East Palo Alto City Council
May 19, 2026

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
Tuesday, May 19, 2026, 6:00 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/86559152281
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: 865 5915 2281
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council May 19, 2026 Agenda
1 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of Agreement with Regional Government Services for Classification and Compensation Study

3.2 Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the San Mateo County Regional EV Charging Project

1. REQUESTS TO APPEAR REMOTELY
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, members of the body may appear remotely for the following reasons:

A. Teleconference Exception (Gov’t Code § 54953(b)): None.

B. Just Cause (Gov’t Code § 54953.8.3):

Mayor Webster Lincoln
General description: (travel for city business, Gov’t Code § 54953.8.3((c)(4)) Affirmation (18 year or older participants)
Admonitions: (a) video and audio must remain on; (b) disruption causes cease of council action.

C. Emergency Circumstances (Gov’t Code § 54953.8.2 (Approval Required)): None.

Recommendation:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Regional Government Services (RGS) in amount not to exceed $147,000, to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study.

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.

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of San Carlos, East Palo Alto City Council May 19, 2026 Agenda
2 3.3 Safer Bay Project Design, Permitting and Bid Support

3.4 FY 2025-26 Third Quarter Treasury Report

3.5 Minutes of the May 5, 2026 Meeting

3.6 Memorial Day Proclamation

4. CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO THE EAST PALO ALTO

SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING

7. EPASD PUBLIC COMMENT

8. APPROVAL OF EPASD CONSENT CALENDAR

8.1 EPASD Cash Disbursement Report for March 2026

9. EPASD BOARD MEETING INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
and the Town of Portola Valley for the joint procurement of design and project management services for the San Mateo County Regional Electric Vehicle Charging Project.

1. Find that 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.

Recommendation: City Council authorization to award a professional services agreement for engineering design services for the SAFER Bay Project Phase 1 – North of Bay Road Reach (STA 52+27 to 69+00).

Recommendation:

Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of March 2026.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes of the May 5, 2026 Meeting Recommendation: Present the proclamation.

Recommendation: Accept the cash disbursement report required pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 6794.

East Palo Alto City Council May 19, 2026 Agenda
3 10. ADJOURN EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING AND

RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGUALR MEETING

11. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

12. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

13. PUBLIC HEARINGS

13.1 Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update

13.2 Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget Session Hearing No. 2

14. POLICY AND ACTION

15. COUNCIL REPORTS

16. ADJOURNMENT

12.1 101 Corridor Connect Program Update
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution approving the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to become effective July 18, 2026.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive this presentation and provide feedback on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 proposed budget.

Upcoming meetings:

Budget Meeting May 21, 2026 6:00 PM
Regular Meeting June 2, 2026 6:00 PM
Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 6:00 PM
East Palo Alto City Council May 19, 2026 Agenda
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: May 13, 2026
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
East Palo Alto City Council May 19, 2026 Agenda
5 COUNCIL REPORTS 3.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Regina Rubier, Interim Human Resources Manager
Nancy Murguia, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement with Regional Government Services for Classification and Compensation Study
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to award and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Regional Government Services (RGS) in amount not to exceed $147,000, to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study;

2. Authorizing the City Manager (or designee) to take all necessary actions to implement the agreement; and

3. Finding that 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.

Executive Summary
The City is preparing for upcoming labor negotiations and requires a comprehensive classification and compensation study. After a request for proposals (RFP) issued in December 2025 yielded no responses, staff conducted targeted outreach to reputable firms and obtained three proposals.

Staff recommends entering into an agreement with Regional Government Services (RGS) in an amount not to exceed $147,000, based on its public sector expertise, capacity, and ability to 6 COUNCIL REPORTS 3.1
meet project timelines. City Council approval is requested to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

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

Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
The City has existing memoranda of understanding with its three labor unions – Management Employees’ Association, Service Employees International Union, and Police Officers Association – that are set to expire on June 30, 2027. The City is thus preparing for upcoming labor negotiations and has identified the need for a comprehensive classification and compensation study to ensure that the City’s salary structures remain competitive, internally equitable, and aligned with current labor market conditions. This study will serve as a critical tool in evaluating the City’s existing job classifications, assessing compensation practices, and identifying any gaps or inconsistencies that may impact recruitment, retention, and overall organizational effectiveness. The results of this effort will provide a data-driven foundation to support informed decision-making during negotiations and help position the City as an employer of choice in an increasingly competitive public sector labor market.

In December 2025, the City issued a formal request for proposals (RFP) to solicit qualified firms with expertise in public sector classification and compensation studies. The RFP did not yield any responses, which may reflect current market constraints, limited vendor availability, or competing demands for these specialized services. To avoid delays and maintain momentum in advance of anticipated negotiation timelines, staff initiated a targeted outreach process to identify and engage firms with a proven track record of delivering similar work for public agencies. This outreach resulted in the receipt of three qualified and responsive proposals from Lyala Jane, Muchmore Than Consulting (MTC), and Regional Government Services (RGC).

Staff conducted a thorough evaluation of the proposals, considering factors such as the firms’ experience and qualifications, project approach and methodology, proposed timelines, references, and overall cost. Based on this evaluation, staff recommends entering into an agreement with Regional Government Services (RGS) in an amount not to exceed $147,000.

RGS distinguishes itself through its extensive experience in the public sector, including work with cities of similar size and complexity, its depth of technical expertise, and its ability to deliver a comprehensive and defensible study within the City’s required timeframe. Additionally, RGS has demonstrated a strong understanding of best practices in classification design, compensation analysis, and stakeholder engagement, all of which are essential to the success of this project.

The proposed scope of work includes a detailed review and analysis of existing job classifications, facilitation of stakeholder engagement through interviews and workshops, development of updated classification specifications, and a comprehensive compensation 7 COUNCIL REPORTS 3.1
analysis that incorporates relevant labor market data. The study will also provide actionable recommendations to ensure internal equity and external competitiveness, as well as tools and guidance to support the City in maintaining and updating its classification and compensation structures over time.

Staff requests the City Council’s approval to authorize the City Manager to award and execute an agreement with RGS and take any related actions necessary to move this important project forward. Approval of this agreement will enable the City to proceed in a timely manner, ensuring that the study is completed in advance of labor negotiations and that the City is well-positioned to engage in those discussions with accurate, current, and reliable information.

Analysis
Targeted outreach efforts resulted in three proposals:
 Layla Jane
 Muchmore Than Consulting (MTC)
 Regional Government Services (RGS)
All firms are highly qualified and experienced in conducting classification and compensation studies for public agencies. After careful evaluation and analysis, staff recommend selecting RGS based on overall value, capacity, and alignment with the City’s needs.

Staff evaluated all firms based on these criteria and recommend RGS for the following reasons:
 Capacity and Availability: While Layla Jane and MTC are currently providing services to the City, there is concern that adding a project of this scale may impact their ability to effectively deliver existing assignments.
 Public Sector Expertise: RGS is staffed entirely by retired public sector professionals (government annuitants) with extensive municipal experience. This structure provides a strong understanding of public agency operations, organizational structures, and compensation frameworks.
 Project Focus: RGS is well-positioned to dedicate the necessary resources and attention to complete the study within the required timeframe, ensuring readiness for upcoming labor negotiations.
 Balanced Value: RGS presents a strong combination of competitive pricing, relevant expertise, and dedicated resources, positioning the firm to deliver the project effectively and achieve successful outcomes. Its employees’ extensive experience in public sector classification and compensation studies, coupled with a clear and structured project approach, ensures alignment with the City’s objectives, timelines, and regulatory requirements. Additionally, RGS’s ability to provide consistent project oversight and responsive support further strengthens confidence in its capacity to produce high-quality, actionable results that will support the City’s upcoming labor negotiations. 8 COUNCIL REPORTS 3.1
Fiscal Impact
The total cost of the agreement will not exceed One Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand ($147,000) dollars. Funding for this agreement is available in the approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 operating budget.

In the current FY 2025-26 approved operating budget, the City appropriated One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) dollars for Compensation and Salary Study and Eighty Thousand ($80,000) dollars for Classification Study services.

There are no additional fiscal impacts.

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.

Attachments

1. Resolution Authorizing Agreement with RGS
9 Resolution No. XX-2026 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A

FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

SERVICES TO CONDUCT A CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto is preparing for upcoming labor negotiations and requires a comprehensive classification and compensation study to ensure its compensation structure remains competitive, equitable, and aligned with current labor market conditions; and WHEREAS, in December 2025, the Human Resources Department issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a benchmark, classification, and compensation study, and the City received no proposals; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted targeted outreach to qualified firms with demonstrated expertise in public sector classification and compensation studies and obtained three proposals; and
WHEREAS, proposals were received from Layla Jane, Muchmore Than Consulting, and Regional Government Services; and
WHEREAS, after evaluation of qualifications, capacity, expertise, and overall value, staff determined that Regional Government Services is best suited to perform the work due to its public sector experience, ability to dedicate sufficient resources, and capacity to meet project timelines; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the agreement will not exceed One Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($147,000), and funding is available in the approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 operating budget; and
WHEREAS, this action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

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; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute an agreement with Regional Government Services to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Forty Seven Thousand Dollars ($147,000), in a form approved by the City Attorney, and to make any non-substantive amendments necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution;

3. Authorizes the City Manager (or designee) is authorized to take all necessary actions to 10 Resolution No. XX-2026 2 of 2
implement the agreement; and

4. Find that 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..

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
11 CONSENT ITEM 3.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Fatima Khan, Environmental Services Aide
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the San Mateo County Regional EV Charging Project
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of San Carlos, and the Town of Portola Valley for the joint procurement of design and project management services for the San Mateo County Regional Electric Vehicle Charging Project; and

2. Finding that 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.

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

Priority: Public Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
Priority: Public Infrastructure and Utilities
12 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
Background
In December 2024, the City of East Palo Alto, in partnership with the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of San Carlos, and the Town of Portola Valley, applied jointly for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Climate Program Implementation Grant. This grant cohort submitted an application under a broad regional effort called the San Mateo County Regional Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Project. MTC notified the cohort of its project approval and funding amounts in March 2025.

On May 6, 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution of local support to approve the City’s successful application for this grant and commit the City to completing the grant project (installing 24 publicly accessible EV chargers). The total cost of the project is approximately $753,422.00. MTC awarded $580,000 to the City of East Palo Alto. Peninsula Clean Energy will provide the remaining funding as a match.

Across the four participating jurisdictions, the project will install a total of 66 publicly accessible EV charging stations, including:
 62 Level 2 chargers
 4 DC Fast Chargers (DCFC)
Within the City of East Palo Alto, the project includes installation of 24 Level 2 chargers, listed in Table 1.

Charging stations will be installed at strategically selected locations, prioritizing areas near multi-unit housing (MUH), transit-oriented communities (TOCs), and neighborhood destinations such as community centers, parks, and commercial corridors. These locations were selected to expand access to EV charging for residents who may not have access to at-home charging, including renters. Customers will pay for the use of these chargers directly at the port, both at City and curbside locations. The cost of charging may be adjusted to cover ongoing maintenance of the equipment.

Location Proposed Infrastructure
2100 Bay Rd. (Cooley Landing) 2 dual-port 19.2 kW L2 chargers 901 Weeks St. (Sanitary District) 2 dual-port 19.2 kW L2 chargers 1730-1748 Bay Rd. (curbside) 3 single-port 7.6 kW L2 chargers 599-501 Sacramento St. (curbside) 3 single-port 7.6 kW L2 chargers 204-326 E Okeefe St. (curbside) 4 single-port 7.6 kW L2 chargers 1977 Tate St. (curbside) 3 single-port 7.6 kW L2 chargers 25 Newell Rd. (curbside) 3 single-port 7.6 kW L2 chargers 2415 University Ave. (City Hall) 2 dual-port 19.2 kW L2 chargers 560 Bell St. (Senior Center) 2 dual-port 19.2 kW L2 chargers Table 1: The location of the charger(s) in the accepted MTC grant application and the 13 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
corresponding number of ports and capacity.

Analysis
This grant project aligns broadly with the City of East Palo Alto’s adopted 2030 Climate Action Plan’s emission reduction goals and specifically with the Plan’s following measures:

Measure T2.2 - Encourage expansion of EV charging infrastructure through incentives and partnerships.

Measure T2.7 - Improve local EV adoption rates.

The cohort has moved in tandem through all parts of this process so far, including application submission, resolution adoption, and funding obligation. Although each jurisdiction has received its own funding allocation and will implement its own EV charging installations, the four jurisdictions will continue to coordinate to improve efficiency and outcomes. This proposed approach has been presented to and discussed with the MTC, PCE, and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). All three agencies are working with the cities on funding authorizations as a single group.

The proposed MOU establishes a framework for a coordinated procurement approach, whereby the participating jurisdictions will conduct a joint request for proposals (RFP) to procure a consultant to provide design and project management services.

This coordinated approach offers several benefits:
 Improved efficiency: A single, coordinated procurement process reduces duplicative staff effort across jurisdictions.
 Cost savings: Shared procurement can lower administrative costs and create economies of scale.
 More competitive bids: Coordinating across multiple jurisdictions may attract more qualified firms and encourage more competitive pricing.  Consistency in project delivery: Standardized design and specifications can support streamlined construction and long-term maintenance.

Importantly, while procurement of design and project management services will be coordinated, each jurisdiction will:
 Enter into its own contract with the selected consultant  Maintain its own project budget and scope
 Independently bid and award construction contracts
This structure allows the City to benefit from a collaborative approach while maintaining 14 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
compliance with all applicable state and local procurement requirements and retaining full control over project implementation.

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
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 involve an entitlement but instead a nonmonetary inter-governmental agreement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Draft MOU
15 Resolution No. XX-2023 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS, AND

THE TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY FOR THE JOINT PROCUREMENT OF DESIGN AND

PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY REGIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto’s 2030 Climate Action Plan and Adaptation Strategies was adopted in September 2023 and includes measures highlighting the importance of electrifying public infrastructure and expanding the electric vehicle charging network; and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto applied for and received $580,000.00 in grant funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the installation of 24 publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations through a regional application; and
WHEREAS, all the jurisdictions on this regional application have been coordinating submissions for the obligation and authorization of this funding; and WHEREAS, the regional applicants including the City of East Palo Alto, the City of San Carlos, the City of Half Moon Bay, and the Town of Portola Valley would like to combine a portion of their grant funding to procure a single design and project management firm in order to continue working as partners to receive similar services and products from a single consultant; and WHEREAS, construction of the project must be completed in January 2027 per the grant requirements and the pooling of resources and time by the regional applicants will allow the City to remain on track for this deadline; and
WHEREAS, a single lead agency from among this group of jurisdictions would issue a request for proposals (RFP) in accordance with state and local procurements laws;

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 enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of San Carlos, and the Town of Portola Valley for the joint procurement of design and project management services for the San Mateo County Regional Electric Vehicle Charging Project; and

3. Finds that 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.
16 Resolution No. XX-2023 2 of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19
th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
17 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF

SAN CARLOS, AND THE TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY FOR COORDINATED PROCUREMENT

OF DESIGN AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR EV CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is entered into on this XX day of XXX, 2026, by and between the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of San Carlos, and the Town of Portola Valley (collectively referred to as the “Participating Jurisdictions” and individually as a “Jurisdiction”).

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions are pursuing the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in December 2024, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded funding through its Climate Program Implementation Grant to support the expansion of publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the region; and WHEREAS, the funding supports the San Mateo County Regional EV Charging Project: Scaling Accessible and Sustainable Solutions, a collaborative initiative between the City of East Palo Alto, the City of San Carlos, the City of Half Moon Bay, and the Town of Portola Valley; and WHEREAS, the project will include the installation of sixty-six (66) publicly accessible EV charging stations across the four Participating Jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions desire to coordinate certain procurement activities for specific purposes and benefits, including to improve efficiency, reduce administrative burden, increase contractor interest, and enhance competitive pricing; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions intend to conduct a single joint request for proposals (RFP) process to procure a qualified consultant or consultant team to provide design and project management services to support EV charging infrastructure projects across the Participating Jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, each Jurisdiction intends to use this joint RFP to enter into its own agreement with the selected consultant or consultant team to support implementation of EV charging infrastructure projects within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, each Jurisdiction will independently procure and enter into its own construction contract for EV charging infrastructure within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions wish to formalize their collaborative approach through this MOU while maintaining their independent authority over project implementation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

1. Purpose of the MOU
The purpose of this MOU is to establish a framework for collaboration among the Participating Jurisdictions to:

A. Conduct a single, coordinated procurement process to secure the services of a consultant or consultant team to provide design and project management services, with each Jurisdiction entering into its own agreement with the selected consultant or consultant team.

B. Coordinate the preparation of plans, specifications, and other construction contract bid materials to promote consistency across Participating Jurisdictions where feasible.

C. Coordinate the timing and release of construction contract bid packages to facilitate contractor participation.

D. Facilitate collaboration while maintaining the authority of each Jurisdiction to independently procure and manage construction within its Jurisdiction.

2. Joint Procurement of Professional Services
18 Half Moon Bay, East Palo Alto, San Carlos, Portola Valley Memorandum of Understanding
2 The Participating Jurisdictions shall collaborate to conduct a joint RFP process to procure a qualified consultant or consultant team to provide design and project management services to support EV charging infrastructure projects across the Participating Jurisdictions.

The selected consultant or consultant team may provide services including, but not limited to:

A. Design Services
Design-related services may include:
 Site assessments
 Preparation of plans and specifications for EV charging installations within each Jurisdiction  Development of standardized bid package components
 Coordination with Participating Jurisdictions regarding site-specific design requirements  Technical support during the construction procurement process B. Project Management Services
Project management services may include:
 Project coordination across Participating Jurisdictions  Coordination with contractors
 Monitoring schedule and performance
 Supporting grant compliance and reporting
 Submitting funding authorizations and other grant-related documentation Each Jurisdiction will enter into its own agreement with the selected consultant or consultant team for services performed within each Jurisdiction, unless the Participating Jurisdictions mutually agree to another contracting structure.

Participation in the final contract shall remain at the discretion of each Jurisdiction.

3. Coordination of Construction Bid Packages
To the extent feasible, the Participating Jurisdictions shall coordinate the preparation and release of construction bid packages to promote consistency across Participating Jurisdictions.

Coordination may include:
 Using common or standardized sections of bid documents where feasible.  Including language in bid materials indicating that similar projects are being bid by multiple jurisdictions.
 Aligning warranty requirements and technical standards where feasible.  Considering inclusion of operations and maintenance (O&M) provisions or repair provisions to support proper functioning of EV charging infrastructure.  Coordinating the timing of construction bid releases and bid notices to the extent practicable.  Considering extended bid periods to allow contractors sufficient time to prepare bids for multiple jurisdictions.

Nothing in this section requires the Participating Jurisdictions to adopt identical bid documents if doing so conflicts with local requirements or procurement policies.

4. Independent Construction Procurement
Each Jurisdiction shall independently:
 Issue its own construction bid solicitation
 Evaluate bids and select contractors
 Enter into construction contracts
19 3
 Manage construction activities within its jurisdiction Nothing in this MOU obligates a Jurisdiction to select the same contractor as another participating jurisdiction.

5. Lead Agency
The Participating Jurisdictions may designate one Jurisdiction to serve as Lead Agency for the purposes of coordinating the joint RFP process, described in Section 2, to procure a consultant or consultant team to provide design and project management services.

If designated, the Lead Agency may be responsible for:
 Preparing and releasing the joint RFP
 Coordinating proposal review and evaluation
 Facilitating selection of the recommended consultant or project manager The Lead Agency shall not be responsible for oversight of contracts between consultant or contractors and each Jurisdiction, even if the joint RFP was used to select the consultant or contractor.

6. Cost Responsibilities
Each Jurisdiction shall be responsible for:
 Its share of costs associated with design and project management services, as detailed in the separate agreements developed between each Jurisdiction and the selected consultant or consultant team.  All costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of EV charging infrastructure located within its jurisdiction.
 All costs associated with supporting the development of associated RFPs.

Cost-sharing arrangements for joint services may be defined in a separate agreement or written amendment to this MOU.

7. Compliance with Procurement Laws
Each Jurisdiction shall conduct its procurement activities in accordance with its applicable local policies, ordinances, and state laws governing public contracting.

Nothing in this MOU supersedes or modifies any Jurisdiction’s legal procurement requirements.

8. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this MOU establishes a collaborative relationship between independent governmental entities for the specific purposes and benefits set forth above. Nothing in this MOU creates a partnership, joint venture, joint powers authority, or agency relationship between the Participating Jurisdictions.

Each Jurisdiction retains full authority over its own procurement processes, contracting decisions, and project implementation.

9. Hold Harmless
Each Jurisdiction (“Indemnifying Party”) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Participating Jurisdictions and their officers, employees, and agents from any claims, suits, or actions of every nature, kind or description, arising out of the acts or omissions of that Indemnifying Party, or its officers, employees, contractors, or agents in connection with this MOU.

Liability shall be apportioned in accordance with California law in cases involving concurrent negligence.

10. Amendment of MOU
This MOU constitutes the sole MOU of the Participating Jurisdictions hereto regarding this subject matter and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each Jurisdiction as of this document's date. In the event that any term, condition, provision, requirement or specification set forth in the body of this MOU conflicts with or is inconsistent with any term, condition, provision, requirement, or specification in any exhibit and/or attachment to this MOU, the provisions of this body of the MOU shall prevail. Any prior MOU, promises, 20 Half Moon Bay, East Palo Alto, San Carlos, Portola Valley Memorandum of Understanding
4 negotiations, or representations between the Participating Jurisdictions regarding the subject matter of this MOU not expressly stated in this document are not binding. All Jurisdictions may request a modification to this MOU at any time. All subsequent modifications shall be in writing and will become effective when signed by all Participating Jurisdictions.

11. Notices
Any written notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed to be properly given when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, or when transmitted by email communication, addressed to the following:

Attn: City Attorney
East Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
2415 University Avenue, 2nd Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
Attn: City Attorney
Half Moon Bay Attorney’s Office
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
[email protected]
Attn: City Attorney
San Carlos Attorney’s Office
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
[email protected]
Attn: Town Attorney
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]

12. Controlling Law and Venue
The validity of this MOU, the interpretation of its terms and conditions, and the performance of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce this MOU must be brought in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Mateo.

13. Term and Termination
This MOU shall become effective upon execution by all Participating Jurisdictions and shall remain in effect until two (2) years following the obligation of construction funds for the San Mateo County Regional EV Charging Project under the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Climate Program Implementation Grant, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.

Any Jurisdiction may terminate its participation in this MOU upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Participating Jurisdictions.

14. Electronic Signatures
Participating Jurisdictions wish to permit this MOU and future documents relating to this MOU to be digitally signed in accordance with California law and County’s Electronic Signature Administrative Memo. Any party to this MOU may revoke such agreement to permit electronic signatures at any time in relation to all future documents by providing notice pursuant to this Agreement.

15. Authority
The Participating Jurisdictions warrant that the signatories to the MOU have the authority to bind their respective entities.
21 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Participating Jurisdictions hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have affixed their hands.

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
By:

Title:

Date:

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
By:

Title:

Date:

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
By:

Title:

Date:

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
By:

Title:

Date:
22 CONSENT ITEM 3.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Alec Nicholas, Special Projects Manager
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: SAFER Bay Project (City Project No. SP-02C) Phase 1 Design Award - North of Bay Road Reach
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a contract amount of $1,759,080.00 and to establish a 10% contingency of $175,908.00, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,934,988.00 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the SAFER Bay Flood Control Project (SP-02C), Phase 1 North of Bay Road Reach, STA 52+27 to 69+00; and

2. Appropriating $670,028.91 from the CIP local fund; andS

3. 4. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. .

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
 Public Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
 Public Infrastructure and Utilities
23 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
Background
The SAFER Bay Project is a multi-jurisdictional flood protection initiative designed to address increasing tidal flooding and projected sea level rise along the southeastern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The project integrates engineered flood protection features with nature-based solutions and ecosystem restoration to improve shoreline resilience while maintaining public access and habitat connectivity.

Regional vulnerability assessments, including the Adapting to Rising Tides analysis, have identified East Palo Alto as one of the communities most vulnerable to tidal flooding and sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area. Portions of the City are low-lying and susceptible to flooding during extreme tidal events and storm surge, which places residential neighborhoods, transportation corridors, utilities, and other critical infrastructure at risk. The SAFER Bay Project was initiated to reduce these risks and provide long-term flood protection for shoreline communities.

To allow for phased implementation and efficient use of available funding, the SAFER Bay Project within East Palo Alto is being advanced in defined shoreline reaches. The City previously advanced Phase 1 design for the reach south of Bay Road. The next phase of work focuses on the north of Bay Road reach, which extends from Bay Road north along the boundary of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve before turning west and terminating at high ground near Tara Street (approximately Station 52+27 to Station 69+00 of the project alignment). This reach represents a key segment of the overall SAFER Bay flood protection alignment within the City.

Planning and feasibility studies for the broader SAFER Bay Project were completed in 2016. For the North of Bay Road reach, preliminary planning and concept-level design have been completed to approximately the 10 percent design level through a separate contract managed by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA). The City is now seeking to advance this reach through additional planning, environmental review support, design, permitting support, and bid support activities to move the project toward construction readiness.

Phase 1 work for the North of Bay Road reach is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Grant No. DR-4344- 541-93R, SAFER Bay Mitigation Project, Phase 1. The grant supports planning, environmental review, and design activities necessary to advance multiple reaches of the SAFER Bay Project toward implementation.

Analysis
To advance the SAFER Bay Project North of Bay Road reach toward implementation, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) on February 4, 2026, seeking qualified consulting firms to provide professional engineering and related services for design, permitting support, environmental review support, public outreach support, and bid support. Proposals were due on March 6, 2026.

The scope of services outlined in the RFP is intended to advance the project from its current 24 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
approximately ten percent design level through subsequent Phase 1 design milestones. The selected consultant will review the existing ten percent design and prepare engineering design documents at the thirty percent, sixty percent, ninety percent, and final design stages. The consultant will also assist the City with regulatory permitting, environmental documentation support, and bid support services necessary to prepare the project for construction.

In addition to engineering design, the consultant will assist the City with technical support during the ongoing environmental review process and coordination with partner agencies involved in the broader SAFER Bay Project. The consultant will also provide technical support for public outreach activities led by the City and assist with preparation of documentation necessary for regulatory permit applications once the design has advanced to an appropriate level of detail.

On March 6, 2026, in response to the City’s posted RFP, one proposal was received by Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. An evaluation committee consisting of two city staff and one representative from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) reviewed the proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. The evaluation committee considered the firm’s qualifications and experience, project team expertise, technical approach, understanding of the project, and ability to successfully deliver the required services.

Based on the evaluation process, the selection committee determined that the proposer, Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. meets the qualifications to provide the required services for the SAFER Bay Project Phase 1 – North of Bay Road reach. The firm demonstrated strong experience with shoreline flood protection projects, environmental permitting coordination, and multidisciplinary engineering design services relevant to the SAFER Bay Project. The initial proposal included a cost of $3,425,607. After multiple rounds of negotiations over four weeks, an agreement was reached for an amount of $1,759,080.

Staff recommends entering into a professional services agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. for an amount of $1,759,080, with a contingency of 10% ($175,908), for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,934,988. The contingency is included to allow the City to address unforeseen conditions, regulatory coordination needs, or additional technical analyses that may arise during the design and permitting process.

Advancing the design of the North of Bay Road reach represents an important step in implementing the SAFER Bay Project and improving long-term flood protection and resilience for the City of East Palo Alto. Completion of Phase 1 design and permitting activities will position the City to pursue future funding opportunities and move the project toward construction.

The proposed agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. will provide professional engineering and related services to advance the SAFER Bay Project Phase 1 – North of Bay Road reach (Station 52+27 to 69+00) from the existing approximately 10 percent design level through final design and bid support.

The consultant’s services will generally include the following:
 Project management and coordination with City staff and partner agencies 25 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
 Review of existing ten percent design documents and supporting technical information  Preparation of thirty percent, sixty percent, ninety percent, and final design documents  Environmental documentation support and regulatory coordination  Preparation and support of permit applications required for construction  Technical support for City-led public outreach activities  Preparation of final plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) and bid support services The project includes flood protection improvements along the SAFER Bay alignment within the City of East Palo Alto, as well as associated Bay Trail access improvements, and on-site habitat mitigation features necessary to support levee construction and maintain tidal marsh connectivity and habitat functions.

Next Steps
Following City Council approval, staff will execute a professional services agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. and issue a Notice to Proceed. The consultant will begin by reviewing the existing ten percent design and advancing the project through the Phase 1 design milestones required under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

The anticipated schedule for Phase 1 design and permitting activities is shown below.

Milestone Estimated Completion
Contract Execution / Notice to Proceed May 2026
30% Design June 2026
60% Design July 2026
90% Design September 2026
Final Design, O&M Plan, Bid Support, Updated BCA October 17, 2026 Regulatory Permits (anticipated) by SFCJPA Summer 2027
Construction Bid & Award Prep TBD
Staff will continue coordinating with the SFCJPA, FEMA, and other regulatory agencies as the project advances through design, environmental review, and permitting. Future actions related to construction will be brought to the City Council at a later date.

Fiscal Impact
SAFER Bay project Phase 1 is included in the FY 2025-26 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). These funds are inclusive for both reaches, namely, south of Bay Road and north of Bay Road. 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.

In April 2025, the City of East Palo Alto executed an agreement for the design of the SAFER 26 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
Bay project Phase 1 - South of Bay Road reach for $3,384,280.90. Under the funding agreement, FEMA will cover 75% of the 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. These funds have already been encumbered.

For the SAFER Bay project Phase 1– North of Bay Road reach, the total not to exceed amount is $1,934,988. There are left over funds from the design phase of the HMGP grant in the amount of $948,719.32. The remainder of $986,268.68 will be funded through the City’s capital funds.

The City has previously committed up to $5.5 million toward this project through Resolution 5031, of which $316,239.77 will be funded from the previously committed amount. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $670,028.91 from the CIP Local Fund to fully fund the remaining project costs.Please see the summary funding table below.

Project Phase Federal Share Non-Federal
Share (East
Palo Alto) $5.5
million
committed
Non-Federal
Share
(additional
appropriation
from CIP)
Total Project
Cost
Phase I,
Supplement
3019 (South of
Bay Rd Reach)
$2,538,210.68 $846.070.23 N/A $3,384,280.90
Phase I,
Supplement
3019 (North of
Bay Rd Reach)
$948,719.32 $316,239.77 $670,028.91 $1,934,988.00
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.

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). The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SAFER Bay Project, with the public draft EIR released in December 2025 and final EIR certification anticipated by June 2026. The EIR evaluates the SAFER Bay Project reaches at varying levels of detail; for the North of Bay Road Reach, the EIR provides programmatic-level coverage.

Because the design for this reach was advanced to the ten percent level at the time of the EIR's 27 CONSENT ITEM 3.3
preparation, additional project-level CEQA documentation may be required as the design progresses. The scope of services under this contract includes provisions for the selected consultant to prepare supplemental CEQA documentation, such as an Addendum or Supplemental EIR, if determined to be necessary following certification of the Final EIR. The specific CEQA pathway will be determined based on the certified EIR and the results of the consultant's value engineering and environmental documentation strategy assessment, as described in the scope of work.

The proposed action before the City Council, awarding a professional services agreement for engineering design services, does not itself constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.. Awarding this contract does not commit the City to any specific course of action with respect to construction, and all future project-level approvals will be subject to appropriate environmental review.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the entitlement in question is an agreement between two or more governmental entities.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

1. Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. Proposal

2. Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. Fee Table
28 Resolution No. XX-2026 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2026

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, LTD. IN A FORM TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,759,080.00 AND TO ESTABLISH A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,908.00 FOR A NOT-TOEXCEED OF $1,934,988.00 TO PROVIDE CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SAFER BAY PROJECT – PHASE 1 NORTH OF BAY ROAD REACH (STA 52+27 TO 69+00)
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 remove the City's most vulnerable areas from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 100-year floodplain designation and improve 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 design and planning of flood protection improvements 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, in April 2025 the City Council authorized an agreement with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. for professional engineering services for the SAFER Bay Project Phase 1 – South of Bay Road Reach in the amount of $3,384,280.90; and
WHEREAS, the City now seeks to advance the Phase 1 – North of Bay Road Reach (STA 52+27 to 69+00) from the existing approximately 10 percent design level through final design and bid support; and
WHEREAS, as part of the design process, the City will oversee consultants managing the flood protection levee project's design, environmental documentation, regulatory permitting support, right-ofway coordination, public outreach support, and bid support to ensure alignment with project goals, FEMA grant requirements, and regulatory requirements; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals on February 4, 2026, and on March 6, 2026, the City received one proposal from Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd.; and WHEREAS, Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. meets the qualifications required to perform the work; and
WHEREAS, staff negotiated the cost with Sherwood Design Engineers, Ltd. and is recommending awarding a design contract.
29 Resolution No. XX-2026 2 of 3

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, Ltd., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for $1,759,080.00, and to establish a 10% contingency in the amount of $175,908.00, for a not-to-exceed total of $1,934,988.00 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the SAFER Bay Project – Phase 1 North of Bay Road Reach (STA 52+27 to 69+00); and

3. Appropriating $670,028.91 from the CIP local fund; and

4. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th Day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
30 Resolution No. XX-2026 3 of 3
Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
31 SAFER Bay
East Palo Alto, California
Scope and Fee
for
Civil Engineering Services
Design, Permitting & Bid Support
(Phase 1 – North of Bay Road Reach, STA 52+27 to 69+00) Sherwood Design Engineers
May 4, 2026
32 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 2 / 26 Scope and Fee
May 4, 2026
City of East Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
c/o Alec Nicholas
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: Scope and Fee for Civil Engineering Services
SAFER Bay EPA
Design, Permitting & Bid Support (Phase 1 – North of Bay Road Reach, STA 52+27 to 69+00)
Dear Alec,
In response to your request, Sherwood Design Engineers (“Sherwood” hereinafter) is pleased to submit this scope and fee to the City of East Palo Alto (the “Client” or “City” hereinafter) for engineering services for the SAFER Bay Design, Permitting, and Bid Support (Phase 1 – North of Bay Road Reach, STA 52+27 to 69+00) project located at the Bay Trail between Bay Road and Tara Street in the City of East Palo Alto, California. This scope describes professional civil engineering services to be performed by Sherwood in collaboration, as appropriate, with Sherwood’s subconsultants and the Client’s other design team members (the “Design Team” hereinafter).

This proposal is valid for 45 days from the date submitted to East Palo Alto. Any proposed project or portion thereof not accepted during this timeframe, will become void and will require a new proposal if requested in future.

We will initiate proposed services upon the written approval of these terms and conditions or upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed that identifies that a formal signed contract will be forthcoming from the Client.

1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project includes approximately 1,700 LF of earthen levee and one vehicular floodgate. Additional efforts will support habitat restoration through a tidal channel realignment in the marshes fronting the Project. The North of Bay Road (NOBR) Project builds upon the South of Bay Road (SOBR) Project currently under contract.

Sherwood will work closely in a collaborative manner with the Design Team to complete the contracted civil engineering services in accordance with the appropriate requirements of the governing agencies.

The understood scope of work has been established by the City of East Palo Alto’s February 4, 2026 Request for Proposals (RFP) and subsequent refinements by Sherwood and Client. The project consists of civil engineering services as described below.

Every project is subject to specific requirements and conditions that cannot be fully anticipated and may require additional documentation and support not covered in the original scope. If additional scope items are identified, outside those listed within this proposal Sherwood will work with the Client to develop an Additional Services agreement for approval prior to advancing the work. 33 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 3 / 26

1.1 Limits of Work
The Limits of Work for this project encompasses the area(s) bounded in Exhibit A. Any additional work not included herein may be scoped in a separate contract.

2.0 PROJECT PHASING AND DELIVERABLES
Sherwood proposes the following design phases relative to the anticipated permit approvals process, planning documents, and construction documents production. Each phase is intended to enhance the design upon successive approvals to help the project realize the intended design upon completion.

The proposed design phases (“tasks”) for this project are:

1. Project Management

2. [NOT USED]

3. Data Collection and Investigations

4. Basis for Design

5. 30% Design Document

6. Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

7. 60% Design

8. 90% Design

9. 100% Final Design
It is understood that Sherwood will provide electronic files to the Client for submittal to the appropriate stakeholders and design review committee. Refer to phase(s) below for specific deliverables.

Task 1. Project Management
Task 1 will initiate the Project with clear and methodical Project Management by starting off with a wellagendized 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. The fee provided herein assumes one (1) review cycle per design phase (30%, 60%, 90%, 100%). Additional review cycles or major redesign efforts will be treated as Additional Services. Agency and stakeholder coordination is limited to the meetings identified herein; additional meetings will be considered Additional Services.

Subtask 1.1. Kick-off Meeting
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 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.

Subtask 1.2 Project Design Work Plan
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), and other administrative procedures.

Subtask 1.3 Progress Meetings
34 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 4 / 26 Following the kick-off meetings, the Sherwood Team will coordinate and attend periodic progress meetings and workshops with City of East Palo Alto Staff. Progress meetings are anticipated to include monthly design coordination meetings which will be held coincident with the ongoing South of Bay Road Project meetings. No additional deliverables will be provided separately under the North of Bay Road Project.

Subtask 1.4 One-on-One Meetings with City of East Palo Alto Recurring weekly meetings will be held between the Sherwood Project Manager and City representative.

These meetings will provide updates on the team’s work activities, look-ahead activities, and any issues or action required by the City. These are anticipated to be held over video conference and will extend from the already scheduled meetings under the SOBR contract.

Subtask 1.5 Coordination and Communication with External Agencies and Stakeholders In collaboration with the City’s Project Manager, the Sherwood Team will coordinate and communicate with appropriate regulatory or other federal, state, and local agencies and stakeholders. These entities are anticipated to include FEMA, CalOES, PG&E, SFCJPA, and other utility service providers. Utility coordination meetings are assumed not to exceed four (4) meetings. Remaining meetings for the nonutility agencies will not exceed six (6) meetings for a total of 10 meetings maximum.

Support to the City for grant status reporting under the CalOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) will be provided to describe any changes in scope, schedule or budget, and suggested corrective actions.

Subtask 1.6 Public Outreach
Two public outreach efforts are included under Subtask 1.6: direct community engagement and participation in BCDC DRB meetings. Per client requests to streamline, the community engagement efforts will be limited to creation of up to two (2) exhibits for EPA staff to present to the residents of East Palo Alto and supporting community outreach worker efforts to distribute information to the residents. No Sherwood Team engineers or other technical staff will attend community meetings for this North of Bay Road project.

In addition to coordination with the general public, subtask 1.6 provides for preparation and attendance at two (2) BCDC DRB meetings. The meetings will be scheduled and led by the JPA team and coordinated with the SAFER Menlo Park consultant team. The Sherwood Team assumes these presentations will be made in-person and cover up to 20 exhibits addressing the Design Review Board’s public access and landscape requirements.

It is assumed that no BCDC Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meetings or review will be required due to the future FEMA certification of the levee.

Deliverables:
• Exhibit creation for two (2) BCDC DRB meetings
• Attendance of relevant key personnel at two (2) BCDC DRB meetings Subtask 1.7 Additional Review Meetings
Sherwood will schedule and attend additional meetings, workshops, and consultations with the City as noted under (and connected to) subsequent tasks. Up to a maximum of two (2) one-day workshops are accommodated.

Task 2. [NOT USED]
35 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 5 / 26 Task 3. Data Collection and Investigations
As part of Task 3, the Sherwood Team will review, verify, and incorporate available planning- and designlevel data previously prepared for the project, and identify and address gaps. Data review is expected to include review of the geotechnical data (as acquired under SOBR contract ASP02) required 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 Research and Review of Available Project Documentation The Sherwood team will review the HDR 10% design for North of Bay Road stations 52+27 to 69+00, existing or in-progress survey, geotechnical, and environmental information, and planning level studies as made available by the Client. A memorandum deliverable is excluded from this scope of work per Client request.

Subtask 3.2 Project Base Map
Incorporating work from the Sherwood Team’s South of Bay Road efforts and any additional Cityfurnished mapping, Task 3.2 will assemble a project base map. This base mapping process will include a verification of internal consistency amongst data, resolution of discrepancies identified under Task 5, and coordination with the City regarding conflicts or uncertainties.

Assumptions:
• No new field work will be required, including no utility potholing, CCTV, or GPR. Accuracy and completeness of project base map is limited to the accuracy and completeness of record data available, and that which is readily visible in the field.

Deliverables:
• One (1) updated, compiled Project Base Map DWG file
Subtask 3.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition and Negotiations
[SEE OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES]
Subtask 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations – Analysis and Design Led by subconsultant Geosyntec, the Sherwood Team will review, interpret, and incorporate previously completed geotechnical investigations and analyses into the Project design. This scope includes review of the existing geotechnical investigations information as acquired under the South of Bay Road project ASP02 (North of Bay Exploration), supplemental engineering analysis and design support, and geotechnical design criteria and support of the plans, specifications, and estimates. Geotechnical efforts covered under this subtask will fold into deliverables which are shared with the South of Bay Road Project.

Subtask 3.5 Interior Drainage
The Sherwood Team, as part of the South of Bay Road Project, is currently completing a portion of the Interior Drainage analysis needed for this project segment. The scope of work below proceeds with the remaining task to complete the analysis.

The proposed design phases for this project are:

1. FEMA Coordination and Compliance Alignment

2. Data Collection and Infrastructure Inventory
36 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 6 / 26

3. Design Basis and Scenario Development

4. Residual FEMA Risk Mapping

5. Pump Station and Detention Performance Evaluation

6. O&M and Closure Systems Review

7. Interior Drainage Certification Report
It is understood that Sherwood will provide electronic files to the Client for submission to the appropriate stakeholders and design review committee. Refer to phase(s) below for specific deliverables.

3.5.1 FEMA Coordination and Compliance
Sherwood will lead technical coordination with FEMA Region IX, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) NFIP coordinator, and other relevant partners to confirm alignment with applicable FEMA mapping guidance, particularly the levee-specific interior drainage requirements outlined in 44 CFR §65.10 and related appendices of the FEMA LAMP (Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures) guidance. This task includes:
• A kickoff meeting to confirm approach and assumptions • Interim check-ins to share scenario definitions, data sources, and results • Maintenance of a compliance tracking matrix
• Preparation of coordination memos and documentation of FEMA’s informal concurrence with modeling assumptions and design basis
Deliverables:
• Meeting Notes and Agendas
• Preparation of materials and presentation at up to 2 FEMA coordination meetings

3.5.2 Data Collection and Infrastructure Inventory (Survey) This task includes up to 40 drainage structures that will be field surveyed (e.g., manholes, culverts, outfalls, tide gates) to validate locations, inverts, and sizes.

Deliverables:
• GIS-based structure inventory and updated storm network database (to be included with final deliverable)

3.5.3 Design Basis and Scenario Development
Sherwood will define the hydraulic and hydrologic parameters that establish the basis for modeling and performance evaluation. This includes:
• Defining the 1% annual chance (100-year) precipitation design storm • Establishing joint-probability rainfall + tailwater events (e.g., 10-year rainfall + 10-year tide) per EM 1110-2-1414 and LAMP
• Identifying critical sea level rise (SLR) and climate-adjusted rainfall scenarios for sensitivity testing
• Developing a detailed scenario matrix aligned with FEMA requirements • Assumes that Client will review and provide comprehensive comments on Basis of Design before Design Team proceeds with Interior Drainage Modeling
Deliverables:
• One (1) Design Basis Memorandum with up to 3 final design scenarios

3.5.4 Residual FEMA Risk Mapping
37 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 7 / 26 Once the residual flood extent area is accepted by the City, Sherwood will delineate AO, AH, or A Zones consistent with FEMA’s DFIRM specifications. Sherwood will prepare mapping and GIS deliverables suitable for inclusion in the Letter of Map Revision submittal.

Deliverables:
• Residual risk maps, GIS shapefiles, metadata

3.5.5 Pump Station and Detention Performance Evaluation Sherwood will conduct a focused technical evaluation of existing pump stations and detention facilities.

The analysis will address:
• Pump reliability, backup power, and redundancy
• Basin capacity versus modeled inflow volumes
• Sensitivity of system performance to tide and SLR
Deliverables:
• Existing pump station and detention performance appendix Assumptions:
• This task does not include any field testing of pumps. • Existing pump documentation will be provided by the City. • No proposed pumps are modeled in this scope of work.

3.5.6 O&M and Closure Systems Review
In support of the Original Services Agreement’s levee system Operations & Maintenance plan, Sherwood will prepare a dedicated section documenting the routine and emergency operations of interior drainage systems, including:
• Pump station operations, inspections, and redundancy plans • Tide gate functionality and backup procedures
• Any temporary closures required for drainage control
Deliverables:
• Draft & Final O&M section for FEMA certification package Assumptions:
• This assumes documentation of existing O&M plans (by Others) for the interior drainage infrastructure. It does not include creating new O&M plans.

3.5.7 Draft and Final Interior Drainage Certification Report Sherwood will compile all modeling results, technical analysis, compliance documentation, and mapping products into a comprehensive Interior Drainage Certification Report. This report will be:
• Structured to FEMA’s standards and cross-referenced to 44 CFR §65.10 • Submitted first in draft form for client and stakeholder review • Finalized with Professional Engineer (PE) certification for inclusion in the MT-2 LOMR application Deliverables:
38 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 8 / 26 • Draft and final Interior Drainage Report
• Signed PE certification letter
Task 4. Basis of Design and 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, mechanical, traffic, 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 Updated Draft form as a merged document with the ongoing South of Bay Road (SOBR) DCM, and updated as design progresses through the various design stages. One final compiled DCM, inclusive of this proposal’s North of Bay Road (NOBR) criteria and the separately contracted SOBR shall be provided.

Deliverables are covered by Subtask 4.2, below. The DCM becomes the BODR as design progresses and therefore the documents are tracked together.

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, traffic controls, 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; hydraulic and structural design of various elements; mechanical facilities design; access roadwork, and restoration performance criteria and monitoring methods.

Deliverables:
• One (1) draft Design Criteria Memorandum Addendum to the SOBR DCM • One (1) final compiled Design Criteria Memorandum, reflecting updates per comments from the Client on NOBR criteria
• One (1) draft and one (1) final Basis of Design Report (combined deliverable with SOBR) Task 5. 30% Design Documentation
Subtask 5.1 NOT USED
Subtask 5.2 30% Plans and Specifications
The North of Bay Road design will start from the 10% drawings produced by the previous JPA team and progress toward 30% design. Plans will be provided as a progress plot without final review. Specifications will be provided as a table of contents outline. A list of cost items (categories, names) and units (LF, CY) will be provided, without itemization of any quantities or costs. These will be the first 30% documents produced for North of Bay Road, not revised 30% documents as noted in the RFP.

The primary scope of the 30% design encompasses approximately 1,700 linear feet of earthen levee from Station 52+27 to Station 69+00. The 30% design progression for the levee will establish the horizontal and vertical alignment, typical cross sections, crest elevation and width, side slopes, seepage and stability design criteria integration from the geotechnical analysis (Subtask 3.4), earthwork, and material 39 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 9 / 26 source considerations. The design will address tie-ins to existing grade at the northern terminus near Tara Street and to the floodgate structure at Bay Road. The floodgate structure at Bay Road will be a buoyant prefabricated product from FloodBreak or similar manufacturer. The crossing will include design considerations for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

A key element of the North of Bay Road design will include the closure structure across Bay Road. In addition to the civil, geotechnical, and structural requirements of a gate structure, mechanical, cathodic protection, and traffic consultants have joined the Sherwood Team to address the unique requirements of this gate.

The Sherwood Team will conduct a geometric and programmatic assessment for the prescribed passive floodgate as stipulated by the City to provide flood protection across Bay Road. Only a passive buoyancy gate will be considered. Swing gates, sliding gates, stop logs, lift gates, or others will not be evaluated.

This 30% design progression will evaluate for structural, geotechnical, and seismic feasibility, tie-in to adjacent flood walls, constructability, operations and maintenance, and public access (vehicle, bike and pedestrian). COWI will coordinate with Geosyntec to evaluate foundation options for the gate and wiper wall abutments.

To accommodate the unique perpendicular feature requirements of a passive buoyant gate with its edge conditions, the flood protection alignment is anticipated to be reconfigured from the 10% geometry shown in order to cross Bay Road at 90 degrees instead of diagonally.

The exposed gate element will also require cathodic protection to prevent corrosion. Subconsultant WS Nelson will lead the development of the necessary mechanical and cathodic protection scopes.

It is also anticipated that, due to the proximity of the Bay Trail immediately adjacent to the future gate, traffic signalization will be required to provide for pedestrian/vehicular safety. The 30% design phase will consider appropriate signalization at the newly sight-distance impacted crossing. Design development will conform to the CA MUTCD and City of East Palo Alto guidelines for a functional traffic signal.

Working with FloodBreak or similar gate manufacturer, COWI will provide the structural design of the concrete wing walls and foundations. It is anticipated that the foundations for the U-shaped structure will be either pile supported or gravity foundation on improved soil. The gate structure will be a performancebased design element, designed by FloodBreak or similar gate manufacturer prior to construction commencing. The flood gate will tie into the South of Bay Road levee with sheet pile wall on the south side. The flood gate will tie into North of Bay Road earthen levee on the north side.

In addition to the flood protection system and floodgate crossing Bay Road as identified in the 10% drawings, a tidal channel realignment within the Ravenswood Open Space and Faber-Laumeister Marshes will be required. Led by Sherwood subconsultant WRA, the plans will address rerouting of the tidal channels impacted by the planned levee alignment. The soil excavated from the marshes for new tidal channel creation is anticipated to be reused in place to create high-tide refugia, improving habitat function.

The 30% plans, produced on 24”x36” sheets, will be marked “Progress Plot” and include:

A. Cover/Title sheet
B. Index map and sheet
C. General Notes, Abbreviations and Legend sheets
D. General site plan sheet
E. Survey control points and table with topographic survey and mapping data F. Plan and Profile sheets
G. Cross sections
H. Typical Sections
I. Contractor layout, staging, access, and work areas
J. Existing and required fee, permanent easement and temporary construction easements K. Additional temporary construction easements required to construct the Projects 40 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 10 / 26 Deliverables:
• One (1) “Progress Plot” 30% plan set
• One (1) outline specification set
• One (1) list of cost item categories and units
Subtask 5.3 Right-of-Way
Subtask 5.3 provides for the delineation of existing property lines and take lines (ROW, easements, and property acquisitions) needed for Project construction and/or ongoing maintenance and access.

Subtask 5.4 Review Meetings
The Sherwood Team will conduct a 30% review meeting with the City and stakeholders to review and discuss comments. Note that no fee is associated with this task as its efforts are funded under Task 1.7.

Task 6. Environmental Documentation and Regulatory Compliance This task provides an overview of the environmental documentation and regulatory compliance approaches recommended for the project. There are two alternative CEQA pathways for consideration:

Alternative 1, preparation of an Addendum to the previously certified EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and Alternative 2, preparation of a Supplemental EIR pursuant to Section 15163 (and consistent with the standards set forth in Section 15162). The appropriate pathway will ultimately be determined based on the project’s design and the extent to which the proposed modifications would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. It is assumed that Subtask 6.1 for the EIR Addendum will be provided. If it is determined that an EIR Addendum is inappropriate and a Supplemental EIR is required, the Sherwood Team will notify the Client as soon as practicable.

The City will serve as the CEQA Lead Agency and will be responsible for ensuring that the project complies with all applicable requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Subtask 6.1 Alternative 1: EIR Addendum
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. As summarized in the Environmental Strategies Memo from the SOBR Project, Sherwood subconsultant Circlepoint will evaluate strategies for preparing the CEQA Addendum for the project and identify any gaps, if applicable, in the existing EIR’s analysis.

6.1.1 Review Programmatic EIR and Related Project Materials To support preparation of the EIR Addendum (Addendum), Circlepoint will prepare a data request sheet to obtain any additional information needed from the project team.

Deliverables:
• Data Request Sheet

6.1.2. Updated Project Description
The Circlepoint team will prepare a detailed and updated project description for the Addendum utilizing the SFCJPA EIR as a reference. The project description will include project background, purpose and need, project objectives, and a description of proposed components. Each component will be described in 41 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 11 / 26 sufficient detail to facilitate determination of the nature and scale of environmental impacts, including area of disturbance and construction equipment scenarios. The project description will also identify discretionary approvals by regulatory agencies.

Deliverables:
• One (1) CEQA Project Description

6.1.3. Environmental Investigations and Studies
Based on review of the SFCJPA Draft EIR, as well as public comments and draft responses to those comments, the document provides foundational CEQA coverage for the area North of Bay Road. The EIR’s mitigation measures are generally comprehensive and conservative, supporting reliance on the EIR as a basis for tiering. This conservative approach generally precludes the need for additional technical analysis and reduces the likelihood that new significant impacts or additional mitigation measures would need to be identified at the Addendum stage, consistent with CEQA requirements.

One EIR mitigation measure, however, pertains to cultural resources and requires a project-level cultural resources review. Accordingly, we recommend preparation of a cultural resources survey report to satisfy the requirements of the soon-to-be certified EIR and to support the Addendum. Circlepoint has partnered with Archaeological/Historical Consultants (A/HC), who have experience in the project area with knowledge of archaeological and historical resources.

The following cultural resources tasks would be conducted to support the Addendum:
• Record Search. To identify previously recorded resources, a record search for prior studies and recorded cultural sites will be requested from the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, to include the project study area and a ¼-mile radius around it. A/HC will also request a Sacred Lands File search and tribal contact list for San Mateo County from the California Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento, and review East Palo Alto’s inventory of historic resources.
• Area of Potential Effect Map. In consultation with the City and project engineers, A/HC will prepare an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map for review by relevant federal agencies. • Cultural Resources Field Survey. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will complete a pedestrian survey of the project APE. The surveyor will identify any archaeological resources or built environment resources exceeding 50 years of age and record them as necessary on State of California DPR 523 forms. We assume that parts of the existing levee system will require recording, along with ancillary structures such as weirs, gates, or pumping systems.
• Background Research. A qualified archaeologist will use historical ecological data, historic-era topographic and other maps, geotechnical studies, aerial photos, and other sources to identify previously recorded resources and assess the buried site sensitivity of the Project APE. • AB 52 and Section 106 Native American Consultation. A/HC will assist the City with Native American consultation by transmitting consultation letters to tribes on the NAHC contact list, completing two rounds of follow-up emails, recording any responses, and attending two consultation meetings.
• Cultural Resources Survey Report. The above data will be used to complete a Cultural Resources Survey Report.
• Finding of Effect Memorandum. A/HC will prepare an FOE memorandum recommending a Section 106 finding of effect.

Deliverables:
• One (1) Cultural Resources Report

6.1.4. Draft Addendum
42 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 12 / 26 Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Circlepoint will prepare a Draft Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR prepared by SFCJPA, as applicable. The Addendum will evaluate whether the proposed project revisions would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft Addendum will be prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and will include all required components necessary to support the City’s findings.

While the precise scope of analysis will be informed by the final project design and the conclusions of the certified SFCJPA EIR, the Draft Addendum is anticipated to include:
• An updated Project Description;
• A detailed comparison of the project and the programmatic analysis in the certified EIR; • A summary of appliable certified EIR findings and mitigation measures; • An evaluation of environmental effects associated with the proposed modifications; • A checklist-style analysis (similar to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) to clearly document whether:
o New significant impacts would occur;
o Previously identified impacts would become more severe; or o New information of substantial importance would alter prior conclusions.

The Draft Addendum will clearly document the basis for the determination that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred.

The Draft Addendum will be submitted electronically for Agency review and comment.

Deliverables:
• One (1) Draft Addendum

6.1.5 Final Addendum
Following receipt of consolidated Agency comments on the Draft Addendum after the second round of review, Circlepoint will review and evaluate all remaining comments and revise the document as necessary to address feedback and incorporate clarifications. Circlepoint will then prepare a Final Addendum suitable for consideration and action by the City. The Final Addendum will be provided as a clean, consolidated electronic document incorporating all revisions, updates, and finalized technical appendices. Consistent with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, public circulation of an Addendum is not required. The Final Addendum will document and support the City’s determination that the North of Bay Road project does not involve substantial changes, new information, or substantially more severe impacts that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Deliverables:
• One (1) Final Addendum

6.1.6 Notice of Determination
Upon adoption of the Final Addendum by the City, the Circlepoint will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15075 and 15094, as applicable. The NOD will:
• Summarize the Lead Agency’s action;
• Reference the certified Final EIR and the Addendum prepared pursuant to Section 15164; • Include the certified EIR’s NOD and receipt proof of payment of the CDFW CEQA review fee (so as to not have to pay the CDFW fee twice);
• Include the required CEQA findings; and
43 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 13 / 26 • Identify the determination that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required under Section 15162.

Circlepoint will coordinate execution of the NOD and will file the NOD with the San Mateo County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse, as required. Proof of filing will be provided to the City for its records.

Deliverables:
• One (1) NOD
Summary of Deliverables (Task 6.1):
• Data Request Sheet
• Project Description for NEPA and Project Description Changes for CEQA (Draft and Final) • Cultural Resources Report
• Draft Addendum
• Final Addendum
• Notice of Determination (Draft and Final)
Assumptions:

1. The determination of whether an EIR Addendum (Subtask 6.1) or Supplemental EIR (Subtask

6.2) is the appropriate CEQA pathway shall be made no later than completion of the 30% design milestone. The Design Team shall present a written recommendation to the City at or before the 30% review meeting, identifying the recommended pathway with supporting rationale. If the Supplemental EIR pathway is required, the Design Team shall submit a scope and fee amendment for City consideration within 15 business days of that determination.

2. The Project Description will build on the Program EIR Project Description and will more fully develop components of the Project that are either not described or not described in detail in the existing Program EIR. Consultant will respond to a single round of consolidated City comments on Project Description prior to finalizing. The CEQA project description (Subtask 6.1.2) shall be prepared based on the 30% design approved by the City.

3. The base scope and fee assume that the SFCJPA Final EIR will be certified in sufficient time to allow completion of the EIR Addendum within the Agreement schedule. The Consultant shall perform all preparatory work that can be lawfully completed in advance of certification. The Draft Addendum (Subtask 6.1.4) shall not commence until the Final EIR has been certified. If certification is delayed such that the Agreement schedule cannot be met, the Design Team shall promptly notify the City and the parties shall confer to determine appropriate schedule adjustments.

4. No major project modifications will occur after the Addendum analysis is underway. Significant changes requiring repeated analysis or rewriting may require a scope amendment. Design evolution resulting from the Consultant's own design progression shall not constitute a "major project modification" and shall not be a basis for additional CEQA scope or fees.

5. If after further investigation, any project change appears likely to create a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of an existing impact, or otherwise triggers recirculation thresholds, such findings may necessitate additional CEQA review (e.g., Task 6.2).

6. The Draft Addendum will be provided to the City for up to two rounds of review and comment prior to preparation of the Final Addendum.

7. The City is responsible for paying any fees associated with filing the Notice of Determination.

Subtask 6.2 Alternative 2: Supplemental EIR (OPTIONAL)
[SEE OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES]
Subtask 6.3 Regulatory Compliance
44 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 14 / 26 The SFCJPA is leading permit applications with the BRRIT for all reaches of the SAFER Bay project. The Sherwood Team will support preparation of permit applications; final preparation, submittal, and agency coordination for permits are by others unless specifically included. This subtask covers supporting material needed for Project implementation for permits to be obtained through the BRRIT which are not covered by the JPA. We have assumed two (2) BRRIT meetings and two (2) Refuge meetings will be held. WRA will lead the data sharing efforts with the JPA team. Support to JPA is anticipated for the following permits:
• USACE Section 404, Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
• USFWS and NMFS Endangered Species Act Section 7
• RWQCB Clean Water Action Section 401
• CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement
• BCDC Major Permit
Support is also provided for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, as aligns with Subtask 6.1.

Subtask 6.4 As-Needed NEPA Support (OPTIONAL)
[SEE OPTIONAL SERVICES]
Task 7. 60-Percent Design
Subtask 7.1 60% Plan Development
The Sherwood team will progress design to 60% level completion through advancing drawings and specifications. The drawings, sections, and details will progress the scope identified in the RFP in general compliance with local, state, and federal requirements. The design progression will include utility upgrades and coordination, earthwork analysis, environmental and biological impact minimization, structural details, mechanical, and cathodic protection design at the one anticipated floodgate on Bay Road, landscaping and irrigation design, and maintenance and protection of traffic. The design will endeavor to address review comments from 30% Client input as received under Subtask 5.4.

Assumptions:
• The only known hazardous materials are outside of the limits of work of the project. No remediation or reporting is required. Should information be revealed to counter this assumption, the Sherwood Team can provide a scope and fee proposal for remediation at that time.

Subtask 7.2 Review Meeting
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 to further refine 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. This subtask is excluded from the fee table as it is funded under Task 1.7.

Task 8. 90-Percent Design
Subtask 8.1 90% Plans, Specifications, & Estimates
The 90% plans will reflect revisions and resolutions required from comments received through the 60% design process. The Sherwood team will prepare and submit 90% drawings and specifications. The submittal will be a complete drawing and specification set at or near the level of completion for 45 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 15 / 26 construction. A list of cost items (categories, names) and units (LF, CY) will be provided for the City’s use; an AACE Class 1 construction cost estimate is not included in this task.

Deliverables:
• One (1) 90% plan set in PDF and AutoCAD, to include all sheets provided under Task 5.2 with the following additional sheets:
o Drawing Index Sheet
o Demolition Sheets
o Civil/Detail including grading and known hazardous material locations (assumed outside the Project LOW)
o Traffic control and detour plans
o Structural sheets
o Landscape, tree demolition, revegetation plans and details o Irrigation plans and details
o ROW Layout and control sheets
o Standard details
o Geotechnical investigation logs
• One (1) set of 90% Technical Specifications
• One (1) list of cost items and units
If Optional Task 3.3 is authorized, the 90% plans will include clear delineation of existing property lines and final take lines needed for Project construction and/or ongoing maintenance or access, with finalized ROW mapping and plats and legals.

The Sherwood team will review, coordinate, and resolve design comments and issues via comments received from the City, stakeholders or resource/regulatory agencies received during the 60% design progression.

Structural design calculations for the floodgate will include all analysis and computations that were necessary in designing the structures or elements of the Project. Independent check calculations will include analysis and computations necessary to independently check all aspects of the design shown on the unchecked details. Any comments or discrepancies identified by 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, and specifications prior to the 90% submittal. Independent check and the Sherwood team will prepare a comment resolution form detailing comments and responses.

If major comments are received from third party check, 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.

Subtask 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting Design.

Following Task 6.1 EIR Addendum and the certification thereof, the Sherwood team will identify necessary mitigation requirements in the certified CEQA document and incorporate into the 90% Design documents.

Subtask 8.3 Review Meetings
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. This subtask is excluded from the fee table as it is funded under Task 1.7.

Subtask 8.5 Technical Design Document Update
46 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 16 / 26 NOT USED.

Subtask 8.6 Draft Bid Items
The Sherwood Team will create a Bid Technical Memorandum to describe the 90% level of design. The Technical Memorandum will explain the basis for bid items and strategies related to risk and cost uncertainty associated with any work which may be difficult to define. Provisions will be provided regarding milestones, testing and acceptance schedule, and criteria for the Project aligned with completion and payment for the Contractor’s completion of each milestone.

Deliverables:
• One (1) Bid Technical Memorandum
Subtask 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements for the Contractor Subtask 8.7 provides for a construction sequencing plan or specification to identify key milestone dates to be met during construction and will include specific provisions for incorporation into the Contractor’s plan, as needed.

Deliverables:
• One (1) Construction Sequencing Plan
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 provide for proper operation and appropriate maintenance of the facility and long-term protection of the asset. This deliverable will be merged with the O&M manual to be produced under the SOBR contract for a single manual.

Subtask 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP
Based on the 90% Design scope, a Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed in accordance with the California NPDES 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 90% Design. The SWPPP will be finalized based on the 100% Design Documentation.

The City shall serve as the Legally Responsible Person (LRP).

Deliverable:
• One (1) Draft SWPPP for City submission to SWRCB
Task 9. 100-Percent Design
Subtask 9.1 100% PS&E
Final Design to be completed under Task 9.1 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 permitting agency comments provided, if arriving at least 1 month prior to the 100% PS&E delivery.

The Sherwood Team understands from recently provided JPA schedules that some agency applications are not anticipated until after this contract’s CalOES Period of Performance closes. As such, those 47 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 17 / 26 approvals will not be in place prior to 100% PS&E are required to be delivered. The Sherwood Team will meet with the Client to strategize appropriate mitigating measures for this.

The Consultant shall arrange for an independent review of the AACE Class 1 Engineer's Cost Estimate by a qualified estimator not previously involved in the preparation of the estimate. The independent review shall verify quantity takeoffs, unit pricing, escalation assumptions, and contingency allowances, and shall confirm consistency between the estimate and the 100% plans and specifications. The Consultant shall provide a written summary of the independent review findings, including any discrepancies identified and their resolution, for City review concurrent with the 100% PS&E submittal.

This 100% Design Set will be fully completed, signed, and sealed, accompanied by a Class 1 AACE Engineer’s Cost Estimate.

Notwithstanding Section 4.0 Additional Assumption 4, the 100% PS&E and all associated Task 9 deliverables shall be completed and submitted to the City no later than October 30, 2026. The Consultant shall notify the City in writing no less than ninety (90) days in advance if, in the Consultant's professional judgment, this deadline is at risk, along with recommended corrective actions.

Subtask 9.2 Geotechnical Review
Under this subtask, Geosyntec will review and revise the 100% PS&E for consistency with the geotechnical design criteria, findings from the geotechnical analyses, and geotechnical recommendations developed as part of Subtask 3.4. Geotechnical review will also be completed as part of the 30% and 90% PS&E, and therefore the Sherwood Team anticipates the 100% PS&E geotechnical review to be relatively minor as part of the verification of the final design. This geotechnical review will be concurrent with the City’s 100% review.

Subtask 9.3 Bid Set
Upon the City’s advertisement of the Project bid, the Sherwood Team will provide services in support of the City. These services are anticipated to include responding to bidder’s questions (assumed up to 20 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 by the City 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, noting 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.

Deliverables:
• Attend one (1) contractor pre-bid conference and site walk • Respond to up to 10 bidder RFIs
• One (1) bid document addenda summary or letter of clarification Subtask 9.4 Design-to-Construction Phase Transition Report The Sherwood Team will prepare one (1) Design-to-Construction Phase Transition Report.

Subtask 9.5 Final SWPPP
A final SWPPP will be produced and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). This work product will be merged with the South of Bay Road Project deliverable. No standalone deliverable is included. The City will serve as the Legally Responsible Person (LRP) associated with the application. 48 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 18 / 26 Subtask 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis
[SEE OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES]

3.0 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Optional services not identified in Section 2.0 of this proposal may arise in accordance with the needs and direction of the project. Should these optional services be identified as required, Sherwood would be pleased to provide these and other additional services via a contract addendum. The optional scope and fee are provided herein for consideration.

Potential additional services may include:

Subtask 3.3 Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Negotiations
Led by subconsultants Monument Right-of-Way and Mark Thomas, the Sherwood team will conduct ROW acquisition negotiations for up to eight (8) properties to address temporary construction easements (TCEs) or permanent ROW acquisition. The efforts will have three primary stages: appraisals, appraisal review, and acquisition and negotiations.

The appraisal stage will include appraisal preparation, property owner notification, property reviews, and reporting for up to eight (8) properties. The appraisals will be conducted in accordance with 49 CFS Part 24 and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Appraisal fees may vary based on actual market rates at the time of assignment. Appraisal fees assume no significant impacts to improvements or damages to remainder parcels.

The appraisal review stage will identify the intended users and purpose, develop an opinion as to the completeness and adequacy of the appraisal and methods used, and be forwarded to the City for establishment of just compensation prior to the preparation of offers to acquire the proposed land rights for the project.

In the acquisition and negotiation stage, Monument will provide all services required for the City to purchase the ROWs required to construct the project. Specifically, Monument will:
• Coordinate and manage the acquisition process with the City, legal counsel, design team, property owners, tenants, title company, appraisers, and other consultants. • Prepare acquisition offer packages consisting of the City’s written purchase offer, appraisal summary statement, acquisition brochure, acquisition agreement, conveying instruments (Grant Deed, Permanent and/or Temporary Easement, etc), Certificate of Acceptance, recommendation of Just Compensation, plat maps and legal descriptions, and Title VI Information. • Attempt to meet personally with each property owner.
• Negotiate in good faith with each property owner.
• Establish and maintain an acquisition file for each property owner and maintain a checklist pursuant to the City’s specifications.
• Transmit executed documents to the City for acceptance and processing. • If necessary, prepare and submit a Letter of Recommendation for any proposed administrative settlements, which will include a chronology of the negotiation efforts, and provide supporting documentation and an explanation of the rationale behind the recommendation. • The primary goal will be to reach an agreement with each property owner, and we will work with the City to develop solutions to achieve this goal. Should negotiations reach an impasse, we will provide a written recommendation condemnation action, including all required justification and supporting documentation.
• Provide bilingual acquisition agents, if necessary.

Assumptions:
49 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 19 / 26 • Preliminary Title Reports to be provided by others.
• 90 Day negotiating period from date of first written offer. • One offer package per impacted property/owner.
• Excludes any fees for certification, condemnation support, or utility coordination Subtask 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations – Piezometers
In accordance with RFP section 3.4.5, up to five piezometers would be installed between stations 0+00 and 69+00, in close proximity to the alignment of the proposed flood protection system. These would be installed using vibrating wire piezometers from a CPT truck, to a depth of between 10 and 30 ft below the ground surface. A datalogger will be connected to the cables to allow manual data downloads at intervals to be selected later. This Task includes equipment to install the piezometers, including transducer, cable, data logger, box, and readout device. It also includes four quarterly site visits to monitor the instruments for the first year after installation.

Prior to piezometer installation, the following items will be submitted and/or coordinated as appropriate:
field work plan to describe the location and details, property access coordination and San Mateo County Environmental Health Services permits, temporary encroachment permits with traffic control plans for trail reroute, utility locate services within a 20-foot radius of each piezometer location, site-specific health and safety plan for the installation.

During installation, any spoils will be contained in 55-gallon steel drums and stored temporarily at an appropriate on-site location as coordinated with the City. It is assumed that all spoils will be characterized as non-hazardous. After the installation, as-built locations via GPS will be provided to the City for final records.

Due to the Ridgway’s Rail nesting season, it is anticipated that installation will occur between September 16, 2026 and February 1, 2027.

Subtask 6.2 Supplemental EIR
If the EIR Addendum completed in Subtask 6.1 concludes that there are substantial changes requiring major revisions to the certified EIR, Circlepoint will provide a Supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

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 6.4 NEPA Support
If directed by the City, Circlepoint will provide technical and administrative support to assist with NEPA compliance. Services under this task will be provided on an as-needed basis and may include, but are not limited to, assistance with development and refinement of the Project Description, preparation of specific sections of the NEPA document, additional data collection or technical studies, evaluation of alternatives, public engagement, and other related tasks as requested by the City.

FEMA will be the lead agency for NEPA. Circlepoint will develop a project description, associated material, and provide supporting technical information and services for the NEPA document. The Sherwood Team will coordinate its CEQA work, to the extent practicable, with the work of FEMA and other federal agencies in meeting NEPA requirements.
50 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 20 / 26 Because the scope and level of effort for these services will depend on the NEPA Lead Agency’s requirements and the City’s priorities, an allowance has been included for this task. Specific work under Task 6.4 will be scoped and confirmed in detail at the time services are requested to provide alignment with NEPA requirements and efficient coordination with ongoing CEQA documentation.

Subtask 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis
Conversations held previously with CalOES, Sherwood, and Client indicate that CalOES may consider the Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis for the SAFER Bay East Palo Alto project complete. Subtask 9.6 is provided as optional if CalOES determines the BCA is not already approved and requires updates.

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 reflect any changes in project scope, cost, and anticipated benefits from design refinements. Future risk reduction benefits will be compared to the costs and deemed cost effective when the BCR is 1.0 or greater.

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
The following items are to be provided by the Client prior to commencement of work:

1. Available site utility information, record documents, existing engineering and utility analysis.

2. Building finish floor elevations.

3. Historical project information.

4. Environmental Assessments Reports.

5. Arborist Reports.

Additional Assumptions:

1. Phase durations will generally correspond to those shown in Section 4.0. Extensions to the project schedule and associated engineering efforts will be addressed by contract addendum.

2. This scope/fee is based on the RFP dated February 4, 2026, subsequent phone conversations between March 11, 2026 and April 29, 2026 between Client and Sherwood. Changes to scope directed by the City or necessitated by permitting will be addressed by contract addendum in accordance with Section 5.0.

3. Sherwood assumes Client and stakeholder comments will be provided with sufficient lead time to begin the subsequent phase of work. Sherwood assumes milestone 30% deliverables will receive comments not later than 2 weeks after submission and milestone 90% deliverables will receive comments not later than 3 weeks after submission.

4. Sherwood acknowledges the importance of the City’s project schedule and shall use diligent efforts to perform the services in a manner consistent with that schedule, including the October 30, 2026 deliverable deadline and the CalOES HMGP Period of Performance ending December 1, 2026. The City acknowledges and agrees that Sherwood’s services shall be performed in accordance with the professional standard of care ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession practicing under similar circumstances, and that Sherwood’s performance must be governed by sound professional judgment and practices. Project schedules are dependent upon numerous factors, including but not limited to the City’s timely decisions, reviews, approvals, the accuracy, and completeness of information provided by others, changes in scope, regulatory agency actions, and events beyond Sherwood’s reasonable control. Sherwood shall not be responsible for delays arising from such factors provided that Sherwood has promptly notified the City of the delay-causing event and has taken reasonable steps to mitigate its impact on the project schedule. For delays attributable to Sherwood's own performance, staffing, or subconsultant management, and not caused by the factors identified above, Sherwood shall remain responsible for meeting the established schedule and shall, at no additional cost to the City, take reasonable corrective measures to abide by the schedule. Failure to deliver Task 9 deliverables by October 30, 2026, where such failure is primarily attributable to Sherwood-caused delays, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. If, in Sherwood’s professional judgment, it becomes reasonably apparent that the established schedule may not be achievable, Sherwood shall notify the City in writing within five (5) business days of becoming aware of the 51 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 21 / 26 condition giving rise to the potential delay, identifying the cause, anticipated duration, and recommended corrective actions. For delays not attributable to Sherwood, such notice shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement. The parties shall promptly confer to determine appropriate schedule adjustments and, if applicable, equitable allocation of any resulting cost impacts. In the event that Sherwood-caused delays result in services extending beyond the CalOES HMGP Period of Performance, Sherwood shall remain obligated to complete all contracted services. Any costs incurred by Sherwood to complete such services after December 1, 2026 that are ineligible for HMGP reimbursement due to Sherwood-caused delays shall be borne by Sherwood and shall not be the City's responsibility.

5. Sherwood is not responsible for any inconsistencies with the survey identified in the field which may arise from changed or not visible conditions from the date the survey was conducted that affect civil engineering, geotechnical, structural, traffic, and/or landscape design drawings.

Sherwood would be prepared to modify design drawings to remedy unforeseen site conditions based upon an agreed upon additional scope and fee.

6. As identified in the RFP, it is assumed that Sherwood and the Design Team will deliver plans and supporting documents consistent with the standard styles established under the South of Bay Road contract. No changes to presentation formats, including additional plan sheets, use of specific fonts, CAD layers, sheets size, or other styles have been anticipated. Minor note and keynotes usage changes will be accommodated. Any new changes requested will be addressed by contract addendum.

7. No contamination remediation or reporting is included in this proposal. If it is discovered that the project will create unavoidable conflicts with areas of contamination, an additional scope and fee will be submitted.

8. Coastal hydraulics analysis and results are provided by Others and excluded from services herein.

9. No public access design is required North of Bay Road as due to private property frontages with future development plans. The only lateral access provided to the Bay Trail will occur at the Bay Road crossing.

10. If the City issues a written notice directing the Consultant to suspend work for a period exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, the Consultant may reassign staff to other projects. Upon the City's written notice to resume, a remobilization period of up to two (2) weeks shall be accommodated.

Remobilization costs, if any, shall be documented by the Consultant and approved by the City in advance. Periods between design milestones, awaiting City or agency review comments, or awaiting regulatory actions shall not constitute a suspension of work.

11. Client approval of the 30% PS&E constitutes approval of the overall project alignment, major design elements, and general configuration. Refinements to details, dimensions, and specifications during subsequent design phases shall not constitute changes to the approved design. City-directed changes to the approved alignment or major design elements after 30% approval will be subject to additional services.

12. The client may not copy, republish or use any imagery provided by Sherwood as part of any submissions as this imagery may be subject to copyright infringement. Sherwood relinquishes all responsibility for use of any copy-righted image that is furnished to the client as part of any submission. Client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Sherwood harmless from and against any claims or damages that may result from the subsequent use, reuse, transfer or modification of any imagery provided by Sherwood in its submission.

13. It’s assumed that the Project as scoped has a Benefit Cost Ratio significantly greater than 1.0 based on a cost estimate with appropriate source data and construction cost and escalation methodology and appropriately estimated benefits. If the cost of the scope included in the RFP is significantly greater than what was included in the BCA, the Project will not be cost effective.

Similarly, if the benefits of the scope included in the RFP are significant less than what was included in the BCA, the Project will not be cost effective. If it is determined that the RFP scope is not cost effective by an updated BCA without significantly changing the Project scope, Sherwood will support revising the scope and/or attempt to increase benefits to make the Project cost effective based upon an agreed upon additional scope and fee. The revised scope may impact the previously delivered phases of this scope of work, including, but not limited to, the permit impacts, field investigations, cost estimating, and engineering. 52 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 22 / 26

5.0 BASE AND OPTIONAL FEES FOR SERVICES
Fees below will be billed on a time and materials (T&M) not-to-exceed (NTE) basis in accordance with CITY STANDARD CONTRACTOR AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. Fee estimates are based on the schedule below. Fees shall not be subject to revision due to changes in task durations within the Consultant's control. Fee adjustments may be considered only where schedule changes result from (a) City-directed scope modifications, or (b) other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of either party, and only upon prior written approval by the City. Additional services shall be authorized only by contract addendum approved by the City, with a time and materials not-to-exceed amount established for each addendum.

A. BASE SERVICES Schedule
(Duration*)
T&M Not-toExceed
Estimated
Reimbursable
Expenses
Project Scope and Fees
Task 1. Project Management 6 months $202,900
Task 3. Data Collection and Investigations 2 weeks $210,174 Task 4. Basis for Design 2 weeks $144,323
Task 5. 30% Design Document 1 month $226,210
Task 6. Environmental and Regulatory Compliance 6 months $135,813 Task 7. 60% Design 6 weeks $289,294
Task 8. 90% Design 6 weeks $298,842
Task 9. 100% Final Design 1 month $251,524
Total Fee Estimate $1,759,080 -
*Duration is defined as elapsed time from initiation of phase or scope of work upon our receipt of your written authorization to proceed.

B. OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES Schedule
(Duration*)
T&M Not-toExceed
Estimated
Reimbursable
Expenses
Project Scope and Fees
Task 3.3. ROW Acquisition and Negotiations 6 months $213,190 Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations – Piezometers 1 year $70,000 Task 6.2. Supplemental EIR TBD $353,854
Task 6.4 NEPA Support TBD $23,910
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis 1 month $59,580 Total Optional Fee Estimate $720,534 -
*Duration is defined as elapsed time from initiation of phase or scope of work upon our receipt of your written authorization to proceed.
53 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 23 / 26 Note: Notwithstanding the individual task durations identified above, all base services through Task 9 shall be completed and delivered no later than October 30, 2026. The CalOES HMGP Period of Performance ends December 1, 2026; costs incurred after that date are not eligible for HMGP reimbursement and shall not be the City's responsibility unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Consultant shall plan and sequence work to meet the October 30, 2026 deliverable deadline with sufficient time remaining within the Period of Performance for City review, acceptance, and grant closeout activities.

6.0 EXCLUSIONS
Sherwood shall not be required to provide the following services:

1. Agency Fees

2. Legal Descriptions

3. Construction Staking Site Cleanup

4. Mitigation of contaminants resulting from
unidentified leaking above ground or
underground storage tanks

5. Soils remediation, removal, or cathodic
protection design

6. MEP Design Service

7. Hazardous Waste Remediation

8. O&M plans for Mechanical systems

9. Building Waterproofing

10. Utility demand engineering for electrical,
gas, telecommunication service, or
streetlights and sidewalk lights

11. Connection location for buildings by others

12. Traffic Engineering and Traffic Studies

13. Verification or inspection of construction
activities in the field

14. Flow/pressure or hydrant flow test

7.0 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable costs as defined in the schedule will be billed in accordance with Sherwood Design Engineers' Fee Schedule – see Attachment I.

8.0 INITIATION
For your reference, a copy of our current fee schedule has been included with this proposal and will be part of this agreement. Should you find the terms of this proposal acceptable, please sign and return via email to Cody Anderson at [email protected] and Sonya Gabrielson at [email protected] and CC Accounts Payable at [email protected].

We thank you for this opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to beginning work with you on this exciting project!
Sincerely,
Cody Anderson, PE Sonya Gabrielson, PE, WEDG
Managing Principal Associate Principal
54 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 24 / 26 EXHIBIT A – LIMIT OF WORK

55 2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
+1 (415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
P:\2026\X26_gonogo\SAFER North Bay\260507_SAFER EPA NOBR_Sherwood_Proposal-EPA Edits 2026-05-06-v1.1.docx SCOPE & FEE PROPOSAL | 25 / 26

ATTACHMENT I

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL SERVICE FEES
Rates shall remain fixed for the duration of this agreement and shall not be subject to mid-term adjustment.
56 14

BILLING RATES
2548 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
(415) 677-7300 | WWW.SHERWOODENGINEERS.COM
SDE RATES 2026docx SDE RATES 2026 | 1 / 1

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL SERVICE FEES
JANUARY 1, 2026 – DECEMBER 31, 2026
Personnel Rate
Associate Principal $ 275
Senior Project Manager $ 265
Senior Engineer $ 260
Director of Technology $ 260
Senior Project Strategist $ 255
Project Manager / Senior Project Engineer $ 250
Project Engineer / Project Strategist /
Computational Strategist $ 230
Design Engineer III / Designer III $ 215
Design Engineer II / Designer II $ 205
CAD Manager $ 200
Senior CAD Technician $ 195
Design Engineer I / Designer I $ 195
CAD Technician $ 175
Graphic Designer $ 170
Project Assistant $ 150

Principals’, Managing Principals’ and Design Principals’ time on projects is chargeable at $300 to $370 per hour.

Charges for outside services, equipment, and facilities not furnished directly by Sherwood Design Engineers will be billed at cost plus 10%. Such charges may include, but shall not be limited to, printing reproduction services; shipping, delivery, and courier charges; sub consultant fees and expenses; special fees, permits and insurance; transportation on public carriers, and consumable materials. Mileage will be charged at the prevailing IRS rate per mile.

These rates apply to the current period and are subject to increase by SDE each January 1 and July 1 or when foreign exchange rates cause the hourly rates to decrease in relation to the USD by more than 5% from the rate at the date of this Proposal.
57 15

BILLING RATES
COWI North America Inc. 2026 SAFER North of Bay Rd Rates Labor Category COWI
Level Rate (USD)
Project Director 9 & 10 421 $
Assoc. Technical Director 8 $ 337
Senior Specialist 7 $ 268
Senior Engineer II 6 $ 243
Senior Engineer I 5 $ 202
Engineer 4 $ 191
Designer 3 $ 175
Specialist 2 $ 147
CAD Manager CAD 6 227 $
CAD Specialist CAD 5 206 $
Senior CAD Technician CAD 4 185 $
CAD Technician CAD 3 173 $
Senior Project Coordinator PC 5 $ 185
Project Coordinator II PC 3 $ 160
Project Coordinator I PC 2 $ 123
Assistant PC 1 $ 98
Additional Notes
The above rates include direct overhead, indirect overhead, and profit.

The above rates do not include Other Direct Costs (ODC).

Annual escalation is minimum 3%.
58 16

BILLING RATES

CONFIDENTIAL
US 2026 RATE BS

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
2026 U.S. RATE SCHEDULE

Staff Professional $185
Senior Staff Professional $210
Professional $239
Project Professional $268
Senior Professional $300
Principal $325
Senior Principal $345

Technician I $100
Technician II $110
Senior Technician I $120
Senior Technician II $132
Site Manager I $142
Site Manager II $162
Construction Manager I $174
Construction Manager II $189
Senior Designer
Designer
$225
$190
Senior Drafter/Senior CADD Operator $175
Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist $158
Project Administrator $104
Clerical $ 84

Direct Expenses Cost plus 12%
Subcontract Services Cost plus 12%
Technology/Communications Fee 3% of Professional Fees
Specialized Computer Applications (per hour) $ 15
Personal Automobile (per mile) Current Gov’t Rate
Photocopies (per page) $ .09

Rates are provided on a confidential basis and are client and project specific.

Unless otherwise agreed, rates will be adjusted annually based on a minimum of the BLS reported change in the average hourly earnings of all employees, engineering and drafting services.

Rates for field equipment, health and safety equipment, and graphical supplies presented upon request.

Construction management fee presented upon request.
59 17

BILLING RATES
2169-G East Francisco Blvd, San Rafael, CA, 94901
Phone: 415.454.8868 | [email protected] | wra-ca.com
9/26/2025 PFD

RATE SCHEDULE
Effective: January 1, 2026
Director/Principal.........................................$310 Senior Associate ..........................................$269 Associate......................................................$227 Senior Scientist.............................................$207 Scientist........................................................$190 Senior Technician.........................................$163 Technician ....................................................$135 __________
Landscape Design
Sr Associate Landscape Architect...............$269
Associate Landscape Architect...................$227
Landscape Architect....................................$207 Landscape Designer III ................................$190 Landscape Designer II .................................$163 Landscape Designer I ..................................$143 Environmental Planning
Senior Environmental Planner .....................$287
Sr Associate Environmental Planner ...........$269
Associate Environmental Planner................$227
Environmental Planner II .............................$207 Environmental Planner I ..............................$190 Assistant Environmental Planner II.............$163
Assistant Environmental Planner ................$143
Conservation Strategies
Conservation Strategies Sr Project Mgr......$287
Conservation Strategies Sr Associate .........$269
Conservation Strategies Associate..............$244
Conservation Strategies Sr Scientist...........$216
Conservation Strategies Scientist ...............$195
Conservation Strategies Sr Technician .......$174
Conservation Strategies Technician............$153
Engineering
Senior Engineer ........................................$281 Sr Associate Engineer ..............................$272 Associate Engineer...................................$239 Engineer II / Geomorphologist II............$212
Engineer I / Geomorphologist I.............$191
Assistant Engineer II ................................$171 Assistant Engineer ...................................$150 GIS Mapping & Analysis
GIS Manager ............................................$269 GIS Professional III...................................$216 GIS Professional II....................................$207 GIS Professional .......................................$190 GIS Sr Technician.....................................$163 GIS Technician..........................................$143 Field Specialists
Senior Field Technician............................$190 Field Technician .......................................$143 Compliance Monitoring (OT = Rate x 1.5)
Senior Project Biologist............................$133 Project Biologist.......................................$111 Grant Cultivation & Administration
Community Resilience Team............. $92-206
Clerical Support .........................................$99 Expert Witness ................................Rate x 1.5 Rates shown are per hour and subject to an
annual adjustment each January 1st.

Necessary project expenses and subconsultants
are billed at cost plus ten percent.
60 18

BILLING RATES
2026 TIME & MATERIALS FEE SCHEDULE*
I. Professional services will be rendered based on the following hourly rates:

Senior Principal $300 - $420
Senior Environmental Planning Consultant $300 - $400
Principal $290 - $350
Associate Principal $270 - $300
Senior Project Manager $250 - $300
Project Manager $220 - $280
Sr. Associate $200 - $250
Associate $165 - $205
Assistant/Coordinator $140 - $180
II. Creative services will be rendered based on the following hourly rates:

Art Director $200 - $240
Web/Graphic Designer $150 - $180
III. Supportive services will be rendered based on the following hourly rates:

Project Accountant/Controller $165 - $320
Administrative Support $160 - $200
IV. Provision of related services and reimbursable expenses will be charged to the client as follows:

Black and White Prints/Copies, In House $0.20+ per page, depending on paper size Color Prints/Copies, In House $1.89-$3.49 per page, depending on paper size Translation $0.27-$0.54 per word, depending on language Interpretation $150-$250 per hour
Phone/Postage at cost
Mileage Per IRS Standard Mileage Rate
Online Surveys $60 each
Project Email Account at cost
Eblasts $20 each
Web Hosting $300 per year
Domain $20-25 per year
SSL Certificate $75 per year
Vendor & Subconsultant Services 15% mark up for administration AV/Equipment Rental at cost
V. Expert witness testimony or technical assistance on legal matters shall be provided at the rate of $350 per hour of witness and preparation time.
* Rates are effective through December 31, 2026, and subject to escalation in January 2027. 61 19

BILLING RATES

MONUMENT
2026 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Right of Way Management & Implementation
Principal $310.00 per hour
Project Director $260.00 per hour
Program Manager $240.00 per hour
Senior Project Manager $231.00 per hour
ROW Project Manager 2 $210.00 per hour
ROW Project Manager 1 $178.50 per hour
Senior Acquisition Agent / Senior Relocation Agent $155.00 per hour Acquisition Agent 2 / Relocation Agent 2 $130.00 per hour Acquisition Agent 1/ Relocation Agent 1 $120.00 per hour Senior Technical Specialist $210.00 per hour
Technical Specialist $170.00 per hour
Senior Analyst $165.00 per hour
Analyst 2 $145.00 per hour
Analyst 1 $135.00 per hour
Senior Project Coordinator $140.00 per hour
Project Coordinator 2 $125.00 per hour
Project Coordinator 1 $115.50 per hour
Project Controller 2/Project Accountant 2 $130.00 per hour Project Controller 1/Project Accountant 1 $110.00 per hour Project Support Specialist 3 $115.00 per hour
Project Support Specialist 2 $105.00 per hour
Project Support Specialist 1 $90.00 per hour
62 20

BILLING RATES
1200 ST. CHARLES AVENUE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
Phone (504) 523-5281
WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND COMPANY I N C O R P O R A T E D

ENGINEERS
www.wsnelson.com
All professional services performed under authority of duly licensed staff. 4 CITYNORTH
16945 NORTHCHASE DRIVE
SUITE 200
HOUSTON, TX 77060
Phone (281) 999-1989
Please Respond to the
Houston Address
FORM F2603

Providing Professional Services Since 1945
January 1, 2026

COMPUTER/CADD USE
Computer/Software: UNIT RATE
All use except special programs Hour $6.00
listed below
EasyPower//SKM Power*Tools/ ETAP/ Hour $20.00
AmpCalc/ Cable3D
Allen-Bradley or other PLC Software Hour $20.00
ASPEN OneLiner; Power Line/PLS-CADD Hour $45.00
SACS Structural Analysis Hour $50.00
ArcGIS Geospatial Tool Hour $25.00
RISA Hour $20.00
PHA PRO Hour $40.00
Pipe-FLO Hour $20.00
PIPEPHASE Hour $50.00
Carrier E20 II Hour $25.00
CAESAR II Pipe Stress Hour $35.00
Scanning Equipment Hour $50.00
Scan Conversion Software Hour $35.00
HYSYS/UNISIM Process Simulation Hour $35.00
AutoCAD Workstation Hour $20.00
AutoPLANT 3D or 2D Workstation Hour $20.00
CADWorx Plant Hour $20.00
MICROSTATION Workstation Hour $20.00
AVEVA (PDMS/E3D) Workstation Hour $40.00
PRIMAVERA/NetPoint Hour $20.00
Other Special Software As required by cost analysis
63 21

BILLING RATES
1200 ST. CHARLES AVENUE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
Phone (504) 523-5281
WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND COMPANY I N C O R P O R A T E D

ENGINEERS
www.wsnelson.com
All professional services performed under authority of duly licensed staff. 4 CITYNORTH
16945 NORTHCHASE DRIVE
SUITE 200
HOUSTON, TX 77060
Phone (281) 999-1989
Please Respond to the
Houston Address
FORM F2603

Providing Professional Services Since 1945

January 1, 2026

SCHEDULE OF HOURLY INVOICE RATES
Schedule of hourly invoice rates is subject to review and revision on January 1 and July 1 each year.

Classifications Straight-Time
Rates
Engineer, Architect, Scientist, Specialist 1 $ 90.00
Engineer, Architect, Scientist, Specialist 2 95.00
Engineer, Architect, Scientist, Specialist 3 105.00
Senior Engineer, Architect, Scientist, Specialist 1 $ 125.00 Senior Engineer, Architect, Scientist, Specialist 2 170.00 Staff Engineer, Architect, Scientist or Specialist or Consultant $ 195.00 Senior Staff Engineer, Architect, Scientist or 270.00
Specialist or Senior Consultant
Engineering, Architectural or Scientific Aide $ 45.00
Engineering, Architectural or Scientific Technician 55.00 Engineering, Architectural or Scientific Technologist 75.00 Senior Engineering, Architectural or Scientific Technologist 185.00 Drafter 1 $ 50.00
Drafter 2 60.00
Drafter 3 70.00
Designer 1 $ 75.00
Designer 2 85.00
Senior Designer 1 $ 110.00
Senior Designer 2 155.00
Clerk-Typist $ 30.00
Administrative Assistant 50.00
Senior Administrative Assistant 85.00
64 22

BILLING RATES
1200 ST. CHARLES AVENUE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
Phone (504) 523-5281
WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND COMPANY I N C O R P O R A T E D

ENGINEERS
www.wsnelson.com
All professional services performed under authority of duly licensed staff. 4 CITYNORTH
16945 NORTHCHASE DRIVE
SUITE 200
HOUSTON, TX 77060
Phone (281) 999-1989
Please Respond to the
Houston Address
FORM F2603

Providing Professional Services Since 1945
January 1, 2026
SCHEDULE OF PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION BY WALDEMAR S. NELSON & CO., INC.

Prints Cost Per Copy
Size B & W Color Reproducible
8½" x 11" $ .11 $ .50 $ 1.75
8½" x 14" .12 .75 2.00
11" x 17" .28 1.00 2.50
18" x 24" .40 3.00 5.00
24" x 36" .80 6.00 10.00
30" x 42" or greater 1.20 9.00 15.00
In between sizes prices at next larger size cost.

Binders
3 Ring Standard $5.00
Pressboard (11” x 17”) $7.00
Tabs
8 ½” x 11” $0.25
11” x 17” $0.50
CD/DVD $10.00 each
65 23

BILLING RATES
Alta Planning + Design, Inc.

Bill Rates - 2026-2028
Labor Category Typical Classifications Included in Rate 2026 2027 2028 Labor Category 1 Executive Principal $ 415.00 400.00 $ 430.00 $ Labor Category 2 Executive Principal $ 380.00 370.00 $ 390.00 $ Labor Category 3 Principal, Executive Principal $ 360.00 340.00 $ 370.00 $ Labor Category 4 Principal, Executive Principal $ 330.00 320.00 $ 340.00 $ Labor Category 5 Sr. Associate, Principal, Executive Principal $ 300.00 300.00 $ 300.00 $ Labor Category 6 Sr. Associate, Principal $ 290.00 280.00 $ 300.00 $ Labor Category 7 Leader, Sr. Associate, Principal $ 270.00 260.00 $ 280.00 $ Labor Category 8 Associate II, Sr. Associate, Director, Principal $ 250.00 240.00 $ 260.00 $ Labor Category 9 Associate I, Associate II, Sr. Associate $ 240.00 230.00 $ 250.00 $ Labor Category 10 Level III, Associate I, Associate II, Sr. Associate $ 230.00 220.00 $ 240.00 $ Labor Category 11 Level III, Associate I, Associate II $ 225.00 200.00 $ 230.00 $ Labor Category 12 Level III, Associate I, Associate II $ 190.00 180.00 $ 200.00 $ Labor Category 13 Level II, Level III, Associate I $ 170.00 160.00 $ 180.00 $ Labor Category 14 Level I, Level II, Level III $ 160.00 150.00 $ 170.00 $ Labor Category 15 Level I, Level II, Level III $ 150.00 140.00 $ 160.00 $ Labor Category 16 Level I, Level II $ 140.00 130.00 $ 150.00 $ Labor Category 17 Administration/Specialist $ 125.00 120.00 $ 130.00 $ Labor Category 18 Intern/Specialist $ 115.00 110.00 $ 120.00 $ Rates are presented are subject to change at any time.

Subconsultants and reimbursable expenses will be charged at cost + 10% markup.

Mileage will be charged at the provisional standard rate.

In-house reproductions will be charged as follows:

Color copies $0.85/ page
Black and white copies $0.40/page
24” x 36” large format plot $20.00/sheet
36” x 48” large format plot $35.00/sheet
66 24

BILLING RATES
Belle Haven Community Development Fund
SAFER Bay East Palo Alto - Public Outreach
Full Billing Rate Table
Staff role Billing Rate
Program Manager (primary) $50.00
Project Manager (primary) $35.00
Community Outreach Worker $30.00
Community Outreach Worker $30.00
2026 Billing Rate
Staff Name Billing Rate (p.h.)
Jon Christensen $175
Tony Baker $175
67 25

BILLING RATES
Engineering Surveying
Intern $65 - $120 Survey Technician I-III $70 - $195
Technician $100 - $145 Lead Survey Technician $150 - $175 Design Engineer I $130 - $185 Survey Specialist I-III $140 - $295 Design Engineer II $150 - $235 Asst Surveyor I-III $150 - $210 Sr. Technician $165 - $230 Project Surveyor I-III $205 - $325 Civil Engineering Designer $175 - $275 * Chief of Party $215 - $270 Project Engineer $180 - $255 * Instrumentperson $205 - $245 Sr. Project Engineer $220 - $315 * Chainperson $195 - $230 Sr. Technical Engineer $225 - $260 * Apprentice $130 - $195 CADD Manager $240 - $285 * 2-Person Crew $415 - $480
Technical Lead $255 - $315 * 3-Person Crew $590 - $710
Sr. Technical Lead $300 - $375 * Utility Locator $210 - $270 Design Manager $385 - $430 Drone $290
Engineering Manager $385 - $430
Sr. Engineering Manager $385 - $520 Project Management & Oversight Project Manager $195 - $355
Construction Management Sr. Project Manager $260 - $400 Office Engineer $180 - $285 Survey Manager I-II $250 - $435 * Inspector - CM $205 - $290 SUE Program Manager $300 - $335 * Asst. Resident Engineer $250 - $285 Division Manager $295 - $445 * Sr. Inspector - CM $260 - $360 Principal $500 - $550
Construction Manager $280 - $325
Area Manager - CM $280 - $325 Project Support
Resident Engineer $305 - $365 Technical/Sr. Technical Writer $125 - $170 Sr. Resident Engineer $365 - $405 Project/Sr. Project Assistant $95 - $185 Survey Coordinator $125 - $130
Planning Project/Sr. Project Coordinator $135 - $230
Planner I $115 - $150 Graphic/Sr. Graphic Designer $140 - $250 Economist $145 - $170 Project/Sr. Project Accountant $130 - $200 Planner II $150 - $185 Sr. Graphic Manager $225 - $290
Sr. Planner $180 - $250 Project Delivery Manager $230 - $255 Project Accountant Manager $250 - $280
Landscape Architecture/Urban Design Safety Manager $270 - $275 Landscape Intern $95 - $115
Landscape Designer I $115 - $140 District Management
Landscape Designer II $135 - $180 * Inspector - Apprentice $100 - $120 Landscape Architect $175 - $205 * Inspector/Sr. Inspector $115 - $205 Sr. Landscape Architect $195 - $225 * Lead Inspector $165 - $185 Assistant/Associate Sanitary Engineer $180 - $250
Grant Writing Sanitary/Sr. Sanitary Project Engineer $225 - $315 Funding Specialist $145 - $270 Operations/Deputy District Manager $285 - $405 Sr. Funding Specialist $280 - $325 District Manager-Engineer $415 - $465 Funding Manager $350 - $410
Special Services
Expert Witness $550
Strategic Consulting $550
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. RATE SCHEDULE
EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2026
Reimbursables including, but not limited to; reproductions, delivery and filing fees; outside consultant fees; and survey field expenses will be billed at Cost Plus 5% . Mileage will be billed per current IRS Rate.

Additional promotional steps exist within various rate categories.

This rate schedule expires June 30, 2026; rates are subject to escalation with new hourly rate schedule as of July 1, 2026. * These charge rates are subject to Prevailing Wage laws and Union contract.

RATE SCHEDULE (B-1) | PAGE 1 OF 1
68 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 245
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 939-1378
CAD Masters RATES 2026.docx 1 / 1

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL SERVICE FEES
JANUARY 1, 2026 – DECEMBER 31, 2026
Personnel Rate
Matt Sparks $ 150
CAD Drafter $ 125

BILLING RATES
69 Sherwood WRA COWI CirclePoint Geosyntec Mark Thomas BH CDF C&B Monument Alta WS Nelson BASE OPTIONAL Task 1 Project Management 79,890 $ 74,880 $ 9,098 $ 14,970 $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 4,610$ 4,904 $ 202,900 $ - $ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 8,500 $ 1,468 $ 758 $ 1,140 $ -$ - $ 100$ -$ -$ 760$ -$ 12,726 $ - $ Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan 6,370 $ 2,592 $ 320 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,282 $ - $ Task 1.3 Project Meetings 7,330 $ 11,861 $ 8,020 $ 4,340 $ 5,448 $ - $ 300$ 3,150$ -$ 3,850$ 4,904 $ 49,203 $ - $ Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA 5,500 $ 6,270 $ -$ 3,420 $ -$ - $ 300$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,490 $ - $ Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies 17,290 $ 12,370 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ 300$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29,960 $ - $ Task 1.6 Public Outreach 17,380 $ 40,319 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ 4,950$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 62,649 $ - $ Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks 17,520 $ -$ -$ 6,070 $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23,590 $ - $ Task 2 NOT USED - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ Task 2.1 NOT USED - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 148,220 $ 5,614 $ 4,824 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 520$ 5,460 $ 210,174 $ 283,190 $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs 7,760 $ 5,614 $ 4,824 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 520$ 5,460 $ 24,178 $ - $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map 10,710 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,710 $ - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 213,190 $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations 4,230 $ -$ -$ -$ 45,536 $ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 49,766 $ 70,000 $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage 125,520 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 125,520 $ - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 39,290 $ 57,903 $ 10,370 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 3,120$ -$ 144,323 $ - $ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 14,990 $ 18,398 $ 3,982 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ 2,100$ -$ 1,040$ -$ 40,510 $ - $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 24,300 $ 39,505 $ 6,388 $ -$ 28,740 $ - $ -$ 2,800$ -$ 2,080$ -$ 103,813 $ - $ Task 5 30% Design Document 74,440 $ 90,834 $ 26,486 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 8,720$ 13,830 $ 226,210 $ - $ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,854 $ 9,854 $ - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans & Specs 52,840 $ 90,834 $ 26,486 $ -$ 6,300 $ - $ -$ 5,600$ -$ 8,720$ 3,976 $ 194,756 $ - $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way 21,600 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21,600 $ - $ Task 6 Environmental and Regulatory Compliance 24,215 $ 21,200 $ -$ 90,398 $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 135,813 $ 377,764 $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum (OPT) 2,755 $ -$ -$ 90,398 $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 93,153 $ - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR (OPT) - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 353,854 $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance 21,460 $ 21,200 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 42,660 $ - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 23,910 $ Task 7 60% Design 164,760 $ 53,354 $ 44,366 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 16,780$ 3,734 $ 289,294 $ - $ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development 164,760 $ 53,354 $ 44,366 $ -$ 6,300 $ - $ -$ -$ -$ 16,780$ 3,734 $ 289,294 $ - $ Task 7.4 NOT USED - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ Task 7.5 NOT USED - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ Task 8 90% Design 164,340 $ 49,870 $ 35,474 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 13,140$ 22,718 $ 298,842 $ - $ Task 8.1 90% PS&E 95,840 $ 33,519 $ 35,474 $ -$ 6,300 $ - $ -$ 7,000$ -$ 10,820$ 9,342 $ 198,295 $ - $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting 5,270 $ 8,642 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,912 $ - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items 18,300 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 2,320$ 13,376 $ 33,996 $ - $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements 20,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,500 $ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual 11,040 $ 7,709 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,749 $ - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP 13,390 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,390 $ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 104,840 $ 36,050 $ 49,560 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 5,580$ 7,814 $ 251,524 $ 59,580 $ Task 9.1 100% PS&E 52,620 $ 27,507 $ 30,690 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ 38,500$ -$ 5,580$ 7,814 $ 162,711 $ - $ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review 21,470 $ -$ -$ -$ 9,180 $ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,650 $ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set 11,800 $ 8,543 $ 18,870 $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39,213 $ - $ Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report 10,280 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,280 $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP 8,670 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,670 $ - $ Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 59,580 $ TOTAL $ 799,995 $ 389,705 $ 180,178 $ 105,368 $ 107,804 $ - $ 5,950 $ 59,150 $ - $ 52,470 $ 58,460 $ 1,759,080 $ 720,534 Sherwood WRA COWI CirclePoint Geosyntec Mark Thomas BH CDF C&B Monument Alta WS Nelson SAFER Bay East Palo Alto
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Phase/Task
70 Fringe Benefit Rate 60.90%
Indirect Overhead Rate 154%
Profit Rate 12%
Sherwood
Prime / Civil Engineering
Rate: $ 330 Rate: $ 275 Rate: $ 260 Rate: $ 250 Rate: $ 230 Rate: $ 230 Rate: $ 215 Rate: $ 195 Rate: $ 185 Rate: $ 195 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Task 1 Project Management 18 5,940$ 88 24,200$ 0 -$ 18 4,500$ 24 5,520$ 110 25,300$ 0 -$ 74 14,430$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 332 79,890$ -$ 79,890$ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 1 day prep, 1/2 day mtg 6 $ 1,980 8 $ 2,200 $ - $ - $ - 12 $ 2,760 $ - 8 $ 1,560 $ - $ - 34 $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan 1 draft, 1 final 1 $ 330 8 $ 2,200 $ - 8 $ 2,000 $ - 8 $ 1,840 $ - $ - $ - $ - 25 $ 6,370 $ 6,370 Task 1.3 Project Meetings 10 meetings by 1hrs mtg and no prep (merged w/ SOBR) 1
330$
10 2,750$ -$ -$ -$ 10 2,300$ -$ 10 1,950$ -$ -$ 31 7,330$ 7,330$ Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA 40 mtgs at 1/2hr each $ - 20 $ 5,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 20 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies 10 coord mtgs w/ prep, mtg, minutes of 4 hrs per -$
10 2,750$ -$ 10 2,500$ 8
1,840$
24 5,520$ -$ 24 4,680$ -$ -$ 76 17,290$ 17,290$
Task 1.6 Public Outreach
assume no public mtgs attendance,
max 2 exhibits created for public
mtgs, 2 BCDC DRB mtgs w/ prep
2 660$
16 4,400$ -$ -$
16 3,680$
24 5,520$ -$
16 3,120$ -$ -$
74 17,380$ 17,380$
Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks (2) full day mtgs and prep 8 $ 2,640 16 $ 4,400 $ - $ - $ - 32 $ 7,360 $ - 16 $ 3,120 $ - $ - 72 $ 17,520 $ 17,520 Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment NOT USED $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 12 3,960$ 12 3,300$ 66 17,160$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 202 46,460$ 0 -$ 284 55,380$ 112 20,720$ 20 3,900$ 708 150,880 $ 20,000$ 148,220$ 22,660 $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ 4 1,100$ -$ -$ -$ 12 2,760$ -$ 20 3,900$ -$ -$ 36 7,760$ 7,760$ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ 2 550$ 2 520$ -$ -$ 8 1,840$ -$ 20 3,900$ -$ 20 3,900$ 52 10,710$ 10,710$ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations parcel selection 2 660$ 4 1,100$ -$ -$ -$ 40 9,200$ -$ 60 11,700$ -$ -$ 106 22,660$ $ 22,660 Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations (Piezometers)permit support -$ 2 550$ -$ -$ -$ 16 3,680$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 4,230$ 4,230$ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage ODC = survey allowance 10 3,300$ -$ 64 16,640$ -$ -$ 126 28,980$ -$ 184 35,880$ 112 20,720$ -$ 496 105,520$ 20,000$ 125,520$ Task 4 Basis for Design 4 1,320$ 10 2,750$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 12 2,760$ 64 14,720$ 0 -$ 72 14,040$ 20 3,700$ 0 -$ 182 39,290$ -$ 39,290$ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 2 660$ 6 1,650$ -$ -$ 4 920$ 24 5,520$ -$ 32 6,240$ -$ -$ 68 14,990$ 14,990$ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 2 660$ 4 1,100$ -$ -$ 8 1,840$ 40 9,200$ -$ 40 7,800$ 20 3,700$ -$ 114 24,300$ 24,300$ Task 5 30% Design Document 2 660$ 24 6,600$ 8 2,080$ 8 2,000$ 0 -$ 76 17,480$ 0 -$ 76 14,820$ 40 7,400$ 120 23,400$ 354 74,440$ -$ 74,440$ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched
assumes 6 linear 20-scale sheets for
NOBR, with enlarged plans at details
and public access points (4 total
including SOBR) - JUST HIT PRINT.
2 660$
20 5,500$
8 2,080$ -$ -$
60 13,800$ -$
60 11,700$
40 7,400$
60 11,700$
250
52,840$ 52,840$
Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ 4 1,100$ -$ 8 2,000$ -$ 16 3,680$ -$ 16 3,120$ -$ 60 11,700$ 104 21,600$ 21,600$ Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 9 2,475$ 20 5,200$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 11,960$ 8 1,720$ 64 12,480$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 153 33,835$ - $ 24,215$ 9,620 $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ 1 275$ -$ -$ -$ 4 920$ -$ 8 1,560$ -$ -$ 13 2,755$ 2,755$ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ 2 550$ -$ -$ -$ 8 1,840$ -$ 16 3,120$ -$ -$ 26 5,510$ $ 5,510 Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ 4 1,100$ 20 5,200$ -$ -$ 32 7,360$ -$ 40 7,800$ -$ -$ 96 21,460$ 21,460$ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ 2 550$ -$ -$ -$ 8 1,840$ 8 1,720$ -$ -$ -$ 18 4,110$ $ 4,110 Task 7 60% Design 20 6,600$ 40 11,000$ 16 4,160$ 40 10,000$ 0 -$ 180 41,400$ 0 -$ 200 39,000$ 200 37,000$ 80 15,600$ 776 164,760$ -$ 164,760$ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development NO DELIVERABLE, only design progression 20 6,600$
40 11,000$ 16 4,160$ 40 10,000$ -$ 180 41,400$ -$ 200 39,000$ 200 37,000$ 80 15,600$ 776 164,760$ 164,760$ Task 7.4 NOT USED No scope -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 7.5 NOT USED No scope -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8 90% Design 14 4,620$ 52 14,300$ 96 24,960$ 40 10,000$ 0 -$ 172 39,560$ 0 -$ 196 38,220$ 8 1,480$ 160 31,200$ 738 164,340$ -$ 164,340$ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E 8 2,640$ 32 8,800$ 60 15,600$ 20 5,000$ -$ 40 9,200$ -$ 120 23,400$ -$ 160 31,200$ 440 95,840$ 95,840$ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ 2 550$ 4 1,040$ -$ -$ 16 3,680$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 5,270$ 5,270$ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update No updates to BOD or DCM -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items 2 660$ 4 1,100$ -$ 20 5,000$ -$ 40 9,200$ -$ 12 2,340$ -$ -$ 78 18,300$ 18,300$ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements 4 1,320$ 8 2,200$ 16 4,160$ -$ -$ 32 7,360$ -$ 28 5,460$ -$ -$ 88 20,500$ 20,500$ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ 4 1,100$ 8 2,080$ -$ -$ 24 5,520$ -$ 12 2,340$ -$ -$ 48 11,040$ 11,040$ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ 2 550$ 8 2,080$ -$ -$ 20 4,600$ -$ 24 4,680$ 8 1,480$ -$ 62 13,390$ 13,390$ Task 9 100% Final Design 13 4,290$ 38 10,450$ 72 18,720$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 134 30,820$ 160 34,400$ 108 21,060$ 28 5,180$ 100 19,500$ 653 144,420$ 20,000$ 104,840$ 59,580 $ Task 9.1 100% PS&E 4 1,320$ 16 4,400$ 40 10,400$ -$ -$ 40 9,200$ -$ 40 7,800$ -$ 100 19,500$ 240 52,620$ 52,620$ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review ODC = third party review -$ 2 550$ -$ -$ -$ 4 920$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 1,470$ 20,000$ 21,470$ Task 9.3 Bid Set CAPPED RESPONSES 4 1,320$ 8 2,200$ 8 2,080$ -$ -$ 10 2,300$ -$ 20 3,900$ -$ -$ 50 11,800$ 11,800$ Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report 1 330$ 2 550$ 4 1,040$ -$ -$ 16 3,680$ -$ 24 4,680$ -$ -$ 47 10,280$ 10,280$ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ 2 550$ 4 1,040$ -$ -$ 4 920$ -$ 24 4,680$ 8 1,480$ -$ 42 8,670$ 8,670$ Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis Optional - if CalOES confirms the BCA is already approved 4
1,320$
8 2,200$
16 4,160$ -$ -$ 60 13,800$ 160 34,400$ -$ 20 3,700$ -$ 268 59,580$ $ 59,580 TOTAL 83 27,390$ 273 75,075$ 278 72,280$ 106 26,500$ 36 8,280$ 990 227,700$ 168 36,120$ 1074 209,430$ 408 75,480$ 480 93,600$ 3896 851,855$ 40,000$ 799,995$ 91,860 $ Design Engineer I Sr CAD Technician
Estimated
Total Hours
Design Engineer III
Optional Fee
Design Engineer II
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Managing Principal
Phase/Task
Associate Principal
Estimated
Total Fee
Other Direct
Costs
Base Fee
Sr Project Manager Project Manager Project Strategist Project Engineer 71 Alta
Traffic Signal and Temp Traffic Control
Rate: $ 260 Rate: $ 160 Rate: $ 125 Rate: $ 300 Rate: $ 340 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 11 2,860 $ 1 160 $ 10 1,250 $ 0 -$ 1 340 $ 23 4,610 $ -$ 4,610 $ - $ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 1 $ 260 1 $ 160 $ - $ - 1 $ 340 3 $ 760 $ 760 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings 10 $ 2,600 $ - 10 $ 1,250 $ - $ - 20 $ 3,850 $ 3,850 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 2 520 $ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 520 $ -$ 520 $ - $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs 2 $ - 520 $ -$ -$ -$ 2 $ 520 520 $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 4 Basis for Design 12 3,120 $ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 12 3,120 $ -$ 3,120 $ - $ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum 4 $ - 1,040 $ -$ -$ -$ 4 $ 1,040 1,040 $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 8 $ - 2,080 $ -$ -$ -$ 8 $ 2,080 2,080 $ Task 5 30% Design Document 14 3,640 $ 28 4,480 $ 0 -$ 2 600 $ 0 -$ 44 8,720 $ -$ 8,720 $ - $ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched 14 $ 3,640 28 $ -$ 4,480 2 $ -$ 600 44 $ 8,720 8,720 $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 7 60% Design 24 6,240 $ 60 9,600 $ 0 -$ 2 600 $ 1 340 $ 87 16,780 $ -$ 16,780 $ - $ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development 24 $ 6,240 60 $ 9,600 $ - 2 $ 600 1 $ 340 87 $ 16,780 $ 16,780 Task 7.4 NOT USED $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 20 5,200 $ 40 6,400 $ 0 -$ 4 1,200 $ 1 340 $ 65 13,140 $ -$ 13,140 $ - $ Task 8.1 90% PS&E 16 $ 4,160 32 $ -$ 5,120 4 $ 1,200 1 $ 340 53 $ 10,820 10,820 $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items 4 $ 1,040 8 $ -$ -$ -$ 1,280 12 $ 2,320 2,320 $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements - $ - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9 100% Final Design 8 2,080 $ 16 2,560 $ 0 -$ 2 600 $ 1 340 $ 27 5,580 $ -$ 5,580 $ - $ Task 9.1 100% PS&E 8 2,080 $ 16 2,560 $ -$ 2 600 $ 1 340 $ 27 5,580 $ 5,580 $ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report - $ - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP $ - - $ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - TOTAL 91 $ 23,660 145 $ 23,200 10 $ 1,250 10 $ 3,000 4 $ 1,360 260 52,470 $ -$ 52,470 $ -$ Estimated
Total Hours
Engineer II
Phase/Task
Admin QC Principal
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Project Manager
Estimated Total
Fee
Other
Direct
Costs
Total Fee Optional Fee
72 Belle Haven Community Development Fund
Community Outreach
Rate: $ 50 Rate: $ 35 Rate: $ 30
Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 35 1,750 $ 40 1,400 $ 60 1,800 $ 135 4,950 $ 1,000$ 5,950 $ - $ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 2 $ 100 $ - $ - 2 $ 100 $ 100 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings 6 $ 300 $ - $ - 6 $ 300 $ 300 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA 6 $ 300 $ - $ - 6 $ 300 $ 300 Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies 6 $ 300 $ - $ - 6 $ 300 $ 300 Task 1.6 Public Outreach 15 $ 750 40 $ 1,400 60 $ 1,800 115 $ 3,950 $ 1,000 $ 4,950 Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 4 Basis for Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $
Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 5 30% Design Document 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 7 60% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $
Task 7.1 60% Plan Development $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $
Task 8.1 90% PS&E -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9 100% Final Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ - $
Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - TOTAL 35 $ 1,750 40 $ 1,400 60 $ 1,800 135 4,950 $ 1,000$ 5,950 $ - $ SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Program Manager
Optional Fee
Project Manager Community Outreach
Worker
Phase/Task
Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Other
Direct
Costs
Total Fee
73 CirclePoint
CEQA
Rate: $ 340 Rate: $ 230 Rate: $ 210 Rate: $ 175 Rate: $ 150 Rate: $ 203 Rate: $ 175 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Task 1 Project Management 22 7,480 $ 28 6,440 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 1,050$ 56 14,970 $ - $ 14,970 $ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 2 $ 680 2 $ 460 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 $ 1,140 $ 1,140 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings
Reduced PIC Meeting
allotment from 12 to

6. Reduced PM
Meeting Allotment
from 12 to 10.
6 $ 2,040
10 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,300
16 $ 4,340 4,340 $
Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA 6 $ 2,040 6 $ 1,380 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 12 $ 3,420 $ 3,420 Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks 8 $ 2,720 10 $ 2,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - 6 $ 1,050 24 $ 6,070 $ 6,070 Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5 30% Design Document 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 48 16,320 $ 75 17,250 $ 60 12,600 $ 65 11,375 $ 45 6,750 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 293 64,295 $ 26,103 $ 90,398 $ 368,144 $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum 48 $ 16,320 75 $ 17,250 60 $ 12,600 65 $ 11,375 45 $ -$ -$ 6,750 293 $ 26,103 64,295 $ 90,398 $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ 348,344 Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - $ 19,800 Task 7 60% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 8 90% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ - $ - $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ TOTAL 70$ 23,800 $ 103$ 23,690 $ 60$ 12,600 $ 65$ 11,375 $ 45$ 6,750 $ -$ -$ 6$ 1,050 $ 349 79,265 $ 26,103 $ 105,368 $ 368,144 $ Optional Fee
Simon Stahl Betty Wong
Assumptions Phase/Task
Other Direct
Costs
Total Fee
Ashlyn Reining
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Geoff Reilly
PIC/PM Deputy PM Sr. Associate Assistant Planner Graphics Director Project Accountant Juliet Martin Krysten McCue Cristina LeFemine
Associate Planner
74 COWI
Structural Engineering
Rate: $ 421 Rate: $ 337 Rate: $ 243 Rate: $ 202 Rate: $ 191 Rate: $ 198 Rate: $ 160 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Task 1 Project Management 1 421 $ 21 7,077 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 10 1,600 $ 32 9,098 $ -$ 9,098 $ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 1 $ 421 1 $ 337 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2 $ 758 $ 758 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2 $ 320 2 $ 320 $ 320 Task 1.3 Project Meetings $ - 20 $ 6,740 $ - 0 $ - $ - $ - 8 $ 1,280 28 $ 8,020 $ 8,020 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 2 842 $ 2 674 $ 4 972 $ 4 808 $ 8 1,528 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 20 4,824 $ -$ 4,824 $ -$ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs 2 $ 842 2 $ 674 4 $ 972 4 $ 808 8 $ -$ 1,528 0 -$ 20 $ 4,824 4,824 $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 2 842 $ 6 2,022 $ 10 2,430 $ 10 2,020 $ 16 3,056 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 44 10,370 $ -$ 10,370 $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ 2 $ 674 4 $ 972 4 $ 808 8 $ -$ -$ 1,528 18 $ 3,982 3,982 $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 2 $ 842 4 $ 1,348 6 $ 1,458 6 $ 1,212 8 $ -$ -$ 1,528 26 $ 6,388 6,388 $ Task 5 30% Design Document 2 842 $ 4 1,348 $ 16 3,888 $ 24 4,848 $ 40 7,640 $ 40 7,920 $ 0 -$ 126 26,486 $ -$ 26,486 $ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched 2 $ 842 4 $ 1,348 16 $ 3,888 24 $ 4,848 40 $ 7,640 40 $ 7,920 0 -$ 126 $ 26,486 26,486 $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 7 60% Design 2 842 $ 8 2,696 $ 20 4,860 $ 24 4,848 $ 80 15,280 $ 80 15,840 $ 0 -$ 214 44,366 $ -$ 44,366 $ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development NO DELIVERABLE 2 $ 842 8 $ 2,696 20 $ 4,860 24 $ 4,848 80 $ 15,280 80 $ 15,840 0 $ - 214 $ 44,366 $ 44,366 Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8 90% Design 2 842 $ 8 2,696 $ 16 3,888 $ 24 4,848 $ 80 15,280 $ 40 7,920 $ 0 -$ 170 35,474 $ -$ 35,474 $ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E 2 $ 842 8 $ 2,696 16 $ 3,888 24 $ 4,848 80 $ 15,280 40 $ 7,920 0 -$ 170 $ 35,474 35,474 $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 4 1,684 $ 8 2,696 $ 40 9,720 $ 60 12,120 $ 60 11,460 $ 60 11,880 $ 0 -$ 232 49,560 $ -$ 49,560 $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E 2 842 $ 4 1,348 $ 20 4,860 $ 40 8,080 $ 40 7,640 $ 40 7,920 $ 0 -$ 146 30,690 $ 30,690 $ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set 2 842 $ 4 1,348 $ 20 4,860 $ 20 4,040 $ 20 3,820 $ 20 3,960 $ 0 -$ 86 18,870 $ 18,870 $ Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ TOTAL 15 6,315 $ 57 19,209 $ 106 25,758 $ 146 29,492 $ 284 54,244 $ 220 43,560 $ 10 1,600$ 838 180,178 $ -$ 180,178 $ -$ Assoc. Proj. Director Senior Engineer II Sr CAD Tech Project Coord II Phase/Task
Senior Engineer I Engineer
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Proj. Director
Estimated
Total Hours
Optional
Fee
Estimated
Total Fee
Other
Direct
Costs
Total Fee
75 Currie and Brown
Cost Estimator
Rate: Rate: Rate: $ 175 Rate: Rate: Rate: $ 175
Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 0 -$ 0 -$ 18 3,150 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 18 3,150 $ -$ 3,150 $ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings $ - $ - 18 $ 3,150 $ - $ - $ - 18 $ 3,150 $ 3,150 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 28 4,900 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 28 4,900 $ -$ 4,900 $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ 12 $ -$ -$ - 2,100 $ 12 $ 2,100 2,100 $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report -$ -$ 16 $ -$ -$ - 2,800 $ 16 $ 2,800 2,800 $ Task 5 30% Design Document 0 -$ 0 -$ 32 5,600 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 32 5,600 $ -$ 5,600 $ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched list only -$ -$ 32 $ -$ -$ - 5,600 $ 32 $ 5,600 5,600 $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 7 60% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development NO ESTIMATE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 7.4 NOT USED $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 40 7,000 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 40 7,000 $ -$ 7,000 $ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E list only -$ -$ 40 $ -$ -$ - 7,000 $ 40 $ 7,000 7,000 $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 220 38,500 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 220 38,500 $ -$ 38,500 $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ 220 38,500 $ -$ -$ - $ 220 38,500 $ 38,500 $ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - TOTAL 0 $ - 0 $ - 338 $ 59,150.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 338 59,150.00 $ -$ 59,150.00 $ -$ Optional
Fee
Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Other
Direct
Costs
Total Fee
Lead Electrical Estimator
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions Chief Estimator
Lead Structural
Estimator Lead Civil Estimator
Phase/Task
Structural
Estimator Civil Estimator
76 Geosyntec
Geotechnical
Rate: $ 345 Rate: $ 300 Rate: $ 210 Rate: $ 104 Rate: $ 225 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 0 -$ 14 4,200$ 0 -$ 12 1,248$ 0 -$ 26 5,448 $ -$ 5,448 $ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings $ - 14 $ 4,200 $ - 12 $ 1,248 $ - 26 $ 5,448 $ 5,448 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 16 5,520$ 67 20,100$ 80 16,800$ 4 416$ 12 2,700$ 179 45,536 $ -$ 45,536 $ 70,000$ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations
The following subtasks are associated with geotechnical design of the project and have therefore been included in the base scope of work:
* Task 3.4.1 - Review of Existing Geotechnical Information * Task 3.4.2 - Supplemental Engineering Analysis and Design Support * Task 3.4.3 - Geotechnical Design Criteria and PS&E Support The following subtasks are associated with piezometer installation (including preparation, permitting, installation of 5 piezometers south and north of Bay Road, and post-construction monitoring for 1 year). These subtasks are not included in the base scope and are instead included as an optional fee.
* Task 3.4.4 - Field Work Plan * Task 3.4.4.1 - Field Work Coordination, Permits, and Applicable Regulations
* Task 3.4.4.2 - Encroachment Permits, Access Authorization, and Traffic Control Plans
* Task 3.4.4.3 - Utility and Access Verrification
* Task 3.4.4.4 - Health and Safety Plan
* Task 3.4.4.5 - Survey Work
* Task 3.4.4.6 - Subsurface Exploration, Classification, Sampling, Backfilling
* Task 3.4.4.7 - Investigation Spoils
* Task 3.4.5 - Installation of Monitoring Wells or Piezometers The total optional fee for these items include approximately $40,000 of direct costs and $30,000 of labor.
16 5,520$ 67 20,100$ 80 16,800$ 4 416$ 12 2,700$ 179 45,536 $ 45,536 $ 70,000$ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 4 Basis for Design 12 4,140$ 40 12,000$ 60 12,600$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 112 28,740 $ -$ 28,740 $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report 12 4,140$ 40 12,000$ 60 12,600$ -$ -$ 112 $ 28,740 28,740 $ Task 5 30% Design Document 4 1,380$ 8 2,400$ 12 2,520$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 24 6,300 $ -$ 6,300 $ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched 4 1,380$ 8 2,400$ 12 2,520$ -$ -$ 24 $ 6,300 6,300 $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 7 60% Design 4 1,380$ 8 2,400$ 12 2,520$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 24 6,300 $ -$ 6,300 $ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development 4 $ 1,380 8 $ 2,400 12 $ 2,520 $ - $ - 24 $ 6,300 $ 6,300 Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 4 1,380$ 8 2,400$ 12 2,520$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 24 6,300 $ -$ 6,300 $ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E 4 1,380$ 8 2,400$ 12 2,520$ -$ -$ 24 $ 6,300 6,300 $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9 100% Final Design 4 1,380$ 12 3,600$ 20 4,200$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 36 9,180 $ -$ 9,180 $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review 4 1,380$ 12 3,600$ 20 4,200$ -$ -$ 36 9,180 $ 9,180 $ Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ TOTAL 44 15,180$ 157 47,100$ 196 41,160$ 16 1,664$ 12 2,700$ 425 107,804 $ -$ 107,804 $ 70,000$ Optional Fee
Estimated
Total
Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Other Direct
Costs
Total Fee
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Senior Principal Sr. Geotech Engineer/
Project Manager Sr. Staff Professional
Phase/Task
Project Administrator Senior Designer
77 Mark Thomas
Survey
Rate: $ 295 Rate: $ 235 Rate: $ 155 Rate: $ 150 Rate: $ 395 Rate: $ 185 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 10 2,950 $ 40 9,400 $ 40 6,200 $ 160 24,000 $ 0 -$ 4 740 $ 254 43,290 $ 4,500 $ - $ 47,790 $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations 10 $ 2,950 40 $ 9,400 40 $ 6,200 160 $ -$ 24,000 4 740$ 254 $ 4,500 43,290 $ $ 47,790 Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5 30% Design Document 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 7 60% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 8.1 90% PS&E -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 $ - - $
Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - TOTAL 10 $ 2,950 40 $ 9,400 40 $ 6,200 160 $ 24,000 0 $ - 4 $ 740 254 43,290 $ 4,500 $ - $ 47,790 $ Optional Fee
Survey Manager II Project Surveyor II
Phase/Task
Other Direct
Costs
Total Fee
Lead Survey Survey Tech II 2 Person Field Crew Senior Proj Coordinator Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
78 Monument ROW
ROW Agent
Rate: $ 310 Rate: $ 231 Rate: $ 178.50 Rate: $ 155 Rate: $ 140 Rate: $ 90 Rate: $ 130 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Task 1 Project Management 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 8 2,480 $ 40 9,240 $ 64 11,424 $ 144 22,320 $ 80 11,200 $ 40 3,600 $ 8 1,040 $ 384 61,304 $ 81,436 $ - $ 142,740 $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations ODC = Appraisal, appraisal review, mailings, Mileage 8
$ 2,480 40 $ 9,240 64 $ 11,424 144 $ 22,320 80 $ 11,200 40 $ 3,600 8$ 1,040 384 $ 81,436 61,304 $ $ 142,740
Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 5 30% Design Document 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 7 60% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 8.1 90% PS&E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ TOTAL 8 2,480 $ 40 9,240 $ 64 11,424 $ 144 22,320 $ 80 11,200 $ 40 3,600 $ 8 1,040 $ 384 61,304 $ 81,436 $ - $ 142,740 $ Optional Fee Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Other Direct
Costs
Total Fee
Project Accountant
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Principal Senior Project
Manager
Phase/Task
Project Manager Senior Agent Senior Project
Coordinator
Project Support
Specialist
79 WRA
Biology / Permitting / Restoration / Landscape
Rate: $ 310 Rate: $ 269 Rate: $ 239 Rate: $ 212 Rate: $ 150 Rate: $ 227 Rate: $ 163 Rate: $ 207 Rate: $ 99 Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Task 1 Project Management 41 12,710$ 62 16,678$ 34 8,126$ 0 -$ 64 9,600$ 48 10,896$ 80 13,040$ 10 2,070$ 15 1,485$ 354 74,605$ 275$ 7 $ -$ 4,880 Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting 3 $ 930 2 $ 538 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 $ 1,468 $ 1,468 Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan 2 $ 620 2 $ 538 6 $ 1,434 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 2,592 $ 2,592 Task 1.3 Project Meetings Up to 7 project progress meetings, up to 2 hours each 10 $ 3,100 16 $ 4,304 12 $ 2,868 $ - $ - 7 $ 1,589 $ - $ - $ - 45 $ 11,861 $ 11,861 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA 30%, 60%, 90% rev iew meetings with EPA (per RFP instructions) 6
1,860$
6 1,614$
6 1,434$ -$ -$ 61,362$ -$ -$ -$ 24 6,270$ 6,270 $
Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies Up to 20 coordination meetings (per RFP) 10 $ 3,100 20 $ 5,380 10 $ 2,390 $ - 10 $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - 50 $ 12,370 $ 12,370 Task 1.6 Public Outreach
2 DRB Meetings. Up to 8 Exhibits for each; In-person
attendance of DRB meetings. No support to ECRB review, if required.

Preparation of 2 minor exhibits for landscape and public access for EPA staff hosted Community meetings. No inperson attendance included. 10 3,100$ 16 4,304$ -$ -$ 54 8,100$ 35 7,945$ 80 13,040$ 10 2,070$ 15 1,485$ 220 40,044$ 275$ 40,319 $ Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ - $ -$ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 4 1,240$ 4 1,076$ 10 2,390$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 4 908$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 22 5,614$ -$ 5,614 $ -$ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs T&M background review. 4 1,240$ 4 1,076$ 10 2,390$ -$ -$ 4 908$ -$ -$ -$ 22 5,614$ 5,614 $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 4 Basis for Design 22 6,820$ 22 5,918$ 30 7,170$ 16 3,392$ 113 16,950$ 14 3,178$ 75 12,225$ 8 1,656$ 6 594$ 306 57,903$ -$ 57,903 $ -$ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum Includes updates to Sherwood-led document at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% design milestones. 8
2,480$
8 2,152$
14 3,346$ 8
1,696$
40 6,000$ 12 2,724$ -$ -$ -$ 90 18,398$ 18,398 $
Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report
Includes updates to Sherwood-led document at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% design milestones. Includes "restoration basis of design" report development at 30% design milestone and
updates at 60% milestones. Report will establish restoration performance criteria and monitoring methods.
14 4,340$
14 3,766$
16 3,824$
8 1,696$
73 10,950$
2 454$
75 12,225$
8 1,656$
6 594$
216
39,505$ 39,505 $
Task 5 30% Design Document 35 10,850$ 12 3,228$ 44 10,516$ 90 19,080$ 190 28,500$ 30 6,810$ 60 9,780$ 10 2,070$ 0 -$ 471 90,834$ -$ 9 $ -$ 0,834 Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched
30% PS&E of landscape and public access design for NoBR to Tara Dr. Assume proposed surface will be provided by prime.

Assume section that replaces existing Bay Trail will need to be designed to a "final condition" and that E/W alignment to Tara Dr. would be designed to an "interim condition".
35 10,850$
12 3,228$
44 10,516$
90 19,080$
190
28,500$
30 6,810$
60 9,780$
10 2,070$ -$
471
90,834$ 90,834 $
Task 5.3 Right-of-Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 10 3,100$ 20 5,380$ 20 4,780$ 20 4,240$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 10 1,630$ 10 2,070$ 0 -$ 90 21,200$ -$ 21, $ -$ 200 Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance
T&M support to SFCJPA permitting efforts, data sharing with SFCJPA team, including up to 2 meeitngs with BRRIT and 2 meetings with Refuge.
10 3,100$
20 5,380$
20 4,780$
20 4,240$ -$ -$
10 1,630$
10 2,070$ -$
90 21,200$ 21,200 $
Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 7 60% Design 18 5,580$ 12 3,228$ 30 7,170$ 40 8,480$ 97 14,550$ 20 4,540$ 50 8,150$ 8 1,656$ 0 -$ 275 53,354$ -$ $ -$ 53,354 Task 7.1 60% Plan Development
60% PS&E of landscape and public access design for NoBR to Tara Dr. Assume proposed surface will be provided by prime.

Assume section that replaces existing Bay Trail will need to be designed to a "final condition" and that E/W alignment to Tara Dr. would be designed to an "interim condition".
18 5,580$
12 3,228$
30 7,170$
40 8,480$
97 14,550$
20 4,540$
50 8,150$
8 1,656$ -$
275
53,354$ 53,354 $
Task 7.4 NOT USED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 21 6,510$ 20 5,380$ 19 4,541$ 29 6,148$ 77 11,550$ 23 5,221$ 62 10,106$ 2 414$ 0 -$ 253 49,870$ -$ $ -$ 49,870 Task 8.1 90% PS&E
90% PS&E of landscape and public access design for NoBR to Tara Dr. Assume proposed surface will be provided by prime.

Assume section that replaces existing Bay Trail will need to be designed to a "final condition" and that E/W alignment to Tara Dr. would be designed to an "interim condition".
14 4,340$
10 2,690$
15 3,585$
15 3,180$
55 8,250$
20 4,540$
40 6,520$
2 414$ -$
171
33,519$ 33,519 $
Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting 4 1,240$ 8 2,152$ -$ 10 2,120$ 10 1,500$ -$ 10 1,630$ -$ -$ 42 8,642$ 8,642 $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual 3 930$ 2 538$ 4 956$ 4 848$ 12 1,800$ 3 681$ 12 1,956$ -$ -$ 40 7,709$ 7,709 $ Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9 100% Final Design 18 5,580$ 7 1,883$ 21 5,019$ 18 3,816$ 60 9,000$ 24 5,448$ 30 4,890$ 2 414$ 0 -$ 180 36,050$ -$ 36,050 $ -$ Task 9.1 100% PS&E
100% PS&E of landscape and public access design for NoBR to Tara Dr. Assume proposed surface will be provided by prime.

Assume section that replaces existing Bay Trail will need to be designed to a "final condition" and that E/W alignment to Tara Dr. would be designed to an "interim condition".
8 2,480$
4 1,076$
17 4,063$
12 2,544$
50 7,500$
20 4,540$
30 4,890$
2 414$ -$
143
27,507$ 27,507 $
Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9.3 Bid Set T&M bid support. 10 3,100$ 3 807$ 4 956$ 6 1,272$ 10 1,500$ 4 908$ -$ -$ -$ 37 8,543$ 8,543 $ Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ - $ TOTAL 169 52,390$ 159 42,771$ 208 49,712$ 213 45,156$ 601 90,150$ 163 37,001$ 367 59,821$ 50 10,350$ 21 2,079$ 1951 389,430$ 275$ 389,705 $ -$ Total Fee Optional Fee
Engineer Assistant Engineer Associate Landscape
Architect Senior Technician GIS Professional II Clerical Support Estimated
Total Hours
Senior Associate Associate Engineer
Phase/Task
Estimated Total
Fee
Other
Direct
Costs
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Principal / Director
80 WS Nelson
Mechanical & Electrical Engineering
Rate: $ 195 Rate: $ 170 Rate: $ 170 Rate: $ 170
Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees Hrs Fees
Task 1 Project Management 8 1,560 $ 8 1,360 $ 0 - $ 8 1,360 $ 24 4,280 $ 624 $ 4,904 $ - $ Task 1.1 Kick Off Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 1.2 Project Design Work Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.3 Project Meetings 8 $ 1,560 8 $ 1,360 $ - 8 $ 1,360 24 $ 4,280 $ 624 $ 4,904 Task 1.4 One-on-One Meeting with City of EPA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.5 Coordination w/ External Agencies $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 1.6 Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 1.7 Project Specific Subtasks $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - Task 2 Value Engineering and Strategy 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 2.1 Initial Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Task 3 Data Collection and Investigations 0 - $ 6 1,020 $ 0 - $ 24 4,080 $ 30 5,100 $ 360 $ 5,460 $ - $ Task 3.1 Research and Review Docs Mech: DB support only $ - 6 $ - 1,020 $ 24 $ 4,080 30 $ 360 5,100 $ 5,460 $ Task 3.2 Project Base Map $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 3.3 ROW Acquisition and Negotiations $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.4 Geotechnical Investigations $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 3.5 Interior Drainage $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 4 Basis for Design 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 4.1 Design Criteria Memorandum $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 4.2 Basis of Design Report $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 5 30% Design Document 2 390 $ 32 5,440 $ 0 - $ 40 6,800 $ 74 12,630 $ 1,200 $ 13,830 $ - $ Task 5.1 Sample Drawings and Specifications Mech: DB support only 2 $ 390 12 $ - 2,040 $ 40 $ 6,800 54 $ 624 9,230 $ 9,854 $ Task 5.2 30% Plans, Specs, Est, Sched Mech: DB support only $ - 20 $ - 3,400 $ - $ 20 $ 576 3,400 $ 3,976 $ Task 5.3 Right-of-Way $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 6 Environmental and Reg Compliance 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 0 - $ -$ - $ - $ Task 6.1 Alt 1: EIR Addendum $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 6.2 Alt 2: Supplemental EIR $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.3 Regulatory Compliance $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 6.4 NEPA Support (Optional) $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 7 60% Design 2 390 $ 16 2,720 $ 0 - $ 0 - $ 18 3,110 $ 624 $ 3,734 $ - $ Task 7.1 60% Plan Development Mech: DB support only 2 $ 390 16 $ 2,720 $ - $ - 18 $ 3,110 $ 624 $ 3,734 Task 7.4 NOT USED $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $
Task 7.5 NOT USED
Task 8 90% Design 2 390 $ 32 5,440 $ 0 - $ 92 15,640 $ 126 21,470 $ 1,248 $ 22,718 $ - $ Task 8.1 90% PS&E Mech: DB support only 2 $ 390 16 $ - 2,720 $ 32 $ 5,440 50 $ 792 8,550 $ 9,342 $ Task 8.2 Mitigation and Permitting $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.5 Technical Design Doc Update $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 $ - - $ Task 8.6 Draft Bid Items Mech: DB support only $ - 16 $ - 2,720 $ 60 $ 10,200 76 $ 456 12,920 $ 13,376 $ Task 8.7 Constructability/Sequencing Requirements - $ - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 8.8 O&M Guidance Manual $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 8.9 Preliminary SWPPP $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9 100% Final Design 2 390 $ 16 2,720 $ 0 - $ 24 4,080 $ 42 7,190 $ 624 $ 7,814 $ - $ Task 9.1 100% PS&E Mech: DB support only 2 390 $ 16 2,720 $ - $ 24 4,080 $ 42 7,190 $ 624 $ 7,814 $ Task 9.2 Geotechnical Review $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.3 Bid Set $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.4 Construction Phase Transition Report $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $ Task 9.5 Final SWPPP $ - - $ - $ - $ 0 - $ - $
Task 9.6 Revised Benefit Cost Ratio Analysis $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - TOTAL 16 $ 3,120 110 $ 18,700 0 $ - 188 $ 31,960 314 53,780 $ 4,680 $ 58,460 $ - $ Optional Fee Estimated
Total Hours
Estimated
Total Fee
Other Direct
Costs
Total Fee
SAFER North Bay
Scope Responsibilities
5/4/2026
Assumptions
Project Manager Mech Design
Phase/Task
Elect Design Control System Design
81 CONSENT ITEM 3.4

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Esther Aguirre, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2025-26 Third Quarter Treasury Report
Recommendation
Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of March 2026.

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

Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability 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. Finance staff provides quarterly reporting to the City Council indicating the summary of investments for the period and denoting the ability of the City to meet its expenditure requirements for the next three months.

Analysis
This report covers primary cash and investments of the City. For investment purposes, City cash is pooled, except for bond proceeds, which are held in trust 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. 82 CONSENT ITEM 3.4
March 31,2026, the total deposit value of cash and investments equals $184,245,787.

Outstanding checks and other minor adjustments totaled $1,780,533. Compared to the prior quarter ending December 2025, the FY2025-26 third quarter (Q3) ending March 31, 2026, reflects an increase in total book value of approximately $23.3M. The overall increase is primarily attributable to several significant receipts received during the quarter, including the transfer and consolidation of all EPASD bank balances into a single City of East Palo Alto account under the SM Pool account ($22.3M), Current Secured Tax revenues ($2.6M), Excess ERAF distribution revenues ($0.9M), and other operating revenues.

The following table shows a breakdown of cash and investment balance by fund type.

The deposit market value totals $184,656,052 including an unrealized gain of $410,264 reflecting treasury yields during the calendar year. All except for General Fund balance is restricted by either City Council or external parties for specific purposes. Unrestricted cash and investment balance under General Fund ($48,901,604) including the contingency reserve may be used at Council discretion.

The table below reflects changes in rates since March 31, 2025, and compared to the previous month of February 2026, demonstrates a decrease in Long-term and Short-Term Treasury yields since March 31, 2026
1 :

1 Daily US Treasury Yield Curve. Treasury.gov
Summary March 31, 2026
Average
Maturity
(YRS)
Average
Earnings
(QTR)
Deposit Value Market Value
Petty Cash n/a n/a $ 10,800 $ 10,800
Bank Checking n/a n/a $ 3,572,741 $ 3,572,741
Local Agency Investment Fund 0.72 3.92% $ 24,260,808 $ 24,260,343 San Mateo County Pool Investment 2.76 3.99% $ 53,341,488 $ 53,752,218 CA Asset Management Program 0.14 3.83% $ 103,059,951 $ 103,059,951 $ 184,245,787 $ 184,656,052
Deposit Value Market Value
General Fund (Inc. Petty cash of $10,800) $ 48,901,604 $ 48,901,604 General Sub-Funds (Commited/Restricted) $ 18,399,740 $ 18,399,740 City Funds Restricted and Committed $ 115,188,249 $ 115,188,249 Successor Agency Trust $ 1,756,194 $ 1,756,194
Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Investment Pools $ - $ 410,264 $ 184,245,787 $ 184,656,052
Summary March 31, 2026
83 CONSENT ITEM 3.4
The City’s portfolio is invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the San Mateo County Treasurer’s Pool, and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). LAIF is a highly liquid investment pool operated by the State Treasurer, and the City has same-day access to the funds. The County Treasurer’s Pool is less liquid, and the maturity and diversification of the underlying securities which in normally functioning markets is generally expected to result in higher yield. The CAMP Pool is a highly liquid investment pool directed by a Board of Trustees that provides same-day liquidity, competitive yields, and interest paid monthly. City staff does not control or direct the underlying investment of funds and each pool is managed by the respective agency’s investment staff and oversight committee or board. From January to March, LAIF yields decreased from 4.09% at quarter-end (QE) December 2025 to 3.92% at quarter-end (QE) March 2026 and San Mateo County Pool average gross pool earnings increased from

3.96% for QE December 2025 to 3.99% for QE March 2026. San Mateo County Pool earnings are quoted on gross earnings. LAIF fair value factor decreased from 1.0022 in the previous quarter to 1.0000. The County Pool factor decreased from 1.0122 for QE December 2025 to

1.0077 for QE March 2026. As of March 2026, CAMP has an annualized yield of 3.80%, representing a decrease of 0.15% from the 3.95% yield reported in December 2025.

Based on the foregoing, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53646, the City shall meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item. 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 Mar-26 Feb-26 Mar-25
6-Month Treasury Bill 3.60 3.51 4.08
2-Year Treasury Note 3.79 3.38 3.89
5-Year Treasury Note 3.92 3.51 3.96
84 CONSENT ITEM 3.4
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. Treasury Report March 2026
85 Average
Interest
Earnings

DEPOSIT AND
BOOK VALUE %
MARKET
VALUE
Days Years For QTR

1. Petty Cash na na 0.000% 10,800 0.0% 10,800

2. On Demand Deposits (Wells Fargo checking) na na 0.000% 3,572,741 1.9% 3,572,741

3. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 261 0.72 3.920% 24,260,808 13.1% 24,260,343

4. San Mateo County Pool Investment 1007 2.76 3.990% 53,341,488 29.1% 53,752,218

5. CA Asset Management Program 52 0.14 3.827% 103,059,951 55.8% 103,059,951

3.812% 184,245,787 100.0% 184,656,052
General Fund (including petty cash of $10,800) 47,121,071 47,121,071 General Sub - Funds (Committed/Reserved) 18,399,740 18,399,740 City Funds Restricted and Committed 115,188,249 115,188,249 Successor Agency Trust 1,756,194 1,756,194
Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Investment Pools 410,264 -
182,875,519 182,465,254
Checks Outstanding/Other AJE 1,780,533 1,780,533
1,780,533 1,780,533
184,656,052 184,245,787
CERTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 53646, the City will meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. Total funds invested represent the consolidation of all fund types, and availability of certain funds is restricted by law.

Tomohito Oku
Director of Finance Date
For Reporting Information Regarding Investment Pools:

LAIF http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/laif/index.asp San Mateo County Pool http://sanmateocountytreasurer.org/index.html CA Asset Management Programhttps://www.camponline.com/
Total Cash and Investment Portfolio
Treasury Summary

CITY AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF EAST PALO ALTO

SUMMARY OF INVESTMENTS
For Quarter Ended March 31, 2026
Category
Average Maturity
Cash and Investments
Total Cash and Investments on Deposit
Total Book Balance
Bank to Book Adjustments
Total Book Adjustment
Docusign Envelope ID: 2C6CB138-AD73-82C9-826F-01DEFDBF9813 5/10/2026
19586
CONSENT ITEM 3.5

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
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 May 5, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.

Attachments

1. May 5, 2026, Minutes
87 EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
Tuesday, May 5, 2026, 6:00 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Lincoln called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM. City Clerk James Colin announced that Council Member Martha Barragan would be participating remotely pursuant to a just cause exemption for contagious illness and confirmed the requisite conditions for remote attendance. A roll call was conducted.

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

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Lincoln proposed that following the Consent Calendar, the Council proceed to Policy and Action items before Closed Session, citing staff capacity constraints. Council Member Romero subsequently moved to place the Closed Session at the end of the meeting rather than in the middle of the agenda. That amendment was adopted. The agenda was approved as modified by roll call vote (5-0).

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Dinan pulled items 3.2, 3.4, and 3.6 for separate discussion. The remaining items on the consent calendar were approved without public comment.

Motion to approve the Consent Calendar absent items 3.2, 3.4, and 3.6 was made by Mayor Lincoln and seconded by Council Member Romero. The motion carried 5-0.

3.1 On-Call Contract Award with CSG Consultants and CSWST2

3.2 Jewish Heritage Month Proclamation
Mayor Lincoln read the full text of the Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation recognizing May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month in the City of East Palo Alto. The proclamation acknowledged Jewish Americans' contributions to civil rights, the labor movement, and women's suffrage, and noted a 344% increase in antisemitic incidents over the prior five years. 88
Vice Mayor Abrica noted that the City had been issuing similar proclamations for diverse communities over many years, having first adopted a Jewish Heritage Month proclamation when he served as mayor in 2022, and extended congratulations to both the Jewish and Asian Pacific Islander communities recognized that evening.

Public comment was received from Astrid Reber, a bilingual speech-language pathologist serving East Palo Alto families, who expressed gratitude for the proclamation and the City's commitment to diversity. Julia Maes of JCRC Bay Area also spoke in support, representing over 70 Bay Area Jewish organizations. Adit, a Jewish East Palo Alto resident and homeowner, received the proclamation on behalf of the local Jewish community, sharing the personal significance of the recognition and expressing concern for her family's safety at public Jewish events in the current climate.

Motion to approve the Jewish Heritage Month Proclamation was made by Council Member Romero and seconded by Council Member Dinan. The motion carried 5-0.

3.3 Asian American & Pacific Islander Month Proclamation

3.4 Proclamation of The City of East Palo Alto Affirming the City’s Commitment to Combat Antisemitism
This item generated the most extensive and contentious public discussion of the evening. The proclamation proposed adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism as a non-binding educational and analytical framework to guide municipal training, policy development, and awareness efforts.

Public Comment
Approximately 35 in-person speakers and several online participants addressed the Council, with testimony deeply divided. Supporters of the proclamation, including community members, representatives of JCRC Bay Area, and the Combat Antisemitism Movement, argued that antisemitism is a documented and rising threat, that the IHRA definition is an internationally recognized tool already adopted by 42 governments and numerous U.S. states and municipalities, and that the proclamation is explicitly non-binding and does not restrict First Amendment rights or legitimate criticism of any government. Several Jewish community members shared personal experiences of fear and harassment and appealed to the Council to take a clear stand.

Opponents—including representatives from CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), Palestinian community members, legal scholars, and other residents—argued that the IHRA definition is deeply flawed and has been weaponized to suppress protected speech, particularly regarding Palestinian human rights and criticism of Israeli government policies. They contended that several of the IHRA's illustrative examples, such as the prohibition against comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, could constitute censorship of legitimate political expression. Several speakers noted that the definition's own co-author, Kenneth Stern, has publicly criticized its misuse. Another speaker spoke in opposition, urging the Council to read a letter submitted by Antonio Lopez on the subject.

Public comment was received from the following speakers:
- David Ron
- Anna Stepenenko
- Helena T.
- JP Bruno
- Robin
- Mayrar
89 - Arik P.
- Zahra Biloh
- Sarah
- Likbin Khoo
- Mousa
- Habiba G.
- Batool Zaro
- Ofelia
- Luis Rosas
- Hibah M.
- Gail Dixon
- Stephanie
- Joseph Monretto
- Adina Eplmen
- Mario
- Jabran Khalil
- Adit Noar
- Donna Wallach
- Mariam Buzi
- Adina Danzig
- David Riber
- Lisa Katz
- Fili Zaragoza
- Wendy Feng
- Liban Sheikh
- Jula Mates
- Asiya Patel
- Allan Fisher
- Francisca
- Zaynab
- Neda
- Leonel Angel Santibanez Vargas
- Yusra Hussain
- Colin Bookman
- Mike Sanford
- Brian
- Sami
- Stewart Hyland
The session was repeatedly interrupted by audience disruptions. Mayor Lincoln issued multiple warnings and, following an extended period of disorder after the IHRA vote was taken, the Council voted to clear the chambers pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9. The meeting was called into recess and reconvened after the disruptions ceased.

Council Discussion
The City Manager read aloud the full IHRA Working Definition text and its illustrative examples at the request of Council Member Dinan. City Attorney John Le then confirmed that the proclamation is not legally binding and does not itself constitute a policy; it would serve only to guide future policy development.

Council Member Dinan expressed support for the proclamation, stating that antisemitism in the United States is real, increasing, and distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that adopting a widely recognized definition is a reasonable, symbolic step. He emphasized that the 90 resolution does not prevent criticism of the Israeli government and noted that dozens of cities and 35 states have already recognized the IHRA definition.

Council Member Romero moved to amend the proclamation by removing the "whereas" clauses and "be it further resolved" paragraph that specifically reference the IHRA Working Definition (clauses 5 through 9), arguing that while affirming opposition to antisemitism is important, the IHRA definition itself is contentious and its inclusion could endanger free speech protections.

That motion did not receive a second.

Vice Mayor Abrica stated he was not in support of the proclamation as written, expressing concern that the IHRA definition was politically divisive and that a broader anti-hatred resolution would be more appropriate for the City.

Mayor Lincoln delivered a formal statement in support, invoking Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s address to the American Jewish Congress, citing documented anti-Jewish hate crimes nationally, and asserting that the proclamation explicitly affirms First Amendment rights and does not constrain criticism of any government. He distinguished the proclamation from the City's ceasefire resolution, stating that the two positions reflect the same underlying commitment to human dignity rather than competing ones. He proposed the alternative motion to adopt the resolution as written.

Motion to adopt the Proclamation of the City of East Palo Alto Affirming the City's Commitment to Combat Antisemitism, including the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, as presented was made by Mayor Lincoln and seconded by Council Member Dinan. The motion carried 3-2, with Mayor Lincoln, Council Member Barragan, and Council Member Dinan voting yes, and Vice Mayor Abrica and Council Member Romero voting no.

3.5 Public Safety Dispatch Services

3.6 Execute the updated Animal Control Services Agreement with County of San Mateo for the period July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2029.

Council Member Dinan, who had pulled this item, voiced significant dissatisfaction with the current level of animal control services provided in East Palo Alto by the Peninsula Humane Society, which operates under contract with San Mateo County. He cited the lack of spay/neuter outreach, vaccination and microchipping services, insufficient community engagement at local events, and the distance of the shelter in San Mateo as ongoing problems. He noted the contract cost of approximately $689,683 for FY 2026-27, totaling approximately $2,454,279 over three years.

The Assistant City Manager acknowledged the concerns, noting that this is a collaborative contract shared with approximately 20 other San Mateo County cities and that alternatives are limited. She noted the City Council had not previously prioritized a comprehensive review of alternatives during strategic priority setting.

Lori Morton of San Mateo County Health Services addressed the Council and provided data to counter some of the concerns. She reported that East Palo Alto accounts for a disproportionately high share of spay/neuter voucher redemptions relative to other cities in the county, that 562 field service calls were conducted in East Palo Alto over the past 12 months, that 73 dogs and 182 cats were returned to owners, and that Peninsula Humane Society responded to police assistance requests 79 times. She acknowledged the distance of the facility and offered to meet directly with Council Member Dinan to explore adding local services such as vaccine clinics. She also noted that a shortage of veterinarians has hampered the mobile spay/neuter program.

Council Member Romero noted that for the purposes of this contract's renewal, the service data 91 appeared encouraging, and expressed openness to exploring improvements in subsequent years.

Motion to approve the updated Animal Control Services Agreement with the County of San Mateo for the period July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029 was made by Council Member Romero and seconded by Mayor Lincoln. The motion carried 5-0.

3.7 City Council Strategic Priorities Fiscal Years (FY) 2025-27 Work Plan - Third Quarter Status Update

4. CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
The following speakers provided public comments:
- Leland Francois
- Deborah Lewis Virges
- Ravneel
- Angel
- Gail Dixon
- Mario
- Luis Rosas

6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

6.1 First Time Homebuyer Program Research
Housing and Economic Development Manager Karen Camacho and Alex Wagner from Heart of San Mateo County co-presented the results of a four-month feasibility study on establishing a first-time homebuyer program in East Palo Alto. Staff had contacted 18 banks and credit unions, interviewed three financial institutions and two nonprofits, and conducted a landscape and cost analysis.

The presentation identified five potential program types: (1) down payment assistance loans (silent second or traditional), (2) closing cost assistance grants, (3) interest rate buydown programs, (4) forgivable loans, and (5) homebuyer education and counseling.

The analysis found that the current real estate environment—with San Mateo County's median home price at $2.08 million and East Palo Alto's at approximately $1.1 million, and a 30-year fixed mortgage rate of approximately 6.3%—makes a traditional large-scale down payment assistance program financially infeasible for the City. The City's Housing Assistance Fund holds approximately $405,000, which is insufficient to fund the eight-loan goal identified in the Housing Element. Additionally, administrative costs alone for such a program were estimated at approximately $150,000 for eight loans. Heart of San Mateo County's own first-time homebuyer loan product had been discontinued due to the same market conditions.

Staff recommended against pursuing a traditional large down payment assistance program at this time, and instead suggested pursuing more targeted, cost-efficient alternatives such as homebuyer education and counseling, closing cost assistance, and leveraging external funding partnerships.

Council Member Romero raised foundational questions about program eligibility—specifically, who the program would serve in terms of residency, income levels, and connection to existing BMR (Below Market Rate) units—and noted that the subsidy gap to make homeownership 92 affordable to residents at 100% of Area Median Income could be as high as $525,000 per household, making traditional programs a poor use of limited resources compared to affordable rental production. He suggested that homebuyer education and counseling, combined with any closing cost assistance, be the immediate focus.

Mayor Lincoln expressed interest in narrowing the program's scope to support purchasers of inclusionary or BMR units rather than market-rate homes, and noted that the rate buydown approach might offer the most efficient subsidy structure. Council Member Dinan expressed general support for further research and asked about the silent second model as a way to preserve the City's investment over time.

Staff was directed to return with more detailed program design, funding strategy, and an implementation plan, including an analysis of the rate buydown approach and the feasibility of targeting BMR unit purchasers. Staff also confirmed they would examine local preference provisions applicable to the program.

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Fresh Approach Community Garden Presentation
Laura from Fresh Approach presented on the progress of the new East Palo Alto Community Garden, which launched in April 2025 on a half-acre leased parcel behind Bloom House, following the organization's eviction from its 17-year home at the Collective Roots Community Garden. The presentation detailed how the site was transformed from a blank, mulch-covered field into a functioning community garden with 22 active family garden plots, a waiting list of 20 families, a greenhouse, community event space, and monthly workshops for residents.

The East Palo Alto Community Compost Hub was also relaunched in 2025 in conjunction with the new garden. The hub had engaged nearly 100 residents by year's end, diverted over 7,000 pounds of food scraps, and produced 3.5 cubic yards of compost distributed back to residents in its first six months. The compost hub had previously launched with county Office of Sustainability support in anticipation of SB 1383 requirements.

Fresh Approach requested that the Council direct city staff to explore using SB 1383-related spending (as enabled by AB 2346, which allows jurisdictions to meet up to 10% of their compost procurement obligation through investment in community composting infrastructure) to formally support the East Palo Alto Community Compost Hub—similar to an arrangement the City of San Mateo has with the organization.

Council Member Dinan and Vice Mayor Abrica offered strong support for Fresh Approach's work and encouraged the organization's continued collaboration with the community. Council Member Romero asked for clarification on the scale of community composting relative to the City's overall SB 1383 obligations, and the presenter acknowledged that further coordination with city staff on the financial and regulatory mechanics would be needed. Staff was informally directed to explore the SB 1383 investment pathway further.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1 Development Code Text Amendment (ZTA25-002) to amend various Chapters and Sections of Title 18 (Development Code) of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code (continued from 4/21/2026 Council meeting) Planning staff presented the second part of the annual Development Code update, focusing on the proposed Objective Design Standards (ODS) required to bring the City into compliance with 93 state housing law, specifically the State Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act.

These laws require that housing projects be reviewed against objective, measurable standards rather than subjective ones.

The ODS were developed in consultation with Remy and Associates and vetted through outreach to architects, designers, and developers active in East Palo Alto, including the design teams for Colibra Commons, the Dar Group, J&Go and Associates, the His Group, Sunhill Properties, and SC Design Group.

Staff presented standards covering a range of topics for both small-scale residential (singlefamily through fourplex) and larger multifamily and mixed-use developments, including: building placement and orientation; front setback compatibility; garage deemphasis (limiting garage frontage to 22 feet or 60% of facade); privacy protections including upper-story window offsets; facade articulation and materials; balcony setbacks; parking layout and screening; active ground floor uses; common and private open space requirements; and mechanical equipment screening.

Key Council Discussion Points
Council Member Romero raised concerns about the proposed maximum building facade lengths.

Staff explained that the previously adopted limits of 200 feet for residential and 300 feet for mixed-use buildings had been revised upward to 350 feet (residential) and 400 feet (mixed-use) based on a review of existing and proposed projects in the city, several of which already approached or exceeded 250 feet. Council Member Romero disagreed with these increases, characterizing a 400-foot building length as equivalent to the length of a football field and inappropriate in character for East Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Abrica expressed similar reservations.

Council Member Dinan expressed general support for design standards that reduce building mass above the fifth floor and raised detailed questions about window recess requirements and the distinction between individual window trim depths (minimum two inches) and the depth of facade plane modulations containing flush windows (four inches).

Council Member Dinan also cautioned against requiring active commercial ground-floor uses in all mixed-use frontages given the City's limited commercial market absorption capacity.

Staff noted that all residential and mixed-use projects that qualify for the State Density Bonus Law may request waivers of objective design standards if compliance would reduce the number of achievable housing units, providing a built-in relief mechanism for developers.

Following discussion, the Council agreed to amend the proposed facade length limits back to 250 feet (residential) and 300 feet (mixed-use) as a condition of approval.

Motion to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance approving Development Code Amendment ZTA25-002, as amended to set maximum building facade lengths at 250 feet for residential zones and 300 feet for mixed-use zones, was made by Mayor Lincoln and seconded by Council Member Dinan. The motion carried 5-0. A second reading is anticipated at the June 2, 2026 Council meeting.

9. POLICY AND ACTION

9.1 Adoption of Legislative Platform and Formalization of Legislative Advocacy and Intergovernmental Relations Program
94 Assistant City Manager Orly Amey presented the City's first formal Legislative Platform, designed to codify East Palo Alto's approach to advocacy at the federal, state, and regional levels. The platform is organized around seven pillars aligned with the Council's FY 2025–2029 Strategic Priorities and the General Plan Vision 2035: (1) Civic Engagement, (2) Comprehensive Housing, (3) Governance and Fiscal Sustainability, (4) Land Use, Economic and Workforce Development, (5) Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities, (6) Public Health, Safety and Quality of Life, and (7) Public Infrastructure and Utilities.

Staff outlined a delegation framework under which the City Manager would be authorized to act on advocacy matters clearly consistent with the platform—with the Mayor or Vice Mayor signing formal correspondence—while matters outside the platform or involving significant policy shifts would return to the full Council. The platform also acknowledges the role of the City's existing legislative consultants: Ken Brown Strategic Consulting (overall strategy), Naman (state legislative tracking), and Sustainable Strategies DC (federal appropriations and congressional engagement).

Staff highlighted recent advocacy successes, including $2 million in community project funding for the Woodland Avenue safety improvement project signed into law in February 2026, and $600,000 allocated for the San Francisco Creek Floodway study in pending federal legislation.

Council Member Romero proposed adding the word "preservation" alongside "production" and "protection" in the housing pillar, to reflect the City's work on naturally affordable housing and land trust acquisition strategies. He also requested that regional funding for affordable housing and homeownership be added as a legislative priority. Both modifications were accepted.

Vice Mayor Abrica recommended that county-level government be explicitly named as a level of engagement in addition to federal, state, and regional bodies, noting that San Mateo County is a significant funding source that warrants dedicated attention. He also requested clarification on the proposed legislative committee structure to avoid unintended Brown Act obligations.

Regarding the legislative committee, the City Attorney advised that the current informal practice of consulting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor on funding priorities—such as annual federal appropriations requests—could continue on an ad hoc basis without constituting a standing Brown Act body. The Council agreed that in practice, the Mayor and Vice Mayor would serve as the first point of council consultation for staff when questions arise, with all final decisions returned to the full Council.

Motion to adopt the Legislative Platform with the modifications proposed by Council Member Romero, adding "preservation" to the housing pillar and adding regional affordable housing funding as a legislative priority, was made by Council Member Dinan and seconded by Council Member Romero. The motion carried 5-0.

9.2 Amendment to City Council Code of Ethics and Conduct – Section 7: City Council Agenda Setting
This item was continued to a future meeting.

9.3 Discuss Ordering the Submission of a Measure on Term Limits for a Future Municipal Election
This item was continued to a future meeting. 95

10. COUNCIL REPORTS
No council reports were presented.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:51 AM on May 6, 2026.
96 CONSENT ITEM 3.6

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Memorial Day Proclamation
Recommendation
Present the proclamation for Memorial Day.

Attachments

1. Proclamation
97 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

COMMEMORATING
“MEMORIAL DAY” IN THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, traces its roots to the early tradition of decorating the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers, wreaths, and flags as an act of remembrance and gratitude; and WHEREAS, Memorial Day was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, with over 5,000 participants gathering at Arlington National Cemetery to decorate the graves of more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there; and
WHEREAS, the spirit of honoring fallen soldiers began with local observances across the United States following the Civil War, including the May 1, 1865 gathering in Charleston, South Carolina, organized by freed slaves to pay tribute and provide proper burial to Union troops — a profound act of dignity and remembrance; and WHEREAS, New York became the first state to designate Memorial Day as a legal holiday in 1873, with many more cities, communities, and states following in the decades that followed, reflecting the nation’s growing commitment to honoring its fallen; and
WHEREAS, after World War I, Memorial Day became an occasion for honoring those who died in all of America’s wars, and was more widely established as a national holiday throughout the United States, affirming the nation’s enduring obligation to remember all who gave their lives in service; and WHEREAS, in 1971, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, establishing Memorial Day as a federal holiday to be observed on the last Monday of May each year, ensuring a consistent national day of reflection and tribute; and WHEREAS, each year at Arlington National Cemetery, a small American flag is placed on every grave, and the President or Vice President of the United States lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, honoring all those whose service and sacrifice may never be fully known; and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto is home to veterans and military families who have served with honor and courage, and whose sacrifices deserve recognition, gratitude, and lasting remembrance from the entire community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Webster Lincoln, Mayor of the City of East Palo Alto, and on behalf of the City Council, hereby commemorate Memorial Day in the City of East Palo Alto, and call upon all residents to pause in solemn reflection, to honor the memory of all who have given their lives in service to our nation, and to rededicate themselves to the principles of freedom, justice, and community for which they sacrificed.

Dated: May 19, 2026

Webster Lincoln, Mayor
98 EPASD BOARD MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 8.1

EAST PALO ALTO

SANITARY DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
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
Jessica Y Caballero, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: Cash Disbursement Report for March 2026
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: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Priority: Public Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
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 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 99 EPASD BOARD MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 8.1
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 provided for informational purposes and details all cash disbursements for the month ending March 2026, as approved by the District Treasurer. As of March 31, 2026, actual expenses remain within the District’s approved budget. Year-to-date expenditures total $4.1 million, compared to the amended budget of $6.8 million, representing 61% of the budget spent to date.

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 March 31, 2026
Name Invoice Number Description Check Amount Check Issue Date AppleOne, Inc 01-7252101 Staffing Services $ 1,517.28 3/6/2026 AppleOne, Inc 01-7255894 Staffing Services $ 1,517.60 3/13/2026 AppleOne, Inc 01-7259472 Staffing Services $ 1,521.60 3/23/2026 AppleOne, Inc 01-7264211 Staffing Services $ 1,517.60 3/27/2026 COMCAST 5362 1/13 Recurring charges for ACCT#8155 20 007 0165362 for JAN 2026 EPASD $ 466.31 3/13/2026 COMCAST 5362 Recurring charges for ACCT#8155 20 007 0165362 for MAR 2026 EPASD $ 466.31 3/23/2026 Degree HVAC, Inc 42225 Quarterly Maintenance $ 250.00 3/23/2026 Everon, LLC 160494181 Labor charge and parts from quote for sprinklers $ 2,647.47 3/6/2026 Everon, LLC 160539477 BRIVO STANDARD READER LICENSE, EXTENDED SERVICE $ 75.00 3/13/2026 Everon, LLC 160539478 EXTENDED SERVICE PROTECTION $ 54.99 3/13/2026 Everon, LLC 160539479 EXTENDED SERVICE PROTECTION $ 150.00 3/13/2026 Everon, LLC 160539480 EXTENDED SERVICE PROTECTION $ 75.00 3/13/2026 FlexTG LLC 4578150-CAL Copier $ 137.09 3/13/2026
Green Source Janitorial 2026-02-0005 Monthly Janitorial Services for Feb 2026 $ 1,953.00 3/6/2026 Image Auto 47877 EPASD REPLACEMENT OF A FAULTY BATTERY $ 499.16 3/27/2026 JARVIS FAY LLP 21554 Outside Counsel $ 3,400.00 3/27/2026 Marquee Pest Management, Inc. 209830 SERVICE FOR E.B.S $ 125.00 3/6/2026 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2164215266-0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC EPASD 2164215266-0 for FEB 2026 $ 125.93 3/13/2026 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2205881930-5 02/2026 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC EPASD $ 275.62 3/6/2026 R & S Erection North Peninsula, Inc 66586 New liftmaster electric operator installation for EPASD $ 5,209.75 3/23/2026 Recology San Mateo County 60799426 Waste for month of FEB 2026 $ 378.34 3/13/2026 100
EPASD BOARD MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 8.1
EPASD Cash Disbursement Reports
For Period Ending March 31, 2026
(Continued)
Fiscal Impact
There is no budget impact 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 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.

Name Invoice Number Description Check Amount Check Issue Date U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 HR - Microsoft Teams for EPASD $ 19.80 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 HR - EPASD Attached Teams January 2026 $ 8.00 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 PW - Engineering Membership Renewal $ 65.00 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 IT - EPASD - Web Forwarding $ 2.25 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 IT - EPASD - Web Forwarding $ 2.25 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 EPASD - General Office Supplies $ 48.49 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 EPASD - Janitorial Supplies, Trash Cans $ 76.90 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 EPASD - Vehicle Mainteance Service $ 78.99 3/6/2026 U.S.BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEM Feb-26 EPASD - Membership $ 16.47 3/6/2026 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC 385576 WATER BILL FOR EPASD FOR 2/6/26-3/5/26 ACCT#385576 $ 357.43 3/23/2026 VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERIC 386303 Charges for ACCT#386303 2/6/26-3/5/26 EPASD $ 74.93 3/23/2026 WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRIC 2025/26-068 Maintenance services agreement 02/2026 $ 75,207.37 3/13/2026 Grand Total $ 98,320.93
101

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM

13.1 EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Esther Aguirre, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to become effective July 18, 2026.

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

Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
Cities administer user, regulatory, and development impact fees to recover costs associated with municipal services, regulatory activities, and infrastructure required to support development.

User and Regulatory Fees are imposed to recover the reasonable cost of providing specific services or regulatory activities. Under Article XIIIC of the California Constitution (Proposition 26), such fees must not exceed the reasonable cost of service and must be directly related to the service provided. Implementation of a CPI-adjustment approved as part of a User Fee Study (Prop 26 process) is expressly exempted. California Government Code Section 53750(h)(2) (schedule of adjustments).
102

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM

13.1 Development Impact Fees are imposed to fund capital infrastructure needed to serve new development and are governed by Government Code §§66000–66025 (Mitigation Fee Act or “AB 1600”). These fees must be supported by a nexus study and are subject to procedural requirements, including public notice and hearing at the time of adoption or increase.

The City Council most recently:
 Adopted a comprehensive User and Regulatory Fee Study in September 2025; and  Adopted updated Development Impact Fees in March 2025 following a duly noticed public hearing.

Both the 2025 User and Regulatory Fee Study and the 2025 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study established a framework for periodic updates between comprehensive studies, including the use of recognized economic indices. Specifically:
 The User Fee Study recommends applying annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect changes in the cost of providing services; and  The Development Impact Fee program includes provisions for annual adjustments based on a construction cost index to ensure that fee revenues keep pace with increases in infrastructure costs.

These indexing methodologies were reviewed and accepted by the City Council as part of the original adoption of the respective fee programs.

Analysis
User and Regulatory Fee Update
Between comprehensive fee studies, it is a common and accepted practice to apply annual inflationary adjustments to maintain alignment between fee revenues and the cost of providing services. Consistent with the adopted 2025 User Fee Study, which recommends the use of CPI or similar indices for interim updates, staff recommends applying a 2.5% increase based on the San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward CPI-U (12-month average).

This adjustment:
 Reflects increases in personnel and operating costs, including labor agreements;  Maintains cost recovery levels consistent with Proposition 26 requirements; and  Implements the previously adopted cost-of-service methodology without modifying fee structures or policy direction.

The adjustment applies to most user and regulatory fees, with limited exceptions where fees are fixed, market-based, or otherwise not tied to cost recovery.

Development Impact Fee Update
103

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM

13.1 The City’s development impact fees were adopted in March 2025 based on a comprehensive Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Analysis following a duly noticed public hearing. As part of that action, the City Council approved a fee program that includes annual inflationary adjustments based on a construction cost index, as recommended in the Nexus Study and implemented through the adopting resolution.

Staff recommends applying a 2.7% increase for FY 2026–27 based on the Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment:
 Implements the previously adopted indexing methodology;  Ensures that fee revenues remain aligned with current construction costs; and  Does not modify the underlying fee structure, methodology, or maximum justified fee levels.

Although the adopted program allows for administrative adjustments, the inclusion of updated impact fee amounts in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule and the application of updated fee levels support conducting a public hearing to ensure transparency and maintain consistency with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Comprehensive Fee Schedule
The Comprehensive Fee Schedule consolidates user, regulatory, and development impact fees into a single reference document for administrative efficiency and public transparency. The proposed update incorporates:
 CPI-based adjustments to user and regulatory fees; and  Construction cost index adjustments to development impact fees.

No new fees, fee categories, or policy changes are proposed as part of this update. The proposed adjustments implement the indexing methodologies previously reviewed and accepted by the City Council as part of the adoption of the underlying fee studies.

Fiscal Impact
Adoption of the proposed fee schedule will:
 Increase user and regulatory fee revenues by approximately 2.5%, helping maintain cost recovery levels; and
 Adjust development impact fee revenues by 2.7%, ensuring continued alignment with construction cost escalation.

Actual revenue impacts will vary based on service demand and development activity.

Public Notice
104

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM

13.1 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. Additionally, the public was provided notice of this agenda item by publishing a notice of the hearing dates in the “San Mateo County News” on May 5th, 9th, and 14th, sending notice to the Building Industry Association (BIA), and posting the proposed Comprehensive Fee Schedule update on the City website.

Environmental
The proposed action does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 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.

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

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable
Attachments

1. Resolution.

2. Exhibit A East Palo Alto Master Fee Schedule Eff 07.18.2026 105
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTOAPPROVING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 18, 2026
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) provides a wide range of municipal services and regulatory programs for the benefit of residents, businesses, and development within the City; and WHEREAS, the City maintains a Comprehensive Fee Schedule that establishes fees and charges for user services, regulatory activities, and development impact fees; and WHEREAS, user and regulatory fees are established pursuant to Article XIIIC of the California Constitution (Proposition 26) and applicable state law, and such fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services for which they are charged; and WHEREAS, development impact fees are imposed pursuant to Government Code Sections 66000– 66025 (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) to fund public facilities required to serve new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved a comprehensive User and Regulatory Fee Study in September 2025, which established cost-of-service based fees and recommended the use of periodic inflationary adjustments between comprehensive studies; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved updates to the City’s development impact fee program in March 2025, following a duly noticed public hearing, including the adoption of a Nexus Study and authorizing provisions for annual adjustments based on a construction cost index; and WHEREAS, both the User and Regulatory Fee Study and the Development Impact Fee program contemplate the use of recognized economic indices, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI), to maintain alignment between fee revenues and the cost of providing services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Fee Schedule update applies a 2.5 percent increase to most user and regulatory fees based on the San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, 12-month average), and a 2.7 percent increase to development impact fees based on the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (CCI); and WHEREAS, the proposed adjustments implement the previously adopted indexing methodologies and do not modify the underlying fee structures, methodologies, or cost recovery policies approved by the City Council, and are specifically exempt as a schedule of adjustments (Government Code Section 53750(h)(2) ; and
106
WHEREAS, the updated Comprehensive Fee Schedule is presented for administrative clarity and public transparency, consolidating all applicable fees into a single reference document.

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. Approval of Fee Schedule.Approves the updated Comprehensive Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and

3. Implementation of Indexing Adjustments. Approves the fee adjustments reflected in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule implement previously adopted methodologies, including CPIbased adjustments for user and regulatory fees and construction cost index adjustments for development impact fees; and

4. Effective Date. Declares that the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved herein shall become effective on July 18, 2026, pursuant to applicable law, including Government Code § 66017, unless otherwise specified within Exhibit A; and

5. Finds that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as not a “project” pursuant to sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) because it is a governmental administrative or fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
107
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Planning
Pre-Application Fees
Hourly Pre-Application (1 hr. minimum) Per Hour $345
Pre-Application Services for Projects Subject to City's Pre-Application Ordinance Deposit $8,520 Preliminary Ministerial Review Hourly (2 hr. minimum) Per Hour $345 Appeals
Appeals to City Council (if initiated by City Council - no charge) Each $9,595 Appeals to Planning Commission Each $9,595
Subdivision
Certificate of Compliance Each $2,201
Condominium Conversion Deposit $42,025
Final Maps Planning Review of Engineering Application
4 lots or less Each $1,724
5 - 25 lots Each $2,071
>25 lots Each $2,416
Lot Line Adjustment Each $2,762
Lot Line Merger Each $2,762
Tentative Map
4 lots or less Each $8,563
5 - 25 lots Each $10,293
>25 lots Deposit $12,023
Tentative Map Extension Each $2,799
Tentative Map Modification Each $3,838
Design Review*
Administrative Each $4,833
Planning Commission Review Each $15,238
Garage Conversions / Minor ADR (400 s-f. or less) Per Hour $345 Permit Adjustment Minor Each $710
Permit Adjustment Major Each $1,379
Legislative Actions
General Plan Amendment Deposit $22,550
Planned Unit Development Deposit $15,375
Zone Change/Text Amendment Deposit $12,300
Tree Removal*
1-2 trees Base $519
3 or more Per Tree $30
Signage*
Master/Common Sign Program Each $8,358
Permanent Sign Per Sign $1,074
Temporary Sign Per Sign $506
Use Permit*
Administrative Use Permit (AUP) / Special Use Permit (SUP) Each $4,833 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) Each $15,238
Public Convenience/Necessity Application - Filing Fees Each $1,819 108
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Renewal /Modification to Conditions
AUP / SUP Each $2,973
CUP Each $7,451
Temporary Use Permit
Minor Each $345
Administrative Each $2,802
Major Each $4,833
Major TUP Annual Renewal Each $1,421
Zoning Relief
Parking Exception Per Hour $345
Variance Each $3,491
Environmental
Categorical Exemption
Standard Each $1,421
Infill/Other
Staff Led Each $3,497
Consultant Cost Deposit Actual Cost
Initial Study
Consultant Cost Deposit Actual Cost
Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Negative Declaration Consultant Cost (Will include a 15% staff management fee) Deposit Actual Cost Environmental Impact Studies (EIR)
EIR Report - Consultant Cost (Will include a 15% staff management fee) Deposit Actual Cost Mitigation Monitoring - one-time Each $3,843
Notice of Determination (NOD) - CEQA Filing Each Per State Zoning Clearance (Administrative Review)
Other Accessory Per Hour $337
Other Administrative Fees
Building Permit Review
Minor Res- Improvement Each $345
Tenant Improvements Each $1,037
Addition of s. f. Each $345
New SFD Each $345
New Multifamily Each $1,384
New Commercial Each $1,384
Miscellaneous Planning
Noticing/Special Noticing (each mailing) Each $692
Newspaper Ad Publication Deposit $410
Written Determination by City Planning Manager Each $1,458 Planning Hourly Fee (1 hr. minimum) Per Hour $345
Refund Administrative Fee Each Per Policy
*Note: Time extensions will be charged at 10% of base Permit fee 109
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Building
Building Permit and Plan Check
Building Plan Check - Single Family Residential
Base fee up to $5,000 Base $252.61
Base fee at $5,000 Base $252.61
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $31.58 Base fee at $25,000 Base $884.14
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $25.26 Base fee at $50,000 Base $1,515.67
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $50.52 Base fee at $100,000 Base $4,041.78
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $15.16 Base fee at $500,000 Base $10,104.45
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $7.58 Base fee at $1,000,000 Base $13,893.62
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $1.26 Base fee at $5,000,000 Base $18,945.84
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $2.53 Base fee at $10,000,000 Base $31,576.41
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $1.26 Building Permit/Inspection - Single Family Residential
Base fee up to $5,000 Base $816.36
Base fee at $5,000 Base $816.36
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $61.23 Base fee at $25,000 Base $2,040.89
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $57.14 Base fee at $50,000 Base $3,469.52
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $53.06 Base fee at $100,000 Base $6,122.68
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $10.20 Base fee at $500,000 Base $10,204.46
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $10.20 Base fee at $1,000,000 Base $15,306.69
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $6.38 Base fee at $5,000,000 Base $40,817.85
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $4.08 Base fee at $10,000,000 Base $61,226.78
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1,000 $2.04 Building Plan Check - Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial* Base fee up to $5,000 Base $252.61
Base fee at $5,000 Base $252.61
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $16.84 Base fee at $50,000 Base $1,010.45
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $30.31 Base fee at $100,000 Base $2,526.11
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $25.26 110
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Base fee at $500,000 Base $12,630.56
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $6.06 Base fee at $1,000,000 Base $15,661.90
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $41.54 Base fee at $10,000,000 Base $53,048.36
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $63.15 Base fee at $20,000,000 Base $116,201.18
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $70.23 Base fee at $50,000,000 Base $326,878.96
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $60.93 Base fee at $100,000,000 Base $631,528.13
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $9.47 Base fee at $500,000,000 Base $1,010,445.00
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $4.74 Building Permit/Inspection - Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial* Base fee up to $5,000 Base $306.13
Base fee at $5,000 Base $306.13
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $47.62 Base fee at $50,000 Base $2,449.07
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $53.06 Base fee at $100,000 Base $5,102.23
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $11.74 Base fee at $500,000 Base $9,796.28
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $1,000 $11.02 Base fee at $1,000,000 Base $15,306.69
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $100.91 Base fee at $10,000,000 Base $106,126.42
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $106.13 Base fee at $20,000,000 Base $212,252.83
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $70.75 Base fee at $50,000,000 Base $424,505.67
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $127.35 Base fee at $100,000,000 Base $1,061,264.17
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $26.53 Base fee at $500,000,000 Base $2,122,528.33
Each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 $13.27 Miscellaneous Fees - Flat Rate Permits
Demolition Minor Flat $416
Commercial Demoliton Refer to Valuation Table
ADU Building Permit Resource Center Fee Each $0
Single Family Dwelling Remodels (No Modifications to Walls):

Kitchen Remodel Flat $718
Bathroom Remodel Flat $864
111
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Door/Window Replacements (up to 20 Windows):

Up to 4 Windows Flat $308
More than 4 and up to 20 Windows Flat $431
Greater than 20 Windows Refer to Valuation Table
Fences:

Over 7 ft - 64 l.f. Flat $408
Over 7 ft - Each additional 16 l.f. over 64 l.f. Each Addl. 16 l.f. $68 Non-Wood Fence CMU fence Refer to Valuation Table
Photovoltaic Systems (Solar Systems):

Solar - Residential Each $256
Solar - Commercial Each
Up to 50 kW Each $1,369
51kW - 250kW Each $3,071
250+kW Each $6,446
Property Research/Site Inspection for Business License Each $204 Re-roof: - Residential
Up to 10,000 sq. ft. (No structural modification) Flat $410 Structural or Non-structural greater than 10,000 sq. ft. Refer to Valuation Table Electric Vehicle Charging Station (Residential)
Residential Flat $205
Commercial Refer to Valuation Table
Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Permit Fees
Processing Fee - MEP % of Permit Fee 40%
MEP Inspections & Plan Check
Water Heaters and Residential Commodes Each $154
Residential/Simple Standalone MPE Permit: (fee includes up to 3 from the list below) Simple Mechanical Items:

Addition to Each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or Each heating, cooling, absorption, or
evaporative cooling system. Each $204
HVAC change out - existing dwelling Each $204
Air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM Each $408
Evaporative cooler Each $408
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct Each $204
Hood and duct system Each $408
Duct systems Each $204
Miscellaneous mechanical (wall furnace, condensing units, gas outlet/gas test, etc.) Each $204 Other simple mechanical Each $204
112
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Simple Electrical Items:

Receptacle, switch, and lighting outlets and fixtures
1-20 devices Each $408
Each Additional 20 Devices Each Add'l 20 Devices $204
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures Each $204
Residential appliances
1-5 devices Each $204
Each Additional 5 Devices Each Add'l 5 Devices $204
Appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt
(KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating Each $204
Busways Each $204
Trolley and plug-in-type busways - Each 100 feet or fractionthereof Each $204 Signs, outline lighting, and marquees Each $204
Signs, outline lighting, or marquees supplied from one branchcircuit Each $204 Services of 600 volts or less and not over 400 amperes inrating Each $204 Miscellaneous apparatus, conduits, and conductors Each $204 Residential swimming pools Each $305
Portable generators less than 10,000 W Each $204
Temporary power panel/service Each $204
Temporary power pole Each
Other simple electrical Each $204
Simple Plumbing Items:

Plumbing fixtures Per 3 Fixtures $204
Building sewer Each $205
Rainwater systems Each $204
Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor Each $408
Water piping system and/or water treating equipment Each $204 Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping system Each $204 Lawn sprinkler systems Each $204
Backflow devices Each $204
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers Each $204
Gas test Each $204
Gas outlets
1-4 fixtures Each $204
Each Additional 4 Fixtures Each Add'l 4 Fixtures $204
Solar water systems Each $204
Other simple plumbing Each $204
113
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Additional Plan Review / Inspection Services
Complex/Commercial Standalone MEP Permits
Based on
Valuation
Alternative Means and Methods Hourly $228
Extension Requests for Building Permits Hourly $189
Replacement of Job Card (Building Permit Card) Each Hourly $86 Deferred Submittals Hourly $244
Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees) Hourly $201 Accessibility Hardship Exemption Hourly $233
Additional Plan Check required by changes, additions, or revisionsto plans Hourly $244 Plan Check for Planning Entitlement Projects Hourly $244 Appeals: $0
Appeal to Building Official Each $645
Appeal to City Council Each $1,075
Certificate of Occupancy / Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Hourly Each $209 Fire Damage Inspection Each $201
Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly $240 Pre-Site Inspection / Re-inspection - SFD Hourly Each $201 Pre-Site Inspection / Re-inspection - Other than SFD Hourly Each $201 Records Research Per 30 Minutes $93
Reproduction of Plans Per Page $172
Written Interpretation of Building Code Hourly Each $210 Temporary Use Permit
Normal Business Hours Hourly Each $201
After Hours Hourly Each $236
Address Assignment Each $345
Surcharges
General Plan Maintenance Fee % of Building Permit 27.40% Ravenswood Business District (RBD) Specific Plan Maintenance Fee Per Sq. Ft. $0.26 *Per the City Manager's discretion, deposit and time and materials billing system can be used for projects over $10,000,000 in value 114
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement Investigation Per Hour $190
Recording & Removal of Liens Each $615
Notary Each $15
115
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Housing
Inclusionary Housing Agreement Recordation (Resale Restriction, Deed of Trust, Regulatory Agreement)1* Each $631 Below Market Rate (BMR) Fees
Monthly Monitoring Fee (Contracted Out)2 Per Unit $129
Sale or Resale (Contracted Out) % of Loan 3%
Compliance Fee3 Per Incident $421
Monthly Loan Servicing - Amortized Loan (Contracted Out) Per Unit Actual Cost Monthly Loan Servicing - Deferred Loan (Contracted Out) Per Unit Actual Cost Loan Set-Up (Contracted Out) Each Actual Cost
Loan Foreclosure (Contracted Out) Each Actual Cost
Affordable Housing Compliance Plan (Not Recorded)
Application:

Application Process Each $545
Alternative Compliance Application Review
4 units or less Each $1,713
5 units or more Each $3,427
Application Modification / Amendment Each $273
Review of Household Occupancy Eligibility (Initial Lease-Up / Change of Occupancy) Per Unit $210 Review of Waiver, Adjustment or Reduction Request Per Unit $279 Rent Registry
4 Residential Inspection Upon Change in Occupancy Per Unit $338 Annual Monitoring Compliance Fee - Just Cause Units Per Unit $54 Annual Monitoring Compliance Fee - Fully Exempt Units Per Unit $38 1 100% Affordable Housing is exempt $0 2 Monthly fee for the term of affordability for units of affordable housing development agreements starting 7/1/2025 $0 3 Per non-compliance incident $0 4 Any Housing not under rent stablization ordinance $0 *County Fees may apply $0
Rent Stablizations*
Annual Registration Per Year Per Unit $378
Cloud-Storage Per Unit Registered $21
Ellis Act Withdrawn Property Administrative Fee Per Unit Application $317 Late Processing Fee:

Failure to File before Jan. 31st Each $26
Failure to Submit Statement Withing 30 Days After Receipt of the Notice Each $51 Appeal to the Board:

Filing of Appeal Base $1,204
Each Additional Unit Each Addl Unit $602
Landlord Petition:

First Installment
First Unit Base $85
Each Additional Unit in the Same Building Each Addl Unit $42 Second Installment
First Unit Base $56
Each Additional Unit in the Same Building Each Addl Unit $28 Tenant Petition:

First Installment
First Unit Base $36
Each Additional Unit in the Same Building Each Addl Unit $17 Second Installment
First Unit Base $24
Each Additional Unit in the Same Building Each Addl Unit $11 *All Rent Stabilization Fees are subject to RSP Board approval in October 2026 116
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Engineering
Grading - Plan Review*
< 50 Cubic Yards Each $4,443
50 - 100 Cubic Yards Each $4,443
101-500 Cubic Yards Each $6,250
> 501 Cubic Yards Deposit $17,791
Grading - Inspection*
< 50 Cubic Yards Each $5,726
50 - 100 Cubic Yards Each $8,809
101-500 Cubic Yards Each $22,022
> 501 Cubic Yards Deposit $26,427
Public Improvements - Plan Review*
Base fee up to $10,000 Base $3,352
Base fee at $10,000 Base $3,352
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $3,143 Base fee at $50,000 Base $15,924
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $2,228 Base fee at $100,000 Base $27,064
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $1,114 Base fee above $500,000 Deposit $38,098
Public Improvements - Inspection*
Base fee up to $10,000 Base $2,202
Base fee at $10,000 Base $2,202
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $1,101 Base fee at $50,000 Base $6,607
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $2,643 Base fee at $100,000 Base $19,821
Each add'l $10,000 or fraction thereof Each add'l $10,000 or fraction $1,321 Base fee above $500,000 Deposit $39,641
Encroachment Permit
Minor Frontage Improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway Each $739 Utility connections, excavations, potholing Each $1,059 Temporary closure of sidewalk, bike/vehicle lane(s), street Each $1,059 Any other work encroaching into the public right-of-way Each $1,059 Street Cut Fee Each $1,059
Encroachment Permit - Other
Administration and Coordination of Water Meter Each $412 Debris Box / Temporary Storage Per Week $1,265
Traffic Control Plan Review Per Street $1,222
Traffic Control Field Inspection/Monitoring Per Day $550 Hauling Per Week $632
Parking Restriction in the Right of Way Each $519
Final Parcel Map / Tract Map: City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed through to applicant) Parcel Map (4 Lots Less) Each $4,659
Tract Map (5 or More Lots) Each $6,213
117
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Certificate of Compliance / Street Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Certificate of Compliance Each $4,659
Street ROW Vacation Each $4,659
Transportation Permit
Single Trip Per Trip $16
Annual Yearly $92
Administrative Fees
Request for Letter (e.g.- Flood Hazard Letter) Each $769 Bond Administration and Release Each $384
4th and Subsequent Plan Review Fee Each $960
Re-inspection Fee Each $1,101
After-Hours Inspection (minimum 4 hours) Hourly $259
Staff Augmentation / Technical Review Houlr $258
Planning Application Review / Support
Tentative Maps (4 lots or less) Each $5,956
Tentative Maps (5 lots or more) Each $5,956
Tentative Map Extension / Modification Each $4,013
Second Unit Permit Each $769
Use Permit (all types) Each $769
Hourly Pre-Application Each $485
Lot Line Adjustment Each $4,659
Lot Line Merger Each $4,659
Building Plan Review / Support
Minor Residential Improvement Each $384
Tl (Tenant Improvement) or Addition of square feet Each $769 New SFD (Single Family/ Dwelling) Each $1,538
New Multifamily or Commercial Each $3,075
*All Public Improvement projects over $500,000 in value or Grading projects larger than 501 cubic yards will be recovered on a deposit and time and materials billing system
118
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Environmental Services Programs
NPDES
BMP Inspection:
2,500 to 10,000 square feet Each $373
10,001 square feet to 1 acre Each $561
1 acre to 5 acres Each $747
5+ acres Each $1,121
C.4 Inspection:

Low Priority Each $561
High Priority Each $561
Discharge Inspection:

Initial Inspection (3 Hours) Each $561
Each Additional Hour Hourly $187
Monitoring, Sampling or Testing, Lab analysis, cost, and rental equipment charges Deposit Actual Cost Illicit Discharge Clean-Up in the Public Right-of-Way:

Initial Inspection (3 Hours) Each $561
Each Additional Hour Hourly $187
Vacant Property Inspections, Illegal Dumping, Encampments, etc. Per Inspection $327 Administrative Citation
Minor Discarge (inert substance) Each $119
Major Discharge (non-inert substance, per storm drain impact) Each $1,182 Other Services Not Listed Hourly $187
Stormwater Design Review
Single Family Each $747
Other:
2,500 to 10,000 square feet Each $373
10,001 square feet to 1 acre Each $561
1 acre to 5 acres Each $747
5+ acres Each $1,121
Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance Plan Review
80% or more low-to-no water use Per Acre $1,495
80% or less low-to-no water use Per Acre $1,495
Solid Waste Enclosure Design Review
Less than 1 acre or low concern projects Each $373
1 acre or high concern projects Each $747
Misc. Fees
Each Additional Plan Review after first three reviews Hourly $187 Environmental Impact Studies (EIR) Each $935
119
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Police
Fingerprinting (Livescan) Each $174
Vehicle Release:

During Regular Business Hours Each $50
During Nights or Weekends or Holidays Each $198
Tow Company Cost Each Actual Cost
Repossession - Verification Fee Each $15
Proof of Correction Citation - Sign-off Each $25
Clearance Letter Each $127
Permit Review - Private Security Company - CSO Review:

CSO Review Per Hour Each $140
Executive Review Per Hour Each $256
False Alarm Response - (charge is per response after first two responses within a single calendar year) Per Officer $67 Loud Party Response
Per Minute / Per Officer / Per
Dispatcher Actual Cost
Assistance to Planning Division Security Plan Review for New Business:

CSO Review Per Hour Each $140
Executive Review Per Hour Each $256
Redaction Services - Body Worn Camera Video (Contractor):

City Processing Per Hour Each $191
Consultant Cost Each Actual Cost
Officer Support of City Special Events:

Officer Hourly - Per Officer $229
Sgt Hourly - Per Officer $261
Captain Hourly - Per Officer $256
Community Service Officer Hourly - Per Officer $140
120
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Community Services
Special Event Permit - Application Processing
Community Event Category 2 Events Each $513
Parade/Street Closure Category 3 Events Each $513
Police - Alcohol Distribution Per Event $63
Special Event Permit - On-Site Event Support
Community Services
Business Hours Hourly $109
After Business Hours Hourly $115
Overtime / Holiday Rate Hourly $122
Security Guard Hourly $67
Building Facility Rental Fees
Residents of East Palo Alto
Community Room (at City Hall)
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $48
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $60
Cooley Landing Education Center
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $86
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $108
YMCA City Room
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $33
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $41
Non-Residents of East Palo Alto
Community Room (at City Hall)
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $121
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $121
Cooley Landing
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $214
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $214
YMCA City Room
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $82
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $82
Non-Profit
Community Room (at City Hall)
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $31
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $31
Cooley Landing
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $53
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $53
YMCA City Room
Non Peak Day Rental (Mon-Fri) Hourly $21
Peak Day Rental (Sat-Sun) Hourly $21
Park Facility Rental Fees
All Locations - rental of park, pavilion, or barbeque areas for special events Hourly $51 Equipment Rentals
Community Room
Projector Each $15
Table Covers Per Table Per Day $10
City Room
Television Each $21
Cooley Landing
Projector Each $15
Table Covers Per Table Per Day $10
121
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
Miscellaneous Fees
Photocopy:

8.5" x 11" (black & white single side) Each $ 0.10

8.5" x 11" (color single side) Each $ 0.25
Finance Department
Checks Returned by Bank or Financial Institution Due to Insufficient Funds First Returned Check Per Check $25
Each Additional Check Per Check $35
Overdue Invoices Per Annum
$10 or 10%
whichever is
greater
Credit Card Surcharge % of Transaction 3.50%
122
Fee Name Unit New Proposed Fee
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
Plan Check
Additional Plan Review Per Hour $242
Plan Check - New
House Each $726
ADU (Detahced) Each $726
MFR Each $968
COM Each $968
IND Each $968
Plan Check - Remodeling / Existing
SFR Each $484
ADU Each $484
MFR Each $484
COM Each $484
IND Each $484
Inspections
Lateral Each $1,017
Additional Inspections Per Hour $508
Permit Application (T1, T2, T3)
SFR (T1) Each $153
ADU (T1) Each $153
MFR (T2) Each $153
COM (T3) Each $153
IND (T3) Each $153
Main Line Extension
Main Line Extension Permit Per Hour $242
123
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 13.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget Session Hearing No. 2 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this presentation and provide feedback on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 proposed budget.
.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
 Promote Housing, Economic and Workforce Development
 Implement the Comprehensive Transportation and Mobility Plan  Promote Health & Public Safety
 Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health
 Improve the City's Water Infrastructure
 Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan  Enhance Community Services and Parks for Residents
124
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 13.2
Background
This item is a continuation of the Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget hearing that began on May 12, 2026. During the first session, the City Manager delivered the budget kickoff message, and the Finance Director presented key budget highlights, including a projected $4.7 million General Fund deficit and continued structural fiscal challenges. The Council received presentations and held discussions with the following departments:
 Community & Economic Development
 Police Department
 City Manager’s Office
In this second hearing session, the Council will continue receiving department presentations, deliberate on budget requests, and provide direction. The remaining departments scheduled to present are:

1. City Attorney’s Office

2. City Clerk (Including City Council)

3. Finance and Non-departmental

4. Public Works Department and CIP

5. EPASD
In the City’s continued effort of transparency and accountability as a strong steward of taxpayer dollars and as we have done in the past, the City has relaunched EPA Talks 2026 as part of this year’s budget process.

To date, hundreds of residents have given their feedback and have identified a great need to upgrade the City’s public infrastructure, including priorities such as:
 Providing safe and clean drinking water
 Replacing deteriorating pipes that distribute drinking water  Providing safe places for children and teens
 Repairing aging storm drains to prevent flooding on City streets  Providing an Emergency Operations Center ensuring a safe place in East Palo Alto no matter the emergency
Many residents have said East Palo Alto is lacking safe places for youth to spend time in the community after school and in the summer. You want the City to invest in the future of our youth by providing dedicated spaces for children and youth to play and gather — keeping them safe and out of trouble.

Furthermore, the East Palo Alto library has not been significantly renovated in 40 years, and City buildings have leaky roofs, faulty heating and cooling systems, and outdated electrical wiring. Because the City does not have a community center, police station, or library facility 125
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 13.2
designed to meet today’s needs, residents responded positively to proposals to create a unified East Palo Alto Civic Center to deepen connections within the community and to reduce reliance on outside agencies.

East Palo Alto was incorporated as its own city in the 1980s but still does not have its own community center, police station or library. By creating a East Palo Alto Civic Center, we can have self-determination, local control over our destiny and a deeper connection in the community without relying on the county or the state or federal services.

Given the community’s feedback, additional local funding for City facilities will allow East Palo Alto to provide an emergency center in case of natural disaster, and a refuge during days of extreme heat, cold or smoke. It will also contain the city’s emergency operations center, coordinating emergency response if disaster strikes.

We look forward to continuing to update Council and the community on the results of this important conversation.

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. In addition, a notice of public hearing was published on a local newspaper on May 6, 2025.

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. Budget Session No.1 Staff Report including Attachments 126
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 12, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget Session Hearing No. 1 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this presentation and provide feedback on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 proposed budget.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
• Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
This report provides an initial overview of the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget and an opportunity for the City Council to provide feedback on how resources are allocated. The City Council will continue budget discussions at a Study Session on May 21, 2026. An additional discussion is tentatively scheduled for June 2, 2026. Budget adoption is scheduled for June 16, 2026, during a public hearing, as required by City Ordinance (Title 3, Chapter 3.08.080) Department Budget Presentations
Each department will present its proposed budget to the City Council. Presentations not completed on May 12 will be continued to the May 21 Study Session. These sessions provide detailed department-level information and allow the City Council and the public to ask questions and provide input.
127
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
Departments are scheduled to present in the following order:

1. City Manager Kickoff Message and Budget Overview

2. Community and Economic Development

3. Police

4. City Manager’s Office

5. City Attorney’s Office

6. City Clerk (including City Council)

7. Finance and Non-Departmental

8. Public Works and CIP

9. East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD)
City Council Strategic Priorities Alignment:

The City’s budget is guided by the City Council’s Strategic Priorities and the FYs 2025- 26/2027-28 Work Plan. This helps ensure that limited resources are focused on the community’s most critical needs.

The Strategic Priorities were developed through a comprehensive community engagement process involving residents, stakeholders, and community leaders, and focus on:
• Emergency and Disaster Preparedness
• Public Infrastructure, Facilities, and Utilities
• Livability / Community Quality of Life
• Land Use, Economic, and Workforce Development
• Housing
• Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability • Civic Engagement
FY 2026-27 represents the second year of the two-year work plan cycle. Staff is focused on implementing these priorities while balancing limited financial and staffing resources. The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget reflects these priorities through targeted investments.

Community Engagement and Alignment with Resident Priorities:

The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget reflects the City’s continued commitment to aligning resources with the needs and priorities identified by East Palo Alto residents, including input from the “EPA Talks” initiative and a citywide survey conducted in late 2025.

Residents identified the following as top priorities:
128
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
• Providing safe and clean drinking water
• Replacing deteriorating water pipes
• Providing safe places for children and teens
• Improving storm drains to prevent flooding on City streets • Providing an Emergency Operations Center
Survey results indicate strong support for increased investment in infrastructure, community facilities, and public safety.

The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget incorporates these community-identified priorities through targeted investments in infrastructure, service delivery, and capital planning. These investments are intended to address critical system needs, improve quality of life, and ensure the City continues to respond to the issues that matter most to its residents.

The City will continue to gather community input and use it to guide future budgets and longterm financial planning efforts.

EPASD Budget Integration:

The East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD) has operated as a subsidiary district under the City since October 1, 2024. Its finances are included in the City’s budget; however, the District’s budget is presented as a standalone enterprise fund within the City’s financial plan to maintain transparency and accountability.

A separate EPASD budget document is scheduled to be reviewed by the EPASD Advisory Committee on May 7, 2026, and will be considered for adoption by the City Council acting as the EPASD Board on June 16, 2026.

This approach allows for clear oversight and public accountability specific to the District, while aligning with the City’s financial reporting and appropriation processes. The District will continue to maintain a distinct operational and capital budget and issue separate audited financial statements.

Analysis
FY 2026-27 Budget Overview
The City budget is organized into four primary fund types:
• General Fund, which supports core services such as public safety and administration • Restricted Funds, which must be used for specific purposes • Capital Funds, which support infrastructure and major projects • Enterprise Funds, which support fee-based services such as sewer and water operations
129
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
Citywide Budget Summary
Citywide revenues for FY 2026–27 are projected to total approximately $68.5 million, while expenditures are projected to total approximately $82.9 million. This results in an overall deficit of approximately $14.4 million. This deficit is largely driven by negative net positions in the Restricted and General Funds, which are proposed to be covered through use of reserves.

The projected fund balances by major fund type are:
• Restricted Funds: -$14.3 million (deficit)
• Capital Funds: $2.1 million surplus
• Enterprise Funds: $2.6 million surplus
• General Fund: -$4.7 million (deficit)
The table below summarizes the City’s FY 2026-27 proposed budget by fund type.

The Restricted Fund deficit of $14.3 million and Capital Fund surplus of $2.1 million primarily result from timing differences between when revenues are received and when expenditures occur. In many special revenue funds, revenues are collected before the associated program costs are incurred, resulting in temporary deficits or surpluses depending on the timing. In contrast, capital project spending often occurs before the corresponding revenue reimbursements from grant funds are received. However, in FY2026-27, the $6.6 million in Capital Fund surplus is primarily from developer impact fees, which are collected upfront— creating a surplus for the current fiscal year.

The Enterprise Funds include the sewer enterprise funds, which account for EPASD financial activities. The surplus in the Enterprise Funds is driven by sewer enterprise fund developer impact fees ($2.5 million), and Water Service Fund impact fees ($1.2 million).

Description
General
Fund
Restricted
Funds
Capital
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
TOTAL
CITY
FUNDS
Successor
Trust Fund
Total Revenues 35,349 10,974 4,793 17,360 68,475 3,587
Total Expenditures (39,095) (26,263) (2,727) (14,786) (82,872) (5,069) Net Sources / (Uses) (3,747) (15,289) 2,066 2,574 (14,397) (1,482) Net Transfers (989) 989 - - - -
Change in Fund (4,736) (14,300) 2,066 2,574 (14,397) (1,482) Use of Reserve 4,736 14,300 - - 19,036 1,482
FY 2026-27 Proposed - Citywide Funds ($ In 000's)
130
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
The $4.7 million General Fund deficit is discussed in following sections of this report. More detailed information is available in Attachments 1 and 2.

The Successor Trust Fund budget is developed in accordance with the Redevelopment Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”), which governs the timing and amount of required payments for all enforceable obligations pursuant to State law. The proposed budget reflects the Agency’s planned cash defeasance of the 2015 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, which represent the Agency’s final outstanding enforceable obligation. Upon completion of the defeasance, all remaining obligations will be fully satisfied, thereby enabling the wind-down and ultimate dissolution of the Successor Agency, subject to oversight and approval by the Oversight Board and the California Department of Finance.

Key Budget Issues and Approach
The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget reflects several financial challenges, including rising personnel costs, inflation, increased service demands, and the need for continued investment in infrastructure and technology.

Departments made significant efforts to reduce costs; however, many reductions are not sustainable without affecting service levels. In some cases, departments are deferring needs or absorbing additional workload to maintain services.

The proposed budget takes a constrained approach. It prioritizes maintaining essential services and advancing key City Council priorities, while limiting new spending to critical or one-time needs. Despite these efforts, the City is not able to fully address all infrastructure and facility needs.

Key considerations that shape the proposed budget include:
a. General Fund Condition
b. Available Reserves and Use of Reserves
c. City Council Strategic Priorities
d. Personnel Changes
e. Two-year Capital Budget Update
The remainder of this report is organized by sections that discuss considerations a. through e., above, and provide context for the City’s fiscal strategy. a. General Fund Condition
The FY 2026–27 Proposed General Fund Budget is structurally unbalanced. General Fund revenues are projected to total approximately $35.3 million, while expenditures are projected at approximately $39.1 million. This results in an operating deficit of approximately $3.7 million and a total deficit of $4.7 million after transfers.

This condition reflects a structural imbalance in which ongoing expenditures exceed ongoing revenues. The projected $4.7 million General Fund deficit reflects a combination of revenue 131
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
adjustments and increased costs. Staff will continue to monitor General Fund performance closely and recommend adjustments as needed to maintain long-term fiscal stability.

Structural General Fund Deficit
Revenue growth has not kept pace with rising costs. Key revenue sources, particularly tax revenues, have grown modestly or remained flat, while expenditures—especially personnel costs, insurance, and inflationary impacts on goods and services—continue to increase at a faster rate.

As a result, the City has experienced a structural General Fund deficit since FY 2020–21.

While recent budgets have been balanced—and in some cases have resulted in year-end surpluses—these outcomes have relied heavily on one-time factors, including federal relief funding, vacancy savings, delayed implementation of professional service contracts, and conservative expenditure management. These measures are not sustainable.

Key factors contributing to the structural imbalance include:

1. Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Shortfalls: A projected $2.5 million shortfall in FY 2026– 27 due to ongoing impacts of State legislation affecting school funding formulas and vehicle license fee (VLF) allocations. While the State has historically provided backfill payments, recent actions have reduced the backfill to approximately 60% of the shortfall, and no permanent solution has been enacted.

2. Slowing Property Tax Growth: Property tax revenue growth is projected at approximately 3.0% in FY 2026–27, significantly below the historical 10-year average of

7.5%. This slowdown reflects broader housing market conditions and limited new taxable development due to infrastructure constraints, sewer service challenges, commercial real estate market conditions, and delays in key planning efforts such as the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan.

3. Measure L/JJ Revenue Shift: Following voter approval of Measure JJ in November 2024, approximately $1.7 million in annual landlord business license tax revenues have been redirected from the General Fund to a Special Housing Fund beginning in FY 2025–26. The General Fund retains only up to 20% of this revenue (approximately $340,000) for administrative purposes, resulting in an ongoing net reduction of approximately $1.3 million in flexible General Fund revenues.

4. Weak Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): TOT revenues remain below pre-pandemic levels due to slow recovery in the travel and hospitality sectors.

5. Flat or Declining Sales Tax: Sales tax growth has remained modest due to persistent inflation, reduced discretionary spending, and ongoing shifts in consumer behavior toward online and service-based spending.

6. Limited Revenue Diversity: The City’s General Fund relies heavily on a small number of economically sensitive revenue sources, including property tax, sales tax, and TOT, increasing exposure to economic volatility.

7. Temporary Reduction in RPTTF Revenues (Cash Defeasance): Redevelopment 132
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues are a component of property tax revenues and represent tax increment generated from former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) areas, net of pass-through payments to other taxing entities and enforceable obligations. The planned cash defeasance of the Successor Agency’s Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds will result in a temporary reduction of approximately $1.3 million in RPTTF revenues to the General Fund in FY 2026–27. While this action is expected to generate long-term fiscal benefits, including an estimated increase of approximately $1.6 million in ongoing annual revenues beginning in FY 2027–28, it contributes to nearterm revenue pressure.

General Fund Revenue
General Fund revenue is projected to decrease by approximately $0.7 million, or 2.0 percent, compared to the prior year. This decline reflects a mix of economic challenges, policy changes, and evolving market conditions affecting key revenue sources, summarized below:
• Property Tax: Revenue is projected to decrease by $767,000 (4.3%). This decline is primarily driven by a reduction in Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues (former RDA incremental property tax) of approximately $1.3 million, resulting from the planned defeasance of the Successor Agency’s Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, which the City Council authorized on February 24, 2026. This impact is expected to be temporary through FY 2026–27, with property tax revenues projected to increase by approximately $1.6 million annually beginning in FY 2027–28 following completion of the defeasance and dissolution of the Successor Agency.

In addition, growth in assessed property values has slowed significantly—estimated at

3.0% compared to the 10-year average of 7.5%. The projection also excludes any backfill for the loss of property tax in-lieu of VLF revenues experienced in FY 2025–26.

The State omitted property tax in-lieu of VLF backfill payments from its proposed budgets in consecutive years, but added those payments in revised budgets after significant lobbying efforts by East Palo Alto, County of San Mateo, and other cities within the County who rely on these payments to provide government services.

In FY 2024-25; however, the State only provided roughly 60 percent of the backfill owed.

East Palo Alto and other San Mateo County governments are appealing to the State to provide the full FY 2025-26 backfill; however, given State budget challenges, a payment is not certain.
• Sales Tax: Revenue is projected to increase by $148,000 (2.6%) compared to the prior year. The FY 2026–27 projection of approximately $5.8 million remains below the $6.0 million achieved in FY 2023–24, reflecting ongoing softness in consumer spending. This trend is driven by persistent inflation and restrictive monetary policy, as well as broader shifts in consumer behavior—from brick-and-mortar retail to online purchases and from goods to service-oriented spending.
• Business License Tax: Revenue is projected to increase modestly by approximately $30,000 compared to FY 2025–26. This increase is based on recent trends observed in FY 2024–25 and year-to-date collections. The projection reflects only revenues from 133
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
regular business activity and excludes Measure JJ-related revenues. Beginning in FY 2025–26, approximately $1.7 million in Measure JJ revenues were shifted from the General Fund to a special revenue housing fund and are no longer reflected in this category.
• Interest Income: Revenue is projected to decline by approximately $68,000 due to anticipated reductions in federal interest rates, which are expected to lower returns on the City’s permitted investments. This revenue is reported under the “Use of Money and Property” category in the table below.
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): No growth is projected. Collections remain below 90% of pre-pandemic levels, and recent trends suggest ongoing stagnation. Staff will continue monitoring this revenue and adjust projections as new data becomes available.

Revenue growth remains limited and uncertain. The table below shows FY 2025-26 revenue at mid-year and FY 2026-27 projected General Fund revenue:

General Fund Expenditure
Total General Fund expenditures, including net transfers, are proposed at approximately $40.1 million for FY 2026-27. This amount reflects departmental requests to support ongoing operational services and select strategic initiatives. The proposed budget includes all currently authorized staff positions, including limited-term positions recommended for continuation, but does not assume any new positions. To better provide the level of service the community desires, staff requested new positions for various departments, but the City cannot afford to add head count. Projected expenditures also reflect current economic conditions, including elevated inflationary pressures and the results of prior union agreements.

General Fund Revenue FY 2025-26
Mid-year
FY 2026-27
Proposed Variance %
Property taxes $ 17,006,190 17,773,000 $ (766,810) $ -4.3% Sales taxes 5,827,100 5,679,000 $ 148,100 2.6%
Transient Occupancy Tax 2,200,000 2,200,000 $ - 0.0%
Business License Tax 830,000 800,000 $ 30,000 3.8%
Utility Users Tax 2,160,558 2,094,000 $ 66,558 3.2%
Other taxes 140,000 90,000 $ 50,000 55.6%
Licenses, fees and permits 1,725,334 1,552,000 $ 173,334 11.2% Charges for services 2,206,280 2,719,000 $ (512,720) -18.9% Fines and forfeitures 632,500 495,000 $ 137,500 27.8%
Use of money and property 1,941,764 2,010,000 $ (68,236) -3.4% Grants and intergovernmental 65,000 65,000 $ - 0.0%
Other Miscellaneous Revenues 613,800 605,000 $ 8,800 1.5% Total GF Revenues 36,082,000 $ 35,348,525 $ (733,475) $ -2.0% 134
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
Excluding net transfers, General Fund expenditures are projected to increase by $0.7 million (1.9%) compared to the FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget. Expenditures are increasing primarily due to higher personnel costs, including wages and benefits, as well as increased costs for insurance and other services. Inflation continues to impact the cost of goods and services across departments.

It is also important to note that, in recent years, the City has discontinued its practice of making General Fund contributions to the capital reserve funds in order to maintain operational balance for future capital improvement projects (CIP). While this approach has helped balance the budget in the short term, it limits the City’s ability to fund long-term infrastructure needs.

A summary of General Fund expenditures by department is provided in the following table.

Personnel costs across all departments increased due to merit increases, the Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) negotiated in labor agreements and other increased benefits costs. See the summary of the major variances by department below:
• City Manager’s Office (incl. Administration, HR, IT, and Community Services): The FY 2026–27 proposed budget reflects a reduction of approximately $1.0 million compared to the prior year. The FY 2025–26 budget included several one-time and strategic priority initiatives, including a community survey and financing options study ($200,000), economic development strategic plan ($125,000), emergency planning and preparedness efforts ($100,000), compensation and classification studies ($100,000), citywide ergonomic assessments ($150,000), and park improvements ($350,000), totaling approximately $1.0 million. Most of these projects have been initiated, and any remaining balances are General Fund Expenditure by
Department
FY 2025-26
Adopted
FY 2026-27
Proposed Variance
City Council 272,105 261,352 (10,753)
City Attorney 1,461,060 1,617,805 156,745
City Clerk 581,228 667,379 86,151
City Manager 6,391,444 5,350,822 (1,040,622)
Finance 1,963,136 1,928,635 (34,501)
Community & Economic Development 4,282,954 3,544,234 (738,720) Public Works 6,626,667 6,760,504 133,837
Police 16,387,257 17,583,877 1,196,620
Non-Departmental -
Capital/Technology - 1,158,000 1,158,000
Insurance and Settlements 1,066,347 1,123,373 57,026
Other Non-Departmental 1,990,391 1,959,796 (30,595)
Overhead Allocation (2,647,709) (2,860,620) (212,911)
Sub-total 38,374,880 39,095,159 720,279
Transfers - Operational 874,812 989,268 114,456
Transfers - Capital - - -
Total General Fund Expenditures 39, $ 40,084,427 249,692 $ 834,735 $ 135
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
expected to be encumbered and carried forward through the FY 2026–27 mid-year budget process.
• Community and Economic Development (Incl. Administration, Building, Planning, Housing and RSP): The FY 2026–27 proposed budget reflects a reduction of approximately $739,000 compared to the prior year. The FY 2025-26 budget included a few one-time initiatives and contracts including proactive code enforcement efforts ($150,000), Outside Plan Review and Inspection contracts ($333,000), and Rent Registry ($150,000) totaling approximately $633,000. Most of these projects have been initiated, and any remaining balances are expected to be encumbered and carried forward through the FY 2026–27 mid-year budget process.
• Police: the variance ($1.2 million) is largely related to an increase in the dispatch service contract ($0.5 million) and the personnel cost increase resulting from COLAs negotiated in the Police Officer’s Association (POA) labor agreement, regular promotions, and the rising health costs and other benefits.
• Capital and Technology:

The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget includes $1.2 million in one-time funding for technology improvements. These investments include cybersecurity upgrades, system modernization, and improvements to internal systems and public-facing platforms. This reflects initial implementation of the IT Strategic Plan adopted by the Council on April 7, 2026.

These prioritized projects from the IT Strategic Plan are intended to be funded on a onetime basis through the IT Projects Fund (IT Reserve). The total includes approximately $402,000 for Network and Security Projects, which are grouped as a single category to provide flexibility in addressing evolving cybersecurity and infrastructure risks.

The remaining approximately $756,000 supports a range of foundational technology initiatives, including:
• Disaster recovery and continuity program enhancements • ERP project support and consulting assistance
• Financial and operational business process review
• Website and intranet modernization, including consulting support • GIS assessment and technical expertise
• IT governance enhancements
• Document management system improvements
• Implementation of an electronic procurement (eBid) platform These investments are critical to addressing long-standing technology gaps and advancing the City’s operational capabilities. While these costs are proposed as one-time investments, certain components—such as GIS support and ongoing governance enhancements—may require future ongoing funding as systems are implemented and matured.

More detailed information will be provided by respective department presentations. b. Available Reserves and Use of Reserve
136
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
As of June 30, 2026, the General Fund reserve is projected to be approximately $17.8 million, excluding the $11.7 million contingency reserve, which is maintained at approximately 30% of General Fund expenditures in accordance with City policy. The remaining unassigned reserve is available at the City Council’s discretion to address fiscal imbalances and one-time needs.

To balance the FY 2026–27 Proposed General Fund Budget, staff recommend a one-time use of reserves totaling $4.7 million, consisting of $1.2 million from the IT reserve fund and $3.6 million from the General Fund unassigned reserve. This action is projected to reduce the unassigned reserve balance to approximately $14.3 million. The proposed General Fund expenditures include approximately $1.9 million in Strategic Priority projects, which are primarily driven by professional services and consulting engagements. This amount reflects direct project costs only, and excludes related indirect costs such as internal staff time for project management and oversight, and departmental administrative support.

The proposed use of unassigned reserves ($3.6 million) reflects both near-term fiscal pressures and timing-related revenue factors. The General Fund revenue projection does not assume potential backfill of the property tax in-lieu of VLF shortfall from FY 2025–26, which could range from approximately $1.5 million to $2.5 million based on recent State actions. In addition, the City will experience a temporary reduction of approximately $1.3 million in RPTTF revenues in FY 2026–27 due to the planned cash defeasance of Successor Agency bonds, with revenues expected to increase by approximately $1.6 million annually beginning in FY 2027–28.

While the use of reserves is necessary to maintain service levels in the near term, it is not a sustainable long-term solution. Continued reliance on one-time reserves to fund ongoing operations will require structural budget adjustments in future years.

The table below outlines the June 30, 2026 projected reserves by program type, across all governmental fund types.
c. City Council Strategic Priorities
General
Fund CIP Funds Restricted Funds
Infrastracture Programs - $ - $ 17,113,000 $
Housing Programs - $ - $ 17,852,000 $
Community Programs - $ - $ 2,867,000 $
Information Technology Reserve 3,853,000 $ - $ - $
Vehicles Equipment Reserve 687,000 $ - $ - $
Self Insurance Reserve 2,273,000 $ - $ - $
Capital Projects - 15,789,000 -
Contigency reserve 12,073,521 $ - $
Unassigned 17,881,000 $ - $ - $

FUND TYPE
PROJECTED RESERVE AS OF JUNE 30, 2026
137
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget continues to be developed in alignment with the City Council’s adopted FY 2025–2029 Strategic Priorities and the FY 2025–2027 Council Work Plan.

As the City enters the second year of the two-year Work Plan cycle, the focus has shifted from planning and prioritization to implementation of Council-directed initiatives.

Given the City’s ongoing fiscal constraints and limited staffing capacity, the proposed budget prioritizes maintaining essential services while advancing a targeted set of Strategic Priority projects that are already underway or are critical to achieving Council goals. Core services— including public safety, maintenance, housing and anti-displacement programs, and administrative operations—remain fully funded to ensure continuity of service delivery.

The FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget includes funding for select Strategic Priority initiatives, estimated at approximately $4.0 million Citywide, reflecting projects that are feasible within current financial and organizational capacity. However, several additional priorities identified by the Council remain unfunded or partially funded due to resource limitations. As noted earlier, departments are managing these priorities alongside existing service demands, often by deferring other needs or absorbing additional workload.

Staff will continue to monitor progress on Strategic Priority initiatives and provide updates to the City Council through regular reporting and future budget discussions. As implementation progresses, additional resources—both one-time and ongoing—may be required to fully achieve the Council’s long-term priorities.
d. Personnel Changes
Given the ongoing structural deficit in the General Fund, the City is taking a cautious approach to staffing in FY 2026–27. While workload demands and service backlogs demonstrate a true need for additional staff, efforts have been made to limit new position requests and control ongoing personnel costs.

Staff recommends continuing four currently filled limited-term positions in FY 2026-27. These roles support critical services and help advance key Council priorities, without committing to long-term financial obligations. The combined cost of these three positions is $539,000, which is included in the proposed budget.

In addition, Community Services Division has requested to convert Recreation Coordinator’s position to Community Services Supervisor. The proposed reclassification reflects the expanded scope and complexity of community services, including increased programming, facility oversight, and coordination demands of providing services for youth, families, and seniors. The position has evolved beyond a coordinator-level role and now requires supervisory responsibility, program management, and strategic oversight to effectively support growing community needs and service delivery.

All personnel change requests will be discussed during the relevant department budget presentations. This will provide the City Council and the public an opportunity to ask questions and deliberate.

The table below outlines the City Manager’s staffing recommendations:

138
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
e. Two-Year Capital Budget Update
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) serves as the City’s roadmap for maintaining, upgrading, and developing public infrastructure and facilities. It provides a multi-year (typically five- to tenyear) plan for capital projects, major equipment, and studies, including anticipated scope, timing, and funding sources. A comprehensive CIP helps align capital investments with the City’s longrange planning goals and priorities.

The City’s current Ten-Year CIP was originally adopted on September 15, 2020, and subsequently updated and approved by the City Council on May 30, 2024, to reflect new and evolving priorities, including projects identified through Council direction, grant opportunities, and operational needs.

The CIP budget will be presented and considered separately from the operating budget as part of Public Works budget in the second budget session which is scheduled on May 21, 2026. The table below identifies projects scheduled to commence or advance in FY 2026–27 for which appropriation is requested as part of this proposed budget. Ongoing and previously approved projects are not included in this list, as their remaining budgets will be carried forward and incorporated through the FY 2026–27 mid-year budget process.

Title Division Note Net
FTE
Funding
Source
Estimated
Annual Cost
Limited terms:

Management Analyst II Police Admin Continuation from the current deployment.

Staff seek for one more year extension 1.0 General 226,000 $ Management Analyst I Human
Resources
Continuation from the current deployment.

Staff seek for one more year extension 1.0 General 174,000 Human Resource Technician
I/II
Human
Resources
Continuation from the current deployment.

Staff Seek for one more year extension 1.0 General 139,000 Housing Specialist Housing/RSP Continuation from the current deployment.

Staff Seek for one more year extension 1.0
General (5%),
Housing (45%),
RSP (50%)
121,000
Sub-total limited term 4.0 $ 539,000
Promotion:

Recreation Coordinator to
Community Services Supervisor
Community
Services
Reflects expanded program scope,
increased operational demands, and need
for supervisory oversight to support growing
recreation services
N/A General 42,000
139
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1

Staff will return to the City Council for consideration of contractual approvals for these projects.

It's worth noting that the costs associated to Local CIP fund are funded by the transfers from the General Fund previously authorized by the City Council.

Proposed Budget Documents (Attachment Descriptions)
• Attachment 1: Proposed Budget by Fund Type - fund descriptions and budget information for each active fund maintained by the City. It also shows projected reserve balance for each active fund.
• Attachment 2: Detailed Budget Information by Division – it includes detailed budget by PROJECT # DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Streets and Transportation Projects:

ST-07 Annual Street Resurfacing Project $2,300,000
ST-09 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements $500,000
ST-15 Signage and Striping Improvements $50,000
ST-33 Woodland Ave Street Improvements $700,000
ST-39 Fordham Street Roundabout $75,000
Sub-total Streets & Transportation $3,625,000
Storm Drain Project:

SD-04 Street Sweeping Signage $80,000
Sub-total Storm Drain $80,000
Community Facilities Projects:

FA-03 City Wide - EV Charging Station $580,000
Sub-total Storm Drain $580,000
Water Supply Project:

WS-01B Emergency Water Connects – Palo Alto Park Mutual $150,000 Sub-total Water Supply $150,000
Water Distribution Project:

WD-06 Fire Hydrant Replacement $230,000
Sub-total Water Distribution $230,000
Special Project:

N/A San Francisquito Creek Sediment Removal $800,000
Sub-total Special $800,000
Sewer Projects:

N/A EPASD 1.1 $1,000,000
N/A EPASD 1.2 $1,695,000
Sub-total Sewer $2,695,000
IT Projects:

N/A IT Strategic Plan Projects $1,158,000
Sub-total IT fund $1,158,000
TOTAL FY 2026-27 PROPOSED CIP FUNDING $9,318,000
Local CIP
General Fund IT Reserve

FUNDING SOURCE
Gas tax, Measure A, Measure W, Measure M
TDA grant
Gas tax
Measure A
TDA grant with local match
Local CIP
State grant
Sewer
Sewer
Water capital
Water capital
140
POLICY AND ACTION 8.1
contract and project which make up the total proposed expenditure budget excluding personnel and capital budget.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact by this report. The budget is scheduled to be adopted on June 16, 2026.

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. In addition, a notice of public hearing was published on a local newspaper on May 6, 2025.

Environmental
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.

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. Proposed Budget by Fund Type

2. Detail Budget Information by Division
141
General Fund
and Internal
Reserves
Special
Revenue
Funds
Capital
Improvement
Funds
Enterprise Funds City Total Successor
Trust Fund GRAND TOTAL
Revenues
Property Tax 17,006,190 1,091,236 - 1,609,934 19,707,361 25,000 19,732,361 Sales Tax 5,827,100 - - - 5,827,100 - 5,827,100
Transient Occupancy Tax 2,200,000 550,000 - - 2,750,000 - 2,750,000 Business License Tax 830,000 1,620,690 - - 2,450,690 - 2,450,690 Utility User Tax 2,160,558 - - - 2,160,558 - 2,160,558
Other Taxes 140,000 3,402,554 - - 3,542,554 - 3,542,554 Licenses, Fees, and Permits 1,725,334 1,502,715 2,771,335 3,745,266 9,744,650 2,500,000 12,244,650 Charges for Services 1,768,289 142,600 - 10,021,571 11,932,460 - 11,932,460 Fines and Forfeitures 632,500 - - - 632,500 - 632,500
Use of Money and Property 1,941,764 1,415,764 791,556 1,679,787 5,828,871 84,436 5,913,307 Grants and Intergovernmental 65,000 1,248,100 1,230,000 - 2,543,100 - 2,543,100 Other Miscellaneous 1,051,791 - - 303,333 1,355,124 - 1,355,124 Total Revenues 35,348,525 10,973,659 4,792,892 17,359,891 68,474,967 2,609,436 71,084,403 Expenditures
City Council 261,352 - - 7,500 268,852 - 268,852
City Attorney 1,617,805 10,700 - 50,600 1,679,105 1,400 1,680,505 City Clerk 667,379 - - - 667,379 - 667,379
City Manager 5,350,822 1,290,000 - - 6,640,822 - 6,640,822 Finance 1,928,635 8,488 72,832 73,500 2,083,455 30,374 2,113,830 Community Development 3,544,234 18,724,499 - - 22,268,732 - 22,268,732 Public Works 6,760,504 2,191,071 170,459 6,209,892 15,331,926 - 15,331,926 Police 17,583,877 200,000 - - 17,783,877 - 17,783,877
Non-Departmental
Capital/Technology 1,158,000 2,800,000 2,285,000 3,075,000 9,318,000 - 9,318,000 Insurance and Settlements 1,123,373 - - - 1,123,373 - 1,123,373 IT Operations 495,864 - 15,040 510,904 - 510,904
Other Non-Departmental 1,463,932 112,561 - 3,627,640 5,204,133 5,500 5,209,633 Overhead Allocation (2,860,620) 925,618 198,832 1,727,128 (9,042) 9,041 - Total Expenditures 39,095,159 26,262,936 2,727,123 14,786,300 82,871,517 46,316 82,917,834 Net Sources / (Uses) (3,746,633) (15,289,277) 2,065,769 2,573,591 (14,396,550) 2,563,120 (11,833,431) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - 989,268 - - 989,268 - 989,268
Transfers Out (989,268) - - - (989,268) - (989,268)
Net Operating Transfers (989,268) 989,268 - - - - -
Change in Fund Balance (4,735,901) (14,300,009) 2,065,769 2,573,591 (14,396,550) 2,563,120 (11,833,430) Other Changes - - - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2025 Balance* 17,881,000 37,832,000 17,639,000 37,225,000 110,577,000 (13,944,032) 96,632,968 June 30, 2026 Balance 13,145,099 23,531,991 19,704,769 39,798,591 96,180,450 (11,380,912) 84,799,538 *Excludes certain assets, reserves, and commitments.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2025-2026 BUDGET BY FUND CATEGORY
142
General Fund
F110
Info Services
Reserve F111
Equipment and
Vehicle Reserve
F112
Insurance
Reserve F113
Development
Pass Through
F117
Eliminating Total
Revenues
Property Tax 17,006,190 - - - - - 17,006,190
Sales Tax 5,827,100 - - - - - 5,827,100
Transient Occupancy Tax 2,200,000 - - - - - 2,200,000
Business License Tax 830,000 - - - - - 830,000
Utility User Tax 2,160,558 - - - - - 2,160,558
Other Taxes 140,000 - - - - - 140,000
Licenses, Fees, and Permits 1,725,334 - - - - - 1,725,334 Charges for Services 1,768,289 - - - - - 1,768,289
Fines and Forfeitures 632,500 - - - - - 632,500
Use of Money and Property 1,941,764 - - - - - 1,941,764 Grants and Intergovernmental 65,000 - - - - - 65,000
Other Miscellaneous 437,991 - - - 613,800 - 1,051,791
Total Revenues 34,734,725 - - - 613,800 - 35,348,525
Expenditures
City Council 253,852 7,500 - - - 261,352
City Attorney 1,412,805 - - 125,000 80,000 1,617,805
City Clerk 552,701 114,678 - - - 667,379
City Manager 4,915,078 435,744 - - - 5,350,822
Finance 1,854,021 74,614 - - - 1,928,635
Community Development 3,019,318 54,916 - - 470,000 3,544,234 Public Works 6,342,101 68,403 350,000 - - 6,760,504
Police 17,081,633 302,244 200,000 - - 17,583,877
Non-Departmental
Major Capital/Technology - 1,158,000 - - - 1,158,000
Insurance and Settlements - - - 1,123,373 - 1,123,373
IT Operations - 495,864 - - - 495,864
Other Non-Departmental 1,463,932 - - - - 1,463,932
Overhead Allocation (2,356,166) (327,897) - (176,557) - (2,860,620) Total Expenditures 34,539,277 2,384,066 550,000 1,071,816 550,000 - 39,095,159 Net Sources / (Uses) 195,449 (2,384,066) (550,000) (1,071,816) 63,800 - (3,746,633) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - 1,226,066 550,000 1,071,816 - (2,847,882) - Transfers Out (3,837,150) - - - - 2,847,882 (989,268)
Net Operating Transfers (3,837,150) 1,226,066 550,000 1,071,816 - - (989,268) Change in Fund Balance (3,641,701) (1,158,000) - - 63,800 - (4,735,901) Other Changes 63,800 - - - (63,800) - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 17,881,000 3,853,000 687,000 2,273,000 - (6,813,000) 17,881,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 14,303,099 2,695,000 687,000 2,273,000 - (6,813,000) 14,303,099 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
143
Capital
Improvement
F301/303
Parks and
Trails Impact
F305
Public
Facilities
Impact F306
Transportatio
n Impact
F307
RBD-I
Storm Drain
Impact
F308
RBD-O
Storm Drain
Impact
F309
Total
Revenues
Property Tax - - - - - - -
Sales Tax - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - - - -
Business License Tax - - - - - - -
Utility User Tax - - - - - - -
Other Taxes - - - - - - -
Licenses, Fees, and Permits - 641,916 1,125,741 737,123 - 266,555 2,771,335 Charges for Services - - - - - - -
Fines and Forfeitures - - - - - - -
Use of Money and Property 723,117 12,381 22,200 14,407 8,257 11,193 791,556 Grants and Intergovernmental 1,230,000 - - - - - 1,230,000 Other Miscellaneous - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 1,953,117 654,297 1,147,941 751,531 8,257 277,748 4,792,892 Expenditures
City Council - - - - - - -
City Attorney - - - - - - -
City Clerk - - - - - - -
City Manager - - - - - - -
Finance 72,832 - - - - - 72,832
Community Development - - - - - - -
Public Works 170,459 - - - - - 170,459
Police - - - - - - -
Non-Departmental
Capital/Technology 2,285,000 - - - - - 2,285,000
Insurance and Settlements - - - - - - -
IT Operations - - - - - -
Other Non-Departmental - - - - - - -
Overhead Allocation 188,608 2,178 2,178 2,289 1,919 1,661 198,832 Total Expenditures 2,716,898 2,178 2,178 2,289 1,919 1,661 2,727,123 Net Sources / (Uses) (763,780) 652,119 1,145,763 749,242 6,338 276,087 2,065,769 Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - - - - - - -
Transfers Out - - - - - - -
Net Operating Transfers - - - - - - -
Change in Fund Balance (763,780) 652,119 1,145,763 749,242 6,338 276,087 2,065,769 Other Changes - - - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 15,789,000 272,000 187,000 613,000 385,000 393,000 17,639,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 15,025,220 924,119 1,332,763 1,362,242 391,338 669,087 19,704,769 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS BUDGET
144
Community
Programs
Housing
Programs
Transportation and
Infrastructure
Programs
Total
Revenues
Property Tax - - 1,091,236 1,091,236
Sales Tax - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax 275,000 275,000 - 550,000
Business License Tax - 1,620,690 - 1,620,690
Utility User Tax - - - -
Other Taxes - 1,677,000 1,725,554 3,402,554
Licenses, Fees, and Permits - 1,502,715 - 1,502,715
Charges for Services - 2,600 140,000 142,600
Fines and Forfeitures - - - -
Use of Money and Property 89,424 669,960 656,379 1,415,764 Grants and Intergovernmental 138,100 - 1,110,000 1,248,100 Other Miscellaneous - - - -
Total Revenues 502,524 5,747,965 4,723,170 10,973,659
Expenditures
City Council - - - -
City Attorney - 10,700 - 10,700
City Clerk - - - -
City Manager 1,290,000 - - 1,290,000
Finance - 2,496 5,992 8,488
Community Development 49,044 18,675,455 - 18,724,499
Public Works 123,563 - 2,067,508 2,191,071
Police 200,000 - - 200,000
Non-Departmental - - - -
Capital/Technology - - 2,800,000 2,800,000
Insurance and Settlements - - - -
IT Operations - - - -
Other Non-Departmental - 14 112,547 112,561
Overhead Allocation 9,236 381,785 534,597 925,618
Total Expenditures 1,671,843 19,070,449 5,520,643 26,262,936 Net Sources / (Uses) (1,169,319) (13,322,484) (797,474) (15,289,277) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - - 989,268 989,268
Transfers Out - - - -
Net Operating Transfers - - 989,268 989,268
Change in Fund Balance (1,169,319) (13,322,484) 191,794 (14,300,009) Other Changes - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 2,867,000 17,852,000 17,113,000 37,832,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 1,697,681 4,529,516 17,304,794 23,531,991 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGET
145
Public Safety
Grants
F213
Federal and
State Grants
F215
Local
Grants
F230
CYSFF
TOT
F231
Total
Community
Programs
Revenues
Property Tax - - - - -
Sales Tax - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - 275,000 275,000
Business License Tax - - - - -
Utility User Tax - - - - -
Other Taxes - - - - -
Licenses, Fees, and Permits - - - - -
Charges for Services - - - - -
Fines and Forfeitures - - - - -
Use of Money and Property 14,526 8,949 23,779 42,170 89,424 Grants and Intergovernmental 100,000 38,100 - - 138,100 Other Miscellaneous - - - - -
Total Revenues 114,526 47,049 23,779 317,170 502,524
Expenditures
City Council - - - - -
City Attorney - - - - -
City Clerk - - - - -
City Manager - - 590,000 700,000 1,290,000
Finance - - - - -
Community Development - - 49,044 - 49,044
Public Works - - 123,563 - 123,563
Police 200,000 - - - 200,000
Non-Departmental - - -
Capital/Technology - - - - -
Insurance and Settlements - - - - -
IT Operations - - - - -
Other Non-Departmental - - - - -
Overhead Allocation - - - 9,236 9,236
Total Expenditures 200,000 - 762,607 709,236 1,671,843
Net Sources / (Uses) (85,474) 47,049 (738,828) (392,066) (1,169,319) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - - - - -
Transfers Out - - - - -
Net Operating Transfers - - - - -
Change in Fund Balance (85,474) 47,049 (738,828) (392,066) (1,169,319) Other Changes - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 674,000 1,423,000 47,000 723,000 2,867,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 588,526 1,470,049 (691,828) 330,934 1,697,681 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS BUDGET
146
Rent
Stabilization
F204
Inclusionary
Housing
F205
Housing
In Lieu
F207
Housing
Assistance
F209
Housing
Commercial
Impact F216
Housing TOT
F218
Measure HH
F219
Housing
Successor
F220
Silicon
Valley
Community
F233
Measure JJ
F235 Total
Revenues
Property Tax - - - - - - - - - - -
Sales Tax - - - - - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - - 275,000 - - - - 275,000 Business License Tax - - - - - - - - - 1,620,690 1,620,690 Utility User Tax - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Taxes - - - - - - 1,677,000 - - - 1,677,000
Licenses, Fees, and Permits 852,390 650,325 - - - - - - - - 1,502,715 Charges for Services 2,600 - - - - - - - - - 2,600
Fines and Forfeitures - - - - - - - - - - -
Use of Money and Property 17,352 - 311,233 12,870 - 68,208 209,093 48,235 2,970 - 669,960 Grants and Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Miscellaneous - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 872,342 650,325 311,233 12,870 - 343,208 1,886,093 48,235 2,970 1,620,690 5,747,965 Expenditures
City Council - - - - - - - - - - -
City Attorney - - - - - - - 10,700 - - 10,700
City Clerk - - - - - - - - - - -
City Manager - - - - - - - - - - -
Finance - - - - - - 2,496 - - - 2,496
Community Development 649,097 12,200 6,130,275 6,480 - 1,868,775 8,369,847 129,742 - 1,509,039 18,675,455 Public Works - - - - - - - - - - -
Police - - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Departmental
Capital/Technology - - - - - - - - - - -
Insurance and Settlements - - - - - - - - - - -
IT Operations - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Non-Departmental - - - - - - 14 - - - 14
Overhead Allocation 354,148 - 10,728 9,206 - 7,704 - - - - 381,785 Total Expenditures 1,003,245 12,200 6,141,002 15,686 - 1,876,479 8,372,357 140,442 - 1,509,039 19,070,449 Net Sources / (Uses) (130,903) 638,125 (5,829,770) (2,816) - (1,533,271) (6,486,264) (92,207) 2,970 111,651 (13,322,484) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers Out - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Transfers - - - - - - - - - -
Change in Fund Balance (130,903) 638,125 (5,829,770) (2,816) - (1,533,271) (6,486,264) (92,207) 2,970 111,651 (13,322,484) Other Changes - - - - - - - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 306,000 - 5,409,000 401,000 (42,000) 2,642,000 8,273,000 514,000 135,000 214,000 17,852,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 175,097 638,125 (420,770) 398,184 (42,000) 1,108,729 1,786,736 421,793 137,970 325,651 4,529,516 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 HOUSING PROGRAMS BUDGET
147
State Gas Tax
F201
Measure A
F202
NPDES
F203
Park in Lieu
F206
Lighting
District
F221
Drainage
District
F222
Measure W
F234
Total
Revenues
Property Tax - - - - 919,058 172,179 - 1,091,236
Sales Tax - - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - - - - -
Business License Tax - - - - - - - -
Utility User Tax - - - - - - - -
Other Taxes 1,725,554 - - - - - - 1,725,554
Licenses, Fees, and Permits - - - - - - - -
Charges for Services - - 140,000 - - - - 140,000
Fines and Forfeitures - - - - - - - -
Use of Money and Property 147,084 207,015 13,854 12,104 199,851 38,197 38,273 656,379 Grants and Intergovernmental - 770,000 - - - - 340,000 1,110,000 Other Miscellaneous - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 1,872,638 977,015 153,854 12,104 1,118,909 210,376 378,273 4,723,170 Expenditures
City Council - - - - - - - -
City Attorney - - - - - - - -
City Clerk - - - - - - - -
City Manager - - - - - - - -
Finance - 1,846 2,300 - - - 1,846 5,992
Community Development - - - - - - - -
Public Works 789,176 - 816,509 - 236,154 225,668 - 2,067,508 Police - - - - - - - -
Non-Departmental
Capital/Technology 2,000,000 550,000 - - - - 250,000 2,800,000 Insurance and Settlements - - - - - - - -
IT Operations - - - - - - - -
Other Non-Departmental 94,272 - 10,461 - 6,098 1,716 - 112,547 Overhead Allocation 171,356 54,574 164,981 1,107 55,942 67,363 19,274 534,597 Total Expenditures 3,054,804 606,420 994,251 1,107 298,194 294,747 271,120 5,520,643 Net Sources / (Uses) (1,182,166) 370,594 (840,397) 10,997 820,715 (84,371) 107,153 (797,474) Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In 64,500 - 840,397 - - 84,371 - 989,268
Transfers Out - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Transfers 64,500 - 840,397 - - 84,371 - 989,268 Change in Fund Balance (1,117,666) 370,594 - 10,997 820,715 - 107,153 191,794 Other Changes - - - - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 4,253,000 5,533,000 95,000 395,000 3,707,000 1,235,000 1,895,000 17,113,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 3,135,334 5,903,594 95,000 405,997 4,527,715 1,235,000 2,002,153 17,304,794 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS BUDGET
148
Water
Lease
F510
Water Capital
F511
Water Meter
F512
Water Capacity
F513
Sub-total
Water
Enterprise
Garbage
Service
F520
Sewer Services
F530
Sewer
Connection
F533
Total
Revenues
Property Tax - - - - - - 1,609,934 - 1,609,934
Sales Tax - - - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - - - - - -
Business License Tax - - - - - - - - -
Utility User Tax - - - - - - - - -
Other Taxes - - - - - - - - -
Licenses, Fees, and Permits - - - 1,205,036 1,205,036 - 40,230 2,500,000 3,745,266 Charges for Services 10,000 1,250,000 - - 1,260,000 3,461,565 5,300,006 - 10,021,571 Fines and Forfeitures - - - - - - - - -
Use of Money and Property 536,795 396,577 56,358 20,504 1,010,233 78,513 517,638 73,403 1,679,787 Grants and Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - -
Other Miscellaneous - 23,333 - - 23,333 280,000 - - 303,333 Total Revenues 546,795 1,669,910 56,358 1,225,540 3,498,602 3,820,078 7,467,808 2,573,403 17,359,891 Expenditures
City Council - - - - - - 7,500 - 7,500
City Attorney 7,000 - - - 7,000 - 43,600 - 50,600
City Clerk - - - - - - - - -
City Manager - - - - - - - - -
Finance - - - - - 2,300 71,200 - 73,500
Community Development - - - - - - - - -
Public Works 168,766 5,000 - - 173,766 344,230 5,691,896 - 6,209,892 Police - - - - - - - - -
Non-Departmental -
Capital/Technology - 380,000 - - 380,000 - 2,695,000 - 3,075,000 Insurance and Settlements - - - - - - - - -
IT Operations - - - - - - 15,040 - 15,040
Other Non-Departmental 18,111 - - - 18,111 3,609,529 - - 3,627,640 Overhead Allocation 188,406 56,353 7,590 2,732 255,081 243,210 1,228,837 - 1,727,128 Total Expenditures 382,283 441,353 7,590 2,732 833,958 4,199,269 9,753,073 - 14,786,300 Net Sources / (Uses) 164,512 1,228,556 48,767 1,222,809 2,664,644 (379,191) (2,285,265) 2,573,403 2,573,591 Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In - - - - - - - - -
Transfers Out - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Transfers - - - - - - -
Change in Fund Balance 164,512 1,228,556 48,767 1,222,809 2,664,644 (379,191) (2,285,265) 2,573,403 2,573,591 Other Changes - - - - - - - - -
Projected Fund Balance
July 01, 2026 Balance* 2,961,000 11,075,000 1,638,000 (4,026,000) 11,648,000 1,570,000 23,843,000 164,000 37,225,000 June 30, 2027 Balance 3,125,512 12,303,556 1,686,767 (2,803,191) 14,312,644 1,190,809 21,557,735 2,737,403 39,798,591 *Excludes certain reserves and commitments

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
FY 2026-2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS BUDGET
149
FY27
Expense Detail request (Excl. Payroll)
Department / Division : City Manager's Office / Administration (11111) Fund Proposed FY27
53101 Staff Augmentation
110 ▲ Additional Staffing for Special Projects 65,000
Subtotal 65,000
53201 Professional and Technical Services
110 Citywide Lobbying Efforts 166,500
110 CM Discretionary Fund 22,500
110 ▲ ★ Community Surveying/Financial Growth Efforts 45,000 110 ▲ ★ Design and Implement a "Pop-Up"/Sidewalk Vending Policy and Program 10,000 110 ▲ ★ Emergency Planning and Development 60,000
110 Performance Auditors 200,000
110 Policy Development 25,000
110 ▲ ★ Economic Development Support 100,000
111 ▲ ★ IT Master Plan 10,000
111 Other Professional & Technical -
Subtotal 639,000
54990 Other Property Services
110 Wilbur Properties (Gateway) 15,000
Subtotal 15,000
55400 Advertising/Notices
110 Advertising/Notices 2,500
Subtotal 2,500
55410 Printing and Binding
110 Printing and Binding 2,000
Subtotal 2,000
55600 Meeting and Catering
110 City Manager's Office and Department Head retreats 3,000 110 City Wide Events 7,500
Subtotal 10,500
55800 Transportation and Training
110 ACM Professional Development 3,000
110 Assistant to the City Manager Professional Development 4,000 110 City Manager Professional Development 3,000
110 Executive Assistant to the City Manager Training 2,000 110 League of CA Cities Annual Conference 3,600
110 Washington DC Trip 5,000
Subtotal 20,600
55910 Memberships/ Dues
110 ICMA 2,400
110 Leadership Council San Mateo County 2,800
110 Miscellaneous 900
110 MMANC 1,000
110 Sillicon Valley Business Journal 200
110 SVEDA 2,500
Subtotal 9,800
Detail