.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you all for joining our regular City Council meeting of February 9th, 2026.

We are holding meetings in a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participation available.

The city welcomes public comment on topics within the city's subject matter jurisdiction,

and members of the public may provide comments as follows.

In-person speakers will be called first.

Speaker cards are located at the back table in the council chambers

and must be turned in to the city clerk here at the dais.

Please be sure to indicate the agenda item number which you wish to speak on.

Attendees who have joined us by Zoom will be called to speak after the in-person comments have been given,

and detailed instructions for public comment will be provided on the screen when the time for public comment begins.

If there is a high volume of public comment this evening, we may decrease the time allotted for each comment

or limit the total time for public comment.

In the event this occurs, please feel free to send your full comments to the council at council at roadcity.org.

Written comments are not read aloud, but will be made part of the final meeting record.

And I'll now turn it over to the city clerk to call the roll.

Good evening.

Council Member Chu.

Here.

Council Member Gee will be joining us shortly.

Council Member Howard.

Here.

Council Member Padilla.

Present.

Council Member Sturkin.

Here.

Vice Mayor Aiken.

Here.

Mayor Martinez-Aballos.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

And we'll now go to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Council Member Howard, can you lead us?

Thank you.

Please join me in honoring our flag and our country.

Thank you, Councilmember Howard.

And item four is not applicable this evening, as all Councilmembers are present.

So we will move on to item number five, which is our presentations and acknowledgements.

And we have a very special first proclamation to hand out here.

It is the recognition of our ACE, excuse me, HACCP ACE hardware employees.

We want to express appreciation for the two individuals who acted bravely and swiftly in an emergency situation.

On December 15, 2025, a vehicle collided with the storefront of the Hassett Ace Hardware storefront on Woodside Plaza.

When the vehicle suddenly caught fire, two of the store employees jumped into action and pulled the driver out of the vehicle, if you could believe that,

helped extinguish the fire and directed customers and employees to safety outside of the building.

And tonight, it's my honor to present certificates of recognition to Ricky Pera and Jose Manuel Urea for their heroic efforts that day.

Because of your actions, no one suffered any major injuries and no lives were lost.

And so I'd like to welcome Ricky to the podium to accept the certificate and share a few words.

And although Manuel is unable to join us this evening, we also have store manager Sarah Carr, owner of the shop, Eric Hassett, and other members of the Hassett Ace Hardware team here to share some remarks.

So, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

with the goal of serving the community.

December 15th was a shocking night for us all, a tragic one,

and fortunately there was no loss of life.

The effects, unfortunately for the building,

going to be a couple months before we reopen,

but what it's really shown us is that what we do every day

in supporting our community has been reflected right back,

and the outpouring of support from the Redwood City community

has been amazing.

So I promise you that we will be open hopefully by Memorial Day

to bring our support back to the community that has supported us so well.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

No.

They're shy heroes.

Thank you, though.

Appreciate it.

Great.

Well, please keep us informed when the shop opens up again.

I'm sure we'll add a celebration, and we won't poach any employees,

but I think there might be a firefighter or two in the team's ranks.

But thank you.

We would love to take a quick photo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item is to acknowledge February 2026 as American Heart Month, a nationwide observance that spotlights cardiovascular disease and the need for more lifesavers.

I'll read a few whereas of the proclamation.

Whereas cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide, and whereas straightforward community-based solutions such as CPR and AED education, public access to defibrillators, and cardiac emergency response plans or SERPs in schools, workplaces, and public spaces can save lives and strengthen community readiness.

And whereas the American Heart Association has set a bold goal to double survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by 2030 through its Nation of Lifesavers initiative, empowering people everywhere to confidently perform CPR and use AEDs.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Elmer Martinez-Caballos, Mayor of Redwood City, do hereby proclaim February 2026 as American Heart Month in Redwood City and do encourage all residents to learn CPR, promote awareness of cardiac arrest and emergency response, and join the effort to build a nation of lifesavers, ensuring that every person everywhere is prepared to act in an event of a cardiac emergency.

I'd now like to welcome board members of the American Heart Association, Dr. Nisha Danthi, Dr. Francesca Vacante, and Dr. Zifra Yildirium to accept the proclamation and give some remarks.

Thank you all for being here.

Hi everyone, my name is Francesca Vacante and I am a researcher working at Stanford University

and it's a really great honor to be with all of you today as a privilege.

Hi everyone, I'm Zehra Yildirim, also working at Stanford doing research on cardiovascular diseases.

Hi, everyone. My name is Nisha Danti, and I'm a cardiac hospitalist. I'm a physician at UCSF.

And so thank you for having us here today and for honoring February as Heart Month.

And the American Heart Association, we're very proud to represent the American Heart Association in the Bay Area.

So thank you so much, really.

On behalf of the American Art Association Bay Area, we thank you for making the February as a Heart Month

and for supporting our mission of saving lives from heart disease and stroke.

In this second century of the American Art Association, we have the important mission of creating a nation of lifesavers

and spreading the powerful message that you are the first responder until help arrives.

And so that each one of us is very well prepared to call the 911 and knows how to perform CPR in the event of a cardiac emergency.

So more than 350,000 people experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the U.S. every year.

And 90% of these are fatal.

as Mayor Martinez Ceballos mentioned

we have a goal to double cardiac arrest survival by the year 2030

and this is a very bold goal we're working on at the American Heart Association

and as the

Peninsular residents, parents and

the members of the association's young professional boards

we urge the Redwood City community to learn CPR

we did learn it, so can you

And with that, the American Heart Association

gracefully accepts this proclamation

and thanks to Redwood City for its continued support in its mission.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all for the important work you do.

We have a framed resolution here for you,

but we'll go to Council Member Howard first.

May I ask a question?

How would people be in touch with you

if they'd like to take CPR classes

or learn more about the Heart Association?

So we have a website.

the American Heart dot com and we also have some connections with Claire and Venus and

other who work, who are the staff of the American Heart Association. We are board members of

the young professionals so we are very happy to connect with you and we will connect with

Claire and Venus and the American Heart staff so they can redirect to you to lessons. They

do this all the time and they would love

to do more. When there is a request, they can

generate these classes

upon request and they can come over

and then do the demonstration

and teach you how to do

the whole process.

I just wanted to add a couple of words

as well. So if you

go onto YouTube and

search hands-only CPR,

that's actually a very

quick way to learn the most

important parts of CPR.

Anyone can learn it.

It really just takes a two-minute video, and you can see how important it is and how easy it is to do.

But then for more formal CPR training, you can take one of the more formal courses that American Heart Association hosts and teaches.

But you don't need to go through the formal certification.

You can just learn hands-on only CPR, and that is really the majority of it.

Thank you, all.

Thank you, Council Member.

Let's take a quick photo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Our final recognition this evening is to commemorate Black History Month,

a time to honor and reflect on the historic and current accomplishments of black Americans and

recognize the ongoing fight for equality. I'll now read a few excerpts of the proclamation.

Whereas over 400 years ago, the first African Americans arrived in the United States,

for ever changing the course of our country.

The legacy of this event affects us all,

and understanding the complex history of race in America

helps us to come together as Americans.

And whereas African Americans helped develop our nation in countless ways,

those recognized, unrecognized, and unrecorded.

And whereas the City of Redwood City aims to advance racial equity

through mindful governance practices,

reviewing policies to consider their impacts on community members,

and whereas the City of Redwood City remains committed to taking tangible steps to normalize, organize, and operationalize equity principles and tools

with an eye toward impactful and sustainable outcomes that create a more equitable community.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Elmer Martinez-Cavallos, Mayor of Redwood City, on behalf of the City Council and the people of Redwood City,

do hereby proclaim the month of February in 2026 and each year thereafter as Black History Month in Redwood City

and encourage all residents to observe this month in honor of the history made by black Americans

and continue our efforts to create a community that is more just, peaceful, and prosperous for all.

And I'd like to now welcome to the podium the project manager of the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council,

Shauna C. Stevenson and a couple of members of the Black Youth Advisory Board to share a few words and tell us about an event coming up soon.

Thank you so much.

I am going to pass these out.

And I'll have a couple of flyers.

I didn't bring enough.

I didn't know this many people were going to be here.

But we'll lay out the flyers for you guys to take pictures.

I'm Shawnee Stevenson.

I am one of the co-managers of the Resilience and Mental Health Initiative

with the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council.

I have my colleague and co-manager, Cassandra Jackson,

and I brought online two young folks, young leaders, sorry,

young leaders of the Black Youth Advisory Board for San Mateo County.

I just want to take a minute and just talk for a couple of seconds and then have winter talk and then Ama and then my colleague Cassandra will close us out.

I'm excited today that it is Black History Month and there's just so much to celebrate with black history.

And so I want to thank you all for having us.

So for over 30 years, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council has been a go-to resource for our community-based and culturally relevant approach that effectively engages diverse communities across generations for health equity and awareness, particularly in communities of color with a focus on African-American families.

as part of our work with behavioral health with san mateo county we did an assessment and out of

that assessment came that our young people needed to feel more connected wanted to celebrate their

culture and they wanted to be linked to opportunities and resources that will help them be successful

and so we developed the black youth advisory board and we're on our third cohort this year

and we're excited that we have 12 members this year.

We start off new with three.

We ended up with seven and this year is 12.

And so we're very excited about this.

And so I want to turn it over to Winter

to kind of talk about the importance of Black History Month

and then Amma will invite you all to a unique event

that they are coordinating and leading.

The adults are in the background.

And then in with my colleague, Cassandra.

All right, Winter.

Hello, my name is Winter, and I'm a senior at Eastside College Prep.

I'm a youth leader with the Black Youth Advisory Board with B-A-C-H-A-C.

And black history is important because it's more than the oppression we face.

It's about recognizing African-American contributions to American history and a time for us to come together for community, celebrate culture, and uplift our contribution.

This is why Black YAP is important as the first youth advisory board for Black youth.

And thank you for your proclamation.

Thank you so much, Winter.

Ama?

Hello.

Hello, my name is Amal Osei Owusu and I'm an 11th grader student at Westmore High School

and a youth leader with the Black Youth Adversary Board.

On March 7th, we are hosting our first ever Black Student Leadership Conference.

Our theme is, If Not Me, Then Who?

A call to action from Congressman John Lewis and young civil rights activists

from our village of Black educators of San Mateo County.

I'm here to invite black middle and high school students, parents and families to join us at Kenyatta College, right here in Redwood City.

This free conference will feature door prizes, breakout sessions, a keynote speaker, and a space where young people are seen, heard and valued.

We thank the City Council for acknowledging our youth leadership and supporting opportunities where our voices can shape the future in our schools, cities and county.

To register, visit www.bachac.org.

Go to events and select March 7th.

Thank you so much for having us.

Ms. Jackson?

I want to thank you for this opportunity, for honoring our youth.

Black Youth Advisory Board has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with our youth from San Mateo County, from the north, central, and south.

Not only are we helping them to bring together and be affirming in who they are and their voice, but in their culture and their blackness, but also teaching them leadership skills, how to galvanize others and bring a community together and plan events for other black youth in San Mateo County so that they do not have the isolation, but have a sense of belonging and feel that they are their city and their county.

Again, thank you so much for this opportunity.

We do hope that people will, students, you will know individuals, middle school and high school students who identify to attend the Black Student Leadership Conference on Saturday, May 7th.

We read Strongly Encouraged that.

So thank you again for this opportunity.

And a correction, March 7th.

Not May 7th.

So mark that down.

We do have an event in May called Soul Stroll, but our event is March 7th.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it deeply.

And you all stay online because you're going to be part of the picture.

Okay.

Thank you.

Shanice, Cassandra, thank you both.

But I want to give a special thank you to Winter and Ama for being here to share about your great work,

your leadership, and also the ways that you're empowering your colleagues.

It's going to be an amazing event on March 7th.

We've all got our postcards and we look forward to seeing you all at Kenyatta, but I have a frame proclamation

So stay camera on and we'll make sure to get you in this photo

Thank you

Thank you.

All right.

Those are our acknowledgments and recognitions for this evening.

We will now move on to item six.

Turning now to public comments,

We will now take public comments on the consent calendar, matters of council interest, as well as items that are not listed on tonight's agenda.

We welcome speakers providing public comment, but please be advised this is a limited public forum.

As such, speakers must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

If speakers do not, they will be warned, and if they continue to disregard city rules, their opportunity to speak will be limited.

If you're attending in person, please fill out a speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk here at the dais.

And if you're attending virtually, feel free to raise your hand on Zoom at this time or press star 9 if you've joined by phone.

Once we've gathered all the speaker cards and raised hands and have begun public comment,

no additional speakers will be allowed to queue up to speak.

I will now turn it over to our City Clerk to facilitate public comment.

Thank you, Mayor.

At this time, we have one speaker card.

I'll do one last call to the audience for any in-person speakers this evening.

And if you've joined us by Zoom, feel free to raise your hand at this time to be recognized for public comment.

As the mayor mentioned, once we begin public comment, we will close the speakers list.

So last call.

Okay.

We have one speaker this evening, Stephen Burns.

Welcome, Stephen.

You'll have two minutes to speak.

The timer will begin when you start speaking.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Stephen Burns.

My wife, Sharon, and I own our home at 2455 Carson Street.

We're here because the city is demanding we surrender our private property

without legal authority and without compensation

in violation of the California Constitution.

Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution says private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

Yet for over three years, the City has blocked our building permits and is now demanding we tear down our wall and surrender the corner of our property, land that lies outside any recorded easement.

The City has never filed a condemnation action.

The city has never offered compensation.

The city has never even produced a recorded document granting its rights to our land.

The city claims authority under a public utility easement that appears only as dotted lines on a 1950 subdivision map.

But California Government Code Section 66475 is clear.

public utility easements grant rights to utility companies like PG&E not to cities.

The California Court of Appeal confirmed this in County of Sacramento versus PG&E.

PUEs do not extend rights to the public in general or to the county in particular.

The City's Attorney's Office says our interpretation is incorrect

but has not explained why or cited a single case to the contrary.

Here's what actually happened.

In 1971, the city installed a fence and gate on our private property

outside the recorded easement without permission.

Now the city demands we preserve that illegal encroachment.

Engineering staff required us to obtain professional surveys

and structural engineering reports.

We spent over $6,000 to comply.

They ignored both, including the engineer's own conclusion that our wall was structurally sound and outside the easement.

In 2023, Senior Civil Engineer Linda Chang in Public Works approved a reasonable solution.

Move the gate 31 inches to a line.

Sir, that's your time.

And while we can't address any comments during public comment, we'll make sure that staff gets back to you.

So thank you for providing public comment tonight.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephen.

We have another speaker card for a later item,

and we have no speakers on Zoom for this item.

So that concludes public comment, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you again,

everyone who joined to make public comment this evening.

We will move on to item seven,

which is our consent calendar.

items on consents are routine in nature and are approved by one motion.

Are there any items on consent from which council members are recused?

And not seeing any, I will share that I'll be recusing myself from item 7D, as in David,

as I am employed by the nonprofit Life Moves.

And not seeing any other comments, we will...

Are there any items on consent calendar that council members would like to pull for discussion?

Council Member Howard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't need to pull it off the calendar.

I just wanted to make a comment to item 7D whenever it's appropriate.

You know, out of an abundance of caution, I think we should pull it.

But before we do that, are there any other items that folks would like to pull for discussion?

No? Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve consent other than item 7D as a David.

I'll second that.

Okay.

That was a motion from Council Member Gee and a second from Council Member Howard for all items except for 7D.

And could we get an electronic vote, please?

Would it be okay to take a roll call vote on this one, Mayor?

Technology seems to be down.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

We'll start with Council Member Chu.

Yes.

Council Member Gee.

Yes.

Council Member Howard.

Yes.

Council Member Padilla. Yes. Council Member Sturkin. Yes. Vice Mayor Aiken. Yes. Mayor Martinez-Caballos. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. And I'll now ask the Vice Mayor to preside over the vote for the recused item 7D.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll just wait for you to...

Okay.

Is there a discussion?

Would any member like to discuss item number 7D?

Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor.

I wanted to...

Because I received two phone calls over the weekend

from people in the community

requesting the Life Moves item.

Is it the money that's being given to Life Moves?

It's a two-year, $1,215,000 contract with Life Moves

to do encampment outreach, case management, rapid response,

and service coordination in Redwood City

regarding the homeless and encampment situation in Redwood City.

And their question was,

are these, is this life move going to be monitored and audited and checked on a regular basis

to be sure that the money is being used appropriately and that they're reaching their benchmarks

and that we can report out to the community on the work that's being done.

And I just wanted to say for the public who haven't had a chance to read the report,

I wanted to assure you that, yes, there's going to be regular check-ins and audits

with the over $1 million that's going to be given to Life Moves.

This is quite wonderful for Redwood City

because we applied for this program quite a while ago

and we met all the criteria to be able to follow through

with working with the county and Life Moves

in order to help the people who are in encampments in Redwood City.

So I wanted to reassure you that we are going to be keeping

a close eye and close contact with Life Moves

to be sure that the money is used appropriately

and that in the future we can apply for future money

so we continue the fine work that's being done in Redwood City.

We're one of the few cities that's doing this kind of work,

and I just thought it was worth noting

and that the public should know.

Thank you.

And I'll move this item for approval.

Okay, so thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Thank you very much.

Council Member Howard. I appreciate your

responsiveness to the community. Would anyone else like to comment?

Yes, Council Member Padilla. Thank you. Yes, I do

have comments. I as well have had community

reach out to me and I had

spent plenty of time going over the port and

I wanted to actually go a little bit. I don't know if this is the appropriate

time, but I think I have some concerns over the contract that me as a resident think that we need

to have tighter language to make sure that we guarantee the transparency and the accountability

that we owe the taxpayers. So I want to ensure there's just language in here that doesn't,

um, I need to know when we say that there's regular check-ins, what does that mean?

well then I want I want staff to be able to speak to exactly what that is because I have gone over

it several times and I see ongoing check-ins I see language it says to be agreed upon between staff

but I would like to see where it says exactly how many times there will be contact that this is

important I want these things to be not agreed upon we'll decide we'll work through it this is

a large amount of money that isn't going to last and these are things that need to be clear so I

Before we stamp anything, I have several questions, and I'm ready to go through them.

Let's see.

So if we go to...

Let's go first.

All right, let's start with Exhibit A under Scope of Services and Fees.

so it says provide

intensive case management

and maintain regular

contact

then later on under section B

street outreach it says conduct regular

and ongoing outreach

this is all wonderful but I think it needs

to be clearly defined this is vague

do you have a

question I see that

Derek

is at the podium

If we have language that I'm not seeing, if there's somewhere that says Life Moves is going to go once a day to encampment one, two, and three, can you please point to where I'm missing that in the packet?

Thank you for the question.

I don't believe we have those specifics called out in the agreement.

I can ask...

Let me just jump in here really quick.

Oh, go ahead, Patrick.

Apologies, because there is some inconsistent language, but if you go to Section F, additional requirements, item small i, it says visit the ERF encampments on all business days.

So the intent was each day Monday through Friday.

That being said, we could have been a little bit tighter, have just been consistent with that language throughout.

So definitely understand.

I think it can be cleaned up, and it should be consistent throughout the entire contract.

So I just think that the contract's wording needs to be consistent.

and if we want to get what we're asking for,

I don't want there to be any ambiguity,

and the contract language needs to be clean and consistent.

Did you have more questions?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

I'll move on now that that one has been answered.

I just didn't know, so thank you for clarifying.

I also want to make sure that we're, as to Council Members Howard,

I want to make sure that we're getting full reporting,

the bi-monthly reporting.

I want to make sure I see that things are listed that we're going to get names,

but I see that things such as gift cards are given out.

I want to make sure how are those tracked and kept.

Derek, can you speak to how the gift cards are distributed and accounted for?

And will we receive reporting on those?

I will actually defer to our colleagues from Life Moves who have joined us online.

Hannah Sinaway who's the director of regional outreach initiatives is on and since Life Moves

has been performing some of this work through other funding sources and from a previous contract

they may be able to speak to details that I'm not familiar with. Thank you Derek. Yeah.

Hi Hannah. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I hope everyone is doing well.

For gift cards specifically, Life Moves does not actually give gift cards to clients.

That's a practice that used to happen, and as an agency, we no longer do that.

Okay, well, then I have some other questions now.

Because in the contract, it specifically states gift cards.

I think that was even a line item.

was for gift cards for clients. Like am I

Is that not in part of this that they were to distribute gift cards to build rapport?

Did anyone else read that that life moves would be distributing gift cards to build rapport with clients?

Okay, I'll come back to it. I

Council member Chu has her light on

So there is an example on page, let's see, this is page 67, page 5 of 13 of the staff report,

that does give examples of supplies or items to assist clients with meeting their basic needs,

such as food, gift cards, socks, and glasses.

So I think it was just an example of the kinds of things,

but I don't think that the contract specified,

but I can do a quick search and make sure that's the case.

That's the only reference to gift cards.

So it was just an example of the type of things,

but I don't think that the contract specified gift card.

Thank you.

And then I do have a couple of questions on back to Exhibit B.

Can I just have more of a definition of what fringe benefits are, Derek?

Because they take up $277,819 of the contracted budget.

yeah thank you um these are uh these are for full-time employees of life moves who will be

conducting this work and um hannah do you have specifics on what the benefits are that

life moves employees receive as part of their employment sure so we have paid time off um and

other benefits that come to us if there are like more specific questions related to this I'd be

happy to get the information and share it with you after I connect with our finance department if

that's helpful yes that's helpful just because fringe benefits is mentioned but never defined

so I'd appreciate that.

And then as well,

I do have questions

about typical pass-through administrative costs.

Where will, I just want to,

where will this,

will there be a new office space

or will this be operating out of Fair Oaks?

And if so, will Life Moves be paying rent

to Fair Oaks Community Center?

I believe Life Moves will be hosting these employees in their own space, not in city space. Is that right, Hannah?

Yeah, so we have our administrative office and we have several hubs throughout San Mateo County.

We have had conversations with Liz Lang about the case managers on this new team being able to utilize space at Fair Oaks from time to time.

Okay, then I just have questions about, and it might differ in the non-profit world from the private sector, about administrative costs being passed down in a month of like $150,000 of us covering water, utilities, and garbage.

If there is the option of them running out of Fair Oaks, if that's an opportunity to cut costs, I just think we should be considering things.

But in general, I just have some questions about consistency in the contract.

So I'll leave my comments there.

Thank you very much, Council Member Padilla.

Does anyone else?

Ah, I see.

Council Member Chu, please.

So, you know, I too noticed it was a large sum of money,

and I read the contract very carefully.

And, you know, I work on soft money.

I'm in research.

And so I think the salaries are reasonable and customary,

and then at least in research world, which is kind of comparable in terms of pay and benefits,

about 25 to 30 percent is reasonable and customary for things like time off, health insurance,

those sort of employee benefits that people need for a good, stable job.

And then to the overhead, for example, Stanford, and this is public, so it's not disclosing anything secret,

Stanford University charges 54 percent overhead.

so 15% and you know if there's a negotiation with a foundation you know maybe we can get it down to

10 to 15 so 15% overhead is is lean it's quite good and you know I too wanted to see a lot of

detail and rigor in the in the contract and I felt like I did see that I know that there's been a

movement, you know, even in research world and in the nonprofit sector towards really expecting

results. And I felt like the contract really did hold the, like, moves to expectations.

There's deliverables. There's accountability. And so, you know, I share your concern about,

you know, I wanted to make sure that for this amount of money we're getting, you know,

we're really getting our money's worth and we're really going to get results.

And after careful review, I feel comfortable that we will.

There's always room for, you know, improvement and adjustment.

And perhaps we could even, you know, put that in, you know, midpoint, you know,

a check-in to make sure that we're seeing progress.

But in terms of the pay, the benefits, the overhead, and the accountability,

I felt like it was a really good contract.

So I'll leave it there.

Thank you, Council Member Chu.

Would anyone else like to comment?

Council Member Sturkin, please.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you so much to our Assistant City Manager

and to Hannah as well.

Sorry, I couldn't remember how to say your last name.

All righty.

Well, anyway, I wanted to just mention

that I had a similar question

with regards to the frequency of visits.

I appreciate City Manager drawing our attention

to the contract and that it is, in fact,

every business day.

That's very encouraging.

because having that consistent outreach helps build a trusted relationship to help folks who are unhoused get to yes.

Get to yes, I will accept shelter.

Yes, I will accept other services to support their well-being and recovery

and ultimately finding permanent, safe, affordable housing.

So thank you.

And I also wanted to mention that I am also interested in the fringe benefits

and just making sure that they're competitive, right?

Because it's a very expensive county to work and live in.

And my experience having worked as a de facto case manager

with hip housing before helping people find rooms to rent,

these positions, especially in the nonprofit sector,

are chronically underpaid.

And so it is very important to make sure that folks receive the living wage.

And I imagine, I know I'm familiar with Life Moves.

I imagine y'all are doing that and appreciate the inclusion of the fringe benefits to make sure that that is a competitive package.

So thank you.

And I wanted to just ask two quick questions.

One is with respect to the daily visits.

So what does that look like?

What is the interaction that one of the case managers will be having with a member who is unhoused?

Sure, I can talk about that.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your question.

For our teams, you know, it's going to become individual once we establish trust and rapport with our unhoused neighbors.

When we initially kind of meet and greet them, we're listening.

We're seeing what it is that they need.

We're treating them with respect and dignity.

Even if they say on the first jump, you know, I'm good.

I don't need anything.

I don't want anything.

we respectfully are going to keep coming back and checking in.

And although we don't do gift cards, which we spoke about earlier,

we bring snack packs, right?

Ponchos when it's raining, education about services that are available.

So it's really treating people well, being incredibly consistent,

listening and repeated check-ins.

What might be true tomorrow for someone may be very,

very different for them, you know, a week after that. And that's why we do repetitive, consistent

check-ins for all of our clients. Thank you so much for expanding, Panta. I really appreciate

that. And just as a quick follow-up on that, since that outreach is focused in the ERT zones,

which there are three, you know, Seaport Boulevard, Woodside Road, what about other parts of the city?

What does the outreach consistency look like to other encampments?

So I do know that.

Oh, go ahead, Hannah.

Oh, I'm sorry, Derek.

I was just going to say that currently Life Moves operates a bayside team, which covers some areas of Redwood City.

And we also have an encampment resolution fund program that has different encampments throughout the county.

so there's a significant opportunity for collaboration once we get this exciting

program up and running and sorry Derek go ahead no that's what I was I was just

going to say that through other existing we have we have a current arrangement

with life moves doing outreach for all of our encampments and this will not

supplant that that will continue as it does now that's great to hear thank you

But my final question is with regards to the goals.

And so I saw that the temporary

and emergency shelter goal were bounded in one.

If we look at, okay.

While I'm looking that up in the,

I think it was in the staff report.

Mr. Wolfram, can you just speak to,

what is the definition of temporary shelter?

Excuse me.

There's actually a definition that HUD has for temporary shelter,

and I can pull up the exact details,

but it is not kind of short-term emergency shelter

in a shelter or in a hotel.

It's something examples where folks have moved into are living in a hotel but are able to support that on their own.

People have moved in, have a temporary arrangement with a family or with a transition facility.

So it's not necessarily long-term housing.

And there's not a time-bound definition of it.

But it does refer to stable housing environments that people are committed to be in for some period of time.

Thank you very much.

Hearing that, I think it might be helpful to parcel out emergency versus temporary to track our progress more accurately.

Since the temporary shelter, as you said, varies in duration.

and emergency shelter tends to refer to our navigation center,

safe harbor in South City, right,

which could be a night or up to over a year,

if I recall correctly from reporting we received last year.

So I would like to see those goals kind of parceled out,

just to, again, have more accurate data.

But I appreciate the further explanation and definition of the terms.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

And we do have in the agreement, there is delegated authority for the city manager to approve changes that we work with life moves to make to the performance measures.

So that's something that we could do without bringing the full agreement back to council in a revised form.

So if you'd be comfortable with that, that's certainly something we could follow up on if the agreement's approved tonight.

Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Mr. Sturkin.

And I see two of my colleagues.

I'll go to Ms. Howard first since her button was on first.

Thank you.

I think these questions are good.

And I was going to suggest, if my colleagues would like,

that we ask our city manager that when the reports come in,

either bimonthly or quarterly, could you share them with the council?

Just so that we're kept up to date on what's going on with this program

because there is a lot of interest.

And I just, my colleagues agree,

I think it would be helpful to hear on a regular basis

what's working, what's not working,

what's going to be changed.

And I did want to say we have a very long history.

Life Moves has changed names over the years,

but we have a very long history with Life Moves.

And the RV parking program,

we worked with them during COVID,

highly successful, great partner working with you.

and you also run a family shelter in Redwood City,

which I think we should be very proud of.

We take care of families and help get them into more permanent housing.

So there's a lot of work that Life Moves with Redwood City,

does with Redwood City, and I'm glad you're such a good partner.

So thank you, Hannah.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Ms. Howard.

And now we'll go to Council Member Gee.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Sort of following up on the flavor of the conversation

of the day is my recommendation is that

if we see later in the agenda

the mayor will be appointing a homeless

subcommittee

that at least for the first

year that the homeless

subcommittee with the city manager

be the oversight committee

that looks at the reports, looks at the KPIs

and makes sure

that the contract is being achieved

and to hold

our contractor here

accountable for those KPIs

and if they aren't, to provide the oversight and the corrective course.

It is a large contract.

We do have a number of issues with the unhoused community in our community.

Hopefully this will make a difference, but if it isn't making a difference,

hopefully the homeless subcommittee can make the correct recommendation

to council to make course corrections.

So I think that committee, if it's like any of our other committees,

probably meets at least a quarterly basis.

and so I think a quarterly report from our contractor to that committee

plus any recommendations for course corrections

and changes in the KPIs would be appropriate at that level.

Thank you, Mr. G.

Would any of my colleagues like to comment further?

I'll just add I wasn't going to pull this,

but since it's been pulled,

I just wanted to say a little bit about the history

that Ms. Howard mentioned.

So I think it's good to look at the fact that in 2022,

we received a state grant for encampment resolution,

and only 4% of cities in California received funding from the state of California.

So this service that we will be getting with this contract with Life Moves

is a cutting edge, is recognized as such by the state of California.

And in fact, this is being funded by a second grant, which we received in 2025,

based on how successful we were with our use of the funds in 2022.

In 2025, we received almost double, not quite double,

but significantly more in funds from the state of California.

extremely competitive grant process.

There are 502 cities in the state of California.

So another thing that I'd like to point out is that when we did this RFP,

we received two responsible bids,

and we appointed the staff, not this council,

but the staff appointed a multi-jurisdictional group of experts.

One was from Palo Alto, many from the industry, to assess both of the proposals to provide this service.

It was competitive, and that's best practices anywhere as far as I'm concerned.

and the fact that we only had two responsible bidders

is an indication of how hard this work is.

And as you alluded to, Mr. Sturkin,

you want to make sure these folks are paid well and so forth.

To me, it's a very difficult problem.

It's a nationwide problem.

um uh redwood city is addressing it in a mature measured highly competent way not perfect this is

human and unique um but i guess just to close out i i think what mr g said is is excellent that

we approve the project tonight because then otherwise it delays our work on implementing

our new ordinance, which we passed last October.

These are the boots on the ground that are going to be implementing the ordinance.

So I think it's important for us not to delay.

But I also agree with Mr. G that we should have the

homeless subcommittee rigorously auditing, if you will,

and making sure that there are appropriate touches and

feedback and that we adjust as needed and that there are reports back.

I'll leave it there. Does anyone have more comments? One more comment. I just

want to say that I want this it's very important that this outreach is high

touch and when I say high touch I when I read then that if that line in there

that's just ambiguous language that that is that daily outreach that I want

these case managers to know these members of our communities names I want

them. I want them to really have relationships. I want these boots on the ground to be active

every day on the ground, and I want to have the reports that show us that they are. It's

very important that we are out there and that this money is used wisely, and I just want

to reiterate how important high touch is that we need to constantly engage with this community,

and I just think it's very important. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Padilla.

Anyone else?

Would we entertain a motion?

Vice Mayor Aiken, I'd like to make the motion to approve the agreement for services with

plot moves as indicated in the staff report.

I'd also like to make an addition that there are regular reports to the Homeless Subcommittee

by the council that the mayor will be appointed to this evening.

Second.

Hearing a motion by Council Member Gee and a second by Council Member Chu.

City Attorney, was that done kosherly?

Okay.

All right.

Then at this time, I would like to request a vote.

Thank you.

You should be able to cast your votes electronically at this time.

We have one more vote.

Thank you.

The motion passes with five votes.

We have one abstention from Council Member Padilla.

And Mayor Martinez-Caballos is recused.

Thank you.

So the vote is 5 to 1 to 1?

No, 5 to 1.

No, 5.

5 to 1 to 1 was correct.

Thank you.

The vote is 5 to 1 to 1.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

I don't know.

I just speak for myself,

but that was a really robust and thoughtful

thoughtful and really good conversation that we had.

And so thank you.

And now I will invite back Mayor Martina Ceballos.

Please take the microphone.

Great. Thank you so much, Vice Mayor, for taking care of that item of business.

We will now move on to item 8, our public hearings, beginning with 8A.

Our city consultant, Leo Scott, with Gray, Bowen, and Scott will give us a presentation,

and we also have staff available for any questions.

And I think Leo has joined us virtually today.

Yes, I am. Thank you, Mayor. And I will be advancing these slides with the next. And so without further ado, let's just jump right in here and start off. This is a background for the acquisition of parcels necessary for the project. So we'll give you a quick overview of that through the presentation as outlined here. So with that, let's go to the next slide.

So before the council tonight are three proposed resolutions of necessity that would authorize the use of eminent domain to acquire properties that are needed for the state route 84 Woodside Road US 101 interchange reimagined project.

Project designed to enhance the traffic safety, reduce congestion and pollution and provide safer bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the interchange.

so tonight the council is being asked to find the following

first the public interest and necessity require

the project the project is planned

or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest

public good and the least private injury that three the

property interest sought to be acquired are necessary for the project

and four that the offer required by government code section

7267.2 has been made to the owner of record. The issue of compensation for the necessary

property interest is not before the council tonight but will be determined through the

eminent domain litigation process that follows. Next slide. Just a quick aerial reminder of what

the current interchange looks like. Broadway is in the foreground and then Woodside Road runs under

US 101 that runs from left to right up to the Seaport Boulevard on the bay side of the freeway.

The next slide shows what the transformation, actually before we get to the transformation

look, this is a look at congestion that exists coming off 101 there on the right, that's the

off-ramp to Woodside Road and the intersection that we're looking at there is the intersection

with Broadway congestion being a daily occurrence as we see here in the photo.

Then the next slide illustrates the fact that there are no current pedestrian facilities

within this interchange. Walking or bicycling through the interchange is a safety concern

for those who attempted and therefore hardly any do attempted.

The next slide.

And so as a result of what you've seen in those previous two slides, along with certainly other and many other details that could be provided, the purpose of the project is to alleviate peak hour congestion at the U.S. 101 Woodside Road interchange.

It is second to improve traffic operations within the project limits at the local street intersections of Woodside Road with Veterans Boulevard, Broadway, Bay Road, and Seaport Boulevard, Blomkiss Street.

and East Bayshore Road.

And then the third item here is to improve bicycle and pedestrian access

across the U.S. 101 corridor within the project limits.

That is taken right out of the ISEA or the environmental document for the project.

So this gives you an aerial look at the new interchange.

The significant modifications here are, just to highlight them quickly,

Finally, the Veterans Boulevard portion of the current interchange is completely reconfigured

to provide direct access to southbound 101 as well as northbound off-ramp to Veterans

Boulevard.

That significantly improves congestion at today's Woodside and Broadway intersection.

It also creates direct intersection exchanges, if you will, with off-ramp traffic from southbound 101 to Woodside Road and northbound traffic to Woodside Road.

And then there are bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout to allow people to get to and from the south side of the interchange to the bay side of the interchange and from the east to the west.

So with that, we'll go to the next slide.

And this gives you a look at some of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

This is an image representing the to be reconfigured Woodside Road at Broadway.

You'll notice that there are bicycle lanes on all four legs of the intersection,

along with the distinct separation of the pedestrians from the from the bicyclists at the crosswalk areas.

And then on the far side, you'll notice that our two class four bike paths for both or class four class one bike paths, I should say, for bicyclists and pedestrians on both the right and the left of Woodside Road crossing under 101 there to the right and to the left.

And with that, I will go to the next slide.

Where we are today on the status, the completed work includes the actual California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Protection Act clearance.

So we do have that was approved back December of 2016 with a negative declaration and a finding of no significant impact.

The environmental studies, 21 of which included traffic, community impact, air quality, noise, biology, archaeological assessment, and water quality among them.

The preferred alternative was at that time identified as study alternative three, a typical Woodside Road configuration with veterans direct ramps, as we've just seen, was the selected alternative.

The final design, we have completed 95% plan specifications and estimate with Caltrans review complete.

That was initially done in spring of 2021.

We have redone that after the pause for COVID, and Caltrans has provided us comments on 95% plans here at the end of 2025.

So we are up to speed now at that point.

and that was after our resumption in the fall of 2023.

The project is fully funded with a combination of federal, state, and local funds.

Most of the local funds coming from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.

And the next slide, where we are currently working now,

or what we're currently working on now is updating the final plans,

the 95 to 100 percent, to achieve current design standards,

primarily for seismic purposes or earthquake preparedness purposes.

We're continuing work with Union Pacific Railroad on the two at-grade crossings.

Those crossings, our design is complete,

and we're just finalizing some specific details of interest to UP.

The team is addressing increased stormwater capture requirements.

This is something that's changed since we first finished 95% back in 2021.

And we're nearly done addressing that.

And then we also have to complete utility relocations.

That's some of what we'll talk about tonight.

And then finally, obviously, the acquisition of the required parcels, which is clearly what we are talking about this evening.

So next slide.

The purpose of parcel acquisition.

So the permanent additional area is needed to accommodate the new direct freeway access ramps to and from Veterans Boulevard, as you saw in the simulation of the future interchange.

Permanent additional width is needed along Woodside Road, and that's for future bicycle and pedestrian facilities that you saw in the simulation of the Broadway and Woodside Road intersection.

Permanent additional width along the cross streets is also required to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connectivity to the facilities along those routes.

And then temporary construction easements are required at various locations to facilitate the safe and effective construction of the project.

So obviously when we're undertaking a project of this sort, there is work that needs to happen in the property, adjoining properties at times in order to finish off the final details.

Abutters rights are necessary in various locations to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety.

Next slide.

This is an aerial look again at the project site and just identifying the various parcels.

Obviously, quite a number of parcels are in one way or another affected, but not all of them are required in any permanent way.

And so we can refer to this slide as needed in discussions later.

The next slide identifies the specific parcels at subject for the hearings tonight.

The first parcel is a portion of the property located at 1050 Broadway, known otherwise as the LaSalle LP and Zachary Pearlman TR property.

It's commonly known as the 24-hour fitness parcel.

Number two, the entire property located at 1201 Broadway, the La Mirinda Development and Investment Hirahara Family Limited Partnership property, commonly known as Denny's.

And then the third is portions of the property located at 19 Seaport Boulevard, the Harborview property, commonly known as Harborview.

Next slide.

This is a slide that indicates the location of the LaSalle Perlman parcel, the 24-hour fitness, and the arrow points to the area of the parcel that is subject to acquisition.

And that is spelled out in more detail here as we go through the next slide.

So the parcel description south of existing on ramp to southbound US 101, that ramp is

realigned for the new interchange and therefore requires that we have area to locate the sanitary

sewer storm drain easement and the underground P&G&E and AT&T easements outside of the state's

right-of-way. And so that is the purpose, the combination of drainage and utilities resulting

from construction of realigned on-ramp from Veterans Boulevard, including the adjacent

class four bikeway and retaining wall. So this looks like two easements. The easements here are

a little difficult to identify, but you will see four green lines that surround two white lines

RUNNING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ON THIS IMAGE. THOSE ARE THE EASEMENTS.

THE CLOSEST ONE TO THE WALL IS THE SEWER EASEMENT AND THE ONE NEXT TO IT

FURNEST FROM THE WALL AND THE RAMP IS THE PG&E AND AT&T EASEMENT.

THE NEXT SLIDE. IT IS THE DETERMINATION OF THE

ENGINEER OF RECORD WHICH IS NOT ME. WE HAVE A CONSULTANT ON BOARD,

THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, THAT THERE IS NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE

of the utility easements. The utility easement policies restricting utility placement are cited

here. One is the Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, which does not permit utilities within

freeway rights of way that are longitudinal. And then the second is the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials, guidance that all state transportation agencies

abide by says that longitudinal utility installation should not be permitted within access controlled

freeway rights of way except in rare instances where no feasible alternative exists.

So the final slide, the second of three slides here with details. Policy restrictions aside,

there is no placement in public right-of-way. There is no placement within the public right-of-way

that would be technically feasible in this particular case.

Placing the buried utilities beneath the proposed bike lane

and at the back of the proposed retaining wall

would interfere with the structural components of the retaining wall

and not allow for construction of the project.

Access for maintenance of the buried utility is not possible

without affecting the structural integrity of the retaining wall.

And third, the retaining wall failure could lead

to structural and operational failure of the on-ramp to Southbound 101, as well as damage to

adjacent privately owned property were there to be a failure of utility placed inside the right

of way or underneath or anywhere inside the wall and the embankment. And then finally, placing

underground high-risk utilities in the shoulder or traveled way of the on-ramp to U.S. 101

is not a Caltrans practice and would not allow for access or maintenance of the utility without

severely disrupting highway operations. All right, and then for the sewer and storm drain easement,

it is determination of the engineer record that there is no feasible alternative as well.

Sub point here, the first one, a manhole and storm drain exist within the existing drainage easement

in the property which would be impacted by the proposed project bicycle path and retaining wall

And the bike path and the retaining wall are moving further into or further closer to the property and therefore necessitating movement of the sewer further into the property.

So the system that is there connects to the existing storm drain in Caltrans right away.

And then the second point here, proposed ramp, the proposed ramp requires soil treatment and retaining wall construction that prohibits placement of the impacted storm drain in the bicycle path.

and the proposed storm drain needs to be placed with a new easement parallel to the existing

easement adjacent to the bike path next to the retaining wall. All right so that is the first

parcel. The second parcel is the La Mirinda development and here and here parcel that is the

Denny's parcel the red arrow here points to that corner it's at the corner of Broadway and Woodside

Road. The next slide. Just further details here. It's a full fee acquisition, full take,

and the purpose of which is to widen the SR84 on Woodside Road to include additional lanes,

the Class 4 bikeway, sidewalk, and concrete barrier access controlled separation,

widening of Broadway to include additional lanes and the Class 3 bikeway. So it's both

widening along Broadway as well as on Woodside Road.

Next slide.

This shows an aerial look at the parcel itself.

Woodside Road is along the right edge of the parcel.

Broadway is along the top.

And so we are removing the arched part of this parcel in order to accommodate the widening of both Woodside Road and the Broadway.

section. Next slide is the third parcel. This is the Harborview parcel that is essentially at the

corner of Harborview and Seaport Boulevard right near the at-grade UP rail crossing as the red arrow

indicates there. The next slide gives you a little bit more of the details. It is a roadway easement

and temporary construction easement.

It is for the accommodation of the UPRR crossing improvements

that are to UPRR standards,

much safer than the current configuration today.

It is the widening of Bloomquist to include additional lanes,

a Class 1 and Class 4 bikeway and sidewalk.

Widening of the Seaport Boulevard to include an additional lane

and the Class 1 bikeway and sidewalk.

So it's both there and there.

We can see that the majority of the work here is actually along Blomkis.

There's a very limited amount that is on Seaport Boulevard, but it does allow us to connect appropriately with Seaport Boulevard on the other side of the railroad crossing.

And with that, I think we get to the next steps here.

A discussion with property owners will continue while the team proceeds with eminent domain.

the imminent domain process.

So by no means does tonight in any way end negotiation.

As you are familiar, we've had a couple other hearings in the past in 2025

and have continued negotiations following them and settled with several.

We will file imminent domain lawsuit as necessary,

and there will be court proceedings were that to be necessary

as a result of not concluding them through negotiation.

We will seek an order of prejudgment possession from the court.

This requires deposit of the probable compensation with the state condemnation fund based on the appraisal.

So the appraised value of the property will be deposited with the state condemnation fund.

And then eminent domain litigation can be resolved through, as I said, negotiated settlement between the parties.

If parties are unable to negotiate a settlement, just compensation will be determined through a jury trial.

So staff recommendations.

Adopt a resolution to determine the public interest and necessity required by the project.

Determine the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.

Determine the property interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the project.

Determine the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner of record.

Determine that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by the previous CEQA action for each of the 11 properties, or in this case, the three properties that we're speaking of.

authorized commencement of eminent domain litigation and finally seek an order of possession

consistent with code of civil procedure section 1245.220.

Next slide.

Gets us to the end of my presentation.

Thank you so much, Leo, for that really thorough presentation.

before we bring it back to the council

we'll open the public hearing

and I'll turn it over to the city clerk

to help facilitate public comment

Thank you Mayor

we don't have any in-person speakers

at this time

actually it looks like we might

we do have one

two raised hands on zoom

Oh is it this one?

Okay well then you are our first in-person

speaker possibly our only

Edwin Gonzalez

welcome

All right, council members, thank you so much for having me.

Quite interesting to be here.

Highway 101 in the junction with Woodside, quite interesting, very, very interesting.

Not only is entering annoying, exiting is annoying as well, and, well, drivers are annoying as well.

but usually when I'm heading eastbound towards 101,

and don't tell anybody, but when I head to 101 northbound,

I usually have to aggressively cut everybody off.

And it does pose a problem to not only myself but to the other drivers,

but it groups me into the residents of Redwood City.

I'm here to vouch for this revision,

mostly because I want us as a city to have more of a positive perception of our neighbors.

So whenever I'm cutting people off by accident, they group me as a resident of Rose City.

And I believe this infrastructure, this upgraded infrastructure,

will allow the effectiveness of driving to not only be safe,

but also have less frustration with the drivers in the area.

We have these additional housing elements coming by, these proposed housing, proposed businesses, and these other great projects coming to Road City.

But that's just another name for traffic.

And I believe that if we're able to minimize traffic, it's to build an effective infrastructure, an effective junction.

I'm here for the support of it.

I believe it's more than just the actual infrastructure, but our emotions.

We will finally be able to have peace with our other drivers in the area.

And I believe that upgrading infrastructure will indeed increase it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Edwin.

We did get a second speaker card, Mayor.

With your permission, I'll call up Stephen Goodell.

Thank you.

Stephen Goodell.

That's all right. We will then move to our Zoom speakers. Thank you. We have two speakers. We'll

start with Garrett Berkfold, who will be followed by Jillian Levis. The timer will begin when you

start speaking, and you have two minutes. Yes, real quickly, Madam City Clerk, before my time

begins, I did send you those two photos. Can you verify that those photos will be shown live time?

Confirming I have them ready for you.

Cool.

And my camera isn't on, so unfortunately, I guess you won't get to see this great suit I put on.

But okay, well, good evening.

My name is Garrett Berkfold, and I'm an attorney who represents the property owner of 1050 Broadway Street.

This firm submitted two letters on behalf of our client in opposition to the relevant resolution of necessity.

Yeah, so that would be the first one right there.

So one of those letters was included in the staff packet today.

Another came to your receipt on Friday, and I do not believe that made into the packet,

but this is to confirm the city clerk did receive those, and the objections thus raised in those letters have been included in the records or in the administrative record.

So just to back up a little bit, you know, you have to make certain findings tonight required by law to adopt the three resolutions of necessity before you,

And those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

We do not believe the staff report does provide that evidence.

It provides a lot of conclusions.

Very little evidence.

Madam City Clerk, if you can move to the second picture.

So stepping back, you know, this take is pretty complex concerning our client's property, right?

It's not the typical take.

You know, there's literally easements on top of easements.

You know, it's pretty complex.

And I don't think the staff report does justice to explain that.

We take particular concern with the PG&E and the AT&T easements, which exist over kind of one portion of land.

And we feel that those easements will substantially interfere with the entrance and exit of the parcel.

There's really one main entrance on Charter Street.

And, you know, we've reviewed the draft language of the easement grants.

And there's very wide open language that allows PG&E and AT&T to really, you know, come and go as they please, to stage.

The PG&E grant has this extremely gratuitous language that permits them to do work outside of the easement, kind of in this ingress, egress area.

We find that's kind of concerning, and we really would request that the council tonight refrain from adopting the resolution of necessity and at least allow us to kind of rework that language to ensure that there's public health and safety concerns embedded in those agreements.

We also object to city staff's statement that the easements cannot be placed underneath the proposed bike lane.

I don't really see why not.

I mean, I guess there was some authority cited, and that's, you know, that's the first we heard of that.

But once again, thank you so much for your time and have a wonderful night.

Thank you, Garrett.

Our next speaker is Jillian Labus.

Welcome, Jillian.

Good evening.

My name is Jillian Labus.

I'm an attorney with Nassim and we represent 24-Hour Fitness, a tenant at the property located at 1050 Broadway.

We submitted written objections to the resolution and I will highlight our major concerns now.

24-Hour Fitness faces significant site impacts to circulation, access, and parking as a result of the project.

24-Hour Fitness has requested a site meeting with the city since last year to discuss the project and address these concerns, but we have not heard back from the city.

A site meeting would allow the city to consider alternatives that may minimize damages to the property.

We request that the city not proceed with the resolution until after that site meeting occurs, as it may result in changes to the proposed acquisitions.

And if the city enacts changes after it adopts the resolution, it may expose itself to paying litigation costs.

Now, the lack of the site meeting to evaluate the impacts for the project demonstrates that the city has not satisfied two prerequisites for the adoption of the resolution.

First, that the city has not made an offer or negotiated in good faith with 24-Hour Fitness.

And second, that the city has not sufficiently analyzed whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.

The total areas sought by the city will potentially eliminate 20 parking spots, cut off access to a key drive aisle, impede access to the property, and interfere with on-site circulation.

The lack of an offer to 24-Hour Fitness and the lack of a site visit to address these concerns indicates that the city has not satisfied its prerequisites for the adoption of a resolution.

A site visit and good faith engagement with the city could result in potential alternatives that may minimize damages to the property.

As a result, the city should delay a decision on the resolution instead of rushing and merely rubber stamping an approval.

We request that the city direct staff to conduct the requested site meeting.

Thank you very much.

just the work that you've done and maybe to these how these type meetings have gone.

Yes. So first I'd like to emphasize the last commenter. The tenant isn't entitled

to an offer. That goes out to the property owner under the eminent domain

code and we followed all the statutory processes in our interactions with the

with the property owner of the site. As far as the request for a site meeting, I

just confirmed the staff we've never had a request to have a site meeting with

24-hour fitness. On the contrary, with LaSalle-Perlman, we've met with them on several occasions

and discussed the locations of the easement. They disagree the need for them there, but

as you saw in the presentation tonight, the engineer of record is clear that that needs

to be located in the locations they're being located on. As far as the greatest public

good for the least private injury, I also want to remind the council and the commentors

that the city decided to underground these easements in order to make them least burdensome

on the property owner. It's more costly for the city to do that. As far as the comments about

access, interference, those are all arguments that will be made as far as valuing the just

compensation for the acquisition. But they don't impact the council's authority to adopt the

resolution of necessity. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you. That's a great start. Thank you, Mr. Stock. And I'll open it up to my colleagues for any questions or comments. We'll go to Council Member G.

Thank you. And since you're here, could you just confirm on the record that offers have been made to all the properties that are being discussed this evening?

Yes. All three property owners that are being discussed, all three properties, offers are made to all three of those.

the property owners. Correct. Correct. The party of title. Correct. Thank you. Now this is, this is a

long time coming as one of the longer tenured team members here on the dais. This project started

well over 10 years ago and there were a lot of community meetings and there were a lot of

different alternatives. I think the report showed, I think Leo you should set up to maybe eight

different alternatives.

And I remember the diverging diamonds.

I think my favorite was the roundabout,

but I don't think that people here

could have handled such a large roundabout

with so much volume of traffic.

Through those community meetings

and through the 101-84 ad hoc committee,

I can say that the solution that we're looking at today

is a more traditional one,

but is also the most constrained one

when it comes to property.

We tried to make this fit

within the property that we could, that we had, and that we could get, and it is the most

constrained of all the different alternatives that we've seen. I got a text message the other day

from a former council member. He goes, are we really almost there? And we are almost there.

The properties identified with the NEPA and CEQA document identified all the properties

that might be considered for eminent domain or temporary construction easements or property

acquisition. So there's no secret. These have been known since 2016. It's been in

writing. Slide 11, the CEQA NEPA was approved in December of 16, and the

report was prepared earlier that year. Full transparency. Every single property

was listed, and then approved by council, and finally, because of funding,

availability, we're at the place. I'm involved with another transportation

Board, we're going through a similar domain process. This just happens to be in San Francisco,

and it is a process dictated by federal funding requirements, state requirements,

and the hard part is these large transportation projects take a very long time. This one is about

350 million. The one in San Francisco is only about 8 billion. These take a long time to go

through this process. But if we don't ever start, we will never get there. And so I am, as much as

it is difficult to acquire property, I'm glad we're almost here. And I'm glad we can look forward to

the start of construction probably in another year or so. I'm hopeful. And so it's been a long time

coming. I want to thank everybody involved for the hard work. I want to thank everybody for the

several community meetings that we had many, many years ago

to look at the different trade-offs, different configurations, and this

one is the most constrained and has the least impact

on adjacent properties.

Thank you for sharing that history, Council Member G.

Any other comments? We'll go to Council Member Howard.

Thank you. I'd like to ask our staff, based on the

comments of council member g could you give us remind us of the timeline the proposed timeline

it's i didn't see it in the report and i'd just like to review it again if you don't mind

so i i assume the councilman howard you're referring to the timeline for the actual

advertisement and start of construction that would help yeah yes so as uh as council member g mentioned

The current plan is to complete the plan specifications and estimate, secure all the necessary right away that includes this process tonight, finish our negotiations and establish a contract with Union Pacific all within this calendar year, 2026.

so that at the end of this year, beginning of 2027, we can advertise the actual construction contract

and begin construction in the springtime of 2027.

And the anticipated date of delivery, are we thinking 2030, 2035?

Completion of the contract would be, yeah, approximately three years later.

so in the early part sometime in the middle of 2030 is the likely conclusion thank you mr scott

thank you council member howard any other comments questions

i'll also entertain a motion if we could um have separate motions on the three different

resolutions, that'd be great.

Great.

Get us started. Perfect. Thank you.

We'll go to Council Member G. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. I'd like to make a motion,

number one, to adopt a resolution of

necessity, finding that the public interest,

convenience, and necessity

require the acquisition of certain

property interests for the public project,

named U.S. Highway 101,

State Route 84, Woodside Road Interchange

Improvement Project, authorizing

the acquisition thereof and directed

the city attorney to file

eminent domain proceedings to acquire a portion

of the property located at 1050

Broadway, APN

number 054023120,

the LaSalle LP

and Zachary Permit TR

property, commonly known as

24-Hour Fitness.

Is there a second?

Second.

That was a motion

from Council Member G, a second from

Council Member Chu, could we get an electronic vote, please?

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everybody.

Is there a motion for the second staff recommendation?

Council Member Sturgeon.

I would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution of necessity,

finding that the public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition of certain property interests

for the public project U.S. Highway 101, State Route 84, Woodside Road Interchange Improvement Project,

authorizing the acquisition thereof and directing the city attorney to file eminent domain proceedings

to acquire the property located at 1201 Broadway, APN 054-012-100,

the La Morinda

Development and Investment

Hirahara Family Limited

Partnership Property, commonly known

as Denny's Restaurant.

I'll second that.

Great. That was a motion from Council Member

Sturkin. A second from Council Member

Howard. Could we get an electronic vote, please?

The motion passes unanimously.

Great. Thank you, everyone. And is there a motion for the third staff recommendation?

Go to the Vice Mayor.

I move that we adopt a resolution of necessity finding that the public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition of certain property interests for the public project, U.S. Highway 101, State Route 84, Woodside Road Interchange Improvement Project,

authorizing the acquisition thereof and directing the city attorney to file eminent domain proceedings

to acquire portions of the property located at 19 Seaport Boulevard, APN 052-392-280,

as well as 370, 460, 470, and 480,

the Harborview property, LLC property,

commonly known as Harborview.

Second.

Thank you.

That was a motion from the vice mayor

and a second from Council Member Chu.

Could we get an electronic vote, please?

Thank you.

That motion also passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you again, Leo, for the great presentation.

And we will move on to item nine, our staff reports, beginning with 9A, a project update

and policy direction on the levy design elevation for the Redwood Shores Sea Level Rise Protection

Project.

Engineering and Transportation Director Tanisha Werner will introduce the item, and we have

our senior civil engineer, Paige Saber, who will give the staff presentation.

Good to see you again.

Good to see you.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, staff, and members of the community.

My name is Tanisha Werner.

I'm the Director of Engineering and Transportation, and tonight it's my privilege to introduce

the Redwood Shores Sea Level Rise Protection Project.

I have staff from our internal staff in engineering and transportation, Paige Saber, as well

as our staff from our Public Works Services Department here tonight. Online, we have a

number of members from our consultant team led by Schaff and Wheeler, and we also have

our one member from Schaff and Wheeler in person with us tonight. The Redwood Shores,

that's okay. This project is a multi-benefit project. It is protecting approximately seven

miles of shoreline protecting Redwood Shores.

And this is our presentation overview. I will do

a really brief project overview, go over our funding

and schedule, and then I will be passing the presentation to

Page Saber for engagement. We've done a robust

public engagement and our design update.

We have two alignment alternatives that we would like the council

to provide direction on for staff.

And then we'll end with our cost estimates.

Next slide.

While you're listening to the presentation,

I do ask that you keep these two questions in mind.

Does the City Council support staff proceeding

with the design of the levy

to a minimum elevation of FEMA plus one as recommended?

And we will further define what that means.

And the second question is,

are there additional considerations

the City Council would like staff to evaluate as the project advances into its environmental review and final design phases.

This project has multiple benefits.

The overarching benefit is for flood protection.

We have approximately $8.2 billion worth of assessed value in Redwood Shores that our current levy system protects.

protects. That assessed value includes private properties with homes, we have schools, and

businesses. The project was first, our current levy system was previously raised in 2009,

and since then, FEMA has changed its accreditation requirements, and as a result, Redwood Shores

IS NO LONGER IN AN ACCREDITATED ELEVATION FOR THE LEVY.

THE PROJECT IS OR THE AREA IS IN WHAT'S CALLED SECLUSION.

AND THAT MEANS THAT ALTHOUGH OUR LEVY DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET ACCREDITATION STANDARDS,

FEMA DOES KNOW THAT STAFF IS WORKING ON A PROJECT IN ORDER TO BRING OUR LEVY SYSTEM

INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR CURRENT ACCREDITATION STANDARDS.

We currently have a $2 million hazard mitigation protection grant that is administered from FEMA, and that gets us to funding needed to get to 60% design and to start our environmental review cycle.

Even though flood protection is our overarching goal, we have other opportunities within this project to do more nature-based solutions, introducing more passive recreational activities, and also opportunities to really make everyone have a sense of belonging and placemaking along our levee system.

Redwood Shores is a very diverse community that has multiple different assets.

Some of those assets include the Silicon Valley Clean Water Treatment Plant,

and this plant serves not only Redwood City, but Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Atherton, and East Palo Alto, to name a few jurisdictions.

We also have one of the two Sam Trance bus depots that the levy currently protects and the San Carlos airport, as well as numerous schools, daycares, and businesses.

Next slide.

A project of this size would not be complete without having strong multi-jurisdictional partners.

This project has introduced a technical advisory committee where we regularly meet with technical level staff at One Shoreline, the County of San Mateo, City of San Carlos, and the San Carlos Airport, to name a few, in order to share the design and gather their very important technical feedback.

Next slide.

Our current funding levels.

So staff has been successful in obtaining grants to cover the design improvements for the levy raising.

Our design level will reach 60% design by June of 2026.

And tonight's decision by council really hinges on staff's ability to meet that deliverable for our grant funding.

We also have a local grant match of approximately $715,000 as part of our capital outlay fund, and we have another $1 million that's available to help with completion of the design in the capital outlay fund.

The project will continue exploring different grant opportunities in order to bridge the gap in funding, but this is, as you'll hear later in the slides, about a $200 million ask in order to get through construction.

While we are aggressively going after as many grants as we can, the focus for tonight's presentation is really on the design, and we just want you to know that staff is looking at other alternatives to bridge the gap with the construction.

this is a really high level schedule overview we're currently in our design phase

per our grant from fema we do need to reach 60 design by june of this year and tonight we are

asking council to make a direction to staff on the level we should be designing the levy to

In 2026 and 2027, we plan to enter our environmental permitting stage and environmental review stage.

And then final design would be completed through 2030 with an anticipated construction phase of approximately three years from 2030 to 2034.

And that is pending full funding for the project.

So with that, I will pass the presentation over to Paige.

Thanks, Tanisha, and thank you, Council.

Again, Paige Saber.

I'm a senior civil engineer on the city's engineering and transportation team, and I'm the city's project manager for the Redwood Shores Sea Level Rise Protection Project.

So we brought a consultant team on board late last summer, and one of the first tasks they took on is to build project awareness via public engagement.

They did that in a few different ways.

The first was developing a public outreach plan.

That plan was reviewed across the city.

All the different departments took a look at it and provided their feedback.

Then we also shared that plan with two focus groups we've worked closely with,

one of those being the HOA leaders out in Redwood Shores

and one of those being the environmental groups who are interested in the project

and provide valuable insight to projects of these type.

They were able to review that, give their feedback, and then we executed on that plan.

That included things like creating a project website, which is the photo you see on the left,

creating project signage and posting that around Redwood Shores and downtown in Redwood City.

That's the photo on the right.

Creating a project mailing list so we're able to email out updates to folks that are interested

and launching a project survey, which next slide.

So this survey went live last October.

The little mailer you're seeing a snippet of went to all USPS addresses with a 94065 zip code.

So I think that was over 5,000 mailers went out.

that QR code took you right to the survey and folks were able to fill out and provide kind of

their experience with the trail system out there and their expectations for the project.

We got a really robust response, over 480 responses. About 80% of the people who responded

were Redwood Shores residents. 90% of the people who filled it out used the trail system at least

weekly. And in general, the feedback was that these are really well-loved and used trails.

People are really happy with the natural environment and how beautiful and scenic it is out there.

having the interaction with wildlife and really wanted to preserve that with this project.

So having as natural looking levee systems and using nature-based solutions as much as possible.

We also got some good feedback on different recreational amenities folks were interested in.

The most common of those was seeding and shade.

Next slide.

So we took the feedback from that survey and while our design team was doing their work in the background,

we put together kind of a plan for our public outreach meetings.

And those took place over the last couple weeks.

There was one on Thursday, January 29th at the Redwood Shores Library and one this past Saturday, February 7th at the Sandpiper Community Center.

We had a really great turnout, over 130 attendees between the two events, really engaged feedback.

We had representation from San Carlos, Belmont, Palo Alto and Alameda, as well as very significant attendance from Redwood Shores and Redwood City residents.

in general the feedback from those meetings was strong support for the public goals and an

eagerness to understand how we're going to pay for this how this will be funded

there was support for the FEMA plus one alternative which we'll get to later

with some technical questions about how you know how we got there again similar feedback to the

survey a strong desire to preserve the natural character of the current bay trail system out

there with minimal amenity additions as requested. And strong support for the proposed Bay Trail

extensions, which we'll get to in a couple slides. Next slide, please. Oh, I also wanted to touch on,

we did attend the Red Ridge Horse Community Association's annual meeting last Wednesday as

well. We presented and tabled at that. So folks who were there were able to kind of hear more

about the project. And then for those that didn't get to attend the 29th event and heard about it

there, they were able to attend the seventh event, which was awesome. So while all this public

outreach has been going on. Our technical team has been working on a lot of different tasks.

The ones that are completed is an updated field survey of that area, a levee concept layout.

Things that are in progress right now are bayfront flood hazard analysis, interior drainage study,

geotechnical analysis, and baseline environmental studies. So I've been doing a lot of work in the

background to kind of get us to all these alternatives we have. Next slide. So as touched

on, one of the things there was strong support for is bay trail adaptation. So the bay trail

runs along much of the levee that's out in Redwood Shores. One of the first things our team did is

take a look at the existing Bay Trail out there and look where there was gaps or where the Bay

Trail didn't meet what are called Bay Trail design guidelines, which are set by regulatory agencies,

and identified where we could kind of connect the system. So those are those navy blue, dark blue

lines you're seeing, and where we could improve the existing trail, which is kind of those teal

lines. So we're looking to really increase connectivity, increase access to the Bay Trail,

make it more accessible to all kinds of people.

As someone with two little ones,

it's very hard to get a stroller out there

on a lot of the sections of it.

So bringing all of that public feedback

into making sure we're making

a really accessible bay trail for folks.

Next slide.

So we also looked at

where are we going to have the levee sit?

And really the alignment we decided on here,

the core levee alignment,

is pretty similar to where the levee is now

with the exception of an additional stretch

of levee along Belmont Creek. So that essentially kind of rings in the creek and prevents flooding

from there. Next slide. So that alignment does have some limitations and it does provide protection

to redwood shores till end of the century. So up to 2100. But after that point, due to sea level

rise, flooding under even a 1% tidal event would start to enter in from the north and the south

into redwood shores. So we do know when we get to that point, there will be more that needs to be

done as far as connecting to different levee systems. Next slide. So there's something that

we're calling an extended levee alignment that we evaluated. And what that means is adding in levee

along creeks in San Carlos and Belmont, adding a kind of ringing around that Belmont Island that's

up there, adding some levee in city of San Mateo, and then adding levee on the southern stretch

of 101 next to Bear Island. Next slide. So the reason that this extended alignment was ruled

out for this specific project, first and foremost, many different landowners and agencies and

permitting agencies would be involved in that. Just between the private properties in San Carlos

and Belmont, it's over 40 different property owners. And these are properties right now that

do not have levy, do not have easement on their property. So we'd have to seek to get ability to

build and maintain it and have access to that. In addition, Caltrans, City of San Mateo, and some

state lands would have to be amenable to the levy being built there and we'd have to be

able to work through all of that. So with all those different folks involved, it just

adds a level of complexity to the project execution. Second is that it would be more

costly. This alignment would add about $100 million to the project cost. And it's not

needed for really 70 years.

And then combining kind of all of those elements,

when we looked at what if we had delays

due to land acquisition or getting easements

or getting permits from these additional agencies,

about every five years of delay

is $110 million estimated cost.

So if this project was held up

by any of the land acquisition issues

or agreements with other agencies,

we not only wouldn't be protecting Redwood Shores

in that time and waiting to provide that protection,

but we'd also be adding to the project cost

pretty significantly. So for all those reasons, our team decided for this project on the core

alignment with the understanding that in the next 70 years, we all need to work on getting

these extended alignments constructed. Next slide. All right. So we talked about where the

levy is going to be. The question for tonight and the direction we're seeking is how high do we build

it? So there's two alternatives that we evaluated and that we're presenting to you tonight. One of

them is our staff recommendation, and we're calling that FEMA plus one, and I'll talk about what that

means. And the second alternative is called FEMA plus 3.5. So what those two represent is the height

FEMA is going to require us to raise the levies to, to be a re-accredited, plus one additional foot,

or the height FEMA is going to require us to raise the levies to, plus three and a half additional

feet. Next slide. And I'll run through kind of the trade-offs here and how we landed on our

recommendation, capturing both public feedback and professional input. So the first and foremost,

The higher you build it, the more expensive it's going to be in general.

Our team is estimating FEMA plus one to come in around $200 million.

This is assuming a 2030 construction time frame.

FEMA plus three and a half to come in at around $250 million.

The second component of this is what year of FEMA accreditation would we achieve?

And there's a big asterisk caveat here that this is assuming FEMA does not change how they accredit levy systems in that time frame.

It's also assuming that the Oceanic Protection Council's intermediate sea level rise scenario,

which we're utilizing for this design, holds,

and that sea level rise estimates haven't changed by that time frame.

So FEMA plus one, we're estimating around a 2060 accreditation duration.

And then for FEMA plus three and a half, it's 2107.

And I'll touch on in the next slide,

the FEMA plus one alternative we're seeing is an adaptable alternative.

So we would be designing this project knowing that at some point mid to late century, we'd need to come back with an adapted project looking at the current data estimates and regulatory requirements at that time to adapt to the levy system to meet whatever requirements we need to at that time.

And you'll kind of see how that works in the next slide.

A little graphic makes it make more sense.

Oh, sorry.

Go back.

So for the year, the next category we're going to look at is the year that we'd be protected to from a hundred year storm.

So how FEMA requires you to build, they basically look at where the 100-year storm is, and then

they make you build higher than that.

So I like to think of it as like a water glass.

FEMA doesn't let you pour it all the way to the top.

They only let you pour it a certain amount and then have a certain height above that

available.

So even if we're only getting to their 2060 accreditation, we're actually protected beyond

that with both of these scenarios.

So for the FEMA plus one, we would be protected to year 2100.

for FEMA plus three and a half we would be protected to 2143 so the nice thing with both

options is we're protected to end of century and beyond for the next two categories I'm going to

touch on they have a really big impact on both the construction of the project how the levy system

will feel after the project is completed and how it will be for users and then also for the city's

maintenance and long-term asset depreciation and how, I guess, the assets that we'll be acquiring

by this project and what that means in terms of maintenance and what we're paying for.

The gist of this is that the higher you go with the levy, the more walls we're going to need and

the higher the walls are going to be. It's just how the engineering works that it will just require

that. So for the FEMA plus one alternative, about 40% of that core alignment will be walls.

So it might be a combination of like a earthen levee with a wall on it or just purely a wall

just dependent on the situation. To get to the FEMA plus three and a half height, it would be 60%

walls. So more than half of the time, you're going to be seeing some kind of wall along the levee

system. The typical added height for each of the two options. So this is kind of looking in general

at where the levee sits right now. For FEMA plus one, you're going to be going three and a half

feet above where it is now. And that's in about 70% of the levee. Some locations, it's a little

less. Some locations, it's a little more. For the FEMA plus three and a half, you're going to go

about six feet above where it is now. So thinking, you know, a little bit taller than me and then a

little bit at waist height. So those are kind of the difference of what you're going to see. And

again, the graphics on the next slide will give you a sense of, especially when it's next to a

home, what that difference looks like. The last kind of comparison point here, oh, just to touch

back on the walls as well. The other thing, so that kind of touches on what the user experience

would be, that for folks who really, we got such consistent feedback that people really like the

natural experience out there. They prefer nature-based solutions as much as possible.

So our project team really identified FEMA Plus One as aligning more with the public feedback

we've received of what people want out there. In addition, you're adding a lot of wall that you

don't really need yet. And so you're both paying the price for that from an aesthetic standpoint,

but also from a maintenance standpoint and you're you're paying for an asset that's going to be

depreciating in value and deteriorating in useful life when you don't need it yet so if all of those

factors together kind of helped recommend the fema plus one option and then the last criteria we

looked at is what are projects nearby us doing what have they constructed to or what are they

planning to construct to and the two really relevant comparison points were the foster city

levy system, which was recently constructed and reaccredited by FEMA, which they designed to the

FEMA plus one elevation and the safer Bay project, which for those that don't know is just south of

us. It's protecting portions of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. And as we looked at kind

of what, what land and what use types are those two different levy systems protecting Foster City

really more closely matches the level of development and the encroachment of development

to the shoreline, as opposed to safer Bay being a much more natural shoreline with some development,

but not to the extent that we see in Redwood Shores and not as close to the water edge.

So looking at the two relevant comparisons, the Foster City Levy Design Guideline felt more

relevant given the use type that we have out there. Next slide. So these are just two graphics

to look at. So this is for the FEMA plus one. So it might be a little hard to see, but there's the

very dark gray and then the lighter gray on top of it. So I talked about that this would be an

adaptable approach. And so we'd construct to that dark gray level. And then at whatever point in the

future that FEMA tells us we need to reaccredit, we'll take a look at that at sea level rise

estimates and decide, okay, we know what elevation we need to raise it to. And we can either add on

top, which is the top option in locations that we can do so, or we would add a wall on the bottom.

So in these ones, it's nice because you're getting that lower level. You can see it kind of comes up

to maybe half the height of the house there. So we're not having those, you know, earlier impacts

of having a higher levy and having more walls. And then having the ability to kind of see what

all the requirements are at that time. And maybe it's, we don't have to go as high as FEMA plus

three and a half, maybe it's even more, but we will have designed this levy system to be able

to be adapted onto. So you're not doing rework. Next slide. And then alternatively, the FEMA plus

three and a half alternative you'd be building those levees and adding those walls now which you

can see kind of how different visually it is for for houses and for people to have that that level

of view blocked and to have that height of levy and then if anything had to change down the line

we've kind of locked into a certain elevation next slide all right so that concludes our

presentation just circling back to the questions for council does city council support staff

proceeding with the design of the levy to a minimum elevation of FEMA plus one as recommended

and second are there any other considerations the city council would like staff to evaluate as we

advance into the environmental review and final design phases of this project thank you very much

thank you page thank you Tanisha for the great presentation before we bring it to council we'll

take public comment on this item and i'll turn it over to our city clerk thank you mayor we do have

We have two in-person speakers.

I will also ask folks on Zoom who wish to speak on this item tonight to raise your hand

at this time.

Again, once we start public comment, we will close the speakers list.

Okay.

Looks like we'll move forward with our two in-person speakers.

We don't have any speakers on Zoom, so I'll call Gita Dev to the podium.

Gita will be followed by Steven Goodale.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Gita Dev with the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapters Sustainable Land Use Committee.

Very pleased to be here today.

Paige Saber has worked with us, indeed, and we are very pleased with the outreach that

they have done so far. However, at this point, they're putting the City Council in a very

difficult situation because the project must meet the regional shoreline adaptation plan

guidelines, and that definitely requires community input and community dialogue. So though the

outreach has been very good so far.

At this point, you are being put in a very difficult situation

because the alternatives that Paige presented

have just been presented to the community and to us.

We have not yet responded to it.

We waited for the community meetings to be done

so that we could hear the community's concerns as well as our concerns

before sending you our input.

This is important because having done such a great job up to this point,

it would be a shame at this point to destroy all that confidence

that the community has had that they have promised a dialogue

in what will be done for their community.

So right now there's a survey.

We are reportedly 480 responses, but nobody knows what was the results of that survey.

And we question some of the things that we've seen in the presentation as to whether that could possibly have been in the survey.

If you don't mind, I'll take a few more seconds.

I would respectfully suggest that the survey results be published

so that the council can see the survey results

and we can see what the survey results were,

that the boards and the presentations which have just been presented on Saturday

be put up in the library

so that people who haven't been able to come to the community meetings

have an opportunity to see them,

and the presentation be put in a booklet so that people can leaf through it.

and give the community at least two weeks,

having come this far with such good outreach,

give the community at least two weeks to get back to you

and give you the benefit of the community.

Otherwise, they feel like they're not being listened to,

and that would be a shame at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Stubb.

Stephen Goodell, welcome.

Hello, Council.

Nice to see everybody again.

I had not expected to speak, so this is off the cuff.

It's been communicated through this process that the timeline is very short for FEMA purposes.

Not that I understand that.

So I understand that they want to do this, or that you guys want to do this in a hasty manner, a speedy manner.

but the timeline feels very condensed

and doesn't seem to leave enough time

to incorporate resident

feedback or concerns.

There's been

a lot of, we've been through lots of different meetings

with them. We've been in the stakeholder meetings. We've been in the

public meetings. We've been at the

RSEA meetings but I don't

know

where or how or when

community feedback will be

incorporated into those meetings that

we attended and that we gave feedback in

and that the community gave feedback in.

So I would like to see how that feedback was incorporated.

We also would recommend engaging the SFEI

to contribute as a stakeholder

and as well as potentially come in and host a public meeting

to talk through the options and impacts of this project

as well as talk about the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan,

the RSAP, and how it applies to Redwood Shores.

Good, I still have time.

Okay.

Redwood Shores, for anybody who visits Redwood Shores or lives in Redwood Shores, you know

that it is rife with HOAs.

Like, basically, there's HOAs everywhere.

In fact, there's, I looked it up during the meeting, there are 26 HOAs in Redwood Shores

all under the RSOA, the Redwood Shores Owners Association.

The RSOA, so far as I understand, was not a stakeholder in this,

but instead they engaged the RSCA, Redwood Shores Community Association,

who also is a great organization,

but I don't believe that they communicated with the relevant HOAs,

or at least in not meaningful ways.

I'm going to keep going.

Can you just wrap up your thoughts, Steve?

I'll wrap it up.

Thank you.

Oh, and this is ambiguous.

I'll wrap it up quick.

It seemed ambiguous.

Redwood Life's contribution to this seemed ambiguous.

It wasn't clearly stated.

Redwood Life is going to do this and pay for this.

I just wanted to remind Council that by waterboard order,

Redwood Life has to protect the waters of the state

and is responsible for that levy,

the levy that is adjacent to their property.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Goodell.

And that concludes public comment, Mayor.

Great.

Thank you to those who made some public comment this evening.

We will now bring it back to the dance for council discussion.

Who has questions or comments for Paige and Tanisha?

Council Member Padilla.

Thanks, Paige.

I just wanted to start off by thanking you.

I'm on the utility subcommittee so Paige also visited us and so this is not that new for

some of us on that committee so I just wanted to appreciate all the work you did then and

then all the work you've done in parallel since then.

I want to say that I appreciate all of the community outreach and the working with the

different groups. I see that maybe there's some more work to be done, but I do know how

important this is, and I just want you to know that I appreciate all your efforts. I

just wanted if you could clarify one line. I tried to write it down, Paige, but you said

that every five years delay is about, did you say it was $110 million in delay? I don't

want to misquote you. Sure, yeah. So it was for every five years of delay the project

has, we see about $110 million

to the cost. Wow.

Thank you. Thank you for all your work

and being so diligent. I appreciate it.

Thank you for getting us started, Councilmember.

And I'll invite

other members of the Utilities Subcommittee

who have studied the project

if they want to start with comments.

And we'll go to

the Vice Mayor.

I just echo

what Councilmember Padilla said.

And we had, gosh, I want to say an hour presentation, colleagues.

The three on the utilities commission or subcommittee is Council Member Howard, myself, and Council Member Padilla.

And you visited us and gave a very, very thorough presentation.

Also, the gentleman behind you gave a wonderful presentation.

and we really went in-depth on sea level rise.

So I feel very comfortable supporting staff's recommendation.

I did want to talk about the trails.

You know, I've ridden out there on my bicycle,

tried to get all the way to San Francisco Airport,

but the wind is hard, so I haven't quite made it yet.

And, you know, the Foster City part where the levee has just been completed, there's some really beautiful appreciation.

And the Redwood Shores part with some of those bikeways and some of that, you know, the pathways and the beautiful greenery, it's just spectacular.

And just another example of how amazing this area is.

Redwood City is probably the most vulnerable to sea level rise of San Mateo County.

I think it's something like 20 miles of shoreline.

And San Mateo County is the most vulnerable to sea level rise of all the 50 plus counties in the state.

So thank you for working on this and getting us started.

It's still till 2030 that we even complete the design.

So I would say for the folks that say it's too soon, it's too soon, I don't think it is.

There's still many more decision points, much more study, much more partnerships.

I serve on one shoreline, and there's a lot of collaboration currently going on.

there's a need for much, much more.

But I think I feel very comfortable supporting

the staff's recommendation for all of the reasons that you enumerated.

And I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. And we'll go to Council Member Howard.

Thank you. I really appreciate the comments made by Council Member Padilla and Vice Mayor.

I think that an excellent job, excellent report.

I do just wanted to ask you to address the concerns that were raised

because I feel like you've made excellent arguments

as to why we are choosing the first alternative.

And I think I heard you say that you, the community itself, weighed in

and there was overwhelming support for the first alternative.

so could you explain to me what this other survey and results how would that change a decision or

would it be something that we could do as part of moving along the process so we save money by

getting started could you address that for me i'd appreciate it certainly um so the survey i believe

that was mentioned was the public outreach survey we issued last october it closed in mid-december

and that was the survey that we sent the mailer out to all Redwood Shores residents and we posted

about it social media and newspaper articles so folks were aware of it and that survey the results

of that I touched on a little bit in my oral presentation our consultant is actually going to

release the results of that survey and we'll post that to the project website so for those who are

interested and want to see more detailed feedback that will be there in addition for these series

of public outreach meetings we've had,

we're compiling kind of a public outreach

and results summary,

and that will be posted in the next week or two,

so folks are able to take a look at that.

After each of these meetings,

even, yes, this Sunday,

our team collaboratively met

to kind of discuss what was talked about,

what feedback we got,

go over any questions we got,

make sure we got back to folks

who sent questions our way,

and really collaborated together

to make sure, you know,

we were hearing, kind of,

sharing everything we all heard,

and that was shared at that meeting.

At the 29th meeting,

we did have a really cool interactive board activity

where we had boards up

for kind of different elements of the project

and people were able to go over to each board

and talk to the actual consultants

who worked on that component of the design

and ask questions, share their feedbacks.

They could do little stickies on like the areas they liked,

put questions on things they had questions on.

And as to the design elevation between both meetings,

majority of the feedback was supportive of the FEMA plus one.

I would say the feedback supportive of the FEMA plus three and a half is folks who are saying, while we're doing a project, let's go as high as we can.

So of the feedback we got in support of that, it was in a sense of providing as much flood protection as we can under one project.

I think that touched on the elements they were talking about.

Let me know if I'm missing anything.

And just also wanted to appreciate that both Geeta and Stephen and his wife Nina have been really wonderful members of our focus group.

They've had such great insight.

They connected us with the SF Estuary Institute, who joined our TAC,

and they've been an invaluable resource for that.

So really grateful for their partnership.

Looking forward to partner with them and all the other groups out there moving forward.

And as Vice Mayor touched on, this is a longer-term project.

We have this very tight FEMA deliverable of getting a 60% design of them to June of this year

to be able to preserve our $2 million of grant funding from them.

So we're working quickly to get to that.

but there will still be lots of design iteration beyond that

and lots of interaction with the public,

both through the CEQA process

and through moving the design from 60% to 100%.

It was also mentioned that one of the associations,

I believe it's the owner's association,

was not brought into the conversation.

I bet individuals were at some of your meetings,

but could you address that, please?

because we just had a meeting last Wednesday with Redwood Shores,

and it was the Community Association, which it's a different entity,

but it was very, very crowded.

And I was just wondering at the tables,

did people approach you and talk to you about this project?

Did you get more feedback at that meeting?

Yes.

So it was really great to be able to hear kind of all the different presenters

at the Redwood Shores Community Association last week

and then also had the opportunity to,

I got a nice long list or a long line of folks that wanted to talk about the project.

And to me, it's very exciting because it's a big project.

It's going to be very impactful for that area, and I'm happy to have engagement and feedback on it.

The feedback from that kind of similar to what we wrapped into what we discussed here

and what will be part of the public engagement summary that we'll release in the next week or two.

As to the RSCA versus RSOA, we do have our public engagement consultant online from Civic Edge.

I do believe we engaged both and were told that folks from both were invited to that focus group that we've met with several times to kind of preview each portion of the project.

Violetta, if you're online, correct me if I'm misstating that.

Hi there. Good evening. Yes, that's correct. We did. And we were told by the RSCA that as the umbrella organization for all the HOAs in Redwood Shores, that it would be best to coordinate through them.

I do think that based on some of the feedback I've heard tonight and from other community members that we may want to do more direct outreach with the 26 neighborhood HOAs.

And we are discussing as a project team when the appropriate time to do that is.

But as I said, the umbrella organization, we were told by the RSCA, would be the best way to coordinate with all those HOAs.

but I do like your instincts

I think you should take it a step

further and try to

cover the other groups

because you don't want to miss anything but

I'm sensing that a majority of

the engagement information supports

your recommendation

that's correct

and there is a deadline so we don't lose

funding which is a significant amount

of money that's pretty important

because we'll never get it done

if we don't line up our funding

But in the meantime, I would hope that the engagement will still continue in case something comes up, that there could be minor changes.

And bringing life moves into the conversation.

I know that we'll be working with them shortly about a development agreement.

But I wouldn't want that to hinder us beginning this project if we are entitled to get this kind of money if we put the design in quickly enough.

So I feel pretty comfortable supporting what you're doing.

I really appreciate with the speed that you have worked with this

because I just know how these projects can take forever,

and we don't have forever,

but I do support your logic on why you chose the smaller one.

When FEMA keeps changing the goalposts, which they do,

I'd hate to see that we would invest this amount of money to do this,

and then they change to something that doesn't comply with what you've already designed.

So I think you're smart in working as a conservative approach that will do the job for quite a long time.

I hope we won't all be around, but maybe many of us will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And you did remind me there was one more element of the comment that I didn't address,

and that was Redwood Life's part of this project.

So a large, not a large, but a sizable portion of the levy does go through the perimeter of their property.

So we've worked closely with the planning department who's handling their planning application,

and it made sense to integrate them into this project's technical advisory committee

because they do have so many unique technical requirements for the levy system that runs on their edge of the property.

We're still in conversations as to who will construct the levy, whether that will be part of this project or part of Redwood Life.

It's really going to come down to timing.

We don't want that to be the reason this project isn't able to complete construction.

The whole system has to be constructed to get FEMA accreditation.

So once we take a look at timing and calendars,

whoever needs to do the project first will be doing it,

and the development agreement will work out the details of that

as far as reimbursement of expenses for the construction.

So that's kind of all still in progress right now.

But given how unique that site is and how much of the levy system is in their property,

similar to Oracle, who's also part of our technical advisory committee. We've incorporated

them, and as we work with each of the technical partners there, we'll work through at those

meetings, like this is what the airport needs, this is what the treatment plate needs. We'll

work through all the design details at each site, and Redwood Life is kind of similar. We work

through unique things there. We coordinate our designs, make sure that we're both, our project

is capturing anything that they are. So yeah, that'll continue to be a work in progress, but

that's been the relationship with wildlife in this project to date.

Thank you, Paige.

Thank you, Council Member Howard. We'll go to Council Member Choo next.

So thank you for a terrific presentation. I just had a few questions and

comments. So the first, and I know you told us this, how many

community meetings did you have? So we had two, and then

we attended the RSCA annual meeting, and we presented and tabled at that.

Okay, so three and then a survey.

And then was the response to the survey pretty good?

Yeah, so we got over 480 responses,

which I am told is a good, robust response for a survey.

Yeah, that's amazing.

Great.

And then, you know, sort of you've noted that there was, you know,

the majority of support was for the FEMA plus one.

was that you know 40 60 80 20 like kind of or 51 49 um can you give me a sense of the sure so we

didn't take like a formal poll i would say um but we captured all the feedback every uh presenter

there got from folks and then shared that together and like i mentioned i would say i think roughly

90 percent of who we all talked to was supportive of it and the folks that weren't i think wanted

to see a longer duration of protection and accreditation, I should say.

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Okay, so now I make my comments.

So first of all, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness

and the effort that went into this,

especially that you're thinking about the Bay Trail

and kind of the aesthetics of it.

I don't typically think of levees as something

that have a big aesthetic component,

but I really loved that we're kind of getting a twofer with this.

I did notice that

the shape of the levee is pretty standard

whether it's the plus three and a half

or plus one

so my sense is that

you're kind of constrained by FEMA

rules about the shape, the size

the location

and the height of the levee

you can either have something shaped like this

plus a wall or

make it taller

is that a correct understanding?

I'll probably let Chuck from Schaffenweiler

take this question a bit more

but at a high level, there's a lot of different constraints you have to work with to figure out

what you can do. How much horizontal space do you have? What requirements are you working with? So

like when we're next to the airport, there's FAA requirements. When we're next to the treatment

plant, we have all of their requirements they have to meet. So you look at what requirements

you have, you look at what space is available, and then you look at what you're able to do.

And then you take into the factor too, is it by a house? If we do that, what views are we blocking?

so you kind of are taking so many different components into it.

Our project intent has been to provide as many natural looking levee systems as we can

and to preserve the existing ecology as much as we can and minimize construction impact.

So anywhere where we're doing kind of a taller or more, you know, a wall component,

it's because we really have to, unfortunately, due to constraints there.

Chuck, let me know if, all right, I'll take it.

Thank you.

So that's very helpful.

I felt like you made a very strong case for the FEMA plus one design for a number of reasons.

70 years is literally a lifetime.

I mean, people live a little longer than that now.

But if the baby was born today, most of their life, that's going to protect them.

So I think that that's a good duration.

And as Council Member Howard points out, FEMA and sea level rise are both moving targets.

And so it's very difficult to predict, you know, kind of what's going to happen in 50 years.

And so I do think that 70 years is a sufficient duration.

I really appreciate it, again, just the emphasis on making it not just functional but beautiful and integrated with the trail and the way you connected the trail.

I really appreciated that.

and you know I would hate to let perfect be the enemy of good that you know if we aren't able to

do this quickly that we could potentially lose the two million dollars and then if we delay it

you know it's 110 million for every five years so there's a compelling reason to get something

that's going to last for 70 years as quickly as possible so I'll be supporting the FEMA plus one

option, as you suggest. And then, you know, to Councilmember Howard's point, I think we can

continue to sort of do community outreach and to educate the community. And I'm sure there's even

room for some tweaks within the bounds of the design. So I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Chu. We'll go to Councilmember Serkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much. That was such a thorough and comprehensive presentation.

I learned so much in that as well.

I want to just thank my colleagues and thank you, Ms. Saber,

for answering the questions that were posed by the community.

And you answered many of my questions already.

I just wanted to emphasize that, as you had stated,

and I think the Vice Mayor too,

it's not until 2030 that we'll complete the design,

so there's still many opportunities to give input as part of the CEQA process,

as part of the final design that comes to council.

And appreciate the direction to reach out to the HOAs.

And I think initially, as you had stated,

that some folks who answered the survey had said that,

you know, while we're at it, we should go as high as we can.

And I thought about the alternative

for that reason and others,

but you definitely reassured me that

as you had stated the levy would be designed to be added onto

and not reworked and that was my concern like will we be

ripping it out you know in however many years to replace it with a higher levy and that's

not the case which I really appreciate it's very thoughtful

and that would minimize disruption and impacts to residents

and the neighborhoods as well as protect the investment that

is such a real commitment on behalf of taxpayers

potentially in all across the city not just Redwood Shores and so I appreciate

that very much and I appreciate you sharing the public outreach and results

summary in the next couple weeks or so I am interested in as was mentioned maybe

the survey results and maybe some of the raw data and narrative responses if at

all possible and sharing that with council just to kind of get do a little

bit of a deeper dive for those of us who you know what we all do but especially those of us who are

very data hungry right so with that said i am very supportive of the recommendation for the fema plus

one and appreciate the outreach to date and thorough project thank you thank you

thank you council member sturkin we'll go to council member g thank you mayor page and the

The entire team, thank you for getting us to this point.

It's a lot of hard work.

I'm going to start with a little history again,

since not only do transit projects take a long time,

so do levy projects.

We moved.

We were fortunate to buy a house in River Shores in 1995

and came to the council right after the levies were originally raised.

back in 1995 though the levees were built and they were covered in asphalt they were all part

of the trail system but they were asphalt trail systems and there's a mixed feelings there because

some of the residents looked upon that as their extended backyard and they told us that when we

raised the levees and didn't put the asphalt back but that was intentional because we knew and

here's a name from the past,

Council Member Howard, Peter Vorametsante,

who was a city engineer,

knew that we were going to have to raise the levies again

in the future.

And so Peter and the team at that time,

the predecessor to our city engineer,

they made the conscious decision to raise the levies

to FEMA guidelines at that time

and not put asphalt paving on top

because we knew,

staff knew we were going to have to raise the levies again.

Just not as quick.

Because it was like within years,

if not one, maybe two, after completion of the levies, FEMA changed the rules.

And now we are in seclusion because FEMA at least acknowledged they changed the rules,

the levies were raised to FEMA requirements, and then they changed the rules.

What seclusion means is that the residents and the property owners in Redwood Shores

do not have to buy flood insurance currently versus Council Member Sturken.

and many of your property owners downtown are in the FEMA flood zone,

and they are paying flood insurance right now as we speak,

and some of the property is out in District 3 in the Friendly Acres neighborhood.

That's a big difference.

So when we talk about moving forward, we have to move forward, I think,

from FEMA's viewpoint in a very diligent manner.

Not only has Paige talked about preserving the $2 million FEMA grant,

by moving forward in an intentional manner,

we're also preserving the seclusion designation.

That seclusion designation, FEMA has told us,

and the mayor, you've probably gotten letters every year from FEMA

saying, you know, you're in seclusion, we've updated the maps,

but, and they could change that seclusion designation at any moment.

And when they change that designation,

every property owner in River Shores will need to pay flood insurance

because we are in the flood zone map.

And so moving forward in a very diligent manner,

as we are doing now,

will help preserve that seclusion designation

and prove to FEMA we're moving forward

and we're going to fix this.

One of the things that was mentioned,

RSCA versus RSOA,

there are very two different distinct organizations.

And to Caitlin, your team, and Matt,

I believe RSOA has their annual meeting.

If they haven't had it already, it's imminent.

It's usually within 30 days of each other.

RSOA doesn't pride itself on outreach.

That has been their motto from day one.

But they can notify at least the property managers and the HOAs.

That's kind of the minimalist approach at RSOA.

They've never taken great pride in communicating to the HOA members under their jurisdiction.

They're more tailored to enforcing CC&Rs.

But it wouldn't hurt to let them know, and hopefully in time for their annual meeting, to be able to do that.

I also really appreciate your thoughtfulness about asset management.

As many of you know on council, you've heard me about asset management.

The fewer walls means the fewer we have to take care of, and the fewer calls TK is going to get to remove graffiti on the walls.

Because it will happen.

We know it will happen.

And so the fewer walls, the fewer times Department of Public Works will have to go out there and remove graffiti.

The last thing I want to just say is share with the council and the public.

When you walk the levees, it's not all the same.

They're all very different.

the amount of land you get to work with is different.

It's not uniform across all the way around River Shores.

On the south side, the side that looks toward the port,

there are issues that the residents are worried about

when you're on the levee, whether it's plus one or plus 3.5

or whatever the number's going to be in 2173 or whatever,

about people on the levees looking to their backyards and into their homes.

that's also probably the part of the shores that has the least amount of land to work with

then as you go around you have more land to work with where you can maybe do a more

ecological one and then it keeps wrapping around the nice thing about your technical advisory

committee is when you put all those names on a grant application we are going to be competitive

because of the assets out there.

The residents, the businesses, Silicon Valley Clean Water,

San Carlos Airport, the schools.

That's what it's going to take to be competitive

in this federal grant environment.

For anyone who has tried to get a grant,

it's really hard work right now under this administration,

and it's even harder to hold on to it.

During the king tides and the big storms earlier this year,

Marin County had their levy funding pulled by the administration.

They were granted and awarded money to raise their levies.

So we need to do everything we can,

and that technical advisory committee list is an impressive list of assets out there

and of participants that can sign on,

not only the businesses but the city of Belmont,

the city of San Carlos, the county of San Mateo.

that's what it's going to take to be successful and competitive for a federal grant to help us

raise this and as the mayor knows we've signed on to grants for other cities and my expectation is

they will sign on the last thing i will say is we need to also continue to work with the city of

san carlos and belmont on belmont creek protection and the san carlos creek because when we i rode

around for the high tide and king tide belmont creek overflowed and the others and so that

Flooding on 101 by the

Britain Avenue exit is from San Carlos.

And then the shoreline street flooding is caused by Belmont Creek.

And we need to work with them.

I remember a meeting many, many years ago called by Senator Jerry Hill

to try to fix all this.

He fixed Belmont Creek at the time and left the rest of us on our own.

So we just need to work continuously across our cities to make sure we do this right

and do it together.

But, Paige, thank you.

as a pragmatist. It's going to be hard work to get $200 million

and even more difficult to get $250 million.

So I'm fully supportive of FEMA plus one from a pragmatist that we can get there

sooner, faster, and hopefully get the grants

a lot sooner. So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Gee.

Any other comments from my colleagues?

Seeing any, I will go ahead and add my thanks, Paige and Tanisha.

It was great to see you all in action on Saturday,

and very happy to see how many people showed up on Saturday.

I know the RSVPs weren't the most accurate, right?

So we got lots of people who just showed up the day of, which is just amazing.

You know, I did have a couple of questions I received from neighbors that I just wanted to ask at the dais.

One of which was, could we do any sort of work outside of where the seawall currently is to do a build-up, a ramp-up to where it is now, but from the bay?

And I know there are lots of regulations around BCDC and what they'll allow, but just wanted to ask if that was considered.

Sure. I'll let Matt Brennan from ESA, our environmental consultant, speak to that question.

Yes. Good evening, Sea Council. This is Matt Brennan.

I am also working on the Safer Bay project that got mentioned.

that project is further along and moving is already in sequo moving on to our design and

we've had extensive consultations with the permitting agencies in those regards and also

as page mentioned those levies are along some of the pristine tidal marshes that have been untouched

along the bay favor marsh and laumeister marsh and in consultation with the regulatory agencies

we originally started with designs like you're talking about which float out to the bay sometimes

are called horizontal levees or ecotone slopes. And the guidance that we got from the regulatory

agencies was that for the existing marshes, like fringe most redwood shores, it's now considered

better to stay out of those for now and let them naturally accrete sediment and see how well they

can sustain themselves naturally. With deposition of sediment from the bay, there's suggestions that

those can survive on their own and accrete with seal rise for 30, 40, 50 years. And then in the

future, if those marshes are starting to show problems or issues with keeping up with seal

rise, instead of putting more fill on them and building out into those and damaging those habitats,

now you could come back and at a later time do something we call thin layer lift, which is adding

like a six inches or so of sediment that allowed the plants to kind of poke back through and

recreate themselves. So that's the guidance that we learned at Safer. We've also brought that

forward to this project. And so at this project, instead of looking and building out into the bay

and out into the high tide zone and potentially impacting those fragile fringing marshes that

are already around it, instead we've identified a few areas where it might make sense to have a

slight setback into the levee. So there's one spot of a small lagoon around Redwood, just to the north

of Redwood Life. There's another area around the radio tower and the radio antennas just to the

west of the wastewater treatment plant. And there's also some bird ponds that are open wetlands on the

inboard side of the levee, in particular south of the wastewater treatment plant. So our plan is to

look at incorporating these ecotone slopes or ecological improvements in areas where we can

pull the levee back. And instead of building out onto the existing valuable tidal marsh,

look to convert some of the inland wetlands that are not exposed to the tides in that and

use that space for levees and then create some more space in the outboard. So as part of the

upcoming design refinements, we'll look into those alternatives and we'll get back to you about where

we think those are feasible options for setting back the levee in some places. Great. Thank you,

Mr. Brennan, that is very helpful to know.

And, you know, my other questions are, well, actually, this one might be helpful.

I also, you know, heard from a few different residents who mentioned how much they enjoy being, of course, outside and on the Bay Trail or just enjoying, you know, the aquatic activities that Revital Shores has to offer.

And so one of the questions that was raised was around, like, launching sites.

if we're lifting up the levee, will there still be places where people will be able to launch a boat, a kayak,

and make space for those activities too?

Sure, and thank you for the question.

We didn't get to show you everything that went to the public outreach presentation here

because I don't want to keep you guys here until midnight,

showing you all the wonderful things our team has identified.

But one of the things our consultant at CMG has looked at

is kind of where it makes sense to add recreational amenities as desired by the community.

And there wasn't a location identified for aquatic launching, not motorboats, but kayaks, stand-up paddleboarding.

And I believe that was along Steinberger's slew.

If the folks from CMG who are online want to speak a bit further about that site, feel free.

Yeah, sure. We've looked at...

Good evening, Council. Yes, Chris Guillard with CMG Landscape Architecture. And yes, we've heard from residents and others that water access is desired along the Bay Trail.

And we've identified a couple of sites that could be good possibilities. And as Paige noted, one of them is at the Sandpiper public parking area.

area. There's an open space there where the fringing marsh is rather narrow, which means our

impacts to access to the shoreline would be limited. The one thing to note with access to

the shoreline in that area is that the tides are very shallow, and so there's a lot of bay mud

and mud flats that need to be crossed in order to get true public access there, but we're going to

continue to look at it and look for other opportunities along the shoreline. And if

community members have other options that they would like us to consider.

We will love to hear about them.

Great. Thank you so much, Chris. Um, and that,

that's very helpful to know. And, uh, you know,

the other questions I have are just more around process and the design. So,

um, Paige,

I'm wondering if you could speak to just how your team created the,

the cost escalations, right. And are, uh,

building, I guess, the unknown into the final cost here.

Sure.

To that, I will point to Chuck Anderson from Schauff and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paige.

Good evening, Council.

I think the best answer to that, Mr. Mayor, is a lot of contingency.

There's a lot of unknowns where, as you might imagine, we're getting into design.

So it's very much rough order of magnitude.

We use other situations, for example, Foster City, how long ago that was built,

built, knowing how to escalate those costs, what it costs to get a trail so wide, a levee

so high.

But we try, what you're hoping to do is you have lots of contingency, and as the design

advances, the contingency shrinks, as you know more and more about what you're going

to do.

Because it, you know, not too many people get mad when you come back and it's less than

you thought it would be.

It's usually the other way around.

So we're trying our best to kind of keep it realistic, and it's a big lift.

We understand that.

It's a lot of money.

Thank you.

That's good to know.

Is there a, do we have an internal threshold to, you know, if we started to see the costs were going to be at budget or higher for us to review what that design looks like and maybe have one of our committees sort of start to field what a reworking of the project would look like?

Oh, absolutely.

And a lot of it has to do with, you know, we talked about overarching flood protection and all those different benefits.

and we cost it all out and then

I can't promise there won't be some

difficult decisions to make in terms of

what we move forward with.

And with grants. A lot of it has to do with

the grant availability.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

I think those

are all my questions. I will

add my

thanks to the team for the great

presentations around this. I

also think the first

staff recommendation

is just the most practical option here, right?

Especially considering what five years in delay,

I think that's just shocking to hear

how much it would cost us in the long run.

So I think the faster we can move on this, the better.

I am also curious, though, to hear what the benefits

or what the outcomes of the survey outreach look like, right?

I think we can get some good nuggets and ideas

of things that may come up later as we finalize the design,

so I would really appreciate getting a copy of that too.

And I also think, you know, it's, this is going to be a long-term project,

so our community engagement needs to reflect that,

and we need to continue bringing the community along

so that when construction finally starts,

people won't be surprised that the design of that one meeting they went to

isn't the final design.

And so just to make sure everyone is on the same page, bringing, that was not a pun, bringing people along would be really important.

And, you know, that also extends to just our local partners, right?

I think the diagram of how water will flow around the levee is just really telling.

And we need to share that with our partners, right, in Belmont and San Carlos,

for them to also know that their residents will be impacted by this right we can do the best levy

we can have it under budget but if it's not connecting to our neighboring cities around us

that's just going to create another headache for us so making sure that we bring them along and

it's amazing to see who is already a part of the attack right who is contributing I know

I think it was mentioned that folks who are consultants who worked on the Foster City Levy are now a part of our team and are bringing that expertise and learned lessons right to our project.

So very grateful that we have that level of expertise serving the city in this way.

So with that, I think those are my comments.

We'll go to the vice mayor.

Just really, really quick.

Thank you, mayor.

And thank you for asking that question.

I really appreciate what Mr. Brennan said and that he has worked on the SAFER project,

which is the San Francisco Creek Joint Power Authority.

You know, Ms. Chu, one of the things that you asked was what are the biggest constraints?

And riding my bicycle on that Bay Trail, it's so clear that the constraint is land.

And, you know, you have, like, infrastructure in some parts, not all parts,

but just right up to the bay built at times before people knew sea level rise was going to happen.

You know, stuff built in the 60s, you know, people didn't know.

And so thank you, Mr. Brennan, for talking about inland wetlands

and finding areas of inland wetlands

and really creative ways with the horizontal levy and the design.

That's all.

And thank you for those probing questions.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

And not seeing any other comments from my colleagues,

is there a motion to approve the staff recommendation?

Mayor, I'd like to make the motion to provide staff direction

to proceed with the option, the design for the elevation of FEMA plus one.

Great. Is there a second?

I'll second.

That was a motion from Council Member Gee, a second from Council Member Sturkin.

Could we get an electronic vote, please?

The motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Paige, Tanisha, thank you again for the great work,

and we look forward to hearing more progress updates as you continue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that brings us to item 10, which is matters of council interests.

Beginning with, before we get into 10A, I'd like to announce the appointment of members to the City Council Subcommittee on Homelessness,

which was formed on August 25th, 2025 by Resolution 16351.

The purpose of the Homelessness Subcommittee will be to review city policies on homelessness,

receive progress reports on the city's efforts related to homelessness,

and submit policy recommendations to the City Council as may be appropriate.

The council members appointed to the Homelessness Subcommittee are Council Member Diane Howard,

Council Member Chris Sturkin, and Council Member Isabella Chu.

Additionally, I'd like to announce the formation of the Redwood Life Development Agreement Ad Hoc Committee.

The purpose of this ad hoc committee will be to negotiate the terms of the Redwood Life Development Agreement.

And the council members appointed to the Redwood Life Development Agreement Ad Hoc are Council Member Jeff Gee,

Council Member Marcela Padilla, and Council Member Bella Chu.

And that is what I have to announce here.

and we will go to 10A City Council Member,

report of meetings and conferences attended.

We'll go to the Vice Mayor.

So I just wanted to remind our community

that effective January 1st of this year,

it is no longer okay for businesses to give plastic bags

to customers for carrying out items purchased.

As I understand it, cities, counties,

and the State Attorney General are authorized

to ensure compliance with this new state law

for all our retail establishments.

Violators of the new law are subject to

$1,000 penalty per day for the first violation,

$2,000 for the second violation,

and $5,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

If anyone has questions,

you can contact CalRecycle at 1-800-RECYCLE

or visit their website at calrecycle.ca.gov slash plastics slash carryout bags.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, and we'll go to Councilman Howard.

Thank you, Mayor.

On January 30th, I went to the Veterans Memorial Senior Center

to see a film called Designed by Preeti

that was written, directed, produced, and she acted as well by Rashmi Rustagi.

It's about domestic violence, and afterwards there was a Q&A.

It was extremely well attended.

It really was wonderful to be there.

It's the second time I've seen the film.

It's so impactful.

I strongly recommend when you have a chance to see.

She's made quite a statement, and it was wonderful.

I encourage all of us to go on February 21st, 5.30 to 7.30,

just sweet on the museum.

I call it sweet and savory because it's both.

It's the annual fundraiser that's been organized by former mayor Barbara Pierce.

The money is raised to support their capital campaign for the History Museum.

And that's on the 21st, 5.30 to 7.30.

On February 28th, the Lunar New Year,

We will be celebrating at Courthouse Square for most of the day.

It's going to be wonderful.

It's always a great annual event.

And on March 19th, I hope some of the council members will consider coming to the Sequoia Awards at the Fox Theater.

We celebrate high school seniors, students who applied to qualify for college scholarships based on their community service.

and the stories are so heartwarming and wonderful

and the scholarships are greatly appreciated.

So I hope you'll join us.

I'll get the information to our city clerk

so she can put it on for the council information.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Howard.

And we'll go to Council Member Padilla.

I had the privilege last week to attend the unhoused count,

the point in time count.

And I just want to express the gratitude.

I saw several staff members very early in the morning.

Shout out to our city manager.

And I saw Beth and Adila.

So many people there early in the wee dark hours.

And it was just a great thing to participate.

I encourage everyone else to get out there if they can.

We're making policies that affect this population.

So I think it's important that we're there as well.

I also attended the SFO airports directors meeting.

sadly we did not have a quorum

so I would also like other elected officials

to attend their meetings or send their alternates

because I drove out to Millbrae

and couldn't vote on anything

but I would like to announce that there will be

some construction going out

upcoming at SFO

and

stay tuned for it

thank you

thank you

Councilor Padilla for going to the round table meeting

we appreciate that

not seeing any other hands raised

okay

that is

everything for 10A

we'll move to 10B and we have no report

outs today so we will go to our city

manager for an update

thank you I'll be very brief

I think I'm on my 6 weeks now

so I just want to express a little bit of gratitude

to the council for all

your patients always being there when I have questions

and also for the staff for really helping with

the transition so I've been

meeting with a lot of the different departments and

divisions with the department and

it's been great to get to meet new people and see

folks I've known for

three years now, but again, just really thank you

for everything and I appreciate it.

Thank you, Patrick, and thank you for hitting the ground running.

We will now go

to item 11,

which is our closed session.

We'll now convene closed session regarding

anticipated and existing litigation

as identified on the agenda.

Before we convene the closed session, I'd like to ask the City Clerk if there are any public comments on the closed session items.

Thank you, Mayor.

No speaker cards or raised hands on Zoom at this time.

So last call to the audience for anyone who'd like to give public comment on the closed session this evening.

Seeing none, I'll turn it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Clerk.

We'll now adjourn to closed session.

if there is no reportable action the council will adjourn immediately following closed session and

will not be returning back to the dais if reportable action is taken the council will

return to the dais to report the action thank you all for joining tonight's city council meeting

the next council meeting is scheduled for monday february 23rd 2026 i wish you all a great evening

and a great week ahead and hope you all have a very special and happy valentine's day thank you

Thank you.

Thank you.