February 2026
Invitations to participate were sent to residents around the corridor by USPS mail and handdelivery. Notices were shared via the project email list, the City’s print and virtual newsletters, and the City’s social media accounts.
Community Feedback
1. Values and Goals
The Values & Goals outreach introduced the project purpose, gathered community priorities, and initiated the values-and-goals phase of corridor planning. Participants learned about the City’s long-term objectives, explored challenges and opportunities along the corridor, and shared input through small group discussions, comment cards, and an online survey.
Values
Participants identified five key values and a strong set of goals for the corridor that should be reflected in the future of the University Avenue corridor.
1. Safety First. The community’s strongest shared value is a corridor that is safe for everyone, especially pedestrians, seniors, children, and cyclists.
2. Basic walkability and accessibility as a foundation. Participants consistently emphasized completing the basics: continuous sidewalks, comfortable crossings, and ADA-friendly access. The corridor should function as a place where walking is practical— not just possible.
3. Multimodal mobility. The public supports a corridor that better balances driving, transit, walking, biking, and emergency access. While there are different opinions about the “best” bicycle approach (protected lanes vs. alternate routing), there is broad agreement that current conditions do not feel safe and need improvement.
4. Local-serving corridor (not just a pass-through route). A repeated theme is that University Avenue should be “local friendly”—supporting daily needs, community destinations, and neighborhood quality of life. Parking and access are central to this value, particularly near parks and residences.
5. A greener, healthier, more welcoming street. Community members want a corridor that feels better—more trees, shade, and improved maintenance—while also acknowledging health concerns tied to traffic, trucks, and air quality.
Goals
433
Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ∙ Urban Planning
2. Preferred Vision (Corridor Concept)
During the second engagement event, the project team presented options that synthesized the project purpose with the community’s values and goals. During the workshop, the team introduced the project purpose, summarized community values and goals gathered during the first engagement event and presented vision concepts for community review, discussion and feedback.
Each of the concepts and a summary of feedback received are described below.
Pedestrian Concepts & Questions
Continuous sidewalks on both sides of
University Avenue that are buffered from bikes
and cars by landscaping and street trees.
Community feedback from both the in-person
workshop and the online survey strongly
supported this concept.
Where should mid-block crossings be located? Bell Street Park received the most votes, with additional locations identified at Cooley
Avenue, the library parking lot, and north of Bell
Street.
Where should signal timing be adjusted to
allow for longer crossing times?
In-person workshop participants identified Bay
Road and Donohoe Street as intersections
needing longer pedestrian crossing times.
Survey responses were limited, with one
respondent also identifying Bay Road.
Bicycle Concept
Protected bikeways on each side of University
Avenue from Kavanaugh Drive to Runnymede
Street.
Between Runnymede Street and Donohoe
Street, a two-way bikeway runs on the west
side of University Avenue.
Bay Road and Runnymede Street are protected
intersections.
Community feedback from both the in-person
workshop and the online survey strongly
supported this concept.
Participants emphasized the importance of
safety and suggested incorporating features
like lighting to create a safer environment for
bicyclists. Other feedback included requests
for bicycle parking near bus stops and interest
in formalizing bicycle routes on streets parallel
to University Avenue.
Where should mid-block crossings be located? Bell Street Park received the most votes, with additional locations identified at Cooley
Avenue, the library parking lot, and north of Bell
Street.
Where should signal timing be adjusted to
allow for longer crossing times?
Bay Road and Donohoe Street were identified
as needing longer pedestrian crossing times.
434
Roadway Concepts
• Two travel lanes in each direction for the
full corridor.
• Emergency services mix with general traffic,
no improvement in response times.
• Cut through traffic may not change over
time.
This concept received support during both
workshop and online survey feedback. Support
for each concept was approximately even, with
this concept receiving slightly more support by
the numbers.
Commentors generally noted that this option
does not represent significant change to
existing conditions and may not address the
problem.
• Maintain existing lane configuration north of
Bay Road.
• South of Bay Road, one travel lane + one
emergency services lane in each direction.
• Emergency services uses dedicated lanes
to avoid traffic delays.
• Over time, reduced speeds will shift cutthrough traffic to other routes This concept received support during both
workshop and online survey feedback. Support
for each concept was approximately even, with
this concept receiving slightly more support by
the numbers.
Commentors generally liked the creation of a
more local-friendly street and benefits for
emergency services but expressed concerns
about where traffic would re-route.
Parking Concept
Parking Pockets can accommodate 2-5 parking
stalls. Where should parking pockets be
located?
Workshop participants suggested parking
pockets along the west side of University
Avenue near the Library and Bell Street Park.
Survey responses similarly identified Bell
Street Park, City Hall, the Library, and nearby
commercial areas as preferred locations.
Some respondents expressed concerns about
congestion and suggested structured parking
as an alternative.
Signal Timing
Where should signal timing be adjusted to
allow for longer crossing times?
Participants identified Bay Road and Donohoe
Street as intersections needing longer
pedestrian crossing times.
City Gateways
How can gateways best reflect EPA’s identity? Participants expressed that gateways should reflect EPA’s history, community pride, and
connection to the Bay. Suggestions included
incorporating birds, water themes, gateway
arches, historical timelines, a modern, simple
design aesthetic, and recognizing San
Francisquito Creek.
435
3. Preferred Vision (Corridor Concept)
Considering the values, goals and preferences identified through previous community engagement, the project team shared a Corridor Concept that integrates a context-sensitive approach with a mobility-focused segment north of Bay Road and a local-focus segment between Bay Road and Bell Street Park. The local-focus segment includes a targeted road diet and restricted median lanes for emergency vehicles and transit. The Concept also includes protected bikeways, continuous sidewalks, landscape buffers, enhanced lighting, and opportunities for gateway features and public art throughout the corridor.
During the workshop and through the online survey, participants shared a range of feedback on the Preferred Corridor Vision. Feedback themes are summarized below. • Roadway Concept. Participants expressed conflicted feelings about the reduction to one travel lane in each direction proposed for the segment from Bay Road to Bell Street Park.
While many participants supported the idea of the traffic-calming and placemaking opportunities this approach supports, there was concern about the impact to regional traffic conditions and whether restricted lanes would be respected during times of congestion.
• Walking and Biking Concepts. There was strong support for the walking and biking concepts proposed, including the addition of raised mid-block crossings. Several participants, including representatives from Peninsula Open Space Trust, expressed support for protected bike lanes and noted their importance for cyclist safety. The corridor’s role in supporting regional connections, including the Bay to Sea Trail, was also highlighted as an important benefit of the proposed vision.
Supporting Materials
All workshop materials, including presentations and illustrative materials are available on the project website at tinyurl.com/epagrandcorridorproject
436
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
1 EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 3, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: John Le, City Attorney, Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Discuss Ordering the Submission of a Measure on Term Limits for a Future Municipal Election
Recommendation
Discuss and consider the following regarding term limits:
1. Adopt a Resolution Ordering the Submission of a Measure on Term Limits at the June 2, 2026, Statewide Election and Setting Priorities for Filing Arguments For or Against the Ballot Measure; and
2. Appoint two members to write the argument for and rebuttal against the ballot measure.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
The Fiscal Year 2025–2029 Strategic Priorities and FY 2025–27 Work Plan include Project GOV2: Conduct Council Term Limit Policy Research. On February 24, the City Council received a presentation outlining the legal framework governing local term limits, the procedural requirements for placing a measure on the ballot, and policy options for consideration. The Council did not take final action but directed staff to return with a proposed measure and related materials in time to meet the June 2026 election deadlines.
During that discussion, one concept received general support: limiting Councilmembers to three consecutive four-year terms, after which the individual would be required to sit out at least one election cycle (two years) before running again. The proposal would treat a partial term exceeding 437
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
2 two years as a full term. Consistent with state law, the measure would apply prospectively only.
Terms already served, including those that began in 2024 or earlier, would not count toward the limit.
This report summarizes the governing law, describes how other San Mateo County cities structure term limits, analyzes voter participation trends in East Palo Alto, and outlines timing considerations associated with the June and November 2026 elections.
Analysis
Relevant Elections Background
As a general law city, the City of East Palo Alto is governed by state law, including Government Code section 36502. That statute authorizes a city council to propose, or voters to propose by initiative, a measure imposing term limits on councilmembers. Any such measure must be approved by a majority of voters and may apply only prospectively. Completed prior service cannot be retroactively counted as a term for purposes of a new limitation.
Term limits are commonly justified as a means of encouraging leadership rotation, broadening civic participation, and introducing new perspectives into policymaking. Across California, many cities and counties have adopted some form of limitation on consecutive or lifetime service. The State of California similarly imposes lifetime limits on members of the Legislature and statewide constitutional officers.
The Council has requested that staff return with draft ballot language and a proposed resolution calling an election, along with contextual information to support an informed policy decision.
Term Limits in San Mateo County
As the Council has yet to make a definitive decision on the nature of the term limits, staff has summarized San Mateo County term limits data presented February 24, 2026. You may review the February 24 Agenda Report for a full table.
A 2024 survey conducted by the City of Brisbane found that only six cities in San Mateo County currently impose council term limits. Those approaches vary. Supervisors of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are also ineligible to serve more than three consecutive terms in office.
The Cities of Pacifica and Foster City limit councilmembers to two consecutive terms, although Foster City’s ordinance permits additional service after a break in tenure. Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Bruno impose three consecutive term limits, with variations in how partial terms are counted. Redwood City allows up to four consecutive terms and excludes certain partial terms from the calculation. In addition, members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are limited to three consecutive terms.
Most of these cities require a councilmember who reaches the maximum number of consecutive terms to sit out at least one election cycle before seeking office again. A smaller number of California 438
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
3 cities impose lifetime limits rather than consecutive limits.
The proposal under discussion in East Palo Alto—three consecutive four-year terms with a required break and counting partial terms over two years as full terms—would align with the midrange of existing county practice.
Proposed Measure for Discussion
Staff has taken a proposal furnished by Mayor Lincoln and supported by Councilmembers Barragan and Dinan as a starting point. First, staff provides the June 2026 election option to ensure the Council understands the relevant deadlines. Second, staff has included an ordinance and resolution for the Council’s consideration and adoption (if that is the Council’s desire).
The draft ordinance prepared based on Council input would limit Councilmembers to three consecutive four-year terms beginning after the measure’s effective date. A Councilmember who completes three consecutive terms would be ineligible to run again until at least one intervening election cycle has passed. A partial term exceeding two years would count as a full term.
Because Government Code section 36502 requires prospective application, the measure would not count any term that began before its effective date. Accordingly, if voters approve the measure in June 2026 and the Council certifies the results in July 2026, the term limits would apply to terms commencing after certification.
One issue not addressed by the Council at the February 24, 2026 meeting was precisely when term limits would apply. The draft ordinance assumes that if the measure is adopted in June 2026, it would apply to individuals elected in the November 2026 election because their new terms would begin after the effective date. Conversely, if the Council delays submission of the measure until 2028 and voters approve it then, the limitation would apply to anyone elected in that 2028 cycle, as their terms would begin following voter approval. In either scenario, application is triggered by the start date of the term—not by prior service.
Costs of Term Limit Election
On February 24, staff requested the County Elections Office provide cost information concerning both June and November elections. The County Elections Office has estimated that placing a single measure on the June 2, 2026 ballot would cost between approximately $75,500 and $90,600, depending on ballot length and related variables. Cost estimates for November 2026 were pending at the time this report was prepared.
Election Jurisdiction On the
Ballot
Total
Cost Low
$/Registered
Voters Low
Total
Cost
High
$/Registered
Voters High
Jun-26
City of East Palo
Alto
1 measure
(5 pages
SBVIP) $75,500 $6.30 $90,600 $7.55
439
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
4 Nov-26
City of East Palo
Alto
1 measure
(5 pages
SBVIP) Pending Pending Pending Pending
Voter Turnout (East Palo Alto)
The County also provided links to obtain information concern voter turnout:
March June November
2018 24.1% (GP) 56% (G)
2020 37.34% (PP) 72.51% (P)
2022 17.86% (GP) 35.57% (G)
2024 19.83% (PP) 56.81% (P)
2025 9.59% (S) 36.95% (S)
Averages 22.25% 20.98% 51.59%
GP = CA Gubernatorial Primary; G = CA Gubernatorial; PP = Presidential Primary; P = Presidential;
S = Special Election
In addition to cost, the more significant policy consideration is voter participation. Over the last five election cycles in East Palo Alto, November elections have consistently generated substantially higher turnout than March or June elections.
Average turnout in November elections between 2018 and 2025 was approximately 51.6 percent, with participation ranging from 35.6 percent in a gubernatorial year to more than 72 percent in a presidential year. By contrast, March and June elections during the same period averaged approximately 21–22 percent turnout. In non-presidential primary or special elections, turnout has fallen below 20 percent, and in March 2025 participation was 9.59 percent.
On average, November elections in East Palo Alto have drawn more than double the participation of March or June elections. In certain cycles, the difference has been even more pronounced. This gap is not marginal; it reflects tens of percentage points and, in practical terms, thousands of additional voters.
If the Council places a term limits measure on the June 2026 ballot, historical patterns strongly indicate that the electorate will be significantly smaller than in a November general election. If the Council’s objective is to maximize representational breadth and electoral legitimacy for a structural governance reform, a November election would statistically provide broader participation. 440
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
5 However, if the Council intends to place a different initiative on the November 2026 ballot, that election should be avoided for the term limits measure in order to prevent ballot congestion, competing campaign dynamics, or strategic conflicts between measures. In that circumstance, the June 2026 election offers an earlier decision point, albeit with materially lower turnout.
The Council could also defer this decision until November 2028, a Presidential election expected to have the highest level of participation. As mentioned above, term limits approved in November 2028 would apply to the three council seats elected in November 2028 as well as the two council seats elected in 2030.
Conclusion
The Council must weigh three primary considerations: legal structure, timing, and participation.
The proposed three-term consecutive limit is consistent with state law and comparable to several San Mateo County cities. Because the law requires prospective application, the measure would apply only to terms beginning after voter approval. A delay until 2028 would not defer application to future officeholders; rather, if approved in 2028, the limitation would apply immediately to those elected in that cycle.
From a participation standpoint, historical data demonstrates that a June election will likely result in substantially lower voter turnout than a November general election—often less than half. If maximizing voter engagement is paramount, a November election is structurally stronger. If the Council plans to advance another ballot initiative in November 2026, that election should be avoided for this measure, and June 2026 provides the clearest alternative within the current cycle.
Staff seeks Council direction regarding whether to proceed with the June 2, 2026 submission and associated resolutions.
Fiscal Impact
The cost estimate for holding an election June of this year ranges from $75,500 to $90,600 Though we have not been provided a cost estimate for the November 2026 election, we anticipate that the costs would be roughly in line with the cost estimate provided for the June 2026 election.
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. 441
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
6 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, the proposed does not involve an entitlement.
Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.
Attachments
1. Timeline for June 2026 Election
2. Resolution & Ordinance Regarding June 2, 2026, Term Limits Ballot Measure 442
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
CALLING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO A MEASURE
TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS FOR CITY
COUNCIL POSITIONS
WHEREAS, at its duly noticed regular meeting held on March 3, 2026, the City Council determined to submit a proposed measure regarding City Council term limits to the voters of the City pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222 and Government Code Section 36502; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Elections Code Section 10002 and 10403, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors is requested to consolidate the City of East Palo Alto Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held June 2, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto hereby requests that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors permit the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters to perform services in connection with the consolidated election at the request of the City Clerk.
These services are to include all necessary services related to official ballot creation, sample ballot and voter information pamphlet preparation, vote-by-mail, polling places, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines, canvass operations, and any and all other services necessary for the conduct of the consolidated election; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit this measure to be placed on the ballot at the consolidated Municipal Election.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO THAT:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council hereby calls an election to be consolidated with the Statewide Election on June 2, 2026, for the purpose of submitting the measure to a vote of the qualified voters of the City of East Palo Alto, and hereby requests the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to consolidate this election with the Statewide General Election on June 2, 2026. The consolidated Municipal Election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code Section 10418.
SECTION 2. The City Council pursuant to its right and authority does order to be submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question:
443
Shall the measure providing that no person shall be eligible to serve for more than three (3) consecutive full terms on the City Council be adopted, with service of partial terms
exceeding two years qualifying as a full term?
YES
NO
SECTION 3. The full text of the proposed measure submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
To be effective, a majority of the City Council must vote to place the measure on the ballot and a majority of the voters voting on the measure must vote in the affirmative.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby requests the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters to provide all services necessary to conduct the General Municipal Election and to canvass the results of the General Municipal Election. The City will reimburse San Mateo County for the actual cost incurred in conducting the election when the work is completed and upon receipt of a bill stating the amount due as determined by the elections official.
SECTION 5. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 6. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to give further or additional notice of the election as required by law. The hours during which the polling places shall be open shall be the hours established for the consolidated General Municipal Election.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to do all things required by law to effectuate the consolidated General Municipal Election and to present the measure submitted herein to the electorate, including but not limited to required publications, postings, notices, and filings.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of this resolution to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure to the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit the impartial analysis to the City Clerk within 15 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 9. Arguments for and against, not to exceed 300 words in length, may be filed consistent with Election Code Section 9282 requirements. The City Council, or any members of the City Council authorized by the City Council, may file a direct argument for or against the measure and a rebuttal argument. Pursuant to Elections 444
Code Section 9285, the City Council hereby permits rebuttal arguments if arguments have been filed for or against the measure.
SECTION 10. The measure, impartial analysis, any arguments for and against, and any rebuttal arguments filed under the authority of the Elections Code shall be available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office pursuant to Elections Code Section 9295 for 10 calendar days, a period that shall begin immediately following the last filing deadline for the submission of such materials.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters.
ADOPTED this March 3, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________________________________
Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê
445
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
***
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
ADDING ARTICLE IV TO CHAPTER 2.08 OF TITLE 2 OF THE EAST PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TERM LIMITS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS
NOW THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF THE EAST PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE.
Article IV of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Article IV – Term Limits
2.08.190 Term limits for councilmembers.
No person shall be eligible to serve as a member of the City Council for more than three consecutive four-year terms. If a person serves a partial term that exceeds two years, that partial term shall be considered a full term for purposes of this section.
The section shall apply only to terms that begin after the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect as provided in Section 9217 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION.
The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance according to law.
SECTION 4. ATTESTATION.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the People voting thereon on June 2, 2026, by signing where indicated below. * * *
Exhibit A
446
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was passed, approved and adopted by the People of the City of East Palo Alto on the 2
nd day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Date
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
447
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
Mayor & City Council
MAYOR
Webster Lincoln
VICE MAYOR
Ruben Abrica
COUNCIL
Martha Barragan, Mark Dinan, Carlos Romero
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 853- 3100
Fax: (650) 853-3136
Web: www.cityofepa.org
Email: [email protected]
RE: Bay Area Urban Eagles 2026 Anniversary & Gala
To: Members of the City Council
I would like to share information regarding the upcoming Bay Area Urban Eagles 2026 Anniversary & Gala, scheduled for March 21, 2026. Bay Area Urban Eagles is a nonprofit organization dedicated to expanding access to aviation education, mentorship, and hands-on STEM learning opportunities for youth historically underrepresented in aviation. Since its founding in 2023, the organization reports serving more than 300 young people through programs including private pilot ground school, flight simulation training, and mentorship initiatives.
The anniversary gala will highlight the organization’s impact and bring together community partners committed to youth education, workforce development, and career pathways in aviation and STEM fields. Additional event and sponsorship information is included in the attached sponsorship packet for Council review.
Council Action Requested:
Receive the report and provide direction regarding Council interest in attendance, recognition, or sponsorship.
Respectfully submitted,
Webster Lincoln
Mayor, City of East Palo Alto
Attachment:
Bay Area Urban Eagles 2026 Anniversary & Gala Sponsorship Packet 448
2026 ANNIVERSARY & GALA
MARCH 21, 2026
[email protected]
www.urbaneagles.org
(650) 906-7937
CONTACT INFO
Since our founding in March 2023, Bay Area Urban Eagles has had the privilege of serving more than 300 young
people by expanding access to aviation education,
mentorship, and hands-on learning. Our Anniversary
Celebration is a moment to reflect on that progress and, more importantly, to continue building opportunity for the students we serve.
Sponsorship of this event supports private pilot ground school instruction, simulator-based training, mentorship, and essential resources that help remove barriers for
aspiring youth. It also provides an opportunity to stand alongside a community committed to education,
workforce development, and innovation.
We invite you to review the enclosed Sponsorship Levels & Benefits and consider partnering with us for this special evening. Thank you for helping advance a more inclusive and accessible future in aviation.
Immersive Experiences
Sponsor Sponsor BECOME A
Hands-on Experiences
Ground School
MICHAEL MASHACK
FOUNDER
449
BENEFITS COMMUNITY SILVER GOLD PLATINUM
AMOUNT $500 $1,000 $2,500 $5,000
NAME OR LOGO
LISTING IN THE EVENT
PROGRAM
YES YES YES YES
PROGRAM
RECOGNITION
Recognition as
Community
Supporter
Event Recognigtion Event Recognition,
Social Media
Event Recognition,
Logo on BAUE
Website,
Social Media
PROGRAM AD SIZE N/A ¼ Page Ad ½ Page Ad Full Page Ad
EVENT PERKS
2 admission tickets
(each includes 2 drink
tickets)
2 admission tickets
(each includes 2 drink
tickets)
4 admission tickets
(each includes 2 drink
tickets)
One sponsored table
for 10 guests,
(10 admission tickets +
2 drink tickets each)
SPONSORSHIP LEVELS
YOUR SUPPORT DIRECTLY FUNDS:
Private Pilot Ground School
Flight simulation & operational training
Technical skills development in aviation
Airspace operations & safety exposure
Mentorships & workforce pathways
Sponsorship empowers Bay Area Urban Eagles to build on our momentum and expand our reach. With your support, we can serve more students, strengthen mentorship, and create clearer pathways into aviation and STEAM careers.
Together, we’re not only celebrating what has been achieved—we’re investing in what’s possible next.
450
FORM
Name
Organization
Phone
E-Mail
City/State/Zip
SPONSORSHIP
2026 BAUE Anniversary & Gala
BAY AREA
URBAN EAGLES
Other Amount: $
$1,000 Silver
$5,000 - Platinum
$2,500 - Gold
A SPONSOR INFORMATION
B SELECT YOUR SPONSORSHIP LEVEL
Address
www.urbaneagles.org
:
:
:
:
:
FEIN # 92-3127220
Please Select One PROGRAM ADVERTISING ADD-ONS
Event programs are distributed to attendees and
shared digitally with families, partners, and supporters $150 Logo Listing
$1,000 Full-Page $250 Quarter-Page
$500 Half-Page
Total Advertising Amount: $
Thank you for your interest in supporting Bay Area Urban Eagles (BAUE) and our mission to expand access to aviation and STEM education for youth historically underrepresented in aviation. Please complete the form below to confirm your sponsorship or advertising commitment for the 2026 BAUE Anniversary & Gala. Your support directly advances youth access, mentorship, and long-term career pathways in aviation.
Bay Area Urban Eagles is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations may be tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
To complete your sponsorship:
Please email this completed form to [email protected]. Our team will contact you regarding payment options and, if applicable, program advertising details.
In addition to my event sponsorship, I am interested in supporting Bay Area Urban Eagles through a recurring donation.
Annually Quarterly Monthly Preferred recurring amount: $ 451