. In compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Sub-Grantee is responsible for all necessary coordination with the Commission and obtaining any necessary coastal permitting and Federal Consistency Certification. They are to implement any conditions associated with the Commission's approval. Noncompliance with these requirements may jeopardize federal funding.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Subrecipient is responsible for implementing applicable Best Management Practices, Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Conservation Measures described per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter dated 2/09/2022 and contained in the attached documentation.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Subrecipient is responsible for ensuring that the proposed action is implemented in a manner that complies with federal and state laws concerning the MBTA and any related permitting
Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
Standard Conditions:

Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.

This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding.

If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA.

CONDITIONS
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 5 of 5 87 1 Standard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Conditions
FEMA Region IX, August, 2018
The following list applies to Recipients and Subrecipients accepting HMGP funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):

1. Applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations. The Recipient/Subrecipient must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, regardless of whether they are on this list or other project documents. DHS financial assistance Recipients and Subrecipients are required to follow the provisions of the State HMGP Administrative Plan, applicable Hazard Mitigation Assistance Uniform Guidance, and Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, adopted by DHS in 2 CFR 3002.

2. Financial Management Systems. The Recipient and Subrecipient must maintain financial management systems to account for and track funds, as referenced in 2 CFR 200.302.

3. Match or Cost Share. Non-federal match or cost share must comply with 2 CFR 200.306, the scope of work (SOW), and any agreements among the Subrecipient, the Recipient, and FEMA.

4. Budget Changes. Unanticipated adjustments are permitted within the approved total cost. However, if costs exceed the federal share, the Subrecipient must notify the Governor’s Authorized Representative (GAR) of overruns before implementation. The GAR shall submit a written request for approval to FEMA Region IX. The subaward must continue to meet HMGP requirements, including cost effectiveness and cost share. Refer to 2 CFR 200.308 for additional information.

5. Real Property and Land. The acquisition, use, and disposition must comply with 2 CFR 200.311.

6. Equipment. The acquisition, use, and disposition must comply with 2 CFR 200.313.

7. Supplies. Upon project completion, FEMA must be compensated for unused supplies, exceeding $5,000 (fair market value), and not needed for other federal programs. Refer to 2 CFR 200.314.

8. Procurement. Procurement procedures must be in conformance with 2 CFR 200.318-320.

9. Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance. The Recipient and Subrecipient must submit quarterly progress reports, as referenced in the 2 CFR 200.328 and State HMGP Administrative Plan.

10. Records Retention. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.333, financial/ programmatic records related to expenditures must be maintained at least 3 years after the date of Recipient’s final expenditure report.

11. Enforcement and Termination. If the Recipient or Subrecipient fails to comply with the award or subaward terms, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, the State HMGP Administrative Plan, subpplication, a notice of award, an assurance, or elsewhere, FEMA may take one or more of the actions outlined in 2 CFR 200.338, including termination or partial termination of the award or subaward outlined in 2 CFR 200.339.

12. Allowable Costs. Funds are to be used for allowable costs in compliance with 2 CFR 200.403, the approved SOW, and any agreements among the Subrecipient, Recipient, and FEMA. 88 2

13. Non-Federal Audit. The Recipient and Subrecipient are responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984, in compliance with 2 CFR 200.501.

14. Debarred and Suspended Parties. Recipients and Subrecipients are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 CFR 180. These regulations restrict federal financial assistance awards, subawards, and contracts with parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in the federal assistance programs or activities.

15. Equipment Rates. Rates claimed for use of Subrecipient-owned equipment in excess of the FEMAapproved rates must be approved under State guidelines issued by the State Comptroller's Office or must be certified by the Recipient to include only those costs attributable to equipment usage less any fixed overhead and/or profit.

16. Duplication of Funding between Public Assistance (PA) and HMGP. Funding for PA Section 406 and HMGP Section 404 are permitted on the same facility/location, but the activities identified under each program must be distinct with separately accounted funds. At closeout, FEMA may adjust the funding to ensure the Subrecipient was reimbursed for eligible work from only one funding source.

17. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources. In compliance with 2 CFR 800, if a potential historic property or cultural resource is discovered during construction, the Subrecipient must cease work in the area and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the discovered property/resource. During construction, the Subrecipient will monitor ground disturbance activity, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease work in that area, and notify the Recipient and FEMA. Construction in the area may resume with FEMA’s written approval after FEMA’s consultation, if applicable, with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

18. NEPA and Changes to the Scope of Work (SOW). To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other Laws and Executive Orders, any change to the approved SOW shall be re-evaluated before implementation. Construction associated with a SOW change, prior to FEMA approval, may be ineligible for funding. Acceptance of federal funding requires environmental permits and clearances in compliance with all appropriate federal, state and local laws, and failure to comply may jeopardize funding.

Within their authority, the Recipient and Subrecipient must use of all practicable means, consistent with other essential policies, to create and maintain productive harmony for people and nature, and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans. \\R9li8a1\mitdata$\05. HMA Grants Management\02. HMGP\HMGP Standard Conditions\Standard HMGP Conditions, August 2018.docx 89 CONSENT ITEM 3.4

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Jessica Y Caballero, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Monthly Cash Treasury Report for February 2025 Recommendation
Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of February 2025.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No. 4: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Background
Pursuant to Section 53646 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Treasurer may submit a quarterly report to the City Council regarding the funds and investments of the City. Further, City Investment Policy Section XVIII requires monthly reporting of investment transactions, as specified. Because the City participates in State and County investments pools and does not independently broker or engage outside investment advisors to transact investments, the monthly reporting provides a snapshot of overall cash receipts, transfers, and disbursements.

Analysis
The Monthly Cash Treasury Report (“Report”) covers cash and investments of the City in the four cash and investment accounts: Wells Fargo Bank, San Mateo County Pool, California State Local Agency Investment Fund, and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). The Report does not include petty cash, or the California State Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) bond proceeds held by a trustee in the name of the City. For investment purposes, City 90 CONSENT ITEM 3.4
cash is pooled, except for bond proceeds held by a trustee. The City does not have, nor is it legally required to have, separate bank accounts for each individual fund. However, all cash is segregated in the City’s accounting records. Monthly cash transactions for the monthly period ending February 28, 2025, are as follows:

The Wells Fargo cash balance reflects the book value balance (i.e., total outstanding checks not cashed are deducted from the account balance). The month-to-date cash and investment balance decreased by approximately $0.8M compared to the balance as of January 31, 2025.

February receipts, a total of approximately $3.0M, consist of HDL business license administration ($1.3M), other tax distributions ($0.2M), Veolia water vendor ($0.2M), Four Seasons Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax ($0.2M), Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation and Highway Users Tax ($0.1M), and other various receipts.

February disbursements, a total of approximately $4.2M, primarily consist of Payroll costs ($1.2M), Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for University Avenue and Highway 101 pedestrian overcrossing ($0.1M), Kaiser Foundation Health Plan ($0.1M), Raimi + Associates Inc. for Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan ($0.1M), Veolia water for water meter labor ($0.1M) and other recurring operating expenditures.

The table below reflects recent treasury yield comparisons up to five-year notes since that is the maximum maturity the City may invest1:

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) average monthly effective yields were 4.333% in February compared to 4.366% in January 2025. San Mateo County monthly gross earnings for February were 3.900% compared to 4.139% in January 2025. The estimated County Pool earnings for FY 24-25 are at 3.85%. As of February 2025, the current annualized yield for California Asset Management Program (CAMP) is 4.50% compared to 4.55% in January 2025.

Staff believes the City has investment liquidity and anticipated revenues to meet the City’s anticipated expenditure requirements for the ensuing six months. The following table shows a breakdown of cash and investment balance by fund type.
1 Daily US Treasury Yield Curve. Treasury.gov
Account Beginning
Balance Receipts Disbursements Interest Allocation
Inter-Account
Transfers Ending Balance
Wells Fargo Bank 5,903,679.44 3,001,512.78 (4,205,284.03) - (2,000,000.00) 2,699,908.19 LAIF 10,338,696.40 - - - - 10,338,696.40
San Mateo County Pool 32,522,279.43 18,285.71 - - - 32,540,565.14 CAMP 102,462,558.77 - - 358,869.38 2,000,000.00 104,821,428.15 Total 151,227,214.04 3,019,798.49 (4,205,284.03) 358,869.38 - 150,400,597.88 Feb-25 Jan-25 Feb-24
6-Month Treasury Bill 4.14 4.16 5.11
2-Year Treasury Note 3.99 4.22 4.64
5-Year Treasury Note 4.03 4.36 4.26
91 CONSENT ITEM 3.4
The deposit market value totals $151,979,084 including an unrealized loss2 of $28,242, reflecting treasury yields during the calendar year. All except for the General Fund balance is restricted by either City Council or external parties for specific purposes. Unrestricted cash and investment balance under General Fund ($45,258,170) may be used at Council discretion.

Fiscal Impact
None. This report is informational.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.
2 Investment Fair Market Value (FMV) factor is provided on a quarterly basis. Thus, as of December 31, 2024, FMV factor is used to calculate Unrealized Gain on Investments.

Deposit Value Market Value
General Fund (Inc. Petty cash of $10,800) $ 45,258,170 $ 45,258,170 General Sub-Funds (Commited/Restricted) $ 18,079,494 $ 18,079,494 City Funds Restricted and Committed $ 86,353,170 $ 86,353,170 Successor Agency Trust $ 2,316,493 $ 2,316,493
Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Investment Pools $ - $ (28,242) $ 152,007,327 $ 151,979,084
Summary February 28, 2025
92 CONSENT ITEM 3.5

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation
Adopt April 1, 2025, City Council Meeting Minutes.

Attachments

1. April 1, 2025, City Council Meeting Minutes.
93 EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
Tuesday, April 1, 2025, 6:30 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The City Council meeting was called to order by Vice Mayor Dinan at 6:49 PM.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Martha Barragan Mayor Absent
Mark Dinan Vice Mayor Present
Carlos Romero Councilmember Present
Ruben Abrica Councilmember Present
Webster Lincoln Councilmember Remote

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Vice Mayor Dinan, at the request of Staff, proposed to move item 5. Public Comment, to be heard after the approval of the consent calendar.

A motion to approve the agenda with those amendments was made by Councilmember Abrica, seconded by Councilmember Romero, and passed unanimously with Mayor Barragan being absent.

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 City Council Meeting Minutes
Vice Mayor Dinan provided a comment on the March 18, 2025 minutes, clarifying that he meant to say that he had attended a housing program instead of starting it.

A motion to approve the consent calendar with those changes was made by Councilmember Abrica, seconded by Vice Mayor Dinan, and passed unanimously with Mayor Barragan being absent.

4. CLOSED SESSION

3.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8):
94 REAL PROPERTY: 2535 Pulgas Avenue, East Palo Alto CA; AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager, John D. Lê, City Attorney;
UNDER NEGOTIATION: price and terms.

3.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)): (One potential matter.)

City Attorney, John D. Lê, confirmed that there was no reportable action, but that direction was given to staff while in closed session for both items 3.1 and 3.2.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
The following speakers provided public comments:
- Forrest Williams
- Nicole Stewart Crooks
- Filiberto Zaragoza
- Kenia Najar
- Gail Dixon
- Edwin Magana Lopez
- Adrienne Bryant
- Kevin
- Vanessa Smith
- Laura Rubio
- Jefferey Jordan
- Isaac Stevenson
- Tiambe
- Bernice Turner

6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. POLICY AND ACTION

9.1 Measure O & L: Anti-Displacement Services and Transition to Measure JJ
Rent Stabilization Program Administrator, Natasha Raiburn, provided a presentation on item 9.1 Measure O & L: Anti-Displacement Services and 95 Transition to Measure JJ. La Trice Taylor, from Samaritan House, Claudia Nava from Nuestra Casa and Kenia Najar from YUCA provided presentations regarding item 9.1.

Staff and the organization representatives answered questions posed by the Council.

The following speakers provided public comments:
- Francisca Guzman
- Tiambe
- Bernice Turner
- Gail Dixon
- Elizabeth Jackson
- Ofelia Bello
- Adrienne Bryant
- Fili Zaragoza
- Lois Willias
- Alexia Gutierrez
- Xenia Hernandez
- Cristal

9.2 University and Bay at Four Corners Preliminary Review: MixedUse Project Consultant from Good City, Chris Dacumos, provided a presentation on item

9.2 University and Bay at Four Corners Preliminary Review: Mixed-Use Project. Mike Kramer, Managing Director, Sand Hill Property Company also provided a presentation on item 9.2.

The following speakers provided public comments:
- Aurora Perez
- Oliver Santiago
- Gail Dixon
- Oleta Proctor
- Sharifa Wilson
- Ofelia Bello

9.3 University and Bay at Four Corners Preliminary Review:

Townhomes Project
Consultant from Good City, Chris Dacumos, provided a presentation on item 9.3 University and Bay at Four Corners Preliminary Review:
96 Townhomes Project. Mike Kramer, Managing Director, Sand Hill Property Company also provided a presentation on item 9.3.

The following speakers provided public comments:
- Adrienne Bryant
- Gail Dixon

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

11. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to extend the meeting beyond 12:00 am was made by Councilmember Romero and seconded by Vice Mayor Dinan.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:26 AM.
97 CONSENT ITEM 3.6

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Jon Johnston Proclamation
Recommendation
Present the proclamation.

Attachments

1. Proclamation
98 PROCLAMATION HONORING

FIRE MARSHAL JON JOHNSTON
WHEREAS, Jon Johnston began his distinguished career with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District in July 2000, bringing with him a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Pepperdine University, experience in firefighting and community recreation, and a deep commitment to public education and fire prevention; and WHEREAS, Jon’s early efforts included completing the District’s Bars on Windows safety program and expanding public education outreach as a Fire Protection Specialist, later serving as Fire Inspector/Investigator and rising to the role of Fire Marshal in 2014; and
WHEREAS, during his 25 years of service—10 of them as Fire Marshal—Jon built a prevention-focused culture that prioritized community education, home hardening, and fire mitigation, always guided by the belief that "Predictable is preventable"; and
WHEREAS, Jon’s leadership directly contributed to reducing fire incidents in the Menlo Park Fire District to less than 2% annually, and he brought innovative tools like UAS (drones) to assist with major wildfire response and community recovery in disasters such as the Tubbs, Carr, and Camp Fires; and WHEREAS, Jon partnered with the East Palo Alto Police Department to carry out the largest illegal fireworks seizure in city history—resulting in a 50% reduction in fireworks-related incidents—and supported safety initiatives that protected thousands of residents during the Woodland Park property abandonment; and WHEREAS, his commitment to the East Palo Alto community extended to supporting the City’s Water Master Plan, ensuring the successful completion of multiple housing projects and the WeHOPE shelter, and helping launch impactful fire prevention programming and emergency preparedness campaigns; and WHEREAS, his volunteerism has left a lasting mark, including over two decades organizing the Menlo Park Fire Pancake Breakfast, which raised over $250,000 to benefit the Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation, and his service with the Kiwanis Club and as Key Club advisor at Menlo-Atherton High School.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto does hereby recognize and honor Fire Marshal Jon Johnston for his 25 years of outstanding service, dedication to fire prevention, and unwavering commitment to community safety, engagement, and education.

Dated: April 1, 2025
Martha Barragan, Mayor
99 EPASD CONSENT ITEM 10.1

EAST PALO ALTO

SANITARY DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Members of the City of East Palo Alto City Council, Governing Board to the East Palo Sanitary District, a Subsidiary of the City of East Palo Alto
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, General Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, District Treasurer
Bo-Kyoung Kim, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: Cash Disbursement Report for February 2025
Recommendation
Accept the cash disbursement report required pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 6794.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No 3: Promote Health & Public Safety.

Priority No 4: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Background
On November 15, 2023, the San Mateo Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) unanimously approved the City of East Palo Alto’s application requesting that the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (“District” or “EPASD”) be made a subsidiary of the City of East Palo Alto.

On October 1, 2024, the reorganization of the District as a subsidiary of the City of East Palo Alto (City), and the City Council its governing board, became effective. Prior to and since that time, staff has worked diligently toward a peaceful and smooth transition. To that end, one aspect of that transition has required staff to review local rules and 100
EPASD CONSENT ITEM 10.1
regulations of EPASD that may require amendment in light of the reorganization.

California Health and Safety Code (H&S) Section 6794 allows the Board to adopt a procedure that provides for checks or warrants to pay claims and demands without approval by the Board of Directors before payment if the District Treasurer determines that the demands are payable within the District’s approved budget.

On December 3, 2024, the Board adopted an ordinance amending various provisions of the Sanitary District Code including Section 303 Appointed Positions, which authorizes District Treasurers to perform duties including the deposit and withdrawal of funds of the District, issuance of checks or warrants to pay claims and demands without approval by the Board before payment if the District Treasurer determines that the demands are payable within the District’s approved budget.

Furthermore, H&S Section 6794 requires staff to present cash disbursements to the Board at the next regular Board meeting and seek Board approval if demands exceed the District’s approved budget.

This staff report is informational and includes all cash disbursements for the month ending February 28, 2025, approved by District Treasurer. As of February 28, 2025, the actual expenses did not exceed the District’s approved budget.

Analysis
The following cash disbursements have been approved by the District Treasurer pursuant to the District Code Section 303, and are hereby reported to the Board:

EPASD Cash Disbursement Reports
For Period Ending February 28, 2025
Check Check Check
Amount Number* Issue Date
AA LOCK & ALARM INC. Service call for rekeying 3 locks and fixing a broken lock $ 545.00 71402 2/3/2025 AA LOCK & ALARM INC. EPASD $ 684.37 71613 2/28/2025
AT&T EPASD PHONE LINE $ 231.92 71568 2/21/2025
BAY AREA FIRST AID & SAFETY Three shelf cabinet full bodily fluid kit lenz wipes box $ 292.38 71571 2/21/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CALPERS EPASD unfunded $ 53.67 768 2/28/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CALPERS EPASD unfunded $ 2,290.25 768 2/28/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' Calpes late fee penalty $ 200.00 768 2/28/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CALPERS EPASD ADMIN FEE MISC SVC $ 554.80 768 2/28/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CALPERS EPASD CONTRIBUTION $ 3,016.91 768 2/28/2025 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CALPERS EPASD HEALTH $ 7,025.69 768 2/28/2025 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS PAR Classified Advertising EPASD ADOPTED ORD 59 PATTY DEL CASTILLO $ 145.14 71453 2/7/2025 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS PAR Classified Advertising EPASD ORD 60 FOG $ 160.48 71453 2/7/2025 CITY OF PALO ALTO 3rd Quarter FY24-25 O & M $520,958.30 71577 2/21/2025 COMCAST Recurring charges for ACCT#905067630 $ 413.62 71578 2/21/2025 COMCAST Recurring charges for ACCT#8155 20 007 0165362 $ 647.85 71514 2/14/2025 Name Description
101
EPASD CONSENT ITEM 10.1
Fiscal Impact
There are no budget impacts by this action as the year-to-date cash disbursements did not exceed the District’s approved budget.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The proposed action is not a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does VORTEX INDUSTRIES, LLC Intallation of new photoeye on gate $ 1,262.50 71504 2/7/2025 VORTEX INDUSTRIES, LLC Repair gate at EPASD $ 600.95 71611 2/21/2025 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC reoccurring charges for electric $ 315.27 71489 2/7/2025 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $ 344.60 71632 2/28/2025 RECOLOGY PENINSULA SERVIC Waste for month of Jan 2025 $ 569.69 71545 2/14/2025 SWRCB Annual storm water permit fees University Ave POC $ 619.00 71553 2/14/2025 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM fuel for EPASD Vehicle $ 50.00 71500 2/7/2025 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM fuel for EPASD Vehicle $ 50.00 71500 2/7/2025 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM fuel for EPASD Vehicle $ 83.73 71500 2/7/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC EPASD WATER BILLS $ 370.64 71610 2/21/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC EPASD WATER BILLS $ 64.55 71610 2/21/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC EPASD WATER BILLS $ 36.00 71610 2/21/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC METER BASE FEE FOR WATER SERVICES $ 31.00 71435 2/3/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC EPASD WATER BILLS $ 82.86 71502 2/7/2025 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC EPASD WATER BILLS $ 645.56 71644 2/28/2025 WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRIC Maintenance services agreement & additional expenses 10/2024 $ 29,798.43 71437 2/3/2025 C2R Engineering, Inc. JOB SM 239 PIPE-BURSTING FRWY $228,750.00 71574 2/21/2025 Everon LLC Equipment lease $ 1,072.62 71467 2/7/2025
Everon LLC JOB OCCURRED $ 2,551.93 71524 2/14/2025
Richard Perez TRNG SAN JOSE MILES 2/5/25 $ 40.18 71637 2/28/2025 AppleOne, Inc Staffing Services $ 1,782.40 71448 2/7/2025 AppleOne, Inc Staffing Services $ 1,782.40 71448 2/7/2025 AppleOne, Inc Staffing Services $ 1,778.08 71448 2/7/2025 AppleOne, Inc Staffing Services $ 1,782.40 71566 2/21/2025 Sierra West Consultants, Inc professional construction support services $ 3,595.50 71497 2/7/2025 Michael Woo Forensic Accounting Services for EPASD $ 3,781.25 71484 2/7/2025 Green Source Janitorial Monthly Janitorial Service Feb 2025 $ 1,953.00 71471 2/7/2025 ADP PAYROLL FEES EPASD $ 35.00 767 2/28/2025
Marquee Pest Management, Inc. R&M Ants/Roach /GP on 11/15/24 $ 77.00 71482 2/7/2025 Marquee Pest Management, Inc. check 5 EBS'S $ 125.00 71482 2/7/2025 David Farnsworth, CPA Special District Financial Transaction Report $ 795.00 71465 2/7/2025 Degree HVAC, Inc SERVICE CALL FOR BROKEN HEATER $ 380.00 71521 2/14/2025 Degree HVAC, Inc Quarterly Maintenance on 1/31/25 $ 250.00 71583 2/21/2025 Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP Closure payment for F3 Law $ 30,385.75 71588 2/21/2025 Total $853,062.67
*Manual checks have three-digit check numbers.
102
EPASD CONSENT ITEM 10.1
not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action involves no entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments: None.
103
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Shiri Klima, Assistant City Manager
Denise J. Garcia, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Vending Analysis
Recommendation
Receive an analysis of the sidewalk vending’s regulatory framework and provide direction to staff to ensure the health and safety of the community while supporting micro business owners and entrepreneurs.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Promote Housing, Economic and Workforce Development Priority: Promote Health & Public Safety
Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis of sidewalk vending activities in the City of East Palo Alto, with the aim of aligning the City’s regulations with California Senate Bill 946 (SB 946), also known as the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act. SB 946 decriminalized sidewalk vending in 2019, promoting economic opportunities for low-income and immigrant communities. However, the City’s current ordinance requires amendments to ensure consistency with State law and perhaps amendments to regulate these microbusinesses.
104
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
City staff conducted research on best practices from other cities, including Hayward, Santa Cruz, Elk Grove, and Long Beach, and engaged with local vendors to assess community needs and compliance issues. Key concerns in our City include health and safety risks, ADA accessibility barriers, environmental impacts from improper waste disposal, and potential connections to human trafficking.

To address these issues, staff recommends the City Council provide direction on developing a comprehensive Sidewalk Vending Program that:

1. Includes Early Collaboration with the County Health Department

2. Establishes a Sidewalk Vending Outreach Team

3. Defines Regulatory Requirements for a Sidewalk Vending Ordinance

4. Implements a Phased Education-to-Enforcement Approach

5. Hosts Regular Workshops and Permit Clinics

6. Implements a Spanish Outreach Strategy
Staff seeks Council direction on enforceable strategies to ensure sidewalk vending supports micro-entrepreneurs while safeguarding public health and safety as well as ADA accessibility.

BACKGROUND
In 2018, California enacted SB 946, known as the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act, which decriminalized sidewalk vending statewide, effective January 1, 2019. The legislation aims to promote economic opportunities for low-income and immigrant communities by establishing sidewalk vending as a legitimate business activity. SB 946 limits the authority of cities to regulate sidewalk vending and prohibits restrictions based on perceived community opposition or concerns about economic competition. Instead, cities may adopt reasonable regulations addressing objective public health, safety, and welfare concerns.

There are different types of vending: mobile vending (such as food truck vending) and sidewalk vending. Within sidewalk vending, there are two types:

1. Roaming sidewalk vendor: a vendor who moves from place to place and stops only to complete a transaction.

2. Stationary sidewalk vendor: a vendor who vends from a fixed location in the public right of way.

This report only addresses stationary sidewalk vending as concerns shared with the City only relate to these stationary vendors, and more specifically, food stationary vendors. All further references to sidewalk vending shall imply such vendors are stationary and sell food. Should Council be interested in exploring the regulatory scheme regarding mobile vending, roaming sidewalk vendors, or both, or should Council be interested in learning more about vendors that sell other items, staff can return with further reports.

This report provides an analysis of sidewalk vending’s regulatory framework, identifies key issues within the City, and offers recommendations for City Council consideration.

ANALYSIS
105
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
Primary Concerns Related to Sidewalk Vendors:

The key complaints City staff receive regarding stationary sidewalk vendors fall into two categories. First, vendors and their patrons are generating trash and improperly disposing of the trash that then clogs storm drains, accumulates in pump stations, and spreads during windy conditions. Trash includes bottles, cans, grease and/or cooking oil that is dumped into drains, affecting the water quality. Additionally, improperly disposed trash on our streets and sidewalks is not only aesthetically displeasing, it also attracts rodents.

Second, there are sidewalk and traffic concerns, such as vendors blocking sidewalks with tents and creating Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility issues, meaning wheelchairs cannot get through on the sidewalks. Vendors may attract many patrons in vehicles, causing additional traffic and parking problems in our already congested streets.

Further, other concerns include establishing regulations that encourage the use and upkeep of public spaces while ensuring public amenities (e.g., parks) remain well-maintained and accessible to all. The City must also manage legal risks associated with allowing these businesses to operate within our jurisdiction.

The three most common concerns addressed by our Code Enforcement (C.E.) Officers regarding stationary sidewalk vendors are blocking sidewalks, open flames, and canopies and obstructions. Blocking sidewalks has already been discussed. The use of open flames (e.g., grills, burners) poses significant fire risks and is prohibited under general safety regulations. If a vendor is found using open flames, C.E. Officers request immediate cessation of these activities. However, if a vendor refuses, there is no effective, State-law-compliant, enforcement mechanism in place to ensure compliance.

Also, some vendors have large canopies or umbrellas, which can interfere with accessibility or limit visibility. C.E. Officers inform vendors when adjustments or removals are necessary, but enforcement options are limited if vendors do not voluntarily comply.

Additionally, in cases where vendors are in hazardous areas, such as medians or intersections, C.E. Officers reach out to the Police Department for additional support if there are any serious safety risks for both vendors and the public.

A key challenge faced by C.E. Officers is the lack of effective enforcement tools when vendors refuse to comply with verbal or written requests. While some vendors voluntarily provide names and addresses, there is no system in place to verify this information. Many sidewalk vendors operate without permits, and there is currently no tracking system to monitor vendor locations or return visits, making consistent follow-up difficult. Currently, enforcement relies primarily on voluntary compliance. If a vendor ignores a request to modify operations or relocates, there are limited options for further enforcement unless repeat offenses are reported or observed.

Also, sidewalk vendor operations often occur outside of regular C.E. shifts. In response, management directed C.E. Officers to adjust schedules or work overtime periodically to 106
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
conduct targeted inspections. During these inspections, C.E. Officers have focused on encouraging compliance with County Health requirements and engaging with vendors to understand their operations and challenges. If such enforcement is to continue, C.E. needs resources to continue working in the evenings or on weekends.

Finally, there is a humanitarian issue greater in size than East Palo Alto that affects sidewalk vending. Some sidewalk vending is related to larger enterprises with unlawful working conditions for vulnerable populations, including people who are recent migrants and/or are undocumented. Through various interviews with sidewalk vendors in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, journalists found that many of these sidewalk vendors are victims of human trafficking: smuggled into the U.S. by groups to whom they are indebted. (See, e.g., Franco, Jennifer. Trafficking in Plain Sight, https://kesq.com/news/in-depth/2023/07/11/trafficking-in-plainsight-in-depth-look-at-street-food-vending-and-human-trafficking/; Mullaney, Alex. Behind an explosion of hot dog vendors, tales of exploitation and desperation, https://sfstandard.com/2024/11/12/sanfrancisco-human-trafficking-hot-dog-vendors/; Hidden Side of Street Vending, https://codeenforcementresources.com/.) According to these articles, many of the employees keep about half of their daily sales while the remainder go to their employers. Through conversations with sidewalk vendors, our C.E. Officers have learned that roughly half of them are East Palo Alto residents who own and operate their businesses. The other half may not live in the City and typically work for employers based outside the area, who direct their vending activities. However, the accuracy of this information is uncertain, as some workers may be hesitant to speak openly. When C.E. Officers suspect potential human trafficking, they report the situation to the Police Department. One such incident has been reported in the City in the past two months.

During the City Council Priority Setting Process for fiscal year 2024-2025, the City Council requested staff to develop a program regarding sidewalk vending. So, Council is likely also hearing concerns both about the secondary effects (e.g., traffic and trash) as well as about the vendors' safety and ability to provide for their families.

In response to this priority project, staff researched State law and the County's permitting process. Staff reviewed our current ordinance and practices to understand what is already addressed as well as other California local jurisdictions’ policies and procedures to understand the best practices regarding sidewalk vending. Staff also built rapport with local vendors to better understand their situations and to inform them about the current applicable statutes, regulations and ordinances. Staff seeks to solve the aforementioned concerns while being in compliance with State law and treating our vendors with empathy and fairness.

Various Levels of Governmental Authority on Sidewalk Vending Sidewalk vending operates under a complex framework involving State, County, and local authorities.
107
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
State Level:

Under the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act, or SB 946, any local regulation of sidewalk vending must be treated as a civil matter, with fines limited to specific maximum amounts. The law also requires the dismissal of all pending sidewalk vending criminal prosecutions and establishes a process for expunging past convictions. Further, SB 946 overrides any conflicting local ordinances.

SB 946 prohibits cities from regulating sidewalk vending based on public bias or concerns about economic competition. The legislation is intended to promote sidewalk vending as a legitimate economic activity and ensure that cities only adopt reasonable time, place, and manner regulations related to objective concerns about health, safety, and welfare.

As of January 1, 2019, sidewalk vending violations can no longer be prosecuted as criminal infractions or misdemeanors. Instead, except in cases where someone is vending without a required permit, violations may only result in administrative fines, subject to the following maximum amounts:

First Violation Administrative Fine of $100
Second Violation Within One Year of First Administrative Fine of $200 Each Additional Violation Within One Year of First Administrative Fine of $500 Fourth and Subsequent Violations Revocation of Permit
If a city requires a sidewalk vendor to obtain a permit, vending without a permit is punishable by the following higher administrative fines:

First Violation Administrative Fine $250
Second Violation Within One Year of First Administrative Fine of $500 Each Additional Violation Within One Year of First Administrative Fine of $1,000 Enforcement can be challenging with these low maximum fine amounts. Per SB 946, a city’s regulatory program must also include a process by which a violator may seek a reduction in the above fine amounts due to a demonstrated inability to pay. If the person meets the statutory criteria for a waiver of court fees, fines may be reduced by up to 20 percent. The City may require each permitted vendor to display the issued permit on the street-side of each cart or other vending device, thereby allowing C.E. Officers to quickly visually confirm the presence or absence of a sidewalk vending permit.

SB 946 also limits cities' authority to enact specific regulations for sidewalk vending, in the following ways:

CITIES CAN… CITIES CANNOT…
108
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
 Ban stationary (fixed location) vending in
zone “exclusively zoned residential”
 Ban all vendors in “immediate vicinity” of
“certified farmer’s market”
 Ban all vendors in “immediate vicinity” of
temporary special permit or temporary
use permit (e.g., parades, outdoor
concert) area
 Impose time, place, and manner
restrictions in City parks
 Require business license, permit to
operate, seller’s permit, maintain
sanitary standards, ADA, compliance
with generally applicable laws (e.g.,
Municipal Code, Title 24, noise, etc.)
 Impose operational hours if not “unduly
restrictive”; for “nonresidential” areas,
must be same rules for other
nonresidential uses
 Regulate parts of right of way if linked to
objective health, safety, and welfare
concerns
 Request certain information, such as
name, mailing address, merchandise
description, seller’s permit number,
Social Security Number or other
identification card
 Criminalize violations of
sidewalk/mobile vending
regulations
 Regulate based on animus or
prevent economic competition
 Ban right-of-way entirely
 Ban entire nonresidential/
commercial areas
 Ban “roaming” vendors (moves
around but only stationary for
consummating transactions) in
residential areas or parks
 Regulate overconcentration or
place a cap on permits unless
related to objective health, safety,
and welfare concerns
 Impose fines above statutory
schedule
 Insist on fine payment regardless of
ability to pay or does not provide
ability-to-pay review
County Level:

San Mateo County Health’s Environmental Health Services (EHS) division oversees vending health standards and collaborates with local jurisdictions for enforcement. EHS ensures all vending operations adhere to health and safety standards. An application and plan review from an interested vendor is required.

EHS permits several distinct food programs, allowing vendors to sell food that meet the health and safety requirements. These food programs include Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO), Cottage Food Operations, Mobile Food Facilities, Compact Mobile Food Operations (CMFO), and Temporary Food Facilities (TFF). Although the County permits these types of food programs, not all of them apply to sidewalk vendors. County Health staff assured City staff that with some modifications to their business models, many of the sidewalk vendors in the City may qualify for MEHKO, Cottage Food Operations, CMFOs, or TFFs. Descriptions of each are listed below:
 MEHKO: A food facility that is operated by a resident from a private home kitchen.

Once permitted, a resident can store, handle, prepare, and serve food to the public, as 109
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
allowed by State law, like a restaurant. State law sets limits on the number of meals that can be served by a MEHKO, revenue that can be earned, and on how certain foods can be prepared, among other requirements. If the resident requesting a permit is not the property owner, property management or landlord approval and signature is required.  Cottage Food Operations: Prepare and sell “non-potentially hazardous foods,” which are foods that are unlikely to grow harmful bacteria or other toxic microorganisms at room temperature. Approved foods include baked goods, candy and confections, dried or dehydrated foods, honey, nuts, nut mixes, nut butters, and vinegars.  CMFO: is a type of mobile food facility that operates from any of the following:
o An individual, stand, showcase, rack, or display – may be exempt from permitting if offering less than 25 sq. feet of prepackaged non-potentially hazardous food o A stand, showcase, rack, display – limited to the sale of prepackaged nonpotentially hazardous foods o A pushcart, pedal-driven cart, wagon, or other nonmotorized conveyance – may be approved for limited food preparation. Limited Food Preparation must be conducted inside an enclosed compartment and will require plumbing to accommodate a handwash sink. Other requirements may apply depending on proposed menu and mode of operation.
 TFF: a permit for such is required for any community event that sells or gives away food or drink to the public. A community event needs an Event Coordinator to submit application and contact any other agencies, such as a Fire Department or California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to obtain permits and approval. Vendors cannot operate for longer than 25 days within a 90-day period.

Local Level:

Under the City’s current Vending Ordinance (Chapter 5.76 – VENDING), all vendors are required to obtain a permit for a vendor’s license. However, our Business License Administrator, HDL, confirmed that there is no distinct vendor permit available for issuance.

Instead, the City has a peddler’s permit, and HDL has not received an application in several years.

When C.E. Officers receive complaints regarding sidewalk vendors operating within City limits, they assess each situation to determine the appropriate response. When enforcement is necessary, C.E. Officers typically conduct an inspection and may issue a courtesy letter requesting the vendor modify operations if he, she or they are found to be in violation. An example of this letter is included as Attachment 2.

Staff recommends updating the current vending ordinance to bring it into alignment with SB 946 and to clearly define processes for both vendors and City staff. Some of the updates would include defining the different types of vending, removing location-based restrictions, delegating inspections to EHS, and designating violations as administrative fines. A 110
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
comprehensive and legally compliant ordinance will promote equitable vendor operations and enhance enforcement capabilities.

Sidewalk Vendor Permit Processes in Other Cities:

Staff analyzed various sidewalk vending ordinances and conducted interviews to identify the best practices and learned lessons. Staff interviewed cities with similar demographics to our City as well as cities with a large influx of sidewalk vendors that required lots of community engagement and a careful vetting process of their ordinance and sidewalk vending program.

The cities of Hayward, Santa Cruz, and Long Beach provided a variety of insights to help inform the City of East Palo Alto’s Sidewalk Vending Program.

Hayward
The City of Hayward requires sidewalk vendors to obtain a State Seller’s Permit, an Alameda County Health Permit, and a City Business License. One of the primary challenges Hayward faces is the coordination required with the Alameda County Health department, which does not have Spanish-speaking staff. This language barrier presents a significant obstacle for many vendors seeking permits. To address this, Hayward hosts monthly workshops to assist vendors through the permitting process. The morning sessions provide information on Hayward’s ordinance and available resources, while the afternoon sessions focus on hands-on assistance with online permit applications. Additionally, the County provides a representative at these workshops to help vendors apply for the required health permits. As a result of these efforts, Hayward successfully issued two sidewalk vending permits to date, a number which the City defines as a success. Their staff continue to conduct outreach and host workshops to help more vendors achieve compliance. However, navigating the health permit requirements remains a challenge for many unpermitted vendors, as the process is shaped by regulations set at the County level and the State’s Retail Food Code.

Santa Cruz
In Santa Cruz, sidewalk vendors must obtain a State Seller’s Permit, a County Health Permit, a City Business License, and a Sidewalk Vendor License. A major challenge for Santa Cruz is vendors frequently adapt their practices to find loopholes in the ordinance, making enforcement difficult. City staff must regularly amend the ordinance to address these evolving strategies. Also, the restrictions outlined in SB 946 limit the fees that can be charged, reducing a city’s ability to incentivize vendors to obtain permits. Despite these challenges, Santa Cruz implemented successful strategies, including identifying and designating specific sidewalk vending locations. These sites were surveyed by their C.E. staff to ensure they met all size and space requirements. They also had great success in creating a Sidewalk Vending Response Team comprised of C.E., Police, and Public Works staff. This team conducts outreach and builds rapport with vendors to promote compliance and foster collaboration.

Long Beach
111
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
The City of Long Beach requires sidewalk vendors to obtain a State Seller’s Permit, a County Health Permit, and a City Business License specifically for sidewalk vending. Long Beach faced significant pushback from the community due to the high volume of sidewalk vendors and their active supporters. This has led to contentious public discussions and multiple rounds of public meetings. Ultimately, after conducting extensive community outreach and engagement, the City Council approved the final ordinance by a 9–0 vote. Following the adoption of the ordinance, Long Beach staff focused their efforts on ensuring both the community and micro-business owners were well informed about the process of becoming a permitted vendor. Long Beach developed multilingual flyers, graphics, and instructional videos to assist vendors in understanding the requirements. Additionally, staff launched a multi-month educational campaign aimed at reducing barriers to compliance before beginning enforcement actions. This proactive approach has helped ease the transition to the new regulatory framework.

Common themes found across other cities include having multi-departmental and multi-agency coordination, multilingual outreach and materials, designated vending zones to help manage operations, and educational campaigns to ease transition to compliance.

Staff Recommendations:

Staff proposes the City Council consider the following recommendations for our City’s Sidewalk Vending Program.

Task Completion Timeline Description

1. Collaborate with the
County Health
Department Early
Now to end of FY 25-
26 Quarter 4 (June
2026)
Ongoing, meeting on
a quarterly basis with
County Heath staff.

Establish early coordination with the County
Health Department to ensure health permit
processes are clear and accessible.

Advocate for Spanish-speaking health
inspectors where needed to avoid language
barriers.

2. Establish a Sidewalk
Vending Outreach Team
Cost: Approximately $600
per shift
FY 25-26 Quarter 1
(July – September
2025)
Monthly outreach
taking place in
evening hours for
about 2-3 hours.

FY 25-26 Quarter 2 &
3 (October 2025 –
March 2026)
Additional outreach
after adoption of an
amended ordinance
for another 6 months.

Create a multi-agency outreach team that
includes C.E., Police, Public Works, Menlo
Fire, and County Health staff. This team will
focus on education, relationship building,
and providing clear pathways to compliance
before enforcing penalties. This includes
developing outreach materials that articulate
the permitting process in an easy-to-read
format.
112
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1

3. Decide Regulatory
Requirements for a
Sidewalk Vending
Ordinance
FY 25-26 Quarter 1
(July – September
2025)
The current ordinance predated SB 946.

Staff needs to update the ordinance and
propose regulatory language that focuses
on solving our problems in a fair and
empathetic way. Some of the regulatory
requirement topics may include:
- Recommended, permitted, or
disallowed vending zones (e.g.,
parks, parking lots, city-owned
property).
- Required permits and fees
- Prohibited locations based on safety,
health, or welfare concerns
- Option to ban stationary vending in
“exclusively zoned residential” areas
- Consider operational rules applicable
to sidewalk vending

4. Implement a Phased
Education-toEnforcement Approach
Cost: Approximately $1,000
on printing and mailing
materials
FY 25-26 Quarter 2, 3,
& 4 (October 2025 –
June 2026)
Launch an educational campaign well
before initiating enforcement actions. Use
flyers, social media, community meetings,
and English and Spanish instructional
videos to explain the program. Set clear
timelines for when enforcement will begin
after the education phase.

5. Host Regular
Workshops and Permit
Clinics
Cost: Approximately $250
per workshop (cost may
change depending on
duration)
FY 25-26 Quarter 2, 3,
& 4 (October 2025 –
June 2026)
Offer quarterly workshops that explain
ordinance requirements and walk vendors
through the permitting process. Include
hands-on application assistance and have
County and City representatives present to
streamline multi-agency requirements.

6. Develop a Spanish
Outreach Strategy
Cost: Approximately $100
per document for translation
services
FY 25-26 Quarter 2
(October 2025)
Ensure all educational materials,
applications, and workshops are available in
Spanish, which is the primary language
spoken by potential unpermitted vendors in
our community.

Staff is seeking City Council’s guidance on staff’s recommendations on a potential Sidewalk Vending Program. If determined to be a Council strategic priority project and budgeted accordingly, this work can begin as soon as FY25-26. Additionally, staff would like to receive preliminary Council guidance on preferences of what to include in the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance based on the exceptions and limitations imposed by SB 946. Finally, as it is considering separately the topic of code enforcement staffing levels more generally, the Council may want to give some consideration to the need to properly staff enforcement of this 113
POLICY AND ACTION ITEM 17.1
new ordinance, as this has been an issue in many cities that have chosen to regulate these vendors.

Fiscal Impact
There are no fiscal impacts at this time. However, there are estimated costs associated with each of the items presented. Staff may propose budget appropriations in the citywide budget based on the recommendations approved by the City Council.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Research Matrix

2. Courtesy Letter to Vendors
114
Sidewalk Vendor Permit Processes in Other Cities

CITY PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS

CITY FEES CHALLENGES SUCCESSES
HAYWARD - State Seller’s
Permit
- Alameda County
Health Permit
- City Business
License
- Business
License:
$137 per
year
- Coordination with Alameda
County Health Department is
required, which lacks Spanishspeaking staff—creating significant language barriers.
- Hosts monthly workshops (morning: ordinance/resources overview; afternoon: permit application assistance).
- County representative present to assist with the health permit process.
- Issued 2 sidewalk vendor permits to date.

SANTA CRUZ - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License
- Sidewalk Vendor
License
- Business
License:
$100 per
year
- Sidewalk
Vendor
License:
$30 per
year
- Vendors frequently adapt to
circumvent regulations, requiring
ongoing ordinance amendments.
- SB 946 limits fee structures,
creating challenges in incentivizing
vendors to obtain permits.
- Designated specific sidewalk vending locations, surveyed and approved by Code Enforcement to ensure compliance with
space requirements.
- Established a "Sidewalk Vending Response Team" (Code
Enforcement, Police, Public Works) to conduct outreach and build relationships with vendors.

ELK GROVE - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License
- Business
License:
$12 for
two years
- Many vendors operate in Elk
Grove but reside in Sacramento,
complicating enforcement.
- Initial outreach by Code
Enforcement alone was ineffective.
- Code Enforcement partnered with Elk Grove Police to
enhance outreach efforts.
- Police presence encouraged information-sharing from
employees and businesses, allowing staff to identify
unpermitted vendors.
- Successfully removed several non-resident, unpermitted vendors through targeted outreach.

LONG BEACH - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License (specific to
sidewalk vending)
- Business
License:
$300 per
year
- Significant public contention due
to the high number of vendors and
supporters.
- Multiple public meetings were
required; final ordinance passed by
a 9–1 Council vote after extensive
community engagement.
- Comprehensive outreach informed ordinance development. - Post-adoption, staff prioritized education to ensure vendors understood compliance pathways.
- Developed multilingual flyers, graphics, and instructional videos.
- Launched a multi-month educational campaign to reduce compliance barriers before enforcement began.
115
Sidewalk Vendor Permit Processes in Other Cities

CITY PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS

CITY FEES CHALLENGES SUCCESSES
HAYWARD - State Seller’s
Permit
- Alameda County
Health Permit
- City Business
License
- Business
License: $137
per year
- Coordination with Alameda
County Health Department is
required, which lacks Spanishspeaking staff—creating
significant language barriers.
- Hosts monthly workshops (morning: ordinance/resources overview; afternoon: permit application assistance).
- County representative present to assist with the health permit process.
- Issued 2 sidewalk vendor permits to date.

SANTA CRUZ - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License
- Sidewalk Vendor
License
- Business
License: $100
per year
- Sidewalk
Vendor
License: $30
per year
- Vendors frequently adapt to
regulations, requiring ongoing
ordinance amendments.
- SB 946 limits fee structures,
creating challenges in
incentivizing vendors to obtain
permits.
- Designated specific sidewalk vending locations, surveyed and approved by Code Enforcement to ensure compliance with
space requirements.
- Established a "Sidewalk Vending Response Team" (Code
Enforcement, Police, Public Works) to conduct outreach and build relationships with vendors.

ELK GROVE - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License
- Business
License: $12
for two years
- Many vendors operate in Elk
Grove but reside in
Sacramento, complicating
enforcement.
- Initial outreach by Code
Enforcement alone was
ineffective.
- Code Enforcement partnered with Elk Grove Police to
enhance outreach efforts.
- Coordinated effort between Police and Code Enforcement encouraged information-sharing from employees and
businesses, allowing staff to identify unpermitted vendors. - Successfully removed unpermitted vendors through targeted outreach.

LONG BEACH - State Seller’s
Permit
- County Health
Permit
- City Business
License (specific to
sidewalk vending)
- Business
License: $300
per year
- Significant public contention.
- Multiple public meetings were
required; final ordinance
passed by a 9-0 Council vote
after extensive community
engagement.
- Comprehensive outreach informed ordinance development. - Post-adoption, staff prioritized education to ensure vendors understood compliance pathways.
- Developed multilingual flyers, graphics, and instructional videos.
- Launched a free cart program.
116
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director Donald Zhao, Interim Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: Strategies for the City to Better Address Tier 3 Code Violations Recommendation
Review the potential strategies for the City to better address Tier 3 Code violations and provide direction on the Council’s preferred strategy or alternatives.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Promote Health & Public Safety
Executive Summary
The City’s current code enforcement policy, established under Resolution 4610 (April 21, 2015), employs a tiered system to prioritize complaints based on severity:
 Tier 1 (High Priority): Immediate threats to health, safety, or the environment, such as active construction without permits, fire hazards, and sewage issues.  Tier 2 (Medium Priority): Violations with potential to become serious if unaddressed, including unpermitted garage conversions and deteriorated structures.  Tier 3 (Low Priority): All other violations, such as junk accumulation and improper vehicle storage.

Historically, the City of East Palo Alto has enforced these violations reactively, responding to complaints rather than conducting proactive inspections. 117
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
Current Code Enforcement Challenges

1. Staffing Constraints: The Code Enforcement Division is experiencing staffing shortages, with two of three enforcement positions filled and the Chief Building Official (CBO) role being covered part-time by a consultant.

2. Long Resolution Times: Tier 1 cases take an average of 166 days to resolve, while Tier 2 cases take approximately 232 days.

3. Limited Focus on Tier 3 Cases: Only 24 Tier 3 cases remain unresolved yet addressing them requires significant time and resources.

Potential Strategies for Addressing Tier 3 Violations
This report outlines several strategies to enhance the enforcement of Tier 3 violations:

1. Reprioritization of Code Enforcement Cases: Adjusting priorities to emphasize Tier 3 cases over Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases would delay urgent health and safety enforcement.

Staff do not recommend altering the priority system.

2. Increased Staffing: Filling vacant positions and hiring additional staff would enhance enforcement capacity. The City has initiated recruitment efforts with updated compensation schedules and job classifications in the effort to fill vacant positions. a. If Council desires to expand code enforcement activity, estimated cost per additional officer: $165,000 - $202,000 annually.

3. Community Engagement and Education: Enhancing public awareness through workshops, outreach campaigns, and cross-departmental collaborations to encourage voluntary compliance.

4. Community Pride Initiative: Recognizing compliant properties and encouraging residents to take pride in neighborhood upkeep through incentive programs and public forums.

5. Technology Solutions and Improvements: Exploring mobile apps and 311 service platforms to streamline complaint reporting, case tracking, and enforcement efficiency.

Staff seek Council direction on the proposed strategies for improving Tier 3 enforcement.

Based on Council input, staff will incorporate funding requests into the FY 2025-26 proposed budget and return with an implementation plan.

Background
On January 21, 20251, staff provided an informational update to City Council on Code Enforcement. The presentation covered the current policy (Resolution 57-2021 - Attachment 1), the complaint submission process, staff resources, and the current case load. During the discussion, the City Council emphasized the importance of addressing all code enforcement cases, regardless of their priority ranking (Tiers 1-3). They also considered shifting from a complaint-based process to a more proactive code enforcement program. 1 January 21, 2025 City Council meeting (item 13.4): https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/cityofepa/94e4089db8b8-11ef-ab4b-005056a89546-3408cd31-ecd7-4429-9d91-65986d552499-1737515580.pdf 118
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
The Council directed staff to develop a work plan strategy that would allow for more proactive enforcement, and increased attention to lower priority cases (Level 3). Additionally, Council requested a staffing plan and a detailed summary of the types of code cases the City handles to understand the potential impact of these changes.

Analysis
Existing City Council Code Enforcement Policy
The City’s current policy for handling code enforcement complaints is based on a tiered system adopted by the City Council on April 21, 20152 (Resolution 4610 - Attachment 2). This system helps the City prioritize and process complaints efficiently, making the best use of limited resources.

TABLE 1

CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TIERS
Priority Tier Description
1 - High
Violations that constitute an immediate or identifiable threat to health, safety, or the environment. High priority violations shall be attended to immediately or as quickly as possible. Some examples include:
 Active construction without permits
 Severely damaged/falling structures
 Surfacing sewage
 Fire hazards
2 - Medium
Violations that do not constitute an immediate or identifiable threat to health, safety, or the environment, but have the potential to do so if left uncorrected. These violations may require the Code Enforcement Officer to send the property owner a Request for Inspection. Examples include, but are not limited to:
 Unpermitted garage conversions
 Excessive dry vegetation
 Inadequate or inoperable mechanical, electrical, or plumbing  Buildings or structures, including walls and fences, which are broken, deteriorated or substantially defaced
3 - Low
All other violations shall be considered Low Priority. Examples include, but are not limited to:
 Accumulation of debris, junk, garbage, or refuse
 Storage of personal property in front or exterior side yard areas visible to public view, such as:
· Inoperable or dismantled motor vehicles;
· Vehicle parts;
· Building materials not currently being used for
construction or improvements on the site;
2 April 21, 2015 City Council meeting (item 9.C):
https://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1619 119
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2 · Broken or discarded furniture/appliances; and · Motor vehicles shall not be parked or stored on a front or side yard unless a permanent, permitted
driveway/parking space has been built.

Addressing Displacement Concerns
To address concerns about displacement – especially from unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and garage conversions – the City took several steps starting in 2016:
 It updated the Municipal Code to allow the Chief Building Official to extend the time to correct violations from 10 days to 30 days.
 It formed the Second Unit Task Force, which included community members, staff, and stakeholders. The group proposed strategies for resolving violations with minimal disruption and presented its final report to the Council in 2019.

Throughout, the City Council has emphasized empathy and support for families when enforcing the City’s Municipal Code.

In 2021, facing a spike in complaints during the pandemic, staff reviewed the enforcement system. On March 163, 2021 the Council decided to keep the existing structure but directed two key updates:
 Anonymous submissions would no longer be accepted for medium- and low-priority complaints (Priority Two and Three).
 Each complainant would be limited to five open Priority Two or Three complaints at a time.

These updates were formalized with the adoption of Resolution 57-2021 (attachment 1) on April 20, 20214.

Implementation of City Council’s Code Enforcement Policy Under Resolutions 4610 and 57-2021, the City enforces code violations based on complaints rather than conducting proactive inspections or “sweeps.” Staff prioritize complaints by severity:
 Priority 1 cases, which involve urgent health and safety risks, receive immediate attention.
 Priority 2 cases follow and are essentially the same as Priority 1, except that the potential for damage does not pose an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety. Generally this means that property owners may implement immediate repairs and/or mitigation measures that reduce the immediate threat. Failure to fully address 3 March 16, 2021 City Council meeting (item 9.2):
https://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1359 4 April 20, 2021 City Council meeting (item 9.1):
https://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1395 120
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
the potential threats will often result in the enforcement action escalating to a Priority 1 case.
 Priority 3 cases are queued and addressed as resources allow.

This system supports the City’s goals by:

1. Directing limited staff capacity to serious health and safety issues.

2. Encouraging voluntary compliance without criminalizing minor violations.

3. Mitigating potential displacement through non-punitive enforcement.

Complaint Intake and Processing
Community members can submit code complaints by email, complaint form, 5 or in-person at
any City facility. Each complaint must include a valid phone number and/or email address.

The City of East Palo Alto does not accept anonymous complaints. Individuals may have up to five active complaints at a time. For more information on the complaint process, visit the Code Enforcement webpage: https://www.cityofepa.org/building/page/code-enforcement.

When staff receive a complaint, a permit technician logs it into the enforcement database within one to two business days. A code enforcement officer (also known as a neighborhood preservation officer or building inspector) then:
 Reviews property history and past complaints.
 Conducts a site visit, if necessary.
 Assigns a priority level based on the findings.

Officers handle cases in order of priority and availability. Staff document each case’s priority level, assignment, and timeline for accountability. They may adjust priority levels as new information emerges and keep complainants and stakeholders informed throughout the process.

Typical Level of Code Enforcement Activity
Table 2 below shows the number of complaints received by the Code Enforcement Division, organized by priority tier.

TABLE 2
CODE ENFORCEMENT – NEW CASES OPENED – 2021 to 2024
PRIORITY (Tier) 2021 2022 2023 2024 TOTAL
High (Tier 1) 19 42 59 60 180
Medium (Tier 2) 46 46 44 42 178
Low (Tier 3) 61 43 40 58 202
Totals 126 131 143 160 560
5 Complaint Form URL:
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/building_amp_code_enforcement_services/page/1108 1/code_enforcement_complaint_form.pdf
121
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
For the four-year period from 2021-2024, the City received an average of 140 code complaints annually. Since January 2025, 45 cases have been received, and 14 have been resolved.

Current Code Enforcement Team and Typical Response Times The Building Division and Code Enforcement team is currently going through transition with two vacant positions: the Chief Building Official (CBO) and Hybrid Neighborhood Preservation Officer (Code Enforcement Officer) / Building Inspector position. This leaves the City with only two of three code enforcement positions filled and the manager position (CBO) being filled on a part-time basis by a consultant.

Table 3, below, provides a breakdown of existing code enforcement case load by priority:

TABLE 3

CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE LOAD BY OFFICER
PRIORITY (Tier) Officer 1 Officer 2 TOTAL
High (Tier 1) 31 32 63
Medium (Tier 2) 26 38 64
Low (Tier 3) 16 8 24
Totals 73 78 151
On average city staff take approximately 166 days to resolve Tier 1 cases and 232 days for Tier 2 cases. Although all cases receive priority attention, tier 1 and 2 complexity often leads to longer resolution times. Priority 2 cases frequently require property owners to hire a designer, develop plans, and complete construction work to legalize violations. During construction, staff place the case in a monitoring phase and conduct periodic check-ins to ensure progress.

Currently, 24 Priority 3 cases remain unresolved. When cases are straightforward, code officers attempt to contact the property owner within 24–48 hours of the complaint to encourage voluntary compliance. However, most Priority 3 cases require formal enforcement steps, including:
 A site visit to document the violation with photos,
 Issuing a Notice of Violation,
 And filing the case in the Trakit database.

These steps take about six hours per case, assuming the property owner complies immediately.

If not, additional time and follow-up are required to bring the case to resolution.

Potential Strategies to Better Address Tier 3 Code Violations The City can take several approaches to enhance its response to Tier 3 violations, including reprioritization of code enforcement cases, increasing staffing, strengthening community engagement, launching a community pride initiative, and leveraging technology. 122
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2

1. Reprioritization of Code Enforcement Cases
Prioritizing Tier 3 cases over Tier 1 and Tier 2 would delay enforcement of urgent health, safety, and environmental threats. Given staffing limitations and the severity of higher-tier cases, staff do not recommend changing the current priority system.

2. Increased Staffing
The City currently has three authorized full-time code enforcement positions, though one remains vacant, and the Chief Building Official (CBO) role is also unfilled but covered parttime by a consultant. Filling these vacancies and hiring additional staff would improve enforcement capacity. Currently, two officers manage 151 cases across all tiers. A full team would allow at least one officer to focus more on Tier 3 cases, while a full-time CBO would enhance leadership and support.

To address staffing challenges, the City relaunched recruitment efforts with a new compensation schedule (approved March 4, 2025) and an aggressive marketing strategy, including direct outreach to qualified applicants. Additionally, the Community and Economic Development Director is working with Human Resources to update job classifications for the Building Inspector/Neighborhood Preservation Officer I/II hybrid position to better reflect evolving responsibilities.

Staffing Costs and Considerations
A proactive enforcement model would likely require additional staff beyond the existing three authorized positions. While hiring a consultant for support is an option, contractual limitations make hiring a full-time code enforcement officer the preferred approach. With an additional hybrid position, the two regular Neighborhood Preservation Officers could focus on Tier 3 cases, while the two hybrid positions handle Tier 1 and 2 cases which often require the additional building inspection skillset.

Although adding staff would strengthen enforcement, it must be considered alongside other City Council priorities, particularly considering the FY 2025-26 budget forecast. Below are staff cost estimates for next fiscal year:
 Neighborhood Preservation Officer I/II: $165,000 annually.  Hybrid Building Inspector/Neighborhood Preservation Officer I/II: $202,000 annually.

Benchmarking Code Enforcement in San Mateo County
City staff surveyed local jurisdictions in San Mateo County about their code enforcement operations. Since 2021, two jurisdictions have expanded their teams - Pacifica added one officer and Redwood City by adding one staff member and one consultant. As noted in Table 2 below, East Palo Alto has:
 The highest total number of code enforcement officers 123
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2  The highest number of code enforcement officers per capita  The highest number of code enforcement officers pers square mile.

TABLE 2

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CODE ENFORCEMENT
City Pop.

Size
Square
Miles
Budgeted # Code
Officers
Proactive Code
Enforcement?
Allow
Anonymous
Complaints?
Brisbane 4,000 3.00 1 No No
Burlingame 30,889 4.40 1 No Yes
Colma 1,500 2.00 0.1 No Yes
East Palo
Alto 29,100 2.50 2 and 1 hybrid code/inspector No No
Foster City 33,500 19.80 1 Yes Yes
Half Moon
Bay 13,000 6.3 0.7 No Yes
Millbrae 23,143 3.20 1 Yes Yes
Pacifica 38,984 13.00 2 No No
Portola
Valley 4,500 9.00 0.2 No Yes
Redwood
City 85,925 19.34 2 and 1 consultant No No
San Bruno 46,000 5.49 2 No Yes
San Carlos 30,000 5.00 1 Yes Yes
San Mateo
County 63,500 448.00 5 No Yes
South San
Francisco 67,000 9 3 No Yes
Woodside 5,500 11.8 2 (contracted 2
days/wk) No Yes

3. Community Engagement and Education
Strengthening community engagement and education is key to improving code enforcement.

By involving residents, businesses, and local organizations, the City can foster a shared understanding of code compliance and its impact on safety, health, and quality of life.

Proposed outreach efforts include:
 Workshops, informational campaigns, and neighborhood meetings to educate residents on local codes, their benefits, and the consequences of non-compliance.  Cross departmental collaboration with the City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Police, and Community and Economic Development to integrate education on related issues such as parking enforcement, street sweeping, illegal dumping, and stormwater contamination.
 Encouraging resident participation to promote voluntary compliance and community pride.
124
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
The FY 2025-26 proposed budget will include funding to enhance community engagement and education efforts.

4. Community Pride Initiative
A community pride initiative for code enforcement could focus on fostering community involvement and encouraging residents to take pride in maintaining their properties. This could be achieved by developing incentives or recognition programs that celebrate homeowners and renters who comply with local codes, such as public recognition or special awards for well-maintained properties. Additionally, hosting a series of public forums would provide a platform for residents to learn about code requirements, ask questions, and offer feedback on local policies.

These forums would also serve as an educational tool, helping residents understand the importance of code enforcement in maintaining the neighborhood’s safety, appearance, and overall value. By blending community engagement with rewards and education, the initiative can help create a more cohesive, pride-driven approach to maintaining neighborhood standards.

If the City Council supports a community pride initiative, staff will return with a budget request in the FY 2025-26 proposed budget.

5. Technology Solutions and Improvements
Several new technologies have emerged to streamline the process of reporting code enforcement violations and aid in tracking compliance. Mobile apps could enable residents to report issues such as broken streetlights, illegal dumping, or zoning violations directly to local government agencies, including uploading photos and providing GPS coordinates.

These platforms typically allow users to track the progress of their reports in real-time, receive updates when a case is closed, and even provide feedback.

Many cities across the region use 311 services to handle non-emergency issues and provide a way for residents to report concerns or request city services. 311 is not a single mobile app, but rather a non-emergency phone number made available to report issues, request services, or access information about city services and policies. There are several companies and software platforms that develop 311 systems and applications for cities, helping them manage and track citizen reports. If the City Council supports further exploration of technology solutions, staff will return with a budget request in the FY 2025-26 proposed budget and host an open procurement process in FY 2025-26.

Summary and Next Steps
Staff requests City Council direction on the five potential strategies to better address Tier 3 code violations discussed above. Depending on Council direction, staff will return with funding requests in the proposed FY 2025-26 budget.
125
POLICY AND ACTION 17.2
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report; however, depending on the direction provided, funding requests will be included in the FY 2025-26 proposed budget.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution 57-2021

2. Resolution 4610
126
RESOLUTION NO. 57 — 2021

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

UPDATING THE PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto Building Division (" Building Division") of the Community and Economic Development Department (" CEDD") is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, codes and regulations that maintain public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Building Division, through its code enforcement officers, enforces the East Palo Alto Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and the State Health and Safety Codes including, but not limited to, the California Building Code ( Title 24), and Substandard Buildings and Unpermitted Occupancies (Title 25); and
WHEREAS, the City Council' s Adopted Priority Areas include: Priority # 3 to " Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency" and Priority #6 to "Create a Healthy and Safe Community;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council allocates funding and staffing to implement a code enforcement program to assure compliance with City and State building, and zoning regulations, provide for a healthy and safe community, and to reduce blight throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4610 establishing Priorities for Code Enforcement" to guide the allocation of staff and other resources to most efficiently carry out code enforcement activities in the City; and
WHEREAS, at the March 16, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council considered programmatic updates to the City' s existing Code Enforcement program and Resolution No. 4610; and WHEREAS, after deliberation, the City Council directed City staff to return with a revised Priorities for Code Enforcement" that imposes a limit on anonymous code enforcement complaints for Priority Two ( Medium) and Priority Three ( Low) Tier complaints; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

Rescinds Resolution No. 4610; and

2. Adopts the attached revised " Priorities for Code Enforcement," as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to guide the allocation of staff and other resources to most efficiently carry out code enforcement activities in the City. 1 of 4
127
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 201h day of April 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Abrica, Gauthier, Lopez, and Romero
Wallace -Jones
ATTEST:

Walfreo Sol nano, ty Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9 ( r5ow?o' _ P
Rafael E. Alvarado Jr[ City Attorney
2of4
128
Exhibit A

PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
Priority One: Imminent/ Immediate threat to health, safety, or environmental resources.

Priority One violations are those actions which require immediate attention to address a significant threat or threats to public health and safety or to environmental resources. Examples of such violations include but are not limited to:

Housing conditions where faulty structural, electrical systems, gas fuel systems, and/ or lack of sanitary facilities and other violations of the California Health and Safety Code and/ or Title 8 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code, or violations of conditions of approval, such as noise or traffic mitigations, specifically designed to protect the public exist and pose an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety.

Significant environmental issues including, but not limited to, dumping of hazardous materials, alteration of Baylands and/ or San Francisquito Creek, removal of significant vegetation, and grading in environmentally sensitive areas.

Response Time: Staff will respond within 1 business day after a complaint is received.

Priority Two: Potential threat to health, safety, or environmental resources.

Priority Two violations are those actions that have the potential to cause damage to the public health and safety or to the environment:

Violations in this category are essentially the same as Priority One, except that the potential for damage does not pose an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety.

Generally this means that property owners may implement immediate repairs and/or mitigation measures that reduce the immediate threat.

Failure to fully address the potential threats will often result in the enforcement action escalating to a Priority One case.

The City shall not accept anonymous complaints for Priority Two matters. Furthermore, the City shall not accept any more than five complaints at a time from one individual complainant for Priority Two matters.

Response Time: Staff will attempt to respond to Priority Two issues initially within 3- 5 business days after a complaint is received.

Priority Three. Technical code violations.

Priority Three violations are those violations that do not pose an imminent or potential threat to the public health or safety or the environment, but which may, if not abated, compromise the welfare of the community and reduce the quality of life for residents and businesses:
3 of 4
129
Violations in this category include activities which are violations of various municipal and zoning codes, but pose no near-term threat to the public health and safety or the environment.

Violations might include illegally parked vehicles, debris accumulation on properties, sign code violations and various other zoning code violations.

If Priority Three violations are noted in conjunction with Priority One or Two cases, compliance efforts will include Priority Three issues as well.

The City shall not accept anonymous complaints for Priority Three matters. Furthermore, the City shall not accept any more than five complaints at a time from one individual complainant for Priority Three matters.

Resoonse Time: Staff will address Priority Three issues as time allows and circumstances demand when complaints are received. Staff may, however, in coordination with other partners and the community, choose to emphasize enforcement on a certain issue ( e. g., neighborhood parking, setback violation).

Implementation and Methods of Enforcement
Establishment of these Priorities for Code Enforcement shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation on the City' s ability to pursue any and all violations of building, fire, and zoning codes to the full extent allowed by law.

City code enforcement officers may use a variety of methods to gain compliance from property owners, tenants, business owners and others with the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law. Potential code enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, working cooperatively with applicants/ owner to obtain voluntary compliance, requiring appropriate permits be obtained, withholding, suspending to revoking City issued permits, levying fines and fees, recordation of notices of violation, issuing criminal complaints, taking abatement actions to remove or correct violations, initiating civil lawsuits ( e. g., injunctions, placing a property into receivership), and other remedies as permitted by law.
4 of 4
130
RESOLUTION NO. 4610

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO

ALTO ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto Building Division of the Community and Economic Development Department (C& EDD) is responsible for implementing and enforcing the California Building Codes (Title 24 of State law); and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Building Division of the C& EDD, in coordination with the Menlo Park Fire District, is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Fire Code (Part 9 of Title 24); and
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto Building Division and Planning and Housing Division of C& EDD are responsible for implementing and enforcing the City' s Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto Building Division is further responsible for implementing and enforcing other select provisions of State law, including but not limited to the Health and Safety Code (Title 25) regarding Substandard Buildings and Unpermitted Occupancies, and the Public Safety Code (Title 19); and WHEREAS, the City Council' s Adopted Priority Areas include: #3 to " Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency" and #6 to " Create a Healthy and Safe Community;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council allocates funding and staffing to implement a code enforcement program to assure compliance with City and State building, fire, and zoning regulations, provide for a healthy and safe community, and to reduce blight throughout the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of East Palo Alto does hereby adopt the attached Priorities for Code Enforcement as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to guide the allocation of staff and other resources to most efficiently carry out code enforcement activities in the City.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Resolution No. 4610 (1678 : Follow up to Code Enforcement) 131
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21" day ofApril 2015, by the following vote:

AYES: RUTHERFORD, ABRICA, GAUTHIER, MOODY
NAES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

A 2' & -
Terrie Gillen, Interim Deputy City Clerk
SI
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4,hnA. Nagel, Cit tt rney

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Resolution No. 4610 (1678 : Follow up to Code Enforcement) 132
Exhibit A

PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
Priority One: Imminent/Immediate threat to health, safety, or environmental resources.

Housing conditions where faulty structural, electrical systems, gas fuel systems, and/or lack of sanitary facilities and other violations of the California Health and Safety Code and/ or Title 8 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Cod, or violations of conditions of approval, such as noise or traffic mitigations, specifically designed to protect the public exist and pose an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety.

Significant environmental issues including, but not limited to, dumping of hazardous materials, alteration of Baylands and/or San Francisquito Creek, removal of significant vegetation, and grading in environmentally sensitive areas.

Response Time: Staff will respond within 1 business day after a complaint is received.

Priority Two: Potential threat to health, safety, or environmental resources Priority Two violations are those actions that have the potential to cause damage to the public health and safety or to the environment:

Violations in this category are essentially the same as Priority One, except that the potential for damage does not pose an immediate threat to public health, welfare or saftey.

Generally this means that property owners may implement immediate repairs and/ or mitigation measures that reduce the immediate threat.

Failure to fully address the potential threats will often result in the enforcement action escalating to a Priority One case.

Response Time: Staffwill attempt to respond to Priority Two issues initially within 3- 5 business days after a complaint is received.

Priority Three: Technical code violations.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Resolution No. 4610 (1678 : Follow up to Code Enforcement) 133
Violations in this category include activities which are violations of various municipal and zoning codes, but pose no near-term threat to the public health and safety or the environment.

Violations might include illegally parked vehicles, debris accumulation on properties, sign code violations and various other zoning code violations.

If Priority Three violations are noted in conjunction with Priority One or Two cases, compliance efforts will include Priority Three issues as well.

Reponse Time: Staff will address Priority Three issues as time allows and circumstances demand when complaints are received. Staff may, however, in coordination with other partners and the community, choose to emphasize enforcement on a certain issue ( e.g., neighborhood parking, setback violation).

Implementation and Methods ofEnforcement
Establishment of these Priorities for Code Enforcement shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation on the City' s ability to pursue any and all violations of building, fire, and zoning codes to the full extent allowed by law.

City code enforcement officers may use a variety of methods to gain compliance from property owners, tenants, business owners and others with the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law. Potential code enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, working cooperatively with applicants/ owner to obtain voluntary compliance, requiring appropriate permits be obtained, withholding, suspending ro revoking City issued permits, levying fines and fees, recordation of notices of violation, issuing criminal complaints, taking abatement actions to remove or correct violations, initiating civil lawsuits ( e.g., injunctions, placing a property into receivership), and other remedies as permitted by law.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Resolution No. 4610 (1678 : Follow up to Code Enforcement) 134
POLICY AND ACTION 17.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Jeff Liu, Police Chief and John D. Lê, City Attorney SUBJECT: Illegal Fireworks Ordinance
Recommendation
By motion:

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Promote Health & Public Safety
Priority: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Background
Multiple times a year, the East Palo Alto Police Department educates the public about the dangers of the use and possession of illegal fireworks. Pursuant to Chapter 8.20 (Fireworks and 135
POLICY AND ACTION 17.3
Explosives), the City prohibits the illegal use of fireworks, including by holding meetings at the YMCA.

On June 21, 2022, the Council adopted an urgency ordinance attempting to strengthen the regulatory tools at the disposal of the Police Department.

With the attached ordinance, staff hopes to clarify the liability to those who also allow their real property for the use and possession of illegal fireworks where they have knowledge or should know of such violations.

Analysis
Every year, beginning several weeks before the Fourth of July holiday weekend, the City is engulfed in the use and possession of illegal fireworks, and the public nuisance invariably ensues. Detonation of fireworks in the City of East Palo Alto has the potential at any time to create injury or property damage, and cause significant distress to both humans and pets who are sensitive to the noise and flashing light of these devices. Recently, the use of illegal fireworks was reported, including one that caused a brush fire, one at a funeral service, and even one after the conclusion of a council meeting across from City Hall.

Additionally, during a period where this region has experienced significant damage from fires of various causes, coupled with predicted low- moisture conditions and other environmental factors making fire risk very high now and in future years, the potential for damaging and dangerous fires caused by fireworks is very real and very predictable.

Accordingly, the City is in need of local legislation that both strengthens the City’s response to the use and possession of illegal fireworks and allows, pursuant to State law, the use of “safe and sane” fireworks.

The key provisions of the attached ordinance are:
 Defining a “responsible person” to also include anyone of “maintains” or “permits” a violation of this Article.
 Defining and thereby distinguish “dangerous fireworks” from “safe and sane fireworks” but banning the use or discharge of either.
 Specifying that a “property owner,” “tenant,” “occupant,” or anyone with custody over minors is prohibited from allowing the sale, use or discharge of illegal fireworks.  Allowing for the public display of fireworks with at least 90-days’ notice to and approval by the City Manager, but only by a public entity, organization or similar entity.  Adding fines and penalties, including a $1000 fine, prosecution as a misdemeanor, and the responsibility for cost recovery in responding to calls related to fireworks. 136
POLICY AND ACTION 17.3
Staff recommend that the Council waive the first reading and ultimately adopt this ordinance to provide staff with the tools to combat the illegal use and possession of fireworks.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
This Ordinance is not subject to CEQA because it is not a “project” which would have a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on the environment pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15378. Even if it were a project subject to CEQA review, this project would be exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15378 (regulatory actions), Section 15061(b)(3) (no significant environmental impact), and Section 15183 (actions consistent with the general plan and zoning).

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Draft Ordinance
137
ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
REPEALING ARTICLE I (FIREWORKS) OF CHAPTER 8.20 (FIREWORKS AND

EXPLOSIVES) OF THE EAST PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW

ARTICLE I (FIREWORKS) TO GOVERN USE AND POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS BY

OCCUPANTS AND OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the use of dangerous and unregulated fireworks within the City of East Palo Alto is a substantial public health, safety, and welfare concern; and WHEREAS, the use and possession of fireworks continues to pose a serious risk of fire, in the wake of a year that saw significant damage from wildfires in the State of California, with predicted continued environmental conditions favorable to spontaneous fires, including dry and hot weather, low moisture conditions, severe drought; and WHEREAS, recently illegal use of fireworks caused a brush fire in a residential zone in the City of East Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the City has seen a substantial proliferation in the use and possession of illegal fireworks, and an abject disregard for the welfare of others impacted by such illegal use; and
WHEREAS, despite the City’s efforts on an annual basis to educate residents of the dangers of the illegal use and possession of fireworks and to enforce the City’s local laws concerning the same, the City has seen a substantial proliferation in the use and possession them seemingly unabated; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, there is a demonstrated need for robust enforcement tools with which law enforcement and emergency responders can hold those posing a significant risk to public health, safety and welfare of the community accountable, including a penalties regime that will assist the City in financing further enforcement and providing sufficient deterrence from future violations; and WHEREAS, with the Fourth of July holiday approaching, the serious risk of fire present in the City of East Palo Alto and the serious risk of fire-related injuries stemming from such illegal use, there is an urgent need to provide law enforcement and emergency responders the regulatory tools necessary to safeguard this threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
138
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The City Council finds that all the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2: REPEAL OF ARTICLE I (FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES). Article I (Fireworks) of Chapter 8.20 (Fireworks and Explosives) of the City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety:

SECTION 3: ADD NEW ARTICLE I (FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES). A new Article I (Fireworks) of Chapter 8.20 (Fireworks and Explosives) of the City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code is added as follows:

ARTICLE I (FIREWORKS) OF CHAPTER 8.20 (FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES) SEC. 8.20.010. DEFINITIONS.
“Dangerous fireworks” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 12505 of the California Health and Safety Code, and such other fireworks as may be determined to be dangerous by the state fire marshal and altered safe and sane fireworks. “Fireworks” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 12511 of the California Health and Safety Code, .
“Responsible person” means any person, who allows, causes, creates, maintains, or permits a violation of this Article or of state or federal law, to exist or continue, by any act or the omission of any act or duty.
“Safe and sane fireworks” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 12529 of the California Health and Safety Code.

SEC. 8.20.020. PROHIBITIONS.

A. Except as otherwise provided for by this Chapter, no person shall, use, or discharge, any fireworks within the limits of the city of East Palo Alto.

B. Except as otherwise provided for by this Chapter, no person shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any dangerous fireworks within the limits of the city of East Palo Alto.

C. Except as authorized by the fire chief in accordance with the currently adopted California Fire Code, no property owner, tenant, or any occupant of real property shall allow or permit the sale, offer to sell, display for sale, or possess dangerous fireworks on their property when the property owner, tenant, or occupant knows or should know of the sale, offer to sell, or possession of dangerous fireworks at the property. 139
D. It is unlawful for any person having the care, custody, or control of a minor (under eighteen years old) to permit such minor to sell, display for sale, possess, use, or discharge dangerous fireworks.

E. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this section shall also constitute a violation.

SEC. 8.20.030. SEIZURE OF FIREWORKS
A. The fire code official and police officers shall have the authority to seize, take and remove fireworks and/or safe and sane fireworks stored, sold, offered for sale, used or handled in violation of the provisions of this Article and State law.

SEC. 8.20.040 PERMIT FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS.

A. No person shall conduct, cause, allow, permit, aid, abet or suffer a public display of fireworks without having first obtained a written permit from the city manager.

B. Each permit application shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council.

C. A public display of fireworks permit shall issue only for an application that is filed with the city manager not less than ninety days in advance of the date of the proposed display and shall issue only for a display that is to be held and conducted by a public entity, fair, association, or similar organization, at a single location for a single display that is accessible to the community as a whole. In determining whether a proposed event is accessible to the community, the city manager shall consider, but is not limited to considering, the following: (1) location of the event; (2) adequacy of space to accommodate the display and a substantial portion of the community as attendee; (3) transportation routes; (4) the availability of public transportation to the display site; (5) availability and adequacy of parking; (6) and time of the display. An event not accessible to a substantial portion of the community, such as a block party or a private event, is prohibited.

D. The city manager shall have the authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the granting of permits, including, but not limited to, applicant’s provisioning of security to assure protection of the public and property, and requiring insurance in a form and amount approved by the city attorney, for discharging fireworks and supervised public display pursuant to Section 12640 (necessity of permit) of the California Health and Safety Code, and those activities contained therein that are necessary to the furtherance of such display.

E. Each public use or display shall be handled by a licensed pyrotechnic operator, as defined by Section 12527 of the California Health and Safety Code, in accordance with local and state law, and the display shall be of such character and so located, discharged, or fired that in the opinion of the fire chief who in consultation with the 140
police chief, after proper investigation, finds the display will avoid ignition of fire and shall not be hazardous or endanger any person or property.

F. The city manager shall deny an application for a permit if the fire chief, in consultation with the police chief, finds that such safety conditions cannot reasonably be met, that the display is not accessible to the community, or the applicant has failed to meet the reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to granting of display permits.

SEC. 8.20.050. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

A. Each violation of this Article shall be a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) and/or six months in jail.

B. Violations of this Article shall be punishable by a civil fine in an amount set forth by the city council by resolution. Any civil fine assessed and collected for a violation of this Article, may include the actual costs associated with the collection, transportation, and disposal of any seized fireworks, in accordance with the regulations duly adopted by the state fire marshal. Civil fines assessed and collected for a violation of this section shall not be subject to California Health and Safety Code Section 12706.

C. Each violation of this Article shall also be punishable by an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000, which may be modified by the city council resolution.

D. Administrative fines shall be issued and processed in accordance with the provisions of Title I (General Provisions) of the East Palo Alto Municipal, pertaining to administrative citations except that a “responsible person” shall be as defined in this Article.

E. Any person issued a subsequent citation, fine, or notice of violation pursuant to this Article within a twelve (12) month period, in addition to any penalties set forth herein, may also be required to pay for response costs incurred in responding to a call for service or incident independently discovered by the City under this Article.

All violators shall be jointly and severally liable for any response costs incurred.

F. The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and in addition to any other remedy available at law or in equity.

SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

This Ordinance is not subject to CEQA because it is not a “project” which would have a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on the environment pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15378. Even if it were a project subject to CEQA review, this project would be exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15378 (regulatory actions), Section 15061(b)(3) 141
(no significant environmental impact), and Section 15183 (actions consistent with the general plan and zoning).

SECTION 5. IMPLIED REPEAL.

Any provision of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to effectuate this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more provisions may be declared invalid.

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30 days after the date of its adoption.

SECTION 8. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause publication of this Ordinance as required by Government Code Section 36933.

This Ordinance was introduced at the______________ meeting of the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 142
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
143

East Palo Alto City CouncilApril 15, 2025

East Palo Alto City Council
April 15, 2025